Slashdot Mirror

Just stick with Norway. They have fjords.

Why do I have this urge to post the entire Monte Python "Dead Parrot" sketch?

Rather than "Ask Slashdot" I suspect that he might have been better off going here:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/argument- clinic.htm

(just predicting the next 20 comments...)

Yet it was another Republican president that started the fighting in Viet Nam, Eisenhower.

Totally wrong. The fighting started against the French colonial domain, in 1946, and lasted until 1954, when the French suffered total defeat at Dien Bien Phu. The war between North and South started gradually, as a guerilla war, shortly after the country gained independence. The USA sent some military personnel to the South during the Eisenhower government, but they were training the South Vietnam military and weren't directly involved in combat.

Yes, the fighting between the French and Viet Namese started years before EIsenhower was president but he sent the first military personel to Viet Nam. By that tyme there were ongoing peace talks. An agreement, the Genevas Peace Accord or Geneva Conference I believe, was made in which the people of North and South Vietnam would vote to decide if the north and south would reunite. Eisenhower was against this, so he sent in a team of military advisors led by Colonel Edward Lansdale to arm, gather, and train those from the south who were also against the vote for or against reunification. As tyme went on Kennedy sent in more and more advisors. Then as president Johnson used the falsified Gulf of Tonkin Incident as justification to send regular troops to Vietnam.

The author of the review would do well to read Politics and the English Language by George Orwell.

"The Philosophers' Football Match was a comedy sketch on Monty Python's Fliegender Zirkus and later a part of Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl.

The sketch depicted a football match between philosophers representing Greece and Germany, including Plato, Socrates and Aristotle on the Greek team, and Heidegger, Marx and Nietzsche on the German team. Instead of playing, the philosophers competed by thinking while walking on the pitch in circles. This left Franz Beckenbauer, the sole genuine footballer on the pitch (and a "surprise inclusion" in the German team, according to the commentary), more than a little confused. Confucius was the referee and Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were the linesmen."

I forget who finally "gets it" and does a goal rush. Very funny sketch, what with the announcer enthusiastically describing what is basically nothing happening.

See also http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/internati onal-philosophy.htm for a transcript.

A perfect example disassembling similar obfuscation in writing, and political writing in particular is this one from George Orwell.

Agreed.

And for weight, A piece by Mr. Orwell to help drive it home.

We tried that. 1939. Didn't turn out so well.

And this is coming from me as a libertarian who agrees we should not be so entrenched overseas... but there are places where our nose does belong. Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?

first, we helped create the situation in 39 with the punative versailles treaty. If the west had not destroyed
gernmany's economy hitler probably would not have come to power.

Second regarding Iran. The first big case of blowback. The CIA supported a coup against
the first democratically elected government in iran in 1953.

I think their public policy stems from that, our support of the shah, and our unquestioning support of israel.
isn't it interesting that israel has nuclear weapons, but isn't brought up to the security council for it?

But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying? Because that was the main reason Osama was supposedly pissed at us. Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back, and then Osama said he was mad because Iraqi children died then and in the aftermath. Did he blame Saddam? A little, but mostly us.

Nope I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying you reap what you sow.
The freaking CIA helped create Osama.

Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back

Yeah, after this guy went to see him while he was gassing people with our knowledge, and after the reagan administration gave iraq the bio weapon starter kits and after our ambassador told saddam we had no interest defending kuwait

So yeah, there is no rhyme or reason to terrorism. There is no cause and effect relationship between our foreign policy and terrorism. Our government is lilly white, and bears no blame for its actions. Am I excusing the terrorists? No. I am saying there is only ONE way to win, leave them alone to govern their own affairs. We taught the british that in 1776, the french learned it in algeria and indochina, (we got the same lesson in indochina but it didn't stick)

In the case of the Bible, the license ... prohibits one from changing the source to help prevent bugs from creeping in. A lot folks have ignored this restriction, resulting in much chaos, but that's another story.

Indeed, at this point the project's archive contains more branches than a burning bush!

By hiring Guido, they are clearly stating that there's only one way to do it. And that way is, of course, with Python.

