I'm a capitalist. I hate Wal-Mart, true, but I'm a capitalist economically speaking. I see nothing wrong with people driven by profit, I believe in the "invisible hand", although I recognize its flaws.
But I also support various programs that produce no profit (directly) and cost a great deal of time and money, including space exploration.
Why?
Because I'm a human being. I like that we're exploring. I like that we're pushing beyond these bounds placed upon us. I am fascinated by the idea that man could do something so complex as leave this earth and visit the Moon, or Mars, or beyond. It's not just the money - it's the fulfillment of a human desire. Something we were "made" for - to reach out and extend ourselves beyond this sphere and to travel to new lands. I must admit - my thoughts are based purely on ideology, not "reason". But I think I'm not alone in this.
There's something about space exploration that should set off that spark in all of us - something beyond money, beyond mere profit. It's the advancement of the capabilities of an entire species - it's not merely that Americans have been on the moon, but man has been there.
If (when) it costs hundreds of billions to go to Mars and back, with no economic returns, it will still have been worth it. We will then be able to say that man has gone to the moon, that mankind has made yet another massive acheivement.
Are there things on earth that need to be fixed? Yup. But if we wait for things to be perfect here before we leave, we'll never go. In any case, simply giving away money has rarely had a positive effect on most social problems - it's often made them worse.
Why climb Mount Everest, when it gains you nothing and could cost you your life? Because it's there. That's a good enough reason for me to see us go to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else.
I know I'll get modded down for this. I have dared to go against the slashdot group think, and I dare to contradict a post that states "George W. Bush represents the real threat to the American way of life." Oh well, sometimes you must "speak truth to power", as they say.
The first is the lovely moral equivalism between what an elected leader does based on personal beliefs - last I checked, leaders were still allowed to use their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise - with Sharia law. One can only assume this stems from a complete ignorance of Shari'a and its various applications that the parent, were he objective in the slightest, would likely deplore.
Perhaps it sounds like, and perhaps it is, a tired cliché that they "hate us for our freedom", but I'd argue there's more than a grain of truth in it if one bothers to read and understand Al-Qaeda, et. al. and actually comprehend their message rather than attempt to make them something like the next Che Guevarra. The Jihadi ideology represented by many insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is obsessed with imposing its will on various parts of the world - and for some, the entire planet. Democracy is the enemy to them because it usurps "true" government come from Allah. Read Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones" and other inspiration for Jihadis around the world. This is a very different enemy we're at war with, and attempts to tie some sort of moral equivalence between stem cell research and those who believe it is their god-given duty to "smite the necks" of those who don't happen to follow their particular brand of Islam - which includes an overwhelming majority of Muslims - and to do everything they can to make the old Caliphate a reflection of the Taliban in Afghanistan - hardly a regime that respected human rights.
"Oh, so those weren't soldiers, not part of the a regular uniformed force. Well, according to our president they couldn't be prisoners of war and not covered by the Geneva Convention. And besides, there are a few morons in every bunch, right?"
Yes, but you conveniently neglected his other example of the other U.S. soldiers who were tortured, killed, then decapitated all on video - all in clear violation of Geneva Conventions, as if the other side considered them to be of any importance. Not to mention the various non-combatant civilians who have met a similar fate. Or is that excusable? Is sawing off the head of a live civilian trying to install cell phone infrastructure excusable? Is there moral equivalence between shooting an innocent woman who works for an aid agency in the head on video tape and the things that happened at Abu Ghraib? I don't think so. Not to defend the simply inhuman acts of Abu Ghraib in the least - they deserve the strictest condemnation. The difference is that when U.S. soldiers and others in uniform do things like that they are punished, Jihadis believe it is the normal way of war and commendable.
Please, if you can, provide one example wherein the insurgents in Iraq have afforded all - or even most - Geneva Convention rights to anyone they have captured.
I cannot say the U.S. is by any means close to perfect - I can only say it is better than the alternative. Yet you seem to find no difference between those who are willing to directly kill human beings by the bushel for their cause and elected officials who dare to use their position to do something you disagree with.
If anyone represents a threat to the "American way of life", I would argue that it is your ilk that is "painfully ignorant" of the west's enemies and does nothing but try to to prove that, somehow, we are just as bad.
*** You may now mod me flamebait, off topic, or troll as you wish... also feel free to respond saying I'm the real threat to America. I always get a kick out of that.
... the fact that 17 men were recently arrested in possession of a large amount of high explosives they planned to use in Canada on Canadian targets. Many of them "homegrown" Canadians.
This isn't simply a matter of foreign policy we're talking about here. If more people actually listen to what the Jihadis have to say rather than attempt to understand them through traditional Western frames we might come to understand this.
This isn't simply about Israel. For Jihads - a very small portion of the Muslim population - this is a fight to the death along religious lines, regardless of where your foreign aid goes. Canada is not Islamic and is, therefore, the enemy to many. Perhaps not too high up on the priority list, but an enemy all the same.
I'd highly recommend picking up a copy of "Knowing the Enemy" by Mary Habeck. Published by Yale Press, it's hardly a neo-Con tract of any sort - it's an excellent look into the eyes of the enemy and - more importantly - helps identify friends in the Muslim world as well. Obviously, as with any serious study, this should just be a starting point.
As someone who grew up in Florida, I can attest to the fact that random, intense thunderstorms occur practically everyday in the summer. It's amazing to watch. One moment, all looks well outside. The next, gloomy and overcast. Then, it appears that the very wrath of God has come down upon you - these are serious storms with very strong gusts, lots of lightning, heavy rains, and a bit of hail from time to time. Thirty minutes later, the storm ends, the sun comes out, and it's all good and fine - only even more humid. It's fairly unpredictable. This is why native Floridians don't take Tropical Storms all that seriously - they leave through miniature versions of them frequently in the summer, and they know how to handle them. It's the snowbirds that freak out.
I imagine weather patterns in Florida are a lot more difficult to predict than they are at Russian launch sites.
Wow! This may not be great news for Apple and Apple owners, but it gives yet another use for an Origami Rock! I expect these high tech devices to find their way into the drawers of true Apple owners everywhere!
While I agree that some taxes should be "a la carte", there are many government provided services that constitute public goods - things we constantly benefit directly or indirectly from whether we do so knowingly/willingly.
I certainly agree that farm subsidies should be done away with, and Social Security is in need of a big overhaul, no doubt. I personally like PBS, but I understand the difficulty with it as a public good.
