2/9     just a coincidence with thread below...
        The Genocide That Wasn't: Ward Churchill's Research Fraud
        http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm
        \_ I've also read some funny stuff about how he goes around
           claiming to be a member of various indian tribes, none of
           which, it turns out, have him listed as a member.
           \_ Yeah, like most nutjobs, his screeds have brought him attention
              and scrutiny that wouldn't have happened elsewere, exposing his
              *factual* errors instead of just his nutjob opinions.
              http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf

2/9     Ok you pinkos. Tell me why we should support him? Free speech?
        Ripping on the dead is free speech?! I esp like how he says he
        doesn't work for the taxpayers of CO. Who else pays his salary?
        The "students" ? Future commie pinkos.
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/index.html
        \_ Is David Horowitz a pinko?
           "David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long
           accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with
           leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First
           Amendment rights and set a bad precedent."  Supporting someones
           *right* to make an ass of themselves is not the same as supporting
           them.  David Horowitz can understand that, why can't you?
           \_ Anyone to the left of John Birch is an America hating
              communist.
        \_ *righteous indignation*! *spittle*! ...happy now?
        \_ He's an asshole, but you have to be an asshole to get your point
           across when everyone else is whistling the Star Spangled Banner
           and waving flags and shushing anyone who speaks ill of American
           foreign policy. If he'd published an essay in which he took the
           US to task for its corporate-profit-driven foreign policy and its
           hypocritical refusal to forgive the massive debts owed it by the
           very countries it bankrupted, you would never have heard his name.
           \_ You probably agree with this commie liberal lawyer-scum
              http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.ap/index.html
              "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of
               capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism
               and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."
        \_ Well, since the Holocaust didn't happen, comparing them to Eichmann
           isn't so bad.  -tom
           \_ So is this someone trying to make tom look bad (like that's
              necessary) or tom making a point I don't follow?
              \_ I'm pointing out that there are wingnuts on both sides.  -tom
                 \_ Both sides?  Holocaust deniers are conservative?  And
                    do Holocaust deniers have tenure? -- ilyas
           \_ Are you trying to say Holocaust denial is a conservative
              opinion?  Apparently, you're an idiot on a scale I never
              before imagined.
        \_ Wow, this guy got way more protection in his speech than
           conservative speakers at Berkeley every do.
           conservative speakers at Berkeley ever do.
           \_ churchill never spoke at berkley, what you talk about
                   \_ Never said he did.  In the linked article it talks
                      about his talk at some other college.
                \_ do you mean security wise?  maybe berkeley students
                   aren't stupid enough to attack conservative speakers?
                   \_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood
                      on the sidewalk from both sides.  My communist roommate
                      said the other side started it, but he showed up with
                      a roll of quarters, and both sides were expecting a
                      fight.  That was about 10 years ago, I think.
               \_ Never said he did.  In the linked article it talks about his
                  talk at some other college.
           \_ do you mean security wise?  maybe berkeley students aren't stupid
              enough to attack conservative speakers?
              \_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood on the
                 sidewalk from both sides.  My communist roommate said the
                 other side started it, but he showed up with a roll of
                 quarters, and both sides were expecting a fight.  That was
                 about 10 years ago, I think.
                 \_ "He started it after I hit him!"
                   \_ david duke spoke at berkeley?   i don't remember
                      that.  anyway he should get his head smashed in.
              \_ david duke spoke at berkeley?   i don't remember that.  anyway
                 he should get his head smashed in.
              \_ heh, right.
           \_ Gee, I haven't seen Berkeley try to fire a tenured professor for
              being conservative.  -tom
              \_ That's because they simply don't give them tenure.
                 \_ BS. My Chem 1 prof spent three lectures telling us
                    how great nuclear power was. There are lots of
                    conservative profs at Berkeley, but most of them
                    are in the sciences. -MCB grad
                    \_ Uh, liking nuclear power = conservative?  Maybe you
                       should let peterm know. -- ilyas
                       \_ Yes, in America being pro-nuclear power is considered
                          a conservative position. Just as being anti-abortion,
                          anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, etc. I don't
                          decide these things, by the way, but I do know
                          enough about American politics to be able to
                          report them accurately. Very few people are 100%
                          in line with the stereotypical view of their
                          politics.
                          \_ So you concluded from the one position he did take
                             he was a conservative?  Good job you. -- ilyas
                             he was a conservative?  Good job you.  Almost
                             every single liberal friend of mine here on soda
                             would prefer nuclear power over oil dependence.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ He did not get fired for being a conservative,
                                even though he used his position of authority
                                to lecture to 4000 students off topic on a
                                conservative topic. And yes, he was
                                conservative in other ways as well.
                 \_ This guy:
                    http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/Faculty/bio/emeriti/Muir,W
                    is an irritating conservative.

