Slashdot Mirror


Where Does America's Fear Come From?

An anonymous reader writes "While far from a dictatorship, the United States has employed a number of paranoid tactics that delegitimize its democracy. And the motivation for doing so is — fear. That seems to be a long way from 'So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.' Where is the U.S. heading?"

926 comments

  1. Control... by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fear give those in Power, control of the command person.

    1. Re:Control... by BSAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is "Fear and consumption".

      A way to keep the populations under control. The Roman Empire used "Bread and circuses".

      2000 years, and nothing has changed.

    2. Re:Control... by dcollins117 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Fear give those in Power, control of the command person.

      Too complicated to learn, english language is.

    3. Re:Control... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nothing has changed because basic human nature is the same. This is the way it will always be. So you get to choose whether you want to be part of the herd near the edge looking for the wolves, or oblivious somewhere the middle, or if you want to be a wolf. Being near the edge isn't a problem because you see the danger coming, so you get a head start. Being in the middle, you don't even realize the danger is there until the whole herd is moving.. And of course being a wolf has its own unique advantages: you get to eat mutton and you get to watch the whole herd fear you. But you have no herd for protection and in trying times, the other wolves don't mind eating wolf, too.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Control... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The world is a big place. Deal with it. These kinds of errors don't bother me as much as the obvious spelling or grammar mistakes by native English-speakers who really should know better. Ensure vs insure, affect vs effect, lose and loose, and of course many other creative spelling attempts that are blamed on auto-correct but rather should be blamed on lousy education or the willful butchering of words.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Control... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meanwhile hippy veggies such as myself are swinging in the trees making suggestive motions with our bananas and flinging shit on the crowd below.

    6. Re:Control... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're going with that analogy - some of us prefer to be sheep dogs. Sheep are just sheep, after all. Some of us are not sheep, and are incapable of reacting as sheep. Of course, we run into another problem - the government is incapable of distinguishing between wolves and dogs. Anything with fangs must be a predator, and dangerous.

      I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. What a douchey comment to rip someone else's command of english. Something tells,me snark boy would sound much worse in that guy's language - if he could even make any sense...

    8. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Roman Empire lasted until about 400 CE, so only 1600 years.

    9. Re:Control... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      panem et circenses?
      Mays et television.

      (I leave it to you to figure out what 'Mays' means. Suffice to say I had to improvise, as the word has no direct latin translation.)

    10. Re:Control... by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that bread is fear? or circuses are fear, and bread is consumption? Or that nothing is something, which has changed?

    11. Re:Control... by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      Nothing has changed because basic human nature is the same. This is the way it will always be.

      Really...
      So "human nature" has not changed, ever, in the history of our species? That's a remarkably grim (not to mention) view of humanity and it's potential. BTW, your metaphors don't work either. We are not sheep, or wolves, though I'll admit that the comparison are, at times, tempting. We have capabilities far beyond what those instinct driven animals possess. To suggest that we do not is just absurd.

    12. Re:Control... by philip.paradis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To extend the analogy a bit and pay additional credit to the wolf, some wolves can and do function quite well as sheep dogs. In keeping with the nature of wolves, sometimes the line between what is perceived as a protector and what is perceived as a threat is only a matter of interpretation on the part of leaders that are ill-equipped to make the determination in the first place. To clarify the point a bit, you cannot ever truly tame a wolf. You can establish a relationship with it based on mutual respect and hierarchy, but you cannot bend it entirely to your will. Dogs are another matter, and can be broken.

      I speak from experience, having been fortunate enough to have a wolf as a member of my family in my life.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    13. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many languages do you speak and write fluently? Wait, let me guess, bunches...... sure you do.....

    14. Re:Control... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      As long as you're not planning to become a German Shepherd, that will be fine.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Control... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.

      Perhaps the sheep will damn themselves, given time... :-|

    16. Re:Control... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      Too complicated to learn, english language is.

      It's not that hard, Master Yoda. Just remember to capitalise "English". As for the rest, most of your readers are 1ll1ter8 ba5tard5 anyway...

    17. Re:Control... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      some of us prefer to be sheep dogs.

      All of us prefer to be sheep dogs.
      In reality, practically none of us are.
      The dozen or so that are, we all know by name and most of them are dead already.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    18. Re:Control... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Fear give those in Power, control of the command person.

      Too complicated to learn, english language is.

      Ooooh, a Language Nazi! One of the oldest tricks to sabotage a discussion. Despicable, repulsive and, in the end, self-destructive.

      And, BTW, that is "English" in this context. Pathetic.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re: Control... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Europe? It's common to speak 3 or more languages.
      In the USA our education system is so bad most can not speak the native English very well.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:Control... by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Informative

      AD = CE. CE expands as Common Era, and is generally more accepted in a global context, because it doesn't reference a god you may not believe in or adhere to. More than half the world's population does not follow an Abrahamic religion. The dates are exactly the same, just a different name.

      You did know that AD means "Anno Domini", right? In English, that's "the year of our Lord". If you want to claim adherence to the Christain God, that's fine. You have that right. But don't expect me to pay lip service to a God that, to me, comes off as a petty, cliquish and vindictive sort, according to your own holy books.

    21. Re:Control... by VernonNemitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.

      There is more to it than just that. Our civilization has allowed more and more purely physical power to be accessible by average folks --think of any 200-horsepower car as being equivalent to owning a herd of 200 horses, and think about all the work that such a herd might have done before the Industrial Revolution. Well, Power is supposed to be associated with Responsibility. It is Education that provides information about "how to use Power responsibly and ethically" --but there are always folks who either don't pay proper attention to the lessons, or don't care, because they want what they want, regardless of the consequences. Thus did the Power of three jet aircraft become misused as missiles, destroying two tall buildings and severely damaging a third large building. If the overall Trend continues, regarding accessibility of physical Power by average folks, then eventually average folks will have access to Power equivalent to an H-bomb. (Note that already lots of folks seem to have access to Modern Biological Power....) One of the proposed Answers to the Fermi Paradox is that every technological culture will eventually face a challenge regarding how to deal with such Power in the hands of ordinary small-minded selfish (and even psychotic) folks --and that most cultures don't survive that challenge. I will disagree that clamping down on Freedom is the correct solution; there are stories about "mad generals", after all. But we most certainly need a solution, and sooner rather than later.

    22. Re:Control... by hallkbrdz · · Score: 0

      Right. As it is they could care less what we think or want. They buy votes with our own tax dollars and do whatever is necessary (completely lie) to get re-elected. They completely ignore the Constitution (our laws for them) and no one (the free press) holds them accountable.

      We must ensure that they fear us instead. We must remind them they are public servants - and we are their masters, not the other way around.

    23. Re:Control... by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Netanyahu?

    24. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When 900 years old you are, see how well you speak, yee-hee-hee!

    25. Re:Control... by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Really... So "human nature" has not changed, ever, in the history of our species? That's a remarkably grim (not to mention) view of humanity and it's potential. BTW, your metaphors don't work either. We are not sheep, or wolves, though I'll admit that the comparison are, at times, tempting. We have capabilities far beyond what those instinct driven animals possess. To suggest that we do not is just absurd.

      Human nature can change as a function of evolution. Too bad we have pretty effectively suspended evolution as it applies to humans...

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    26. Re:Control... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      Mays et television.

      (I leave it to you to figure out what 'Mays' means...

      Hi, Billy Mays here for the world’s greatest insole, Impact Gel.
      Why am I smashing my hand with this hammer? To show you the amazing protection you get from Impact Gel.

    27. Re:Control... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You definitely get points for thinking - and an additional point for thinking in a useful direction. How to cause people to use power in a responsible manner? I have no idea. Whereas some people here have stated that they are frightened of guns, and/or frightened of people who have guns - the various methods that might be used to MAKE people responsible frighten me. Eugenics, maybe? Unless you exhibit traits that make you submissive to government control, you are sterilized? Hmmm - - - -

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    28. Re:Control... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you want to claim adherence to the Christain God, that's fine.

      AMS, Anno Monstrum Spaghetti

    29. Re:Control... by flyneye · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did ya get the ""While far from a dictatorship," part? This guy learned everything he knows from the media. LOL
      I guess he didn't notice that it's either a Republican or a Democrat stripping away our liberty, rights,privacy over the last century.
      Never heard of the Repubmocrat tyranny. Well, if the majority of the U.S. populace can be suckered into trading freedom for comfort and security, maybe the rest of the world should check themselves.
      I'm guessing it's time for worldwide bloody revolution. If we can manage to get it done by next Sunday, I can watch the Chiefs play Monday night without distractions.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    30. Re:Control... by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1
      Speaking of Yoda, really surprised no one's posted the obvious quote:

      Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

      Because that's where this country is heading. Fear is an excellent manipulator, won't you please think of the children?

    31. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry , Hippies are in season, part of Cargills Soylent program. Dying naked with a bullet wound and a hand full of shit is no way to go, son. Pick up your gun and protect the herd...

    32. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As opposed to you. A kind, deep thinking, even handed benevolent asshole.

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

      Keep your filthy perverse fantasies to yourself, weirdo. The fire dept. isn't going to keep getting you unknotted from some innocent mutton.

    34. Re:Control... by bargainsale · · Score: 1

      You mean until 1453. (Ask any Greek)

      --
      Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    35. Re:Control... by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Until someone kills you for being an obnoxious douche with no redeeming quality and smug arrogance doesn't count or get you very far.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    36. Re: Control... by ghettoimp · · Score: 2

      Its sad because its true.

    37. Re:Control... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 0

      u mad, bro?

    38. Re:Control... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      and of course many other creative spelling attempts that are blamed on auto-correct but rather should be blamed on lousy education or the willful butchering of words.

      I agree with you mostly. But I have to say -- when I first got my iPhone, I tried Autocorrect for a month or so. I discovered that my phone would NEVER let me type the word "its", i.e., the possessive third-person pronoun. It ALWAYS "corrected" it to "it's", i.e., "it is".

      Of course, there were the other inanities Autocorrect introduced -- often any word other than the few thousand most common English words was in danger of being randomly converted to a nonsense phrase or something.

      But Apple's Autocorrect was actively promoting the decline of English syntax. I looked like an idiot in emails I would write where I'd forget to go back and fix the words my phone had helpfully "corrected." And there were no convenient ways to fix it. So I turned Autocorrect off, and I've been spelling words correctly again ever since.

      Somewhere in here, I think there's a metaphor for what Apple is doing to society.... [just kidding... mostly...]

    39. Re:Control... by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why is it that self (and loudly) proclaimed atheists seem to bitch and moan about religion more than the actual religious nutjobs do? Why do you feel the need to inject your personal opinion into a discussion about a completely unrelated subject in a way thats clearly intended to turn the discussion into a flame war?

      If there is no god for you to believe in, why the fuck do you get so upset and loud about it?

      NO ONE GIVES A FUCK THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD. Not the religious people, not normal atheists ... NO ONE .... yet you still feel the need to bring it up when the discussion is no where near there, and you pick tiny irrelevant excuses to do so.

      Do you have any idea how obviously scared of what you don't know you make yourself appear?

      No one likes religious nutjobs, which is all you are, you just try to claim anti-relgion as your religion. You just make it clear how transparent you are and how clever you aren't. You're projecting your own self hatred and fear on others. You are exactly the type of person you pretend to be against. Different religion, same ignorance.

      Grow up ya douche, no one gives a fuck about your angst ridden religious crusades

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    40. Re:Control... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

      > Nothing has changed because basic human nature is the same. This is the way it will always be.

      Total pessimistic nonsense. In less then 10 years humans will be "forced" (technically willed) to be part of a cosmic event in person and the last of their selfish myopic perspective will _start_ to change. Can you even comprehend what will happen to people when we ALL KNOW that we are not alone in the universe???

      Part of the problem is that our average age forces us to focus on the short-term gain instead of long-term sustainability. If the average lifespan was 1,000 years don't you think our perspective & relationships with children, school, work, parents, would change too?

      Does the planet as a whole ...

      * still practice slavery?
      * stil have children working in mines?
      * still only allow men to vote?
      * still horde science/technology/knowledge such as fire, computers etc or do we share it with others?

      *Together* we have come to realize that we CAN treat everyone else better -- that we can pool our knowledge, etc. The problem is that there are still a few people (in power) that never got the memo. Cooperation is a BETTER (more efficient) long term goal then Competition.

      The consciousness of people, country, and the planet IS slowly spiritually maturing. We as a species have _already_ changed your are just too focused on the old dead tree to see the new living forest.

    41. Re:Control... by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      The real problem with these mistakes is that there are very, very few people that welcome the criticism. I always say thank you or at least neutrally acknowledge the error when somebody rightfully points out one of my mistakes. Then I never make it again or maybe once more.

      Most of the people that are corrected go apeshit on the person who is (inadvertently) helping them. I mean, let's be honest: language can be tricky, but it's not that hard. That is, unless you never ever ever ever ever want to look at or hear about proper grammar and spelling after you've turned 12.

    42. Re:Control... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Oh ok. Yes. I bow to your "you're wrong because soon --- ALIENS ---" argument. You obviously win this round.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    43. Re:Control... by gdshaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      AD = CE. CE expands as Common Era, and is generally more accepted in a global context, because it doesn't reference a god you may not believe in or adhere to. More than half the world's population does not follow an Abrahamic religion. The dates are exactly the same, just a different name.

      You did know that AD means "Anno Domini", right? In English, that's "the year of our Lord". If you want to claim adherence to the Christain God, that's fine. You have that right. But don't expect me to pay lip service to a God that, to me, comes off as a petty, cliquish and vindictive sort, according to your own holy books.

      Not my god either, but I see two objections to trying to replace AD with CE:

      Firstly, it doesn't achieve your stated aim of avoiding reference to Christianity, because it continues to use what was (probably incorrectly) thought to be the year of Christ's birth as its epoch. Any pretence that the one is not derived from the other is frankly ridiculous.

      Secondly, I can't comment about yourself, but most CE proponents are quite happy to use a calendar system that is replete with reference to other deities such as Thursday after Thor, January after Janus and so on. Both July and August are named after gods who we know from our history books were not exactly role models for ethical behaviour. In this context it is hard to believe that aversion to the term AD is driven by a purely secular motivation.

    44. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I meant exactly what I wrote. That you are ignorant about the preference of many for the use CE and BCE instead of AD and BC is not my problem.

      And so far the only whiny baby I've heard is..... you.

    45. Re:Control... by nickmalthus · · Score: 1

      "We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

      "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

      "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

      "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

      Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
    46. Re:Control... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Why is it that self (and loudly) proclaimed atheists seem to bitch and moan about religion more than the actual religious nutjobs do? Why do you feel the need to inject your personal opinion into a discussion about a completely unrelated subject in a way thats clearly intended to turn the discussion into a flame war?

      Why is it you assume I'm an atheist? Just because I don't like the Christian god does not mean that I don't have an existing relationship with some other god or gods, or some other form of spirituality. I don't believe I said one way or the other what my own religious beliefs were, beyond saying that I didn't really like the Christian god.

      Your assumption kind of proves my point, btw... half the world's population does not believe in or adhere to the Abrahamic God. You automatically assume that because I'm in that half of the world's population, I must be an atheist. That kind of Christian-centric thinking is exactly why "AD" has fallen into disuse. It may surprise you to discover this, but there are many religions in the world today that either don't have Yahweh as part of their pantheon, or make allowance for his existence as one of many gods to pick and choose from. There's even a few religions where gods exist but are not something to be worshiped or followed. There are billions of people in the world who follow one of these other paths without being an atheist.

      The rest of your post is completely irrelevant, actually... considering that at no point have I actually said that I'm an atheist. In fact, I'm not. I'd go into detail about my own beliefs but I don't think I have anything to prove to you that hasn't already been said.

    47. Re:Control... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Nope.

    48. Re:Control... by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what you're saying is that bread is fear? or circuses are fear, and bread is consumption? Or that nothing is something, which has changed?

      Circuses have CLOWNS, man!!! Of course they're fear!

    49. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no wolves. It's all just sheep. There isn't even a shepherd, just a sheep who has been appointed or elected by other sheep. They aren't even sheep, they're people.

    50. Re:Control... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I'm not a purely secular person. :)

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428969&cid=45383921

      I don't personally like AD because it's claiming adherence to a god I don't like. I prefer CE. I don't pretend it's not using the same date as the start of the era, in fact it's by design so that systems don't need to be updated. Nobody's alive to remember the fiasco when the switch over to the Julian calendar happened, or when the French tried introducing a metric calendar, but it's a pain in the butt that is to be avoided. "CE" is intended to keep the same calendar while removing the fealty to a god that you may not like. Alternative systems have been proposed, and are even in use elsewhere in the world (see the Chinese calendar, for example), but they tend not to gain traction because of the math involved in converting dates. Even the Chinese are still using the Julian calendar for day to day transactions.

      It's different from how Friday refers to Freya, though... nobody, not even the germannic tribes the name comes from, says or said that Freya is the only goddess out there, or that she held dominion over everything, but when you refer to it as "Anno Domini", you are explicitly saying that it's a year of the Lord, and that all years are such. About the closest to a "lord" you get is Odin, with Wednesday, but even that isn't the same, because Wednesday is one of many days in the week. (and not even the most important, according to most of us... that'd be either Freya or Saturn's day... ;))

    51. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Human nature does not change" is a code phrase for a discredited concept involving transcendent moral ethics.

    52. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, Nutnfancy made it to Slashdot.

    53. Re:Control... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Mods, you think realityimpaired's post was off topic?

      Well, it wasn't.

      This is off topic.

      Got it?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    54. Re:Control... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Fear is a powerful emotion.
      People will tend to be more risk averse then forward thinking. If something is working we don't really want to mess with it. Even it is partially broken trying to make it better could have a chance to make it worse.

      Part of the increase fear in the United States is the ease that information can spread. It was much easier say 50 years ago to convince the public that a certain action is good, lets say vaccines, we had limited media outlets, and often most of it was edited so not to be too outrageous, so the lone nut who did some initial science experiment and found a trend with his tests, who wanted to tell the world, would have been blocked out as not having enough good evidence. Today news peculates up from these guys, and the big media companies have little recourse but to cover these nutjob ideas because there is so much buzz about them.

      Back 50 years ago, the press created the buzz, today they report on the buzz. Now there is positive effects too. However with all this info we live in a nation of fear. With all this fear politicians know this and use it to keep themselves in power.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    55. Re:Control... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone's been reading "Childhood's End".

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    56. Re:Control... by Teun · · Score: 1

      Moderator, what do you find so Offtopic in this reasonably worded explanation?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    57. Re:Control... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Mutton comes from flocks, not herds. Teh metaphor fails it.

      --
      Will
    58. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As one who has had seven German Shepherds over the years, I can attest that there is a place for the German Shepherd. They are exactly what you want to have if you need to move a bunch of Germans around.

    59. Re:Control... by gdshaw · · Score: 1

      My problem is that once you cross the line from a policy of keeping religion out of the calendar system to one of keeping Christianity out, you are entering questionable territory that I for one would be reluctant to endorse in any way. Even if you frame it as polytheism in, monotheism out, I think that destroys any case that CE/BCE should be adopted on the grounds of avoiding religious bias.

      Besides, if it is acceptable to retcon the epoch to avoid disruption, surely it would be logical to retcon AD to mean something else so that you don't need to change anything?

    60. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both July and August are named after gods

      Minor correction - they were named after Roman emperors, not quite gods. Still not great role models, so point taken.

    61. Re:Control... by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      Why was this modded offtopic? Religion is one of the best known and most effective tools used to create fear, through the exploitation of ignorance. It's damn near primal in itself.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    62. Re:Control... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      The most interesting position, in the whole parallel, is that of the shepherd dog. For sure, he can be broken - but as long as he is not, leads a quite interesting life: charged with the interests of both sheep and shepherd, he has "some wolf" in him.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    63. Re:Control... by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Some of us are not sheep, and are incapable of reacting as sheep.

      90% of Americans think that 90% of Americans are sheep.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    64. Re: Control... by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      "In the USA our education system is so bad most can not speak the native English very well."
      You probably mean "cannot," not "can not." The latter implies the ability to be unable to do something, while the former implies the inability to do something.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    65. Re: Control... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      When humans develop collective minds that span more than one individual, or evolve the capacity to slide sideways across the multiverse by (quantically ?) experiencing every possible options in a given choices instead of having to decide, or can accurately predict the future, then you can say that human nature has changed.

      Until then, it hasn't. Still a bunch of self-motivating self-actuating agents in the form of domestic primates.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    66. Re:Control... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      My problem is that once you cross the line from a policy of keeping religion out of the calendar system to one of keeping Christianity out, you are entering questionable territory that I for one would be reluctant to endorse in any way. Even if you frame it as polytheism in, monotheism out, I think that destroys any case that CE/BCE should be adopted on the grounds of avoiding religious bias.

      That's a fair point. Ultimately, as long as everybody understands what you're talking about, does it really matter? It makes a bit more sense when talking about the Chinese explorers in the 14th century CE, for example, because they weren't Christian and weren't European, but if you say "AD" I don't really object to it. I understand what's being said. I think in an academic context it's mostly about avoiding Euro-centric thinking, rather than avoiding xian-centric thinking, though the reasoning does still come from the language as described.

      You are right about the day names, and even the month names -- January and March at least... the rest come from numerical order. July and August were named after Roman emperors, and were inserted in the middle of the calendar, explaining why September (7th month) is actually the 9th month. ;) That said, we don't usually bother to say that the Battle of Hastings occurred on a Tuesday when talking about the event.

      Most of the time, the CE/AD thing is left out by ellipsis anyway. :) If I say I was born in 1981, I don't think anybody reading this is going to think I'm almost 4000 years old.

    67. Re:Control... by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      UA flight 93 shows that people can change from sheep to sheep dogs pretty quickly when properly motivated.

    68. Re:Control... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      And the media are entirely complicit in this.

      Last night, my local news was pushing promos for "The Invisible Threat" "You can't see it... you can't smell it..." ... something about the new threat to flying, with the obligatory DHS/TSA spokesperson talking about "terrorists".

      Posting AC for the obvious reason, even though I'm sure I'm IP logged.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    69. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The native English"

      Holy fucking shit. Cherry niggers can go and get fucked apparently.

    70. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA our education system is so bad most can not speak the native language, English, very well.

    71. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And whenever you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they will be seen by people." The funniest thing about modern christianity is that Jesus was opposed to organized religion. He taught about a personal relationship with God.

      Matthew 6.5

    72. Re:Control... by gdshaw · · Score: 1

      Both July and August are named after gods

      Minor correction - they were named after Roman emperors, not quite gods. Still not great role models, so point taken.

      That's a matter of perspective: followers of the Roman Imperial cult would have considered them to be gods, followers of most other religions obviously wouldn't. Since their elevation to godhood would have been formalised by the senate, and since we have firm evidence that both individuals existed, you could argue that as deities go their claims are stronger than most.

      (Granted I'm not sure which came first, month naming or apotheosis - quite possibly the former.)

    73. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anatomically modern humans (our species) has been around approximately 200ky, an eyeblink in geological and evolutionary time. We simply haven't been around very long. If you look through our oldest records and traditions -- the Vedas, the Chinese classical works, the records of ancient Egypt, literature from ancient Greece and the myths of ancient cultures, you'll find that we really haven't changed. The same essential psycho-social patterns are recognizable. Try reading Plutarch. It's depressing how modern politics is pretty much as bad as that of the ancients -- just as selfish, arbitrary and corrupt.

    74. Re:Control... by quax · · Score: 1

      Yes, but sheep that labour under the illusion that they are sheepdogs are still a sad sight to behold.

    75. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe? It's common to speak 3 or more languages.

      Not in countries that speak English natively.

    76. Re: Control... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      To be fair, in Europe, when you move from one area the size of a US state to another area the size of a US state, they probably speak a separate language. Not true in the US.

      Less need to speak 3 languages mean less of us do.

    77. Re:Control... by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      America essentially turned into a nation of sheep dogs for democracy after Pearl Harbor. Though at the same time there were internment camps for Japanese-Americans. "The United States has employed a number of paranoid tactics that delegitimize its democracy" at least going back to John Adams. It's not something that's going away anytime soon. Yet, in America's case, it manages to get corrected.

    78. Re:Control... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      I can't help you if you are unable to read & continue to ignore basic facts:

      Does the planet as a whole ...

      * still practice slavery?
      * stil have children working in mines?
      * still only allow men to vote?
      * still horde science/technology/knowledge such as fire, computers etc or do we share it with others?

      Lastly, how many countries are in the U.N. compared to 200 years ago?

      Is the system perfect? No. Are we working towards making it better? Yes.

      These are just some of the many examples of the evolution of consciousness. Getting hung up on one of them demonstrates you just toss the baby out with the bath water.
       

    79. Re:Control... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think the sheep metaphor should probably be dropped. What's wrong with being a follower rather than a leader when things are going pretty well? For that matter, what better about being a dog than a sheep?

      Our society places a lot of value on being leaders, being independent. Which is fine, but everything in balance. Sheep following each other work better as a group than a group of animals which are independent (hence the metaphor of herding cats.) Teaching everyone that they are a unique little snowflake who should reject all authority is good in moderation, but I suspect we're going a little overboard, telling people they need to question anything they hear and accept none of it, be it doctors telling them they need to get vaccinated, be it people saying "Hey, uh, taxes are kind of necessary for nice things" or be it "don't act like a fucking asshole in public."

      At a minimum, why do we need to compare people to animals. Leaders vs followers is not a terribly complex concept. I don't think we need a metaphor, all it seems to do is make being a follower seem unattractive compared to being, I dunno, a wolf or sheepdog or tiger other animal you'd rather be compared to.

    80. Re:Control... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Sorry never heard of it. Oooh, Arthur C. Clarke. Ah! So that is/was what 2001 was based on. Thanks for the new reading material!

      Our future is quite different from Sci-Fi. Namely, that no one else is going to save us from ourselves or do it for us. We have to do the work ourselves. All our parent aliens will simply give us is options and a different perspective on how we could do things differently, as they are not allowed to violate our free will.

      We as a species have demonstrated that we are not interesting in obliterating ourselves (aka the celebration of the 2012 marker); the challenge remains how to work together ... if certain people such as the OP wish to remain blind how we have changed they need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    81. Re:Control... by dale.furno · · Score: 1

      Today, all of the sheep think they are hippy veggies above the crowd. you are no different.

    82. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe is composed of a relatively large number of small countries when compared to the U.S., so speaking multiple languages becomes something of a must if you want to communicate with so many nearby neighbors. If each state in the U.S. had its own language, you can be sure we'd all be speaking multiple languages.

    83. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because number of languages spoken is a good indicator of useful educational success.