Yes, I see a Google search for 'perl' now has a transcript of Monty Python's Parrot sketch as the first hit.

Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last. Only a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a common benefit. The right state of mind, the right feeling between nations, is as necessary for a lasting peace as is the just settlement of vexed questions of territory or of racial and national allegiance.

For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 - 1980].

Given the "duck" reference and it being Hallowene and all, what do we do with witches? Burn Them!

"since nobody wants to be the one who releases data that turns out to help an enemy launch the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attack"

I don't think any leaked classified data made any contribution to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 though it is clever on your part to invoke those two traumas to win points for your argument.

In fact much of the "suprise" part of the "suprise attack" on Pearl Harbor was due to the high classification of Japanese communication intercepts which led to the many signals the Japanese were preparing an attack from being acted on.

There were certainly some strong indicators an attack at Pearl Harbor was imminent. It has created the long running conspiracy theory that FDR actually knew it was coming and wanted a devastating "sneak attack" so he could get a nation that was isolationist and pacifist mobilized for war. Weather it was FDR's intention or not it did work. Pearl Harbor propelled the U.S. into World War II with an enthusiasm that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

9/11 is not quite as clear cut, but it is clear a "classified" briefing in W.'s daily intelligence brief spelled out the danger of Al Qaeda launching an attack on the U.S. using airplanes while W. was on vacation in August and the attack came in September. All indications are the brief went unheeded and no action was taken. Little George apparently didn't for example tell the FBI to look in to this, because if they had they might have "connected the dots" that suspicious Arab men were training in the U.S. to fly airliners, a fact they knew but which had been sat on if not classified.

It is unavoidable that you do have to classify a lot of information in a world where you have enemies, especially ones intent on spying on you like the U.S.S.R, Russia, China and Israel.

But, a case can be made that classification causes as much harm as good since it destroys effective communication, WITHIN the government not just between the government and its people especially when it tilts of of control and delves in to excess.

Unfortunately classification is CONSTANTLY abused by people in government to conceal their failures and the failure of the government to do its job, and worse to hide some of its malevolent schemes. It's also integral in a government's creation of a false picture of the world in the minds of the population in order to manipulate them. Classification and propaganda go hand in hand.

A great example of out of control classification is the huge section of the congressional report on 9/11 in which the role of the Saudi people and government in 9/11 was spelled out in excruciating and embarrassing detail. Its hard to say why it was classified, most of the Congressman don't want it classifed. One guess is the Bush administration didn't want to embarrass their close personal friends in the House of Saud. The other is the Bush administration was engaged in weaving a propaganda web intent on connecting Iraq to 9/11 as an excuse for regime change and war, and 100 pages spelling out the Saudi's were in fact vastly more involved than Iraq would have been counterproductive to that propaganda effort.

A mostly forgotten case of classified data being released which exposed government malevolence and incompetence is the Pentagon Papers. Depending on your viewpoint this giant leak either exposed the bankruptcy of the American involvement in Vietnam and ended a misguidede war there, or their leak help collapse American resolve and contributed to its defeat there. Whichever it was, it was a high beam of truth about the reality of the situation there that classification would have suppressed were it not for Daniel Elsberg and his conscience.

Mario and Luigi: Luigi's a *guy*, 'nuff said.

Uhm, yeah. That's the point. He's male, and he's neither pretty nor strong.

X-Men Male cast: All a bunch of good-looking guys.

not really.

A poster farther up asks "how many tin foil hat types think theres a connection with today's bombings"... All things considered, I find the coincidence of today's bombings somewhat disturbing. If history is to be considered, then there is good reason to question whether or not there is a connection.

How much farther does this idiocy have to go before the proles wake up. Aside from a new and improved Asshole Act, I wonder what monstrous retaliation awaits the next targets of our country's arrogant and foolhardy wrath.

If knowledge is power, then ignorance must be impotence. So I beg you to do what you can in that regard, at least. Share the knowledge. Encourage the ideals. Stand by your neighbors. Voice your opinion. Be disobedient if you must.