K-12 public schools, however, provide a service that as consumers we all benefit from. Think of it like an effective road system - even those who do not own cars or never actually use the roads themselves (an unlikely problem that would affect perhaps only a few Americans), all benefit from the rapid, efficient movement of goods and services that these roads provide (some less rapid than others, of course). Roads reduce transaction costs by allowing for rapid transit and remove the free-loader problem by charging everyone to use them. The alternative would be extensive use of toll roads, an expensive undertaking.
K-12 public education does much the same. It reduces transaction costs by teaching all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of the citizens basic skills such as literacy, basic math, and civics/a basic understanding of history and government (perhaps where education is lacking the most), and basic job skills - typing, perhaps some computer programming, the use of basic software, etc.
The alternative? Well, you could home school, which effectively removes any woman with children from the job market, an unlikely proposition given the number of single mothers about. You could pay for private school, but most lower class - not to mention most middle class - citizens couldn't hope to support that (keep in mind - the wealthy pay a majority of the taxes in this country, what they pay in taxes for education could not hope to cover the cost of a private school tuition). Alternatively, you could just leave the kids at home all day, which leaves millions of young men and women uneducated, unemployable, and unsocialized, and therefore likely leading them into lives of crime/dependence. As the son of an educator who has worked most of her life in lower class school districts, I can assure you that many of the mothers of these children would not go out of their way to assure they had any sort of education - their efforts now are more often based on legal requirements than anything love for their children or hope for their success.
Imagine the difficulty many businesses would have with employees coming to them who were entirely illiterate and incapable of basic addition and subtraction. Snide comments aside about how this is already often the case, think about it - I cannot think of any job that does not require at least these basic skills. Everyone from your burger flipper at McDonald's to your friendly Wal-Mart associate needs them, not to mention much of the geometry done by construction workers and the like (and I have a lot of respect for construction workers). Should businesses be expected to train incoming employees to read, add, subtract, divide, and multiply? I can imagine that would greatly impact their bottom line, and the amount we all pay. Should we create a permanent underclass that is unhirable because of these faults? That would have high societal costs as well, even if welfare were completely done away with.
Public education keeps "kids off the streets", trains people with at least the basic skills that allow them to function in an economy, and reduces transaction costs for all of us. Don't be too quick to throw it away and refuse it funding - you benefit from it, whether you realize it or not.
Add to this an always-on, all-sides video camera to document that it was the minivan that strayed into your lane, and it'll be even better.
My brother wanted something like that after getting hit 4 times in a one month period, though he was luckily not to blame for any of the accidents and neither he nor his car sustained serious damage and everyone who hit him could walk away as well. His implementation, however, was a bit different.
Figuring his huge mid-90's reflective gold-colored Lincoln (like I said, 4 hits in one month, little damage) was somehow difficult for motorists to see (we always figured it had lawyer-installed magnets in it), he planned to replace it with a safety vest-orange Hummer with a boat horn, construction truck/tow truck flashing lights, a rifle rack in the back with an old drill rifle (just for fun), and a video system similar to this one.
As we had this conversation, we drove past a wrecker - possibly the closest vehicle in appearance to the one we had devised - that had been rear-ended by some idiot who was likely on his cell phone and didn't appear to have moved it from his ear since the accident.
No vehicle is safe these days from those with a room temperature IQ and a cell phone... at least with a Lincoln, you can be sure that whoever hits you will be off the road for quite a while while their car sits in the shop...;-)
Teach your children respect for guns and what they can do
By FAR the most important thing you can do.
A friend of mine who is a gunsmith made a habit of taking his children to shoot as soon as they were old enough (around 5). Not so they could actually shot all the time, but to demystify the weapons.
He would show them the gun, disassemble it, reassemble it, allow them to handle it, and then have them shoot it. Generally, they were scared to death of the weapon, the recoil, the noise, etc. and they respected the gun - they knew what it did, they knew it was dangerous, and they did not want to mess with it until they were much older when they wanted to take up shooting themselves (although he thought it was a bit funny when his 14 year old daughter - who's not the type you'd expect to like shooting - actually became a better markswoman than him).
Too many parents hide the weapon and never let children handle it - it's forbidden, and once they get a hand on it the first thing they want to do is use it like they do in all the video games and movies, often with dreadful results, especially if the owner has left the weapon loaded.
Boeing has long been a target of the French DGSE intelligence service:
In early 1993 the CIA obtained a long DGSE list of the most important intelligence targets in the United States, which included Boeing, among other companies. The DGSE agents were mainly interested in the navigation system of Boeing's new jumbojet to pass on to French companies, including the Airbus syndicate.
I can just go to Taco Bell, and for $3.49, I can get that same lovely sensation of something crawling around my intestines and making life uncomfortable...
As a side note, the header "interesting crevice" is rarely followed by something I want to read about...
I just had to read so I could get a good laugh... thanks as always.
I'm not a political science major. (Science? I guess the term is used loosely.) I have no idea who your witty asides are referring to or what their political persuasions are, or even the names or intersections of of their various persuasions.
Yes, it is obvious you attack what you don't understand. Typical.
I don't think I'm a marxist. Atleast I don't recall mentioning anything about collectivising anything but hey if straw man arguments are the way you swing so be it.
You believe in traditional Marxist international relations theory, with a focus on core/periphery issues, class warfare, and on top of that the traditional gloom and doom for the future and absolute future failure of capitalism (or, say, the demise of America in 5 years...). If that's not a traditional Marxist/Globalist, I have no idea what is.
So, you're a Marxist. There you have it.
Of the responses I could decipher
a)If you don't know the list of nations under our thumb then you've wasted money on a worthless education.
Actually, the point is this - if you can't back up your arguments with something, don't make them. It's like saying, "political science is STUPID!" and then saying, "well, I don't know anything about political science". It's stupid.
b)You do make a valid point about america being a self interested actor that routinely , overthrows popularly elected govts in favor of strong man dictators that stay in line with regard to our economic interests. If you don't think this has anything to do with (a) then obviously we're operating under totally different rulesets for understanding realiyt.
While it may be difficult to understand, nations want to stay on top and have a world order that fits their desires. You are no different - you want to see the demise of America so your preferred countries can step into power.
c)you brought up the image of the america the batterer and the liberal apologists. I explored the metaphor for you to see why the liberals are worried. Again if you don't understand it you have a strange way of perceiving reality.
