Slashdot Mirror


America: Like It Or Unfriend It

Hugh Pickens writes "As we celebrate America's birthday today, head over the to the NY Times and take a look at a very clever 'op-art' creation, 'Like it or Unfriend It' by Teddy Wayne, Mike Sacks, and Thomas Ng, that represents what 'America's Wall' would look like through our history. Beginning with 'Christopher Columbus wrote on America's wall: 'This IS India, right?,' through 'America added Great Britain to Kingdoms I am Fighting With,' through 'The South has changed its privacy settings to accept carpetbaggers,' and finishing with 'America stopped playing the game Wild-Goose Chase While Nation-Building,' and 'America has joined the China Network' the wall includes dozens of invitations, likes, posts and changes to privacy settings that shows a summary of American history as seen from a Facebook perspective. Our favorite from the 1980s: 'Ronald Reagan created a page: "Trickle-Down Economics" followed by "Half a million upper-income people like this.'" For another take on 4th of July data visualization, Tim O'Reilly points out flag.codeforamerica.org, which aggregates twitter posts tagged #July4 into an evolving flag tapestry.

277 comments

  1. You know... that might not be a bad idea... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... as a means of teaching history. This particular "wall" is a bit too brief to be useful for most purposes, but a more detailed one could probably be contrived to describe the activities surround noteworthy events in history.

    If it helps kids learn, then that's a good thing... right?

    1. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wish they'd get it right for once. Christopher Columbus wasn't looking for "India", he was looking for Hindustan.

      http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f181/name-indian-origins-72901/

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    2. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by nicholas22 · · Score: 3

      Actually it is very depressing that THIS is how you get children to be interested in your history. I blame the parents.

    3. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by belthize · · Score: 1

      We'd need to come up with a name for a more detailed version. It might be nice if it included pictures, complete sentences and maybe some insight as to why the details are important. Too bad 'history book' is already taken.

    4. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Minupla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you find it depressing? I would imagine that any society where these things don't evolve would be on its way to the end.

      I expect the generation that went through school after me probably had their parents saying the same things about computers in schools, my mother probably said the same thing when "School House Rock" came on TV, and her parents probably said the same thing about organized education, so on back to the printing press, literacy, and so forth... One can imagine a parent saying "If oral tradition was good enough for us, it should be good enough for our children".

      Not all change is negative, not all of it is positive either of course. Change can however stimulate people to think in new ways and consider things that they did not consider in the past.

      An oft quoted study in fact measured productivity improvements around change. If a study group *thought* that a change was being implemented to improve productivity, productivity improved. In the case I read about I believe it was "replacing light bulbs with wide spectrum bulbs" the "work people" came in and swapped out the tubes with identical ones and productivity went up for awhile and plateaued and then regressed back to mean levels.

      So if doing something new and fresh causes kids to learn, speaking as a parent, more power to innovative educators. If it is only a short term improvement, that's fine too, just be thinking about the next thing down the road.

      "Think of the children" - why make learning hard/repetitive/stale when we have choices?

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    5. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got this book called 'The Timetables of History" http://www.amazon.com/Timetables-History-Horizontal-Linkage-People/dp/067174271X
      It's kind of like the 'America's wall' but for everything.

    6. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      That's not really that big of a deal, he was looking for the Indian subcontinent it doesn't really matter what you call it, he was looking for the land that is present day India. The bigger issue is that he wasn't concerned with falling off the edge of the world.

    7. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by camperdave · · Score: 2

      This particular "wall" is a bit too brief to be useful for most purposes

      Missed out the entire Spanish-American war dealie. I guess they forgot the Alamo.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Gryle · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Battle of the Alamo occurred during the Texian revolt from Mexico and has nothing to do with the Spanish-American War. Unless you're just making a list of things the NY Times didn't put on the wall.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    9. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by oever · · Score: 1
      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    10. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hindustan was the muslim name for the country in the area of the world called (back in antiquity and now) India. Saying that Columbus wasn't looking for India is incorrect.
      Also, the site you link to claims that Indian refers from a term for savages which are easy to convert. This is incorrect. Indian derives from Spanish indio < India (the country India) < Latin India < A. Greek 'Indía < 'Indós (the river Indus) < O. Persian hindush < Sanskrit síndhu: a river or stream.

    11. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "Columbus thought the world was round, while everyone else thought it was flat" isn't accurate.

      What Columbus was fighting against is that people though the Earth was (correctly) approximately 40,000 km in diameter (The Greeks had measured it fairly accurately) while Columbus thought (incorrectly) it was much smaller and that it was practical to sail west to India. Columbus lucked out in that America was in the way, otherwise he would have been a footnote in history as the leader of an expedition of 3 ships that sailed west never to be seen again.

    12. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who gives a shit? He was looking for India.

    13. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by xkuehn · · Score: 3, Informative

      What Columbus was fighting against is that people though the Earth was (correctly) approximately 40,000 km in circumference (The Greeks had measured it fairly accurately) while Columbus thought (incorrectly) it was much smaller and that it was practical to sail west to India. Columbus lucked out in that America was in the way, otherwise he would have been a footnote in history as the leader of an expedition of 3 ships that sailed west never to be seen again.

      FTFY

    14. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you forgot the Maine.

    15. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aside from the obvious Facebook advertisement here - could we get an option on /. to filter content by Hugh Pickens and other mentally retarded marketing people - kind of like the AC filters that will prevent this from ever being seen.

    16. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Not my country. All I know about it I got from watching Zorro, King of the Hill, and the odd Western. My knowledge, to sum up, is that there was a Spanish-American War, that Texas used to be part of Mexico (spanish colony), and now it's a state. There was a battle at the Alamo. So, given that sparse information, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the Alamo massacre was part of the Spanish-American War.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    17. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      "Think of the children" - why make learning hard/repetitive/stale when we have choices?

      Because Facebook has nothing to do with learning, and is about the stupidest application of social networking out there.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    18. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      India got it's name from River Indus.........which is called Sindhu in Sanskrit. Persians and Arabs called us Hindu(Do you see the rhyme scheme in Hindu and Sindhu) and from Hindu we got Hindustaan(Land of the Hindus). The Greeks called Sindhu as Indus(whatever way the Greek spelt it! India was known to the Greeks(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) and Romans(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Roman_trade_with_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_commerce)) and Indus became India.

      The original name of the country was Aryavrata(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80ry%C4%81varta) or Abode of the Aryans(Noble people........not the Nazi thing(you can blame Max Muellar and Hitler)). Then the country was renamed Bhaarat from Bharat(Brave son of King Ajatshatru). All our modern or old text refer to India as Bharat or AryaVrata. Foreigners named us India and Hindustaan. We use Bhaarat in our daily language.

      Hinduism as religion doesn't exist in any of our texts. We call it Sanaatan Dharma(it means Eternal Law/Duty http://www.sanatandharma.org/) or just Dharma(pronounced Dharm)

    19. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      'Christopher Columbus wrote on America's wall: 'This IS India, right?,'

      He didn't say that, he was Italian, he said:
      Questa è l'India, giusto?

    20. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Anything that makes learning fun and helps students relate is awful. Back to the dry old history tomes for you!

    21. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Not unreasonable, but still wrong. The Spanish-American war was between the US and Spain, mainly over stuff occurring in the Caribbean and the Philippines. The Battle of the Alamo was fought when the Texians (name given to the predominantly Anglo rebels) revolted against the Mexican government. If anything, the Alamo is aligned with the Mexican-American war. One of the causes was the US annexation of Texas since Mexico still considered Texas as part of its territory in spite of the Treaty of Velasco nine years earlier.

      Wikipedia gives a fairly even-handed treatment of the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, and the Texas War of Independence, which given the massive amount of contention and conspiracy theories running around in academic circles on those subject is tricky to do.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    22. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      If you're going to say you fixed his post for him, you should really fix everything. He misspelled "thought" as "though", which didn't get the red underline.

      He may be attempting to use clever rewording to quietly start a rumor that the world really is smaller by a factor of approx. 3.14159, which surely makes you wonder at the subtle motives behind using such a weird ratio... unlike the round regular numbers you'd expect. Was that a deliberate ploy?

    23. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by lexsird · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Blame parents indeed. Humans on Earth really need to adopt a policy that only the best are allowed to have children. Bad parents = more bad people on the planet. And sadly there are more bad parents than good ones.

      Look at how coddled American children are. They are treated like little fairy prince and princesses until they turn of age and realize that their life so far has been a big lie and they have absolutely no skills to offer the world. Our public schools are a complete joke and Bush's "no child left behind" is another antonym like "patriot act". It should have been "all kids left behind".

      Teacher: Mr & Mrs Jones, I hate to tell you that your little Johnny is going to fail.
      Mr & Mrs Jones: We will sue you if you flunk our precious little Johnny!
      Principle: Oh fuck! We can't have that! Pass the little brat!
      Johnny: Nothing matters! I can be a fuck off tool and nothing happens!
      Society: We are crushed by the influx of douchebags of all these "little johnny" bastards coming of age!

      Indeed, blame the piece of shit parents. If perhaps they didn't aspire to a standard of living that was so far beyond them, one of them could stay at home and BE A FUCKING PARENT. You know who raises kids? The internet. Behold as computer games become the new babysetters, and your World of Warcraft community and it's ilk has to take on dealing with people's malcontent, need of attention brats. This is where punks from hacker groups like Lulsec and others draw from to fill their ranks.

      Kids need to be in school. Who the fuck cares if they are "entertained"? If we don't start acting like responsible adults and start hammering an education into these kids, who will? These slacker, retard parents? I don't think so, they just want quiet after they have been slaving for their masters, they don't have time for parenting. Please, the next time some idiot wants to placate kiddies and entertain them instead of educating them, take a fucking ball-bat to their head. Do it for the children.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    24. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by daath93 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Anything that makes learning fun and helps students relate is awful. Back to the dry (re: Not dripping with the leftist social pogrom), old (before we started rewriting history to make people think Abe Lincoln was gay and George Washington was secretly a glory monger to the extent of lying to his own wife about it) history tomes for you!

      Yes, that's much better now.

    25. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by lexsird · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, fuck all of those tough subjects like math, science and history. Things that require "study", what a complete waste of time "study" is. We just need to please little Johnny so he will take his nose out of his texting to give a nod at some Facebook page. That will solve our education problems and why we are collectively becoming the dumbest fucking people on the planet.

      Do you seriously know just how far down the toilet our education system has slid in the past 50 years? An 8th grade test from that era would make an 4.0 AA graduate feel like a retard. How about we try to go back to when education was working first before we try to improve on the complete disaster that we are using now? This is the one problem with a free society, any idiot can open their mouth with an idea, and there are more idiots than non-idiots, hence the idiots can have their way.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    26. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It's also the most popular... any technically superior alternatives aren't really any better for most people because they haven't yet reached a critical mass of popularity that provides sufficient incentive for a majority of people to actually switch.

    27. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Minupla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not sure you actually read my post before you replied, or the GGP for that matter. The point was not "let's teach facebook" the point was "Children respond well to material when presented in a format which they associate to (e.g. schoolhouse rock cartoons) therefore, let's present one of the "tough subjects" in a manner that will get their attention."