Need some red pills for your trapped friends and family? Perhaps these will help:

The Law, Frederic Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

No Treason, by Lysander Spooner http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1201

Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

The Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.h tml

Civil Disobedience http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

Common Sense, by Thomas Paine http://www.bartleby.com/133/

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Ettiene de la Boetie http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

The Discovery of Freedom, Rose Wilder Lane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane

Law of Nations, Vattel http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

Best luck to us all.

C

To further clarify the above: there is not much of a magnetic north and south on Mars, as noted elsewhere in this discussion. Mars has been known to have a magnetic field since about 1997, but the planet's magnetisation is largely undifferentiated. Some regions, as also noted elsewhere in this discussion, do reach magnetic variation of up to 400 nT, which is not insignificant (see e.g. this article (pdf format)).

However, 'borealis' and 'australis' are not originally terms used in connection with magnetic fields, and Mars clearly does have poles in the sense that it rotates - which is why the GP post struck me as a very weird thing to say.

Then why bring it up? Why throw around wild accusations if you don't know what you are talking about? You are accusing me of being a moron?

However, you were claiming that the war in Iraq was justified because "he's the baddie" and my point was he's not the only one, and others are bad right now.

Well, that's quite an oversimplification of my point, but I'll let is slide. If he is a baddie, what is wrong with fixing one of the many problems in the world? Because there are others we shouldn't do anything? That's a pretty hopeless position, don't you think? Last I heard that's how WW II got started.

Also, you list Pinoches civilan deaths, then use total war death in regard to Saddam. Apples and Oranges.

Most deaths were civilian. Did you bother to look at the URL? It listed all death tolls for all conflicts up to modern times.

Wasn't an invasion, it was a liberation from an pre-existing invasion. HUGE difference.

And this was liberation from tyranny. Enemies and oppressors to a peoples are either foreign or domestic. Either way, they are enemies and oppressors. Were the Taliban foreign occupators?

"You didn't hear the stories saying "why didn't WE do anything".

You either have a short memory, or you weren't paying attention ( http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/rwarev.htm http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040412/ 12spotlight.htm).

There is no doubt that AT LEAST 100,000 people are dead that would not be dead if the USA had not invaded.

You jump from 21,795 to 100,000 just like that without any evidence whatsoever. That does wonders for your credibility.

Drop the moral high-ground buddy, it's not there. Either you are a callous bastard profiteering from this, or you are a sheep yourself

Ok, let's talk about moral high-ground. You claim that we shouldn't be there so Saddam could keep on killing another million. I'm sure that's the moral high ground. So, do you want the US troops to leave? Should we abandon all efforts at establishing a democracy? If Halliburton left today, would you be happy? If money is your preoccupation (your profit criticsm) is all of the money that Halliburton going to make worth more than all of the lives that Saddam could've taken up to now? You advocate inaction rather than going in for the wrong reasons. Yet inaction is exactly what Saddam wanted, so he could keep terrorizing his people. I don't care to excuse the orginal reasons for the war (that's a different discussion). I'm pointing out that at the present, I do have the moral high ground because I want the Iraqi people to succeed and live in a decent country. You do not want that?

Because unless you decide to pick up a computer and brain someone with it they are not a lethal weapon.

The issue is not the consequences of mis-use, but the complexity of learning proper use.

Anyway - bad software kills. Probably the best known incident is the Therac 25 software failure.

Peter G. Neumann notes over 700 deaths in 24 incidents - and that was just by 1986. (All software developers should read PGN's RISKS Forum.) Some more fatal incidents can be found here.

1. approx. $20/SAT. And everybody has to do the best possible on the SAT, so they take it upwards of 3 times. And recent research shows that the test is not a useful predictor of student performance in college
2. the same for the TOEFL. Every non-American student has to take this test, even those for whom English is a first language
3. $60 for each AP test. Got to take the AP tests or you'll look like a slacker and never get into college
4. now I'm at college, so I'm done, right?
5. no. If you want financial aid, you'd better register the PROFILE. Only $20 to register and $5 for every college you want to send a copy to
6. and then you come to the GMAT. The GRE. The LSAT. The MCAT

CollegeBoard is rolling in dough. And what do they do with this money? Develop things like e-raters so they don't have to pay for graders.

