Slashdot Mirror
From MIT Inventor To Tea Party Leader
An anonymous reader writes "In the midst of Congressional races around the country, one stands out to techies. Thomas Massie, an MIT whiz kid who pioneered touch-based interfaces and founded SensAble Technologies in the 1990s, is the favorite to win the Republican nomination in his Kentucky district next week. SensAble was recently sold on the cheap, but in a new exclusive, Massie explains why he left the haptics firm years ago to lead a simpler life of farming, family, and guns — lots of guns. Along the way he built a solar-powered, off-the-grid house and became a local hero of the Tea Party. Now Massie is leading the charge to get more engineers into politics, and if he wins, he could be a force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC."
Now known as 'MITea'.
Whenever someone finds a right wing engineer? It's not really all that rare.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries
book smart and people stupid.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Gimme the TL;DR version. Motorcycle accident? Brain cancer? Aneurysm?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There are different kinds of intelligence.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
...wasn't disappointed.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
he could be a force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC."
No, no he wont.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Not everyone in the TEA Party movement is what you appear to envision (appear, since all we have to go on is your posting). You might not want to be so bigoted in your beliefs.
Or you can stay in your happy bubble, pretend that everyone there is Them, and not have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
and preparation for unpleasantness in general, but I have no taste for right-wing politics or christianity. Fortunately, preparation for the unexpected (i.e. EMPs, social unrest, the spanish inquisition...) does not require a right wing belief system, only a healthy paranoia and distrust of all institutions, over-complexified fragile, interdependent, energy-dependent supply chain ecologies and anything that comes over the mass media.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Speaking as a right wing, family oriented, gun loving engineer myself. Why would he ever want to go into politics?
Sounds like a Thomas Edison type of guy to me (Whiz kid? What, is he some kind of Tony Stark for "inventing" some interface device?). I'm intensely suspicious of anyone who supports religious beliefs. It demonstrates an error in logical thinking faculties.
Never trust an engineer that thinks the world is 6000 years old. And for the record, Edison was a douche bag.
4) He came to alternative conclusions than you did. Doesn't make them any more or less valid.
WTF is someone who is intelligent enough to graduate from college (MIT no less) doing associating themselves with the Tea Party. It's got to be some kind of paid publicity stunt.
"But he's smart... I think I'm smart. He should agree with meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Intelligent people disagree on stuff all the time. Especially when it's something as complicated and untestable as political hypothesis. Get over it.
Sometimes. Not always.
For instance people who believe in a flat earth did not come to an alternative conclusion they are just wrong.
...sure it would make no sense to see an educated person associating themselves with what the major media outlets associate with them. After all, all tea party people are nazis and all democrats are communist sympathizers, right? right?
If, on the other hand, you intelligently realize that most American's are actually fairly close in terms of political view and the cartoons presented to you are false on their face, you might see that both sides have rational points that should be listened to, even fought for.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
perhaps his intelligence is by design.
He can't be that smart; he claims he and his wife working together (3 MIT eng. degrees total) can't do their taxes.
The tax code isn't exactly simple, but come on.
.: Semper Absurda
Seriously? Anyone with an analytic mind and who has read both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would understand that the TEA party has a valid point, whether or not you agree with them politically. Ignorance is no excuse for an ad hominem attack.
My name fits again.
He's bootstrappy, and probably short on empathy. Fits the profile just fine. Just because you can understand the intracacies of circuits doesn't mean you're really going to understand the social implications of inequality.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The level of Hate Speech on this forum makes me wonder if the posters are actually KKK members in disguise.
Democrats would never be so rude and insulting.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
---Anton Chekhov
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Again, I disagree. We can surely agree some viewpoints are not valid, for instance any that seeks to deprive someone of human rights, or authorizes war crimes as a matter of course. Also who think voluntary money paid to support society is theft, etc.
FTFA - "Massie has been targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with questioning electric bills, phone bills, contracts, and fees for things that don’t apply anymore. Like the county being charged rental fees for property that had long been sold, paying for phone lines that had been disconnected for years, or buying stuff from a magistrate’s store."
Eliminating bills for services that no longer apply seems like a no-brainer. It sounds to me like the county government was corrupt, and based on the location (Lewis County KY) and demographics (98.2% white) he probably unseated a conservative when he was elected to county office.
