So left wing groups aren't going to bitch, Corporations are going to bitch. That's different. Unless big shipping industries are suddenly all huge liberal bastions.
No corporations are going to pay left wing groups to bitch.
Cargo shipping over airplanes is a fraction of that from shipping and some items can't even be shipped over airplanes, such as some electronics and batteries, because it lowers the life span of these items.
The only reasons corporations are opposed to more checks on shipping are monetary related. And isn't it one of the governments jobs to correct markets for goods that aren't easily monetized - like public safety and national security? Also, it would decrease smuggling of other, not weapon things. Like counterfit goods and/or drugs.
Cauld on
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
So McCain may have finally distanced himself from Hagee, but you know who hasn't?
That's right, it's everybody's favorite Senator, Joe Lieberman!
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
So left wing groups aren't going to bitch, Corporations are going to bitch. That's different. Unless big shipping industries are suddenly all huge liberal bastions.
No corporations are going to pay left wing groups to bitch.
First off, you can get electronics via air freight. People do it CONSTANTLY. Ocean shipping is used for things that are being constantly shipped due to it's slow speed but low cost. Also, you can ship much larger volumes/higher weights. But seriously, you want a laptop tomorrow? Next day air. You want 180,000 processors from china? Boat.
Second: so corporations are going to pay left wing groups to lobby on behalf of corporations instead of using their own lobby groups that have a hell of a lot more pull than busting out the ACLU. In other words, they're going to spend a ton of money on a third party for no actual benefit. That fails the laugh test. The left isn't going to bitch about privacy on security sweeps on international shipping. Corporate will. The left gives a shit about the government spying on people without cause or oversight, they're not just anti-security.
Wiretapping? Fine! We have this neat secret court system that makes sure it's not abused, and you can even get permission after the fact in emergencies! Wiretapping without even after the fact approval by a third party saying you had reason to do it? That's not cool, and where you get people pissed off. Searching my freight incoming to the country as part of searching it all? Fine. Permission to unaccountably walk up to my mailbox and open my mail? Not fine. See the distinction I'm trying to make? The left cares about accountability and fairness, they're not just out to fuck over the country.
What privacy issue is there with scanning commercial cargo containers?
They might look at the address labels and find out that I'm... umm... some hypothetical person is importing truckloads of freaky korean porn.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Today's 538 momentum index does not look overly friendly:
They also have a comment on the Obama/Clinton endgame:
Ambinder:
To prepare for that eventuality, the Obama campaign has, for the first time, really, begun to bank delegates. Sources close to the campaign estimate that as many as three dozen Democratic superdelegates have privately pledged to announce their support for Obama on June 4 or 5. The campaign is determined that Obama not end the first week in June without securing the support of delegates numbering 2026 -- or 2210, as the case may be.
We had noted last week that Obama wasn't all that many superdelegates away from a scenario where he could clinch on the night of the South Dakota and Montana primaries on June 3rd. Although the mathematics depend greatly on what happens with Michigan and Florida on Saturday, under the most likely scenario -- that Florida and Michigan's delegations are cut in half, and that Obama gets all of Michigan's uncommitted delegates -- he will in fact be about three dozen superdelegates away following next week's primaries, exactly the number that Ambinder cites. (I presently show Obama's magic number under this scenario at 31, accounting for his projected totals in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana).
So why hold back on unfurling these endorsements until after South Dakota and Montana? Wouldn't it look better to have the voters put you over the top?
Maybe -- if your opponent weren't someone as popular (and uncompromising) as Hillary Clinton. If these endorsements came in before all states had voted, Obama would risk looking as though he'd shoved Clinton aside. But that's not really a problem after Montana and South Dakota are finished voting.
Moreover, holding back gives Clinton perhaps a 48-hour window to withdraw from the race on her own terms -- particularly if she knows that the flood is coming. In this respect, I'd expect Obama's avalanche of endorsers to become one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, and to see more "leaks" to well-placed sources like Ambinder.
So basically, as the speculation goes, Obama will let this play out, and then make the gesture to Hillary that she has 48 hours to jump or get pushed.