"...
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway! ..."

The Sketch (contd...)

Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.

Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?

Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.

Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.

Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!

Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...

Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!

Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...

Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!

Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.

Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...

(pause)

Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?

Commissioner: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Gates: Well.

(pause)

Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

Copyright

The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co

The Sketch (contd...)

Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.

Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?

Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.

Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.

Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!

Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...

Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!

Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...

Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!

Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.

Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...

(pause)

Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?

Commissioner: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Gates: Well.

(pause)

Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

Copyright

The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co

The Sketch (contd...)

Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.

Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?

Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.

Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.

Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!

Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...

Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!

Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...

Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!

Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.

Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...

(pause)

Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?

Commissioner: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Gates: Well.

(pause)

Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

Copyright

The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co

The Sketch (contd...)

Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.

Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?

Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.

Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.

Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!

Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...

Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!

Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...

Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!

Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!

(pause)

Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.

Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...

(pause)

Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?

Commissioner: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Gates: Well.

(pause)

Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

Copyright

The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co

[rational IRE]
All I can say is wow. If you believe that this: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/adurfee/calculus/ shroud-pos.jpg hunk of shit couldn't have been "painted" at any point in the last 5000 years you are pretty delusional.
[/rational IRE]

My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Back in 1946, George Orwell was complaining about standards of "modern English" in Politics and the English Language. Get used to it - bullshit was here before us and it'll still be here when we're gone.

The same thing is happening in western Massachusetts to connect The Five Colleges (Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke, Smith, and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst).

This reminds me of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, anyone ever read it? Jesus comes back to earth and his beliefs are so different from the the church's at the time that they put him to death for causing too much trouble. It's an incredible story, check it out here: Grand Inquisitor It starts off a little slow but I promise you won't be disappointed.

If you take a look at the democracies of Europe however, people are far more engaged in politics and the turnouts during elections are on average far higher than the US or UK. That's because their voice can be heard, every vote counts...

The difference is proportional representation:

In both Party List and Mixed Member, the party controls access, at least in part, to the ballot. Many of the more interesting and effective politicians are NOT the candidates that would be sanctioned by the party, and that is often precisely why they appealed to the people. If you want even more boring, partisan, homogeneous politics, I guess these are good ideas.

Both party list approaches fail to address the issue of lesser-evil voting, and perhaps exaggerate it. If there are 21 candidates on an open party list ballot, and I get only one vote, there's a solid chance I will have voted for NONE of my 10 representatives. Worse, suppose a moderate and an extremist are both running on one party's ticket, and I favor the moderate and vote for them. If more people vote for the extremist, my vote would help ensure that the party gets the seat, but the balance of votes for that party makes the extreme candidate get elected. I have no way to indicate that I'd really prefer a moderate from another party over the extremist.

Closed Party List and mixed member both give full control of at least part of slate of candidates to the party, and it may be that the candidate many people would prefer is so far down the party's priority list that they can only be elected if the party sweeps the district.

Choice voting is a reasonable idea, but with an electorate that can't understand how to properly punch holes in a piece of paper, and claims to be initimidated by voting on a computer, how practical is a ballot like the one shown?

We've seen first hand in Georgia the impact of multi-member district races. The result is campaigns and representation that is spread too thin. How do 10 people all effectively represent and discuss matters with a constituency of 300,000 people as a state representative? How much MORE important is money as a factor compared to community involvement and personal contact in a district so large - money is the only way to reach such a large district, and money is part of the problem, not the solution.

Why are these systems so party-centric? It seems to me that in American politics, parties and their battles are part of the problem rather than the answer. Representation should be elected on the merits, proposals and record of an individual, not based on how much favor an individual has curried with their party's state headquarters. Increasing ballot access for independent candidates, encouraging voting systems that allow voters to support these candidates without aiding the candidate the like the least, and finding ways to downplay the need for large sums of money in elections are more certain ways to better elections and representation.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rzdalea/cs100/software_d isasters/sd.htm
http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1397,1544403 ,00.asp

Also google for Therac-25

What we need is some sort of instant runoff or proportional voting system. Instant runoff is easy to understand. You cast your first vote for who you really want and your second vote for whom you would settle for. A true proportional system would be even better. The sad reality is that the US is one of the few nations that uses the simple plurality system that doesn't even require a majority. Canada happens to be another.