Interesting to note that Lewis County KY gets 42.9% of it's income from the government (US national average is 17.6%). Seems like he should keep focusing on his home county before aiming higher.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Why is wanting frugal government spending and lower taxes "not intelligent"?
To me, giving the government a blank check isn't smart. Remember when the Tea Party was formed, we were hearing "You must pass it in order to find out what is in it"... How STUPID is that? Would you sign a car loan that you didn't read, on a car you didn't get to see for 4 years, for a price that somebody else "kinda sorta" gives you an estimated price (that may (will) change)... How smart is that?
When the health care bill looked like there wasn't enough Democrat signatures to pass (didn't matter if 100% republicans voted against it, they didn't have any chance to stop it alone)... The glorious powers that be decided to try to have signed without being signed by waiting for enough people to go on Christmas vacation, then passing it with a budget (one of those assumed to be passed)... When that didn't look like it would work, congress members were flat out BRIBED! There was no shame and no effort to hide it. Congressmen got huge kick-backs for their home state if they changed to supporting the bill.
Is that the kind of government you want???
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
"But things have not gone smoothly for Massie in office—and that’s just how he wants it. “When you’re stalking waste within a government office, it’s like every rock that you turn over has a snake under it,” he says. Massie has been targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with questioning electric bills, phone bills, contracts, and fees for things that don’t apply anymore. Like the county being charged rental fees for property that had long been sold, paying for phone lines that had been disconnected for years, or buying stuff from a magistrate’s store. He has upset a lot of entrenched powers, but has gained support from the masses for it. And he says that in his first nine months in office, he cut enough waste to pay his own salary for three years."
Why does this sort of stuff just plain piss the left leaning person off? I mean, even if you are a dedicated communist shouldn't you still wish to find corruption, overspending, and waste, and squash it? Shouldn't that be something anyone from any party would rally behind?
But no, unfortunately when someone says limited government they immediately get called a right wing racist teabagger.
Also see Amendment IX:
and Amendment X:
The Tea Party, to the extent they speak with one voice, appears to believe that the power of the Federal government is limited to what the US Constitution grants them.
So, there's nothing inconsistent with a Tea Party leader benefiting from patents which are granted by the Federal government.
Anyone with an analytic mind and who has read both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would understand that the TEA party has a valid point ...
Nope.
Look, I went to MIT, and I can tell you that (a) the people there are remarkably bright and (b) I wouldn't particularly want to put my trust in the political or economic opinions of some randomly chosen person from there, right wing, left wing, or requiring more dimensions than string theory to characterize politically.
Really smart people often have amazingly insightful opinions, but there's nothing like a brilliant person to have unshakable confidence in an unassailably stupid idea, like Schockley (the inventor of the transistor) and his theories of white racial supremacy. Or like my friend who had an affair with a married man because he promised her that his wife would be cool with it. It was impossible to convince her of the obvious fact this was stupid, bat-shit crazy idea because as smart as I was, she was way, way smarter. Having an argument with her was like climbing into the ring with Ali in his prime for a few bare knuckle rounds. You couldn't lay a glove on her. That taught me that sometimes a friend's role is to wait and be there when life gives your friend an unavoidable hard lesson.
Really brilliant people are used to being right when everyone else around them is wrong. They're hard to argue out of a wrong position, and when you get enough of them together that they can sort themselves into loony birds of a feather even reality can't make a dent in their opinions. And brilliance in one area doesn't translate into competence in every area. There are people I'd trust to design an aircraft I had to fly in or a sub I had to dive in, but that I wouldn't trust managing by checking account.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
My personal attitude is that you are a fine example of what is wrong with right wingers, instead of even asking to clarify anything you go beating up strawmen.
The last point is not begging the question at all. It is a simple statement that those who believe taxes are theft are simply wrong.
Massie recalls Sununu saying, "We need more engineers and fewer lawyers" in politics. As Massie explains, "Lawyers are taught to take a position, whether it's right or wrong ideologically, and defend it—to go collect facts to support it. Whereas engineers are taught the inverse of that, they're taught to collect facts and then come up with an answer based on the facts. He said, 'That's the kind of thought process we need more of in government.' On the stump, that's what I'm trying to convey, that we need more problem solvers in Washington, DC."