Perhaps this is once again along the lines of "american indian philosophical". What you posted here isn't English. If English is not your native language, please repost in your native language so I can understand you - I speak/read/write Spanish and French and some Arabic. Try again.
d)At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?) So, you're either a liberal in support of foreign policy or you're a pedophile... The republicans have been found time and time again of running prostitution rings and sweat shops abroad as hospitality suites for the well to do. My question was what happens to these appetites when they don't have foreigners to feed on? What happens to american women and children when these monsters come home to roost? How you twisted that to slander me is another leap of mushy pol. sci. thinking that your type is famous for.
You admit you don't know anything about my type, then claim we're "famous" for certain things?
Your original post made it quite clear, my good man. This is called false choice dilemma - either you're with us, or you're a pedophile, which will it be! It's possible to be a non-liberal AND a non-pedophile. Have you considered that possibility? I, for example, am not a liberal and have never sought out sex with anyone other than my wife, who was over the age of 18 when we met.
e)Oh how do these other nations compare to our amazing power? The SCO (shanghai cooperation organization) combining russia and china are determined to stamp out our influence and bases in the region. Without our bases in the region we become less and less able to monopolize the oil supplies in the region.
The U.S. GDP is around 12 Trillion dollars. China's comes in at 1.5 trillion or so, India under
As someone who seems proud to have spent 4 (or more?) years studying pol. sci. Why don't you establish what your ideas are for appropriate policy? Your discussion so far is just as bad as any uninformed fool on the street. You have no ideas, and you want someone to come up with a different idea for you so that you can then proceed to criticize it because it's not the same as those of whichever group to whom you've pledged your allegiance. That is there is no way you can even consider a liberal argument if you believe in a totally fictional set of axioms in your model of the world. What was the point of the degree again? Fools are already fed propaganda free of charge.
Well, one point was to pick out baseless ad hominem attacks... but hey, let's continue...
The liberal's self hatred comes from the realization that what the nation proclaims itself to be is radically different from what it actually is. This in turn makes it no better than any other brutish nation on earth. At this point you're going 'oooh nooo. do we rape and kill thousands? aha! i've caught you now!' Allow me to explain.
Oh yes, do please explain to me!
So long as we have the monopoly on power, those close to it (the american people) are safe and those on the periphery of our empire suffer the brunt of this injustice,
Great use of the word "empire" there. Really, it obviously shows us what your opinions are.
So, you believe America is in charge of an empire. Interesting. Which countries, precisely, does this include? How, precisely, are these countries suffering the "brunt of this injustice"? I'm not saying the U.S. has always dealt "justly" with the rest of the world - the U.S. is a self-interested actor in a world of self-interested actors. For someone who likes to tear down others for a lack of ideas, you fail to do anything to actually back yours up.
because of the administrators we appoint to manage our capital assets.
Hmm... a believer in Marxist/"Globalist" IR theory, perhaps?
If you are a bible thumper, this is no different from Rome appointing a favored brutal king named herod, to manage israel. Sure, on the propaganda papyrus he's the king of the jews, but what choice did they really have in supporting his leadership?. He was dropped into place at a Roman whim. And he will do anything to pacify the jews for roman business interests in the region. So yes, they were disgusted both with herod and the architects of his power, the romans.
Oooh... "Bible Thumper". No loaded language there. No siree bob. You mean the U.S. would *gasp* support leaders who support its world view? SHOCKING! Why, NO other country in the WORLD would do such a thing!
The time is fast coming when we will no longer have the monopoly on power and energy in this world and our empire will shrink moving the periphery close to home. What then? Wouldn't you want to reform a batterer before he starts failing in life and comes home to take it out on the family? Do you want to be there when that happens?
Oooh... core vs. periphery. He IS a Marxist/Globalist of the Wallerstein persuasion!
Top it off with an analogy that doesn't fit and we just keep on a rolling...
So yes, it may seem incomprehensible to you right now, but the liberal policy is to reform the excesses of the battering aristocracy in america before our certain foreign failure.
A fait accompli, perhaps?
At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?)
So, you're either a liberal in support of foreign policy or you're a pedophile...
and brutal dictatorships will have to be met here at home. As for foreign affairs, the time for discussion was before jumping into the pit. Liberals advocated in every war that america has had for isolation from foreign affairs and against bloody expansionism for the profit of a few rich families.
Yet the DNC has adopted the position of the screaming 6 year old at the back of the bus, screaming "my mom can drive better than you!" and denying the existence of any cliffs all the while.
As far as what we know not working, you don't actually SAY why it doesn't work. No specific complaints. No arguments. Just, "things are BAD, can't you SEE!" What, specifically is the problem? The dropping unemployment rate and increasing GDP? The lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? The present situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and the border certainly aren't peachy, but what do the Democrats actually propose to do about them? All I see is, "Bush lied, people died!" nonsense that doesn't actually cut to the matter at hand - we're there now, so what are we going to do?
You are the problem with the DNC, my good man. inarticulate complaints. Begging the question by assuming I have precisely the same view of how things are so bad without specifying what those things are or, more importantly, what you plan to do about them. If the DNC wants to step into power, it needs to DO these things. It needs to built a platform worth standing on. I said it above and I'll say it again - I would vote for a Democratic candidate for president if they gave me a platform that seemed feasible and not more of this ad hominem nonsense and the simple comeback that anyone who disagrees with him/her is "stupid". Great way to earn votes, there.
Well, actually, I'm a Political Science student with a focus on International Relations and National Security Policy, preparing for the GRE so I can get a Master's degree from an APSIA school with a Security Policy Studies focus.
Although the ad hominem was fun, I find it amusing that those on the left side of the spectrum here at/. are so quick to mod me down without actually attempting to refute the main points of the argument (with few exceptions).
Sadly this seems to be the state of the left these days - a group positioning itself as a permanent opposition party. No new ideas. No thinking. No platform, even. Just contradiction. Simple complaining and contradiction.
I'm on the right side of the spectrum, but I've certainly voted for Democrats and even voted for a third party presidential candidate in Florida in 2000. I'm not a strict partisan by any stretch. But the Democrats simply aren't putting up any ideas, any platform, anything. Just complaints. Lots and lots of complaints. About anything and everything. Complaints are not a platform. They do not tell me what you want to do. They do not tell me what your ideas are.
In 2004, the DNC essentially ran on a platform of "we're not the Republicans". Yes, we know that. We all noticed that big "D" next to your names. Did they have an Iraq policy? A Homeland Defense policy? They claimed to, but none were feasible. None made any sense. All were too vague or contradictory.