Well friend. Here you have your problem.

Two party Plutocracy, with a compliant (conspirator? partner?) in the corporate media.

Solution: Make 3rd parties viable through Proportional Representation and Instant RunOff Voting

The USA has *no* alternative to the democratic logjam in your Democracy -- its either this, or a descent into Fascism, Revolution or Civil War.

You yanks are setting yourselves up for a world of hurt -- time to start thinking about this.

Better systems for single-seat races are Approval or Condorcet (which you can find more about at ElectionMethods.org) and Proportional Representation would be great for Congress (our checks and balances work pretty well, so there's no need to move to a Parliamentary system). Another informative site (albeit somewhat confusing to navigate) is Accurate Democracy.

This is not something either party wants, so it will be a long, uphill battle. But neither party wanted campaign finance reform either, so enough popular support can get anything done (although 527s are bad, they're not as bad as soft money, and indeed, at least they help pull power away from the two big parties).

1) Are you protecting your country from being harmed?
2) Have you tried other ways to resolve the conflict?
3) Have you formally declared war?
4) Is the goal to return to peace?
5) No scorched earth tactic - don't attack civilians, don't attack infrastructure.
6) Use only vocationed military - no civilian contractors or mobs of common people.

Given the idea that war is ever justifiable, the criteria to which you seem to be referring would appear IMHO to mostly justify this one.

Comments in italics are from the second link searching for 'just war' on Google (which must therefore be authoritative):
# A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
Consider 10 years of refusal to comply with the terms of a treaty with the U.N., which was doing all it could to avoid futher conflict.

# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
This is the main reason George W's father was against the war.

# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
Again, if nothing else, Saddam was violating the terms of an established treaty, which has historically been cause to redeclare war (if it isn't, how are we to enforce treatys?). Also, it must be considered that there _was_ a link between the Iraqi administration and Al-Queida, even if it had nothing to do with 9/11. (Try googling before flaming, and look at only hard news, not propaganda)

# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
That one's obvious

# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
This seems to be the goal...

# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
There wasn't that much injury suffered, but we didn't drop a nuclear bomb on them either. This is subjective, but as wars go, this has been a relatively bloodless one. Regardless of how many times this war is compared to Vietnam, there haven't been nearly the number of deaths for either side. I can easily point out many wars that are currently going on that have caused more death than this one

# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Civilians have never been an approved target in this war. There have been many cases of collateral damage, but I would submit that this is much more common coming from the Iraqi attacks than America's.

This is the same kind of censorship that lead many Koreans to complain to the Japanese govt. that they left out a few facts about their occupation. They took many Koreans back to Japan as slaves and about 160,000 "comfort women", as well as nearly deforesting the entire country.

Just one of many available links

You think India -- the world's largest democracy (in terms of population) and a generally civilised and well-educated society -- is a security risk because they (may) have nuclear weapons?

May have??

India conducted it's first nuclear test in 1974.

SB

Well, on the one hand, Japan has partially apologized (or was that to ease the Korean ban on all things japanese?) and on the other hand they are teaching the kind of revised history that has put people in jail in Europe.

Why, yes! I am confused.

Bill was just a political strategist, not a military one. Somalia

What? They had an election 6 months before, which Allende won! And just before the coup, Allende was trying to organise a plebiscite. How were they not democratic? Because Chile refused to compile with the US-styled corporatised model of democracy? For your information, many people don't consider the US system to be particularly democratic. Here's a link by the Federation of American Scientists.

And even if we admit your charge that the government wasn't legitimate, how was the regime (Pinochet) that replaced it any more legitimate? You don't encourage democracy by making a country less democratic.

Would I also conclude by your omission of Iran that you agree that the US has overthrown at least one democracy?