      While we're on the subject though, it should be noted that in the past (my parents' generation) not everyone went to school. Farmers tended to keep their children at the farms because they needed the help getting the harvest in. Therefore you had a self selected population from which you were obtaining your statistics. Your sampling methodology then would not be uniform when comparing grades and such between then and now. If you include those farmers who didn't go to school (my father was a 3rd grade dropout) I think you'll find they'd drop down your average at the 8th grade level dramatically (means disliking values of 0 as they do).

      If you consider that IQ tests tend to require an element of knowledge (language for the vast majority of them, and a cognitive framework around math for the non-linguistic ones), and you couple that with the fact that IQ tests need to be re-normed back to 100=average every few years, it rather argues that when you take an aggregate measure of human "intelligence" we're getting "smarter" (doing better on the tests). In the time frame we're speaking of, and assuming the current model of evolution holds, it seems unlikely that's due to the actual substantial increase in the collective human intellect, therefore the knowledge portion of the equation is the only element that can be improving.

      There is a well known cognitive predisposition to view the past as being better then the present, and it's easy to fall victim to this tenancy when you don't stop to do your analysis.

      Now I realize I've probably just fed the troll, but felt it important enough to make my arguments for the other non-trolls who might be reading this thread, as troll or no, we (as a society) can do damage when we think in the way the parent is exemplifying. Ideally the people represented in forums such as this one (generally forward thinking folks) should be the check against these tendencies.

      Are there issues in the education system? Hell ya. NCLB is a prime example, it rewards all sorts of bad teaching habits, incentizes behaviors like teaching the test, etc. In my field of work (Corporate Infosec) we pay a lot of attention to ensuring that reward/punishment systems are in line with the behaviors we're attempting to reinforce, rather then unaligned. I could wish that law makers would spend similar amounts of effort thinking about such things before passing broken legislation. Education budgets are drastically under prioritized (if you doubt this, look at defense budgets vs education in the G20.) All these are points where we can have a useful discussion. A new technique for speaking to children in a manner in which they might absorb some information isn't to my way of thinking one of them.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    28. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      What does finding an innovative way to entertain kids while tangentially happening to teach them something have to do with not taking education seriously?

      If a kid happens to be getting entertained while learning, he is going to be likely to actually put a sincere effort into understanding the subject matter, which in turn makes it more likely he will be able to graduate, get a higher education, and be a productive contributing member of adult society. Two out of my four kids did not graduate high school at 18. They did not graduate because they were unintelligent. They did not graduate because there was absolutely nothing my wife or I could do to motivate them to actually want to learn (and don't think we didn't try). Ultimately, we had to simply let the chips fall where they may and let them suffer the consequences of their choices, which, I might add... has not been a remotely easy thing for us to do.

      As an aside, one of our kids is now getting his high school diploma via adult education (3 years late, but better late than never), and hopefully the other one will probably get a clue soon enough as well, most likely when he finds out that his aspirations depend on it far more than he believed to be the case.

      Nevertheless, I know that kids having teachers or class material that actually engage the kids mentally, meeting them where they actually are at in terms of what they identify with and can relate to makes a *HUGE* difference in their motivation to actually learn.

      I'm not saying that schoolwork always has to be fun for kids... but for crying out loud, if somebody happens to figure out a way to do it for some particular types of schoolwork, there's no reason at all to belittle the achievement.

    29. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      The Straight Dope says that's wrong. I'd trust the Straight Dope, which uses quotations from the original letter from Columbus, over some random guy posting on a random website.

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1966/does-indian-derive-from-columbuss-description-of-native-americans-as-una-gente-in-dios

    30. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Flyerman · · Score: 2

      To be fair, he did get it right the three other times he wrote it...

    31. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by lexsird · · Score: 0

      I will look past your labeling me as a troll as someone who frankly doesn't understand me, thus your reaction is rather predictable.

      Allow me to demonstrate my "troll" abilities.

      First let me address you and another poster and your faulty thinking of "we must entertain to educate". First let's agree that children are biological and social creatures; hence they have need of boundaries. Boundary reinforcement has fallen slack over the decades, one can attribute a large percentage of this on the "hippie movement" of the 60s. Child rearing was another field in which the norms were challenged, yet sadly it seems, nothing was learned and while disassembling the process, it's never been put back together right. Hurray for change for changes sake.

      Discipline is one of the first things that has been kicked to the curb, and we have seen the byproduct thereof. This has resulted in a cascade of failure of brat kids having and raising even bigger brat kids. Brat kids if you haven't noticed, often grow up into some complete douchbags as adults.

      Being that discipline has been trashed, everyone looks for a substitute. Following along with the impulsive idiot hippie idealism, why not tap into "lets feel good" as a motivator? This would work fine and dandy, but there are plenty of inherent problems with that system. First that comes to mind is the subjects develop a type of immunity to the stimulus. Like germs becoming immune to medicine, requiring more and more until the medicine doesn't work at all, the subjects require more and more stimulus until nothing works.

      My hypotheses is this; Without a balanced system, you will have a singular directional system that will head one direction with increasing efforts to get any gains, reaching a point of diminishing returns, then it will slingshot backwards into complete failure. A balanced system will keep the values of both polarities in regulation. Simply put, if you have to put on the razzle dazzle to get their attention, you have over-reached the effectiveness of this reinforcement. Understand an education isn't about learning what numbers mean in an equation, but also the functioning as a social creature in a society. It must prepare the student for the reality of what is to soon face them.

      Lets face it, the world is a brutal and cruel place. By not teaching discipline and boundaries to children, you are not only failing to prepare them for reality, but you are handicapping them and possibly putting them into danger. A REAL education that prepares a child to be an adult in a world such as ours, isn't from trying to find something that might finally entertain little Johnny enough to pay attention to it. This is the kind of poisoned thinking I am on about, because obviously it doesn't fucking work. Whoopity fucking doo, you found another sugary sweet, bright shiny thing to try to lure little Johnny down the track a little farther. Seriously people, they used to call it "spoiling the kids", that was back before we fucked things up. Don't flush us all down the toilet and try to convince me it's progress.

      Back to this poster; Don't try to bullshit the argument with sampling farmers kid's results throwing off the mean. Don't look at the test results, look at the tests themselves. The questions that were required of kids at 8th grade are BRUTAL compared to the mental pablum that kids are fed these days. I was talking recently with one of my sociology professors who's in his 70s;the amount education has degraded since his days going to school as a student has him dismayed.

      If I don't stop to do my analysis...lol. I always get a big kick out of people who learn a few big words and learn a few mechanics of analysis and by just the merit of knowing this little bit, think their analysis isn't faulty. I call this the "Those who think they know it all annoy us who do" syndrome.

      You do realize that human knowledge is built upon prior human knowledge? It's not a cognitive predisposition to understand the importance of past successes, and being able

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    32. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my day, we called them "timelines". The good history books had them alongside the other good information.

    33. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The point was not "let's teach facebook" the point was "Children respond well to material when presented in a format which they associate to (e.g. schoolhouse rock cartoons) therefore, let's present one of the "tough subjects" in a manner that will get their attention."

      But the real world doesn't look or act like facebook. Pretending otherwise is just storing up disappointment.

      If you include those farmers who didn't go to school (my father was a 3rd grade dropout) I think you'll find they'd drop down your average at the 8th grade level dramatically

      Not sure how people who aren't there will affect the average on a test taken by the people who are there. Are you assuming farmers' children are somehow of lower intelligence, and by not being there they leave a stronger sample remaining?

      (means disliking values of 0 as they do).

      What?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Who is this Stan guy and how'd he get his name on so many countries anyway?

    35. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wife went against the grain and thought my penis has a circumference of 40,000 km. Ask her gape if she was right.

    36. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by manwargi · · Score: 1
    37. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      And what blessed place are you from where you delude yourself into believing that the kids have some magical affinity for history?

    38. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>This particular "wall" is a bit too brief to be useful for most purposes

      And a, uh, bit too biased. Look at what lines the guy focuses on, and you can tell how he votes.

      If you want to use a more neutral and more useful tool for your classroom, you can do Bracketing exercises with a timeline around your classroom. Post the major dates on the timeline, so when you refer to a specific year, kids can see (very roughly) what was going on around that time period. You can have them add to it over the year too. Some schools post identical timelines in all history classrooms, so that their kids really get beat into their heads a rough sense of when stuff happened.

    39. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I liked this

      http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_20057151.asp

      Hitler[AoE]: u guys are fockin gay
      Hitler[AoE]: ur never getting in my city
      *Hitler[AoE] has been eliminated.*
      benny~tow: OMG u noob you killed yourself
      Eisenhower: ROFLOLOLOL
      Stalin: OMG LMAO!
      Hitler[AoE]: WTF i didnt click there omg this game blows
      *Hitler[AoE] has left the game*
      paTTon: hahahhah
      T0J0: WTF my teammates are n00bs
      benny~tow: shut up noob
      Roosevelt: haha wut a moron
      paTTon: wtf am i gunna do now?
      Eisenhower: yah me too
      T0J0: why dont u attack me o thats right u dont got no ships lololol
      Eisenhower: fock u
      paTTon: lemme go thru ur base commie
      Stalin: go to hell lol
      paTTon: fock this sh1t im goin afk
      Eisenhower: yah this is gay
      *Roosevelt has left the game.*
      Hitler[AoE]: wtf?
      Eisenhower: sh1t now we need some1 to join
      *tru_m4n has joined the game.*
      tru_m4n: hi all
      T0J0: hey
      Stalin: sup
      Churchill: hi
      tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
      tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
      Stalin: d00d gimmie some plz
      tru_m4n: no way i only got like a couple
      Stalin: omg dont be gay gimmie nuculer secrets
      T0J0: wtf is nukes?
      T0J0: holy ****holy****hoyl****!
      *T0J0 has been eliminated.*
      *The Allied team has won the game!*

      Also this

      http://users.livejournal.com/kim_jong_il__/

      "And Iran, Iran's so far awaaay."

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    40. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know who raises kids? 4Chan.

      FTFY, and died a little inside.

    41. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      As a kid, I hated the rote memorization of useless dates (instead of the important sequence of events) and facts that was required in our school system. As I matured, I've found history much more intriguing, especially since I've had the opportunity to travel or live in many historically significant locations.

      I noticed that my daughter was going through the same dislike of history that I did. She was taking US history, and since I live in the DC metro area it was an easy drive to civil war battlefields, and many other important places, I thought it would help stir up some interest. No such luck. And to this date, I've never met a kid that enjoys history.

      Blame the parents all you want, but I believe there's something in the aging process that does it for us. I'd speculate also, that this might be related to the fact that teens rarely listen to their parents or care to learn from their mistakes, but somewhere around college age, many of them start to get it. They seem to discover that others who've gone before them actually had some good ideas. I know I'm stereotyping, but I've seen it too often. I'd be interested to know if there's any scientific basis for this, or in other peoples observations.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    42. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original name of the country was Aryavrata(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80ry%C4%81varta) or Abode of the Aryans(Noble people........not the Nazi thing(you can blame Max Muellar and Hitler)).