I wholeheartedly approve of this idea.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
To be fair you stated taxes were "voluntary". Taxes are not. I don't think you'll find a "right winger" / libertarian anywhere who will tell you private charity is theft.
What, exactly, is their point? Complaining that their taxes are too high when their taxes are historically low?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Taxes are voluntary in the same way home rent is voluntary - you're free to not pay it, but you need to move out then.
Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any other major free nation.
Which is why you are free to leave if you don't want to pay for the society you live in. I hear Somalia has very low taxes.
current left/right ideology is the problem, not a solution, and democrats and republicans prop up theirs as the everlasting solution to everything.. it's getting old, and that's why the tea party exists at all.
He lives in a county where the population gets over 42% of their income from government sources, including food stamps, medicare, welfare, and other social programs. Sure, he can point his finger at "big government" in Washington because that will get him elected. Pointing out to his fellow Lewis County residents how much they get from the government will probably piss them off.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
We are the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically and, through our subsidiaries and affiliates, internationally. We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives.
What an organization claims it is about and what it actually IS about are often two totally separate things. So I have to ask, what is this "valid point" the tea party has? Does it really have anything to do with the constitution? Because it seems to me what they actually stand for is irrational fear of societal changes that have already happened, and zero taxes for corporations and the rich.
Just because someone has intelligence, that doesn't mean he uses it when it comes to politics.
Here is an excellent example of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
And, I say that in all seriousness. The logical or obvious "Occam's Razor" solution to problems often don't apply to us illogical human beings. We do lots of stupid things, not out of anything more sinister than our overwhelming biological drives. That includes reproducing before we might be financially stable, getting fat, our drive to socialize and find mates, etc. When you start assuming that humans will be logical, you start assuming wrong. Ask a sociologist how well some "obvious" solution to a social ailment that's been public policy (and failing) for decades is working out.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
So being pissed off that the government wasted tax dollars bailing out banks makes someone crazy? Seriously? If a group of people who peacefully protested (literally, as in no vandalism, no destruction of personal property, no assaults on police officers, no drug overdoses, no rapes, etc.) is "crazy" I'd hate to see the words you use to describe the occupy movement.
Have you read their "contract on america"? They talk about reject emission trading, balanced budget, reducing taxes. These have nothing to do with constitution. They even talk about cutting Obama's healthcare based on constitution, but ask them if they want to cut social security/medicaid. Teaparty doesn't care about the constitution, they are too busy trying ban gay marriage,abortion and demanding to see Obama's birthcertificate. They also whine about the USPS and how it should be privatized, I wonder if they even read the constitution where explicitly defines as a task of the federal government.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Massie calls himself a “Constitutional conservative,” and he identifies with the Tea Party—at least the members in his home state, whom he says “defy the stereotype in the media.” As he explains, “In northern Kentucky, Tea Parties focus on fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. All of the other stuff around the edges—that maybe some Tea Party folks are for and some are against—don’t get rolled up into the agenda.”
So he shares some ideals with the Tea Party, particularly the central theme of limited government. Imho, it's the part that sounds the most intelligent and reasonable of the Tea Party's philosophy. I would even argue that it is desperately needed at a time when we are losing important rights every day and 40% of our GDP is going to the government. Perhaps you should read the article, think about what the man is saying, and then form an opinion about it.
Your characterization of Occupy is about as accurate as the GP's characterization of the Tea Party.
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own?
I think you didn't quite get the point of my comparison. You are free to move to a different country and "rent" the government there; there are quite a few which are cheaper. Or you can try to set up a country of your own - except that all land is already taken up by someone else (but that is also true with my rent analogy - if all land everywhere is purchased, and they refuse to sell it to you, you can only rent; so free market does not offer any relief here, either).
What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in.
The people who live in the country are not self sufficient. At the very minimum they enjoy the protection of the laws of that country - protection against both internal threats (i.e. the mob that would come and take away what's theirs), and external (a hostile country that would take over).
I can't do my taxes either. It's not lack of ability, but lack of motivation. (1) Nobody is paying me for ~8 hours wasted reading through the booklets, and (2) it's cheaper to just work 1 extra hour and then pay someone else to do it.