I'd love to bring in a true opposition party. I'd love to see the Democrats step up and offer alternatives. One-party systems generally lead to atrophy, corruption, etc. We're seeing some of that right now. But I'm not willing to replace a party in power with another who has no set platform, no cohesive message, and whose constituents seem to be incapable of acknowledging the fact that the country is facing several serious threats and must adapt to the present state of Fourth Generation Warfare or suffer the consequences.
2006, sadly, appears to be more of the same. No platform. Lots of complaints about the economy - which is doing quite well and experiencing very low levels of unemployment. No real Iraq policy still. If we let them in power, WHAT WILL THEY DO? Do they even know?
I don't support the idea of a one-party system lasting forever. These things move in cycles, and another party should move up as its competitor becomes atrophied. A free-market of ideas should exist, and everyone will benefit from it. The problem is that there only seems to be one seller worth considering at the moment. The other alternative seems to be a party that wants our money first before they even show us what they're buying. The RNC is certainly becoming more foggy and unsure, but I still have some idea as to what they will do. Until the DNC gets its act together and actually puts up a platform that deals with reality (as opposed to its present so-called "reality based" nonsense), I will be grudgingly handing my vote to the other side.
It's always our fault. Period. We all deserve to die because we have somehow offended group A or angered group B.
The self-hatred of the west is amazing. We excuse away everything as our fault. It's as if we were made up of a group of battered women, constantly making excuses for their husbands.
Are you kidding me? European newspapers don't even try to pretend to be objective and non-partisan.
That's why I like them.
U.S. papers do just that - pretend. European papers are generally open about their bias from the start. If only American papers would shed their false cloak of objective reporting I'd put more stock in them.
An excellent question, to which the best answer is a "maybe".
Roads? Heh, if you've ever driven in the DC area, you know that's just not a possibility. Airspace, however, should be much more open given the post 9/11 measures.
This plan is about more than bunkers though - it also involves posting civilian backups away from the capital that are poised to take over should D.C. get nuked. Given the concentration of senior personnel in D.C. it would certainly be impossible to get all - or even most - out in a 30 minute period (assuming they would have that long). But the government should certainly try its best to get all of its elected officials and most senior staff out as quickly as possible, including the SecState, SecDef, and other cabinet level positions.
But, moving beyond cabinet positions and elected officials, one would also need to consider the need to keep basic government bureaucracy running, such as the Patent Office, Budget Office, GAO, and other important functions of government that the people would still need after a small, limited nuclear exchange. This plan doesn't focus on evacuating these individuals but on creating civilian backups ready to take over in case of an attack. The U.S. would still need to be able to function even with D.C. gone. Would there be bumps as these new officials came on? You betcha - big ones. But they'd still be needed in the long run is my argument.
Re:I can still see a need...
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How far the future are you looking where "Should Iran wake up one day and decide to nuke Washington" be possible?
My personal opinion? 10 years or so.
I mean, they'd have to develop a nuclear weapon,
Perhaps you haven't been following the news...
a long-range delivery system (Arguably harder than making a small fission device),
Iran presently possesses the ability to launch against Southern Europe with its existing devices and can acquire other technology as needed.
weaponising their little pop-gun fission device so their long range delivery system can carry the thing (Very hard)
Iran presently possesses ballistic missile capability. While they have yet to develop ICBMs, their regional weapons are quite good. Additionally, why would it need to be ground launched from Iran? They have a wide terrorist network (yes, they actually do...) capable of using a nuke, and if recent GAO reports are any indicator of the present quality of border control when it comes to fissile material, I've got my doubts.
and then be Bat Shit Crazy enough to use it,
Again, perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news...
hoping that the US don't simply shoot it out of the sky before it gets to them.
Countermeasures to missile defense systems exist.
Then they'd be turned into the world biggest sheet of glass.
Would they? I'm not entirely convinced. A small nuclear attack of that sort would likely result in a proportional strike - good bye Tehran, for example. Massive retaliation MAY not be the response, though it certainly is possible.
I mean, I'm all for sensationalist propoganda and fear based war-mongering, but that's some pretty futuristic fture you've got there.
I think you meant to post that over here. Go knock yourself out.
I can still see a need...
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While the Wa Post columnist - it should be noted that this is an opinion piece, not an article - is obviously not too fond of the idea, I'd say it still has at least some merit.
With increased WMD proliferation - from big budget nukes to dirt cheap chemical weapons - that can be used to attack the U.S. capital and government installations, I'd say that such a plan is smart to have as a backup. Should Iran wake up one day and decide to nuke Washington (a possibility in the future), we would certainly be able to retaliate and turn it into the Islamic Republic of Glass Bowl or Parking Lot (pick your favorite), but what would happen to all of the government infrastructure there? We're not just talking about continuity of elected leaders, but about the civilian side of the government as well, which this plan seems to focus on, too.
While nuclear war with Russia or another fairly heavily armed power (i.e. China) remains an enormously remote possibility, exchanges with countries that possess only a handful of nukes (Iran, North Korea, etc.) are much more likely. In such an event, the U.S. would not need to focus simply on making sure the attacker is completely wiped out - this is a given - but that it can survive a relatively small attack affecting only a handful of cities such as Washington and New York rather than a widespread nuclear holocaust in which all of this would simply be moot anyways.
The author is obviously unhappy with the inefficiency of this program, but I'm not entirely convinced by his arguments. Security, backups, etc. are always inefficient. Security and efficiency are always at odds with each other. Spending hundreds of millions on a backup that MIGHT be used is entirely inefficient EXCEPT when you need it, in which case it becomes a necessity. Combine this with the fact that the government is also not known for its efficiency and you've got a problem.
The U.S. isn't getting ready for nuclear holocaust any more, as many slashdotters have claimed and the author seems to hint at. It's getting ready for a limited nuclear exchange in which, yes, things like the patent office and budget offices must continue operating in the months and years to come when their main offices have been wiped out but a vast majority of the U.S. has been left unscathed.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending every action of this program. I would encourage others, however, to take a more nuanced look at it. And nuance is something slashdot appears to be lacking these days. It's likely my karma will pay for it, but so be it.
(As a side note, my "confirm I'm not a script" word was "senate"... coincidence?)
Slashdot Mirror
Plan 9 is now available for free from Google Video.
I must warn you, however, that everything you will see is based on sworn testimony...
I'm a capitalist. I hate Wal-Mart, true, but I'm a capitalist economically speaking. I see nothing wrong with people driven by profit, I believe in the "invisible hand", although I recognize its flaws.
But I also support various programs that produce no profit (directly) and cost a great deal of time and money, including space exploration.
Why?