    84. Re:Control... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      The last bunch of people to try and reform the standard calender were the revolutionary French, under Romme, Ferry and Dupuis. They had the assistance and support of the chemist de Morveau, and the astronomers Lagrange and Lalande, but it still didn't catch on. Strangely, the Metric System started from the same roots, and became widely accepted.
                If we're going to get rid of religious calendar references, how about more genral reform? "Venerial" is a word derived from Venus, the goddess of lurve. Elemental quicksilver is 'incorrectly' named after the god Mercury, and a similar problem exists for element number 90 (named after some guy in the Norse pantheon). All Hallows Eve, Walpurgusnacht, and various other holidays, trace to (very religious) calendar of the Celts. Many of our finest automobiles are named after Totemic animals, often of Native American mystical traditions. Considering this too much could drive a man crazy - I'm starting to feel superstitious and even ocultistic for calling the tallest mountain in North America Denali instead of Mount McKinley.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    85. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize the sheep dogs are supposed to protect the sheep, right?

      Your analogy fail is a hilariously perfect display of the fail that is libertarianism and objectivism. "fark you guys, i got mine"

    86. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, in Europe, when you move from one area the size of a US state to another area the size of a US state, they probably speak a separate language. Not true in the US.

      Less need to speak 3 languages mean less of us do.

      Actually, it's more of a cultural thing. In Europe, you're considered poorly educated, even obtuse, if you don't speak your own native language + English + French/German. English is the obvious language of choice for people from different, small European countries when speaking with each other whilst French or is the most useful language to learn if you need a third just to show that you're educated. Some people, however, choose to instead learn Latin which has limited use apart from showing that you're educated. Since many European languages originate from Latin the only other practical benefit is that it makes it easier to learn more languages.

      One of the reasons why the EU economy is not as flexible as the US is that the plethora of languages makes it harder for labour to relocate according to demand. Even if a skilled professional might speak several European languages to at least some extent, his/her kids are still learning their native one, which makes relocating more difficult. Good parents of course realize that it's not easy for kids to adapt to new schools several times even if the language is the same but skilled career people rarely make good parents.

    87. Re:Control... by dargaud · · Score: 1

      History is what it is, and it's fine. The etymology of weekdays or months is very interesting but nobody attributes them religious meanings anymore. This CE things goes the same: keep the historical meaning, get rid of the current religious aspect. Similar to the crosses you find on summits in Europe, put up sometimes centuries ago. I don't mind them. But if you want to build a 100ft tall concrete cross in my backyard, you'll find me tossing burning tires at its base.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    88. Re: Control... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Education system, Hell! Its a simple lack of need. When's the last time you NEEDED to speak or understand another language? Never? Yep, that's my experience.

    89. Re:Control... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Except I forgot to hit the AC button!!! DOH!!!!

      Come and get me, NSA!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    90. Re: Control... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      In the USA our education system is so bad most can not speak the native English very well.

      I've got a question for you: What's the official language of America? Fun fact, we don't have one. Isn't that strange? Europe happens to be made up of several countries the size of our states. Naturally with so many cultures in close proximity it's extremely practical. Regarding America, it's not just the system, it's also the students. It's almost like the last 40 years and 100 million immigrants have had an affect, go figure when you're importing 1+ million legal residents a year. Although, as a bonus we've got more people who can speak more languages!

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    91. Re:Control... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      i can't hear you over the sound of how awesome you think i think i am

    92. Re:Control... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      There was this guy who used to write etymology column in the NYT, William Safire. Used to a decent column. Later I learnt that he was a speech writer for Nixon, and a suck up to the christian fundies. He was bragging how he managed to slip in AD 1970 into the gold plates carried by Voyager I and how the reference to Christian lord went totally unnoticed by the scientists on NASA. He was very proud and bragging about how he was instrumental in spreading the name of his god beyond this solar system.

      Frankly he sounded totally crazy. His God is supposed to he Lord of the Universe. And no one else had heard about Him, and this nattering nabob of a nitwit Safire spread His name to some distant galaxy? Idiot.

      Well, someday, if a bunch of Janus worshipers get some political mileage and seem to threaten my religious liberty, I will do my bit to rename the name of the month of January.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    93. Re:Control... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      To be fair, America also had German and (non-citizen) Italian Internment camps during WW2, but since the German population was too large, they mainly expelled them from coastal areas and held about ~11000 people as opposed to the ~110000 Japanese. Unlike the Japanese or Italians, the German internees have never been given an apology or reparation, which IMO is a dick move on the part of America. I think America was a bit more restrained with German-Americans during WW2 because of what happened during WW1 (unconstitutionally banning the German language for starters, then registration cards, random roundups and imprisonments, killing pacifist draftees in prison, etc).

      Pearl Harbor itself was masterfully orchestrated, but I think Roosevelt expected a different result. We had cracked their codes, knew an attack was coming and where. An aircraft carrier due in two days before suddenly develops engine trouble, fixes it and is supposed to arrive that morning, but is mysteriously hours late. I expect Roosevelt thought a bunch of planes (known to be scout vehicles) and a few small ships were not going to be able to take out the mighty battleships stationed there and expected an attack and an easy repulsion of Japanese with few casualties while instantly polarizing America to join in the war. In fact, Japan had declared war on America already (for refusal to sell oil to them), so an attack was hardly the "surprise" the US made it out to be. We knew an attack was coming and where, the question is, did we know when? Only Roosevelt and his top brass know that, and I'm sure they took it to their graves.

    94. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel that humans are not the finished article. We have to re-invent the wheel over and over, and are a short war away from going right back to the stone age. We think too much with our amygdalas and genitals. We construct pleasing narratives in our head and believe them as fact even when they have fuck all to do with reality. The age of reason and enlightenment, such as it is, is probably a short abberation. We're up against a tide. We should either make a better version of ourselves or just create machine intelligence and let it supercede us. Basically, we are shite. Let's just try to have a good time and leave a better legacy, and a dominant species more befitting this lovely planet we find ourselves on.

    95. Re: Control... by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Hi. A few comments....

      Few people can read Latin. To a significant extent, words really do mean what you want them to.

      There are many Christian gods. Though the Christ gods are all interrelated, being united under the same name and a common scripture, some of them are a lot better than others. And in different ways, many Christians are smart enough to recognize that their god is not The One True God. I think that when you communicate your view and experience to those Christians, their god changes a little bit, because it thinks through them, sort of. I think that this is necessary, that their gods can not be defeated by force.

      Also it appears to me that every major philosophy or religion, however screwed up, has a half-truth or two that it does better than other religions. For those of us who must fight Christianity because it persecutes our spirits and offends our moral sensibilities, I think it's still worth keeping this in perspective, to avoid cutting ourselves off from something we need. Unfortunately, I think it's a little bit like living in a country with a corrupt culture and government. No path forward is quite satisfactory.

      I'm not really expressing a view on C.E. vs A.D., just throwing some related thoughts out there.

    96. Re:Control... by Creepy · · Score: 2

      I understand the purpose of your post, but IMO the light isn't so bright.

      In regards to:
      * still practice slavery?
      Yes. Human trafficking is still a huge worldwide problem.

      * stil have children working in mines?
      Yes, unfortunately, but less so than in the past. Same for child labor in general. Mostly a third world problem, but it happens in America, too, often due to human trafficking.

      * still only allow men to vote?
      Yes still in many Muslim countries and maybe others.

      * still horde science/technology/knowledge such as fire, computers etc or do we share it with others?
      Yes, thorough corporate secrets, patents, copyright, etc. In fact, when America was founded, patents and copyright were frowned upon and given small terms when allowed. Now these periods are mammoth and benefit corporate owners.

    97. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or more simply your pussies.

    98. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > still horde science/technology/knowledge ...

      "Hordes of hoary whores hoard the hoers."

    99. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Native English!!? In USA?? I just hope to hell you are being sarcastic, and the moderators were just whooshed over.

    100. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to nitpick but English is a relative newcomer. Hardly the "native" tongue of North America.

      And if you think the speaking is bad, stay away from the writing!

    101. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop it. Reason doesn't work with "True believers" (tm), no matter what it is that they believe.

    102. Re:Control... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Herding Native Americans on to reservations is another form of internment camps, much earlier than anything in WW2. The slavery of Africans was another form of internment. It's been a pretty common thread throughout our history.

    103. Re:Control... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      "The Lord is my Shepard, I shall not want."

      (I'm agnostic but I couldn't help throwing that in there. It works for a lot of people.)

    104. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fuk-wad! What era are you calling common? Common to what? Oh - you must mean COMMON TO JESUS!

    105. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How republican of you.

    106. Re:Control... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The one that's been getting to me lately is break vs. brake. That's more than a single letter that you might type unknowingly kind of error.

    107. Re: Control... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's as if each of the States had its own language. What a CF that would be. I will admit though that I have trouble understanding some guys from Boston.

    108. Re: Control... by Petfish · · Score: 0

      I have always been impressed with the ability of Europeans to communicate with people in an range of languages. My command of English is passable but the second language as taught in our school system proved to be laughably poor.

    109. Re:Control... by chilvence · · Score: 1

      Stop insulting the fucking sheep by comparing them to us.

    110. Re:Control... by chilvence · · Score: 1

      Don't diss religion, it's given us real time travel that you can actually use! Need to travel to a different year? Just join the corresponding religious movement! I'm in Juche 102, waiting for you guys to catch up to my superiour radio technology in a couple thousand years :P!

    111. Re:Control... by chilvence · · Score: 1

      Cheerios and Brookside?

    112. Re:Control... by chilvence · · Score: 1

      Ah fuck you. English is popular because it is easily transmissible. You who are defending the core of the English language in all its godly perfection are doing it the most damage on the world stage. Any language which uses such thin lines to disambiguate vastly different concepts deserves a kick up the arse to keep it healthy.

      Signed

      Someone from England, ps stop fucking telling me how to spell my language you colonial peasant.

    113. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the United States, you can drive across blocks of states that are larger than entire European countries, and the dominant language doesn't change every time you cross a State line. So there's no need to speak multiple languages.

    114. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You definitely get points for thinking - and an additional point for thinking in a useful direction. How to cause people to use power in a responsible manner? I have no idea. Whereas some people here have stated that they are frightened of guns, and/or frightened of people who have guns - the various methods that might be used to MAKE people responsible frighten me. Eugenics, maybe? Unless you exhibit traits that make you submissive to government control, you are sterilized? Hmmm - - - -

      Not frightened of guns or people who have them. Rather, frightened of irresponsible people with guns. Yes, there is a big difference there. Also, who has mentioned anything about Eugenics or forced sterilizations? Paranoid much?

    115. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could we just use the Unix epoch? The one and only true god?

    116. Re:Control... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      It is "Fear and consumption".

      A way to keep the populations under control. The Roman Empire used "Bread and circuses".

      2000 years, and nothing has changed.

      In the case of the Roman Empire, the "fear" part was obviously the circus clowns.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    117. Re:Control... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I guess he didn't notice that it's either a Republican or a Democrat stripping away our liberty, rights,privacy over the last century.
      Never heard of the Repubmocrat tyranny.

      You blame Politicians and not the black budget advisers?
      It seems to me that if the political parties change and the infringements continue, then maybe the problem isn't with the political parties.
      Do you think the NSA and CIA and dozens of other Agencies/Divisions are ever going to advise that there should be less infringement on civil liberties?

      Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
      http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

      This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

      In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

      We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    118. Re:Control... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Like I said, I'm looking back at a century. I'd safely say from the New Deal, onward. Probably before that.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    119. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Lord is my Shepard, I shall not want."

      (I'm agnostic but I couldn't help throwing that in there. It works for a lot of people.)

      The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
      He makes me down to lie
      Through pastures green he leadeth me the silent waters by
      With bright knives he releaseth my soul
      He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places
      He converteth me to lamb cutlets
      For lo,m he hath great power and great hunger
      When cometh the day we lowly ones
      Through quiet reflection and great dedication
      Master the art of karate
      Lo, we shall rise up
      And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

    120. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    121. Re:Control... by unitron · · Score: 1

      Popcorn?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    122. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no single solution. And you'll note that you could've written this at most any time in history if you tweak the examples. We're still around.

      Think, for a moment, how easy it would be to build a dangerous flying weapon. Now think about all the days you've lived that that hasn't been employed.

      People are a lot less interested in crazy-town destruction than we assume. We're largely fixated on trying to make our lives better... as groups and individuals.

    123. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lastly, how many countries are in the U.N. compared to 200 years ago?"

      Well, since the UN was not in existence 200 years ago or 100 years ago or even 75 years ago I'd say that's an idiotic question.

    124. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo! I agree with you 100%

    125. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting - you write "god" and "Christian". Why do you capitalize one, but not the other?

    126. Re:Control... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Close enough. Corn. There is no latin name, because it's a new world species - by the time it was discovered, latin was no longer in common use.

    127. Re:Control... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We can agree to stick to the system just because it's as good a starting point to count from as any other random one. For people who are not into this whole Jesus thing for whatever reason, it's just a date.

      OTOH, "anno Domini" is offensive because "domini" means Lord. This is very much unlike "Thursday" for Thor, since there is nothing there to imply that Thor should have any special meaning or relation to anyone else; he is just a god (and can even be treated as a purely mythical figure without changing meaning), not One True God of All.

    128. Re:Control... by tigersha · · Score: 1

      This. This. This.

      This is why I always find the idea of Star Wars and other Scifi where the average joe has a space ship that can fly through the galaxy to be ludicrous. A spaceship that can do that must have the power of several large thermonuclear weapons somewhere to power it. Probably orders of magnitude more in fact. That sort of power in the hands of Han Solo who is a space-ship mechanic who just takes his spanner to his unstable ship? What happens when he turns into some bad-ass? Or when he simply screws up? Spaceport and surrounding parts goes up in smoke together with a few million people.
      And we worry about the stability of nuclear power plants?!!

      This is also why I think people like Freeman Dyson who proclaim the era of biological hacking has arrived to be extremely disturbing. Biological agents have the ability to replicate themselves by taking energy from the organisms they host. If Mr Dyson thinks that this is a good idea in the hands of some religious psychopaths I begin to doubt his sanity.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    129. Re: Control... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      In Europe you can reach another country in which to practice an nth language by driving for three hours or taking a train, and you don't even need to bring a passport within the Schengen Zone.

    130. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UN, the entity everyone ignores when they can't use it to bully one another. Yeah, the UN is the paragon for change.

    131. Re: Control... by j0ris · · Score: 1

      In Europe people are willing to PAY for a proper education system. Higher tax rates are considered a price worth paying for a more civilized society.

      There seems to be less solidarity in the USA: "Why should I pay for someone else's problems? Lower the taxes!".

      This serves the elite greatly, but hurts the country as a whole. Poor public schooling makes it easier to control the dumb masses. Fear mongering will be more effective. But it also means the country will be less productive and innovative.

      Compared to Europeans, Americans seem quite "patriotic". But if you say you love your country so much, then why are you not willing to invest into it?

      Sadly I see Europe moving gradually closer to the same path.

    132. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Today news peculates up from these guys"

      Peculates? That word does not mean what you think it means

      Or did you mean "percolates"? That would actually make sense.

    133. Re: Control... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In the US, most people speak the common language of those within a 5 our drive. In Europe, many don't speak enough languages to drive 5 hours, but thankfully, those 5 hours away speak at least one they do. But two people, both non-native speakers, often have trouble communicating subtleties. It's not the education system that drives the US lack of interest in foreign languages. It's the lack of need.

    134. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, another gun nut.

    135. Re:Control... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Reading. You might want to try it sometime ...

      Is the system perfect? No. Are we working towards making it better? Yes.

    136. Re:Control... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to say "Thanks for the very interesting sci-fi read!"

      Having read it yesterday there are some fundamental differences with our future and the one described in the book:

      1. Our Pleiadian parents are humanoid (not devils as in CE)
      2. No one is going to magically make the Earth an utopia as they did in CE. In a few hundred years we will be much closer to achieving it BUT only because we as an entire collective species CHOSE it; the same way WE DECIDED _NOT_ to have World War 3.
      3. The Free Will Earth Experiment results are watched very close by MANY aliens.
      4. Science will not stagnate like it did in CE but flourish. Eventually scientists will discover our 12-strand DNA learn how to decode ALL of it. By knowing that there IS a solution to FTL but without knowing the details it will encourage research.
      5. We'll eventually discover/invent true Actual Intelligence that is silicon based not carbon based.

      What I found interesting were some of the parallels:

      1. Our Human Destiny is much, much greater then we realize.
      2. The next generation of Homo Spiritus has already started.
      3. Science will eventually be expanded to include Meta-Physics (such as all the tele-* )

    137. Re: Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no herd of mutton. ..

    138. Re:Control... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      You did know that AD means "Anno Domini", right? In English, that's "the year of our Lord". If you want to claim adherence to the Christain God, that's fine. You have that right. But don't expect me to pay lip service to a God that, to me, comes off as a petty, cliquish and vindictive sort, according to your own holy books.

      And do you similarly object to the names of the days of the week and the months of the year too?

      You did know that Tuesday is Tiw's day, right? That Wednesday is Woden's day right? Thursday is Thor's day, Friday is Frigg's day... ?

      Saturday is named for Saturn, like the planet, both named for the God Saturnus. Sunday and Monday (Moon-day) speak for themselves and references the worship of sun and moon gods.

      The first 6 months are all named for deities or religious significance as well, the 7th and 8th honor (or to use your phrase "pay lip service to") Roman emperors (Julius and Augustus Caesar.

      While the 9th through 12th are still literally named 7 to 10 offending people who can count.

      The whole AD vs CE nonsense is just silly political correctness, and given that the entire calendar system is stuffed full of regilious symbols and references is pretty pointless.

    139. Re:Control... by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      Pearl Harbor itself was masterfully orchestrated, but I think Roosevelt expected a different result. We had cracked their codes, knew an attack was coming and where.

      Citation needed.

      We knew an attack was coming and where, the question is, did we know when? Only Roosevelt and his top brass know that, and I'm sure they took it to their graves.

      If top brass Admiral Husband Kimmel, Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet and Pacific Fleet, knew Japanese plans beforehand, then he must have been the most surprised person at Pearl Harbor when a .50 caliber round grazed him during the attack.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    140. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secondly, I can't comment about yourself, but most CE proponents are quite happy to use a calendar system that is replete with reference to other deities such as Thursday after Thor, January after Janus and so on. Both July and August are named after gods who we know from our history books were not exactly role models for ethical behaviour. In this context it is hard to believe that aversion to the term AD is driven by a purely secular motivation.

      While there might be some, I haven't run into anyone who claimed Thor or Janus were actual entities recently. Meanwhile I can readily find many who claim the one referenced by "AD" really does exist and really effects the current world. As such, I must reject your comparison, though I'm not too likely to go on a war to promote "CE" over "AD".

    141. Re:Control... by CHIT2ME · · Score: 0

      All the while as your brains atrophy from lack of meat protein. Pretty soon the jaguars will come, climb into the trees, and feast on your entrails!!!

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    142. Re:Control... by messymerry · · Score: 1

      Hey, I've eaten a few vegetarians in my life. They taste just fine...

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
    143. Re:Control... by _BrianMahoney · · Score: 1

      I've been looking for a parallel to American society for quite a while. "Bread and circuses' fits perfectly. I guess I ignored it because some idiot politician in Toronto used it when we wanted to host the Olympics. Now, years later, it seems more fitting than it did then. For many communities in the U.S., the biggest fear is that their high school/college football team might lose on the weekend. Little do they know that there are far bigger fears than that. Blame 'bread and circuses' for the fact that they don't know.

    144. Re:Control... by unitron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but popcorn goes with the whole "distract them with television" thing better than plain old corn.

      Although converting circuses (entertainment and diversion) to television seems straightforward, converting bread (food) to ?(food) doesn't seem to have as straightforward a "here's the modern equivalent", because food is still pretty much food.

      Maybe the equivalent to being able to sit home and watch TV instead of having to go down to the Colosseum is delivered pizza.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    145. Re:Control... by darenw · · Score: 1

      "...choose whether you want to be part of the herd near the edge looking for the wolves, or oblivious somewhere the middle, or if you want to be a wolf" ...or the vulture to clean up the carcass after the wolf's feast, or the fleas who bother all furry/hairy animals, or the dung beetles to carry away you-know-what, or the penguins who are so far away, so aloof they don't know or care about the herd, or ....

      And the edge of the herd is more than an early warning system against predators, but also where new feeding grounds, water, and various good things are first observed.

    146. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you hate Western civilization so much, stop using computers.

    147. Re:Control... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It was a reference to the vast amount the government spends subsidizing corn production - and by proxy, meat - thus ensuring that unhealthy food is available so cheaply that even the poorest need not fear starvation.

    148. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, speaking as an Alaskan, Denali is our name for that place, and McKinley is some guy unworthy of the association. This land kills. It will kill you quickly, without mercy or qualm. I've known many people who were killed by circumstance and the elements, and come close to it myself.

      Out of all places in this godforsaken land, out of all dangers you could place yourself in, Denali is chiefest. I decline to characterize McKinley. It does not take any measure of mysticism to call it by one name or the other, but I wouldn't say you were wrong for having mystical associations with the place.

    149. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spell check?

      Around here, Christian is a name, and should thus be capitalized. Where as "god" is a word like "person", it can mean any god. The word is capitalized when calling the God of Abraham, because God is used as a nickname of that specific god (Jehova being his official name). So, unless your spell check is set to christian, it should not automatically capitalize the word god. And grammar check isn't good enough yet to distinguish between talking about the god Thor and the god God.

    150. Re:Control... by Imsdal · · Score: 1

      But don't expect me to pay lip service to a God that, to me, comes off as a petty, cliquish and vindictive sort, according to your own holy books.

      That was only in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, he is caring, loving and forgiving. What happened in between? He got laid!

    151. Re: Control... by Imsdal · · Score: 1

      A person who speaks two languages is called bilangual. What do you call a person who only speaks one language? American!

    152. Re:Control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is "Fear and consumption".

      A way to keep the populations under control. The Roman Empire used "Bread and circuses".

      2000 years, and nothing has changed.

      Our chief weapon is fear, fear and consumption are our two...two chief weapons are fear, consumption, and paranoid tactics are our THREE, three...I'll start again.

    153. Re: Control... by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      Not really. Very few speaks more than 2 languages.

    154. Re:Control... by deathcloset · · Score: 1

      The solution to an exploding basket is to have more than one and to spread your eggs evenly between them: we need more places and planets

  2. Re: Power by Ragzouken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I take it you've been dealt an above average hand then.

  3. America's fear comes from... by cekerr · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... Faux News

    1. Re:America's fear comes from... by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know, I think there's something to this. In Europe, for example, facts and figures are checked and cross checked. When opposing parties discuss the direction of public policy, they discuss, often from very different ideological points of view, from the same set of facts and figures.

      By contrast, in the US, anyone can make up their own facts and figures to "prove" their point. No one can act as a trusted source because no one trusts the opposition's ideological basis for anything. It's all smoke and mirrors. There is no legitimate fact or real world number-based authority over which reality can be argued. In America, highly charged emotional perception is the rule.

      ... Faux News

    2. Re:America's fear comes from... by jmhobrien · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is a pretty tall claim. Any evidence to back it up?

      --
      Where is moderation: -1 False?
    3. Re:America's fear comes from... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1
    4. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have a very rosy view of european politics :)

    5. Re:America's fear comes from... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fox News may play fast and loose with the facts, but that doesnt change the fact that sources like MSNBC are much much worse.

      CNN: 54% factual reporting, 46% commentary/opinion.
      FOX: 45% factual reporting, 55% commentary/opinion.
      MSNBC: 15% factual reporting, 85% commentary/opinion.

      Here is the full report.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And CNN, though not as skillfully.

      Don't get me wrong, I hate on Faux News too, but it's not just the far-right that spreads fud. More and more news networks are so scared of the Internet and social media that they'll say anything to get eyes on the TV. Journalism is slowly becoming less about uncovering the truth and more about the ratings.

    7. Re:America's fear comes from... by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

      Well we have at least 25 centuries of Chicken Little/Henny Penny folklore warning us about the dangers of Faux News and the society destroying consequences of it. We obviously have a had time to collectively assimilate the danger however given that news organizations can now legally lie to you.

      Despite the technological advances we as a species have been here before... and going by history - it is going to get ugly before it gets better.

    8. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where this magical europe is in which you live, but in the europe I live in, everybody makes up their own "facts" as well. Want to prove something? Let someone make a study and let him know what you want him to find.
      Those that "check and cross check" facts are usually part of the game, they have an agenda themselves, because they are part of (or close to, and financed by) partys.

    9. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...We obviously have a had time to collectively assimilate the danger however given that news organizations can now legally lie to you. ....

      And a president and secretary-of-state that lies to us too...

    10. Re:America's fear comes from... by Goody · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ask your progressive friends how much they depend on MSNBC for news, and ask your conservative friends how much they depend on Fox News. Also ask them what they perceive the news to opinion ratio to be on each. That's the real difference.

      --
      Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    11. Re:America's fear comes from... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, the politicians are probably as corrupt as everywhere. However the media in most of Europe are mostly working well. Although there's also already an erosion of media quality going on. I'd not bet that in ten years, the situation in Europe will be any better than the situation in the US.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:America's fear comes from... by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Opposing parties also means not just one party, but multiple parties.
      Also many times governements are made from several parties. This means they need to compromise. Compromise is a GOOD thing in politics.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your point? Both sides are bad so watch Fox News? All cable news sucks and you'll find fewer liberals who religiously watch MSNBC than conservatives who watch Fox News.

    14. Re:America's fear comes from... by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      While my "conservative" friends get their news from Fox, my "progressive" friends get their news from Facebook.

      I wont bother asking them what they "perceive" because I already know that my "progressive" friends are grounded in repeated hate slogans and sound bites, rather than actual understanding, while my "conservative" friends are grounded in whatever Fox is going on about.

      I get my national political news from C-SPAN.

      The sad fact is that there is no incentive to be an informed voter. The effort is too great relative to the "payoff" for putting in that effort.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:America's fear comes from... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That looks at the percentage factual reporting vs. opinion reporting. That's a completely different question from the accuracy of the facts.

      Example:

      Foo reports: "The most powerful person of the U.S. is the president. The American president has green skin. Only Martians have green skin. We should not let the fate of America be controlled a Martian."

      Ratio of "fact" reporting to opinion reporting: 3:1 (three "fact" sentences, one opinion statement). Number of actual facts: 1.

      Bar reports: "The most powerful person of the U.S. is the president. However his power is not absolute. But his power should be absolute. It is not a good idea to divert some power to the congress."

      Ratio of fact reporting to opinion reporting: 1:1 (two fact sentences, two opinion sentences). Number of actual facts: 2.

      The fact/opinion statistics would prefer Foo. However Bar, despite its higher and obviously stupid opinion part, has only actual facts, and even more of those than Foo, where two of three "facts" are fake.

      Now I have no idea about the quality of facts of Fox vs. MSNBC. All I wanted to point out is that the statistics you quoted is completely unrelated to this question.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    16. Re:America's fear comes from... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Both sides are bad so watch Fox News? All cable news sucks and you'll find fewer liberals who religiously watch MSNBC than conservatives who watch Fox News.

      In a post that said nothing good about Fox News, but instead only gave citation to Fox not being even close to the worst, your first thought was that the post was not only support for Fox, but a recommendation to view it.

      Do you even see the problem with the whole line of twisted assumptions that you have just made, probably instigated and influenced by what I guess is a clear hatred of what Fox represents?