      THANK YOU! Now I understand the swastikas in Kipling's illustrations in the "Just So Stories". I'd heard them described as good luck symbols, but didn't get the connection. This also explains why the 1920s 13-volume set of Kipling has swastikas on the binding.

    43. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      The point is not so much "we must entertain to educate", but rather, "education that happens to be entertaining is more effective at getting kids motivated to actually want to learn than education that is not", owing to the fact that they lack the life experience to realize just how important their education in many of the subjects that they just don't have any real interest in will likely turn out to be over the course of their lifetime.

      And if you don't think it's a good idea to try figuring out ways to get kids more interested in actually learning, then I think you may be hung up more on following procedure than you are interested in genuine education.

    44. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Whether the real world looks or acts like something that kids are familiar with (facebook, in this case) is entirely immaterial to whether or not they can effectively learn real facts about a subject by presenting it to them in such a format.

      A person who has become interested in a subject because it was initially presented in a way that they could relate to and identify with, even if that presentation was not wholly accurate (as long as it had enough truth in it that genuinely factual concepts could be taken from it), then the person is *FAR* more likely to actually learn something real about the subject than somebody who has just been fed the raw data that they are then free to either ignore or to process. The idea is nothing less and nothing more than an attempt to at least spark an interest in learning, because a child that actually *wants* to learn a subject is going to be far more productive in that subject than a child who has doesn't see any relevance of the information he has been taught to his own personal life.

      It's been mentioned before in this thread, but it bears repeating that Schoolhouse Rock is an excellent example of meeting kids where they are at - teaching kids all about various subjects that they probably get an earful of at school as well, but all presented in an entirely non-threatening format that kids enjoy and do actually learn from... in some cases better than they do in the classroom. That's not a failing of the education system per se, it's simply a manifestation of what happens when a child is in school who doesn't have an internal motivation to actually learn the subject matter.

      I'm further not suggesting that education should be dumbed down for kids so that they will always find it entertaining. I'm only saying that, particularly for subjects that kids often don't easily relate to (math and history being excellent examples), finding new ways to present that information to them in a format that is a whole lot more identifiable to them certainly can't hurt.

    45. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by nicholas22 · · Score: 1

      I hated it when they made us memorize dates too. But guess what, we were much more capable of doing that back then than we are now. So I still remember certain important dates to this day. Whether they come handy in anything else than suffixing them to passwords, I don't know... :P

    46. Re:You know... that might not be a bad idea... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And I think you're on to something that I've argued for several times previously. I believe memorization is a useful skill, that comes with some practice. As a kid, I was forced to sit and memorize my multiplication table flash cards before I could have dinner. We also had to memorize all the countries on the planet for 5th grade, and the schematic for a superhetrodyne receiver (10th grade, 1973-4), and regurgitate it, with description for an exam. While I'm not suggesting we go back to that kind of practice, I do believe it helped me be able to remember things others struggle with. Some would argue that you're either born with that skill or not, and I'd agree to disagree.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. I didn't know I "friended" it to begin with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How to I unfriend it?

    1. Re:I didn't know I "friended" it to begin with by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      Stop posting as AC, we promise we'll treat you as an unfriend deserves.

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:I didn't know I "friended" it to begin with by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      How is this in any way insightful?

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    3. Re:I didn't know I "friended" it to begin with by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      It's not, but it's very popular outside the US to bash us.

      Yes, it's all our fault, and the rest of the world is perfect. Seriously, do we have problems...yes. Do we know it...yes. Are we getting better or worse...depends on the topic, and who you ask.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. By jingo! by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 0, Troll

    By jingo you American's are inspiring! Such self-awareness, such humility, such jingoism!

    1. Re:By jingo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How fitting. Your comments are both petty and bourgeois.

  4. Followed By ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "10% unemployment reduction ensues" followed by "millions and millions and millions of unemployed are now happy to have a job" followed by "liberals refuse to accept or comprehend this concept for the next 30 years".

  5. So... by feepness · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are around 150,000 troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. We have bases all over the world. We are currently bombing other nations (Libya/Yemen/Somalia). We have bases in over a hundred other countries around the world.

    When did we stop nation building again?

    1. Re:So... by dclozier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When companies stopped manufacturing here.

    2. Re:So... by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When did we stop nation building again?

      When we became too P.C. to finish a war. If we're nation building now, it's somebody else's nation and financed by our national debt.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    3. Re:So... by camperdave · · Score: 2

      You don't build a nation with bombs. You destroy a nation with them. You build a nation with schools, infrastructure, trade, etc.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:So... by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Insightful

      it's somebody else's nation and financed by our national debt.

      You have to know who your pimp is. Financing is done by China and Japan, since they own most of the national debt (the US government holds most of the rest, but that's just the fluff that's propping up the illusion of the US dollar).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't profitable to build private schools and infrastructure in a war torn country, and it's too socialist to build public schools and infrastructure. Trading only works if they have money already.

    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus, there is no nation building going on.

    7. Re:So... by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      The bulk of US debt is actually held domestically AFAIK, by an absolutely huge margin, with the fed marking up the single largest % of that. Japan and China *combined* finance about 20% of US debt. A quick google gives me this: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/06/09/the-fed-is-the-biggest-holder-of-us-debt/ though there are plenty of other sources too

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    8. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know peace was "PC". So to be a tough realist I should support spending another trillion bucks? I thought conservatives were against pissing away money.

    9. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last nation we did actual nation building in was Japan....burn everything to the ground to the point that the survivors think we are going to kill them too.....and then rebuild.

      Verses what we do now, which is sort of pick around the edges piss off a bunch of people, act in a semi-timid manner that makes people think they have a say in what we are doing, and then flip flop for ten years and once we are completely demoralized and broke, leave and have to listen to the bitching for the next 50 years of how we screwed up everything.

      Last time I checked all of the mess in the Middle East, Asia, and South America can be laid at three countries' feet. Spain (South America), England (Middle East), and France (Asia). For centuries these countries ran around messing with anyone and everyone in the name of their empires and some how the US get's the blame for all of it.

      I say if it is that urgent we go interviene someplace it should be so terrible (shock and awe was weak cheese) that noone wants us to step in and when we do they cooporate because they are gratefull that we had the restraint not to exterminate every last mother fucking one of them (occassionally we should have no restraint just to get the point accross) and then leave after we set things up the way we want them set up.

    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely right - I'm sick and tired of all the negativity that is directed against our military forces esp in relation to Afghanistan. You can say what you like about that conflict but we're gonna have a fantastic team for the Paralympic Games in 2012!

    11. Re:So... by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      When did we stop nation building again?

      When Obama failed to get his tax hike through, the Chinese bought all your bad debt, and Congress refused to allow Obama anymore money. Happy fucking Independence Day :D

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    12. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Obama failed to get his tax hike through, the Chinese bought all your bad debt, and Congress refused to allow Obama anymore money. Happy fucking Independence Day :D

      Thank you for so concisely demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about and can be safely ignored! You've saved us all the time of reading any future posts you may make.

    13. Re:So... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the "held domestically" part is the fluff I was talking about. The biggest buyer of US treasuries is - the US government. No printing press required when you can just issue bonds to yourself.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:So... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That is just wrong something around 60% of the national debt is the property of domestic owners. China and Japan hold lots but its not correct to say most. In practical economic terms I am not sure the distinction matters but for the sake of our language China and Japan don't have most of the debt, they have a large amount of of the debt.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    15. Re:So... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That might be how it looks abroad but here at home the reality is that the war in Afghanistan is the one thing congress probably can be counted on support appropriates for. Obama is giving up the effort because he has to get re-elected if he does not give his base something they won't turn out for him. The public is against the war at this point. The reality congress (which has a historically low approval rating) can duck most of the responsibility because they are numerous enough its hard for the laze to recall who voted for what but the president cannot.

      Obama had to stop nation building because A) It does not work, and never has B) the elections are coming and as the Liberal Peace Prizing winning Democrat he has to be the anti war; not to win votes but rather no to lose them.

      Afghanistan regrettably is not a big part of the debt crisis debate here, even though it ought to be given defense is between 1/4 and 1/3 of the budget.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re:So... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Correction - financed by foreign debt, every 40 cents spent by US government is borrowed from abroad.

    17. Re:So... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we can kill other people and steal their shit with bombs

    18. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe not making the country you are trying to nation-build a war torn country might make things easier...

    19. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Obama had to stop nation building because A) It does not work, and never has..."

      Marshall Plan.

    20. Re:So... by daath93 · · Score: 1

      No you directly said "China and Japan, Since they own most of the national debt (the US government holds most of the rest. This is a classic "I'll say total misleading bullshit and when someone catches me I'll pretend that's what i actually meant." By the time someone catches you, hundreds of ignorant /.ers have already read your comment and added the information to their group think. Good going, just admit what you've done.

    21. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You know what the problem is, Brucie? We used to make shit in this country... build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pockets."
      F. Sobotka, The Wire

    22. Re:So... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Sure, if it makes you happy. By the way I have a coin that I say is worth 10 million dollars in my right pocket. And in my left pocket I wrote myself an IOU for 10 million dollars. Should I tell everyone how rich I am? Do you think this will improve my credit rating, or are they just going to look at my debts to third parties?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    23. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when exactly became (quote) "bombing other nations", troops and military bases "nation building"?
      (Especially considering the "bombing" part, that sounds more like the opposite of building ....)

  6. Turrorists. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A part of me can't help but think of what our founding fathers would think of America today and how quickly they'd be branded as terrorists.

    War on Drugs, TSA, 'mandatory' DUI checkpoints, gun control, police abuses, etc, etc.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

    Imagine if a group of informed citizens stood up and sent that to the feds. How quickly would they be shut down?

    1. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wouldn't be -shut down-, per se, they'd just be accused of molesting baby kittens until the whole thing blew over.

    2. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This speech is dangerous.

    3. Re:Turrorists. by blcamp · · Score: 1

      I've posted that passage from the Declaration on my Facebook page many times - including today - and I haven't been "shut down".

      And you know what? They ain't shutting me down... or shutting me UP... until I stop making CO2.

      --
      The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    4. Re:Turrorists. by houghi · · Score: 1

      They shut others up. Like that one who said some president was a dick and he was forced to apologize.

      Sure, it wasn't the government that made him shut up and that makes it even worse,

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Turrorists. by rbrausse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      posting something on Facebook != starting a revolution

    6. Re:Turrorists. by hedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're going to relay that anecdote you might want to point out that the individual was a journalist and made the comment on live TV while he was acting in an official capacity. This wasn't a matter of some random individual calling the President a dick on his or her free time.

      And it was the right thing to do, journalists are not supposed to express personal views with company resources, they're supposed to be trying to be as impartial as possible.
      Journalist apologizes for strongly worded criticism of Obama

    7. Re:Turrorists. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      You don't really have anything to worry about until you start stock-piling weapons. Think Waco Texas or Ruby Ridge. Start collecting guns on a compound, you might draw the attention of the feds, and it might be bad for you.