Because I'm a human being. I like that we're exploring. I like that we're pushing beyond these bounds placed upon us. I am fascinated by the idea that man could do something so complex as leave this earth and visit the Moon, or Mars, or beyond. It's not just the money - it's the fulfillment of a human desire. Something we were "made" for - to reach out and extend ourselves beyond this sphere and to travel to new lands. I must admit - my thoughts are based purely on ideology, not "reason". But I think I'm not alone in this.
There's something about space exploration that should set off that spark in all of us - something beyond money, beyond mere profit. It's the advancement of the capabilities of an entire species - it's not merely that Americans have been on the moon, but man has been there.
If (when) it costs hundreds of billions to go to Mars and back, with no economic returns, it will still have been worth it. We will then be able to say that man has gone to the moon, that mankind has made yet another massive acheivement.
Are there things on earth that need to be fixed? Yup. But if we wait for things to be perfect here before we leave, we'll never go. In any case, simply giving away money has rarely had a positive effect on most social problems - it's often made them worse.
Why climb Mount Everest, when it gains you nothing and could cost you your life? Because it's there. That's a good enough reason for me to see us go to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else.
In any case, I think we all love the moon...
I'd say it's all coming from you, my man.
I know I'll get modded down for this. I have dared to go against the slashdot group think, and I dare to contradict a post that states "George W. Bush represents the real threat to the American way of life." Oh well, sometimes you must "speak truth to power", as they say.
The first is the lovely moral equivalism between what an elected leader does based on personal beliefs - last I checked, leaders were still allowed to use their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise - with Sharia law. One can only assume this stems from a complete ignorance of Shari'a and its various applications that the parent, were he objective in the slightest, would likely deplore.
Perhaps it sounds like, and perhaps it is, a tired cliché that they "hate us for our freedom", but I'd argue there's more than a grain of truth in it if one bothers to read and understand Al-Qaeda, et. al. and actually comprehend their message rather than attempt to make them something like the next Che Guevarra. The Jihadi ideology represented by many insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is obsessed with imposing its will on various parts of the world - and for some, the entire planet. Democracy is the enemy to them because it usurps "true" government come from Allah. Read Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones" and other inspiration for Jihadis around the world. This is a very different enemy we're at war with, and attempts to tie some sort of moral equivalence between stem cell research and those who believe it is their god-given duty to "smite the necks" of those who don't happen to follow their particular brand of Islam - which includes an overwhelming majority of Muslims - and to do everything they can to make the old Caliphate a reflection of the Taliban in Afghanistan - hardly a regime that respected human rights.
"Oh, so those weren't soldiers, not part of the a regular uniformed force. Well, according to our president they couldn't be prisoners of war and not covered by the Geneva Convention. And besides, there are a few morons in every bunch, right?"
Yes, but you conveniently neglected his other example of the other U.S. soldiers who were tortured, killed, then decapitated all on video - all in clear violation of Geneva Conventions, as if the other side considered them to be of any importance. Not to mention the various non-combatant civilians who have met a similar fate. Or is that excusable? Is sawing off the head of a live civilian trying to install cell phone infrastructure excusable? Is there moral equivalence between shooting an innocent woman who works for an aid agency in the head on video tape and the things that happened at Abu Ghraib? I don't think so. Not to defend the simply inhuman acts of Abu Ghraib in the least - they deserve the strictest condemnation. The difference is that when U.S. soldiers and others in uniform do things like that they are punished, Jihadis believe it is the normal way of war and commendable.
Please, if you can, provide one example wherein the insurgents in Iraq have afforded all - or even most - Geneva Convention rights to anyone they have captured.
I cannot say the U.S. is by any means close to perfect - I can only say it is better than the alternative. Yet you seem to find no difference between those who are willing to directly kill human beings by the bushel for their cause and elected officials who dare to use their position to do something you disagree with.
If anyone represents a threat to the "American way of life", I would argue that it is your ilk that is "painfully ignorant" of the west's enemies and does nothing but try to to prove that, somehow, we are just as bad.
*** You may now mod me flamebait, off topic, or troll as you wish... also feel free to respond saying I'm the real threat to America. I always get a kick out of that.
... the fact that 17 men were recently arrested in possession of a large amount of high explosives they planned to use in Canada on Canadian targets. Many of them "homegrown" Canadians.
This isn't simply a matter of foreign policy we're talking about here. If more people actually listen to what the Jihadis have to say rather than attempt to understand them through traditional Western frames we might come to understand this.
This isn't simply about Israel. For Jihads - a very small portion of the Muslim population - this is a fight to the death along religious lines, regardless of where your foreign aid goes. Canada is not Islamic and is, therefore, the enemy to many. Perhaps not too high up on the priority list, but an enemy all the same.
I'd highly recommend picking up a copy of "Knowing the Enemy" by Mary Habeck. Published by Yale Press, it's hardly a neo-Con tract of any sort - it's an excellent look into the eyes of the enemy and - more importantly - helps identify friends in the Muslim world as well. Obviously, as with any serious study, this should just be a starting point.
As someone who grew up in Florida, I can attest to the fact that random, intense thunderstorms occur practically everyday in the summer. It's amazing to watch. One moment, all looks well outside. The next, gloomy and overcast. Then, it appears that the very wrath of God has come down upon you - these are serious storms with very strong gusts, lots of lightning, heavy rains, and a bit of hail from time to time. Thirty minutes later, the storm ends, the sun comes out, and it's all good and fine - only even more humid. It's fairly unpredictable. This is why native Floridians don't take Tropical Storms all that seriously - they leave through miniature versions of them frequently in the summer, and they know how to handle them. It's the snowbirds that freak out.
I imagine weather patterns in Florida are a lot more difficult to predict than they are at Russian launch sites.
Idiots!
No! Origami rock cool, dumb dumb!
Wow! This may not be great news for Apple and Apple owners, but it gives yet another use for an Origami Rock! I expect these high tech devices to find their way into the drawers of true Apple owners everywhere!
While I agree that some taxes should be "a la carte", there are many government provided services that constitute public goods - things we constantly benefit directly or indirectly from whether we do so knowingly/willingly.
I certainly agree that farm subsidies should be done away with, and Social Security is in need of a big overhaul, no doubt. I personally like PBS, but I understand the difficulty with it as a public good.
K-12 public schools, however, provide a service that as consumers we all benefit from. Think of it like an effective road system - even those who do not own cars or never actually use the roads themselves (an unlikely problem that would affect perhaps only a few Americans), all benefit from the rapid, efficient movement of goods and services that these roads provide (some less rapid than others, of course). Roads reduce transaction costs by allowing for rapid transit and remove the free-loader problem by charging everyone to use them. The alternative would be extensive use of toll roads, an expensive undertaking.