      It is no surprise that fewer people watch MSNBC "religiously" as you call it, given their horrible ratings. What point are YOU trying to make?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    17. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the tall claim is " In Europe, for example, facts and figures are checked and cross checked. When opposing parties discuss the direction of public policy, they discuss, often from very different ideological points of view, from the same set of facts and figures.".

      Do you have any evidence to back THAT up?

      (I'm from Europe, politicians never let facts and figures get in the way of ideology).

    18. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh right. Like Italy.

    19. Re:America's fear comes from... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      This isn't really true.

      In Europe they generally agree on things that government departments say, but then again in America we also generally agree that the actual numbers the Congressional Budget Office spits out are accurate. Our media is actually a lot more tame, and even-handed then a lot of European media. British tabloids, for example, make Fox/MSNBC/CNN/etc. look like the BBC.

      What I suspect is different isn;t the amount of rancor in debates, it's the length of debate. In the US we have two political elites. The Conservative/rural elite says the government should fire itself, cut taxes to the bone, stop regulating financial behavior (ie: no individual mandate in ObamaCare, banks do what they want and die if they screw up, etc.), and strongly regulate certain personal behaviors (ie: homosexuality, RU-486). The liberal/urban elite says the government should hire a bunch more people, strongly regulate financial behavior (ie: stronger mandate in ObamaCare, banks get strongly regulated and bailed out, etc.),regulations on personal behavior should not touch sex, but should touch gun-ownership.

      Since the conservative/rural elite runs the US House, but the urban/liberal elite runs the Senate and the Presidency both elites have to agree or the budget won't pass and the entire government gets fired.

      This means lots of BS debates dragged out over years. Literally. The taxes-vs.-deficit spending debate has been going on since the 2010 Congressional elections, and will only pause if the 2014 elections get rid of Boehner.

      OTOH almost all European countries are run on the principle of Unity of Powers. You can't have a leftish Head of Government and a rightish House of the Legislature. If somehow that happens the Head of Government loses a vote of confidence in Parliament and the people decide whose right in a new election. Which happens within 2-3 months. You can't have a debate last four years, and cover three elections cycles.

      Which means you ain't gonna find out when the Social Dems disagree with the Christian Dems on basic facts, whereas in the US the only thing worth paying attention to in politics for much of the last 4 years has been the basic factual disagreements between the GOP and Obama.

    20. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe they generally agree on things that government departments say, but then again in America we also generally agree that the actual numbers the Congressional Budget Office spits out are accurate.

      That's laughable. Next time a climate change issue comes up on Slashdot, see how many comments are in direct contradiction to NOAA or EPA or....

    21. Re:America's fear comes from... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I think he's trying to say that Fox News is one of the very few conservative biased news sources whereas the liberal biased media sources are so common the average viewership of each individual station is less than Fox News on the whole. Which isn't really supporting any actual argument at all, merely pointing out that a population spread into more groups generally causes smaller groups.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    22. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Faux news." As you type that I bet you have no idea that it's not even clever when spoken aloud. I'm guessing you don't even know how the word "faux" is pronounced.

      More importantly, you completely missed the point. Maybe you missed all the headlines about the NSA and their insidious surveillance programs, maybe you missed how the IRS went on a systematic campaign targeting political enemies of the regime. The only thing we have to fear is ignorant fools like you.

    23. Re:America's fear comes from... by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the Democrats and Republicans are really the same party, they are both controlled/owned by the banking cartel & military/industrial complex, they only put on a ruse of being separate parties to deceive the US population of being two parties, elections are fake, this nation has been taken over by a corporate/fascist totalitarian kleptocracy made up of a banking cartel & a cabal of industrialists, and the mass media has everyone fooled in to thinking it is democratic

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    24. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, people will sometimes say "A is bad, but not as bad as B" to defend their position. Sorry if I was mistaken.

      It still doesn't change the fact that what you cited is completely meaningless with regards to how factual the information that's being presented is. Commentary can have facts in it.

      Also, you are mistaken. I'm not driven by a clear hatred for Fox News, but by my sapphic love for Rachel Maddow.

    25. Re:America's fear comes from... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Chomsky? Manufacturing Consent?

      I don't think so.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    26. Re:America's fear comes from... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) doesn't get her news from Fox, and she's plenty afraid. So while Fox likely amplifies the prompting for panic, I think its origin is somewhere else.

    27. Re:America's fear comes from... by linebackn · · Score: 1

      ... Faux News

      You may think you are joking but much of the fear is indeed spread through the media and news channels.

      Sometimes I joke that the only reason to watch the news any more is "so I know what I am supposed to be afraid of today."

      Try reading between the lines of any newscast. It always goes beyond just reporting facts abut the news. Note the condescending tone in the reporters voice as they talk about some group of people. Notice how they only show bystander interviews that represent their views, such as a parent parroting "You can't be to safe!" rather than the one that says "lets not go overboard worrying about this". Ask yourself if there could be another side to the story, and notice that it is usually missing or poorly represented. Listen carefully as the anchor injects brief commentary at the close of the story such as "very scary stuff". And for broadcast news (such as noon or 5:00pm news on the major networks) flip between the channels and notice that they usually have the exact same stories even when there are no major events going on.

      Realize that the vast majority of people don't have time to think about what they hear, even in the off chance they know how to use critical thinking, and you should easily see how this adds up to ladling out fear and misinformation to the masses.

    28. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just go look at the thread on wood stoves...

    29. Re:America's fear comes from... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      (I'm from Europe, politicians never let facts and figures get in the way of ideology).

      Nevertheless, you don't deny that European politicians don't let the same facts and figures get in the way of their ideology, do you?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    30. Re:America's fear comes from... by jodido · · Score: 2

      If that were true, then presumably "Europe"--rather a broad concept, isn't it?--should be "better" than the US. But in what way is it? Much worse unemployment, to name only one thing, and on the other hand major efforts by the rulers to do away with the social welfare state that's been in place since the end of World War II.

    31. Re:America's fear comes from... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      There is fear and paranoia in Europe, too.

      In the US, we have this phobia of The Terrorists which is completely unfounded in the way the world actually works. But in Europe, it's GMO's and (in Germany) nuclear power.

    32. Re:America's fear comes from... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Feinstein is a politician. The only thing they're afraid of is not getting reelected.

    33. Re:America's fear comes from... by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      In Europe, for example, facts and figures are checked and cross checked.

      Right. That is why Greece was on its way to bankruptcy for about 30 years now and nobody noticed (publicly). At some point, Greece even fed the EU false numbers and nobody bothered to cross-check.

    34. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wont bother asking them what they "perceive" because I already know that my "progressive" friends are grounded in repeated hate slogans and sound bites, rather than actual understanding, while my "conservative" friends are grounded in whatever Fox is going on about.

      So... hate slogans and sound bites?

    35. Re:America's fear comes from... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I suspect you have a very limited definition of 'Europe'.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    36. Re:America's fear comes from... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Well, people will sometimes say "A is bad, but not as bad as B" to defend their position.

      Sometimes people reply to someone about something they didn't say, because they imagined that the person they are replying to didnt say what they meant, but somehow are sure they meant exactly what they imagined them to not have said.

      The fact is that you arent grounded in reality. You are grounded in imagination influenced by dislike.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    37. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, people will sometimes say "A is bad, but not as bad as B" to defend their position.

      Sometimes people reply to someone about something they didn't say, because they imagined that the person they are replying to didnt say what they meant, but somehow are sure they meant exactly what they imagined them to not have said.

      The fact is that you arent grounded in reality. You are grounded in imagination influenced by dislike.

      This is rich considering you replied to someone who only mentioned Fox News and you had to jump in and say "Yeah, well MSNBC is worse!".

    38. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is Europe better? Let me count the ways....

      • funtioning democracy, multiple political parties
      • longer lifespans
      • lower death at birth rates
      • happier people
      • decent mass public transportation
      • none of them have started two wars in the last 20 years

      I dunno, I can probably find more, but it's early and I haven't eaten breakfast yet.

    39. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from Europe. Trust me we are nowhere near as paranoid as Americans. Nuclear power and GMOs are fringe issues for most people.

    40. Re:America's fear comes from... by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      This is a good question. I'm a progressive.

      I get my news from: The Economist, RT, the BBC, The Guardian, Slashdot(stop laughing!), The Young Turks (They're usually a day late on flashy news, I mostly watch them for their opinions), The Daily Show, and from listening to NPR and my awesome local radio station. Oh, and several local newsrags that actually have decent local reporting.

      Note that none of those is a major TV network. Fuck MSNBC and all the other acronyms I can't remember. None of them provide CONTEXT to the news. "Guy A said this, and Guy B said that." Fine. But it's kind of nice to say also that "95% of the population agrees with Guy A, and Guy B is a raving lunatic"... but they don't do that.

      I don't know what other progressives watch. I try to be informed. My opinions are rather formed at this point though. I want things to get better. I want social equality. I want the government to tax us and use that money to provide basic infrastructure. I want my government to not be corrupt. I want a leash on corporate practices.... go make money, but lets not do anything Stupid, OK? I want strong (and simple, I'm a small business owner!) regulations. I want to feel like my representatives actually represent me in Congress. I want an end to stupid fucking wars and I want my tax dollars to not be wasted. I want simple and solid infrastructure that I can use to grow my business, that EVERYONE can use to grow themselves and their endeavors.

      Oops, off on a tangent. Anyway. I'm progressive. I don't depend on MSNBC for news at all. Don't even watch it.

    41. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because Europe is perfect, they don't spy on their own citizens (except they all do) and their people don't have fear (except most of the time).

    42. Re:America's fear comes from... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "funtioning democracy, multiple political parties"

      If only America could be more like Italy!

      "longer lifespans"

      When I look at life expectancy tables I see plenty of European countries below the US.

      "lower death at birth rates"

      Ditto.

      "happier people"

      According to the World Happiness Report (http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf) the U.S. beats out most European countries.

      "decent mass public transportation"

      A function of population density. Plenty of cities do mass transportation right in the US. I'd take the NYC subway system over any that I rode in Europe.

      "none of them have started two wars in the last 20 years"

      Weird, arbitrary date.

    43. Re:America's fear comes from... by Teun · · Score: 1
      As a European I keep abreast with the news from surrounding countries, not only from the local Dutch broadcasters and popular newspapers.

      Because I, like so many, understand, speak or even write German, English, French or Spanish and Italian and all these countries have their own free on air channels and websites I am much more likely to have a grasp of what is really happening.

      Hell, every day I watch CNN, Al Jazeera and Bloomberg!

      Opposition parties in European countries are different to the incumbent parties, nothing like the two half's of the same US political spectrum.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    44. Re:America's fear comes from... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Europe is full of nationalist fiefdoms that can barely keep their shit together and are always on the verge of total warfare. I would hardly look there for 'enlightenment'. It is the threat of an overwhelming force from the outside that has kept the peace so far on that continent.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    45. Re:America's fear comes from... by Teun · · Score: 1
      Italy is a story by itself.

      Only recently they became a united nation, depending how you look at it in 1870 or even only after the end of WWI.
      A lot of Italians thought the splintered nature of their country could only be united by a strong leader, a Duce.
      The previous one, Fascist Mussolini, was at the end of WWII strung up by his own Italian partisans, not the Allies.

      The most recent Duce Berlusconi found a lot of support throughout the country, both in the economically strong North and in the suffering south.
      Not that his supporters didn't see or even like his ties with the Mafia but they felt that after the tumultuous 60's and 70's the country needed a unifying power and that's what he gave them.

      Regretfully Berlusconi kept his ties with the Mafia and because he was afraid of the independent Italian Judiciary he had his parliament approve of Lex Berlusconi, laws primarily made to protect him and his corrupt friends.
      Luckily Italy has an independent Judiciary and they have, against great odds, been able to stop his megalomaniac clinging to power.

      Now we have to see if Italy can muster a new coalition government that's supported by the people and works for the people. Time has gone by, the Italians start to appreciate what good government has done to places in Northern Europe and they are still one of the large economies.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    46. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one can act as a trusted source because no one trusts the opposition's ideological basis for anything.

      The problem isn't that it doesn't exist, the problem is that no one pays attention to it.

    47. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now hold on a second. Lets analyze this.

      Fox News may play fast and loose with the facts....

      CNN: 54% factual reporting, 46% commentary/opinion.
      FOX: 45% factual reporting, 55% commentary/opinion.
      MSNBC: 15% factual reporting, 85% commentary/opinion.

      So of that 45% of factual reporting that FOX does, it is probably wrong. Of MSNBC's 15% of factual reporting, it is probably more accurate than FOX. That does not necessarily make MSNBC worse, therefore it is not a fact that it is.

      This appears to be a case of playing fast and lose with equivocations and lying with statistics. Those two fallacious activities work with many crowds, including slashdot, but that does not make them any less wrong.

    48. Re:America's fear comes from... by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Now I have no idea about the quality of facts of Fox vs. MSNBC

      A very simple test:
      Fox news lies: 82000 hits.
      MSNBC lies: 25000 hits.
      CNN lies: 58000 hits.
      Fox must have improved as I did that test a few years back and there was a 10x ratio. Or the shills are fighting back.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    49. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And CNN, though not as skillfully.

      Don't get me wrong, I hate on Faux News too, but it's not just the far-right that spreads fud. More and more news networks are so scared of the Internet and social media that they'll say anything to get eyes on the TV. TV "Journalism" long ago became all about the ratings.

      There. FTFY.

    50. Re:America's fear comes from... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      [quote]"whereas the liberal biased media sources are so common..."[/quote]

      Yeah. I suppose that's because reality has a "liberal bias"....

    51. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually think Pew Research Center is an unbiased think tank? Just a quick look at it's origins and current directors may enlighten you a bit:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center

    52. Re:America's fear comes from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very simple, but also silly. It may be that the popularity of Fox News is higher than the others, causing more people to talk about it.

      My position is that they're all 100% garbage, so I just stay away from them.

    53. Re:America's fear comes from... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, you don't deny that European politicians don't let the same facts and figures get in the way of their ideology, do you?

      Depends. When it comes to budget negotiations it is always a laugh, one side arguing we can save money by spending more, and the other that we will get better service and products by buying cheaper junk and firing the service personal. Usually though, they are in the same realm of reality just with different degrees of ideology induced reality distortion. American politicians and pundits does not as much seem to have different ideology and economic theories as much as they seem to live on different planets with different rules of reality than everybody else,

    54. Re:America's fear comes from... by Petfish · · Score: 0

      Sadly for the UK the Murdoch press still holds significant sway there, despite the best efforts to curtail their corrupting influence. At least there something is being done, unlike in my country......

    55. Re:America's fear comes from... by unitron · · Score: 1

      "Faux news." As you type that I bet you have no idea that it's not even clever when spoken aloud. I'm guessing you don't even know how the word "faux" is pronounced....

      I'm sure many consider FOX News to be "the foe".

      But yeah, it's more of a visual pun than an audible one, so it requires an audience that reads and doesn't sneer with disdain (a supposedly rather French thing to do, by the way) at the mere thought of being familiar with a few of the more common French words and phrases.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    56. Re:America's fear comes from... by cusco · · Score: 1

      In all honesty, the "taxes-vs.-deficit spending debate" has been going on since at least the 1980 election, with both parties changing sides several times (sometimes more than once in the same year). It's just gotten nastier with the introduction of the Teabaggers.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    57. Re:America's fear comes from... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the sides actually managed to agree, or that people weren't arguing the point. What I'm saying is that ordinary people really couldn't give two shits about it. The late 90s boom ended it, and it didn't really come to the fore until Boehnor won the Speakership in 2010. Deficits vs. taxes was one of those things pinheads in DC argue about, not something that directly affected their lives.

      That's what happens in most of NATO to most issues. The Head of Government proposes something, it goes to the Legislature, there's a debate people pay attention to, and there's a vote in the Legislature. 99% of the time the government wins and everyone outside the capital goes back to ignoring the debate. 1% of the time the government loses, and the debate becomes a central issue in an election campaign that lasts a couple months.

      If European parties had the exact same debate every day for four years they'd probably talk about their basic factual disagreements a lot more. At some point both sides run out of other arguments, so your choices are a) shut up and b) question the other guy's facts.

  4. It's up to the US citizen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it help to vote for honest people ? Whether voting is compulsory or not.

    1. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      You don't understand - it's the position that corrupts, not the person that is corrupt. You could "elect" the most honest person, and end up with the worst tyrant. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a reason this is not a new saying.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

      It tends to corrupt, but that doesn't mean everyone becomes equally corrupted.

      It's easy to ruin any public figure's reputation, so powerful interests have them all by the balls. If humans weren't such a bunch of self-righteous sanctimonious cunts who want glorious heroes rather than efficient administrators, we'd have politicians expert at things other than propagandising ("PR") and lawyering.

    3. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Define "honest" first. Some of the most despicable sumbitches in history have been scrupulously honest. They believe everything that they ever said, and they honestly believe that they are creating a better world. While I despise Dick Cheney, and I only despise Bush slightly less than Cheney, I can make a pretty clear case that both were "honest men".

      I would hope that you value honesty, but I would also hope that you don't naively equate "honest" with "good" or "effective leadership" or "honorable men", or much of anything else.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Have you read or watched Game of Thrones?

      The basic theme of the books is that when you have a government where almost everyone is 100% honorable at all times, and always refuses to compromise, the entire world is fucked. Off the top of my head I can think of two characters who died of being honorable, both of whom also managed to set back their personal causes greatly; and a third who merely managed to set back her timetable by several books. And I stopped reading so long ago I can't remember the title of the last book I read.

      But back IRL the problem isn't that the Congressional leaders we've got are dishonest. The problem is half of them are actually being honest when they say "If we don't fire half the government, cut taxes on job-creators by 20 points, and end ObamaCare." The other half are being equally honest when they demand more government spending, higher taxes on the wealthy, and strongly support doubling down on ObamaCare.

      This means that, for both sides, the only honest or honorable thing to do is fight to defeat the other side. Since our government is a complex dance between two Legislative houses with power, an independent Executive, and Judges who frequently heckle, this results in lots of arguing and very little happens except everyone thinks they're well-positioned for the next election.

    5. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      You don't understand - it's the position that corrupts, not the person that is corrupt. You could "elect" the most honest person, and end up with the worst tyrant. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a reason this is not a new saying.

      Dude, if they were corrupt we'd be in a much different mess. Think about it.

      The people with the money to pay the biggest bribes are in business. They'd prefer lower taxes and an end to regulations, but what they really need is certainty on things like the debt ceiling and the Federal budget. If it was just a matter of spending $50 Billion on bribes Tim Cook could cut the checks himself, tomorrow; instead of thanking our lucky stars that they delayed the budget/debt ceiling dispute a few months we would never have heard of a budget/debt ceiling dispute.

      I agree that if Congress were more ethical we'd be in a much better situation, as would most people. The problem is that I define ethical much differently then a guy who thinks ObamaCare is evil would. Since guys who agree with me won half of Congress, but guys who agree with him won the other half, we get this constant BS arguing and brinksmanship over the same BS they were arguing over and brinking over back in 2010.

      Keep in mind this is what the founders wanted. They believed that a government where Congress and the President were constantly arguing would protect freedom because no evil policies could possibly get passed.

    6. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by gweihir · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, voting people into office that have already be corrupted by other influences, such as religion, money, power in the corporate world, etc. is an exceedingly bad idea, as they are sure to be corrupted by the position almost immediately.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      I think we need to be careful about the distinction between "thinking differently from me" and "corrupted".

      As long as one is totes open about insane religious affiliation / desire to worship corporate masters, they're all welcome to run for office on these stands. For example, the Westboro baptist church are lots of horrible things, but I wouldn't call them "corrupt" - they're almost victims of their own too-good interpretation of the OT. Ofc lots of puritan types are anything but pure, and that's certainly corruption.

    8. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by theMAGE · · Score: 1

      You may make the case, but you won't win it when you argue in front of people whose lives and family became "collateral damage" because of the leader's "honest mistake".

      How many WMD's were in Iraq?

    9. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I completely disagree. It becomes obvious immediately when looking from the outside in: Religion corrupts mental ability and personal morality. And I do not even mean that in the sense that it leads you to do bad things. What it does is make you follow whatever the religion mandates instead of looking at things carefully by yourself and making an individual, independent decision. The effect is that as soon as your particular brand of religion turns evil, you go right along with it.

      Of course, when you are corrupted in this fashion, it is very hard to see for yourself as one thing religion reliability corrupts is the ability to have a critical view about religion. Sorry, but if you are religious, then you have a mental problem. How large that problem is depends on how strongly your views of the world and of others is determined by religion. There are people that are mentally infected by religion, but are mostly immune to the mental corruption it causes. There are even quite a few people that manage to shake off the illness, usually later in life when they have seen things that made them think. Unfortunately many do not manage to do that.

      Of course, for the purpose of this discussion, quasi-religious "world views" like communism, capitalism, national socialism, etc. qualify as religions.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I didn't make any claim to winning the argument - I only claimed that I could make a good argument. WMD's in Iraq? Just about zero. Not exactly zero, but so damned close to it that we can call it zero.

      Let me state that I would have to presume Bush and Cheney to be quite stupid to make the case for their honesty. I don't really believe that they are all that honest, just that I could play Devil's Advocate for them. Given a fair amount of stupidity, a moderate dose of incompetence, and some liberty to play with facts, yeah, I can make a pretty damned good case on their behalf. In fact, a lot of partisan allies have done exactly that, and won a lot of "hearts and souls" in the arena of public opinion.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Playing Internet psychologist to diagnose religious people as mentally ill will probably not help your cause.

      Yes, religion often displaces logical thought, but so do lots of things.

    12. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      But I do agree with you that all the extrem-isms from capitalism to communism are quasi-religious, and carry most of the same problems as theistic religions. The US is full of capitalist-philosophers who are almost indistinguishable from Christian preachers in their abuse of argument.

    13. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Have you read or watched Game of Thrones?

      The basic theme of the books is that when you have a government where almost everyone is 100% honorable at all times, and always refuses to compromise, the entire world is fucked. Off the top of my head I can think of two characters who died of being honorable, both of whom also managed to set back their personal causes greatly; and a third who merely managed to set back her timetable by several books. And I stopped reading so long ago I can't remember the title of the last book I read.

      But back IRL the problem isn't that the Congressional leaders we've got are dishonest. The problem is half of them are actually being honest when they say "If we don't fire half the government, cut taxes on job-creators by 20 points, and end ObamaCare." The other half are being equally honest when they demand more government spending, higher taxes on the wealthy, and strongly support doubling down on ObamaCare.

      This means that, for both sides, the only honest or honorable thing to do is fight to defeat the other side. Since our government is a complex dance between two Legislative houses with power, an independent Executive, and Judges who frequently heckle, this results in lots of arguing and very little happens except everyone thinks they're well-positioned for the next election.

      This partisanship has been bred into the system as a direct result of Gerrymandering. A large number of the House of Representatives have districts that have been so corrupted that a large majority of constituents vote one way or another. This makes their seats safe. But it also gives the politicians who win these seats a skewed view of what US voters want from their government and leads to extremism. A conservative politician in a wildly conservative district has no reason to negotiate with democrats. If he did, he would lose his seat. However, if the district was relatively random, there would be enough moderates that if the politician negotiated for a good cause, he would pick up the votes he lost on the conservative side from the moderates.

      This will only be fixed when re-districting is fixed by randomizing the districts instead of allowing politicians to decide the boundaries.

    14. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has or aspires to equal power.

      You could also state that the pursuit of power corrupts.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    15. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corruption is a function of how much power one wields, and it increases over time. Limiting terms and adding more political parties would attack the corruption from both angles, though nothing will eliminate it entirely. Overturning Citizens United and placing tight controls on (if not completely eliminating) external contributions, replacing it with balanced funding from a central pool would help as well. Lastly, we should treat promises of cushy lobbying jobs upon leaving congressional positions as the bribes they are and start prosecuting.

    16. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The interesting thing is that here in Europe it took me far longer to see that, due to the absence of any kind of preacher, at least publicly visible ones. (There are some obvious crackpots, but that is basically it.)

      As to my cause: I am not trying to convince people. Those without extreme believe conditions I do not need to convince, the others I cannot reach anyways. I have gotten confirmation from some US people that went from strongly religious to not so anymore (one said she now was "confused" ;-) that strong religion has the characteristics of a mental condition that creates some kind of mental "fog" and makes it hard to think about things. When you come out of the fog, a lot things are far less clear.

      Incidentally, this is not my diagnosis either, it is the current state-of-the art in psychology. This may be one of the reasons more extremely religious factions are moving away from science. (There is a movement of neo-feminism away from science in Germany, because science says some things they do not want to hear. They even go so far as to claim Mathematics is a male construct, which cannot really be topped in stupidity-level...)

      It has to be said though that there is no known cure for this condition except the individual itself "waking up". All cures that have been tried are worse than the disease and often only try to replace one dogma by a different one. That is of course completely unacceptable. The only thing that may be acceptable is to keep extremists out of public office, but that will be hard to do fairly, so attempting it may again make the issue worse.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:It's up to the US citizen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind this is what the founders wanted. They believed that a government where Congress and the President were constantly arguing would protect freedom because no evil policies could possibly get passed.

      That worked out well for us, didn't it? :(

  5. totally normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The economic boom of the 90's is over. It's not coming back.

    Fear is a natural and appropiate response to any situation where the future is inferior to the past.

    1. Re:totally normal by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure it is, it's just not happening where it used to happen. Been to Latin America lately? Hell of a boom down here. We're not that poor anymore.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:totally normal by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      This is the third world verion of "we are not poor", of course.

      A cousin married into some Indian aristocratic family. They're not that poor either.

    3. Re:totally normal by gweihir · · Score: 1

      A natural reaction can also be highly self-destructive. The "appropriateness" of such a reaction then depends on whether you want the human race to end or not.

      So, no, while fear can be a natural reaction, it is never appropriate in a complex world. It always does tremendous damage, while never helping with the problem. I assume, of course, that the continued existence of the human race is desirable.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:totally normal by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Woops, lets hope that is not the reason why the US wants to modernize its nuclear arsenal...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:totally normal by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No, the version I am talking about is you probably can't afford to live here.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:totally normal by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Doubt it, but I'm not exactly destitute.

      Serious question: how close is your nearest slum?

    7. Re:totally normal by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Latin America style, the slums are mixed in to the "high class" areas. They end up being our maids and security guards, gardeners, waiters and mechanics. Seriously, a $20 chicken breast for lunch is the norm at a restaurant - that's just for the main course. Does not include drinks or 13% tax, nor 10% gratuity. $50 if you want steak. A pizza from Pizza Hut will cost you $26, delivered. A 2 litre bottle of Coke will cost you $3 at the supermarket, more at the convenience store. A Honda Accord will set you back $50k. Land prices are crazy even in the suburbs, and people are now building vertically to offset the cost. There are 10 and 20 storey buildings everywhere when before the tallest building in the country was 12 floors.