      If all you do is talk, you will be mocked. Like Sharron Angle, when she suggested using second-amendment remedies to take out Harry Reid. The whole point of democracy is we don't need an armed insurrection to change things. The War on Drugs, TSA, DUI checkpoints all continue because people don't care enough to vote against them. You might care, but most people are at least ok with the war on drugs. (note: DUI checkpoints are a state issue, which is different). If people cared to the point they were willing to fight for them, then things would change.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Turrorists. by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While interesting, the thing that bothers me about this exercise is it puts the focus on friending/unfriending the US, but as with a lot of these exercises it completely ignores the assholishness of all those countries critiquing the US. I'm British by birth, lived there 23 years, came to the US and now naturalized. As much as people want to be critical about the US history, I grew up learning how Britain has been completely prickish throughout the whole of history in general. The difference I suppose is that we were taught about this in school. The point being there is no country, the US included, out there that who has the right to critique any countries history without critiquing their own. People in glasshouse shouldn't throw stones.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    9. Re:Turrorists. by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I wonder if those founding fathers ever considered a nation that would span the continent when they wrote that document.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    10. Re:Turrorists. by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I guess the war on drugs is allowed to continue on because the visible users are the "outsiders" of society. I wonder how many there is that wear a suit and tie each day, and inject or snort something in at times and places less publicly visible.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    11. Re:Turrorists. by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I've posted that passage from the Declaration on my Facebook page many times - including today - and I haven't been "shut down"

      That's because you don't really matter to those in power. You're a single person, and its doubtful in their eyes that you'll ever do anything but post quotes from old documents. Now if you and a thousand other people took to the streets chanting that passage, then they might take a little more notice.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    12. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They ain't shutting me down... or shutting me UP... until I stop making CO2.

      That's because you're completely and utterly non-threatening.

    13. Re:Turrorists. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      a journalist and made the comment on live TV while he was acting in an official capacity

      ROFL. Yeah, journalists in "official" capacity. When did Americans stop thinking for themselves - oh let me rephrase that, when are Americans going to start thinking for themselves?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Turrorists. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I agree.....the people who feel strongest about drug legalization are mainly the ones who want to do drugs. Other people are indifferent or see drug users as crack-idiots who live on the street; and let's face it, most of us know a couple people from High-school who ruined their lives with drugs.

      Assuming that all drug users (that is, those who are aware enough to vote) would vote yes to drug legalization, we can say there are fewer than 46% who use drugs regularly. The number for harder drugs, like cocaine or heroin, is probably much lower. Those drugs are really hard to be addicted to long-term without going off the deep end.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal since 1940.

    16. Re:Turrorists. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      "...most of us know a couple people from High-school who ruined their lives with drugs. "

      I also know people that didn't amount to anything and were never on drugs. As well as some who still do drugs 20 years later who are quit successful, well adjusted, productive members of society. I've always thought there may be a strong a correlation not equal to causation issue with this.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    17. Re:Turrorists. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You're trolling, right?

      A journalist does get to think and have opinions, but that isn't to say that such opinions on the job representing a news agency are acceptable to express on the air. Journalists are a bit like historians, doesn't matter what their opinion is if it can't be backed with facts. And the aim is always supposed to be on finding the most accurate account of events possible.

      There are organizations like Fox that feel the need to make up their stories and editorialize all over the place, but to call them "journalists" is misleading and quite dishonest.

    18. Re:Turrorists. by cob666 · · Score: 1

      Sam Adams wold most definitely be branded a terrorist for inciting the Boston Massacre and the Tea Party. It would take massive amounts of coordination and fire power to replace our current government. The file Seven Days in May is probably the most accurate portrayal of the overthrow of the US Government that I can think of right now.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    19. Re:Turrorists. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that sounds like a good thing to look into.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Turrorists. by BarC0d3z · · Score: 2

      That journalist - a very respected one in both camps, btw - was asked his opinion and gave the hosts - a political talk-show - several opportunities to retract the invitation.

    21. Re:Turrorists. by BarC0d3z · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with you, but what have you actively done to battle these grievances besides post to the internet? The founding fathers spent a decade appealing to the government, actively protesting, demanding representation, asking for reprieves and trying to negotiating a peaceful solution. Many of our founding fathers actually wanted to stay a part of the British Empire but with more say in how their colonies were run. In the end, that's what it was about - the people having a say in how their country is ran. In the country they formed, we have a means of fighting back against those in power. It's called elections. You're welcome to back and politically support anyone who will address the issues that most concern you. The quote above is talking about revolution, but that's what I love, revolution in this country can be bloodless.

    22. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... a nation that would span the continent..."

      Would you care to clarify which nation are refering to? AFAIK, there isn't any nation that spans a whole continent. "America" is a continent. The USA is a country within that continent (exactly like Guatemala and Uruguay). I you mean it spans "ocean to ocean", so does Panama (which, is also in America) and several others.

    23. Re:Turrorists. by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      Of course they did, they were far from being stupid people, and civilizations long before ours spanned more than just a single continent.

    24. Re:Turrorists. by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

      Absolutely. It's called a revolution.

      How quickly would they be shut down?

      Ain't nobody said it would be easy, or that the other guy doesn't like they way he's doin' it. You expectin' the government to just agree they aren't doin' such a swell job, step down, and offer you a swing at it? Here in America, we believe in democracy as a means to bring about change. W and Obama couldn't seem more different, but we're still killin' foreign folk, still cagin' 'em without due process, still tappin' the people's phones and goin' through their records. The PATRIOT act still blocks the sight of Ol' Glory. I'm not sayin' things are all bad here -- lots o' good in fact, 'specially compared to some places. But it's tricky ground we're on and if you got somethin' to say about it, you probably don't want a revolution, least ways not yet. You might want a movement, tho'. Group o' people all sayin' the same thing can get the attention of certain folk.

    25. Re:Turrorists. by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, there isn't any nation that spans a whole continent.

      Well Australia nearly spans an entire continent. There are a few other countries owning to a couple of the islands of the continent, like the islands of Tasmania and New Guinea. But Australia does come very close.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    26. Re:Turrorists. by Sique · · Score: 1

      It takes just enough votes to replace the current government. Isn't democracy great?
      (And if you don't get enough votes to replace the current government, you can rightly be considered a minority.)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    27. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't find anything about Taz having non-Aussie islands, which islands do you mean? You don't mean Taz itself right? It's an Aussie State.

    28. Re:Turrorists. by multi+io · · Score: 1

      I you mean it spans "ocean to ocean", so does Panama (which, is also in America) and several others.

      Yeah, but America started out geographically at a place where the continent was much thicker, so spanning it ocean to ocean was going to be a bigger challenge for America than it was for Panama when Panama was founded, and the founding fathers could foresee this!

    29. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to my country. I want to say "Hope we get rid of our empire soon" but that won't be happening will it? I hope we do it the way you did, that didn't go so badly. Just look at Rome, or the Soviet empire...

      ---------------An American (born here)

    30. Re:Turrorists. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree.....the people who feel strongest about drug legalization are mainly the ones who want to do drugs.

      Well then, that's damn near everyone -- Almost everyone engages in recreational drug use on a fairly regular basis, from childhood at that! Caffeine is an addictive, habit forming drug. Alcohol is debilitating and life threatening as any other "hard drug" -- A several strong drinks and you won't even remember the previous day -- a few too many, you'll O.D. and hopefully be in a hospital...

      Hardly anyone bats an eye when a pre-teen chugs a cola, or a 20-something has a beer on a warm summer day...
      Just look at those drug users; Using drugs so openly like that! -- They'll be running amok causing mischief now! Hide your kids, hide your wife (and hide your husband...).

      Yes, sarcastic, however that's many how people view you if you're popping some speed or X, smoking a joint, or doing a line -- and to me they're all the same, just as bad as those people lined up inside Starbucks, McDonald's, or a pub (well actually, the latter may be worse).

      Legalize recreational drug use -- Because prohibition helps gangsters and drug-lords you dolts.

    31. Re:Turrorists. by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      You put heroin in the same category as Starbucks? You have a messed up sense of proportion, my friend.....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Turrorists. by xero314 · · Score: 1

      the people who feel strongest about drug legalization are mainly the ones who want to do drugs...assuming that all drug users (that is, those who are aware enough to vote) would vote yes to drug legalization [wikipedia.org], we can say there are fewer than 46% who use drugs regularly.

      Many people who use drugs either do not vote, or can not vote. This is also true of those that don't use drugs, so you can't take voting numbers to represent the number of users.

      More importantly, many non-users would vote for legalization. Legalization is not necessarily condoning use, but it is condoning the right to make choices and reducing the costs associated with those choices. The cost of drug enforcement in this country is high. The cost of lost taxation and the loss of a complete potential market is also high. People are going to use drugs, regardless of the legality, as was clearly understood by the end of prohibition. Many people support legalization for these reasons, even though they are not users themselves.

      There are also those on the other side that vote against legalization, or abstain from voting on the issue, while also using restricted drugs. Their reasoning is a bit more convoluted, but it's a lot like conservatives voting against gay marriage, yet being caught involved in homosexual relationships.

    33. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posting something on Facebook != starting a revolution

      Tunisian citizen: "Damn, we had it all wrong!"

      Egyptian citizen: "And here I thought it was a rather spiffy idea...."

    34. Re:Turrorists. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      From a political standpoint, those who don't vote, don't matter. Sad but true.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re:Turrorists. by xero314 · · Score: 1

      You put heroin in the same category as Starbucks? You have a messed up sense of proportion, my friend.....

      I know really. I mean Heroin is reasonably priced for what you get yet hardly anyone buys it, while Starbucks is overpriced and people line up daily for their morning cup of burt beans and hot water. Makes you wonder which is more addictive.

      Being familiar with addiction, I will tell you that it's easier to quit many other drugs than it is to quit caffeine, especially the over priced crap that comes out of seattle chain stores.

    36. Re:Turrorists. by xero314 · · Score: 1

      From a political standpoint, those who don't vote, don't matter. Sad but true.

      This is exactly why I think for any change to pass it will require a majority of registered voters, not a majority of voters. Not voting should be the same as voting to keep things exactly as they are. In my opinion, by not voting, you are saying that you like things the way they are.

    37. Re:Turrorists. by styrotech · · Score: 1

      I'll say, Starbucks is more like Methadone.

    38. Re:Turrorists. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Now if you and a thousand other people took to the streets chanting that passage, then they might take a little more notice.

      Yea, they'd probably notice and point a few thousand rifles and several hundred tanks at said chanting people. It's sad that in the "land of the free" it is now criminal to want to actually follow what the nation was founded on....