2/9     Jimmy Smith, king of the B-3 organ, RIP.
        \_ There is another!  Look up Mambo Kurt.  This guy rocks the house!
           Sort of.  If you've never seen a nerdy guy in polyester really get
           down on a Hammond organ, you haven't tasted life!  -John
           \_ Jack MacDuff is another one.  -tom
        \_ Just kicked on "Root Down" in iTunes in memorium.
                                                   \_ memoriam -motd latin nazi
                                           Why, you little eichmann, you! _/

2/9     This must be Clinton's fault...
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340241/posts

2/10    You censored the link to freepers drooling about nuclear war?  Shame
        on you, boring one.
        \_ It was one of those free speech hating liberals, I know it was.
        \_ talk to jwang, he censored 80% of them

2/10    http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
        Heil Bush.  Article by conservative writer about the birth of
        fascism in Germany and present-day US.
        \_ Does it use the word 'neocon'?  (okay, I checked--what a surprise it
           does.)
           \_ I know you guys are upset because we came up with a word
              that pisses you off as much as us being called liberals pisses
              us off.  Payback's a b****.
              \_ I don't get pissed off by "liberal".  I'm liberal and proud.
                 --scotsman
              \_ Except conservatives didn't come up with 'liberal'.  The whole
                 'neocon' usage has been a too-thinly-veiled attempt to
                 associate conservatives with neo-nazis IMO.  That fact that no
                 one can define 'neocon' doesn't help.
                 \_ Wrong:
                    http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
                    Here is another (similar) definition:
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States
                    What is the definition of a liberal?
                    \_ Hehe.  There is no way me and Cheney can belong to the
                       same ideological group.  We disagree on almost
                       everything.  -- ilyas
                       \_ I don't believe you and I'm not trolling. If this is
                          so, I would like to see it elucidated. Near as I can
                          tell from reading your stuff here for the past
                          couple of years, you've been a consistent apologist
                          for Cheney and his ilk the entire time. That might
                          not, I suppose, mean you *agree* with him. That's
                          fine. On a great number of things I didn't agree with
                          Kerry or Dean. -- ulysses
                          \_ Oh, I just go by the issue quiz I took during the
                             2000 election, where I agreed with him the least,
                             and with Lieberman the most (omg j00!).  I don't
                             think I am an 'apologist' for the Bush
                             administration policies -- I don't like a number
                             of things they did; the war in Iraq is not one
                             of them.  (I also liked how you framing me as an
                             'apologist' also neatly frames their entire
                             tenure as something that needs an apology).
                             Bush admin != Cheney.  Near as I can
                             tell the only remotely controversial thing about
                             Cheney was the Halliburton thing, which I have
                             no problems with for reasons unrelated to my
                             disagreements with Cheney himself.  One thing
                             I really like about Cheney is that he's really
                             smart. -- ilyas
                       \_ I suspect you and Cheney can both agree that Tom is
                          a twink.
                          \_ Touche. -- ilyas
                       \_ There is one obvious solution: you are not a neocon.
                          \_ A fair number of people on soda will disagree
                             with you.  Which is sort of my point.  It's a
                             non-concept. -- ilyas
                             \_ How about "signatories to PNAC"?
                    \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
              \_ What pisses me off is the neo-liberals hijacking the
                 "liberal" name.
        \_ Thanks for the article.  I realize that Nazis are often used to
           criticize political opponents who are nothing of the sort, but I
           this is a valid comparison.  I used to wonder how the Nazi party
           could come to power in a democracy, but after living through the
           first Bush administration I can now imagine it.  When the leaders
           of a country are so convinced that they are right that they will
           repeatedly deceive everyone else about their policies, disaster