      We have all the name brands, all the big chains. I moved here 30 years ago and there was nothing. If you wanted something, you had to import it yourself. Now, I only use Amazon and order stuff from the states because I'm too lazy to go shop for stuff, but I can find anything I want. I have to pay 50% tax on everything I import - but then again so does everyone else.

      Yeah, the growth has been unbelievable, and it's not cheap to live here anymore. 20 years ago I could go into one of the few "good" restaurants and have a nice steak and a beer for about 8 hours' worth of local minimum wage (maybe $5, just over an hour of minimum wage in the US at the time). Now the same meal will cost me 35 hours' of the local minimum wage - about 7 hours' minimum wage ($50) in the US. But there are restaurants everywhere.

      Certainly not the foundation of an economic thesis, but I'm not joking when I say Latin America has boomed, and it's now expensive to live here.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:totally normal by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      That's third world style boom: little enclaves of western style affluence. And the prices would be familiar (or cheap!) to anyone living in the south-east of England.

  6. Is it fear ? by Melkman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power. Being able to silence any opposition before it gets organized and knowing in advance which groups dissent is growing gives you the power to stay in control longer. Fear is only used to gain acceptance of the public: think of the terrorists etc.
     

    1. Re:Is it fear ? by Pinkfud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're exactly right. The Bush Administration used 9/11 to gain the level of power and control that allowed them to pass the Patriot Act and create the DHS with all its Draconian aspects, and now the Obama Administration is either unable or unwilling to change it. Do you want to fight terrorism? Well, you don't gain a damn thing by giving the terrorists what they want! Their name says it all - their goal is to put their enemies in FEAR of them. By running scared and giving up our freedom in the name of 'security', we have given them a major victory. It needs to stop. We the people need to MAKE it stop. Because where we are heading is ever deeper into the swamp, and in that swamp there lies nothing but mud and snakes.

      --
      The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
    2. Re:Is it fear ? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I suggest you dig a little deeper into human psychology. Try to figure out why people feel the need to be "in control" to start with. The need for power has it's roots in fear. The glory, adulation, respect, love, wealth, and whatever else are just fringe benefits. The need for power is based on fear.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Is it fear ? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power.

      Of course.. fear is just the excuse, and its articles like this that reinforce the deception that the excuse is also the motivation. Americans arent afraid.. its just the people in power saying that Americans are afraid.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Is it fear ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's fear. Fear that others will do to you what you do to them. In other words, it's a bad conscience.

    5. Re:Is it fear ? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      ...and now the Obama Administration is either unable or unwilling to change it.

      Given how fundamentally dishonest Obama has turned out to be, I would count on the latter.

      [Opinion of a non-American observer, FWIW. Give a politician a bit of power and money, and it won't take him long to show you how much of an asswipe he is.]

    6. Re:Is it fear ? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 0

      I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power. Being able to silence any opposition before it gets organized and knowing in advance which groups dissent is growing gives you the power to stay in control longer. Fear is only used to gain acceptance of the public: think of the terrorists etc.

      And who has been silenced by NSA surveillance?

      Assange is still talking. He's got a talk-show. He just ran for Australian Senate. He got his ass kicked because he thinks ethical righteousness is more important then having friends, and it's impossible to win in politics if you're the guy who has snubbed every-damn-body. His core problem isn't that the US has silenced him, it's that the vast majority of people in the world don't think that government secrets are inherently evil. They never have. Even the founding fathers of the US refused to release the minutes of their Constitutional deliberations. People dislike some secrets, but the group that just released the info that Australia's spies actually spy on people should not be surprised that the taxpayers who paid for said spies aren't happy with them.

      My major problem with criticism of NSA programs isn't that the criticism is wrong on the legal merits, but that NSA critics pretend they are terrified that the NSA has their data, while they're criticizing the NSA. On a public forum. Which nobody needs a warrant to read. You do realize you just proved that you aren't actually afraid, don't you?

      Regardless, this is not about controlling you in the same way the KGB and Stasi controlled the Eastern bloc. It's about having a store of information so that if they ever find out you're doing something illegal, they can get more data on all your activities quickly. It's data the government shouldn't have, but that doesn't make it ipso facto proof the government is going to murder millions.

      My secondary problem is so few of the critics actually understand how oppression works in the US. In the US The first thing a KKK/Communist/[insert evil of choice] President does will be announce major restrictions on the types of investigation law enforcement can do. Those restrictions, and Constitutional restrictions on what police can do, won't apply to the thugs "volunteer" for his party. Places where he lost will retain some freedom, because they will have local cops who do their jobs. But in places he won (and generally you don't win the White House unless you won most states) he's probably got local Governors and Sheriffs who share his agenda. And if all the local Sheriff does when the KKK/Redshirts/[evil party militia] murders some local activist is claim he can't figure it out, then it's time to be very afraid.

      BTW, unlike KGB-style oppression, this has actually happened before. Prior to the Civil War, and up until 1876 or so, every Southern state was 20 points blacker then they are now. Mississippi and South Carolina were actually majority black, which should indicate precisely how free a country the Confederacy was. Then Tilden basically tied with Hayes, and to become President Hayes had to agree to stop enforcing Federal Civil Rights laws in the South. Federal power went down, but that didn't make the Jim Crow South a freer place.

    7. Re:Is it fear ? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Power serves for control and control serves to prevent attacks. Rationality is typically selectively suspended as a side-effect.

      Ever met people that are highly capable in some field, capable to exercise power if needed, but do not feel the need and are at peace with themselves? Those are the ones that do not need power, because they know they have nothing to fear. Those that want more and more power (also in the form of the surrogates "money", "followers", etc.) are fundamentally and deeply afraid. Does not have to be afraid of others directly, can also be afraid of finding out they wasted their life, that they are actually not good at what they do, that they destroy far more value than they create (the typical CEOs comes to mind), etc.

      The problem to the rest of us is that fear makes people highly dangerous and irrational. If we could make sure that people with one particular trait never make it into positions of power, it would be this deep-set and often hidden very well type of fear. The world would be different place.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Is it fear ? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually it looks very much like the US citizenship and the US administration are both very much afraid. Might take an outside perspective to see though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Is it fear ? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's fear. Fear that others will do to you what you do to them. In other words, it's a bad conscience.

      I doubt that the US citizens as a group reach that level of sophistication.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:Is it fear ? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power. Being able to silence any opposition before it gets organized and knowing in advance which groups dissent is growing gives you the power to stay in control longer. Fear is only used to gain acceptance of the public: think of the terrorists etc

      A fine theory that is contradicted by facts. The US doesn't engaged in organized government suppression or oppression of organized political groups* that participate lawfully in the ordinary political process. Long ago communists were under scrutiny since they advocated the overthrow of the government, engaged in subversion, and took orders form Moscow. I expect you might understand there to be some problems with that. The complaints about how the "Occupy" movement was treated ignore their lawless behavior, including riots, trespassing, and destruction of property. The "Occupy" camps were havens of crime and many assaults and rapes were committed in them. They had little engagement with the actual political process.

      There are few societies that would sit idly while terrorists kill their citizens by the thousands. I don't believe that any European nation would do that.

      * The IRS tax agency has admitted to engaging in that behavior, but so far it appears to be misconduct on the part of high level supporters of the President rather than official government policy.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Is it fear ? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The Bush Administration used 9/11 to gain the level of power and control that allowed them to pass the Patriot Act and create the DHS with all its Draconian aspects, and now the Obama Administration is either unable or unwilling to change it.

      It was Congress that passed the Patriot Act, not the Bush administration. The Department of Homeland Security is almost entirely a regrouping of existing government agencies under a new headquarters and member of the President's cabinet. The only major new component is the TSA, and that function was being done before split between the government and private industry, so even that isn't particularly new. President Obama would have little reason to change any of that.

      The Patriot Act may have aspects to it that are disagreeable, but it hardly qualifies as draconian.

      The terrorists aren't getting what they want. Al Qaida's ultimate long term goal is to create a world of Muslim countries ruled by Sharia. Bin Laden's first demand to the United States in his letter to America was that the US convert to Islam. The US obviously isn't doing that. Europe, on the other hand, is heading for trouble within 100 years unless existing trends change.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Is it fear ? by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      In other words, fear of losing control and power. Using fear to keep that control is simply following the straightest course to the objective.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    13. Re:Is it fear ? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I would rather just work very hard to create a system where there are fewer positions of power. That is what the establishment of a republic is a step toward: rather than worrying so much about who is king, let's just get rid of the kingship entirely. This is why democratic-republicanism is better than monarchy.

      But there are still positions of power in a republic, and we need to work at diminishing those to the greatest extent practical, too.

    14. Re:Is it fear ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, this is absolutely false. Congress was not allowed to read the Patriot act prior to it passing, check history. You should have at least spent 30 seconds skimming the Wiki for a "Controversy" section and read it.

    15. Re:Is it fear ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who has been silenced by NSA surveillance?

      Numerous real journalists, and many more indirectly. The IRS, CIA, and FBI have been proven to be working with data from the NSA. The IRS is known to have used this data to silence political activists by stalling their formations. Since the CIA, FBI, DHS, ATF, DOJ, etc.. all use NSA data and all use the secret FISA courts we don't have accurate information.

      Regardless, this is not about controlling you in the same way the KGB and Stasi controlled the Eastern bloc. It's about having a store of information so that if they ever find out you're doing something illegal, they can get more data on all your activities quickly. It's data the government shouldn't have, but that doesn't make it ipso facto proof the government is going to murder millions.

      Wrong, wrong, but your last is correct for now. Having information on intellects is how they remain under the government thumb. This practice is not just the USA, but is the case in Russia, the old USSR, China, and Hitler. When they don't have information, they can easily set you up. Google CIA setup and see what you find. The information that is being gathered is for control. The quickest way for them to start a revolution would be to start murdering people. I think the US is close to that point, but not there yet. Make sure we keep the 2nd amendment or they will have that too.

    16. Re:Is it fear ? by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's dishonest. Just a piss poor leader.

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    17. Re:Is it fear ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you dig a little deeper into human psychology. Try to figure out why people feel the need to be "in control" to start with. The need for power has it's roots in fear. The glory, adulation, respect, love, wealth, and whatever else are just fringe benefits. The need for power is based on fear.

      Except for when it doesn't. Sociopaths and Psychopaths are two examples (and a very large demographic) that does not seek power based on their own fear. Then you have worse people we tend to call "evil" like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pot, etc...

    18. Re:Is it fear ? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Hmm. If you mean "reduce the level of power an individual can have by spreading it out", I completely agree. For politics, democracy with an educated public seems to do reasonably well, but still has serious issues (moral panics, mass hysteria, influence from a not-independent press, etc.).

      For the corporate world, "kings" are far too common. Even for publicly traded companies, shareholders are usually neutralized as influence. This is pretty bad, but I have no solution either.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:Is it fear ? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Al Qaida's ultimate long term goal is to create a world of Muslim countries ruled by Sharia.

      Please, stop. Al Qaida, Inc. is an ethereal group of hired mercenaries that will disappear as soon as the money dries up. It exists as a service for the various superpowers and anybody else with sufficient funds. You can shitcan the propaganda.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:Is it fear ? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Well said, sir (or madam). Well said indeed. I strongly suspect most of us aren't all that fearful, but can easily be fooled into believing all those OTHER fools out there are fearful. "Think of the children!" That sort of crap. We're being manipulated .. as usual. [adjusts foil cap]

    21. Re:Is it fear ? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Did you mean "citizenry"?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    22. Re:Is it fear ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that Congress was not *allowed* to read the USA PATRIOT Act prior to voting, its that it was *physically impossible* for them to do so.

      It was passed in the House *prior* to the final text becoming available. It was passed in the Senate only 30 minutes *after* the final text became available. To have meaningfully read the USA PATRIOT Act, Senators would have had to read (and understand) tens of pages of dense legalese *per minute* from the moment the text was available to the moment the vote was tallied.

    23. Re:Is it fear ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Control and power are tendencies as well as motivations, not necessarily expressed through intentional decisions, but marshalled by the lack of decision-making that certain administrative structures allow - the banality of evil etc. The hyper-technically mediated society grew out of the cybernetics movement and the idea that individual empowerment through technology would prevent totalitarian forms of control. Bitter irony but perhaps no surprise, then, that today's landscape of networked communication, born from that ideal, turns out to offer the greatest opportunity for controlling individuals (yes, with fear looming large as an instrument). Say want you want about him, but maybe when more efforts like Wikileaks' co-founder Domscheit-Berg's latest project [www.vo.do/bbb] poke up through the cracks in the military-industrial-entertainment complex, more people might reconsider their own power to negotiate that relationship.

  7. Its cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't fathom that there might be someone better than me

  8. Nothing new by zmooc · · Score: 2

    Where is the U.S. heading?

    Nowhere special. The US has been like this for ages. Apart from some details (TSA, leaks, technical possibilities) there has not been any real big change.

    The fear has been around for just about always. And when there's nothing left to fear (like communism or alcohol) something new will be made up (like terrorism or drugs). Since the US spends more on its military than on social security, the military has become some kind of social security. It must be kept busy.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
    1. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or drugs

      Yes, George Washington was famous for being tolerant of crack cocaine users.

    2. Re:Nothing new by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The fear has been around for just about always.

      I have heard it mentioned (most prominently during the Cold War, which while fresh in my memory might predate some readers' lifetimes) that America collectively has to always be fighting the "last war". Sometimes the notion that you're the "good guys" can distort your perspective.

    3. Re:Nothing new by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope you notices that the referenced article is from a German perspective. The Germans have seen several totalitarian regimes in recent memory and at least the more sophisticated Germans can by now recognize the warning signs. These warning signs are glaringly obvious in the US.

      But keep kidding yourself. Just remember that you lose all rights to complain when your nation has gone down the drain.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Nothing new by c0lo · · Score: 1

      ...or drugs

      Yes, George Washington was famous for being tolerant of crack cocaine users.

      Wrong: he was actually sympathetic with crystal meth junkies afflicted by a "meth mouth" condition.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You DO know that Washington grew hemp, right?

  9. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capitalism

    Fear Sells.

  10. It's true by itsphilip · · Score: 1

    This is a really nice, eloquent way of legitimizing a bunch of conspiracy theories which, it turns out, are often true

    1. Re:It's true by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Wooops, that is not how this one is supposed to go....

      (Nice!)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  11. Fear and Paranoia... by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My family visited Europe this Fall and were surprised at the level of civility experienced there.

    It seems that fear and paranoia drive Americans to give up liberties in trade for some vague promise of security. "Stand your ground" laws and the vast supposedly all knowing NSA wiretapping program are just two small examples of the manifestation of all pervading fear and paranoia.

    Other First World Nations have a different balance between liberty and security. It's not that they don't spy on each other. It's not that good people don't die at the hands of bad people. It has to be experienced elsewhere to know that things don't _have_ to be they way they are in the US.

    I can't help but feel it has to do, in small part, with basic civility between humans. Too bad America can't/won't follow these better, more secure examples.

    1. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that fear and paranoia drive Americans to give up liberties in trade for some vague promise of security.

      Indeed

    2. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "My family visited Europe this Fall and were surprised at the level of civility experienced there."

      With the exception of the waiters in Paris, you mean.

    3. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      America has largely stood alone, with only two neighbours whom it outnumbers or out classes technologically there has never been anything to fear from them.
      The American people have lived in a fortress surrounded by (vast) ocean.

      Pearl harbour penetrated that and look at the response.
      Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh attacked from within and look at the response.
      Same with the 9/11 attacks.

      Americans haven't ever lived with the threat of violence, except sporadically. The response is disproportionate, but that's largely natural to unfamiliar circumstances.

    4. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it took us half a millennia of bashing in eachothers heads to realize that being civil really works out better, and even then...

    5. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Melkman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I live in Europe and have been to the US. And the waiters in Paris pale in comparison to some waiters in Florida ;-). But on average people are people wherever you go. You got friendly and entertaining people in all societies as well as rude obnoxious ones. In areas with high populations like big cities you got more of both of them.

    6. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is actually a pretty smart post...

      We like our oceans, it keeps us away from all the "crazy" people in the world.

      Note, I know they aren't all crazy, but considering that most Americans don't even have a passport, much less have ever left the country, to a large number of Americans, the USA is the center of the Universe.

      If anyone even makes noise about coming over here, the general reaction is, "bomb them". And if that doesn't work, then you aren't using enough bombs.

      The irony is that much of the hate towards America is caused by America's own actions. On the flip side, we do need to protect our interests overseas, the world is very much smaller than it was 100 years ago.

      There are no easy solutions.

    7. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      My family visited Europe this Fall and were surprised at the level of civility experienced there.

      My family visited the USA this Fall and were surprised at the level of paranoia and violence...

    8. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by anyanka · · Score: 5, Informative

      My family visited Europe this Fall and were surprised at the level of civility experienced there.

      I just visited the US last week, and was surprised at the level of civility I experienced there.

      Seriously, whenever I meet USians (even in the wild), they're generally friendly, sensible people. Which makes it perhaps even more depressing that the country as a whole is run by sociopathic assholes. Unfortunately, European leaders (both political and corporate) are learning quickly.

    9. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems that fear and paranoia drive Americans to give up liberties in trade for some vague promise of security. "Stand your ground" laws and the vast supposedly all knowing NSA wiretapping program are just two small examples of the manifestation of all pervading fear and paranoia.

      The individualistic, get-what-you-can nature of US culture simultaneously encourages entrepreneurship that pulls the country forward and keep-what-I-have paranoia that drags it backward. This spans most forms of human interaction. Witness the NY street thugs charging 'admission' to Banksy's graffiti. All other people are seen first as potential competitors, motivated by personal gain, and prepared to lie, cheat, or murder to get an advantage. Part of the US shuns social safety-net programs because "some people" might abuse those systems. Part of the US shuns universal suffrage because "some people" might vote fraudulently. The NSA and TSA are just a different front in this perceived desperate fight to keep what we have, even if it means the rest of the world moves past us.

      In other cultures, especially those with a tradition of common struggle for community benefit, where one actually has some faith that his neighbor has some shared experience and goals, other people are not automatically the enemy. Maybe this comes to the US being a nation of land-grabbing immigrants with a history only 250 years old. Most of us have been in this country briefly enough to have family stories of being the new minority (black, hispanic, Irish or otherwise) in an unwelcoming majority.

    10. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Other First World Nations have a different balance between liberty and security.

      Yes. The balance is much further towards security, with a whole lot less liberty. You deserve neither.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just on "Stand your ground" laws. I think that's a basic principle in German law: "Das Recht muss dem Unrecht nicht weichen." (Meaning something like The lawful does not have to yield to the unlawful). In particular, German law does not require you to retreat. There is even a clause that sais it is enough for you to had reasonable to believe you were in danger (even if it later turns out you were not in danger).

      I do not know whether the burdon of proof is with the defendant, or wether the assailant has to prove the defendant was not in danger.

      The main difference to the U.S. seems to be that there are much less guns arround in Germany, so things tend to escalate not as quickly.

      Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwehr

    12. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Rhywden · · Score: 1

      What the fuck! We don't have those laws around here and the judge will beat you around with a clue-by-four if you suggest that you were allowed to escalate the situation by using lethal force needlessly.

    13. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fear (of terrorists) and paranoia does not drive all Americans, I'm 53 and I do not fear anyone except my own government.

    14. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you back your claim up by citing a judgement? To me the wikipedia article is quite clear about it.

    15. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by dkleinsc · · Score: 0

      A calculation that I think would be worth making: What is the true cost to middle class suburban America pays for its fear of impoverished urban America? Some of the costs that would be worth factoring in:
      - Home security systems and private security guards.
      - Longer commuting time, distance, gasoline, etc caused by white flight.
      - Insurance premium changes due to the longer commute.
      - Much of the cost of the prison system.
      - Much of the cost of police forces and court systems.
      - For many, guns and gun training.
      - The costs of the murders and suicides committed on impulse by those guns that were bought for protection.
      - The time spent driving the kids everywhere because you're too scared to let them walk anywhere, and there's nowhere nearby that they would want to walk to.
      - The cost of refusing to use public transportation systems because "those people" also use it.

      And you can't really discuss that issue without at least mentioning the racial component: For a lot of white American suburbanites, what they fear most is black people that appear to be from the city. This despite the fact that the person most likely to murder a white woman in America is her current or former boyfriend / husband.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same here in Sweden - the right to self-defense is far-reaching and you have no need to retreat - you just can't curb-stomp people. This is, in effect, "stand your ground law". But we are never, ever allowed to carry or own weapons for self-defense so the point is rather moot.

    17. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

      I just visited the US last week, and was surprised at the level of civility I experienced there.

      That's my experience too. Sure, you meet the occasional 'hole. But they are everywhere and not confined to any particular country (which is a pity: we could leave them all there together). I do have a theory that one of the factors that influences the politeness of americans as individuals is not knowing if the person they are talking to is carrying a gun, or not.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    18. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not just the threat of violence. Nobody (excluding immigrants) in the US has lived through a war expect as a soldier. Nobody has grown up in the poverty left behind by war. They don't have the monuments, lost historical treasures etc. that will stand as a reminder of war for a long time to come (well, the soldier's memorials kind of, but that's still "only" soldiers).
      I do think that very much leads to a loss of perspective of what horror and/or terror is. 3000 dead civilans like 9/11 does not make a war. Not by a long, long, long shot.

    19. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the exception of the waiters in Paris, you mean.

      I live in Paris... the waiters are fine. The tourists are a pain in the ass.

    20. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just visited the US last week, and was surprised at the level of civility I experienced there.

      I hear you. For a long time I had the impression of yanks being "aggressive morons", but when I actually got the chance to meet them I saw that there's a lot of friendly and smart people around there. Surprisingly positive experience I have to say.

    21. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by junglee_iitk · · Score: 0

      The whole world is nice to Americans. No one can be on top without other letting it.

      Btw, I have lived in Europe and USA (California, to be exact). People are mostly nice at both places. But they will treat you like an equal only if you are white.

    22. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by fey000 · · Score: 2

      I just visited the US last week, and was surprised at the level of civility I experienced there.

      ...Sure, you meet the occasional 'hole. But they are everywhere and not confined to any particular country (which is a pity: we could leave them all there together)...

      We tried this. Now we have Australia.

    23. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Two words to disprove you: campus police.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    24. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have 50 million or so blacks in America, and the level of violence is incredible. Now we have many Mexican areas where white people cannot even go, lest we be attacked and killed. Our multi ethnic society is indeed incredibly violent. States which have concealed carry and stand your ground laws are more peaceful, because the predators know their white would be victims might well be armed, and able and willing to defend themselves. Cities in Texas, for example, where people carry weapons for defense, are more peaceful they, say, Chicago or Detroit, where it is illegal to defend yourself. But, yes, you are right about the incredible level of fear and violence. The violence is real, and the fear is largely justified.

    25. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PUHLEASE america lives in fear at all times.....

      the things you mention are only the button points to up the stakes.

      from gun deaths, to poverty and disease everything is about threat and response in america.

      we werent a "country" for 100 years before we were being attacked, AND THE MAJORITY OF AGGRESSION in the world is ours.

    26. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only people I have ever met carrying a gun outside a gun club are policemen and criminals.

      I seriously doubt that influences public behavior between civilians in America at all.

      My wife and two of my best friends emigrated to America; one of the reasons they decided to stay is that America is a much more classless society than what they were used to. For example people aren't categorized by what their last name is. And we have a black President. And at the level of local politics anyway it is not a surprise if your neighbor decides to run for office.

      My worry is that this is changing. There are parts of America now where it is very hard to get out of poverty.

      This lack of mobility could become a really serious problem.

    27. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where you are trolling is trying to blame crime on racist issues. Stop believing the KKK propaganda and do some research into the real social sciences. Numerous scientific studies have been done and numerous social experiments have been done tho show that race has nothing to do with crime. If a black person receives an education, and is surrounded by people with an education, they succeed the same as any "white".

    28. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, about this again, but look back on the early history of the USofA. No fear and violence. BS, Death was an everyday occurrence in the old USof A. Why did you need the fastest draw of a gun to be a sheriff? no violence? Read an old 10penny novel. Or a zane grey, Or better yet, to be entertained, a Mark Twain, when he was a news editors/reporter. Every week someone died on the frontiers the violent way.
      Then look at the formation of the unions/artisian guilds of the world, and it's still happening today, people dying for a cause of food and labor. Remember why people came to america? They bought the past with them, the bosses came with them to keep terrorizing the people they terrorizied there. We are not the land of the free till we rid ourselfs of the ghosts of the past.

    29. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"

    30. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      We like our oceans, it keeps us away from all the "crazy" people in the world.

      We like them too! Keep us separated from the US! ;D .. nah, no such thing, US influence is everywhere.

      But more seriously while there are more dangerous places than the US I don't really see why US would be seen as something more safe in general.

    31. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the fear in America is around financial security. Most of the Tea Party supporters are poor white Americans that are upset that they are quickly entering a level of poverty previously reserved for the immigrant underclass. However, whereas the immigrants knew the would have to work hard to escape poverty, the newly poor white feel entitled to a middle class existence.

    32. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      The oceans are no longer sufficient.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    33. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Evidence? None that I am aware of.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    34. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because "some people" might vote.

      FTFY.

    35. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, Europe used to be run by a bunch of nepotic sociopathic assholes who were mostly beheaded a few hundred years ago, only to be replaced by a bunch of egotistic sociopathic assholes who were mostly shot a few decades ago, but they still haven't learned.

    36. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by LDAPMAN · · Score: 2

      Not sure where your getting your demographics but most Tea party members, and republicans in general, cannot be considered poor.

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Membership_and_demographics

      "Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. Though the various polls sometimes turn up slightly different results, they tend to show that Tea Party supporters tend more likely than Americans overall to be white, male, married, older than 45, regularly attending religious services, conservative, and to be more wealthy and have more education."

    37. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stand Your Ground is civilized. On the other hand, a system where you aren't supposed to defend yourself is far worse and far more down the road to a creepy Orwellian world.

    38. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I'm not blaming all crime on racist issues, I'm saying that racism is behind a lot of the fear of crime, and that fear imposes real costs on those who are afraid.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    39. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And we have a black President.

      So does Nigeria...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    40. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...says the waiter in Paris...

    41. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Australia.

      The country whose national bread spread looks, smells, and quite possibly tastes like something that came out of the back end of a cat.

      You have a problem with that or something?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    42. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire situation is different when there are fewer guns around and regulations ensure that even if you own a gun, it will probably not be accessible to you in such a situation where Americans would use a gun for self-defense. European countries don't have laws that oblige you to retreat but any confrontation is unlikely to escalate to lethal violence when the most dangerous weapon anyone carries is a kitchen knife. Killing with a knife is much harder for the killer as well and certainly impossible to do accidentally - quite unlike a gun.

      Europe is far from crime-free but far fewer crimes have violent outcomes. A burglar without a gun is likely to run if a homeowner shows up even if the homeowner doesn't have a gun since they're in a hurry to flee the scene before the police arrives. Furthermore, rape statistics would change very little even if we were to assume that all "stranger rapes" could be stopped if women usually carried guns for self-defense because such rapes are a fraction of all rapes and the chances to stop them by physically resisting and yelling for attention are not much worse than with a gun. In most cases the rape victim knows the rapist from somewhere and the encounter starts as something else. Based on rape prevention studies the victims have stated that they would not have been able to stop it with any form of weapon (i.e. to include pepper spray and such) due to the setting in which it took place (handbag left at some distance since they're at home) and the identify of the assailant (even if someone is raping you, it's harder to strike back with anything if you know them).