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    39. Re:Turrorists. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Aww, how cute. You think that A) the government would let someone run who'd truly upset the system and B) that even if said radicals DID get elected that they would step down peacefully. I highly doubt that if someone came along and said "Our party just got elected and is going to completely undo everything that Republicans and Democrats have spent decades working on" that the Republicans and Democrats will just meekly walk away - even if it's done through bogus lawsuits and faking evidence instead of open combat, I don't see them going away without a fight.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    40. Re:Turrorists. by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      social networks can accompany and reinforce on-the-street-revolutions, but they are not the sole tool for such uproars

    41. Re:Turrorists. by Sique · · Score: 1

      It works. Try it! In Germany the radical Greens have been part of a government. And no old government has fought back (except by winning the next local and state elections).
      And when it comes to undo things, it's as complicated as getting things done. Politics is about compromise (as is everything else in general), and being too radical will lose you the next election anyway. But if you have a majority of votes, it basicly means that you also have the majority of the population behind you. That means that also the majority of police men in your region, the majority of town councils in your region, the majority of people in the governmental services, the majority of the boards of education and similar are behind you. So which would be that government which then will roll over you? Who will join the personal that's attacking you?
      You seem to think that government is other people, people not you. Some men in black, indestructible and countless in numbers.
      That's as wrong as it gets.
      Government is you. Goverment is made by people like you. People from your neighbourhood. People you were in highschool with. And, most importantly: people you elected or failed to disqualify by electing someone else. If your government fails on you, it's mainly your own fault - for either being a minority unable to voice its interest in the right manner to get other people to agree with you, or for being a majority unable to care for itself.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    42. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've posted that passage from the Declaration on my Facebook page many times - including today - and I haven't been "shut down". And you know what? They ain't shutting me down... or shutting me UP... until I stop making CO2.

      The reason that you haven't been shut down is that posting that passage is *all* you've done. The powers that be know that you will never go beyond that.

    43. Re:Turrorists. by russotto · · Score: 1

      You don't really have anything to worry about until you start stock-piling weapons. Think Waco Texas or Ruby Ridge.

      Or Lexington or Concord?

      The whole point of democracy is we don't need an armed insurrection to change things.

      Not for the worse, anyway.

    44. Re:Turrorists. by hsbaker · · Score: 1

      There are organizations like Fox that feel the need to make up their stories and editorialize all over the place, but to call them "journalists" is misleading and quite dishonest.

      You're trolling, right?

      Or do you just think that those facts that don't fit your opinions must be fabricated?

      --
      I don't think that word means what you think it means.
    45. Re:Turrorists. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Or do you just think that those facts that don't fit your opinions must be fabricated?

      I believe your signature points out the issue here...

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    46. Re:Turrorists. by PoopCat · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because the US is the biggest bully in the schoolyard now, and people see what it is doing with its power now, and want to change it's behaviour BEFORE it can fuck up just as mightily as the rest of the empire-building nations once did - saying "yeah, well, England built an empire, so the English can STFU about America" is ok just as long as the situation isn't made any worse.

      There are, of course, other people who think it's already too late.

    47. Re:Turrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up learning how England has been completely prickish

      FTFY, unless you think Scotland, Wales, and the outlying islands had a hand in The _British_ Empire too (hint: they didn't, at least not one that was un-coerced).

    48. Re:Turrorists. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      First off, that's Germany, not the US. Secondly, citizens (at least in the US) have very little power over the government these days. The two controlling political parties get to choose who runs, get to choose who gets government financing for campaigns, get to choose who gets to speak on TV during debates, etc. That's why so many Americans have given up on voting - because it doesn't mean a thing to politicians since you can't actually change what they do.

      You're also highly overestimating those in the military - considering it was only a few decades ago that US troops murdered US students (this was done under orders, not some troops going renegade) for daring to try to change things, there's no reason to expect that they would think twice about murdering any US citizens the government told them to. All they have to say is that magic word "terrorist". Government is some other people - they're politicians and soldiers who think that they're superior to everyone else and can do anything they goddamn please. That's why the US has the second amendment allowing citizens to have weapons - to help keep the government in check (sadly no amount of firearms helps when the government has tanks and bombers, not to mention an unconstitutional standing army of hundreds of thousands who's job is to kill anyone they're told to kill without question).

      The problem is that they system doesn't work and ironically, only those in control of the system can change the system. But you keep your delusions of having control.......wasn't it in Gladiator where the someone told the emperor to keep the senate around to keep the population docile and under the illusion that they had some say in the government?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    49. Re:Turrorists. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I would be more interested if we could bring the founders into the future and see how they react to modern circumstances.

      Would every person be allowed any form of weaponry? Grenades? Mortars? Missiles? Or would our founding fathers enact some gun laws?
      Would the flying carriages in the sky require no forms of ID, no check points, and no security? Just how would Thomas Jefferson respond if one of those flying carriages was flown into the White House?

      And on a side note, I was just googling, without much luck, on how policing was done in the colonial period. From the few short blurbs I could find, it sounded like it was locally formed, rather loose with its rules, and the vast majority of justice was served vigilante style. I'm not sure that would be a better system than our current one.

      I agree that we have some pretty big issues, and that things (abuse, diminished rights, etc...) have gotten worse over time. I can see many areas where our system needs tweaking, transparency, and a stricter adherence to law and tradition. Clarence Thomas, for instance, should have recused himself from the Citizens United vote due to his Wife's involvement in the exact same type of organizations that he was ruling about.

      But I wish that people would stop glorifying the founding fathers. I'm pretty sure that if we traveled back in time, picked up all the early founders, brought them into our time, dropped them into office, you'd see many differences in their laws given our present circumstances.

  7. Re:cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which one, Teddy, Mikey, or little Tommy?

  8. Not the First by Khomar · · Score: 1

    While I am certain the religious content of this video will not be liked by many on Slashdot, it should be noted that this is not the first time this idea was used -- to mimic social media to explain history. In my opinion, the video was far more creative in the telling of its story as well. It creatively shows the story of Christmas with great insight and thoughtfulness.

    A Social Network Christmas

    --

    I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

  9. You are not nation building by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are maintaining an empire.

    HTH.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:You are not nation building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, as in the puppet Obama administration is maintaining an empire.

    2. Re:You are not nation building by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      Except it is the American people who are paying for it.

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:You are not nation building by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      not really, we can't afford it and instead they are "charging it"

    4. Re:You are not nation building by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

      No one is paying for it, that's why there's a huge deficit. Unless american start excreting gold bricks they'll never get out from under that debt (like most european nations too) so they'll do what empires always do when they run out of credit: default. Like the spanish kings that wiped out the Fugger banker family.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  10. NY Times by Loopy · · Score: 1

    Classy, as always.

  11. Ronald Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see... When the inept Carter admin was overthrown I got a tax cut. It was my first job out of college and the pay sucked. Hardly upper class.

    And wait, there's more. The tax cuts gave us a couple decades of growth. Oh, and the Soviet empire fell.

    You know, he was a good president after all.

    1. Re:Ronald Reagan by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really, he gave us $4tn in deficits, several bubbles in the equities market and led the nation to increasingly hand over its money to the rich on the basis of a completely disproven theory of economics. Hell, even Reagan himself know that tax cuts for the rich were not a panacea which is why he raised them that second year in office.

    2. Re:Ronald Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actor?! Who's Vice President? Jerry Lewis?

    3. Re:Ronald Reagan by approachingZero+ · · Score: 0

      Revenue to the US Treasury increased under Reagan, unfortunately the Congress (Tim O'Neil & Co.) increased spending even more. Quacks like Krugman spend their entire lives trying to prove Reagan was a failure, it's pretty sad really. Sure, Reagan raised taxes here and lowered them there. The bottom line is if punish those who grow the economy to the point where they stop don't act surprised when that's what happens.

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    4. Re:Ronald Reagan by Pope · · Score: 2

      "Ketchup is a vegetable." Fuck Reagan,

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    5. Re:Ronald Reagan by CokeBear · · Score: 2

      A tax cut while in a deficit situation is just a future tax increase.
      Why do you want to keep raising taxes on your kids?

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    6. Re:Ronald Reagan by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Its really fun to blame Regan for the deficits but, the explosive growth in the deficit trend started under Carter, the rate at which the deficit was increased actually decreased thought most of the Regan administration.

      Its also true that Regan had a largely unwilling congress and he had to make major compromises with them, in terms of allowing social spending to get them to pass his own agenda items. Many of those program Regan was methodologically against add up to a large portion of that $4T.

      At the end of the Regan in terms of public speaking was an ideologue, and he certain did have some core values which he would not compromise on, however in broader terms Regan's leadership style was compromising. He probably reached across the isle in real policy terms more than anyone who has come after him besides perhaps Clinton. The Bushes and Obama have been far more polar.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Ronald Reagan by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Not really"? We didn't have a couple of decades of growth? Or are you trying to change what he said?

      Did we have deficits? Yes. Was that due to tax cuts? No. More money came in as a result of the growth generated by those tax cuts.

      What caused the deficits, then? Could it be.... Government over-spending? Spending far more than what was generated? Hmmm....

      But that wouldn't fit in to your narrative... would it?

    8. Re:Ronald Reagan by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You might be interested to know that while "fruit" has a biological definition, "vegetable" is only a culinary one. I did better under Reagan than any president since.

    9. Re:Ronald Reagan by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true, if instead of raising taxes we prune the government to 40% or less of its present size. I don't support half of what the federal government does, let's mostly get rid of it.

    10. Re:Ronald Reagan by Nimey · · Score: 1

      All hail Saint Reagan (peace be upon him).

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    11. Re:Ronald Reagan by Nimey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Government overspending, indeed. Why, did you know that St. Reagan (pbuh) dramatically increased military spending so he could willy-wave at the Soviets?

      What's that you were wharrgarbling about narrative, now?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    12. Re:Ronald Reagan by vux984 · · Score: 0

      The Bushes and Obama have been far more polar.

      Same effective "polarity" but for different reasons.

      In that Bush just did whatever he wanted = highly polar.

      And that Obama can't get the republican congress to agree to anything unless its the exact position of the republican congress... and only then if its clear it was their idea first. = highly polar... but its just not the same.

    13. Re:Ronald Reagan by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      which is what conservative governments traditionally do. Cherry pick certain areas of government to slash in the name of reducing the numbers of 'lazy public servants'. All the while promising tax cuts from the savings.

      Sucks to be reliant on a government service that gets cut but hey, it's for the greater good!

      Who decides the 40% though?

    14. Re:Ronald Reagan by IVI+V+K · · Score: 2

      The US dept has consistently grown under Republican presidents and shrunk under democrats.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

    15. Re:Ronald Reagan by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh how cute.. another slashdotter that doesnt understand where United States spending bills originate.

      Debt to GDP ratio uncorrelated with president, but highly correlated with House and Senate

      End of debate. You lose.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    16. Re:Ronald Reagan by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 2

      For the people who do not want to click.
      Its a graph showing
      7 Dem. presidents of which 2 raised the debt.
      and 6 Rep. Presidents of which 3 raised the debt. (1 only very slightly...it was Ford. I think the debt increase in that case was just for his insurance in case he hurt himself falling down some stairs.)
      The largest debt increase was Roosevelt (Dem) It went from aprox %50 of the GDP to 120 of the GDP.
      Nice graph you really should take a peak.
      I miss Bill Clinton. (has anyone explained why getting a blowjob is somehow worse than starting several wars yet????)

    17. Re:Ronald Reagan by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      The President does not spend, Congress does.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    18. Re:Ronald Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the graph you linked to shows pretty much the opposite of what you seem to be claiming.