This is basically the best case.
I'm increasingly getting the sinking feeling that Clinton is going to "go to the convention" anyway, regardless of whether or not all the supers desert her.
if any of you know folks in the DC area or anyone planning to protest this thing, let em know that we ain't goin out like dat and that the Obama campaign need not protest the DNC. as things stand, it looks like Clinton's campaign is fully ready to annoy the DNC heads instead; no reason to impede that!
also, there's apparently a voter registration drive for Obama going on in VA. that's a much more worthwhile cause.
Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?
A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.
So left wing groups aren't going to bitch, Corporations are going to bitch. That's different. Unless big shipping industries are suddenly all huge liberal bastions.
No corporations are going to pay left wing groups to bitch.
First off, you can get electronics via air freight. People do it CONSTANTLY. Ocean shipping is used for things that are being constantly shipped due to it's slow speed but low cost. Also, you can ship much larger volumes/higher weights. But seriously, you want a laptop tomorrow? Next day air. You want 180,000 processors from china? Boat.
Second: so corporations are going to pay left wing groups to lobby on behalf of corporations instead of using their own lobby groups that have a hell of a lot more pull than busting out the ACLU. In other words, they're going to spend a ton of money on a third party for no actual benefit. That fails the laugh test. The left isn't going to bitch about privacy on security sweeps on international shipping. Corporate will. The left gives a shit about the government spying on people without cause or oversight, they're not just anti-security.
Wiretapping? Fine! We have this neat secret court system that makes sure it's not abused, and you can even get permission after the fact in emergencies! Wiretapping without even after the fact approval by a third party saying you had reason to do it? That's not cool, and where you get people pissed off. Searching my freight incoming to the country as part of searching it all? Fine. Permission to unaccountably walk up to my mailbox and open my mail? Not fine. See the distinction I'm trying to make? The left cares about accountability and fairness, they're not just out to fuck over the country.
I didn't say you couldn't get electronics from air travel. I said it lowers the life of them so when shipping large amounts its not normally done.
Second lobbyists pay and lobby other groups all the time for additional pressure. That said, the lobbyists will lobby the left wing politicians, so they start complaining in congress.
Third, it always starts in the middle and moves further, either left or right, and more absurd as it does. You have no clue how politics actually works.
So apparently Obama screwed up on the location on the Auschwitz thing. His great-uncle was in the division that liberated Ohrduf camp in Buchenwald.
Cue right-wing blogs saying this is exactly the same as Snipergate in 3... 2... 1...
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?
A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.
Except that all exit polls show that the people to whom gender was an issue overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, and all the people to whom race was an issue...overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. I mean, yeah there's the Bradley effect of lying to pollsters so you don't seem racist/sexist, but come on.
moniker on
0
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?
A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.
Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?
A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.
Clinton doesn't seem to realize the flip-side of her sexism argument. If sexism is more socially acceptable to the point where it's going to be more openly exercised in public and in the media, than it's also going to be more accuratedly reported in the polls. Racism, by virtue of being more evidently evil and thus more taboo, is going to be much more under-reported, such that citing polls as evidence that sexism is more prevalent than racism doesn't work so well.
Somehow I doubt she and her supporters would care for this argument, though.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I didn't say you couldn't get electronics from air travel. I said it lowers the life of them so when shipping large amounts its not normally done.
Second lobbyists pay and lobby other groups all the time for additional pressure. That said, the lobbyists will lobby the left wing politicians, so they start complaining in congress.
No, they'd put more pressure on Republicans on this issue being anti-business and 'not really securing our ports just putting more needless regulation on industry' or some bullshit. Which is exactly what happened when this was originally proposed.
Third, it always starts in the middle and moves further, either left or right, and more absurd as it does. You have no clue how politics actually works.
Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?
A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.
Clinton doesn't seem to realize the flip-side of her sexism argument. If sexism is more socially acceptable to the point where it's going to be more openly exercised in public and in the media, than it's also going to be more accuratedly reported in the polls. Racism, by virtue of being more evidently evil and thus more taboo, is going to be much more under-reported, such that citing polls as evidence that sexism is more prevalent than racism doesn't work so well.