    43. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cuz the american shit hole is filled with people that feel entitled to everything, having never suffered or fought for what they have (no you havent you may have fought some rediculous war of greed but all the people that actually fought for what you have are long dead now)

      you dont know suffering like every other nation has you just greedy materialistic morons who deserve to be afraid and exploited by the powers at be

    44. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you met people carrying a gun. You just didn't know it.

    45. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only people I have ever met carrying a gun outside a gun club are policemen and criminals.

      You probably have met others and not known about it, depending on what states you travel in. Reasonable people who want to carry a gun realize that it is safer and much less of a hassle to get a permit to carry it concealed. There are plenty of members of the public out there who are inherently scared of guns and if they see someone carrying one will call the police, or even heckle the person. Carrying concealed allows it to be more of a tool than a political statement. That said, the expectation of most of the public is the same as yours: nobody has a gun on them, so it does not affect how people treat each other on a daily basis.

    46. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we do need to protect our interests overseas

      That line pissed me off ... it's used very frequently, as a benign, self-evident statement, but forcing foreign countries to follow policies that suit our own economic interests is the central reason so many people hate US.

    47. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Squiggle · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered by the US has any fears of invasion whatsover. The US is a massive country that is generally well populated throughout which basically makes it impossible to invade and the supply lines for any invader coming from the east and west are basically unsustainable given the size of the country as well. Your neighbours to the north and south have no incentive to attack nor any sort of militaristic culture. The US seems the safest country in the world in regards to invasion. If I was the dictator of the US I'd scrap the military nearly entirely. That money and man/brain power could be better spent making the US a real superpower to go down in the history books as true light shinging through the ages.

      Even through the lens of a nuclear war or WMDs it makes much more sense to invest in creating a country that no one fears and everyone loves rather than some form of fear of retaliation. Retaliation is a poor stick against smaller and smaller, but more and more powerful opponents. The only way to ensure that future superpowered opponents don't use WMD on you is to create a world where that is unthinkable. Unthinkable not through fear but through self-interest, laziness and education.

      --
      Complexity Happens
    48. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the problem is with the people, but the atmosphere when encountering the government is much more intimidating in US. When flying you have to deal with TSA, travel near the border and stop at border patrol inspection point who search your car, enter the country with valid visa and get harassed, have a police pull a gun on you for no reason, experience the smoothness of the DMV and so on. Concrete example can be seen when you look at the embassy or any government building they are designed as fortresses, opposite street of US embassy there might be very open and welcoming embassy of Spain. The contrast is very real, one is designed to intimidate and the other is designed to welcome.

    49. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans voters are mostly poor people voting against their own interest, the wealthy is only a small minority of the population and can not muster 50%, they need the support of the average americans, and since the democrats have the middle class, the republicans have since the southern strategy used the white poor as their voter basis.

    50. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be "friendly," but they're not sensible. Most people are, in fact, unintelligent and easily manipulated. This is why we have the TSA, the PATRIOT ACT, free speech zones, constitution free zones, the NSA's unconstitutional surveillance, warmongering, and a host of other nonsense; people either support it or don't care about their rights, and both of those things make someone an idiot.

    51. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has allways puzzeled me why americans allways require respect and not give
      1 f... about common courtesy..yes born and breed american regards.
      mike

    52. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been around a fair bit of the US, and people are generally nice everywhere that isn't an extraordinarily poor area. And for some reason, even in poor hispanic neighborhoods people are mostly very nice. I've only been to ten or so other countries, but I'd say the same for all of them.

      Cultural differences do exist, for better and worse, but most people seem to want to be pleasant.

    53. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      During my visit to France I found the waiters in Paris to be perfectly civil. The only place we found a rude waiter was in the middle of the country when we were staying at one of those chateaus somewhere. And she wasn't rude to use directly, but my wife could understand some of the French she spoke after taking our order. The funniest part is she was complaining about the English coming over the channel while we were actually Americans. The only other case was our fault for ordering a pastry inside and then sitting at an outdoor table. I think they have different tax rates for to-go vs take out. But overall I would say they were just as friendly in France as I experience in America, if not more so.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    54. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I live in Paris... the waiters are fine. The tourists are a pain in the ass.

      I bet your economy likes the $ they spend, though...

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    55. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing liberating about paying 3 times as much for health care and getting worse results than in countries with single-payer systems. That's just downright scary. Hell even 'scary communist' cuba has better infant mortality rates (and higher literacy rates, incidentally) than the US 'liberated' health non-care system.

    56. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - every place depending on tourists seems to hate tourists for some reason.

    57. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you probably have met more gun-toting folks than that, unless you're in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California or maybe Maryland - concealed carry is fairly common, and most folks don't flaunt the fact that they have a weapon.

      Still, you're right, most people don't think about it.

  12. Where Does America's Fear Come From? by cardpuncher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Same answer as always: You've Got to Be Carefully Taught.

    1. Re:Where Does America's Fear Come From? by alexhs · · Score: 2

      Also, "people are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Where Does America's Fear Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn that is ironic, look at the categories at the bottom.
      Barbra Streisand songs.

  13. Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says that without competition there is no evolution, the best regress to meet their neighbor.

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

      I don't think he did

  14. The Cold War by Poddus · · Score: 2

    once american politicians realized that they could use a great common enemy as a political tool, it soon followed that all they needed to do in order to maintain their power was to invent more enemies. first "communism", now "terrorism", along with all the other vague ideas america wages war against, it all seems to have its roots in the cold war.

    1. Re:The Cold War by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 0

      ... um... perhaps you should read and understand Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States." Failing that, read less verbose, though no less eloquent, Charles Dickens comments from after his 1830's trip through America...

    2. Re:The Cold War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Howard Zinn is a loony-bin nutbag!!!

    3. Re:The Cold War by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Howard Zinn had a name. You, AC, do not.

  15. While far from a dictatorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the point of view outside of USA , this is not the case... Most of the people in the world see US as a well crafted dictatorship masqueraded in the democracy.
    The US actions, not spoken words are the proof.

    1. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably more as a plutocracy than a dictatorship.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can call it names.. But at the end it's a pure fascism. Actions verify that.

    3. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the sense of merging of corporation and state, America's as close as the world has got to sustained Italian corporatism, i.e. fascism in the pre-Hitler sense.

      (Hitler wanted the same thing, but he also wanted a land war in Asia, and that's where he went too fa.. oh wait. Seriously though, America is fascist, for the traditional European definition of fascism.)

    4. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, America is fascist, for the traditional European definition of fascism

      America has never equaled or even been close to equaling the fascists of Europe despite the ambitions of progressives.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

      I agree that the fascists of mid-C20 Europe did a better job of implementing fascism, though I'm not sure what you mean about "progressives". Here, a progressive person is someone who wants progress - is that used as newspeak in the US?

    6. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, progressive is used in the same way in the US, for pretty much the same political spectrum. The missing piece of the puzzle for you is that fascism was once understood as a progressive movement until political and practical considerations forced a demarcation.

      You may find these items interesting even if much of the discussion is framed in an American context.

      What Is a Progressive
      A Nicer Form of Tyranny
      Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously though, America is fascist, for the traditional European definition of fascism.)

      The traditional European definition of fascism is "Anyone not a socialist."

    8. Re:While far from a dictatorship... by meglon · · Score: 1

      The piece missing is where the radical conservatives in this country have tried to alter the meaning of the understanding of fascism to mean progressive or leftist. Fascism is a marriage of business and the government at the expense of the populace, usually done with fervent nationalism or religious asides, with a very strong dose of populism thrown in.... think the current GOP/Tea Party in the US. Socialism, the actual "left," is the elimination of private ownership, business, production, and resource extraction, with all those resources being "for the group;" think Jesus and his disciples (who Marx drew his "from each to their ability, to each their need" concept).

      For the past few decades US conservatives have been trying to make both ends of the spectrum out to be solely the "left," so they don't have to come to grips with what the radical right really is. They've used the word "socialism" so often, and so inaccurately, than now they need a new derogatory name calling, hence why you now see conservative "sources" try to associate fascism with the left.

      A simple run down of the traits of fascism shows where it lies in today's politics, and who is exhibiting those traits; and you don't need propaganda trying to re-write reality to conform to your precious world view to do that.... just a little intellectual honesty.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  16. Two big sources by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    First of all: the amount of stuff people have. The more you have, the more you are afraid of losing it - and the more jealously you guard it.

    Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns.

    There is no easy answer to these problems as they are deeply rooted in human nature and are probably survival instints. Just ones that were developed as cavemen but have now got way out of control.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns."

      Your first statement suggests that you might have a clue or two. Then you make that second statement, which suggests that you're actually pretty clueless. The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms. Suppose that you take away all the guns. Suppose that you invent something tomorrow that can find and destroy every single firearm in the United States. The one weapon that YOU fear most is gone. The cops are without firearms, the criminals are without firearms, the honest citizen is without firearms. No one can any longer reach into a pocket, pull out a firearm, and kill. No one. Security guards and armed robbers alike are without guns.

      Do you REALLY believe that no one will be murdered again?

      If I really feel the need to murder someone, I may resort to a rock, a knife, a sword, a club, an electrical booby trap, poison, assault with a vehicle, assault with a trained animal, or just choke or beat the guy to death with my bare hands.

      Wake up and smell the roses. PEOPLE murder people. Guns are as impassive and inanimate as any kitchen utensil.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to call complete and utter bullshit on supposition #2

      For example, do people only have watches to tell the time? NO.

      I have a pair of firearms, pistols, that I use to shoot targets with. For me, target practice is an exercise of patience and control. I don't know if I could ever shoot someone to protect myself, though it could happen. I didn't buy these firearms for protection, I don't keep them loaded when I'm not using them. I bought them for relaxation. I also enjoy the physicality of a gun's mechanical nature. They are very efficient machines.

      I know that many people collect fire arms simply for the joy of shooting. Other buy old but perfectly lethal firearms because they are part of our collective history and can be very emblematic of the times they were made.

      Many people use guns for hunting, and for food gathering.
      Maybe they fear starving.

      What do I fear? Willful Ignorance.

    3. Re:Two big sources by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms

      The ONE THING? So nobody is free unless they have the right to a gun? So nobody in any other country, who doesn't have a gun-carrying laws possiby be free?

      C'mon. Just a little common sense or a second of thought would make it obvious that the statement has no truth to it whatsoever.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    4. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second part applies better in the cities around the criminal elements dealing with drugs than in elsewhere. Drug dealers arm themselves out of fear disproportionally compared to other criminals in Europe too for the same reason than in the US. That reason is fear, fear of other criminals in the same field specifically.

    5. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, guns aren't to blame. It's just that those crazy violent USAians shouldn't have access to them. And I'm not just talking about criminals or the general populace.
      In 2012 the German police shot 6 people dead (firing 36 shots overall, including warning shots). That's the entire police force for 80 million people during an entire year.
      In th USA that's more like a slow day.

    6. Re:Two big sources by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      "Complete and utter bullshit", because the GP was talking about a different kind of gun owner than you? You're actually supporting the claim of hysteria in the original article.

    7. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me praphrase:
      You have a gun because you have forced intercourse with a bottle brush on to many others ( in the US and abroad.)
      Historically most US citizens are a melange of those unwilling to integrate and those that are into looting
      and taking. ( each characteristic made them leave their homes.)
      With a mostly empty continent looted in no time the US army ants have moved abroad.
      But still they have kept the "poor little guy that has to behave unfair to stay alive" feeling alife.

      In that situation I too would be angsty to no end and trying to preempt even the most remote potential danger.

      Remember the final "washing hands" scene in Macbeth !? A basket case all around.
       

    8. Re:Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The right to keep and bear arms defines a free man, yes. Without the right to self defense, you are indeed a slave. Are you willing to use a sword to defend yourself against a robber? A baseball bat, maybe? Are you willing to defend yourself at all? Or, do you rely on the police to defend you?

      I don't call the police, for anything. Well - that may not be entirely honest. I'll call the police to dispose of the bodies lying on the floor.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re: Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You asshole, you don't have a fucking clue. Myself and my wife were chased out of LAX last week by a lunatic kid trying to kill people with an ar15 gun, if he had a knife we could have attacked him and taken him down. I am European and cannot understand the need for guns. Until you have a life altering experience where you fear for your life from a lunatic with a gun, shut your fucking mouth about kitchen utensils

    10. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I really feel the need to murder someone, I may resort to a rock, a knife, a sword, a club, an electrical booby trap, poison, assault with a vehicle, assault with a trained animal, or just choke or beat the guy to death with my bare hands.

      Exactly. If you're really in a life-or-death struggle with someone, you'll find a way to defend yourself. So why do you need a gun?

      You need a gun because the other guy might have one, and bringing a knife to a gunfight is a losing proposition. Even if you take guns away from all the law-abiding citizens, criminals aren't bound by law, and will surely get some guns and take over our cities. Where do all these illegal guns come from? Right now, they're mostly stolen from lawful owners, or converted by private sale by a lawful owner to someone who would otherwise be barred from gun ownership.

      Wake up and smell the roses. People murder people, and guns make it much easier and much more removed. A gun is power over people without guns: you point a gun at someone, and he will give you his wallet. You show him a knife, and he might decide to run instead. Personal possession of handguns forces individuals into an arms race of paranoia.

    11. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then? A gun is not much use if that government has jets and rockets to bomb you...

      I suppose anti aircraft rockets, armed tanks and large bombs are also prohibited in the US. Making the 'gun freedom' a moot point... you might as well have a rbber band gun to defend yourself against the state.

    12. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a female, over 50 and a competition shooter both rifle and pistol. To be honest? I am less afraid of those around me that own firearms than you would think.
      Obviously you either need to go to a range and meet a few of these people or just stop drinking the koolaid...

    13. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In an environment with a lot of criminals (who don't care about gun laws) you are less free if you aren't allowed to also own guns. It's rather simple really.

      Also, having a fair chance to kill anyone who tries to physically coerce you is not even about human freedom, that's the basic freedom that every animal enjoys.

    14. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have a vast, standing army draining the blood and treasure of a nation - the ultimate socialist statement - and pretend to be free.

    15. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought a free man was defined by the right to have a tank. Or was that an ICBM?

    16. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you understimate the effect of even an impassive gun.
      I police officer without a gun still can badly hurt you or beat you to death. But it doesn't happen in a second or two and possibly due to a stupid, almost obvious misunderstanding.
      Without guns, getting into a heated argument with someone can still get you a broken nose or even get killed. But not without giving the attacker some time to reconsider and others to intervene. They can't take back a punch, but they can stop dealing more when they realize they got to for. Nobody can put the bullet back once it's been fired, and just not firing a second one might not help.
      So whether there's a good chance that some other guy has a gun can make for a much more stressful and less open environment compared to when you can just assume they don't. Note that this applies to most of the other stuff you mention, but who carries a knife suitable for stabbing someone around with them? A club? Even a rock isn't usually within reach. In some ways beer bottles or glasses are a better example, and I believe there are actually bars that have gone over to no bottles and plastic glasses for that reason.
      It won't stop many murders though, too many simply happen between people who are close, and quite a few at home where there are enough knives etc. around anyway. But in terms of fear it is more relevant. Few people will start living in fear of their closest ones even though those are the ones most likely to murder them.

    17. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call the police for that? Lazy you are.

    18. Re:Two big sources by Livius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as Americans think gun ownership equals freedom, they will be unable to realize that their freedoms were taken away. Gun ownership is about insecurity and making someone else afraid, with the obvious implications for the case where it's the other person who is armed.

      And, of course since other countries don't have gun ownership "freedom", Americans think other people won't notice if you take away their real freedoms. But in fact other peoples appreciate freedom and are immensely resentful when it's taken away.

    19. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms

      So Poland and the Philippines, who were able to overthrow their tyrannical governments (without the need for violent revolution) in the 1980s, are not free?

      What about Canada, who was able to split from the UK a few decades after the US did (without a war)? Bearing arms is a privilege which you need a license for (like driving).

    20. Re:Two big sources by fey000 · · Score: 1

      "Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns."

      Your first statement suggests that you might have a clue or two. Then you make that second statement, which suggests that you're actually pretty clueless. The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms. Suppose that you take away all the guns. Suppose that you invent something tomorrow that can find and destroy every single firearm in the United States. The one weapon that YOU fear most is gone. The cops are without firearms, the criminals are without firearms, the honest citizen is without firearms. No one can any longer reach into a pocket, pull out a firearm, and kill. No one. Security guards and armed robbers alike are without guns.

      Do you REALLY believe that no one will be murdered again?

      If I really feel the need to murder someone, I may resort to a rock, a knife, a sword, a club, an electrical booby trap, poison, assault with a vehicle, assault with a trained animal, or just choke or beat the guy to death with my bare hands.

      Wake up and smell the roses. PEOPLE murder people. Guns are as impassive and inanimate as any kitchen utensil.

      You actually frighten me.

    21. Re:Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      It is foolish to fear me. I'm not a murderer. I have never stalked and killed anyone. I've never even robbed anyone. I'm not very violent until attacked. Now - if you had some intention of attacking me, or my loved ones, then you might have reason to fear me.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:Two big sources by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      I think that's a fair assessment of the American situation. But I wouldn't even say guns play much of a role in the situation.

      To me it seems to be more of a combination of the very high quality of life that a large number of Americans enjoy, coupled with the fact that they do not remember existential threats. The quality of life is the same issue as anywhere in the world - the more people have, the more they have to lose, so they welcome measures that appear to make losing less likely. But also, US hasn't been really threatened for a long, long time. I think that when people are used to safety, it is natural to overreact to attacks. Where I'm from, older generations will vividly remember bombing raids, middle-aged people grew up under foreign occupation, and there were tanks and firefights in the streets a mere 20 years ago. A lot of Europe is similar. Spain or UK have had to contend with terrorism campaigns for a long time. Most countries took major losses at home in WW2, and numerous countries have had wars or violent revolutions in the decades since that. The lack of such events in living memory really sets the US apart.

    23. Re: Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You poor little baby. You were chased out of LAX? Were you chased out by the kid with the gun, or were you chased out by TSA officials?

      As for life-altering experiences where one fears for his life - MY RESPONSE IS TO PICK UP A WEAPON you idiot. Oh, but wait. You're obviously one of the sheep who has permitted himself to be disarmed, so that he might board an airplane.

      Stop sniveling. If you choose to be part of the herd, then you have to rely on the sheep herder and his dog. I don't rely on him.

      Thanks for playing - come back when you can roar like a lion, instead of mewling like a kitten.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y612uIsQ9HM

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    24. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns.

      Complete nonsense. Let's generalize about other people!!! Let's assume bad things about people who do something that I personally don't like!!!

      I grew up in rural America. In many parts of rural America, if you call the police, you will be lucky if they show up in 20 minutes. If, god forbid, someone does invade your house or attack your family, 20 minutes is an eternity. People in rural America have guns and they know how to use them. The crime rate in rural America is low. Very low. Lower than virtually any city. People in rural America also use guns to hunt. Self defense is a secondary use. They hunt, for sport and for food.

      And I promise you, no one in rural america is a afraid. The problem with America isn't people with guns. The problem is people like you, who are happy to assume that people who disagree with you are stupid, or crazy, or evil, or "afraid." If we want to fix the current divide, the first thing we have to do is stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with us does so for some illegitimate reason. Smart, knowledgeable people can disagree. And if fact, they often do so.

    25. Re:Two big sources by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms.

      I'm curious about your opinion on this; clearly your first intention there is firearms. But how about knives or swords or other melee weapons?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    26. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are a frightened little coward, aren't you. Pathetic worm.

    27. Re: Two big sources by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of "Han shot first"?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    28. Re:Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      A weapon is a weapon. One man's preferred weapon might be a pole arm, another man's weapon might be numchucks, while another man prefers a plain old club. In all cases, his choice to be armed shall not be infringed. It is his RIGHT, as defined in our second amendment. Personally, I am proficient with a couple of firearms, and qualified to use a number of others. I am less proficient in the use of a sword, or numchucks, or a club. Depending on your level of mastery, you might even conclude that I'm not qualified to use any of those weapons.

      Perhaps your curiosity extends even further? Wonder what weapons I actually carry about with me? None. I OWN all of those weapons, except the numchucks. But, I don't fear the world, so I don't carry them about with me.

      If, as someone stated above, I were fearful, then I would carry one or more weapons around with me all the time, at work, while traveling, at the park, while shopping, everywhere. I don't live in fear, so I don't do that.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    29. Re: Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I'm not that great a Star Wars fan - I had to look it up.

      The idea is, "The best defense is a good offense". Guido, or Greedo, had his weapon out, and was making demands that Han wasn't willing to comply with. So - you shoot first.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:Two big sources by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then? A gun is not much use if that government has jets and rockets to bomb you...

      Really? Two words: Iraq & Aghanistan
      If they didn't "beat" us, they kept us from winning, mostly with small arms and improvised weapons. It's not so easy to take over an armed populace.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    31. Re:Two big sources by dwpro · · Score: 2

      I'm not afraid of people with guns, just as I'm not afraid of terrorists. You are afraid of people with guns, and that's part of the problem. Man up, Pete, liberty is a good thing.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    32. Re: Two big sources by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Exactly that is the idea. If you are willing to use a firearm, you will probably be shot first, just to be sure. An armed society is anything but a polite society, as Liberia, former Yugoslavia and many more countries have shown.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    33. Re: Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Heh. The idea was more like, "If you're stupid enough to THREATEN someone with a weapon, then you are fair game to be shot first." Greedo had already drawn his weapon to enforce his will upon Han. Han was therefore justified in shooting first. No, you can't just walk down the street, and shoot anyone and everyone who possesses a weapon, or you suspect may possess a weapon. You need to check that short circuit in your logic systems.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    34. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the GGP used a generalization, so I see nothing wrong with the GPs post. If you use generalizations, if somebody can come up with a single example where said generalization is wrong, then the generalization is wrong. Lesson: don't use sweeping generalizations unless you want to be made to look like a fool. There is nothing in the GPs post supporting hysteria. Simply pointing out GGP is an ignorant fool by use, can you guess what word I'm going to put here? Yup, it's generalizations.

    35. Re:Two big sources by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then? A gun is not much use if that government has jets and rockets to bomb you...

      Are those the only two options? Could it not be that the right solution is for the government to get rid of its jets and rockets and bombs and nuclear bombs, or must we always escalate to total annihilation and tyranny?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    36. Re:Two big sources by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      You actually frighten me.

      And that's the whole point of this Slashdot story.

      If we just accept that everybody who is not 'us' is odd, but if they're not taking away the rights of anybody else then we just leave them alone, then we'd have a much better world.

      Peace & tolerance.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    37. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the most retarded post I've read on slashdot for a long time. It makes me sad.

    38. Re:Two big sources by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns.

      Yes...I own a Mosin Nagant precisely because I am afraid the German Army will invade my apartment. Or, you know, I could be because I want to own a piece of history, something that someone's life depended on on a daily basis, and its fun to shoot. Or why I want to purchase an M1 Carbine, an original 1911, and display them with my grandfather's parade Army helmet with the 101st Screaming Eagle emblem. I even want to purchase an original Colt Navy, and possibly a Sharps carbine, which I can display with the Lorenz rifle that has been passed down my family for generations and was most likely used in the Civil War as well. Or take my grandfather's Winchester 1897 shotgun that started life as a prison guard shotgun that my family has owned since my grandfather was a little boy and hunted with with his grandfather and now uses it to kill groundhogs so the holes won't hurt his horses. You see, most people in the US own guns because they like guns. They enjoy shooting them, like to collect them, appreciate the history behind them, and in many case see them as functional works of art. Remember, most gun owners own more than one gun. If you only bought a gun because you were afraid of other people with guns, you would stop at one (because a fear of people with guns is simply a transference of your fear of guns onto that person because they are a gun owner), not buy multiple ones.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    39. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes; and the day they attempt to remove the right to have a gun there will be bloodshed.

    40. Re: Two big sources by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, neither can I walk down the street and threaten someone with a weapon. What I say is, if you think you are safe because you are armed, you are fatally wrong. If someone plans to attack you, and has a reason to assume that you are armed, you won't receive a threat, you will be shot. If it can be safely assumed that you are not armed, you will be just threatened.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    41. Re:Two big sources by fritsd · · Score: 1

      The right to lure burglars within range of his pressure cooker (disguised as a backpack).

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    42. Re:Two big sources by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I think part of the issue some people have with the 'right to bear arms' is that they don't trust their fellow citizens to only use lethal force defensively not offensively. They guess that their neighbors would use lethal force against them, unprovoked. That doesn't sound like an unreasonable concern, but I think part of having a sane society is being able to trust your neighbors with lethal weapons and the right to use lethal force TO DEFEND themselves or their families.

      But... people are aware of human nature and that given enough neighbors with lethal weaponry some of those neighbors are going to use that weaponry offensively and, if they get the jump, successfully. So maybe one should pre-emptively take out those neighbors of 'questionable morals'... And then, if everyone starts using their lethal force pre-emptively 'just in case', things get very ugly very quickly.

      So having an armed populace can create an environment of paranoia and fear just by the very presence of those weapons in so many hands. Just because one is armed doesn't mean those arms will always protect one so one fears those armed others despite being armed to the teeth oneself. Carrying weapons does not, in itself, make a person fearless. Often quite the contrary... Firearms, swords etc don't bring quite enough 'mutually assured destruction' to keep the game theoretic aspect of this 'sane'. Maybe everyone should have nukes or at least suicide vests. Fuck, what mugger would be stupid enough to try mugging someone wearing a suicide vest? (rhetorical question).

      If human beings had natural lethal weaponry built in things would be different, I guess. The concern would be academic.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    43. Re: Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Only a fool assumes himself to be safe, whether he is armed or unarmed. ONLY a fool. In reality, if someone plans to attack me for some random reason such as robbery, then IF he should discover that I am armed, he will simply move on to an easier target. On the other hand, if he targeted ME, rather than some random victim, yeah, he'll probably just shoot me, or make some other plan to incapacitate me before confronting me.

      Whatever - it's unlikely that someone will just walk up and "threaten" to hurt me. That has just never happened to me. The guy either intends to hurt me, or he intends to demand something that I might not surrender without being threatened. In any case, unless he shoots me in the back, I have options. There are always options, and a smart man arranges for those options sometimes.

      Want to hear about the time I was robbed? I was aware that I was being stalked, and maneuvered the stalker into position. I lacked any real weapons, so I used my environment. I chose where to stop, and I chose the direction from which he could approach me. He showed me his pistol, demanded my wallet, and I handed it to him. He took two steps back from me, turned to run, and fell down. As he turned, I scooped a brick up from the roadway, and slung it at the base of his skull. Didn't kill him - but I got my wallet back.

