I've put this in once already - and it appears to have gotten taken out for some reason. interesting. Here it is again. . . a full quote from Bradley Manning to the president, asking for a pardon. Doesn't sound like the same person.
Here is a quote you might not have seen: "When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission."
Manning's statement, in full:
The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.
It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity.
We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.
In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.
Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.
As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.
I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
Actually, I heard that the following statement was made by Bradly Manning and picked up by the Associated Press. He made it to the President in a request for a pardon. In my opinion, these two statements don't sound like they came from the same person. With as much embarrassment and/or trouble as the Bradley Manning case has caused the government, adding a little spicy twist on the story in the end doesn't sound unlikely.
Associated Press — FORT MEADE, Md. — The text of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s statement that will be sent to the president, as read by defense attorney David Coombs following Manning’s sentencing Wednesday, below:
--------
Manning's statement, in full:
The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.
It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity.
We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.
In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.
Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.
As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.
I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
That's right! And if they saw something naughty going on from a TV in a bedroom, I'm very thankful no security analysts who work in Our Country would ever watch that sort of stuff while on the job! Whew! Man, if those kinds of people worked at the NSA, heck, they could copy it to YouTube or something for a laugh. Then you or someone you know might run into it.
"Hey, NSA, How'd that video of me and 'XXX' get on YouTube?"
"Sorry Citizen, that's National Security. Stop asking questions. "
One of their top executives got to be one of Obama's advisors. Then, as things got competitive in the power plant industry in Texas, they built a plant nearby in Mexico. And wouldn't you know it, federal regulations approved by said advisor forced American power plants out of business but didn't bother the new GE plant(s).
But no, I didn't say that and forget how it sounds. They were really only just trying to help the environment.
If they really broke so much of his encryption and found child pornography related stuff, why has he not been charged? Sounds like they don't have any real proof at all and want HIM to provide them with something to use. I don't need to be a judge to say that would come under the fifth.
Some people feel that if you use encryption, you must have something to hide. That idea is often promoted by prosecution in law enforcement. Ever written a short letter to someone? Why didn't you use a post card? "Do you have something to hide, citizen!?" Of course not. That logic needs to be shot down right up front. If someone encrypts their hard drives, it's not because there's evidence of a crime. It may just be because what is on them is nobody else's business, even the government's.
Why not ask the government sometime if you can look through their hard drives. Expect to hear words like "confidential" and/or "national security" or "executive priviledge". Ok. Maybe those things apply sometimes. How about these words: "private", "personal security" and "personal priviledge". Don't those words apply too?
It wouldn't be so easy to be critical of such things if the law worked both ways.
I get your drift and have to laugh myself. It does seem like just deserts.
At the same time, one might ask why the Federal Government thinks itself immune to all charges and believes that it has final authority over all in these situations? And if that were true, do the states also have final authority over counties and the people in monetary and legal matters as well? In the end, doesn't that kind of thinking make the people lowest on the totem pole and little more than slaves who serve the will and the needs of those above them, especially the Feds? The questions are rhetorical so please don't form a judgment of me too quickly. But it is the rule of law that is supposed to stop that sort of thing. The highest law in our country that puts specific limits on government to stop this sort of thing is the Constitution.
To me the issue here is not that the state is taxing the Feds but that the Feds think they should have this center that spies on everyone's email. Where do they get that right? Are they really trying to stop terrorism or are they trying to find people who disagree with them? What would they do when they find them? Such thinking is more in line with a tyrannical government not a constitutional one.
So I'd rather the state of Utah not tax the center, even indirectly. They might get used to the extra income and want to keep that place around.
But please don't lecture me as to whether I should keep something private or not. If I write a personal letter by snail mail, I may have nothing to hide but I still put it in an envelope. I could send all private letters on post cards. But I don't because it's private. No one else needs to see it. That includes any/all people and government agencies.
By the way, that's also why encryption (without a back door) should be offered in ALL email software.
"1 milliamp -- a tiny fraction of the voltage of an AA battery"
Don't they mean, "1 milliamp--a tiny fraction of the CURRENT of an AA battery?" The article never gives the voltage used. 'Course it couldn't be much. High voltage would jump the gaps between neurons and damage them.