           can't be far behind.  Unfortunately, I think that our country is
           so polarized that people can no longer have a rational discussion
           about this.
           \_ You are actually comparing Bush's first term to Nazi Germany?
              WTF?  How tight is your tin-foil hat?
              \_ Did you read the article?  It compares the rise of fascist
                 tendencies in Germany pre-WW2 to a similar rise in post-9/11
                 America.  There is no direct comparison between Bush's first
                 term to Nazi Germany, but rather a comparison between the
                 term and the factors existing in Germany that _preceeded_
                 fascism. -op
                 \_ I think you are just needlessly confusing things by
                    your repeated referencing of Nazi Germany. There were
                    many many countries that have been fascist that were
                    not racialist, the way the Nazis were. Franco or
                    Mussolini are better examples to use because they
                    less emotion laden.
                    \_ point taken. edited accordingly. -op
                    \_ Dude, you said racialist.
                 \_ No, I have not read the article and have no intention of
                    doing so.  I'm worn out from so many stupid attempts to
                    call Bush Hitler.  It was done in that UCB study last year,
                    and it's been done elsewhere.  Here's an idea.  Read the
                    essay again and try to match anyplace else to Nazi Germany.
                    I'm confident you'll be able to compare Clinton or anyone
                    else as well as Bush.
                    \_ The article doesn't call Bush Hitler.  In fact, it
                       doesn't even call Bush fascist:  "I don't think there
                       are yet real fascists in the administration ..."  As
                       mentioned in prior posts, the article is about the
                       populace more than the leadership. -op
                    \_ The magazine it is written is The American Conservative,
                       not some lefty rag. For that reason at least, you
                       should be willing to read it.
                       \_ Meh.  I've never read the mag before, why should I
                          read it now?  This paragraph grabbed my attention and
                          made me realize it's full of crap:
                "But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing
                attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least
                latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website
                that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as
                .hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass
                bloodshed for more than a year now.. One of the biggest
                right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass
                destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine
                from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would
                welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it.s not just
                us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column
                suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather
                than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo
                Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood,
                Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold
                War. .It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a
                maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state
                bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God
                marching on earth.not just godlike, but really serving as a
                proxy for God himself.."
                \_ You're missing quotation marks.  The last two sentences are
                   a quote from Rockwell, and not the author of the article.
                   The rest of the paragraph describes facts, except for the
                   one statement that the mood described in these facts is
                   "latently fascist."  So why was it full-of-crap?  Because
                   you don't agree that those facts are latently fascist, or
                   because he quoted another author's wording to illustrate
                   the other author's point?
                   \_ The Free Republic is not hate filled!
                        \_ And it isn't free either ... Any post that doesn't
                           toe the party line is instantly nuked.
                           \_ And this is different from motd and DUmmies (aka
                              "democratic"underground) how?
                \_ Rockwell and Raimondo were former, and maybe current,
                   Free Republic posters.  Raimondo has been driven from/left the
                   site too many times to count.