      It isn't my gun you need to fear - it is ME that you need to fear, if you intend to harm me. If you intend no harm, then you have absolutely nothing to fear.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    44. Re:Two big sources by MattG91 · · Score: 1

      Another low-information 'netizen who thinks guns are some huge problem in the US, modded up by similar 'netizens, neither of which understand that the function and spirit of the Second Amendment is perfectly applicable today, moreso than ever. Molon Labe.

    45. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept of "People with guns are afraid!!!!111!!!!" is, in itself, a tool of the fear mongers. Sorry that you've fallen to their trap.

    46. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms.

      This is semantically, factually, and ethically wrong.

    47. Re: Two big sources by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Ah, the internet tough guy. Basically you are saying that you live in a shithole where the roads are in disrepair, muggers possess firearms and you got lucky. And this is the reason why you think of yourself being something better than the "sheep"? A sheperd dog? Really? Well, okay. Sit. Good doggie.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    48. Re:Two big sources by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2

      The ONE THING? So nobody is free unless they have the right to a gun? So nobody in any other country, who doesn't have a gun-carrying laws possiby be free?

      That's obvious. If you are restricted from possessing a small, machined piece of steel then you are not very free. Guns are inert without ammunition and yet it is the rare government that actually makes this critical distinction. Possessing harmful or dangerous chemicals is the real problem; more specifically possessing dangerous potential energy is what society unfortunately has need to regulate because of people's harmful intentions and simple incompetence. Unfortunately for gun-control advocates, addressing the real danger would logically require giving up gasoline, natural gas, and other volatile fuels, or implementing heavy-handed restrictions such as only allowing trained, licensed professionals to dispense gasoline into vehicles with fines or jail time for the irresponsible nuts who dared to open the gas cap or do mechanic work on the fuel system without authorization.

      And, of course, the typical response is "Oh, but gasoline is NECESSARY! It's USEFUL!" but it ultimately kills far, far more people when it's mixed with self-driven vehicles than ammunition fired from a gun. So which is it; do you advocate the freedom to drive yourself around instead of being forced to walk or use mass transit or do you advocate serfdom so that you can feel safe from guns that have less of a chance of killing you than your car does? For that matter, statistically twinkies and big macs will kill you with a much higher success rate than guns. Banning personal vehicles or unhealthy food or dangerous sports or mountain climbing (have you seen the death rate for climbing Mt. Everest?) would only require people to give up portions of their lifestyle which is no more than gun-control advocates ask of gun/ammunition owners. Wouldn't it be better to give up just some of your personal freedom for just a little more safety and security?

    49. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the one and only thing. If you cannot keep yourself alive and out of bondage, you are not free, as something else is in control of your life. Ultimately we are all slaves to one thing or another, but hopefully not other humans..

    50. Re:Two big sources by GarfieldsHairball · · Score: 1

      Thought-experiment: suppose you lived in a police state, such as East Germany, but had the right to bear arms. Would you be free? Guns may arguably be a way to maintain existing freedom, or to gain it in the first place, but neither they nor the right to bear them define what it means to be free.

    51. Re: Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Nope. I was thousands of miles from home when this incident took place - someplace where people actually do live in a shithole, the roads are in disrepair, muggers possess firearms, and I got lucky.

      Oh - want another hint or two? It wasn't in the United States, and the government of that shithole had outlawed firearms before I was born.

      No, I ain't sheep, and I ain't YOUR dog.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    52. Re:Two big sources by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      So, it is your proposal that technology should be halted or rolled back, just because you are unhappy with the state of technology. Another Luddite. "Oh, just give me the olden days, like my grandparents enjoyed. Take the radio, the television, and the intertubez, I don't want any of it. Give the good old simple days!"

      Tough teats. This IS 2013, not 1713. Harden the fuck up, Stefan.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    53. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, I don't worry about it.

      But then, in the UK I guess we're not slaves to guns.

    54. Re:Two big sources by Catiline · · Score: 2

      Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then?

      I would say the Constitution is unambiguously clear on this point: yes. When the government derives all power from "We, the people" [per the preamble] then whatever my government does, I also can do (because it was given the power to do so from me). Likewise, anything the people cannot do, they cannot authorize their government to do.

      So unless you want to argue that the Army and Air Force have to give up all of their tanks, planes, and H-bombs because nobody has a right to such things, then the American population has an absolute right to buy them as individuals.

    55. Re:Two big sources by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      If you use generalizations, if somebody can come up with a single example where said generalization is wrong, then the generalization is wrong.

      That's not true in the case where the generalization is clearly intended to apply to the vast majority of cases, not to all cases.

      Ha! I've proved you wrong. Hoist with your own petard!

    56. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and hopefully it will be yours.

    57. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. No. Having a gun is more of a sign you're not afraid.

    58. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can become non-free at a moment's notice. Moreover, this has happened _several times_ in the past 100 years alone.

    59. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It may not be easy to take them over, but it is pretty easy to kill/remove them all and replace them with your own.

    60. Re: Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats the point in having a gun, when someone else always has the potential to have a bigger gun or shoot first.

      You're still just as much a slave.

      Just a scared slave with a gun.

    61. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh....

      Another American who has no knowledge of the world outside his borders.

      Anyone with the tiniest amount of perspective on this issue does indeed think they are a problem.

      Maybe its not us lacking the information?

    62. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you the baddest nigga in the hood.

      Well done idiot, you proved his point.

    63. Re: Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You poor little baby. You were chased out of LAX? Were you chased out by the kid with the gun, or were you chased out by TSA officials?

      As for life-altering experiences where one fears for his life - MY RESPONSE IS TO PICK UP A WEAPON you idiot. Oh, but wait. You're obviously one of the sheep who has permitted himself to be disarmed, so that he might board an airplane.

      Stop sniveling. If you choose to be part of the herd, then you have to rely on the sheep herder and his dog. I don't rely on him.

      Thanks for playing - come back when you can roar like a lion, instead of mewling like a kitten.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y612uIsQ9HM

      It sounds to me that your response to a lot of things is to pick up a weapon, fuckface.

      Your contempt is reprehensible.

    64. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      good grief, why the hell would I wake up my kids by blasting away with a gun?
      My knives are more than enough, all perfectly balanced and very sharp indeed on both sides!
      I'm not going to wake up the kids just for a B and E....
      Use common sense man!
      Throwing them is way down on the list, a quick grapple to expose the throat takes little time, almost no effort and leaves very little to chance.
      It's called "close combat arms training" or "unarmed combat"...
      Piano wire on a couple of wood dowels works even better....
      Guns....
      They're for long distance work, not close up....have a nasty habit of going right through drywall and making unintended messes.

    65. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, those are the two options. The concept of a power vacuum was not made up just for shits and giggles. If you do not prevent me from killing you and anyone else I like, I will do so without moral qualm. There is no other restraint you may make on me if you cannot enforce your will physically; my conscience is my own concern.

      We may disarm the government, but we may no sooner prohibit violence than prohibit love, and the power of violence would merely transfer to some entity which lacks even the farce of an obligation to the People. I will personally undertake to prove this point to your satisfaction given the opportunity, and consider it your just deserts.

    66. Re:Two big sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns also make it much easier for people to *defend* themselves from people who want to murder them (or otherwise commit grievous harm upon them). A gun has the potential to put a 100lb, 80 year-old woman on equal footing to her 250lb, 30 year-old, would-be rapist. Or give a random individual a fighting chance against 3 thugs that have decided they want to beat the snot out of him because it sounds fun.

      Sure, the best option is to avoid getting into those situations, but *sometimes*, despite your best efforts, those situations find *you*.

      "If you're really in a life-or-death struggle with someone, you'll find a way to defend yourself."

      So, nobody ever dies in a life-or-death struggle? No, sometimes the guy that wants to kill you simply physically outclasses you to the point where absent some force multiplier (such as a gun), you're fucked. Using a knife in that instance requires that you let the guy get close enough where he can use his superior strength and/or skill against you in the first place. Using a gun means that you can keep that force multiplier in play even *while* you attempt to get the hell out of the bad situation. (Just remember to *move*.)

  17. Re:It's Obama's fault by Falconhell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lol Trust me Bush did more damage in one year than the whole of the current presidents will ever do.
    The rest of he world is either crying over their dead or alternating between amused and disappointed in US actions since 9/11.
    Guns, healthcare, climate change, Iraq war, summary execution without trial and with innocent victims, It's like watching a bizarre right wing satire show. If it was fiction it would be hilarious.

  18. Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your country has been undervaluing the importance of education for a long time. No wonder you've got so many ignorant people who are easy to scare, and therefore easy to control.

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

      Your country has been undervaluing the importance of education for a long time. No wonder you've got so many ignorant people who are easy to scare, and therefore easy to control.

      You talk like that's an accidental bug, rather than a deliberate feature.

  19. You're deluding yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The "fear" you imagine is your rationalization of outcomes you don't like. When someone gets elected you don't agree with, or some policy emerges or persists that you would rather not have or abolish, you attribute this to "fear" because you wish to believe that rational, courageous behavior would have led to a different result.

    The Iraq and Afgan wars are excellent examples of this. Malcontents attribute support for these wars to "fear"; citizens trembling in fear of terrorist boogeymen, and blinded by fear to the crimes of warmongers.

    The truth is that support for these wars came from Anger. Bloody, mortal rage. Not fear.

    But you go on indulging your delusions. Your echo chamber is plenty loud enough to drown out whatever you'd rather not hear.

    1. Re:You're deluding yourself by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars really are quite different.

      In Afghanistan, a punitive expedition was warranted, to punish the Afghan government for harboring Al Queda and it's agents.

      In Iraq, we invaded to liberate oil, first and foremost. The Iraq war was an openly profiteering war. Haliburton and it's subsidiaries were in the news constantly, always in connection to contracts worth billions, or at least hundreds of millions. No-bid contracts were the order of the day.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:You're deluding yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Afghanistan, a punitive expedition was warranted, to punish the Afghan government for harboring Al Queda and it's agents.

      Really? I don't think that hunting down bogeymen is a worthwhile endeavor, nor do I believe that invading countries because of bogeymen is worthwhile. It's simple warmongering.

    3. Re:You're deluding yourself by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The truth is that support for these wars came from Anger. Bloody, mortal rage. Not fear.

      I think rational, courageous behavior would have helped a bit here.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  20. Re:It's Obama's fault by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your post is merely confirmation that the biggest problem we have in the US is really stupid fucking people who can only regurgitate bumper sticker talking points, and who prefer to be lied to like two dollar whores instead of using their brain to actually think. People like you are why the fucknuts get elected who go out of their way to pass crap like the Patriot Act, and to invade other countries for no reason.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  21. Fear comes from by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful
    • Loss-aversiveness: a strong desire to avoid harm or loss, so much so, that we will undergo self-destructive behavior to avoid the remotest of risks of of death, harm, or loss.
    • The reality of the situation we live in: The inherent Uncertainties and risks that we all face throughout life.
    • Reminders of Uncertainty, such as natural disasters, 9/11, etc
    • Political figures reminding us, that we are at risk, and they need to do things to protect us
  22. One very big change by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    there has not been any real big change

    The USA used to have the USSR to keep it in check and provide a limit to the US's more paranoid actions against foreign countries it imagined might harm it. Now that the USSR is no more, the USA allows it's fear and insecurity to run rampant and bomb the crap out of every little thing that gives it nightmares - whether rational or not.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:One very big change by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the soviet union imploded the USA needed to invent other enemies, they found: terrorists and paedophiles.

      This is not about protecting human life, the number killed so far by the USA in drone attacks in Pakistan (2,830) is about the same as the number killed in the 9/11 attacks (2,978); then start counting the number killed in Afganistan (Coalition casualties: 3,395 civilian casualties (an order of magnitude more).

    2. Re:One very big change by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The USSR had another important role. The USSR was the state which used mass surveillance and curtailed personal freedom to keep the own population in check. So the USSR was the projection screen where the U.S. saw their own shadow and defined what they liked about themselves and what not. The U.S. saw individual freedom as their biggest selling point, so they tried to label "individual freedom" on everything. And everything the U.S: was against was labeled "socialist" or "communist", completely independent of any normal definition of socialism or communism or even individual freedom. (Your employer being responsible for the insurance of your teeth? Come on! Your choice of health insurance should have nothing to do with the way you are employed.)

      But at least always insisting on personal freedom and the right to privacy made the population sensitive for any infringment on both, keeping the surveillance in check.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:One very big change by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      there has not been any real big change

      The USA used to have the USSR to keep it in check and provide a limit to the US's more paranoid actions against foreign countries it imagined might harm it. Now that the USSR is no more, the USA allows it's fear and insecurity to run rampant and bomb the crap out of every little thing that gives it nightmares - whether rational or not.

      Bullshit.

      The Soviets did not help us keep our paranoia in check. They were the cause of our paranoia, and that paranoia caused numerous incidents that were both more illegal and less ethical then anything the NSA is accused of.

      For example, there was the time we supported Diem in a coup d'tat against the Emperor of Vietnam. Then Diem himself got to be an embarrassment, and the coup d'tat that replaced his ass killed him. When we realized that Latin America occasionally liked to elect leftists who sympathized with the Soviets we started supporting numerous Latin American military dictatorships. These dictatorships engaged in such brutal repression that nobody knows how many bad things they did decades later. This was repeated in pretty much every region of the world. The recent film "The Act of Killing" tells the story of a bunch of massacres in Indonesia during the Vietnam war era. A million people died. In our defense our Evil Dictators were generally less evil then their Evil Dictators, but when your entire defense is "less evil then Stalin," you're in a pretty fucked up place. I could go on.

      I'm not saying mass data collection of everyone is right, Constitutional, or ethical. I am saying that this is a massive improvement over the Cold War when Operation Condor killed upward of 60k, the Indonesians killed a million, etc.

    4. Re:One very big change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, the USSR was really only Russia - the other Slavic states did not make Russia greater, quite the contrary and Russia still exists and is now doing better than before. What the USA should now fear, is not terrorists, drug lords or paedophile priests, the USA should fear the economic power of Russia, Europe and China. Anyhoo, I think that shale gas will usher in a new round of prosperity for the USA, so all is not lost.

    5. Re:One very big change by savuporo · · Score: 1

      The U.S. saw individual freedom as their biggest selling point, so they tried to label "individual freedom" on everything. And everything the U.S: was against was labeled "socialist" or "communist", completely independent of any normal definition of socialism or communism or even individual freedom.

      Only orthogonally related, but something that i have found amusing forever. When Soviets embarked on a moon race, they did so with a central design bureau controlled state socialist approach, leveraging their military industrial complex.

      Somewhat unsurprisingly, the response by US of A was NOT to leverage the power of free enterprise to conquer space. Instead, they established their own massive central design bureau, employing a state socialist approach leveraging their military industrial complex. Irony that has escaped historians for a while now.
      After the USSR imploded, their space industry had to reinvent themselves and they have the majority share of commercial space launch market now - they became capitalist. US of A stayed the course and is still employing tens of thousands civil servants and contractors in a "space program" without any articulated economic benefit or much direct applications. The slice of commercial space launch market served by US launchers is close to zero.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    6. Re:One very big change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgotten Iraq already?

      AC

    7. Re:One very big change by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      The Soviets did not help us keep our paranoia in check. They were the cause of our paranoia, and that paranoia caused numerous incidents that were both more illegal and less ethical then anything the NSA is accused of.

      I'm sorry but (the stereotype of) American paranoia and mass hysteria pre-dates the Soviet Union and even communism itself. The numerous religious movements, panics, and rushes throughout American history lay testament to a nation perpetually wired to the moon -- in both a positive and negative sense.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:One very big change by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that non-americans count as 'human' so your numbers are massively inflated there.

  23. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or... he could have just worked hard in his life and earned what he has.

  24. I blame the parents by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    And the Kardashians!

    Oh and Honey Boo Boo!

    And the schools!

    We've become a nation of self-gratifying, illiterate dip-shits who would much rather not be informed and learn about an issue and take the time to vote or to become involved even when your liberty is at stake. Human nature being what it is, It's easier to panic and pray that the leaders we elect can actually lead and take everything they say at face value. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your { congressman | senator | president } is senile or so wrapped up in pandering to big campaign contributors or party interests that they have little stake in protecting your liberty; for them it's all about getting re-elected. That's why when things like the patriot act come along we all say "it's a good thing because it will protect me from all the terrorists out there." "Terrorists are bad mmkay?" and the spin doctors go on all the news talk shows that drone on and on about issues like Benghazi and then suddenly shift to Obamacare because Benghazi is so like last year dude! Because you don't become involved and you keep voting that party line you suddenly realize now that you have to have a virtual strip search just to board a plane or that TSA agents will stop you getting off of a train and search you. Why? Because those terrorists are bad people and they hate us so you have to give up your privacy and your liberty in order to win the war on terror. And all the while you hear "we're winning!" That's right, we're winning and just because every new drone strike creates more hatred and more enemies for us to kill, we'll be able to keep this war up as long as necessary or until we can't sell anymore bonds to pay for it all. Because we're "in a war" we'll then create more government bureaucracy and will give money to your local law enforcement so they can all dress up like jackbooted Nazis with sub-machine guns!

    So keep watching the Kardashians and just leave your safety to those folks you elect, who get re-elected over 70% of the time, who you've probably never met, who have staff that create talking points that become sound bites, that play video poker during important hearings, that lie to you about keeping your health insurance, who really were "C" students in college and were drunk all the time, who receive all that money from special interests that feed off of your tax dollars, who hand feed pieces of legislation they never read already written up so they really don't have to work and slap their name on it, who pass legislation because it's so massive "You just have to pass it to see what's in it" and because they go through special lines at the airport and don't get nudeo scans.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  25. Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tenor of the country has changed dramatically in the past 40 years. The unrivaled economy of the US started facing competition, the politics became distinctly more polarized starting with Watergate and progressively getting worse, we’ve been chasing the ghost of Viet Nam, and the seemingly happy-go-lucky days of yore pretty much ended for good with 9/11.

    And it has been a death of a thousand cuts , but each of those fused in the American psyche and left scars. There are so many different ways America has faltered in the past few decades that to isolate it to a single or even majority cause is fruitless. The world became more complex, and America became more neurotic in response.

  26. Re: Power by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Yep, sounds like one of these trust fund baby Marxists. I will grant the GP the following: the saying "easy come, easy go" is true. Things worked hard for are valued relatively much higher in the eyes of the person who did the work. HOWEVER it doesn't follow that therefore the whole point of life is to suffer, nor that by making your fellow man suffer needlessly you're doing him a favor. Of course most employers/managers seem to believe this, but that is sadism not compassion.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. Welcome to the reconstruction by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Since 2001 things have changed.
    Before 2001, those in power, politicians, fought eachother.

    Since 2001 these guys teamed up with the corporations and multinationals;
    their differences vanished in a double sense. The moral dissonance that
    this brought on (lost sense of duty) created a tremendous fear. Fear, by
    those in power, of the hordes. The hordes that would one day be enilightened
    to find they had been quad-crossed and fucked over all the while being
    taxed to support the privileged.
    This fear of discovery, small wonder, translates into paranoia, which translates
    into control. Fine gems such as Feinstein are an excellent example.

    This is class warfare of the opulent against those who provide. Provide
    through taxes. The latter which are exactly their achilles' heel.

  28. Land of the fear home of the scared ? by burni2 · · Score: 1

    Yep, America has lost it's nimbus, and I think it won't be able to regain it again.

    Perect safety comes with a steady state that's a fact.

  29. Republicans are fear mongers by Required+Snark · · Score: 0
    Part of the fundamental right wing world view is that they are out to get us.

    To put this in the vernacular of George W Bush: "They hate us for our freedom."

    If you are trying to achieve political goals via manipulation, fear is the easiest tool to use. Cue references to 1984 and Nazi. In Iran, they chant "Death to America".

    Of course, in the case of Republicans, they do have something objective to fear: it's the shrinking percentage of the population with European roots. That's why the Tea Party types say "I want my country back". What they really want is a nation controlled by immigrants from Western Europe (i.e. White People). Immigrants from Africa or Latin America are those people who are lazy and shiftless and just want to live off the hard work of Real Americans.

    Of course political reality is not quite this simple. Take Cubans. Ever though they are Latin American, their ant-commie/anti-Castro stance has made them be easily accepted as right wingers. On the other hand, Mexicans (anyone from Mexico or points further south) are, to quote Rep. Steve King from Iowa:

    for everyone who is a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there, they weigh 130 pounds and with calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.

    So Republicans peddle fear, and it's been a successful message to a great extent. Democrats don't have much in the way of backbone, so they tend to go along.

    Does that answer the question?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Republicans are fear mongers by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Uhm. You're demonstrating yourself as being a participant of the problem itself. Look here for my comment on what you have just stated. I don't want to be too redundant.

      Go back in time, if you're old enough to remember, the long history of fear-peddling in this country. We have gained a "grazing herd of farm animals" level of instinctive fear in this country and we, as a people generally buy into the narratives without question. The media has catered almost exclusively to the "lowest common [intellectual] denominators" for decades on end. You think that hasn't affected the development of the US culture over the decades?

      It goes well beyond what you're trying to suggest. You're looking at a single symptom and excluding all of the rest of the data.

    2. Re:Republicans are fear mongers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Here is an example of fear mongering propaganda that goes hand-in-hand with the other part of the problem: ignorance.

      "Fear the Tea Party because they are racist." "Fear those who are against the ACA for they are waging a war against women." "Those who are against illegal immigration are racist and hate all immigrants."

      Can you not even see in your own rantings that which you rail against? Are you so fearful of your opponents position that you must use fear and deception to try and influence others to accept your position? Can you not accept that there may be an intellectually honest reason to limit the power of the federal government to that which was outlined in the U.S. Constitution?

      Finally, are you unable to see that it is precisely because of the unfettered power sought by the federal government that it has the power to use fear to do those things many on both the right and left abhor?

      Generally speaking, the Tea Party wants limited federal government. Generally speaking, the Democrats and "centrist" Republicans want a larger federal government. The only difference between the Democrats and those Republican "centrists" is the part of the federal government they want to have larger.

      Attempting to reduce your political opponents to racist, jingoist mysogynists does nothing to reduce fear or further an intelligent debate.

    3. Re:Republicans are fear mongers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait what?

      Which party was it that accused the other of wanting to kill old people, wanting to poison the water, pollute the air, and starve little children?

      It wasn't the GOP.

    4. Re:Republicans are fear mongers by salesgeek · · Score: 2

      There is no difference in parties in how they sell their platforms. Republicans use fear of foreign powers, fear of government, fear of immigrants and fear of loss of financial independence. Democrats use fear of racists, fear of religious institutions, fear of loss of government subsidies and fear of foreign powers.

      The biggest difference really is how they view government: Republicans pander to those that fear government and Democrats pander to those that fear the lack of government. The message of fear was beaten by a guy selling hope.

      --
      -- $G
  30. Closer to an oligarchy than a democracy by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    The fear mongers are trying to gain more power by peddling fear to the masses---all the while wealth and power is being redistributed.
    Constitutional liberties are eroded one by one in the name of "National Security" and the "Greater Good".
    Fairly soon, the USA will be an oligarchy policed by the government's jackbooted thugs standing on the necks of those who oppose the will of the government. Nothing can be hidden from the cameras, wire taps, profiling, meta data, and cameras. All must obey or be put on secret lists, subject to secret laws, and held in secret prisons.

  31. It's older than that... by mschaffer · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's older than that. People haven't changed for 10s of thousands of years. We just have better records of the more recent stuff.

    1. Re:It's older than that... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      No, it's much much older than that. Things haven't changed for over 13 billion years. Our nature is not particularly human. It's much more basic. In this universe the same laws of physics apply universally, might makes right. "Fear" is an abstraction, a higher level of programming. Like Java or C are specific abstractions above binary.

      Be a radical. Go to the root of the problem. Try to understand the mechanics of how things work. You never will if you merely look at humans. They are no different than anything else. Strip away the human bullshit and you will see the same thing in any celestial or molecular event.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:It's older than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's older than that. People haven't changed for 10s of thousands of years. We just have better records of the more recent stuff.

      I think it is the conservatism in the US that drives the fear. Conservatives tend to first react out of fear to anything new, be it a genuine threat or just an idea. I do not mean the run around in a panic type fear to which anyone surprised may succumb, and I certainly do not mean a Republican vs. Democrat thing, I mean the fear that causes one's first response to a perceived threat to be attacking it as an enemy.
      See a wild animal like a rattlesnake or wolf? Kill it! Someone suggest a possibly better or just different way of doing things? Denounce it as a threat to your way of living! The US, to some extent, still has that sort of frontier mentality long after the frontiers have been tamed.
      Conservatism can help human societies to thrive for centuries in tough conditions where a rigorous adherence to rules may be necessary to survive. Ultimately however, conditions will always change, and in that case conservatism may prove to be fatal to a society if they refuse to adapt to that change.

    3. Re:It's older than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boom. I love how people seem to think we were fucking legged fish 25,000 years ago. Christ. What are considered anatomically modern homo sapiens are about 50,000-100,000 years old. If you even use that length of time, not counting the millions before that of our ancestors, of course humans haven't changed.

      People think that we're so different than 500 or 1000 years ago because we have electricity and telephones. We're the same motherfuckers, we just have more advanced tools and toys.

      I took an anthro course in undergrad as an elective (kinda forced to but really glad I did), and the professor said that if you took an infant from like 30,000 years ago and raised them today, no one would notice the difference.

    4. Re:It's older than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you mean is that coercive authority hasn't changed in 10,000 years. It's still founded on violence (i.e. physical force), same as in the animal kingdom, and it's still dominated by those who wish to use physical force for their own selfish purposes, same as in the animal kingdom. Coercive authority is ancient -- and I'm not talking 100 B.C. I'm talking the beginning of evolution itself.

      If you look close enough, you will realize that the problem isn't that violence has yet to be perfected (as coercive authority has claimed for ages); the problem is that violence still exists, after all these years of "evolution". Hell, it doesn't merely still exist: it's celebrated.

      We have a long, long way to go.

  32. Re: Power by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the hundredth time.

    Capitalism does not reward hard work.

    It rewards marketability and cunning investment.

    The whole point of the "capital" in "capitalism" is to NOT have to work hard. It's an economic system which takes advantage of human laziness. You may think this is good or bad, workable or unworkable, but that's still how it is.

    The hardest workers I've ever met are all dirt poor. They either lack the fortune or the inclination to make money - IOW they're either disabled, dumb or idealistic. (And note well that there's nothing wrong with being any of these, with the proviso that being thick does not include wilful ignorance.)

  33. Fear used to control by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If food an games aren't sufficient to keep your populace at bay, you'll use fear. Using fear has it's limitations, because once people will get hungry because you don't provide them with food, they will revolt. History has always proven this principle right and it will do so again. Over 40% of the USA citizens are around or below poverty rates and this number is still growing each year. Regardless of what political party is in control when that happens, there will be mass protests and plundering going on, just like in Egypt or any country where hunger and poverty is abundant and only a few rich people have control.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Fear used to control by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except - here's the interesting thing: Americans aren't poor by any reasonable standard.