K-12 public education does much the same. It reduces transaction costs by teaching all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of the citizens basic skills such as literacy, basic math, and civics/a basic understanding of history and government (perhaps where education is lacking the most), and basic job skills - typing, perhaps some computer programming, the use of basic software, etc.
The alternative? Well, you could home school, which effectively removes any woman with children from the job market, an unlikely proposition given the number of single mothers about. You could pay for private school, but most lower class - not to mention most middle class - citizens couldn't hope to support that (keep in mind - the wealthy pay a majority of the taxes in this country, what they pay in taxes for education could not hope to cover the cost of a private school tuition). Alternatively, you could just leave the kids at home all day, which leaves millions of young men and women uneducated, unemployable, and unsocialized, and therefore likely leading them into lives of crime/dependence. As the son of an educator who has worked most of her life in lower class school districts, I can assure you that many of the mothers of these children would not go out of their way to assure they had any sort of education - their efforts now are more often based on legal requirements than anything love for their children or hope for their success.
Imagine the difficulty many businesses would have with employees coming to them who were entirely illiterate and incapable of basic addition and subtraction. Snide comments aside about how this is already often the case, think about it - I cannot think of any job that does not require at least these basic skills. Everyone from your burger flipper at McDonald's to your friendly Wal-Mart associate needs them, not to mention much of the geometry done by construction workers and the like (and I have a lot of respect for construction workers). Should businesses be expected to train incoming employees to read, add, subtract, divide, and multiply? I can imagine that would greatly impact their bottom line, and the amount we all pay. Should we create a permanent underclass that is unhirable because of these faults? That would have high societal costs as well, even if welfare were completely done away with.
Public education keeps "kids off the streets", trains people with at least the basic skills that allow them to function in an economy, and reduces transaction costs for all of us. Don't be too quick to throw it away and refuse it funding - you benefit from it, whether you realize it or not.
Add to this an always-on, all-sides video camera to document that it was the minivan that strayed into your lane, and it'll be even better.
;-)
My brother wanted something like that after getting hit 4 times in a one month period, though he was luckily not to blame for any of the accidents and neither he nor his car sustained serious damage and everyone who hit him could walk away as well. His implementation, however, was a bit different.
Figuring his huge mid-90's reflective gold-colored Lincoln (like I said, 4 hits in one month, little damage) was somehow difficult for motorists to see (we always figured it had lawyer-installed magnets in it), he planned to replace it with a safety vest-orange Hummer with a boat horn, construction truck/tow truck flashing lights, a rifle rack in the back with an old drill rifle (just for fun), and a video system similar to this one.
As we had this conversation, we drove past a wrecker - possibly the closest vehicle in appearance to the one we had devised - that had been rear-ended by some idiot who was likely on his cell phone and didn't appear to have moved it from his ear since the accident.
No vehicle is safe these days from those with a room temperature IQ and a cell phone... at least with a Lincoln, you can be sure that whoever hits you will be off the road for quite a while while their car sits in the shop...
Teach your children respect for guns and what they can do
By FAR the most important thing you can do.
A friend of mine who is a gunsmith made a habit of taking his children to shoot as soon as they were old enough (around 5). Not so they could actually shot all the time, but to demystify the weapons.
He would show them the gun, disassemble it, reassemble it, allow them to handle it, and then have them shoot it. Generally, they were scared to death of the weapon, the recoil, the noise, etc. and they respected the gun - they knew what it did, they knew it was dangerous, and they did not want to mess with it until they were much older when they wanted to take up shooting themselves (although he thought it was a bit funny when his 14 year old daughter - who's not the type you'd expect to like shooting - actually became a better markswoman than him).
Too many parents hide the weapon and never let children handle it - it's forbidden, and once they get a hand on it the first thing they want to do is use it like they do in all the video games and movies, often with dreadful results, especially if the owner has left the weapon loaded.
Boeing has long been a target of the French DGSE intelligence service:
/ dgse.htm
In early 1993 the CIA obtained a long DGSE list of the most important intelligence targets in the United States, which included Boeing, among other companies. The DGSE agents were mainly interested in the navigation system of Boeing's new jumbojet to pass on to French companies, including the Airbus syndicate.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/france
What's good for the goose...
This robot must have cost millions to develop...
I can just go to Taco Bell, and for $3.49, I can get that same lovely sensation of something crawling around my intestines and making life uncomfortable...
As a side note, the header "interesting crevice" is rarely followed by something I want to read about...
I just had to read so I could get a good laugh... thanks as always.
I'm not a political science major. (Science? I guess the term is used loosely.) I have no idea who your witty asides are referring to or what their political persuasions are, or even the names or intersections of of their various persuasions.
Yes, it is obvious you attack what you don't understand. Typical.
I don't think I'm a marxist. Atleast I don't recall mentioning anything about collectivising anything but hey if straw man arguments are the way you swing so be it.
You believe in traditional Marxist international relations theory, with a focus on core/periphery issues, class warfare, and on top of that the traditional gloom and doom for the future and absolute future failure of capitalism (or, say, the demise of America in 5 years...). If that's not a traditional Marxist/Globalist, I have no idea what is.
So, you're a Marxist. There you have it.
Of the responses I could decipher
a)If you don't know the list of nations under our thumb then you've wasted money on a worthless education.
Actually, the point is this - if you can't back up your arguments with something, don't make them. It's like saying, "political science is STUPID!" and then saying, "well, I don't know anything about political science". It's stupid.
b)You do make a valid point about america being a self interested actor that routinely , overthrows popularly elected govts in favor of strong man dictators that stay in line with regard to our economic interests. If you don't think this has anything to do with (a) then obviously we're operating under totally different rulesets for understanding realiyt.
While it may be difficult to understand, nations want to stay on top and have a world order that fits their desires. You are no different - you want to see the demise of America so your preferred countries can step into power.
c)you brought up the image of the america the batterer and the liberal apologists. I explored the metaphor for you to see why the liberals are worried. Again if you don't understand it you have a strange way of perceiving reality.
Perhaps this is once again along the lines of "american indian philosophical". What you posted here isn't English. If English is not your native language, please repost in your native language so I can understand you - I speak/read/write Spanish and French and some Arabic. Try again.
d)At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?)
So, you're either a liberal in support of foreign policy or you're a pedophile...