2/10    Is anyone else having a problem where the NYTimes is  constantly
        asking you to login again?
        \_ Nevermind, Mozilla was rejecting cookies over 365 days. -op

2/10    Lokitorrent is dead.  Long live lokitorrent!
        \_ Do you have more info about the outcome of the lawsuit?  Did the
           court force them to put up the index.html page they now have at
           http://www.lokitorrent.com ?
           \_ I wonder when they'll go after bittorrent downloaders instead of
              sites.
           \_ http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=661

2/10    OMFG.  http://csua.org/u/b0k  (work safe, but not psyche safe)
        \_ He's just doing his part for natural selection!
           \_ Only if he hasn't reproduced yet.
        \_ http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005062479,00.html
        \_ Eunuchs suffered this in the past.

2/10    "No one could have imagined" a plot so monstrous as
        crashing civilian passenger jets into the twin towers of the
        World Trade Center and the Pentagon. -Rice in front of 9/11 Commission
        http://csua.org/u/b0q (AOL news)
        FAA got 52 Warnings before 9/11.
        \_ Did anyone here see the Lone Gunmen pilot episode?  Apparently
           Rice didn't.
        \_ That's nice troll. Why don't you read Robert Serling?
        \_ Uhm, you realize that the government gets literally thousands
           of terrorists threats each day, don't you? If the government were
           to follow up on every threat made we would simply be paralyzed.
           You also realize that the world contains 6 billion people, and
           it's virtually impossible to monitor everyone, right? I'm sure
           the WTC got at least two threats a day before 9/11. What are
           going to do, shut down New York?
           \_ Condi's specific claim is "no one could have imagined" it.
              Obviously, that's not true.  -tom
           \_ Got evidence for this claim? The first and third ones.
           \_ Agreed.  Maybe that was the terrorists' strategy before 9/11 --
              spreading lots of rumors on non-existing attack plans to numb the
              intelligence community.
           \_ Maybe. But the FAA itself knew about the possibility.
              http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=609895
              All that aside, let's see you defend the suppression of info.
              \_ Suppression of info? What a wonderful world of fantasy
                 you live in. On the one hand you chide the president and
                 his men for keeping America in constant fear of terrorism
                 using the alert level system, then you go back in history
                 and complain that before 9/11 we weren't scaring the
                 American public into preventing 9/11. Sorry, but you can't
                 have it both ways. Stop flip-flopping like a Kerryite.
                 Do you want to live in a safe society or do you want to
                 live in a free society? There's no such thing as a
                 completely free society that is completely safe, so pick
                 and choose, chimpy.
                 \_ Uh, no, I was talking about them suppressing info NOW,
                    about what was going on THEN. get it? And pointing out that
                    Rice's statement is patent bullshit.
        \_ You know, if Clancy can think of it to put into one of his pulp
           novels, it's that much of a stretch of the imagination.
           novels, it's not that much of a stretch of the imagination.
        \_ From the independent.co.uk link above: "The latest pages note that
           of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between 1 April 2001
           and 10 September 2001, 52 of them mentioned Osama bin Laden,
           al-Qa'ida, or both." -- so much for the "thousands and thousands"
           threats BS -- they obviously were pretty sure about this attack.
           \_ The FAA is one organization amongst many. If you collectively
              take up all the organizations such as the FBI, CIA, the
              Secret Service, the Armed Forces, NASA, the American Postal
              System, Amtrak, etc. etc. you'd realize that the government
              does get literally thousands upon thousands of threats per
              day. And before 9/11 nobody even knew or cared much about
              Osama Bin Laden. Hindsight is always 20/20. If you want to
              blame someone you should go and blame Clinton for not picking
              up Osama from Sudan when he was offered to us on a silver
              platter by the Sudanese government.
              Yesterday it was Khaddaffi, today it's Osama, tomorrow it
              could be you. Anyway, terrorists aren't only middle eastern,
              remember an incident in Oklahoma City? So let's try to take
              your head out of your ass and utilize that brain of yours and
              actually think this through before making overarching comments
              based on a small dataset.
              \_ You seem to think volume excuses failure.  Keeping us safe
                 is their JOB.
                 \_ You seem to assume that law enforcement is 100% effective.
                    Unfortunately, the real world is much less perfect than
                    what you assume. If you had ever taken a course on crime
                    you'd realize that perhaps 10% of all crimes are reported,
                    and of that 10% perhaps 25-50% actually are followed up on.
                    \_ Of course not.  There were increased threat reports.
                       There were signs everywhere.  There were warnings
                       from the previous administrations' people.  Bush's
                       White House did NOTHING to act on any of it.  On the
                       day, the Hijack Coordinator at the FAA said he didn't
                       know if he had the authority to order an intercept of
                       a plane, off course and flying low.  DIDN'T KNOW.
                       Intercepts are ordered all the time.  Any time a plane
                       does something it's not supposed to.  And the guy
                       DIDN'T KNOW. that doesn't fucking bother you?
               \_ Blame Reagan for arming him, training him and giving
                  him an international stage.
              \_ That Osama from Sudan story is total BS -- what would we
                 have charged bin Laden with, exactly, in 1996?  Remember,
                 before 9/11, we actually respected international law and
                 such, and didn't just throw people we thought might be
                 dangerous in Gitmo.  The Clinton Administration tried to get
                 Saudi Arabia to take bin Laden and convict him but the Saudis
                 wouldn't take him, fearing a extremist backlash.  So, since
                 you say "20/20 hindsight and all", what EXACTLY should Clinton
                 have done, remembering that back then we actually paid more
                 than lip service to the Constitution and international law?
                 There are thousands of threats made every day, and it is the
                 job of the government
                 to deal with that.  They stop many attacks, they miss some,