      Here's "poverty" in the US: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
      For example, the average "poor" person actually has more living space (square footage) than the average NONpoor person in Sweden, UK, or France. More than 40% actually own their home.
      80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
      92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
      Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
      Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
      Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
      Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
      More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
      43 percent have Internet access.
      One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
      One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

      Read the report; the "poverty" line is just a label, and a politically useful one. There's a vast political machine that exists mainly because it's message is "you don't have enough stuff, we'll take it from those guys (who have way too much) and give it to you". The amusing/sad thing is that the people saying that are the same group of guys that have "too much". PRECISELY the same bunch.

      The message is convincing to two groups of people:
      - those who are simply greedy and want "more"
      - those who feel guilty about what they have ...which currently exceeds 50% of the electorate.

      Let's put it another way: the US is the richest country the world has ever seen, and is yet unable to live within its means. This would suggest that the sorts of choices that leave a person "poor" are not limited to a social class, but are endemic to the system, top to bottom.

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:Fear used to control by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Over 40% of the USA citizens are around or below poverty rates and this number is still growing each year.

      You should understand what that means, which isn't necessarily what you think it does.

      As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. -- Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

      If food an games aren't sufficient to keep your populace at bay, you'll use fear.

      So, what does "at bay" mean in a democracy?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Fear used to control by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, what does "at bay" mean in a democracy?

      Is America a democracy? It only has one more party than the Soviet Union did. And the candidates are those nominated by the powers that be. So how much choice does a voter actually has? And what does it matter, when the vote-counting process is highly suspect?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you believe piece of propaganda like this from Heritage Foundation? Seriously! Where you should have immediately said "wait, this can't be right" is by looking at wealth disparity in the US. It's almost comical how people grab onto propaganda and wave it around like it's the best flag ever.

      The Heritage Foundation tries to paint Ronald Reagan as a savior. You remember, the guy who brought us "Trickle Down Economics" cutting the wealthiest people's taxes while increasing lower and middle class taxes. The guy who claimed to want to fix the trade imbalance with China and made it 10 times worse? The guy who ran the first bank bailout program, Iran Contra, REX84, and more! And don't give me shit about Reagan breaking the USSR, he didn't. The USSR was going to collapse under it's own weight no matter who was in office.

      Heritage Foundation is "good" propaganda, so I get that people can be duped by it. Good propaganda always has just enough truth to seem plausible.

      Posting as AC to spend some mod point, so lets see who can guess my login.

    5. Re:Fear used to control by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Oh come now. In America, if you've got a beef with the government, you can call up your congressman/state rep/city councillor and either get lip service or occasionally something useful (ie your problem is fixed by legislation or variance or whatever). In Soviet Russia, if you've got a beef with the government, you disappear. A very subtle difference, I understand, but science is the art of making fine distinctions.

    6. Re:Fear used to control by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Is America a democracy? It only has one more party than the Soviet Union did.

      Yes America is a democracy.* And no, the US does not have just one more party than the Soviet Union. The US actually has dozens of active political parties. Only a few of them attract enough support nationally to run a serious campaign for the two national level offices (president and vice-president). Within states, counties, and cities, parties besides the Republicans and Democrats are much more likely to obtain office. US Senator Bernie Sanders is a socialist (no, really - "... the only self-proclaimed socialist in Congress ...). The Reform party started by Ross Perot had a candidate that won the election for governor in the 1990s. Another recent amusing example of a third party win from the "I'm not dead department" - (icing on the cake - he is a software engineer):

      Philadelphians Elect First Whig Since 19th Century
      And just because: BECOME A WHIG RIGHT NOW! And 6 other vintage parties we should bring back

      And the candidates are those nominated by the powers that be.

      I think you misunderstand. Anyone that meets the requirements can run for pretty much any office they care to in the US. Nominations are mechanisms used by political parties to determine who the party will put forward as a candidate for a major election such as president. If you are a serious candidate with real support, that isn't going to be much of a problem. The much bigger problem is getting the support needed to be a serious candidate. Nominations generally take place at the national conventions of the parties after they have gone through the many primary elections and caucuses in the states. If you've won most of the primaries or caucuses, you will probably be the candidate.

      And what does it matter, when the vote-counting process is highly suspect?

      Counting the votes is a local function, the federal government doesn't play a part. If there is a problem it is a local problem. Voting procedures are subject to scrutiny by election judges.

      * Democratic republic for the pendants.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Fear used to control by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I think it's delightful that someone is bright enough to identify this as propaganda. Please help me fight such pernicious lies that Heritage purports to justify these "facts".

      It seems to be amply footnoted, with 50+ references:
      [1]Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, âoeIncome, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010,â U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports: Consumer Income, P60-239, September 2011, at http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf (September 13, 2011). The Census Bureau defines an individual as poor if his or her family cash income falls below certain specified income thresholds. These thresholds vary by family size. In 2010, a family of four was deemed poor if its annual income fell below $22,314. A family of three was deemed poor if its annual income was below $17,374.
      [2] See Catholic Campaign for Human Development, âoePoverty Pulse, Wave IV,â January 2004, at http://old.usccb.org/cchd/PP4FINAL.PDF (September 7, 2011). Interestingly, only about 1 percent of those surveyed regarded poverty in the terms the government does: as having an income below a specified level.
      [3]These surveys include the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, What We Eat in America, Food Security, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the American Housing Survey, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation. See U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ (June 22, 2011); U.S. Department of Agriculture, What We Eat in America, NHANES 2007â"2008, Table 4, at http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/0708/Table_4_NIN_POV_07.pdf (June 22, 2011); Mark Nord, âoeFood Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics,â U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2009, at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB56/EIB56.pdf (September 7, 2011); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, âoeAbout the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,â at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htm (September 7, 2011); U.S. Census Bureau, âoeAmerican Housing Survey (AHS),â at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html (June 27, 2011); and U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, 2003, at http://www.bls.census.gov/sipp_ftp.html#sipp01 (June 27, 2011).
      [4]U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009, at http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/h150-09.pdf (September 8, 2011).
      [5] U.S Department of Energy, Residential Energy Consumption Survey.
      [6]Derek Thompson, âoe30 Million in Poverty Arenâ(TM)t as Poor as You Think, Says Heritage Foundation,â The Atlantic Monthly, July 19, 2011, at http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/30-million-in-poverty-arnt-as-poor-as-you-think-says-heritage-foundation/242191/ (September 7, 2011).
      [7] C. T. Windham, B. W. Wyse, and R. G. Hansen, âoeNutrient Density of Diets in the USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, 1977â"1978: I. Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Dietary Density,â Journal of

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So eventually the US will be a country with lots of fearful, hungry, rioting people who own lots of guns. Can't see anything going seriously wrong there...

    9. Re:Fear used to control by Pav · · Score: 1

      All of those references could be perfectly true and be used to completely spin their conclusions - the best lies are mostly true. They are a conservative think tank so by definition they have a political agenda. Also, I notice they reference their own papers and figures quite a bit which is quite suspicious. I've also heard frustrated topic experts talk about how the Heritage Foundation spins things, and go into the detail of why - even in one case a co-author of a paper they referenced. That's not to say they couldn't be spot-on about a number of things, and I'm sure they make a valuable contribution to political discussion. However I've had American acquaintence exclaim how clean my city is, and how homeless people are practically non-existent, but also say how small our houses were especially since we had so much land - I'm Australian, and our houses aren't particularly small by world standards, and we have homeless people. We two fleas on two large dogs talked for some time about these issues, and I'm not sure the US has reached the right balance.

    10. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but when I looked at the ballot there were six or seven names on there. The fact that the people don't vote for them doesn't mean they're not options.

    11. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, if you've got a beef with the government, you can call up your congressman

      And when has that ever made a difference.

    12. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is a democracy because once every four years a very narrow majority gets out of bed to put an uninformed tick in a box to support/oppose gay marriage.

    13. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you believe piece of propaganda like this from Heritage Foundation?

      You start with an ad hominem attack? What if the heritage foundation said the sky was blue? I believe this because when I was below the poverty line, I had a mini van, a computer, a TV, an 800 sq foot apartment with no roommates (rent controlled), and my neighbors who were also poor had more stuff. Poverty officially is measured by income and liquid assets, not living conditions. I qualified for food stamps but I didn't need them so I didn't take them. I did take EIC because "hey, free money!"

    14. Re:Fear used to control by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      That's a very convenient viewpoint, of course.
      So a statement about how a giant chunk of the US is "poor" and the reasons therefore, without attribution.
      A counterpost is made, HEAVILY attributed with references including the US Census data (seriously, how is that "spin"?), and the response is to dismiss because "that's just propaganda - the best lies are mostly true".

      Seriously?

      When you have a ready rationalization at hand so you don't have to dispute actual facts and attributions in favor of blanket generalizations, you might just want to check your internal biases again.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democratic republic for the pendants"

      What does jewelry have to do with all of this?

      Does this mean I'M a pedant?

    16. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet your biggest city can elect Di Blasio. Not all of the country is rotten to the core.

    17. Re:Fear used to control by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

      Having grown up around poor, the choice is often "day care for hundreds every week, or last generation's game system for cheap and make the kids play it all day instead of day care." In which case, a game system is a bad parenting choice, but a good financial choice.

    18. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In Soviet Russia, if you've got a beef with the government, you disappear. "
      It wasn't (isn't) as black-and-white as you think.

    19. Re:Fear used to control by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Have you considered the fact that all those people have $10,000 of state debt sitting on thier heads right now... I'd say that makes them poor.

      Poor is not how much you have, it's income/expenditure. Saying that because you have stuff you aren't poor is like saying because a music CD has data on it it's a good medium to install Windows onto.

      In a strictly business sense, I could tick all of the boxes on that list except buying a house with less than $2000, yet if I was getting paid $2000 a year I would definitely be destitute... never mind the fact that I had my ENTIRE LIFE to accumulate those goods.

      Give a poor African kid in the Sahara desert a HDTV and they are still a poor African kid in the Sahara desert. Haven't you heard about the tendency of Oxfam volunteers seeing the people they give free clothes to argue and fight over the brand named Nike sweaters etc. It's how modern media has raised the world.

    20. Re:Fear used to control by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Okay, so Snowden and Assange?

      Fact is it's the same here if they see what you are saying as damaging to them in any meaningful respect. To them you're a fly... not even that, just another email with no reply.

      And It really wasn't like that in the USSR. It was like it is here now.

      Remember that you are looking at this through the eyes of US media reports on the USSR, who had to demonize the country to build up public dislike and justify the war they thought was coming. I doubt it was nearly as bad as even the middle east is now.

    21. Re:Fear used to control by qwavers · · Score: 1

      "Got a one-way ticket to the promised land ... You got a hole in your belly, and a gun in your hand..." (Bruce Springsteen - The Ghost of Tom Joad)

    22. Re:Fear used to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Current world strife is all driven by the New World Order/One World Order (NWO/ 1 WO)group that is on a quest to unite all countries of the world under One World Government. The process started over 100 years ago. I offer a current assessment of world politic: The reason behind worldwide social, political, and FINANCIAL turmoil at http://www.abacusroad.ORG. As PROOF I offer my web page at http://www.abacusroad.com/maryjones. The means by which the NWO/1 WO) has been able to amass the vast fortune needed realize its goals can be found at http://www.abacussroad.com - the mathematics is IRREFUTABLE. --Robert J. Castro

  34. In a hundred years... by Ginger_Chris · · Score: 1

    We'll have the "Slightly Less United States of America", or maybe even "The Independent States of America". It's already becoming more and more divided (from an outside perspective).

    1. Re:In a hundred years... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Given how intensely the left hates the right and the right hates the left? I'm thinking more 'The United States of Canada' and 'Jesusland.'

  35. Where is the U.S. heading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straight into Obama Care!

    1. Re:Where is the U.S. heading? by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      But that means no longer being "the best" and that would be so sad when you believe you are the best. Let's refer that as the american dream.
      Time to wake up. The reality is that about 6.5billion people don't see the US as the best for some time now.
      Like you say. You can have a very good life without being the best.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
  36. It all goes back to actual persecution by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

    Today, Americans fear terrorism.

    A few decades ago, it was communism.

    Before the fear of communism, was the fear of black people.

    Before the abolition of slavery, was the fear of the wilderness (what lied beyond the American frontier).

    Finally, before the fear of the wilderness, was the fear of tyranny — i.e. from the English crown.

    I suppose that fear is quite simply an integral part of American society's fabric.

    (Note that those events sometimes overlap. I did not imply that, for a given one event to start, the ongoing one needs to stop.)



    P.S. : I can't remember where I read or heard this. It was most likely during American civilization class.

    --
    "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    1. Re:It all goes back to actual persecution by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Today, Americans fear terrorism.

      A few decades ago, it was communism."

      Nuclear war was between, fear sold millions of shelters to morons. Some of them even keep them stocked to this very day, only the sign with threat theme gets changed from time to time, from 'storm of the century' to 'collapse of civilization' or 'rapture'. Only 'Climate Change' is never mentioned for some reason.

      "Before the fear of communism, was the fear of black people."

      Nothing like fear of women voting!

      "Before the abolition of slavery, was the fear of the wilderness (what lied beyond the American frontier)."

      You mean 'the injuns!'

      "Finally, before the fear of the wilderness, was the fear of tyranny — i.e. from the English crown."

      At least this one was real. Those inbreds were really bonkers, to this very day.

  37. Heading off a cliff by erroneus · · Score: 2

    This has been going on for a very long time and I saw it as a kid. WAY back when there was rampant Trick or Treating, there were vague reports of "razors in apples" and stuff like that. It's just nonsense. As a child, even I saw it as nonsense, but my mother took it quite seriously every year inspect our haul piece by piece.

    We have systems over-run with parasitic lawyers who live on fears which eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    And the Vietnam "domino theory"? That war on "communism"? Once again, I have seen this for the farce it was since I was a child. When I learned what communism is, I thought "hey this is a great idea for the future of man's civilization!" And when examining what existed, we saw extreme violence against the people and an elite power structure that benefited themselves while making their people miserable. That's not communism. And THAT image is what got everyone "fighting the war on communism." From that we got the Cold War, the Military Industrial Complex thrived on the fears of a whole nation.

    It has been going on far longer than partisan politics in its current form. You realize that "the conservatives" were once the democrats and "the liberals" were the republicans a few decades ago? But that was before the republicans pulled "god on their side" to get the religious vote.

    Before people can see past the current partisan politics, people have to be able to see a history that hasn't quite made it into the books.

    1. Re:Heading off a cliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The domino theory more or less encapsulated the openly stated goal of both Soviet and Maoist regimes to export communist revolution to their neighbors until they turned the whole globe red. The West really was engaged in a struggle for survival against totalitarian foes bent on world domination. Try learning about the history of the 1960's from something other than Dirty Dancing.

  38. The Sword of Damocles by mentil · · Score: 2

    The fear comes from propaganda penned by the elite. The elite that control America's politics and economy are constantly afraid of the Sword of Damocles -- an angry mob of Americans calling for their blood for their failure to do something or other. Fifty years ago it was a fear of a communist revolt, where the people take away their power if not their life. Now it's a fear of some crisis happening and being seen as not having done enough to prevent it. As a result, politicians want to be seen as "doing something", even if what they're doing is ineffective or counterproductive. If there's supposedly a "drug crisis", politicians will pass laws to be seen as "tough on drugs". It works the same for terrorism or any other societal ill, real or perceived. Opportunistic politicians, as opposed to being afraid, turn this around and sponsor a bill, make a story and pretend as if there's a real problem, in order to gain popularity or power; this is the malice on the flipside of the former problem's ignorance.

    Despite most Americans being more interested in money than politics, big business and finance tend to get less public scrutiny than government. These sectors are equally afraid of the people though: witness how quickly they used government resources and propaganda to cause the Occupy movement to lose steam.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:The Sword of Damocles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, No, No, afraid, no, Wish for it to come...Yes.
      But wrong territory. Right terminology. They are wishing for the "lord" to sit on his new throne. And trying to bring it to fruition. Look at their "religion", snake handlers, wrong interpretations of script, new re-itterations of script, who they support politically, what ideas they support. What studies they support? What ideas and productivity they support, all falling back to money changers in the temple.

  39. working conditions and economic uncertainty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    USA has absurd working conditions and very poor welfare systems. Most people spend most of their time at work. With despotic middle managers, shitty working hours, very little time off. You ask why people are easily manipulated wrecks?

  40. Re:It's Obama's fault by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't take long to disintegrate into partisan politics, huh? As Falconhell already pointed out, Herr Bush instituted most of the stuff that Obama plays with today. Think about it, Herr Coward.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  41. A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    . . .planted the seeds that have bloomed, revealing what is tantamount to aristocracy.
    1. The Big Senate no longer represents the people meaningfully.
    2. The Little House no longer represents the 50 States United, or offers any thoughtful feedback to the Big Senate.
    3. The federal government has eminent domain over your wallet.
    4. DC is printing money at will, demolishing the value of what you think is in your wallet, and obstructing reform.
    5. We're all modern monetary theorists now.
    So shut up, peasants, and avert your gaze when your Progressive Overlords pass by.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:A century ago, Progressives by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      #4 is largely incorrect. There was a big burst of inflation in the 1970's that basically halved the value of money in 9 years, and that's the kind of thing you fear. But since then, it's been closer to a rate that halves the value of money in over 20 years, which is neither unusual nor particularly harmful. And all you need to do to beat inflation is to hold assets that aren't cash, such as stocks, bonds, a home, land, or commodities.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:A century ago, Progressives by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dude, This is fucking America. We have never, ever all agreed on anything. In this case a significant proportion of the people who fought the Revolution were extremely pro-aristocracy.

      Our number three or four guy General was "Lord Stirling," our top trainer as "Baron von Steuben," we received aid from extremely aristocratic France, and the officers of the Continental Army created a hereditary order (the Society of the Cincinnati) at the end of the war specifically intended to become our new nobility..

      As for the rest, increasing the House to 30k is simply not practical. There's a reason the Indians, with a population triple ours, have a Parliament that is less then double ours. It's just not practical to run a Legislative body with more then 600 or so members. You'd have to have a working group in DC much smaller then the 30k Congressman, and you'd probably need actual Constitutional amendments governing how that working group was chosen, when the 30k could meet to fire the working group, etc.

      As for points 4 and 5, you really don't understand Progressives. At all. It's not that we think sovereign debt is a good thing, or even a not-bad thing; it's that we think the problem with sovereign debt is that it leads to inflation. OTOH the problem with cutting government spending is that it involves firing people, which reduces salaries for everyone by increasing the supply of available labor while reducing the demand for said labor. If the economies doing great, inflation is real, and the employment situation is fine government debt is a bad thing to have.

      But we're in the middle of a years-long employment slump, with basically no inflation, it's foolish to cut the deficit. We'd cut everyone's salary, to solve a problem that simply does not exist.

      That would be like a guy whose house is currently on fire sealing up his basement because a flood is sure to hit real soon now.

    3. Re:A century ago, Progressives by davide+marney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " OTOH the problem with cutting government spending is that it involves firing people, which reduces salaries for everyone by increasing the supply of available labor while reducing the demand for said labor."

      This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

      The question really comes down to market efficiency. Collecting taxes to direct an economy is obviously less efficient than letting the economy spend its own earnings. The overhead of administration alone makes government spending generally a raw deal, efficiency-wise.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    4. Re:A century ago, Progressives by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Right, you have to fire people in the public sector to allow the private sector to grow.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    5. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inflation isn't the only danger of running a deficit. A deficit (and more broadly debt) is only tolerated by creditors to a certain level, after which they start demanding much higher returns on their investment to offset the risk of default. Historically, the United States has had little trouble with this issue, since it is viewed as extremely reliable. That said, if some shock occurred that changed creditors minds (such as defaulting like the Tea Party wants us to do), having a larger debt to GDP ratio could be catastrophic.

      Furthermore, it's only a net benefit for society if the government is spending that borrowed money on investments that outpace the debt service payments. If they instead spend the money on boondoggles and re-inflating asset bubbles, then we're likely in for some trouble.

    6. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      "It's a closed system, everyone is a re-distributor of income."

      No, it is NOT a "closed system". It is an OPEN system, and it is very open.

      http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/04/02/remittances-to-mexico-drop-11-pct-in-february/

      The US economy is being siphoned off to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars PER MONTH, by just one country. I have no idea where you pulled that "closed system" idea from, but it certainly didn't come from reality.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What purpose do you have to keep it? Are you trying to start a bank now?

      Frankly, none of your damned business, but something I want to do with it. Something to benefit me, not you.

      Obviously?

      Yes.

      Government administration is generally shown to have lower costs.

      Bullshit, that is a lie.

    8. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, This is fucking America.

      Like, cowabunga, dude!

    9. Re:A century ago, Progressives by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. The Big Senate [thirty-thousand.org] no longer represents the people meaningfully.
      2. The Little House [usconstitution.net] no longer represents the 50 States United, or offers any thoughtful feedback to the Big Senate.

      Last I read the Constitution, the Senate represents the States, and the House represents the people.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re: A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... bullshit. Working towards the future yet the 'money' you earn devalues over time? Apply whatever formula to it you like. It's bullshit. Stop buying into it.

    11. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      "with basically no inflation"

      You are an utter fool if you believe that.

      There has been almost double digit inflation during this years long period of low employment. My $1.00 buys only $0.70 today than what it did only 3 years ago.

      It's the bulshit made up numbers that the Government releases that people listen to... "we have 7% unemployment!" if you don't count the unemployed that are not getting Unemployment insurance. Actual is near 20% unemployment. under Employment is higher than that, and then what I call the "bullshit employment" People that have skills but are working Mcdonalds,Walmart,etc instead of their skilled labor job the numbers hit near 40%
      The cost of living which is the real inflation, has steadily increased. Loaf of the cheapest crap white bread was $0.90 just 4 years ago. Today it is $1.19 That is so close to a 30% increase it's scary. Meat, etc... all up about the same amount. People that actually track their expenses will all see about a 30% increase in costs over the past 3-4 years. And a 0 to -10% change in their income.

      Some places can see an almost 50% increase in cost of living over that same time period.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a perfectly fine view to have as long as interest rates stay low forever. Do you believe that interest rates will stay low forever? If so, I'd like to introduce you to five years ago, when everyone thought that housing prices would go straight up forever, and fifteen years ago, when everyone thought that dotcom stocks would go straight up forever.

      Sooner or later, interest rates will rise. You do not want to have a large national debt when that happens. And the national debt is already very large.

      The other issue, that you are ignoring, is that the social security trust fund is packed full of off-the-books treasury bonds that will have to be paid back or refinanced (ie, moved onto the books) in the next 20 years. This will drive huge deficits in the '20s. Every dollar we borrow now is going to add more difficult in dealing with that problem later. Of course, ideally, we would deal with that problem now. But there are huge entrenched interests that will burn you to a crisp if you even mention "social security reform." They will literally run ads showing you pushing old people off a cliff. Yes, they did that. So unless most of our population gets a clue real quick, we are going to have to deal with social security later. And hopefully we won't have a 160% debt-to-GDP ratio when it happens.

    13. Re:A century ago, Progressives by huh69 · · Score: 2

      You saying that shows you don't understand how the Federal Reserve works. It is a central bank that uses bond purchases to increase or decrease the money supply as it deems necessary. You should look up "Quantitative Easing" as well. The Federal Reserve has been injecting money into the economy or buying toxic assets from commercial banks like crazy since the Great Recession in 2008.

      The only reason they can do this, with little effect on the economy right now, is that the US Dollar is still held in high regard as the World's reserve currency. I believe that whenever that changes, whether it be 5, 10, 20, or even 50 years from now will be when the US economy officially collapses. It's certain to happen at some point, the only unknown is when. I actually have come to believe that all of our involvement in the Middle East is to protect the US oil interests over there and making sure that the US Dollar is the currency other countries must use to purchase oil.

    14. Re:A century ago, Progressives by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

      Which means that in practice a decrease in spending makes the rich better and the average person worse off. That's fine if you believe the purpose of a society is to cater to the aristocracy, which many americans seem to. But of course such attempts to re-establish strict hierarchical power structures of feudalism are going to meet with pushback; pretty much the only reason they are possible at all is that many people are arrogant enough to think they'd be along the lords rather than the serfs.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:A century ago, Progressives by dwpro · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, trickle down doesn't seem to be working either, so what other ideas have you got?

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    16. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Courageous · · Score: 2

      > You should look up "Quantitative Easing" as well. The Federal Reserve has been injecting money into...

      That's not _exactly_ what has been happening. Forgetting the technical details on this for the moment, what's undeniably true is that there actually has not been any "demolishing of value" (inflation of any noteworthy significance at all) yet. If you believe that there will be, that's your prerogative, however I will note with some irony that this places you affirmatively into the bucket the OP is wondering about, and that is the climate of fear. Fear, this case, which is obviously yours.

    17. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      You're right in that it's not a closed system. Certainly there are outside factors which matter. Money comes in and out. But I think that the poster simply used the wrong word. A more accurate way to describe the system is IMO "zero-sum".

      Meaning that in general, there is a specific amount of US dollars that exist at any given point in time. An individuals wealth equates to what percentage of the dollars they have. Even with exchanges from other currency or precious materials, the exchange has to be actually have enough USD to do the exchange (they can't just create dollars given some pounds if they don't have enough dollars).

      The conclusion of that fact is that that system must be zero-sum. I actually find it very confusion when I speak to republicans who say the following two things:

      1. "that's income redistribution/class warfare! The government isn't hurting the job creators by giving to the poor!"
      2. "the economy isn't zero-sum, everyone who works hard can be wealthy."

      These two statements directly conflict with each other.

      If point 1 is true and is truly a problem. Then that means that the income redistribution is making the rich less wealthy in order to give the poor more wealth. In other words it's like looking at an unbalanced scale and moving some weight from one side to the other to make it closer to balanced. Don't get me wrong, I agree that this is bad for the government to do on large scales (help small groups doesn't hurt too much IMO).

      If point 2 is true, then there is "infinite slices to the pie" conceptually available, so the rich would not be hurt by making the poor more wealthy... which is obviously not true.

      Additionally, the fact that the government printing more money results in devaluing the dollar directly implies that there is a finite amount of dollars to be had, because it is changing the rarity (and therefore the value) of the dollar. Rarity means that it is limited in availability.

    18. Re:A century ago, Progressives by turgid · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "cowadunga.":-)

    19. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That's a very anti-free-market position, you know. I thought a conservative position was that someone who works and earns money now owns that money and, so long as he doesn't do violence to anyone, can spend it however he likes? The whole "We built it" mentality? One guy might work hard and earn money and send his kids to college. Another might work hard and donate to her church.

      Well, a Mexican fellow who works hard and earns money has just that same right as you do: to spend the fruits of his labor as he chooses. He owes you nothing, and you have no claim over what he does with his income, because he earned it fairly in trade for enriching someone else with his labor. If the answer's "support his family back in Mexico", then that's his right.

    20. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That's just wrong, though. The whole national cowardice thing -- being terrified of every bump in the night -- was alive and well in the Bush years (q.v. the TSA, etc.)