The republicans have been found time and time again of running prostitution rings and sweat shops abroad as hospitality suites for the well to do. My question was what happens to these appetites when they don't have foreigners to feed on? What happens to american women and children when these monsters come home to roost? How you twisted that to slander me is another leap of mushy pol. sci. thinking that your type is famous for.
You admit you don't know anything about my type, then claim we're "famous" for certain things?
Your original post made it quite clear, my good man. This is called false choice dilemma - either you're with us, or you're a pedophile, which will it be! It's possible to be a non-liberal AND a non-pedophile. Have you considered that possibility? I, for example, am not a liberal and have never sought out sex with anyone other than my wife, who was over the age of 18 when we met.
e)Oh how do these other nations compare to our amazing power? The SCO (shanghai cooperation organization) combining russia and china are determined to stamp out our influence and bases in the region. Without our bases in the region we become less and less able to monopolize the oil supplies in the region.
The U.S. GDP is around 12 Trillion dollars. China's comes in at 1.5 trillion or so, India under
As someone who seems proud to have spent 4 (or more?) years studying pol. sci. Why don't you establish what your ideas are for appropriate policy? Your discussion so far is just as bad as any uninformed fool on the street. You have no ideas, and you want someone to come up with a different idea for you so that you can then proceed to criticize it because it's not the same as those of whichever group to whom you've pledged your allegiance. That is there is no way you can even consider a liberal argument if you believe in a totally fictional set of axioms in your model of the world. What was the point of the degree again? Fools are already fed propaganda free of charge.
Well, one point was to pick out baseless ad hominem attacks... but hey, let's continue...
The liberal's self hatred comes from the realization that what the nation proclaims itself to be is radically different from what it actually is. This in turn makes it no better than any other brutish nation on earth. At this point you're going 'oooh nooo. do we rape and kill thousands? aha! i've caught you now!' Allow me to explain.
Oh yes, do please explain to me!
So long as we have the monopoly on power, those close to it (the american people) are safe and those on the periphery of our empire suffer the brunt of this injustice,
Great use of the word "empire" there. Really, it obviously shows us what your opinions are.
So, you believe America is in charge of an empire. Interesting. Which countries, precisely, does this include? How, precisely, are these countries suffering the "brunt of this injustice"? I'm not saying the U.S. has always dealt "justly" with the rest of the world - the U.S. is a self-interested actor in a world of self-interested actors. For someone who likes to tear down others for a lack of ideas, you fail to do anything to actually back yours up.
because of the administrators we appoint to manage our capital assets.
Hmm... a believer in Marxist/"Globalist" IR theory, perhaps?
If you are a bible thumper, this is no different from Rome appointing a favored brutal king named herod, to manage israel. Sure, on the propaganda papyrus he's the king of the jews, but what choice did they really have in supporting his leadership?. He was dropped into place at a Roman whim. And he will do anything to pacify the jews for roman business interests in the region. So yes, they were disgusted both with herod and the architects of his power, the romans.
Oooh... "Bible Thumper". No loaded language there. No siree bob. You mean the U.S. would *gasp* support leaders who support its world view? SHOCKING! Why, NO other country in the WORLD would do such a thing!
The time is fast coming when we will no longer have the monopoly on power and energy in this world and our empire will shrink moving the periphery close to home. What then? Wouldn't you want to reform a batterer before he starts failing in life and comes home to take it out on the family? Do you want to be there when that happens?
Oooh... core vs. periphery. He IS a Marxist/Globalist of the Wallerstein persuasion!
Top it off with an analogy that doesn't fit and we just keep on a rolling...
So yes, it may seem incomprehensible to you right now, but the liberal policy is to reform the excesses of the battering aristocracy in america before our certain foreign failure.
A fait accompli, perhaps?
At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?)
So, you're either a liberal in support of foreign policy or you're a pedophile...
and brutal dictatorships will have to be met here at home. As for foreign affairs, the time for discussion was before jumping into the pit. Liberals advocated in every war that america has had for isolation from foreign affairs and against bloody expansionism for the profit of a few rich families.
You disappoint me by not stating "Hallib
Yet the DNC has adopted the position of the screaming 6 year old at the back of the bus, screaming "my mom can drive better than you!" and denying the existence of any cliffs all the while.
As far as what we know not working, you don't actually SAY why it doesn't work. No specific complaints. No arguments. Just, "things are BAD, can't you SEE!" What, specifically is the problem? The dropping unemployment rate and increasing GDP? The lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? The present situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and the border certainly aren't peachy, but what do the Democrats actually propose to do about them? All I see is, "Bush lied, people died!" nonsense that doesn't actually cut to the matter at hand - we're there now, so what are we going to do?
You are the problem with the DNC, my good man. inarticulate complaints. Begging the question by assuming I have precisely the same view of how things are so bad without specifying what those things are or, more importantly, what you plan to do about them. If the DNC wants to step into power, it needs to DO these things. It needs to built a platform worth standing on. I said it above and I'll say it again - I would vote for a Democratic candidate for president if they gave me a platform that seemed feasible and not more of this ad hominem nonsense and the simple comeback that anyone who disagrees with him/her is "stupid". Great way to earn votes, there.
Well, actually, I'm a Political Science student with a focus on International Relations and National Security Policy, preparing for the GRE so I can get a Master's degree from an APSIA school with a Security Policy Studies focus.
/. are so quick to mod me down without actually attempting to refute the main points of the argument (with few exceptions).
Although the ad hominem was fun, I find it amusing that those on the left side of the spectrum here at
Sadly this seems to be the state of the left these days - a group positioning itself as a permanent opposition party. No new ideas. No thinking. No platform, even. Just contradiction. Simple complaining and contradiction.
I'm on the right side of the spectrum, but I've certainly voted for Democrats and even voted for a third party presidential candidate in Florida in 2000. I'm not a strict partisan by any stretch. But the Democrats simply aren't putting up any ideas, any platform, anything. Just complaints. Lots and lots of complaints. About anything and everything. Complaints are not a platform. They do not tell me what you want to do. They do not tell me what your ideas are.
In 2004, the DNC essentially ran on a platform of "we're not the Republicans". Yes, we know that. We all noticed that big "D" next to your names. Did they have an Iraq policy? A Homeland Defense policy? They claimed to, but none were feasible. None made any sense. All were too vague or contradictory.
I'd love to bring in a true opposition party. I'd love to see the Democrats step up and offer alternatives. One-party systems generally lead to atrophy, corruption, etc. We're seeing some of that right now. But I'm not willing to replace a party in power with another who has no set platform, no cohesive message, and whose constituents seem to be incapable of acknowledging the fact that the country is facing several serious threats and must adapt to the present state of Fourth Generation Warfare or suffer the consequences.