Still, once we have the specs, we can all make one and do what our grade school teachers always asked us to do. "Now class, put on your thinking caps for this one . . . "
Although the post suggests this bill will get a lot of resistance from the media, one of the biggest contributers to John McCain's Campaign was Newmax. Go ahead and look it up on www.opensecrets.org. You can find there who donates and how much to any national politician. My question, if this is so bad to TV and such, then why would a News Media organization be one of the top contributers to his campaign? It doesn't make sense. Politics doesn't work that way. What is REALLY in this bill?
The word "regulate" has changed somewhat in meaning since the time the Constitution was written. At the time, it's meaning was more along the line of, "to strengthen". This addition in the Constitution of the federal government being able to "strengthen" trade amongst the several states was deemed necessary as under the Articles of Confederacy (the first Constitution), states would often charge high fees for the flow of goods through them to other states. This stiffled the market and escalated prices.
It also adds some light to the place in the Bill of Rights where it says, "A well regulated [strenghened] militia . . . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." There was never an intention to stifle or abridge there, either. Like trade, they wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be Strengthened!
About eight years ago, I went to the Dr. for an ear problem and got to take a look at their software. There was a computer in all of the examining rooms and the nurse, after examining me would run down the list of symptoms and check them off on her computer screen. There were also text boxes and ways to enter additional information. Being into computers, I asked the nurse about it.
She showed me some of it and said one of the Dr.'s had developed it. It was written in MS Access. It may not be a first choice for many Slashdotters but most are familiar with it. At the time it had plenty of capability for handling the data in a small network like that of a Dr.'s office. And it did the job. Apparently, one of the Dr.'s was pretty computer and programming savy.
I then asked why they had developed their own and not used one of the packages that must be on the market. She said they had tried. The sales rep said the cost was about 90K+ and the upkeep was about 70K after that. Then he said the software was good and a great deal because they would get their money back through increased efficiency in the first year (no figures to prove it though). After the presentation, the medical staff were all shaking their heads. How would they get back 70K per year. . . not to mention the original 90K+? They had other expensive equipment to get too! So one of the Dr.'s, who apparently had experience programming and working databases, took a brief leave of absence and developed a database that worked for their needs. I doubt it took more than three weeks actual work time to develop what I saw. How much money do you think they are they saving now!?
The point is that databases developed by a large medical specialty software company may not be the end-all solution for the needs of small businesses in medicine. Some of you guys with good computer skills and savy in putting together what the customer wants could put something together for a better price. Think of it this way: some of these specialty software companies are BEGGING for good competition.:-)
It may not cause quite as big a difference as hydrogen sulfide, but it has also been shown that even slight increases of CO2 also cause an increase in the speed of plant growth. It has been known for some time that plants take the carbon out of CO2. How hydrogen sulphide works is not quite as obvious.
In many ways you have to agree with Steve. What item of value backs Bitcoin? Its value goes up and down. But then what is backing those pieces of paper in your wallet? Steve says that money should have a fixed value. Agreed. And so would the founders of this nation. They limited the government's control of money by originally setting the standard value of a dollar to twenty dollars per ounce of gold. They already knew how central bankers in Europe operated.
But once our government (like so many) decided they wanted more control of the peoples' money via Central banking, they and their comrades get richer and the middle class suffered from the loss in value of their currency. How many dollars to an ounce of gold (or anything else) now? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provides even today unlimited funding for gov programs via the Federal Reserve's printing presses. The FR makes sure their banker friends get a huge cut and then provides some back to the politicians to get them re-elected. This is a story covered in many other places on the internet.
To summarize, I'm not sure if Bitcoin is a good investment or not. After all, does it have any true item backing it that has value? But then again, does the dollar? Isn't it a Joke (and hypocrisy) to deride one currency and ignore the other's problem with a constantly downward spiraling value? At least with Bitcoin, it's heavily encrypted and not controlled by the same people that control the dollar. That alone gives it fascinating possibilities.