                 but it is their job to identify the really really big ones
                 and prevent those.  And they failed on 9/11.  Now, if there
                 was zero intelligence or warning they can be excused but
                 it is becoming clear they had a pretty good idea and didn't
                 do enough.  It is also the airlines' fault for always
                 resisting tougher security measures.  We created Osama
                 bin laden, and when Clinton handed over the keys to Bush
                 HE SPECIFICALLY WARNED BUSH THAT TERRORISM AND BIN LADEN
                 AND AL QUEDA WERE THE BIGGEST THREATS to this country.  So
                 none of this "before 9/11 no one knew/cared about bin laden"
                 There is also the possibility that 9/11 could have happened
                 with or without bin Laden being alive/free.  What's
                 interesting is that you excuse the Bush admin from not
                 stopping the attack saying no one is 100% perfect yet somehow
                 Clinton does get blame -- he has to be 100% perfect?
                 \_ Clinton gets the blame because all of the planning
                    happened under his watch and he did very little. The
                    Cole was bombed, the WTC was bombed, and Clinton
                    thought a missile strike was enough. Clinton was wrong.
                    He doesn't need to be crucified for his mistake, but it
                    was a mistake nonetheless. We don't really know how
                    seriously Bush would have taken these threats if 9/11
                    did not happen, since he had barely been in office. We
                    do know what Clinton did or did not do, though.
                    \_ WTC bombing under clinton was, what, 3 weeks into his
                       presidency?  Have you heard of Project Bojinka?  Year
                       2000 bombing plots?  Bush was in office for 9 months.
                       His people didn't listen to ANYTHING the clinton people
                       said.  We paid the price.
                       \_ How did Clinton respond to the WTC bombing and
                          what did he do to prevent another? You can't
                          blame Bush for 8 years of Clinton ineffectiveness.
                          \_ He arrested and prosecuted those involved you
                             dumb fuck!  He made anti-terrorism a focus of
                             the administration.  They stopped Project Bojinka.
                             They stopped the New Years bombing plot.  How many
                             convictions did Ashcroft deliver?  How many will
                             Gonzales?  You really have no fucking clue.
                             \_ I do not think you can credit Clinton for
                                stopping the Millenium plot. The truth is
                                that Clinton didn't really do anything to
                                enhance US security at home or abroad in
                                spite of frequent attacks against the US.
                                \_ Who would _you_ credit?  Ressam and 3
                                   accomplices were stopped, arrested,
                                   convicted, and Ressam was flipped.  Under
                                   who's watch?
                                   \_ What policy or action of Clinton's
                                      led to the arrest? It was just a
                                      suspicious official looking for drugs
                                      that happened upon the plot.
                                      \_ Border guards had been alerted to
                                         look for suspicious activity.  There
                                         was definitely a degree of luck, but
                                         you can encourage luck by paying
                                         attention.  Jordan warned us.  Clinton
                                         and Co. took notice.
                    \_ Yeah, Bush was only in office for about a year of
                       calendar time, but with all the vacations he was
                       taking, who can say how much work of any kind he did.
                       \_ Not even a year, but Bill was in office for eight.
                          Just comparing Bush's terms to Clinton's so far
                          it is clear tha Bush is better at this, BUT he
                          also has Clinton's failures to point to.
                          \_ Better at what?  Also,, list Clinton's "failures"
                             in this arena.
                             \_ Embassy bombings, USS Cole, Saudi bombings, etc
           \_ Here's another analogy that perhaps will help those who don't
              understand how difficult it is to keep something like airlines
              secure. Even if you did only get one threat everday for a week
              day and you knew say that there was a 70% chance it was real,
              you'd have an exceedingly difficult time pinpointing where
              and actually when it would occur. Let's assume you knew it was
              the WTC even, how many flights are there daily that could have
              been potential targets for the terrorists? Maybe a hundred?
              So what are going to do, stop all flights every day because
              you had a 70% chance of certainty? Void air travel altogether?
              The FAA had 52 threats in a given time period, and they had
              absolutely no probability measure to determine if the threat
              was going to be real. What are you going to do, shut down
              all air travel until all threats disappear?
              Okay, say that you want to mandate safer cockpits or put
              sky marshalls up there for every flight. That's going to take
              a long time to get through congress and longer for the airlines
              to implement without actually having gone through a threat.
              The ultimate question is, how likely is there a risk of a
              terrorist attack and how many people is it going to kill
              and how much pain are people willing to suffer to prevent
              such an attack? It's like the question on how to keep a
              computer completely secure from hackers. There is a real
              easy method, unplug it from the network. Are you willing
              to do that?
              \_ I was critiquing Rice's obviously BS excuse that she
                 gave the 9/11 Commission, not the failure itself.
           \_ Why do you think Ashcroft started using a private jet to get
              around the country instead of using an airline?
              \_ Because the air traffic control frequencies used by commercial
                 airlines interfere with his 2 way radio to God?

2/10    For the guy who wanted 2 finger scrolling on an iBook:
        http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~razzfazz
        (I don't know why you want this, but here your are)
        \_ Heya, Thanks!  I thought the 2-finger feature was in the
           hardware, so now I have more questions... but thanks.