Sports News Article | Reuters.com: Rallying Red Sox Edge Yankees to Force Decider The Red Sox seem determined to inflict maximum agony on their fans. It looked like they would give their fans a quick and painless oblivion, but now they're back inflicting agonizing torments. Boston, we feel for you.
Update: I actually watched the 9th inning. I didn't want to watch too much, I was sure I'd jinx the Sox. My sister-in-law is the Sox fan, not me -- but like most of the universe I was hoping for a miracle.
Now I believe Kerry can win.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Smallpox and Influenza
Smallpox - where did the money go?
I googled on "smallpox and influenza" and came up with this 2003 article. It's a good starting point for a question that no-one ever asks (except, every few months, me). Maybe, given the influenza debacle of 2004, this might come up again.
In the build-up to the Iraq invasion there was much mention of the Iraqi smallpox program, and the evil and nefarious "Dr. Germ" (who is, by most accounts, a pretty nasty woman). There was a heck of a lot of press on this. The usual suspects (Rumsfeld, Condy, Cheney, Bush) raised the specter of bioterrorism and a smallpox attack. They made a persuasive case. Persuaded me anyway!
A big prevention program started up. Physicians and nurses were immunized. Some had nasty side-effects. I think at least one person died from an idiosyncratic reaction to Vaccinia (an odd virus that acts in some people like a "mild" case of smallpox).
Then came the invasion of Iraq. The immunization program was quietly dropped. (Later data suggests Americans are probably still protected by the immunizations of the 1960s -- but that wasn't known when the program was dropped.) It staggers on with a low level of funding and no political support.
So was the program always a fraud to provide support for the invasion? If so, that was one hell of a game to play. I suspect the persons injured in the vaccine testing might not feel happy about that.
Or was the fear genuine, but the Bush administration decided that meeting the challenge could pose an electoral risk -- so they decided to ignore the problem? That doesn't reflect well on them either. I wonder if that's the same kind of reasoning they applied when they were warned about the influenza vaccine problems.
It was when I realized that there was no good answer to the smallpox scam that I recognized what kind of government we had. Until then I was willing to give Bush a bit of trust.
Maybe they just figured that the power of their Will would defeat nature. Just like in that movie.
PS. I suspect Dr. Germ will only be released after the election is done. If she were released before November 2nd, she might stir some unwanted memories.
I googled on "smallpox and influenza" and came up with this 2003 article. It's a good starting point for a question that no-one ever asks (except, every few months, me). Maybe, given the influenza debacle of 2004, this might come up again.
In the build-up to the Iraq invasion there was much mention of the Iraqi smallpox program, and the evil and nefarious "Dr. Germ" (who is, by most accounts, a pretty nasty woman). There was a heck of a lot of press on this. The usual suspects (Rumsfeld, Condy, Cheney, Bush) raised the specter of bioterrorism and a smallpox attack. They made a persuasive case. Persuaded me anyway!
A big prevention program started up. Physicians and nurses were immunized. Some had nasty side-effects. I think at least one person died from an idiosyncratic reaction to Vaccinia (an odd virus that acts in some people like a "mild" case of smallpox).
Then came the invasion of Iraq. The immunization program was quietly dropped. (Later data suggests Americans are probably still protected by the immunizations of the 1960s -- but that wasn't known when the program was dropped.) It staggers on with a low level of funding and no political support.
So was the program always a fraud to provide support for the invasion? If so, that was one hell of a game to play. I suspect the persons injured in the vaccine testing might not feel happy about that.
Or was the fear genuine, but the Bush administration decided that meeting the challenge could pose an electoral risk -- so they decided to ignore the problem? That doesn't reflect well on them either. I wonder if that's the same kind of reasoning they applied when they were warned about the influenza vaccine problems.
It was when I realized that there was no good answer to the smallpox scam that I recognized what kind of government we had. Until then I was willing to give Bush a bit of trust.
Maybe they just figured that the power of their Will would defeat nature. Just like in that movie.
PS. I suspect Dr. Germ will only be released after the election is done. If she were released before November 2nd, she might stir some unwanted memories.
Triumph of The Will -- The Bush Story
Faughnan's Notes: Bush - American Calvinist -- more quotes from the NYT Magazine Suskind article
I was trying to remember what was so familiar about the quotes in the Suskind article. Then it came to me. Similar expressions were a part of a famous movie: Triumph of The Will.