And it will only cost 20 billion!???..... Hmmm. I have a new defense technology for you. It's made of paper, weighs only 20 pounds, will carry about 1 - 2 tons of explosive bombs or missiles, flies by remote control so there's no risk of casualties, and has a range of about 10,000 miles, uses solar energy and will only add about 65 million to the defense budget. Of course, there might be a few extra additions to the cost as we add more research and testing. No more than 10 bil or so, I'm sure. And we'll have to spread it around to different congressional districts. Why? Er, because such a good project deserves the support of more than a few nice congress people.
What do you mean I'm over-rating the project? Pork!? C'mon! Maybe you need to spread your project around a bit more in the same way. Oh, you say that's the plan. Uhh. . . . OK, nevermind.
I would also agree that investing the money in research would be a better idea. But their choice shows who got many of them elected as well as who they are financially in bed with. I'm also skeptical of bailing out the auto industry. But at least the auto industry didn't cause many of the problems. Perhaps bailing out total waste is what our government economic leadership is all about these days.
Considering for a moment, the other side, I suppose it's possible that she did try to put an earlier version of Linux on a Windows machine and things didn't work out so well. Compatibility problems with peripherals were more common the further back you go. Now just add to that a bit of emotional frustration and the experience of seeing Windows re-install without any major hitches (since it likely came with Windows and the drivers were available), and we have an attitude formed about Linux from a bad experience. New users need someone to listen, hold their hand, and help them when things go wrong. When it happens, New users can become temp users.
I don't know that the reason is for the attitude, but it's hard to fix if you don't know. I doubt it's the NEA.
It's very true that Science and myths are incompatible. Also, the Bible wasn't penned by dummies. Where it says in the very first verse, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void", most translations use the English word "was". But there is no word "was" or any form of the English verb "to be" in the original Aramaic. In fact, even today, there is no verb "to be" in Arabic or many of the related languages. But there is a word for "became" - and that is how it reads, "the earth became without form and void".
Something caused an event that was cataclysmic and wiped out the original work and creatures. That something had free will and was later, at least figuratively referred to as a serpent because of its wise but subtil nature. The disaster includes the ice age after it and why so many creatures suddenly disappeared. It also shows that the seven days in the first chapter of Genesis had to do with putting things back in order - not creating the earth. Later, God told Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. How could they replenish it if it had never been "plenished" before?
OK, many reading this may think anything having to do with the Bible foolish as it doesn't match with what you've been taught in your biology class. That's your privilege! But what's the truth? I'll happily eliminate any myths or wrong traditions in my life if shown something better. I'm already off the standard "creationist" platform. But I think the main purpose behind the evolutionary theory today is to make sure to get God out of any consideration as to the cause of what's happened on this planet.
Excellent! Good to hear. I know that quite a few of the large US banks played in the sub-prime market and got beat up. Some of the other mid-size or small banks didn't and are doing fine. I believe one of them that has its home in North Carolina bought up Merrill Lynch but I'm not sure. An interesting link to some of the causes is at:
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1209999600.php/
Slashdot Mirror
The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.
It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity.
We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.
In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.
Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.
As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.
I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
Associated Press — FORT MEADE, Md. — The text of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s statement that will be sent to the president, as read by defense attorney David Coombs following Manning’s sentencing Wednesday, below:
--------
Manning's statement, in full:
The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.
It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability. In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.
Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.
As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.
I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
It runs slower.
"Hey, NSA, How'd that video of me and 'XXX' get on YouTube?"
"Sorry Citizen, that's National Security. Stop asking questions. "
One of their top executives got to be one of Obama's advisors. Then, as things got competitive in the power plant industry in Texas, they built a plant nearby in Mexico. And wouldn't you know it, federal regulations approved by said advisor forced American power plants out of business but didn't bother the new GE plant(s).
But no, I didn't say that and forget how it sounds. They were really only just trying to help the environment.
I don't think I could have said it better.
If they really broke so much of his encryption and found child pornography related stuff, why has he not been charged? Sounds like they don't have any real proof at all and want HIM to provide them with something to use. I don't need to be a judge to say that would come under the fifth.