2006, sadly, appears to be more of the same. No platform. Lots of complaints about the economy - which is doing quite well and experiencing very low levels of unemployment. No real Iraq policy still. If we let them in power, WHAT WILL THEY DO? Do they even know?
I don't support the idea of a one-party system lasting forever. These things move in cycles, and another party should move up as its competitor becomes atrophied. A free-market of ideas should exist, and everyone will benefit from it. The problem is that there only seems to be one seller worth considering at the moment. The other alternative seems to be a party that wants our money first before they even show us what they're buying. The RNC is certainly becoming more foggy and unsure, but I still have some idea as to what they will do. Until the DNC gets its act together and actually puts up a platform that deals with reality (as opposed to its present so-called "reality based" nonsense), I will be grudgingly handing my vote to the other side.
How would you propose the U.S. respond to a nuclear attack that kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of people?
It's always our fault. Period. We all deserve to die because we have somehow offended group A or angered group B.
The self-hatred of the west is amazing. We excuse away everything as our fault. It's as if we were made up of a group of battered women, constantly making excuses for their husbands.
Are you kidding me? European newspapers don't even try to pretend to be objective and non-partisan.
That's why I like them.
U.S. papers do just that - pretend. European papers are generally open about their bias from the start. If only American papers would shed their false cloak of objective reporting I'd put more stock in them.
On a daily basis, I generally read:
New York Times
Washington Post
Le Monde (France)
Liberation (France)
Le Figaro (France)
Clarin (Argentina)
El Universal (Venezuela)
Yes, I speak/read/write Spanish and French, not to mention a little Arabic (presently working on it).
I'm sorry, you were saying?
The lack of nuance on Slashdot once again.
Not to mention a complete lack of knowledge about the world around them.
The sad part is that the parent will probably be modded insightful. Oh well. So continues the slide to "SlashKos".
An excellent question, to which the best answer is a "maybe".
Roads? Heh, if you've ever driven in the DC area, you know that's just not a possibility. Airspace, however, should be much more open given the post 9/11 measures.
This plan is about more than bunkers though - it also involves posting civilian backups away from the capital that are poised to take over should D.C. get nuked. Given the concentration of senior personnel in D.C. it would certainly be impossible to get all - or even most - out in a 30 minute period (assuming they would have that long). But the government should certainly try its best to get all of its elected officials and most senior staff out as quickly as possible, including the SecState, SecDef, and other cabinet level positions.
But, moving beyond cabinet positions and elected officials, one would also need to consider the need to keep basic government bureaucracy running, such as the Patent Office, Budget Office, GAO, and other important functions of government that the people would still need after a small, limited nuclear exchange. This plan doesn't focus on evacuating these individuals but on creating civilian backups ready to take over in case of an attack. The U.S. would still need to be able to function even with D.C. gone. Would there be bumps as these new officials came on? You betcha - big ones. But they'd still be needed in the long run is my argument.
How far the future are you looking where "Should Iran wake up one day and decide to nuke Washington" be possible?
My personal opinion? 10 years or so.
I mean, they'd have to develop a nuclear weapon,
Perhaps you haven't been following the news...
a long-range delivery system (Arguably harder than making a small fission device),
Iran presently possesses the ability to launch against Southern Europe with its existing devices and can acquire other technology as needed.
weaponising their little pop-gun fission device so their long range delivery system can carry the thing (Very hard)
Iran presently possesses ballistic missile capability. While they have yet to develop ICBMs, their regional weapons are quite good. Additionally, why would it need to be ground launched from Iran? They have a wide terrorist network (yes, they actually do...) capable of using a nuke, and if recent GAO reports are any indicator of the present quality of border control when it comes to fissile material, I've got my doubts.
and then be Bat Shit Crazy enough to use it,
Again, perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news...
hoping that the US don't simply shoot it out of the sky before it gets to them.
Countermeasures to missile defense systems exist.
Then they'd be turned into the world biggest sheet of glass.
Would they? I'm not entirely convinced. A small nuclear attack of that sort would likely result in a proportional strike - good bye Tehran, for example. Massive retaliation MAY not be the response, though it certainly is possible.
I mean, I'm all for sensationalist propoganda and fear based war-mongering, but that's some pretty futuristic fture you've got there.
I think you meant to post that over here. Go knock yourself out.
While the Wa Post columnist - it should be noted that this is an opinion piece, not an article - is obviously not too fond of the idea, I'd say it still has at least some merit.
With increased WMD proliferation - from big budget nukes to dirt cheap chemical weapons - that can be used to attack the U.S. capital and government installations, I'd say that such a plan is smart to have as a backup. Should Iran wake up one day and decide to nuke Washington (a possibility in the future), we would certainly be able to retaliate and turn it into the Islamic Republic of Glass Bowl or Parking Lot (pick your favorite), but what would happen to all of the government infrastructure there? We're not just talking about continuity of elected leaders, but about the civilian side of the government as well, which this plan seems to focus on, too.
While nuclear war with Russia or another fairly heavily armed power (i.e. China) remains an enormously remote possibility, exchanges with countries that possess only a handful of nukes (Iran, North Korea, etc.) are much more likely. In such an event, the U.S. would not need to focus simply on making sure the attacker is completely wiped out - this is a given - but that it can survive a relatively small attack affecting only a handful of cities such as Washington and New York rather than a widespread nuclear holocaust in which all of this would simply be moot anyways.
The author is obviously unhappy with the inefficiency of this program, but I'm not entirely convinced by his arguments. Security, backups, etc. are always inefficient. Security and efficiency are always at odds with each other. Spending hundreds of millions on a backup that MIGHT be used is entirely inefficient EXCEPT when you need it, in which case it becomes a necessity. Combine this with the fact that the government is also not known for its efficiency and you've got a problem.
The U.S. isn't getting ready for nuclear holocaust any more, as many slashdotters have claimed and the author seems to hint at. It's getting ready for a limited nuclear exchange in which, yes, things like the patent office and budget offices must continue operating in the months and years to come when their main offices have been wiped out but a vast majority of the U.S. has been left unscathed.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending every action of this program. I would encourage others, however, to take a more nuanced look at it. And nuance is something slashdot appears to be lacking these days. It's likely my karma will pay for it, but so be it.
(As a side note, my "confirm I'm not a script" word was "senate"... coincidence?)