Yes, that was a movie Karl Rove would understand very well.
Update: This has occurred to a few other people.
I was trying to remember what was so familiar about the quotes in the Suskind article. Then it came to me. Similar expressions were a part of a famous movie: Triumph of The Will.
Yes, that was a movie Karl Rove would understand very well.
Update: This has occurred to a few other people.
Bush suppresses CIA 9/11 report
Secret CIA 9/11 Report Names Names | The Regular
From the LA Times. The CIA apparently finds negligence and a failure of accountability in the Bush administration. Sounds like it may confirm Richard Clarke's account -- and more. It's become known to anyone who cares that the CIA now serves the President - not the nation. I think this bothers some patriots in the CIA.
From the LA Times. The CIA apparently finds negligence and a failure of accountability in the Bush administration. Sounds like it may confirm Richard Clarke's account -- and more. It's become known to anyone who cares that the CIA now serves the President - not the nation. I think this bothers some patriots in the CIA.
Slate Election Scorecard Oct 19
Election Scorecard - Where the presidential race stands today. By William Saletan, David Kenner, and Louisa Herron Thomas
Kerry 284
Bush 254
I'm going to see if I can take election day as a vaction day to help get out the vote.
Kerry 284
Bush 254
I'm going to see if I can take election day as a vaction day to help get out the vote.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Yes Bush Can! Take the Patriot Pledge!
Take the Patriot Pledge!
Hmm. Maybe this isn't really a pro-Bush site.
I volunteer to have a permanent nuclear waste storage facility in my community.
I volunteer to lobby local, state, and federal officials for a permanent nuclear waste storage facility in my community.
I would personally feel more secure with America launching a new round of nuclear weapons development, even if this meant breaking current treaty obligations concerning nuclear weapons.
Hmm. Maybe this isn't really a pro-Bush site.
Billions misplaced in Iraq
William Gibson
Not just a little bit lost. Utterly lost. Billions. Enough to start 100 robust companies. Enough for 100 persons to retire in comfort. Enough to pay health coverage for a year for 100,000 families.
Enough to pay for a massive terrorist attack on America.
Loose change.
Not just a little bit lost. Utterly lost. Billions. Enough to start 100 robust companies. Enough for 100 persons to retire in comfort. Enough to pay health coverage for a year for 100,000 families.
Enough to pay for a massive terrorist attack on America.
Loose change.
Bush - American Calvinist -- more quotes from the NYT Magazine Suskind article
William Gibson
I am literally feeling goosebumps. Goering would have said exactly the same thing. In fact, I'm sure he must have.
I posted earlier on this NYT Magazine essay by Ron Susskind (of O'Neill book fame), but it's long and I hadn't read all of it.
Was the senior advisor a neocon? Do they realize how much they sound like Hitler's aides?
Here are some more excerpts. They paint a pretty clear picture.
'In the summer of 2002, after I [Ron Susskind] had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'
I am literally feeling goosebumps. Goering would have said exactly the same thing. In fact, I'm sure he must have.
I posted earlier on this NYT Magazine essay by Ron Susskind (of O'Neill book fame), but it's long and I hadn't read all of it.
Was the senior advisor a neocon? Do they realize how much they sound like Hitler's aides?
Here are some more excerpts. They paint a pretty clear picture.
... All of this -- the ''gut'' and ''instincts,'' the certainty and religiosity -connects to a single word, ''faith,'' and faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision -- often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.
The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were surprised to see in the first presidential debate are familiar expressions to those in the administration or in Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce; Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now...
... In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject. [jf: weeks later Bush does concede that Sweden has an army] ...
... Such challenges -- from either Powell or his opposite number as the top official in domestic policy, Paul O'Neill -- were trials that Bush had less and less patience for as the months passed. He made that clear to his top lieutenants. Gradually, Bush lost what Richard Perle, who would later head a largely private-sector group under Bush called the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had described as his open posture during foreign-policy tutorials prior to the 2000 campaign. (''He had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much,'' Perle said.) By midyear 2001, a stand-and-deliver rhythm was established. Meetings, large and small, started to take on a scripted quality. Even then, the circle around Bush was tightening. Top officials, from cabinet members on down, were often told when they would speak in Bush's presence, for how long and on what topic. The president would listen without betraying any reaction. Sometimes there would be cross-discussions -- Powell and Rumsfeld, for instance, briefly parrying on an issue -- but the president would rarely prod anyone with direct, informed questions. ..