Somehow I doubt she and her supporters would care for this argument, though.
It's honestly starting to sound a bit like GWB's "Why do you hate Freedom?" defense
I didn't say you couldn't get electronics from air travel. I said it lowers the life of them so when shipping large amounts its not normally done.
Second lobbyists pay and lobby other groups all the time for additional pressure. That said, the lobbyists will lobby the left wing politicians, so they start complaining in congress.
No, they'd put more pressure on Republicans on this issue being anti-business and 'not really securing our ports just putting more needless regulation on industry' or some bullshit. Which is exactly what happened when this was originally proposed.
Third, it always starts in the middle and moves further, either left or right, and more absurd as it does. You have no clue how politics actually works.
I didn't say you couldn't get electronics from air travel. I said it lowers the life of them so when shipping large amounts its not normally done.
Second lobbyists pay and lobby other groups all the time for additional pressure. That said, the lobbyists will lobby the left wing politicians, so they start complaining in congress.
No, they'd put more pressure on Republicans on this issue being anti-business and 'not really securing our ports just putting more needless regulation on industry' or some bullshit. Which is exactly what happened when this was originally proposed.
Third, it always starts in the middle and moves further, either left or right, and more absurd as it does. You have no clue how politics actually works.
Pot, meet kettle.
You don't think companies would pay both sides?
Where did I say that? And what does that have to do with my point?
moniker on
0
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
You seem to have no idea how politics, freight shipping, or left wing privacy concerns work. I'm kind of shocked, honestly.
Politics: Yes, there's an absurd left and an absurd right (though strangely, they both seem to want the same thing: no government interference in their lives), there's also a center. Now, then you add in little things like do you prefer more or less government (which isn't a left/right thing honestly). So you can be left leaning and want a lot of government making sure everything is covered for social programs out the wazoo, you can be left leaning and want less government and think everything should be woo hippy compound. It's a very large range. I can tell you this however: Corporations lobby republicans and centrist democrats more often than going for the fringe lefties. Cargo importing and scanning? They're going to go right for the pro-corporate interests folks, because they already have the influence networks needed for it. They're not going to buy out the fucking ACLU (quite probably for the same reason the ACLU and whatnot don't bitchslap the air freight scanning, it has very little to do with civil liberties to scan a box when it's coming into the country, it's just common fucking sense.)
For shipping, you bulk ship electronics via boat for cost effectiveness purposes. I cannot find a single study showing that it kills the lifespan of the electronics to ship them via air. Hell, aside from the idea that somehow the slight pressurization would damage the equipment (not very likely), nothing else happens up there. Now, precision electronics are something completely different, and need to be packaged properly to account for bouncing around. But that's very little to do with air travel. If I need 5 industrial crates of shit in the next month, I'll boat them or use a truck. That's due to bulk, not equipment. Feel free to link the study showing that flying anywhere with your goddamned laptop damages it however. The only thing I can find on batteries on aircraft is pilots wanting bulk Lithium-Ion shipments banned due to the chance of them catching fire and there being nothing you can do about it while airborne. Being airborne has nothing to do with them being a fire hazard, however.
This all said, I'm still trying to figure out how we're all going to die from terrorists with ICBMs while the vast left wing conspiracy lets them smuggle shit in via boat.
I'd say the most cynical likely explanation is that Obama deliberately changed Buchenwald to Auschwitz because he knew that most people wouldn't know what the hell Buchenwald was, even though it was pretty much the same sort of place. Auschwitz has a much more visceral rhetorical effect and would thus drive the point home better. It would, under this theory, be a cynical manipulation to create in ignorant people the same response they would have if they were sufficiently educated.