      Debt to GDP ratio is strongly correlated to president.

    19. Re:Ronald Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Over the course of his administration the actual amount that Congress spent over Reagan's budget requests was $200 billion, or about 3%. The actual reason why more was spent was because Reagan's budget assumed unrealistic economic growth and this unsurprisingly didn't happen 7 out of 8 years of his presidency. So where did the $1.6 trillion added to the national debt during Reagan's administration come from? As a result of Reagan's tax cuts that went into affect in 1982, federal income as a percent of GDP dropped from 19.8% in 1982 to 18.1% in 1983, and stayed low throughout his presidency. Federal spending as a percent of GDP jumped up from 22.9% under Carter to 23.4% under Reagan, and remained elevated until Democrats retook the Senate in 1987.

    20. Re:Ronald Reagan by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      The Constitution decides; if it isn't listed as a duty, it doesn't get done. No matter who starves, no matter what mega-corporations fall (e.g. federal reserve system), let the chips fall as they may.

    21. Re:Ronald Reagan by Nimey · · Score: 1

      The President gets to set priorities and lead. St. Reagan (pbuh) chose to ask for $lots for the 600-ship Navy, enlarged Army, SDI, etc.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    22. Re:Ronald Reagan by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Even better is to realize that both of the Democrat Presidents who increased spending were elected immediately following a major recession/depression under a Republican. If the pattern holds true and we can maintain a Democrat as president, then we will get out of the current recession and then reduce spending significantly. Doubt that's going to happen since I don't believe Obama is a charismatic enough president to get elected again, but I can hope right.

    23. Re:Ronald Reagan by Nimey · · Score: 1

      The President wields the veto pen.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    24. Re:Ronald Reagan by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    25. Re:Ronald Reagan by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      No he doesn't. Stop making things up.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    26. Re:Ronald Reagan by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Yes he does. St. Reagan (pbuh) chose not to wield his veto pen after asking for his 600-ship Navy.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    27. Re:Ronald Reagan by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      That's a gross oversimplification of history. The Reagan tax cuts did give us decent economic growth. But hardly decades long. It lasted for a few years until the economy went back into recession in the early 90's. And where did that growth go? It went into the hands of the rich. Median household income over the Reagan-Bush Sr. years was stagnant, despite the large growth in GDP and the stock market.

      Then in the mid to late 90's we experienced very strong economic growth, but it had hardly anything at all to do with tax policies. It was from the boom in the software and computer industries. Again, almost nothing of that gain went to the average person. Median household income remained stagnant.

      Under Bush Jr., we experienced massive growth in the GDP and stock market (fueled by the finance boom), followed by yet another crash. Again, almost none of that wealth actually made it to the average American family. Median household income when adjusted for inflation is essentially the same as it it was 40 years ago, despite massive gains in productivity and economic growth.

      If you think any presidential administration has been effective job at increasing the wealth of the average American in modern times, your are deluded to say the least. Republican or Democrat, they have all made the rich quite a bit richer, and done jack squat for the middle and lower classes.

    28. Re:Ronald Reagan by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Statement: Reagan cut taxes and increased revenue. Cutting taxes work!

      Counter argument: The debt increased under Reagan! Cutting taxes DIDN'T WORK!

      Point of fact: Revenue DID increase, but Government spending increased far more. Cutting taxes increases revenue -- but spending more that you bring in -- that increases debt.

      Counter argument: Government DID spent more, and it was Reagan who did it.

      Me: I've no idea wtf you are trying to say in terms of how to -- and what has worked in increasing revenue to our national coffers.

    29. Re:Ronald Reagan by Totenglocke · · Score: 0

      And that Obama can't get the republican congress to agree to anything unless its the exact position of the republican congress

      Well ain't karma a bitch? Obama walked in and spent the first half of his presidency telling the Republicans to go fuck themselves and that he didn't need or want their cooperation because he had a majority and could cram anything he wanted down their throats. How could he NOT expect this once they gained a majority?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    30. Re:Ronald Reagan by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I recently learned that tomatoes are actually one of the few true fruits that aren't berries. (Most berries are true fruits, but apples and bananas aren't, apparently.)

    31. Re:Ronald Reagan by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Who decides the 40% though?

      I think it's the big corporations.

    32. Re:Ronald Reagan by mcvos · · Score: 1

      If you count Ford ( I think you shouldn't) then it'd be 4 republicans who raised the debt. But the most recent 3 Republican presidents did increase the debt quite a bit, while the previous Democrat president reduced it. The graphs shows nicely that Obama's restrictive policies (TSA, Wikileaks, RIAA, etc) aren't the only reason why he's not so different from Republican presidents.

      FDR, by the way, had a real war to fight. None of this limited Afghanistan/Iraq crap; US forces were fighting all over the Pacific, while the US was also funding the Russian war effort on the East Front and eventually the massive operations in Normandy. Also note that Korea, Vietnam, or the race to the moon don't register on this graph at all. Most of the Cold War was fought while the debt was being reduced. It's only in the last 30 years that the US is really overspending so much, and the Clinton administration was the only interruption of that trend.

    33. Re:Ronald Reagan by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I think FDR did quite a bit for the lower classes. But yes, that was quite some time ago. The wealth gap has been growing significantly and quite constantly over the past few decades.

    34. Re:Ronald Reagan by kisak · · Score: 1

      People who don't support "half of what the federal government does" usually don't have half a clue about what the government actually do for them.

      Best example is the so-called tea-baggers with their keep your government hands off my medicare, showning how propaganda that "everything bad is caused by the government" makes people happy about the service provided by the same government go out and vote to end those services.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    35. Re:Ronald Reagan by russotto · · Score: 1

      The tomato and the banana are both berries; an apple is not a true fruit, botanically speaking.

    36. Re:Ronald Reagan by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Bananas are berries? I'll take your word for it. So are there any true fruits that aren't berries? Or are "true fruit" and "berry" synonyms?

    37. Re:Ronald Reagan by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Well ain't karma a bitch? Obama walked in and spent the first half of his presidency telling the Republicans to go fuck themselves and that he didn't need or want their cooperation because he had a majority and could cram anything he wanted down their throats.

      Actually Repubicans were being obstructionist since the beginning.

    38. Re:Ronald Reagan by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no troll, that is how the supreme law of the land says we have to run the country. Any person or system usurping its authority to confiscate wealth or to have tyrannical powers must be eliminated.

    39. Re:Ronald Reagan by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, because not bowing in submission to the other party is "being obstructionist". I despise both parties, but you can't try to argue that Democrats didn't go in with an arrogant attitude and do everything they could to isolate Republicans.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    40. Re:Ronald Reagan by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      People who don't support "half of what the federal government does" usually don't have half a clue about what the government actually do for them.

      You are imagining generalizations about me without foundation. Of course I would include Medicare in the things the Federal government has no mandate nor business being involved.

    41. Re:Ronald Reagan by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, because not bowing in submission to the other party is "being obstructionist".

      Ah no. "Being obstructionist" is being obstructionist.

      No one buy you said anything about bowing down in submission.

    42. Re:Ronald Reagan by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      And you're only saying that they're "being obstructionist" because they're actually supporting the policies that they said they would when they got elected and aren't just bowing down and letting the Messiah do whatever he wants.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  12. Birthday? by kevinmenzel · · Score: 2

    Just because you declare independance doesn't make you a country. Try again on April 9, when the treaty that ended the war of independance was ratified, and the former colonies became recognized as their own country. If anything, July 4 (or July 2, or August 2 depending on which historian you're reading and what your point of view is) is America's "Conception Day".

    1. Re:Birthday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What I've learned about people and socially accepted facts:
      You may be right, but it really doesn't matter.
      Eg. Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25th...many people know this, yet they don't care.
      Etc.
      Etc.

    2. Re:Birthday? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Had we lost the war we wouldn't be observing Independence day at all. The reason we observe it on July 4th is because that was the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed and the day on which quite a few individuals more or less signed their own death warrants had the bid failed.

      I think it's the right choice as it better exemplifies the spirit of the revolution than the day upon which we succeeded in throwing the Brits out.

    3. Re:Birthday? by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So what does the spirit of the revolution have to say about the American media obsession with the British royal family? Cake and eat it too?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Birthday? by artor3 · · Score: 2

      That Americans aren't so petty as to hold a grudge against the British for two hundred years.

    5. Re:Birthday? by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      Lots of people have obsessions with things that are quaint, cute, and totally pointless.

    6. Re:Birthday? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I don't see any problem with that, as long as they're over there and not over here for reasons other than a visit. Considering that we haven't had any wars with the Brits in nearly 200 years, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with being fascinated by the royal family.

    7. Re:Birthday? by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying "Don't celebrate it." There is of course reason to celebrate July 4. I'm just saying it's not America's birthday.

    8. Re:Birthday? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Says you, we consider that to be the event that signifies the start of our country. It's the point when we stopped recognizing the crown as the ruler of our land. Strikes me as a completely legitimate way of deciding when to start counting.

    9. Re:Birthday? by Jhon · · Score: 1

      The reason we observe it on July 4th is because that was the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed and the day on which quite a few individuals more or less signed their own death warrants had the bid failed.

      Actually, the DoI was "signed" on the 2nd (not really then either, but I digress) . It was at the printers on the 4th...

      I could go in to the actually events and take 4 or 5 paragraphs... but it's my day off and I want to enjoy our nations "birth" with my kids.

    10. Re:Birthday? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      Wrong, the country was formed right at the signing of the Declaration. Thanks for playing "revisionist urban legends".

      "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."

    11. Re:Birthday? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      get mad at the British for that Hanoverian kraut's actions?

    12. Re:Birthday? by crdotson · · Score: 2

      By your reasoning, if England still maintained to this day that the US was part of England, the US still wouldn't be a country?

      On July 4, 1776, a group of people claimed that they were a separate nation, no longer governed by England, and began acting that way. For various reasons, nobody was able to prove them wrong, so that's the best date to claim as the US's birthday -- even if other countries didn't immediately recognize it. It wasn't as thought the US actually came out of a woman's birth canal, so I'm afraid you're going to have to accept some loss of literalism on the term "birthday".

    13. Re:Birthday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that's why you're the last power to ditch the imperial system.

    14. Re:Birthday? by hansraj · · Score: 1

      Belated* Happy Birthday, America!

      I am in Europe and missed it by a few hours. Sorry.

    15. Re:Birthday? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      That Americans aren't so petty as to hold a grudge against the British for two hundred years.

      Huh? Seen any recent Hollywood movies?

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    16. Re:Birthday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans would clearly rather celebrate starting a fight than celebrate being free.