... A few months later, on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and community initiative...
... Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.'''
Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.
''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.''
Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.
''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.''
... George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history's great confidence men. That is not meant in the huckster's sense, though many critics claim that on the war in Iraq, the economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some manner of bait-and-switch. No, I mean it in the sense that he's a believer in the power of confidence. At a time when constituents are uneasy and enemies are probing for weaknesses, he clearly feels that unflinching confidence has an almost mystical power. It can all but create reality....
... George W. Bush and his team have constructed a high-performance electoral engine. The soul of this new machine is the support of millions of likely voters, who judge his worth based on intangibles -- character, certainty, fortitude and godliness -- rather than on what he says or does. The deeper the darkness, the brighter this filament of faith glows, a faith in the president and the just God who affirms him...
.. Every few months, a report surfaces of the president using strikingly Messianic language, only to be dismissed by the White House. Three months ago, for instance, in a private meeting with Amish farmers in Lancaster County, Pa., Bush was reported to have said, ''I trust God speaks through me.'' In this ongoing game of winks and nods, a White House spokesman denied the president had specifically spoken those words, but noted that ''his faith helps him in his service to people.''
... Come to the hustings on Labor Day and meet the base. In 2004, you know a candidate by his base, and the Bush campaign is harnessing the might of churches, with hordes of voters registering through church-sponsored programs. Following the news of Bush on his national tour in the week after the Republican convention, you could sense how a faith-based president campaigns: on a surf of prayer and righteous rage.
... And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
The bond between Bush and his base is a bond of mutual support. He supports them with his actions, doing his level best to stand firm on wedge issues like abortion and same-sex marriage while he identifies evil in the world, at home and abroad. They respond with fierce faith. The power of this transaction is something that people, especially those who are religious, tend to connect to their own lives. If you have faith in someone, that person is filled like a vessel. Your faith is the wind beneath his or her wings. That person may well rise to the occasion and surprise you: I had faith in you, and my faith was rewarded. Or, I know you've been struggling, and I need to pray harder.
... In the end, Bush doesn't have to say he's ordained by God. After a day of speeches by Hardy Billington and others, it goes without saying.
''To me, I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down, to see the darkness and protect this nation,'' Billington told me, voicing an idea shared by millions of Bush supporters. ''Other people will not protect us. God gives people choices to make. God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time.''
But when the moment came in the V.I.P. tent to shake Bush's hand, Billington remembered being reserved. '''I really thank God that you're the president' was all I told him.'' Bush, he recalled, said, ''Thank you.''
''He knew what I meant,'' Billington said. ''I believe he's an instrument of God, but I have to be careful about what I say, you know, in public.''
... "I'm going to be real positive, while I keep my foot on John Kerry's throat,'' George W. Bush said last month at a confidential luncheon a block away from the White House with a hundred or so of his most ardent, longtime supporters, the so-called R.N.C. Regents. This was a high-rolling crowd -- at one time or another, they had all given large contributions to Bush or the Republican National Committee. Bush had known many of them for years, and a number of them had visited him at the ranch. It was a long way from Poplar Bluff.
The Bush these supporters heard was a triumphal Bush, actively beginning to plan his second term. It is a second term, should it come to pass, that will alter American life in many ways, if predictions that Bush voiced at the luncheon come true.
... He said that there will be an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice shortly after his inauguration, and perhaps three more high-court vacancies during his second term...
... Bush said: ''I'm going to push nuclear energy, drilling in Alaska and clean coal. Some nuclear-fusion technologies are interesting.'' He mentions energy from ''processing corn.''
... ''I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in,'' Bush said, ''with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.'' The victories he expects in November, he said, will give us ''two years, at least, until the next midterm. We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck.''
... The president, listing priorities for his second term, placed near the top of his agenda the expansion of federal support for faith-based institutions. The president talked at length about giving the initiative the full measure of his devotion and said that questions about separation of church and state were not an issue.
... Bush grew into one of history's most forceful leaders, his admirers will attest, by replacing hesitation and reasonable doubt with faith and clarity. Many more will surely tap this high-voltage connection of fervent faith and bold action. In politics, the saying goes, anything that works must be repeated until it is replaced by something better. The horizon seems clear of competitors.
Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance -- sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion -- deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God -- a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?
That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.
''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.
''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.''
And what is that?
''Easy certainty.''
A serious discussion of taxing only "sales" (value added taxation)
The New York Times > Business > Your Money > Economic View: What if a Sales Tax Were the Only Tax?
It's ludicrous of course. A federal sales tax (VAT) has a role in overall taxation, but not as a sole item. Altman demolishes the Bush fantasy of a primary sales tax with a few simple questions.
It's ludicrous of course. A federal sales tax (VAT) has a role in overall taxation, but not as a sole item. Altman demolishes the Bush fantasy of a primary sales tax with a few simple questions.
Flu vaccine shortage: a failure of Republican governance
The New York Times > Health > With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making
Governments are responsible for vaccine programs. This is a failure of government. Certainly a failure of the Bush regime, but it's older than that. I suspect it's a failure of congress rather than the executive branch -- which makes it a classic failure of Republican governance.
It resembles the same failure in governance that led to the fragility of our electrical infrastructure.
Republicans don't do infrastructure.
The shortage caught many Americans by surprise, but it followed decades of warnings from health experts who said the nation's system for vaccine supply and distribution was growing increasingly fragile.
Governments are responsible for vaccine programs. This is a failure of government. Certainly a failure of the Bush regime, but it's older than that. I suspect it's a failure of congress rather than the executive branch -- which makes it a classic failure of Republican governance.
It resembles the same failure in governance that led to the fragility of our electrical infrastructure.
Republicans don't do infrastructure.
Republicans can be the most shrill of all ...
The New York Times > Magazine > Without a Doubt
There's a wing of the Republican Party that prides itself on a gimlet eyed rationalism. They're panicking now. They REALLY want Bush to lose.
'Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''
There's a wing of the Republican Party that prides itself on a gimlet eyed rationalism. They're panicking now. They REALLY want Bush to lose.
Among the bad news -- a ray of light
The New York Times > Health > Malaria Vaccine Proves Effective
ONLY 58% reduction in life threatening disease?!! If this holds up with limited toxicity, Bill Gates will win the Nobel Peace Prize while the vaccine developers will win the Nobel in Medicine.
This is huge. Ok, so it's an early study with small numbers. Maybe too soon to light the fireworks. Still, the Carnegie-Mellons salvaged some honor by their good works. Gates intends to exceed past tyrants of capitalism in both capitalistic savagery and post-triumph generosity.
... The vaccine, tested on thousands of children in Mozambique, was hardly perfect: It protected them from catching the disease only about 30 percent of the time and prevented it from becoming life-threatening only about 58 percent of the time.
But because malaria kills more than a million people a year, 700,000 of them children, even partial protection would be a public health victory. The disease, caused by a parasite carried by mosquitoes, is found in 90 countries, and drug-resistant strains are spreading.
Dr. Allan Schapira, strategy coordinator for the Roll Back Malaria campaign at the World Health Organization, said the trial was "good news, and definitely of great interest for malaria control."
The director of the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, which is underwriting tests on 15 experimental vaccines with money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said the GlaxoSmithKline product tried in Mozambique was now its leading candidate and had proved that the concept worked.
ONLY 58% reduction in life threatening disease?!! If this holds up with limited toxicity, Bill Gates will win the Nobel Peace Prize while the vaccine developers will win the Nobel in Medicine.
This is huge. Ok, so it's an early study with small numbers. Maybe too soon to light the fireworks. Still, the Carnegie-Mellons salvaged some honor by their good works. Gates intends to exceed past tyrants of capitalism in both capitalistic savagery and post-triumph generosity.
Slashdot | Data Miners Moving to Offshore Data Havens
Slashdot | Data Miners Moving to Offshore Data Havens
Privacy is so dead -- except for the ultra-rich. The interesting question is how the privacy market will evolve in an essentially libertarian market.
One may expect all kinds of interesting trends. I think all these and more have been covered in science fiction stories of the past 20 years or so.
1. Noise generators: software and techniques that create false data, creating privacy by masking real data in a cloud of flase data. The same techniques used to filter spam may be used to identify the "true data".
2. Privacy scams: a form of noise generation. Since this is an unregulated industry a variety of data vendors will undercut one another on price -- while faking their own data.