In the Vietnams, the U.S. was not up for election. Ho would have likely lost in the South; to this day Ho is to the Vietnamnese like Hitler is to Jews.

Firstly, bulldust regarding elections. Here's a link regarding comments by Eisenhower stating that the Communists would have won the election fair and square.

WRT Hilter, Godwin's Law. But biting your troll, Ho did not indiscriminately slaughter six million Vietnamese in an attempt at genocide. Don't trivialise the Holocaust, Hilter tried to wipe out an entire race of people! Like China, Vietnam merely wanted to modernise without being taken advantage of colonially. And anyhow, US killed approximately 4 times more than the deaths caused by the Vietnam government after the war (most of which were due to boat people). Here and Here. If Ho was like Hilter, the US was four times worse - is that what you're saying?

The protesters were pro-genocide.

Your point was that the French government should have listened to the protesters because they were in the majority. Were they, if so details please. Secondly, are you saying the protesters were literally saying "Kill the Jews". If so details please. If they weren't literally saying that, please convince me that they weren't simply angry at the Israeli government (something that even Israeli Jews are so-called guilty of).

This is really lame. Everything I wrote two posts ago still holds. Gimme some facts, gimme some decent arguments. Not US good, communism bad. Not US good, France bad. You are allowed to disagree with your government if they do bad things.

As a decent human being, accept that the US has done some really good things and some really evil things in the past 50 years. Supports the institution within the US that do good and campaign against those that do bad.

Try to advocate a more democratic approach to life and consider war as a measure of last resort. Stop supporting governments and companies that abuse human rights, but remember that invasion is rarely the answer. And don't lie or mislead the public (hint Saddam was NOT involved with 11-Sep-2001 attacks on NYC) because beyond that lies chaos. And finally, don't get suckered in by the belief that governments don't lie or cheat. I know Bush says Iraq was invade to liberate its people, but most evidence indicates otherwise.

It acknowledges that there are two kinds of wasted votes: votes for candidates that stand little chance of winning, and votes in excess of what a winning candidate needs. Transferring these votes to their next ranked choice makes it more likely that they will actually contribute to the election of a candidate ... Choice voting has a number of advantages over plurality-majority voting. It produces more accurate representation of parties in legislatures. It gives voters more choices of parties at the polls, increases voter turnout, and wastes far fewer votes. This form of PR also reduces the creation of manufactured majorities. In addition, it assures fair representation for third parties, racial minorities, and women. All votes are for individual candidates not parties, and this arrangement allows voters to cross party lines with their votes. It is also the only form of PR that can be used in nonpartisan elections.

It acknowledges that there are two kinds of wasted votes: votes for candidates that stand little chance of winning, and votes in excess of what a winning candidate needs. Transferring these votes to their next ranked choice makes it more likely that they will actually contribute to the election of a candidate ... Choice voting has a number of advantages over plurality-majority voting. It produces more accurate representation of parties in legislatures. It gives voters more choices of parties at the polls, increases voter turnout, and wastes far fewer votes. This form of PR also reduces the creation of manufactured majorities. In addition, it assures fair representation for third parties, racial minorities, and women. All votes are for individual candidates not parties, and this arrangement allows voters to cross party lines with their votes. It is also the only form of PR that can be used in nonpartisan elections.

I also hear nobody else seriously contemplates voting machines, they all still use that old, primitive, slightly-more-reliable paper-ballot system.

Yes, and most of the world's advanced democracies use fair voting systems where a majority of voters decide who will elect them - rather than the US's 19th century UK-derived broken system of plurality voting where a minority of voters dominate the representation and an adversarial, bipolar political system is systematically reproduced.

Seriously, all this fuss over changing the mechanics of the physical voting process when the electoral system itself is decrepit strikes me as fiddling while Rome burns.

I also hear nobody else seriously contemplates voting machines, they all still use that old, primitive, slightly-more-reliable paper-ballot system.

Yes, and most of the world's advanced democracies use fair voting systems where a majority of voters decide who will elect them - rather than the US's 19th century UK-derived broken system of plurality voting where a minority of voters dominate the representation and an adversarial, bipolar political system is systematically reproduced.