    17. Re:Birthday? by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      England still acted like the US was part of England. Hence the WAR OF INDEPENDANCE. Which had to be fought, to establish independance. That war ended with a treaty, which was frankly recognized by the Brits before the Americans, which ended the war of independance. Had there been no treaty, there would still have been a war. What's the likelyhood, do you think, of that having lasted for centuries... The success in the war of independance is what earned America it's independance, not the declaration. Had they made the declaration, and lost the war, America would not have been a country for the duration of the war, and then stopped being a country again. Perhaps it would be helpful to define what a country is. At least in my point of view, the term country in this case must refer to the more specific definition sovereign state. The definition of a sovereign state is "a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state." The decleration of independance did not embue the America with an independant federal government. It did not instantly provide the men who signed it the ability to excercise internal sovereignty within the territory they so claimed was independant. Though they were fighting to no longer be subject of the british crown, simply saying so was not enough to actually make that fact. In no way did America, as of the signing of the declaration of independance, actually fulfill the definition of a sovereign state. And until it was recognized by the treaty which ended the war, it certainly had problems entering into relations with other sovereign states. Therefore: Birth of a nation directly as a result of only the Declaration of Independance, absolutely not. Important date, absolutely. Of course, as important dates go, the decleration was signed on the 2nd, not the 4th.

    18. Re:Birthday? by crdotson · · Score: 1

      Well, let's use your definition.

      a state with a defined territory -- check
      on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty -- check, Second Continental Congress until Articles of Confederation (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation)
      a permanent population -- check
      a government -- check
      and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states -- check, the capacity was certainly there although I don't know when it was exercised.
      It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. -- the war was over that disagreement but the US's position was that it was not subject.

      Obviously we're interpreting the definitions differently, but I still maintain it's the best date for the start of the US. I do understand it was signed on the 2nd, but it was made public on the 4th. Either way, as someone else pointed out, nobody's going to change now. :)

    19. Re:Birthday? by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      The declaration of independence created the nation, period.

      Afterwards, Britain's refusal to recognize the new nation and take it back by force was really no different from an attack by Britain on any other sovereign country.

    20. Re:Birthday? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Why, are the Decepticons British? Wow, I did not know that. Or are you referring to the Death Eaters? Those are indeed British, but so is the boy wizard and his entire lot.

              dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    21. Re:Birthday? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states -- check, the capacity was certainly there although I don't know when it was exercised.

      Like when we talked the French into helping us, and we agreed to take their money and soldiers in order to piss off the British even more.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    22. Re:Birthday? by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      It can be argued, using the Declaration of Independence as an example, that a country begins when people forming it says it begins - and that since we have been under self-government since July, 1776 (although during the Revolution we gained and lost territory depending on what was going on in the war), and that since the same authorities that declared Independence also spawned the legal chain of continuity that govern this country to this day, then, indeed, July, 1776 IS when our independence should be dated to. The Continental Congress became an independent provisional government that then authorized the Articles of Confederation and then subsequently the US Constitution.

  13. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 Flamebait

    In other words, the post did not espouse the Liberal point of view, so it automatically becomes "flamebait". I'll give you a -2, Subjective and Intolerant.

  14. CASEY ANTHONY INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    O.J. calls Casey Anthony to congratulate her on a killing well done, saying if the duct tape don't fit you must aquit !!

  15. Aren't they missing the progressive era? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America likes Eugenics.
    America likes Sterilization.
    "Three generations of imbeciles are enough!"
    America likes Prohibition.
    Woodrow Wilson shares Nationalistic Militarism.
        Italy and Germany like this.

    Oh, hey, how about the NY Times's own wall?
    "Walter Duranty sets Russian famine to Private."
    "Pulitzer Prize committee likes Walter Duranty."
    (70 years pass...)
    "Pulitzer Prize committee unfriends Walter Duranty."

  16. News for nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... stuff that matter.

  17. Funny To Whom? by blcamp · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Clever? I think not. Facebook satire has been around ever since Facebook hit the big time. This is not original by any means.

    On top of that, the lefty drivel and Bush-bashing has no appeal for, oh, at least half of the NYT's potential audience. Unless of course, they no longer have any interest in having readership that leans to the right.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Funny To Whom? by hercubus · · Score: 2

      the lefty drivel and Bush-bashing has no appeal for, oh, at least half of the NYT's potential audience

      obviously you lean right. did you not get the memo that right-thinking, right-leaning people should only head to "nytimes.com" to bitch at Krugman? to suggest that a "real American" would ever be in the NY Times audience shows your commitment to the cause must be flagging or flaccid. the left still has its Mojo, just ask Mr. Weiner. no flaccid problems there!

      --
      -- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
    2. Re:Funny To Whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives read the NYT? Since when?

  18. Wish they'd done a better job immitating FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like the authors don't really know how Facebook works. It would have been nice and more funny if they'd done a better job imitating existing notifications on FB, gotten the fonts right, etc.

  19. Wrong, wrong & again wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    America? No.. USA is a PART of America, and it's citizens are less than 50% of the total population.

    You also got the Columbus part wrong, Leif Ericson was the first European to step foot in Northern America, 500 years before Columbus.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson

  20. Columbus by holizz · · Score: 1

    Columbus never landed on US soil - I even knew that before I read a single book on US history. I won't bother reading TFA since it's obviously a load of crap.

    1. Re:Columbus by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Could that be because the US didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified? Or perhaps the Articles of Confederation? Or at least the unified statements of the DoI made by the representatives of the various colonies?

      Did Columbus discover the Americas? Yes (from a European perspective, anyway). Did he land in the United States of America? No.

    2. Re:Columbus by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Did Columbus discover the Americas? Yes (from a European perspective, anyway)

      Icelandic Vikings had a colony in Canada long before Columbus.

      There is also a Portuguese map that's recognizably the American coast dating back to 1424, and a fair bit of evidence that the Basque's and the Portuguese fished off of Newfoundland and had dealings with the natives... but had never established colonies.

      Columbus may be the public face of discovery, and important for making "the new world" a big deal in Europe, but he wasn't the first European. I can assure you the Portuguese scoff at Columbus... and I imagine Icelandic folk roll their eyes at the whole affair as well.

    3. Re:Columbus by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Scandinavian-Americans quietly grumble about not having a Leif Ericson Day that's on par with Columbus Day.

    4. Re:Columbus by holizz · · Score: 1

      Could that be because the US didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified? Or perhaps the Articles of Confederation? Or at least the unified statements of the DoI made by the representatives of the various colonies?

      I should have been clearer: Columbus never set foot on any land which is now nor has ever been a part of the US. Maybe the mock Facebook page should have started at the Declaration of Independence or ratification of the Constitution.

      Did Columbus discover the Americas? Yes (from a European perspective, anyway). Did he land in the United States of America? No.

      He wasn't the first European to arrive at the Americas. There were several before him.

      He certainly popularised the area - he was an innovator in the exploitation of land and peoples, which people for centuries to come imitated:

      Christopher Columbus introduced two phenomena that revolutionized race relations and transformed the modern world: the taking of land, wealth, and labor from indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere, leading to their near extermination, and the transatlantic slave trade, which created a racial underclass. (James W. Loewen, "Lies My Teacher Told Me")

    5. Re:Columbus by Obfiscator · · Score: 1

      Of course, one theory is that the Portuguese got that map from the great Chinese treasure fleets before they had ever gone there themselves. I highly recommend the book "1421: The Year China Discovered the World" by Gavin Menzies, in case you haven't read it yet. A lot of what he writes seems to be solid.

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    6. Re:Columbus by mcvos · · Score: 1

      1421: The year China discovered the world and decided it wasn't as interesting or important as China. Because that's what happened: The emperor who built that big fleet died soon after, and the next emperor decided that nothing outside China was worth visiting, so the entire fleet was abandoned. China could have ruled the world, but decided that ruling China was all that mattered.

    7. Re:Columbus by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps realized that ruling China was as much as any one country could handle.

      I don't see the British, the French, or the Spanish maintaining their rule of the world as they once did. How long did those last, and what was the cost?

      China, on the other hand, is still Chinese, and is still very huge. I'm Just saying...

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    8. Re:Columbus by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "1421: The Year China Discovered the World" by Gavin Menzies, in case you haven't read it yet. A lot of what he writes seems to be solid.

      That theory, and that book in particular has been thoroughly discredited.

    9. Re:Columbus by Jhon · · Score: 1

      He wasn't the first European to arrive at the Americas. There were several before him.

      All of which have been virtually lost to history. Those others certainly didn't provide any real indications to the contemporaries and decedents on "what was out there" and "how to get there".

      By "discovery", I think it's better to view Columbus as discoverer -- in that anyone else who came before really didn't relay the information of what they found.

      It would be like some guy stumbling on gun powder, but for some reason share the discovery in any way that it could be re-created.

      Seriously, other than a footnote, how important is this information?

    10. Re:Columbus by holizz · · Score: 1

      To say he was the first to discover the Americas, means we end up assuming he was a better sailor than all those who came before him. And that feeds into the heroic image many people have of him now (which I think a lot of people have issue with - once they learn the facts).

      To turn Columbus into a hero is inherently racist. And by talking about the positive things Columbus did (and to embellish them), and ignore the rest of what he did is turning him into a hero.

    11. Re:Columbus by Obfiscator · · Score: 1

      Has it? Could you point me to some of the more relevant articles in the literature? I would be very interested to read that.

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    12. Re:Columbus by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Probably simplest to start with the Wikipedia article on the book, and follow the references...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies#Criticism_of_1421

    13. Re:Columbus by Jhon · · Score: 1

      We have a different philosophical approach. I don't believe that history for the masses needs to be so nuanced. Particularly for kids -- but adults as well.

      I speak as someone who's an amateur historian (strong focus on colonial America and Constitutional history) -- but middle Europe, too.

      While it might be in vogue to claim that making Columbus into a hero is racist, that's changing the nature of the argument. While he wasn't a 'hero', he also wasn't the boogie man -- just a very poor and brutal governor -- something when viewed from within his culture and time was not unheard of. So... do we judge a 15th century man by 21st century values? I believe strongly that this type of view destroys our understanding of history.

      Also you claim that we might portray him as a better sailor than all those who came before him isn't really fair. All told, he died a wealthy man because of his voyages. While being a "better sailor" than everyone else may be in question, he certainly was a SUCCESSFUL sailor.

      Unless someone plans on taking a few upper division history classes, or do some post grad research, claiming that Columbus discovered the "New World" is quite acceptable to me. Is it 100% accurate? Not really -- but in such a short sentence it conveys a huge amount of data that's fairly easy to digest for a non-historian.

      This history of the sciences are likewise "summarized". Look at Newton. How many people know how much of a petty prat he was? Or that many of his discoveries were already known to the ancient Greeks -- or even independently discovered by one of his contemporaries.

    14. Re:Columbus by Obfiscator · · Score: 1

      Well, after reading through quite a few of those references, I'm happy to say that I learned something new today.

      I am disappointed, though. I thought his book was really fun to read, and it's a big letdown to find out that it has very little basis in fact.

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
  21. Totally off topic here by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had a bit of an epiphany today about date formats. Any other day of the year and this would be known as July 4th, 2011 (ie Sept 11th), and any attempt by other people to say "why are you using such a dumb arsed date format?" would be met by jeers of "It's our date format and we'll do what we like with it". However, today, on what is probably the most venerable US national holiday its known as "4th of July" .. just like it would be known in pretty well every other country in the world. I can't say that I know the history of why this is, but I do find it curious.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Totally off topic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ... a very good point. I'll keep it in mind the next time date formats come up in discussion.