Some people feel that if you use encryption, you must have something to hide. That idea is often promoted by prosecution in law enforcement. Ever written a short letter to someone? Why didn't you use a post card? "Do you have something to hide, citizen!?" Of course not. That logic needs to be shot down right up front. If someone encrypts their hard drives, it's not because there's evidence of a crime. It may just be because what is on them is nobody else's business, even the government's.
Why not ask the government sometime if you can look through their hard drives. Expect to hear words like "confidential" and/or "national security" or "executive priviledge". Ok. Maybe those things apply sometimes. How about these words: "private", "personal security" and "personal priviledge". Don't those words apply too?
It wouldn't be so easy to be critical of such things if the law worked both ways.
To keep the device in my backyard ready for launch. The Smiths live next door and they've been getting ahead lately.
At the same time, one might ask why the Federal Government thinks itself immune to all charges and believes that it has final authority over all in these situations? And if that were true, do the states also have final authority over counties and the people in monetary and legal matters as well? In the end, doesn't that kind of thinking make the people lowest on the totem pole and little more than slaves who serve the will and the needs of those above them, especially the Feds? The questions are rhetorical so please don't form a judgment of me too quickly. But it is the rule of law that is supposed to stop that sort of thing. The highest law in our country that puts specific limits on government to stop this sort of thing is the Constitution.
To me the issue here is not that the state is taxing the Feds but that the Feds think they should have this center that spies on everyone's email. Where do they get that right? Are they really trying to stop terrorism or are they trying to find people who disagree with them? What would they do when they find them? Such thinking is more in line with a tyrannical government not a constitutional one.
So I'd rather the state of Utah not tax the center, even indirectly. They might get used to the extra income and want to keep that place around.
Ahhhh . . . . Darn!
Correct. The article is a little vague on the specs for this little project.
By the way, that's also why encryption (without a back door) should be offered in ALL email software.
Don't they mean, "1 milliamp--a tiny fraction of the CURRENT of an AA battery?" The article never gives the voltage used. 'Course it couldn't be much. High voltage would jump the gaps between neurons and damage them.
Still, once we have the specs, we can all make one and do what our grade school teachers always asked us to do. "Now class, put on your thinking caps for this one . . . "
Heh. Heh. And where will you sell your products . . . In the grocery store - near the fruit and vegetables?
Although the post suggests this bill will get a lot of resistance from the media, one of the biggest contributers to John McCain's Campaign was Newmax. Go ahead and look it up on www.opensecrets.org. You can find there who donates and how much to any national politician. My question, if this is so bad to TV and such, then why would a News Media organization be one of the top contributers to his campaign? It doesn't make sense. Politics doesn't work that way. What is REALLY in this bill?
Now I know why Vampires live so long!!!
The word "regulate" has changed somewhat in meaning since the time the Constitution was written. At the time, it's meaning was more along the line of, "to strengthen". This addition in the Constitution of the federal government being able to "strengthen" trade amongst the several states was deemed necessary as under the Articles of Confederacy (the first Constitution), states would often charge high fees for the flow of goods through them to other states. This stiffled the market and escalated prices. It also adds some light to the place in the Bill of Rights where it says, "A well regulated [strenghened] militia . . . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." There was never an intention to stifle or abridge there, either. Like trade, they wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be Strengthened!
She showed me some of it and said one of the Dr.'s had developed it. It was written in MS Access. It may not be a first choice for many Slashdotters but most are familiar with it. At the time it had plenty of capability for handling the data in a small network like that of a Dr.'s office. And it did the job. Apparently, one of the Dr.'s was pretty computer and programming savy.
I then asked why they had developed their own and not used one of the packages that must be on the market. She said they had tried. The sales rep said the cost was about 90K+ and the upkeep was about 70K after that. Then he said the software was good and a great deal because they would get their money back through increased efficiency in the first year (no figures to prove it though). After the presentation, the medical staff were all shaking their heads. How would they get back 70K per year. . . not to mention the original 90K+? They had other expensive equipment to get too! So one of the Dr.'s, who apparently had experience programming and working databases, took a brief leave of absence and developed a database that worked for their needs. I doubt it took more than three weeks actual work time to develop what I saw. How much money do you think they are they saving now!?