3. High quality high cost vendors. Vendors who guarantee truth and accuracy and command a premium price. They might even allow victims to correct their (once) personal data.
4. An entire industry devoted to helping people create fake profiles, obscure their profiles, counter false and/or negative data ...
The current practices of Homeland Security into the low (fraudelent, lowball) range of the privacy vendor spectrum.
PS. The US government has dodged governmental rules for decades, including privacy rules, by moving data projects out of government and into the private sector. This offshore move, mediated by longtime government contractors, is just the next logical step.
Privacy is so dead -- except for the ultra-rich. The interesting question is how the privacy market will evolve in an essentially libertarian market.
One may expect all kinds of interesting trends. I think all these and more have been covered in science fiction stories of the past 20 years or so.
1. Noise generators: software and techniques that create false data, creating privacy by masking real data in a cloud of flase data. The same techniques used to filter spam may be used to identify the "true data".
2. Privacy scams: a form of noise generation. Since this is an unregulated industry a variety of data vendors will undercut one another on price -- while faking their own data.
3. High quality high cost vendors. Vendors who guarantee truth and accuracy and command a premium price. They might even allow victims to correct their (once) personal data.
4. An entire industry devoted to helping people create fake profiles, obscure their profiles, counter false and/or negative data ...
The current practices of Homeland Security into the low (fraudelent, lowball) range of the privacy vendor spectrum.
PS. The US government has dodged governmental rules for decades, including privacy rules, by moving data projects out of government and into the private sector. This offshore move, mediated by longtime government contractors, is just the next logical step.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
How adolescent and adult brains differ. By Amanda Schaffer
Head Case - Roper v. Simmons asks how adolescent and adult brains differ. By Amanda Schaffer
Indeed. And so it begins -- the slow evolution of human thinking moves into a new cycle.
Sometine in the next 100 years the foundational concept of "responsibility" will begin to shift and sag. In the absence of a soul it is a hollow idea. What is a woman then, but the product of chance? Virtuous or neglectful, brilliant or average, spiritual or concreate -- all is but throws of the dice.
In some variations of Christianity it is said that God loves all humankind. This is not widely accepted. Presumably the list of God's beloveds would then include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, bin Laden, Ghengis Khan and a myriad of other "evil" humans. If, one day, we decide they were all tragic victims of misfortune, will we then be ready to talk with God?
Indeed, using brain-imaging techniques, it may be possible to show that many people who commit violent crimes have aberrant prefrontal cortical activity, or other brain features that differ from those of the average adult.
Indeed. And so it begins -- the slow evolution of human thinking moves into a new cycle.
Sometine in the next 100 years the foundational concept of "responsibility" will begin to shift and sag. In the absence of a soul it is a hollow idea. What is a woman then, but the product of chance? Virtuous or neglectful, brilliant or average, spiritual or concreate -- all is but throws of the dice.
In some variations of Christianity it is said that God loves all humankind. This is not widely accepted. Presumably the list of God's beloveds would then include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, bin Laden, Ghengis Khan and a myriad of other "evil" humans. If, one day, we decide they were all tragic victims of misfortune, will we then be ready to talk with God?
Cheney threatens to attack the US
The Onion | Cheney Vows To Attack U.S. If Kerry Elected
Really, but Bush/Cheney standards, not so big a step.
'If the wrong man is elected in November, the nation will come under a devastating armed attack of an unimaginable magnitude, one planned and executed by none other than myself,' Cheney said, speaking at a rally in Greensboro, NC. 'When they go to the polls, Americans must weigh this fact and decide if our nation can ignore such a grave threat.'
Added Cheney: 'It would be a tragedy to suffer another attack on American soil, let alone one perpetrated by an enemy as well-organized and well-equipped as I am. My colleagues and I urge voters to keep their safety in mind when they go to the polls.'
Although Cheney would not comment on the details of his proposed attack on a John Kerry-led U.S., national-security experts said he possesses both the capabilities and the motivation to pose a serious threat.
'There is no question that Cheney has the financial assets and intelligence needed to pose a threat to our nation,' said Peter Bergen, terrorism researcher and author of Threats And Balances: Former Executive Branch Officials And The Danger To America. 'After all, this fanatic can call upon the resources of both the Republican Party and Halliburton to aid him in his assault. America would be foolish not to take his warning seriously.'
Really, but Bush/Cheney standards, not so big a step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)