My mother does her own taxes, but it takes her 2-3 days. Which is just nuts. The tax code should be simpler without all the confusing deductions, credits, and social engineering.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Congressmen got huge kick-backs for their home state if they changed to supporting the bill.
Care to name one? The famous kickback to the one from Nebraska (Nelson I think?) was removed in the final version of the bill that passed.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any other major free nation.
You have a bizarre notion of "voluntary"
The difference in this case is that it's not "your house". It's everyone's country, and its citizens have have collectively decided that residents are to pay for the privilege of living here.
If you don't want to pay taxes, you're free to move out and buy an island somewhere in the Pacific with full transfer of sovereignty, from any country that is willing to sell you one on such terms.
"Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries
The interesting thing is, there is another group of extremists who are known for the prominence of engineers in their midst. Osama Bin Laden was himself an engineer, and he's not the only one. It's not a science thing, you don't see many botanists or physicists running amuk, just engineers. It may be an engineering mindset thing.
It seems to me that as a group engineers may not be the best possible choice for political discourse. Bring on the botanists and psychologists and chemists and entomologists (and etymologists too, what the hell), but let's not overdo the representation from engineers.
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
---Anton Chekhov
Neat. But living on cash is hardly better in a society where wealth and productivity are completely divorced.
Gah - there's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start.
Yes, the voting on this bill happened quite quickly after it was finalized. But A.) it's not like it wasn't being debated for six months prior, and B.) it's largely what Massachusetts has had for years prior (oh, and was originally created and promulgated by Republican think-tanks) and C.) it's not some massive dumping of cash into Obama's offshore account. Its transparent, you can read it, its complicated BECAUSE THE U.S. HEALTH SYSTEM IS COMPLICATED, it's a sincere effort to solve a big, complicated, longstanding problem.
Yes, Ben Nelson got a bribe. Congress took it back from him later, look at the Congressional Quarterly if you want the details. People have been trying to get similar legislation passed in America for nearly a hundred years, they were supposed to call the whole thing off because of one last-minute hold out? Is it not clear that Congressman Nelson simply wanted a bribe, rather than him having substantial issues with the legislation?
Yes the bottom-line price of this legislation and the system it creates kinda-sorta is an estimate. Given the size of the system, the vagaries of predicting medical advances, etc, there's absolutely no way to write laws for any system where the bottom-line cost were absolutely known in advance.
The Tea Party. Basically everybody slept through George W. Bush's two terms as he blew through tremendous chunks of taxpayer money - giving tax breaks up the wazoo, laying out a huge new medicare benefit, created the largest new bureaucracy in fifty years, entering us into a war just on his own whim, apparently. I didn't see a single tea party person throughout all of that. Suddenly a Democrat comes to office, and every dime his administration spends is an affront to LIBERTY! TO THE BARRICADES! BUT WAIT WHILE I STAPLE THESE TEA BAGS TO MY HAT!
I see. They are invalid because you have decided so. Also you appeal to the majority because, god knows, if most people say "X", it's probably right. Gotcha. Tell me why heredity based systems should be dismissed as invalid. Is this based on your world-view? Your personal morality of what is right or wrong. What if the democratic majority would result in disaster -- or a war. What if a dictator who suppresses the violent will of the masses is the only thing holding a country back from destruction.
Take Egypt for example. Now that the big bad evil dictator Mubarak is gone, the people by democratic will are going to vote in somebody who will throw the peace treaty with Israel out -- very likely leading to war. Over 70% see Saudi Arabia as a model for social policy (stoning, etc...) as opposed to 17% for the increasingly less moderate Turkish model. This is a situation where a dictator protected a population from it's own religious idiocy. It also protected minorities (Copts, for example) from the tyranny of the majority. Now that the dictator is gone, the Copts are being slaughtered. Your morality might say that the people, however wrong, should be allowed to be as self destructive as they choose. Others might argue that a stong central dictatorship progressively modernizing society and removing the destructive influences of religion might be a far more "Moral" choice in the long run. If there is a war with Israel and all hell breaks loose, it'll be hard to argue democracy was good thing for the region.