If true, it still wouldn't be in the same league as pretending that you were running from snipers when you were actually listening to adolescent poetry. I suppose it's possible that Obama made the whole thing up, but even assuming he was duplicitous enough to pull something like that (which I doubt), I don't think he'd be stupid enough to make up something so easily refuted. Hillary, sure, but Obama has thus far been far more savvy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
No matter the intent, the obvious difference would be that both can be easily refuted, but his campaign issued a correction instead of going offense on anyone who tried to correct him.
edit: to mean that Snipers At The Gate would have been a non story if she has just said "Oops, my bad"
I'd say the most cynical likely explanation is that Obama deliberately changed Buchenwald to Auschwitz because he knew that most people wouldn't know what the hell Buchenwald was, even though it was pretty much the same sort of place. Auschwitz has a much more visceral rhetorical effect and would thus drive the point home better. It would, under this theory, be a cynical manipulation to create in ignorant people the same response they would have if they were sufficiently educated.
If true, it still would be in the same league as pretending that you were running from snipers when you were actually listening to adolescent poetry. I suppose it's possible that Obama made the whole thing up, but even assuming he was duplicitous enough to pull something like that (which I doubt), I don't think he'd be stupid enough to make up something so easily refuted. Hillary, sure, but Obama has thus far been far more savvy.
Still wouldn't be in the same league, you mean?
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
I'd say the most cynical likely explanation is that Obama deliberately changed Buchenwald to Auschwitz because he knew that most people wouldn't know what the hell Buchenwald was, even though it was pretty much the same sort of place. Auschwitz has a much more visceral rhetorical effect and would thus drive the point home better. It would, under this theory, be a cynical manipulation to create in ignorant people the same response they would have if they were sufficiently educated.
If true, it still would be in the same league as pretending that you were running from snipers when you were actually listening to adolescent poetry. I suppose it's possible that Obama made the whole thing up, but even assuming he was duplicitous enough to pull something like that (which I doubt), I don't think he'd be stupid enough to make up something so easily refuted. Hillary, sure, but Obama has thus far been far more savvy.
Either way we won't really know what to believe until Sinbad weighs in on the topic.
No matter the intent, the obvious difference would be that both can be easily refuted, but his campaign issued a correction instead of going offense on anyone who tried to correct him.
edit: to mean that Snipers At The Gate would have been a non story if she has just said "Oops, my bad"
The most likely explanation overall (ie, not trying to be uncharitable) would be that the "legend" involved the uncle being in Auschwitz, because the story evolved, and Obama never really questioned it. I heard all sorts of stories from my grandfather about the war, and about my relatives about other relatives, and I'm sure a lot of them were exaggerated or made up. Because that's what human beings do with their stories - they embellish. I don't doubt that the core of the story is true - that his ancestor saw some fucked-up shit in the war and came home somewhat broken.
The point of the story is not invalidated by the actual facts. Whereas the point of Hillary's story was evidently supposed to be "I am an action hero, lookit me, all dodgin' bullets and shit, and then there's that one time I got knocked half a mile through the air in a lead-lined fridge by a nuclear blast, boo-fuckin-ya."
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If true, it still would be in the same league as pretending that you were running from snipers when you were actually listening to adolescent poetry.
Somehow I don't think changing the names of things that actually happened is in the same league as completely making shit up.
Shit, that was a typo. Should read "wouldn't".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The most likely explanation overall (ie, not trying to be uncharitable) would be that the "legend" involved the uncle being in Auschwitz, because the story evolved, and Obama never really questioned it. I heard all sorts of stories from my grandfather about the war, and about my relatives about other relatives, and I'm sure a lot of them were exaggerated or made up. Because that's what human beings do with their stories - they embellish.
I'm sure Obama's wishing he checked it out before mentioning it though. Bit of a silly thing to do.
No matter the intent, the obvious difference would be that both can be easily refuted, but his campaign issued a correction instead of going offense on anyone who tried to correct him.
edit: to mean that Snipers At The Gate would have been a non story if she has just said "Oops, my bad"
The most likely explanation overall (ie, not trying to be uncharitable) would be that the "legend" involved the uncle being in Auschwitz, because the story evolved, and Obama never really questioned it. I heard all sorts of stories from my grandfather about the war, and about my relatives about other relatives, and I'm sure a lot of them were exaggerated or made up. Because that's what human beings do with their stories - they embellish. I don't doubt that the core of the story is true - that his ancestor saw some fucked-up shit in the war and came home somewhat broken.