    2. Re:Totally off topic here by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's not the July 4th vs 4th of July format that people have an issue with. It's the 07/04/11 vs 04/07/11format where you can't tell which number is the day, which is the month, and which is the year that people have a problem with. The whole Y2K thing centered on the fact that people use two digit years. Guess what? They still do! They haven't learned a thing.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Totally off topic here by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Interdasting... Well, not really -- Ever heard of the US Military? Yeah, they write dates that way. They even use the metric system (SI units -- Hint: clicks = kilometers).

      It's even more practical in speech: "What day is it?" "The 4th", more precise: "The 4th of July", enhance: " 4th of July, 2011 - 20:12 Zulu (UTC)"

      However, I prefer MSU ordering (most significant unit), since that's how we write hours, minutes and seconds: 2011.04.06. Additionally, it sorts easier, even with names for months the month's days will at least be grouped together, as will each year, by even the most basic sort algo.

    4. Re:Totally off topic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the 07/04/11 vs 04/07/11format where you can't tell which number is the day, which is the month, and which is the year that people have a problem with.

      Yes, and how is month/day/year better than day/month/year? day/month/year is least significant (smallest [day]) to most significant (biggest [year]). month/day/year is middle biggest, smallest, biggest which is mind twisting until you just learn to accept it.

      Personally, I prefer ISO International Standard Date Format: [All Digits]Year/Month/Day: 2011/07/04. It's especially useful for sorting since alphanumeric sort will put the earliest date at the start and latest date at the end.

    5. Re:Totally off topic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just more proof that Americans are fucking retarded, don't try to understand it any more than that...

    6. Re:Totally off topic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mebbe cause it's easier to write lyrics for patriotic little ditties that rhyme with "July" that it is with "Fourth"....

    7. Re:Totally off topic here by Anynonymouse · · Score: 1

      It's like Cinco de Mayo, but for the gringos :)

    8. Re:Totally off topic here by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yes, and how is month/day/year better than day/month/year? day/month/year is least significant (smallest [day]) to most significant (biggest [year]). month/day/year is middle biggest, smallest, biggest which is mind twisting until you just learn to accept it.

      There is a sort of historical logic to it. Back in the days of paper records, you would start a new set of records every year. All the old stuff would be put in a box labelled 1957 (or whatever), and you'd start 1958 with new paper records. So, the only date sorting people were concerned about was month and day. MM/DD sorts under those conditions.

      Personally, I prefer ISO International Standard Date Format: [All Digits]Year/Month/Day: 2011/07/04. It's especially useful for sorting since alphanumeric sort will put the earliest date at the start and latest date at the end.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  22. Tacky... by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    I find the "Lets make a fake facebook wall" means of communicating to be incredibly tacky and not at all funny or smart,

    You're still reading a ton of text anyway.

    1. Re:Tacky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agree. it's a bad excuse for a lot of snarky one-liners. leave that to comedy central: they do it better.

  23. Re:Too gay for words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's called Ghey.

  24. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    He may well not care enough to vote. I'm amazed at the number of people who will whine online, but do not cast their vote. They will cry about how bad things are but cannot be bothered to take the least of steps to try and change it.

    That is also part of the reason why things like this get supported. It isn't that so many people necessarily support it, it is that so many people who vote do. If the supporters of something all vote and the opponents of ti all don't then it'll continue even if the opponents outnumber the supporters.

    That, combined with people's tendency to self select groups that agree with them leads to people having their view that "everyone" wants something changed. You get someone who hangs out with people who want drugs legalized, and who posts in forums online that want that and they come to believe that most of America wants it, the government just won't listen. They do not consider that there are people not in those groups that feel different, and that the groups may have a very low amount of voters and thus not matter so much to those in charge.

    So remember: If you really care about something vote, and write to your representatives. It is never futile, even if you lose. Democracy isn't about getting your way 100% of the time.

    1. Re:Also by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you are probably right.

      Another thing I am finding is that a lot of people lack knowledge of basic American civics (maybe other countries too, I don't know). They don't understand how government works, so they don't understand how things can change. This leads them to seeing government as a giant monolithic evil 'thing,' instead of an extension of the will of the people.

      Then they don't vote, and the cycle perpetuates itself.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Also by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      You are right except for one thing. The USA isn't a democracy. Its a constitutional republic.
      "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay

      "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
      John Adams

      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
      Benjamin Franklin

      The “founding fathers” actually never conceived of democracy as the main or ultimate goal of their constitution. The independence sentiment was couched in freedom, but this was freedom from the British Crown and their policies. What their criterion allowed was actually distinguishing between democracy and republicanism, cleaving mainly to the latter. The topic under discussion before and beyond the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was the intensity with which the people would intervene in the affairs of government. After obtaining her freedom from the British Empire, these men felt they should be protected from a greater problem, in its nature, to the previous one: the people. They would need to preserve this precious virtue — freedom — against the whims and “licentious wishes” of its people themselves.
      Many signatories of the Declaration of Independence and other architects of the recent nation were vehement opponents of democracy. One of them was John Adams, who in his laborious contribution warned that democratic systems of government had historically always ended in tyranny and chaos.
      The defect in the democratic system occurs when we confuse the procedure of democracy (effective to select our rulers), with the idea of democracy as a system of government. The Founders conceived the democratic system as merely a procedure to give themselves a Republic, which ensured their most precious value, freedom from the British and ability to seek their happiness. Zephaniah Swift distinguishes real democracy as a government by the people, from a government of representatives who are not governed by the people merely elected by the people. The founders chose to submit their government to the Rule of Law, rather than be corrupted with the permissiveness that is invited by government by people.

    3. Re:Also by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The general meaning of democracy has changed since the 18th century. Now a days when people say democracy they mean the Representative type, whether the republican model or parliamentary model.
      We get to democratically vote for people to represent us every few years and we call it democracy.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA isn't a democracy. Its a constitutional republic.

      If you keep saying that, someday it'll come true.

  25. Re:Too gay for words. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's called Ghey.

    No. The word 'Ghey' was invented by mouth-breathing morons who felt bad about getting ostracized for their use of the word 'Gay' but didn't really want to stop using it either.

    And like all good compromises, everybody hates the resultant state of affairs.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  26. Re:HistoryBook by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    FaceBook's Lawyers Like this.

    The wall posts need to be TFA type story link though. So then you get all your detail, but it's sorted as 200 articles and not like an author who keep writing and writing in one, long, incredibly unbroken chapter moving from topic to topic so that the student cannot interrupt it. Those books are really quite hypnotic.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  27. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject.

  28. Deja vu all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there something very much like this, possibly last year around here?

    I'm sure I've seen this before. Though the linked article appears to be new-ish, the content doesn't appear to be. Can't recall the original (or at least previous) take though.

  29. friend or foe by slick7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It wouldn't bother me if some of our so-called "friends" quit being our friends. What does bother me is the fact that these "friends" are our friends because we give them money. In an economy that has yet to see the bottom, our so-called "friends" would understand if the money stopped, and those that don't understand, screw 'em. The abuses of the state department in squandering the tax money of the US voters while the voters once again, have to tighten their collective belts. The payoffs to these "friends" does nothing more than prop up totalitarian regimes and support an illicit drug industry.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    1. Re:friend or foe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't bother me if some of our so-called "friends" quit being our friends. What does bother me is the fact that these "friends" are our friends because we give them money.

      Unfortunately USA current account deficits suggest the reverse. There is a net cashflow INTO the USA, not out of. And of course one of those pouring cash into the USA is China.

    2. Re:friend or foe by Krommenaas · · Score: 1

      In the case of the Middle East, it keeps Israel secure by denying Arabs the right to choose their own leaders. That's what you get for your money.

    3. Re:friend or foe by slick7 · · Score: 1

      In the case of the Middle East, it keeps Israel secure by denying Arabs the right to choose their own leaders. That's what you get for your money.

      The Zionists do more to destabilize the region than all the money on the planet can rectify.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  30. Re:Too gay for words. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    Just to be clear, though, this is not a "good compromise". No compromise on hatred is good. Also, as a sidenote, deliberate misspellings are useful to get around word filtering in forums, so using the variation is done not just as an excuse but also to avoid censorship when making slurs. "Ghey" is simply the form of "gay" that is easily posted by douchebags, both mechanically and ethically.

  31. Re:America by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 0

    I was thinking more along the lines of this. (It's not a fucking goatse)
    But whatever.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  32. Thank you by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

    It was in another post about a week ago I was arguing for a much greater emphasis on teaching civics in schools, at least from middle school up until graduation. The constitution isn't being trampled on by the government, the police, the terrorists. People need look no further than a mirror to see where the problem lies. Too many people are too quick to blame yet too slow to act.

  33. I would rather have trickle-down economics than tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather have trickle-down economics than trickle-up poverty.

  34. Nope, you're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1966/does-indian-derive-from-columbuss-description-of-native-americans-as-una-gente-in-dios

  35. Re:Too gay for words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a douchebag, I find your post hurtful and offensive.

  36. America's birth by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    I wish they'd get it right for once.

    So do I. The very first post should have been "America has added GB to Kindoms I am Fighting With" since before that there was no America. If he means the continent then he should have said North America and, in any case, his later posts are clearly written to take America as US.

  37. Technicality by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    You are maintaining an empire.

    So technically they haven't stopped nation building...they just stopped building other nations and concentrated on building their own bigger.

  38. Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish they would link to wikipedia or some article from each reference on the wall especially the vague ones. Im not American but i've been exposed enough to her history to feel curious.

  39. I actually remember the time and not the myth by dbIII · · Score: 2

    The only reason Reagan didn't give us world War Three was because Thatcher and a pile of others finally managed to convince him that all he had to do was wait a few months and the USSR would fall apart on it's own. Using astrology to influence policy, invading a member of the British commonweath without contacting the UK first, needless sacrificing marines in Lebanon merely to "show the flag" when they should have at least been prepared for hostilities, escorting Saddams oil tankers, selling weapons to Hezbolla and Iran plus a pile of other insanities really should never be forgotten. He's an example of ego being put before the needs of a nation and the inability of congress to remove a dangerous President.

  40. the other link seems to be dead. by timerider · · Score: 1

    anyone got a link to a working mirror of that other page, the http://flag.codeforamerica.org/ one? seems to be /.ed to death.

  41. USA != America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    History does not make much sense when you got the basic geography messed up....

  42. Re:America = The Continent by mcvos · · Score: 1

    How about the Union of South America? I'm sure that will solve all the confusion.

  43. Op art by metamatic · · Score: 1

    It's not op art at all.

    If you're going to use a term, make sure you know what it means.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  44. Focus on the bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do notice that the list tends to focus on the negative things... and is a little bit liberal biased too. Where are THESE posts:

    - AMERICA is now friends again with GREAT BRITAIN
    - AMERICA has saved GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, and several other countries from HITLER
    - AMERICA has added THE MOON to places visited
    - AMERICA has created THE TELEPHONE, THE MOTION PICTURE, THE INTERNET and millions of other things.
    - AMERICA has invited THE WORLD to an event "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"