The point I'm trying to make is that not everything is so cut and dry when it comes to what is "valid" and what is not. Systems that are appropriate in one place might be totally disastrous in another. The idea that all cultures are equal or that all people want the same thing leads to nothing but disaster.
And mathematicians.
There has been a smear campaign against the Tea Party by both the republicans and democrats alike since it first started to gain power. You've fallen for it, congratulations. The democrats paint them as "Even more conservative republicans" which is almost completely the opposite of what they are. And the republicans try to paint them as the lunatic fringe or, even worse, create their own version of the party: The Tea-party express, which is nothing more than republicans mascaraing as Tea-Party members to further discredit the name. Neither party wants them to gain any more momentum.
The true Tea Party is about what it's named after. When they threw the tea into the harbor back in the day, they were protesting a government that was over taxing them and not representing their interests. The taxes were levied to help support foreign wars that the colonies had no interest in. Most Tea Party members today feel we are in the same situation again. The government keeps raising taxes, spending more, borrowing more... all to fund wars they have no interest in, or to get more involved in our lives. Just like the revolutionaries that founded this country they want the government out of their lives. They want to keep more of what they earn, and they don't want to be involved in wars they know nothing about. Most could care less about social issues. Gay Marriage? Don't care. Abortion? Don't care. Religion? Don't care. Just stop taxing us so much, and get the hell out of our lives.
If you want to end war and lower taxes, get involved. Both republicans and democrats will continue waging war and raising taxes as long as you continue to let them. Is the Tea Party the answer? I doubt it. But they are a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Volition never helped the cold, hungry, and infirm.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If, on the other hand, you intelligently realize that most American's are actually fairly close in terms of political view
Do you think so? I personally know Americans who think the US should be run under Old Testament of the Bible law -- including stoning adulterers -- and people who think that churches should be outlawed. I know people who own 100,000 rounds of ammunition and people who think guns should be banned. People who think sick people who can't pay medical bills should be dumped out on the street to die and people who think the government should provide free unlimited healthcare. People who think the Federal government should do nothing more than fund and run the military, and people who would like to see the government nationalize many large corporations and run them. I don't actually know anyone who argues that women shouldn't have the right to vote, but I've seen them talk. I do know people who think anyone who doesn't believe in the christian god should not be allowed to hold public office. That's a pretty wide spectrum of ideas, spanning from Saudi Arabian to Maoist to anarcholibertarian. I'm sure other countries have as broad a swath of ideas: I'm not claiming american exceptionalism as regards political leanings. However, I haven't seen much evidence of other countries having much broader political views.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Nobody is entirely self-sufficient. Even the people who live out in the boonies, have their own well, their own power and their own food depend on living in an environment where thugs don't roam the area, looking for cheap thrills or money.
That's the problem with every single Libertarian/Tea Partier in the US. They think that a lack of government simply means that they get no medicare in exchange for no taxes. What they fail to understand is that the political and social stability of the US is built on taxes as well.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Just to reiterate my reply to your previous post. You have no clue what the Tea Party is about.
Taxes to support your community...Police, Fire and other essential services are not theft.
Taxes to pay off crooked bankers, cronies of local politicians, corrupt unions, etc. are theft.
You should actually learn about that which you so casually disparage.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Can't ... see ... past ... overwhelming ... irony.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
"You must pass it in order to find out what is in it"... How STUPID is that?
At least as stupid as misquoting Pelosi out of context.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
If you want me to think the Tea Party has smart people, the smart people in the party need to speak up, and call out the dumb asses in their ranks.
and 40% of our GDP is going to the government.
Which government are you talking about? Total federal taxes as a percentage of GDP were around 14.9% between 2009-2010. If you add in local and state the average goes up to around 23%. This is historically low.
Federal taxes alone averaged 18.5% of GDP during the Reagan administration.
This is the problem I have with the majority Tea Partiers. They operate under a different set of facts which invariably have no basis in reality.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
This is the absolute worst aspect of the American Dream, the great lie that somehow you alone are responsible for what you become. There is this huge society around you that as responsible as anything you may want, but it won't survive if everybody argues themselves into a sort of self-righteous sociopathy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So being pissed off that the government wasted tax dollars bailing out banks makes someone crazy?