The point of the story is not invalidated by the actual facts. Whereas the point of Hillary's story was evidently supposed to be "I am an action hero, lookit me, all dodgin' bullets and shit, and then there's that one time I got knocked half a mile through the air in a lead-lined fridge by a nuclear blast, boo-fuckin-ya."
Posts
No corporations are going to pay left wing groups to bitch.
The only reasons corporations are opposed to more checks on shipping are monetary related. And isn't it one of the governments jobs to correct markets for goods that aren't easily monetized - like public safety and national security? Also, it would decrease smuggling of other, not weapon things. Like counterfit goods and/or drugs.
That's right, it's everybody's favorite Senator, Joe Lieberman!
First off, you can get electronics via air freight. People do it CONSTANTLY. Ocean shipping is used for things that are being constantly shipped due to it's slow speed but low cost. Also, you can ship much larger volumes/higher weights. But seriously, you want a laptop tomorrow? Next day air. You want 180,000 processors from china? Boat.
Second: so corporations are going to pay left wing groups to lobby on behalf of corporations instead of using their own lobby groups that have a hell of a lot more pull than busting out the ACLU. In other words, they're going to spend a ton of money on a third party for no actual benefit. That fails the laugh test. The left isn't going to bitch about privacy on security sweeps on international shipping. Corporate will. The left gives a shit about the government spying on people without cause or oversight, they're not just anti-security.
Wiretapping? Fine! We have this neat secret court system that makes sure it's not abused, and you can even get permission after the fact in emergencies! Wiretapping without even after the fact approval by a third party saying you had reason to do it? That's not cool, and where you get people pissed off. Searching my freight incoming to the country as part of searching it all? Fine. Permission to unaccountably walk up to my mailbox and open my mail? Not fine. See the distinction I'm trying to make? The left cares about accountability and fairness, they're not just out to fuck over the country.
They might look at the address labels and find out that I'm... umm... some hypothetical person is importing truckloads of freaky korean porn.
This is basically the best case.
I'm increasingly getting the sinking feeling that Clinton is going to "go to the convention" anyway, regardless of whether or not all the supers desert her.
You should really do a "rogues gallery" congress of all our worst statesmen
How can you limit that to 535 people?
if any of you know folks in the DC area or anyone planning to protest this thing, let em know that we ain't goin out like dat and that the Obama campaign need not protest the DNC. as things stand, it looks like Clinton's campaign is fully ready to annoy the DNC heads instead; no reason to impede that!
also, there's apparently a voter registration drive for Obama going on in VA. that's a much more worthwhile cause.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I didn't say you couldn't get electronics from air travel. I said it lowers the life of them so when shipping large amounts its not normally done.
Second lobbyists pay and lobby other groups all the time for additional pressure. That said, the lobbyists will lobby the left wing politicians, so they start complaining in congress.
Third, it always starts in the middle and moves further, either left or right, and more absurd as it does. You have no clue how politics actually works.
Cue right-wing blogs saying this is exactly the same as Snipergate in 3... 2... 1...
Except that all exit polls show that the people to whom gender was an issue overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, and all the people to whom race was an issue...overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. I mean, yeah there's the Bradley effect of lying to pollsters so you don't seem racist/sexist, but come on.
NNID: Hakkekage
Clinton doesn't seem to realize the flip-side of her sexism argument. If sexism is more socially acceptable to the point where it's going to be more openly exercised in public and in the media, than it's also going to be more accuratedly reported in the polls. Racism, by virtue of being more evidently evil and thus more taboo, is going to be much more under-reported, such that citing polls as evidence that sexism is more prevalent than racism doesn't work so well.
Somehow I doubt she and her supporters would care for this argument, though.
No, they'd put more pressure on Republicans on this issue being anti-business and 'not really securing our ports just putting more needless regulation on industry' or some bullshit. Which is exactly what happened when this was originally proposed.