Seriously, all this fuss over changing the mechanics of the physical voting process when the electoral system itself is decrepit strikes me as fiddling while Rome burns.

And therefore Cuba would have been justified to launch the nukes based in Cuba because the US conducted an act of war? (The blocade)

Actually no our blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis was not an act of war. In the first place the blockade was limited to offensive weapons. We did not blockade ships leaving Cuban ports or ships attempting to enter Cuban ports with non-military (food, medicine, oil) cargos. In the second place we had every other nation in the entire Western Hemisphere (not to mention our NATO allies) backing us up. To quote from a website on the matter:

More important from a legal point of view, Kennedy asked our neighbors in the Organization of American States to both authorize and participate in our naval blockade of Cuba (termed a "Quarantine Against Offensive Weapons" to make it sound less belligerent). That elevated the blockade to an act of regional self-defense under international law.

The last sentance of that paragraph is the most important. The Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba were a threat to the entire Western World -- not just the United States.

Likewise, Article 51 of the UN Charter states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

I would also quote from this website from your reading pleasure:

Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack. A generally recognized guide to the conditions for anticipatory self-defense is Daniel Webster's statement regarding the Caroline affair of 1837: Self-defense is justified only when the necessity for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." (Letter from Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to Lord Ashburton, August 6, 1842, reprinted in 2 John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law 409, 412 (1906)). A modern version of this approach is found in Oppenheim's International Law: Ninth Edition, 1991, p. 412 (emphasis added):

The development of the law, particularly in the light of more recent state practice, in the 150 years since the

Caroline incident suggests that action, even if it involves the use of armed force and the violation of another states territory, can be justified as self defence under international law where:

1. an armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state's territory or forces (and probably its nationals);
2. there is an urgent necessity for defensive action against that attack;
3. there is no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and in particular another state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement does not, or cannot, use them to that effect;
4. the action taken by way of self-defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent the infringement, i.e. to

You do not invade and steal from your business partners. You can, however, invade and steal from their enemies.

And multi-hundred billion dollar subsidy? Please back that argument up. Considering the state of Iraqi oil development, it would take vast investments by American oil companies to even begin to project multi-hundred billion dollar paybacks.

It is ovious that my use of the word "subsidy" refers to the cost of conquering Iraq, not necessarily that of developing its oilfields. Nevertheless, it appears that even some of that is being done on our dime.

The oil argument for why US went to Iraq (invaded, in your terms) is bunk.

Your opinion is shared by many people, I am sad to say. Also, supposedly 70% of Americans believe Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. And yet you claim that I am uneducated and deluded. Oh well...

• The country is divided up into a number of districts, which will each be represented by a number of legislators (maybe 6-8) in Parliament/Congress etc.
• Each party puts forward a short list of candidates. Independants can put forward a list consisting of just themself. :-)
• The ballot contains the name of every candidate on every list.
• Voters select one candidate from the ballot.
• The seats are distributed between the parties according to the number of votes they receive. This isn't unfair to independents - they only need to get enough votes to obtain one seat (eg if there are 8 seats, they only need 1/8 of the vote).
• The seats allocated to each party are distributed *within* the party according to the number of votes each candidate in that party received.

• "You end up being represented by a number of legislators." Personally I don't see this as a problem - you can select the one most likely to listen to you :-)
• "PR makes for 'wishy-washy' governments that can't make decisions." - this is very debatable. It's a fact that most governments elected by PR have to rule by consensus, and that alliances have to be formed that prevent one party from carrying out all its goals. Example: in an American PR system you might see the Democrats allying with the Greens to form a mostly Democrat government that agrees to stop oil-prospecting in Alaska. My point of view on the issue is that surely that kind of allience better reflects the will of the people than plural-majority systems which encourage overall majorities?

I think the OSS movement should get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize - getting China to cooperate with Japan is not easy.

Yeah, those pesky Chinese hate having Nanjing raped. Imagine the ingratitude! Hopefully this will lead them to be a little more enlightened to the lessons of the Melian dialogue.