The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on being pissed off about that particular event. Most Tea Party claims ring hollow because they had 8 years of Bush to say something when all of these same types of things were happening, but conveniently waited until a Democrat took office before making any real noise.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Considering that they call government evil, and that government is always the problem, and that taxes are theft - yes, they actually support the elimination of all taxes. If they don't, they should stop with the overheated rhetoric. Finally, people do argue that there are some that are entirely self-sufficient, and don't need any help at all. See the post I replied to.
Before throwing around accusations of straw men, you might want to make sure you've actually read what's being written.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You hit the nail on the head. The tea party are the inept tools, whether some are geeks or not. Just reading that this guy decompiled into a gun-crazy paranoiac tells me he's going to be a fish out of water if he ever reached the Hill. Not just lying but political blackmail and having to do things that go against your principles, overall having to give up your integrity and even your dignity in order to remain popular.
He's not an indicator of anything more than the Republicans pulling ahead in the inevitable race to arm-up their parties with relevant personnel all too late.
The era of "just another politician -- only my super power is, I'm a Geek!" is long past. So we should expect maybe one more like him, on the other side more than likely, before every engineer who comes to congress is likely straight off of wall street (where, notably, most of our nation's bright new engineers decided to take up their careers) and is sophisticated enough to actually lie to use about being a "hacker", promoting his or her self as a freedom-loving, 2600-magazine type, when their real agenda is to smartly advance the tactics of their party to squelch freedoms and to put everything under lock and key.
It will be "one of us", a geek, who finally institutes electronic-only voting everywhere. It will be "one of us" who finally gets rid of the notion of free internet, forever. It will be "one of us" who finally eradicates piracy and makes it legal to shoot you for "hacking" in every definition of the loose term.
I don't know why geeks get so excited to see geeks getting into politics. "Oh, man, now that they have some of us around they won't be so stupid with the patents and the rights and stuff." Really? You think they're getting the political job because they think geeky things are more important than political things? If that were the case they would stick with their engineering career, not go into something that's a dead-end for people who are out to "be honest".
"Oh here comes this carpenter, he's going to be awesome because now life will be easier for all of us carpenters. I can't wait for the free nails and easier restrictions on wood!"
"What? What's that? He doubled the tax on nails and outlawed our favorite kind of wood? I THOUGHT HE WAS A CARPENTER! WHAT A LYING POLITICIAN!"
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I'm not talking about spending, not tax burden as percentage of GDP. In 2011 government spending was 38.9% of the GDP, 2012 is predicted to be ~40%...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
The problem is that the government's debt has reached astronomical proportions and that money eventually has to be payed back. Just because our current tax burden is somewhat reasonable (although the claim that it is "historically low" and that ridiculous chart are laughable, as they will be historically high as soon as the Bush tax cuts expire), it can't keep up with our borrowing. If anything, it means we are in for even bigger problems down the road. There is a blog post on the Cato institute on the subject of calculating the government's percent of GDP here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/american-government-spending-41-of-gdp/
Compared to some Euro zone nations we are in good shape. But they are also going bankrupt with governments near collapse.
We live in a time when people seem to think that "distribution of wealth" is something that governments are suddenly capable of doing when history has REPEATEDLY shown otherwise. My views are largely based on what I studied in school (ancient history) and I don't consider myself to be a tea party person. Reality is that the US government is currently operating in an unsustainable manner on many levels (state, federal, and local) and eventually that will catch up to us. Defaulting on government debts will lead to either major global war or an economic takeover by foreign powers. Some would argue the latter is already in motion.
Mr Beck, I didn't suggest removal of the First and Second amendments from your "list of freedoms". I suggested that their original intent, as clearly expressed by the guys who wrote those amendments, have been perverted by nasty little shits like you, who would happily piss in a public swimming pool and say, "Hey, it's a free country! So that means I get to piss and shit in the public pool. You betcha!"
And I certainly did not call for "censorship", you pathetic coward.