Pot, meet kettle.
It's honestly starting to sound a bit like GWB's "Why do you hate Freedom?" defense
You don't think companies would pay both sides?
Where did I say that? And what does that have to do with my point?
Not from the right-wing blogs, but nonetheless, we have liftoff.
Politics: Yes, there's an absurd left and an absurd right (though strangely, they both seem to want the same thing: no government interference in their lives), there's also a center. Now, then you add in little things like do you prefer more or less government (which isn't a left/right thing honestly). So you can be left leaning and want a lot of government making sure everything is covered for social programs out the wazoo, you can be left leaning and want less government and think everything should be woo hippy compound. It's a very large range. I can tell you this however: Corporations lobby republicans and centrist democrats more often than going for the fringe lefties. Cargo importing and scanning? They're going to go right for the pro-corporate interests folks, because they already have the influence networks needed for it. They're not going to buy out the fucking ACLU (quite probably for the same reason the ACLU and whatnot don't bitchslap the air freight scanning, it has very little to do with civil liberties to scan a box when it's coming into the country, it's just common fucking sense.)
For shipping, you bulk ship electronics via boat for cost effectiveness purposes. I cannot find a single study showing that it kills the lifespan of the electronics to ship them via air. Hell, aside from the idea that somehow the slight pressurization would damage the equipment (not very likely), nothing else happens up there. Now, precision electronics are something completely different, and need to be packaged properly to account for bouncing around. But that's very little to do with air travel. If I need 5 industrial crates of shit in the next month, I'll boat them or use a truck. That's due to bulk, not equipment. Feel free to link the study showing that flying anywhere with your goddamned laptop damages it however. The only thing I can find on batteries on aircraft is pilots wanting bulk Lithium-Ion shipments banned due to the chance of them catching fire and there being nothing you can do about it while airborne. Being airborne has nothing to do with them being a fire hazard, however.
This all said, I'm still trying to figure out how we're all going to die from terrorists with ICBMs while the vast left wing conspiracy lets them smuggle shit in via boat.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/protests-planned-for-rules-committee-meeting/
Stay classy, Clinton supporters.
If true, it still wouldn't be in the same league as pretending that you were running from snipers when you were actually listening to adolescent poetry. I suppose it's possible that Obama made the whole thing up, but even assuming he was duplicitous enough to pull something like that (which I doubt), I don't think he'd be stupid enough to make up something so easily refuted. Hillary, sure, but Obama has thus far been far more savvy.
edit: to mean that Snipers At The Gate would have been a non story if she has just said "Oops, my bad"
Half as many as Jesus this year?
That's bullshit. Barack is more popular than Jesus. Just ask google.
According to Google, he's beating Jesus in searches.
Blue for Obama, Red for Jesus.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=obama%2C+jesus
edit- beaten
>_> shut uuuuuup
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Still wouldn't be in the same league, you mean?
Somehow I don't think changing the names of things that actually happened is in the same league as completely making shit up.
He's bigger than Him too. First century middle eastern Jews were generally pretty short.
Either way we won't really know what to believe until Sinbad weighs in on the topic.
The most likely explanation overall (ie, not trying to be uncharitable) would be that the "legend" involved the uncle being in Auschwitz, because the story evolved, and Obama never really questioned it. I heard all sorts of stories from my grandfather about the war, and about my relatives about other relatives, and I'm sure a lot of them were exaggerated or made up. Because that's what human beings do with their stories - they embellish. I don't doubt that the core of the story is true - that his ancestor saw some fucked-up shit in the war and came home somewhat broken.
The point of the story is not invalidated by the actual facts. Whereas the point of Hillary's story was evidently supposed to be "I am an action hero, lookit me, all dodgin' bullets and shit, and then there's that one time I got knocked half a mile through the air in a lead-lined fridge by a nuclear blast, boo-fuckin-ya."
Shit, that was a typo. Should read "wouldn't".
I'm sure Obama's wishing he checked it out before mentioning it though. Bit of a silly thing to do.
I c whut U did thar.