The point is that databases developed by a large medical specialty software company may not be the end-all solution for the needs of small businesses in medicine. Some of you guys with good computer skills and savy in putting together what the customer wants could put something together for a better price. Think of it this way: some of these specialty software companies are BEGGING for good competition. :-)
It may not cause quite as big a difference as hydrogen sulfide, but it has also been shown that even slight increases of CO2 also cause an increase in the speed of plant growth. It has been known for some time that plants take the carbon out of CO2. How hydrogen sulphide works is not quite as obvious.
But once our government (like so many) decided they wanted more control of the peoples' money via Central banking, they and their comrades get richer and the middle class suffered from the loss in value of their currency. How many dollars to an ounce of gold (or anything else) now? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provides even today unlimited funding for gov programs via the Federal Reserve's printing presses. The FR makes sure their banker friends get a huge cut and then provides some back to the politicians to get them re-elected. This is a story covered in many other places on the internet.
To summarize, I'm not sure if Bitcoin is a good investment or not. After all, does it have any true item backing it that has value? But then again, does the dollar? Isn't it a Joke (and hypocrisy) to deride one currency and ignore the other's problem with a constantly downward spiraling value? At least with Bitcoin, it's heavily encrypted and not controlled by the same people that control the dollar. That alone gives it fascinating possibilities.
And it will only cost 20 billion!???..... Hmmm. I have a new defense technology for you. It's made of paper, weighs only 20 pounds, will carry about 1 - 2 tons of explosive bombs or missiles, flies by remote control so there's no risk of casualties, and has a range of about 10,000 miles, uses solar energy and will only add about 65 million to the defense budget. Of course, there might be a few extra additions to the cost as we add more research and testing. No more than 10 bil or so, I'm sure. And we'll have to spread it around to different congressional districts. Why? Er, because such a good project deserves the support of more than a few nice congress people.
What do you mean I'm over-rating the project? Pork!? C'mon! Maybe you need to spread your project around a bit more in the same way. Oh, you say that's the plan. Uhh. . . . OK, nevermind.
I would also agree that investing the money in research would be a better idea. But their choice shows who got many of them elected as well as who they are financially in bed with. I'm also skeptical of bailing out the auto industry. But at least the auto industry didn't cause many of the problems. Perhaps bailing out total waste is what our government economic leadership is all about these days.
I don't know that the reason is for the attitude, but it's hard to fix if you don't know. I doubt it's the NEA.
It's very true that Science and myths are incompatible. Also, the Bible wasn't penned by dummies. Where it says in the very first verse, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void", most translations use the English word "was". But there is no word "was" or any form of the English verb "to be" in the original Aramaic. In fact, even today, there is no verb "to be" in Arabic or many of the related languages. But there is a word for "became" - and that is how it reads, "the earth became without form and void".
Something caused an event that was cataclysmic and wiped out the original work and creatures. That something had free will and was later, at least figuratively referred to as a serpent because of its wise but subtil nature. The disaster includes the ice age after it and why so many creatures suddenly disappeared. It also shows that the seven days in the first chapter of Genesis had to do with putting things back in order - not creating the earth. Later, God told Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. How could they replenish it if it had never been "plenished" before?
OK, many reading this may think anything having to do with the Bible foolish as it doesn't match with what you've been taught in your biology class. That's your privilege! But what's the truth? I'll happily eliminate any myths or wrong traditions in my life if shown something better. I'm already off the standard "creationist" platform. But I think the main purpose behind the evolutionary theory today is to make sure to get God out of any consideration as to the cause of what's happened on this planet.
Behold the dreamer. Come, let us kill him.
Excellent! Good to hear. I know that quite a few of the large US banks played in the sub-prime market and got beat up. Some of the other mid-size or small banks didn't and are doing fine. I believe one of them that has its home in North Carolina bought up Merrill Lynch but I'm not sure. An interesting link to some of the causes is at: http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1209999600.php/