It's people like you that pervert the meaning of the Second Amendment. Let's break it down a little bit, shall we? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The first part: "a well regulated militia". In this they are clearly calling for a militia that is controlled by the government. That cannot be argued. However, one must also look at the definition of a militia. Militia are historically made up of local citizens, generally of a town or group of towns, that will on occasion get together and drill and practice, so as to be available to be called up for local defense in case of a conflict. Militia played a huge role in the Revolutionary War, bolstering the ranks of the Continental Army for a battle. The key point of a militia is that it is not equipped by the government. Equipment is privately purchased or crafted, and weapons are supplied by each individual militiaman. In the case of the Revolutionary War, militiamen used their own muskets or rifles that they would use for hunting or protection (in the case of some frontier areas). These were privately owned weapons, not government issue. The government only supplied the regular troops with equipment and weapons.
Now the second part: "necessary to the security of a free state". This says that militia are necessary for security. Note that the 2nd Amendment never mentions an army (an army is specifically addressed outside the Bill of Rights). For them to leave out the word 'army", they are clearly saying that the ability of local citizens to arm themselves and defend their home (not their house, but their town, their state, their country), is vital to the security of a state.
The third and fourth parts are just as easy to understand: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Look at the writings of the men that wrote the Constitution, the leading thinkers of that time. The phrase "the people" was always used as a stark contrast to the government. The phrase always meant the citizens, the common man, the farmer on his farm, and the merchant in the city. They are not talking about the governor, or the soldier, or elected representatives; these are all members or instruments of the government. Let's look at another famous phrase by these men for context: "a government of the people, by the people, for the people". This shows that the term "the people" is to be taken as distinct from "the government". And finally: "shall not be infringed". This means that this right, the right of the common man to possess and own firearms, should not be taken away without just cause (this right certainly can and at times should be forfeited, but that's another discussion).
Any logical, reasoned examination of the wording of the Second Amendment, especially when compared to contemporary writings of the writers of the Constitution and their peers, shows that they believed that gun ownership is extremely important. The fact that they chose to make it the second Amendment means that this right was held in their highest regards after the freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and religion. There is no need to try and interpret intent. Their intent is clearly spelled out.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
When actually they are for "Limited Government" which means there should be limits to what the government can do (like taking property rights from people) and limits to how much of the money they can get from taxes (like a 10% cap on all taxes), and limits to what legislation can be passed (no more multi-thousand page monstrosity bill that have all sorts of hidden crap in them), and limits to what the government can do to you and you currently established rights (upholding the right to free speech, the right to practice Religion, and the right for self defense/weapon ownership).
And that's the other problem with Libertarians/Tea Partiers: they have no clue what things cost or how politics work. Their ideas on cost are so unrealistic that they might as well campaign on funding the military, the legal system, and the public works via unicorn farts. Their ideas on politics are based on "I've got mine, fuck you", which makes cooperation impossible.
Libertarians/Tea Partiers think that the Federal Government should only do things that are prescribed in the constitution,
And the final problem with Libertarians/Tea Partiers is that they think that there is exactly one interpretation to the Constitution: theirs. They miss the delicious irony of complaining about people not understanding the Constitution, when there is no way for the English language to be specific enough that a 1 page document can provide an exact to every political problem.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Taxes are voluntary in the same way home rent is voluntary - you're free to not pay it, but you need to move out then.
So if the government starts a tax on the air you breathe, you can free not to breathe?
Taxation is unjust. Forced taxation is unjust.
You're free to move to another country.
Can't find a country without taxes to your liking?
Maybe those taxes are actually doing something worthwhile.
I stole this Sig
... are so misinformed as to make their political views and opinions invalid. Just looking at american slashdotters talk about 'the left' or 'the liberals' is informative at how effective american media has been at propaganda. If you don't think you are a victim of propaganda I would point you to this talk here:
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc
As someone who lives in canada, we know that THERE IS NO LEFT IN NORTH AMERICA anymore. Canada for a long time was a little left of center then america but that stopped 30 some years ago (around 1970's) and we've been on the same hard right path as america ever since. Our "liberals" are really conservatives in terms of ideology (pro corporate, anti public welfare). They've been making the same policy choices along american lines and now with harper and co, harper is stealth privatizing healthcare by making uninformed ideologically driven cuts to evidence based government policies and downloading federal deficit onto the provinces.
You can't talk politics in north america anymore with any kind of sanity at all. The human mind does not work like a rational machine and I think the more you understand about the limitations of your own mind, the less emotional investment you have in your own political views - because you know your response is based on flawed brain structures you inherited that force you to interpret the world in a particular way without your consent.