    21. Re:A century ago, Progressives by huh69 · · Score: 2

      I have to disagree with you. I don't have any unnecessary feelings of "fear", and yes it is exactly what has been happening. In fact, I'm quite the opposite, as I've questioned the fear mongering that has been going on for a long time. I really wish you people would look up how things actually work. Everything from petrodollar recycling, to quantitative easing, to the purchase and sales of bonds to adjust the money supply. It's all there. Another belief I have, and I don't have any proof of this, but neither does anyone else, but I think the real reason for the second Iraq war was to protect the US Dollar. It had nothing to do with WMD. Hussein had started to sell Iraq oil on the Euro, which was on the rise at the time as a currency (17% more value than the US Dollar, IIRC). The US went in and secured the Ministry of Oil and the oil fields and switched the countries oil sales back to the US Dollar immediately.

      Furthermore, you can't ignore the technical details for the purpose of making your argument, the truth of the matter is in the technical details. I don't think you understand inflation. My suspicion is that everything you know about how things work is incorrect.

    22. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      My problem isn't with any individual foreign worker supporting his family. My problem is with the whole sick system that first sent him to the US looking for work, then rewarded him for breaking a myriad of laws to do so.

      NAFTA was the real tool that broke Mexico's economy. Once Mexico's economy was ruined beyond repair, the Mexicans themselves became tools to be used to destroy the US economy.

      My point was, that the economy is not a closed system. It is quite easy to regulate a closed system, but impossible to regulate an open system which is taken advantage of by outsiders who are completely unregulated.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    23. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Our government USED to be a creator of new wealth through investment in capitalist times (Panama Canal) socialist times (Hoover Dam) and in mixed times (the Interstate Highway System). But in this era when the right is getting fairy tales written into school textbooks and the left relentlessly hates everything that scientists and engineers produce, that avalanche of printed stimulus money is no longer being invested in anything that will pay back its value with interest in the future. That 2008 stimulus could have been spent on something like a nationwide network of standardized, latest-tech nuclear plants that would have us cruising to carbon-free energy independence in electric cars and trains by now, but because Obama is not Franklin Roosevelt, nobody could summon the courage to tell the Luddite lobby to go piss up a rope.

    24. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now show me the road you built, to the market.
        Even the aristocrats needed a road to get to the market, they could not grow their foods, or hunt in the city, or rid themselfs of their trash.
      So how do you propose we do that, we create a business to do that, by? tax break, or sponsorship of the powerful. How do they get to be the powerful one? Lie, cheat, kill as they did in the past, by stealing the production of the masses? Show us a prime example of business leadership, of community that will work together for a cause? Religion? How many communities have died because of religion, environment? How many enviromentalists have turned to bullying as a way to do the right thing, just as bad as the political divisions, oh and politics, turns to evil very easily to rid themselfs of those who are "non-producers" be it artisians or those who disagree with your current theory or those who are of different social persuasions. Show us the better way? .....Mao's better way, Kill millions because the republican CIA refused to continue their sponsorship? The Roman, Greek, Carthaginians, Christian, all killed because they felt their society was failing, to convert, the people, needing an enemy to fight against.

    25. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My fear stems from the fact that we currently do not have a president, we have a community organizer in the office of president who basically defers nearly everything to congress. When you have such a weak/visionless president, it allows headless organizations (like the tea-party) to rise up because there is no counterpoint to listen to. It's really easy to run against the status quo, it's harder to provide a workable vision for the future. The person in the presidency now is a vision of the race-apologists, and they are the ones with the vision, not the occupant of the chair and their vision isn't very deep other than to get a person of color elected. Typical examples oprah winfry and colin powell their vision was achieved. Now what?

    26. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And all you need to do to beat inflation is to hold assets that aren't cash, such as stocks, bonds, a home, land, or commodities."

      Heh... i WISH my home had only lost 50% of its value.... perhaps i'd still own it.

    27. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BY that silly definition, every company is just a redistributor of income. Customers pay money, and that money is handed out to shareholders, employers and suppliers.

      The problem is obvious: Money is moved around to get the people that receive it to do something. If we don't distribute money to the military, guess what? they won't do their jobs. Jobs that you might want them to do.

      A government is to a citizen like a company is to a minority shareholder. A citizen has a slightly better chance of changing what the government does, but in exchange he can't easily switch to a different government.

    28. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you live? My food bill is about the same as it was a decade ago, my energy bill went up about 5% over 10 years, and gas was more expensive in 2008. ($4.50 a gal.) I paid $3.10 last week. My house is now worth about 30% more than I paid for it 20 years ago! (Yes, during he bubble it was worth more, but why sell? Any house I would have bought cost more then.)

      Oh, and the folks with college degrees only had about a 5% unemployment rate. Where do you make up these figures? Companies are hiring foreign technical staff because the local schools have watered down the curriculum. But our students can play football as they wait for unemployment checks.
      Just sayin...

    29. Re:A century ago, Progressives by nickmalthus · · Score: 1

      Figures don’t lie, but liars figure. Maybe for corporations who are riding stock market prices at their highest level ever inflation is nominal but the average American knows differently

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
    30. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are so ignorant of history I am astonished. Where on Earth did you come up with such a twisted version of the progressive movement of the early 20th century?

      That movement brought direct election of Senators and ended the backroom deals that set the agenda of half of congress, brought women the right to vote, gave us the 40 hour work week, and food safety regulation.

      Open a history book for God's sake.

    31. Re:A century ago, Progressives by awitod · · Score: 1

      That is nonsense. A service is a service regardless of the provider of the service. If what you say is true then infrastructure, research, and education paid for by the public are neutral. I'd like to see what would happen if the government quit building highways or maintaining other types of infrastructure.

    32. Re:A century ago, Progressives by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      All I can say is I've seen zero of those increases in my budget. And I'm buying pretty much the same shit I did three years ago. Partly that's because I got no car, so the gas price random BS doesn't affect me, but I still eat food.

      As for unemployment, I have to agree on that. When I got my Masters I didn't think I'd be grateful to get full-time in a retail job with a bunch of High School grads. That's why I really love the idea of economic stimulus. Get rid of a bunch of my fellow college-grads-in-shitty-jobs and I might be able to get an interview. And my HS-level co-workers would get a raise to to reduced supply of potential retail workers.

    33. Re:A century ago, Progressives by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You apparently totally missed my point. The OP was not about tax-financed jobs, he was talking about debt-financed jobs. And if you cut government debt by firing government employees you don't reduce anybody's current tax burden, the only immediate effects on the economy is that demand for employment goes down and the supply of unemployed people goes up. In other words everybody gets a pay cut.

      Bonds don't get paid off for decades, so in the long-term you could be right. OTOH after several decades of full employment I'd expect economic growth to be quite robust. If it it's above the deficit you never have to actually raise taxes to pay off the debt. If you fire a bunch of people to try to balance the budget in the short-term you end up in the Greece situation of decades of pure misery. If you try a couple years of really intense deficit spending, OTOH, only putting on the breaks when inflation gets high, you might get what you actually want without having to pay the price by jacking up the tax rate.

      As for the "overhead" snark, that really depends on the sector. No sanely-run state lets the defense sector take care of itself. States that have extreme control over healthcare tend to have much lower administrative costs, because instead of having dozens of doctors offices negotiate prices with dozens of insurance companies; which means all sides are paying out the ass for negotiators and again paying out the ass for a guy who knows that when Dr. Grbic does a hysterectomy he gets $100, but Dr. Jones crack negotiating team got $150. From both sides, because Dr. Grbic's office has to know to bill the insurers different amounts.

      One asshole in the provincial capital who decrees "Every one of you motherfuckers gets precisely $94.27 per historectomy, you will address the bills to 1 Fuckyou Ct, Toronto, On-fucking-tario, and if you fuck with the paperwork I'm calling the goddamn provincial police" saves a lot of overhead. Especially since the Toronto asshole probably only makes low six-figures ($150k is very high in the public sector, the Ontario equivalent of a Governor barely breaks $200k), whereas private-sector negotiating teams tend to involve MBAs who think $200k is entry-level and insist they need at least one entry-level assistant. There's a reason both US Medicare and Canadian Medicare (that's what they call their healthcare system, and they actually named it first), have lower administrative costs then the private sector.

      It gets even more efficient when you eliminate the individual Doctor's office as a business. Since there's no billing to be done, and the fuck-you guy can now tell Doctors they only get a base salary, which is in-line with other government base salaries; systems like the VA tend to have very low costs. The VA actually also has the top user satisfaction rating, despite the fact it cares for a fairly sick population.

    34. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with you. I don't have any unnecessary feelings of "fear", and yes it is exactly what has been happening. In fact, I'm quite the opposite, as I've questioned the fear mongering that has been going on for a long time. I really wish you people would look up how things actually work. Everything from petrodollar recycling, to quantitative easing, to the purchase and sales of bonds to adjust the money supply. It's all there. Another belief I have, and I don't have any proof of this, but neither does anyone else, but I think the real reason for the second Iraq war was to protect the US Dollar. It had nothing to do with WMD. Hussein had started to sell Iraq oil on the Euro, which was on the rise at the time as a currency (17% more value than the US Dollar, IIRC). The US went in and secured the Ministry of Oil and the oil fields and switched the countries oil sales back to the US Dollar immediately.

      Furthermore, you can't ignore the technical details for the purpose of making your argument, the truth of the matter is in the technical details. I don't think you understand inflation. My suspicion is that everything you know about how things work is incorrect.

      Your suspicion and gut instincts do not a rational argument make. Especially when you've already walled off 'you people' as ignorant. You're basically admitting that you accept your own argument prima facie, and are now searching for reasons to defend it, rather than questioning it to be sure it's sound. You should not then be surprised when 'you people' decide you aren't credible.
       

    35. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

      I just want to point out that not only does (at least some, e.g. NASA) government spending result in a net increase in GDP larger than the amount spent, but some government expenditures lead directly to profits.

    36. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

      This is a simplistic and hence inaccurate view. Government spending on things like large infrastructure projects can contribute to increasing the overall wealth of the nation. In this case, reduing spending can result in reducing the wealth of the nation.

      Furthermore, providing a safety net for people (welfare) can allow people to take more risks, so the population can be more mobile, more entrepreneurial, etc.. Such risk taking can result in new businesses and increased GDP.

      If you think otherwise, let me suggest that you move to Somalia. I expect tax rates are very low there.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    37. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Kasar · · Score: 1

      I wonder why the states wanted to bypass habeus corpus then. Their 93-7 approval of the NDAA, then a similar vote to renew it with the same powers left little question that they view due process and Constitutional protections as unnecessary luxuries. Renewal comes up again in the next month or two, and they seem just as anti-Constitution as ever.

      --
      vi? Who's that?
    38. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Kasar · · Score: 1

      That fear is the same one used by a myriad of politicians over centuries to justify authoritarian crackdowns. Even Rome had it's terrorists.

      --
      vi? Who's that?
    39. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's really odd, since the prices of groceries where I've lived hasn't changed remarkably in the past few years, outside of things that become trendy (mostly particular seafood, such as skate.) Maybe you're suffering from some local or regional issue.

    40. Re:A century ago, Progressives by felrom · · Score: 1

      But we're in the middle of a years-long employment slump, with basically no inflation, it's foolish to cut the deficit.

      No inflation by who's measure? The government refuses to count housing, energy, and food in their inflation numbers because "they're too volatile." Really the reason they don't count them is that those are the three things you use the most, and upon which there is the most demand in the market, and which have been subject to the highest inflation.

      Food inflation in just the last three years has been nuts. My wife and I cook all out meals at home, and we watch the price of our groceries very carefully. Since this time in 2010 the price of a can of vegetables has gone from ~$0.60 to ~$1.00. Meat has crept up similarly, packages have gotten smaller, and quality has gone down. It's done slowly so the average consumer wont notice and get angry.

      Saying that there is no inflation because the government's COLA numbers are nearly flat is to bury your head in the sand.

    41. Re:A century ago, Progressives by felrom · · Score: 1

      Did you read the amendments too? The senate stopped representing the states in 1913.

    42. Re:A century ago, Progressives by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      That's right. It was all peaches 'n cream before the wrong people got all uppity.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    43. Re:A century ago, Progressives by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      Under President Carter, inflation was high but the deficit was at one of it's lowest points in many decades. When Reagan came in, inflation went to nothing and the deficit sky-rocketed. If you suddenly got a bunch of credit cards for you household and maxed them out, you couldn't help but increase your standard of living...at least until the bills started coming due.

      But on some level, I agree with you. We have to get the Feds where they can't spend money that we don't have. Period.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    44. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you are telling me that the government which takes earnings by force is not going to be co opted by the rich ? I guess those bailouts of the large banks after they made bad decisions, was simply market forces and few in the US thought it was a total waste of resources.

    45. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The state that I live in has had republicans in power for most of the past thirty years

      Each one comes into office railing against the inefficiencies of government and with solutions to make it more efficient and business like

      The have outsourced government services, sold government buildings (and leased them back) and cut taxes to consume government cash reserves

      In each case it has been found to be a disaster

      The 'outsourced' mental health services proved to be very profitable for the businesses, but not so much for the mentally ill who had their government checks taken away from them (cashed and spent by the business) while they were released to the street without medication and turned into the wandering homeless. A federal judged eventually sued the state government for a billion dollars and they went back to a state run system, but not until after private business robbed us blind

      The sell off and re-lease government buildings plan once again lined the pockets of private companies while costing the tax payers more than they ever imagined. The state eventually had to buy the buildings back, but only after wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on privatization

      The last Dem governor that we had managed to save away hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves, only to have the local tea partiers waste it all on tax cuts to special interest groups once they were elected. This has left the state unable to pay for educational programs or for retiree's pensions

      All in all every move to privatization has been a disaster, the only reason that this state keeps falling for the same dumb tricks is a huge influx of aged retiree's that are suckers for tax cuts and the goper's consistent lies about loving god and country

    46. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Loaf of the cheapest crap white bread was $0.90 just 4 years ago. Today it is $1.19 That is so close to a 30% increase it's scary.

      That wasn't inflation. That was driven by the rising cost of diesel. It took a while to work through the system, but it eventually did. Those increased food prices are paying for Exxon's record profits, in a very straight line. Food and other products where transportation is a significant fraction of the total cost have very definitely gone up dramatically in price. Products that are not so dependent on transportation have not risen nearly as much.

      Wages are stagnant, unemployment and underemployment are indeed much higher than reported (the participation rate is a better measure than the unemployment rate), and food prices have risen because all energy prices have risen, but inflation isn't far off what government estimates it to be.

    47. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, the dollar just buys less as other things hold their (relative ) value?
      If you are not clear on this idea (it is consistent with all currencies), a gallon/liter of oil is the same as it was since the toxic goo was first released from the earth.
      That has remained constant. The amount of gold in a pound/KG of gold is still the same as it was since being poured into a bar.
      The amount of money it takes to purchase those materials has changed. The value of money changes, sometimes you can buy more than last year with the same number of notes, but usually it takes more money the next year. I feel that the change in value/purchasing power is a partial result of pro-growth policies, instead of sustainable policies. I'm no economist but I did do well in basic economics courses in university. My Professor always recommended for us to look at each and every curve as it relates to everything else to gain an understanding of its relevance to other things so a clearer value can be found, and its not always in dollars and sense ;-)

    48. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

      And by "taxpayers," you mean those who make at least 7 figures.

    49. Re:A century ago, Progressives by dryeo · · Score: 1

      . Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

      This is the mistake that Regressives always make. As if lowering taxes means more money in your pocket when the reality is that it is a reason to not give out raises and perhaps even wage cuts. As long as your take home pay hasn't dropped, why complain about your gross income dropping? Meanwhile fees for everything goes up and before you know it you're actually poorer with the tax cut then without it unless you're one of the ones at the top of the pyramid in which case lower taxes are great, you can cut wages and make more profit.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    50. Re: A century ago, Progressives by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      Go into Walmart and look at the cheapest computer. Now think about 1983 and how much money it would take then to duplicate that computer. It would take billions of dollars and a huge number of people to support it and yet one can get that computer for under $500. Automobiles in the 70's did not last much more than 100,000 miles, now one can expect them to last to 250,000 miles or more. No one would even look at cars back then that are being sold for close to $10,000 today. Driver less vehicles are going to change the world more than any other invention in the past. The future is going to be so different than today so that devaluation of the dollar will be the least of one's problems. So what do I think the biggest fear is going to be? It is the fear that science is going to destroy religion. In my opinion science has already proved that the bible is false. So all of our cherished beliefs are going to be proved false. The only way to hold on is to appose progress.

    51. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The raising cost of wheat is due to drought conditions in the United States.

    52. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      You're right in that it's not a closed system. Certainly there are outside factors which matter. Money comes in and out. But I think that the poster simply used the wrong word. A more accurate way to describe the system is IMO "zero-sum".

      Firstly, the idea that there is a fixed amount of US dollars isn't remotely true. Do I really need to explain this? Secondly, the issue is not how much currency that exists, but what happens to it: is it sitting in a bank acocunt somewhere, or being spent? If it is being spent, how quickly is it circulating (what is the velocity of money)?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    53. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      First let me clarify. When i say " there is a fixed amount of US dollars at any point in time", I am talking about the whole world economy. Sure I could take tons of Yuan (if I had it) and convert it to US dollars, but that's not adding to the economy, that's just shifting piles around.

      But in the end, yes, you do need to explain how there isn't a fixed amount of US dollars because you can look at the federal reserve and see a specific number in circulation.

      http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm

      which states: "There was approximately $1.22 trillion in circulation as of October 23, 2013, of which $1.17 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes."

      That plus, whatever I could convert from other currencies is the **effective amount of US dollars in the world** which is certainly, a specific, measurable, quantity.

      Sure the government can and regularly does print new money (about $500 million a day, but most of it is to replace old money) but when new money is added to the system, it is effectively slightly lowering the value of all other dollars.

      Think of it this way.

      Suppose tomorrow, I trip over a brick of gold which no one has ever seen before. This wasn't wealth "added" to the economy, that new brick actually caused every other bit of gold to lose value by some incredibly small amount. This is trivially true, and I'll show why. Let's take the example further. Let's say that I wave a magic wand and now "find" a few hundred thousand tons of gold instead. The value of gold would noticeably go down as I try to exchange it for goods, services, or money, because... gold would suddenly be less are.

    54. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      Additionally, let's say that you're right and there isn't a specific, finite amount. If that were the case, why couldn't the government in theory just print more dollars and give that to only the poor? It wouldn't hurt the rich since the rarity of the dollar hasn't changed.. after all there are infinite dollars available!

      They can't, because it would devalue the dollar and cause runaway inflation... because there IS a fixed amount of wealth to be had.

      Care to demonstrate in any way, that this is not the case?

    55. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...in practice a decrease in [gov't] spending makes the rich better and the average person worse off"

      God. Try to be "fair" with a progressive tax system, and you get stupid arguments like this. Remember, in the long term, taxes = gov't spending.

      I guess in your world, we should never decrease taxes. They can only increase, without end. What else would be "fair"?

    56. Re:A century ago, Progressives by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the rich are experts at wealth redistribution, right? They have lobbyists whose sole job it is to get them tax credits and tax exemptions. It's incredibly naive to think you can get rid of wealth redistribution. It's never going to happen. All you can do is try to make it more fair. I will also add that wealth redistribution isn't all bad. Without it, you would have A LOT more poor people on the streets and hovels across the country. I don't want that shit here and I'm ok with putting some money into the till to prevent it. Go look at some countries where there's no wealth redistribution to the poor and it makes for a pretty horrific scene. If you haven't even travelled, then you probably don't know what I'm talking about but it's a special little piece of hell wherever it exists.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    57. Re:A century ago, Progressives by huh69 · · Score: 2

      I think the difference between you and I is that at least I'm upfront with the uncertain nature of my argument. If you believe that the lack of certainty in my argument discredits it, I disagree. I openly admit that my beliefs on these matters aren't backed up by concrete facts, but no one else's is either. The "establishment" purposely makes this the case. We all get our news from the same places and make are own determinations from what information we have. I think any sensible person that looks at the news articles that come out regarding actions taken by the US Government or military and asks themselves who stands to benefit from them can draw their only reasonable conclusions.

      It's off-topic, but let me take an example from recent history to try and explain what my point is, the Boston marathon bombing. Some folks believe all that military armed law enforcement was justified. You know what I saw? A trial run at martial law to see how the public would react and how much resistance there would be. I live in Maine, and happened to get home early from work that day, so naturally, I had the TV on watching several different networks for coverage. Over and over, they displayed examples of hundreds... no exaggeration... hundreds of military armed police conducting dragnet-style searches in neighborhood after neighborhood in the Boston area. The city was on full lockdown. Have you ever seen that for a 2-person manhunt? I've not. There is video footage of police entering peoples homes. There is other footage of people who refused police entry. Heh, side note, there is evidence showing CNN using crisis actors. Ask yourself why they'd need to do such a thing. There is obviously an agenda there, even if it's something as stupid as a ratings grab... but I digress.

      The level of paranoia and fear mongering is amazing. I think the Federal government is intentionally doing this because I think the more afraid you make people, the more accepting they are of Government control in the interest of "protecting people". Consider how out-of-control political correctness is. Once upon a time, the "accepted" idea was that in the US, we tolerated our differences. Nowadays, the "accepted" idea is that we offend no one. These are control tactics, in my opinion. Ask yourself where you believe it will stop.

      I'm not attempting to start an argument with anyone. All I ask is for "people" (in general) to consider that it's even remotely possible that there is a grand plan for all of this. Throughout human history there is a mountain of evidence showing people with power over other people want more of it. The people living in the US have been fortunate to have this grand experiment of the population having some amount personal liberty. It's not the only place for it, but there have not been many. I'm merely stating that there are people that want to take that away. Call them liberals, call them democrats, can call them whatever you want, the premise is the same.

      One thing I am certain of... is that fear is a popular method used to control people.

    58. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      But in the end, yes, you do need to explain how there isn't a fixed amount of US dollars because you can look at the federal reserve and see a specific number in circulation.

      http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm [federalreserve.gov]

      Hah, ha. Yes, there is a fixed amount at any given time in the sense that when driving down the highway at 60mph, I am at a fixed point at any given time. It's just that at the next point in time, the fixed point (amount) has changed.

      Sure the government can and regularly does print new money (about $500 million a day, but most of it is to replace old money) but when new money is added to the system, it is effectively slightly lowering the value of all other dollars.

      So you agree with me that the amount of money in circulation is changing all the time.

      Suppose tomorrow, I trip over a brick of gold which no one has ever seen before. This wasn't wealth "added" to the economy, that new brick actually caused every other bit of gold to lose value by some incredibly small amount.

      Here you are trivially substituting gold for money, which works because the intrinsic value of gold is less than people will pay for it because of its use as a medium of exchange. But your argument is flawed because it assumes that the value of GDP never changes. If GDP increases, money can be printed without the purchasing power of a single dollar dropping an amount equivalent to the fractional growth of dollars. Essentially, your argument is circular.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    59. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      They can't, because it would devalue the dollar and cause runaway inflation... because there IS a fixed amount of wealth to be had.

      Excessive money printing will cause problems, yes.

      because there IS a fixed amount of wealth to be had.

      So, if someoe constructs a bridge or a builds a factory, the total wealth hasn't changed? According to your economic theory, the total wealth today is the same as when? The founding of the Union?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    60. Re:A century ago, Progressives by ahabswhale · · Score: 2

      You don't really know what you're talking about. You cannot determine inflation by looking at a single product (like a loaf of bread). It's based on a wide range of things and weighted based on it's relative impact to your pocket book. What's important isn't necessarily the number but the consistency in how it's computed. The government hasn't changed the inflation computation at all in about a dozen years. The most significant changes were made back in '83. If you used the methods they used prior to '83, the number would be much higher but it was also considered pretty wildly inaccurate and overstated the real impact on consumers. You could make an argument that they overcorrected for the problem but you can't just say it's all a bunch of bullshit. It's not an exact science. All they can do is make a close approximation and no matter what formula they use, there will be some people out there that aren't happy about it.

      As for price anecdotes, my rent has gone up only 7% in thirteen years. That's pretty damn low inflation and the cost of housing is weighted highly in the inflation computation.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    61. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we have 7% unemployment!" if you don't count the unemployed that are not getting Unemployment insurance.

      A more interesting number are the number of people claiming or asking for food stamps. That number is closer to 14%-15% of the population. That is a better indicator of # of unemployed/underemployed.

      http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Yearly.jpg

      It does appear to be slowing/trending downwards. http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Added.jpg

      But it will take awhile. Most of what we are seeing is trade barriers removed from china and the US. That giant sucking sound is all of our jobs going to someone who you can pay 30 cents an hour and work them 14 hours a day 6 days a week. It is also why the huge housing ponzi scheme upside downed itself and made the issue even worse.

      A more troubling # is the number in prison. 1 in 100. We have people serving life sentences at this point for stealing a pack of cigs. Because they broke 3 strikes. That is nearly 49 million people who can not or are not able to work. Plus the # of people who are still 'ok' with savings and on unemployment and do not get food stamps yet.

      ACA has not fully kicked in yet. That will be another drain on the economy. We end up with 10x-15x the cost of healthcare vs other countries. And people on the low end/border line having to pick up an extra job to pay for it because some employers have a sticker shock when they go over a magic # of employees.

      The only saving grace here oil prices are heading down which should help ease off the real inflation. Or as my macro/micro teachers put it 'that rubbish number the fed makes up to make it look like they are doing a good job.' That quote was from the early 90s...

    62. Re:A century ago, Progressives by HiThere · · Score: 2

      When the cost of a resource increases, and the pay doesn't increase in about proportion, that's inflation. If the cost of a resource decreases, that's deflation. If the cost remains the same, but the quality improves....well, that's something else, and I don't know what to call it. (But the computer industry has been moving that into LOTS of hi-tech gadgets. This rarely decreases the price, and occasionally increases the price. But it often increases the quality. Mobile phones are the current leading edge here.

      This clearly shows that the terms inflaction and deflation are inappropriate to apply to an entire market. Some things go up, some go down, others just change. The price of white bread is an area where one might fairly use the term "inflation". (I haven't tracked what it's price is doing, as I try to avoid it.) Food, however, is probably too wide an area. All "commodity basket" measures of inflation are jiggered to produce some answer. They do this by the measures they choose to include, and those they choose to exclude. Also by what weights they assign to each item. Most of these "basket measures of inflation" are reasonably accurate for some group of people. If one never eats white bread, then the price of that isn't significant, but perhaps the price of beans is (or perhaps only a few varieties of beans). Do you count the price of a car? New or used? What model? Each choice is valid for some group of people, and not for others.

      My most common measure of inflation is based around the cost of a good paperback technical book. This was a fairly good measure for a long time, rising with the price of gase. I'm not sure it's a good measure any more though, as many of those books are now only available as e-books. I may need to break down and get an e-book reader, though they are much less convenient for my life-style. Also a LOT more expensive. So, for me, that's a 200% or so bump of inflation right there...if I decide to do it. (Part of the inflation is because the e-book is less useful. Part because it's less permanent. Part because the actual price is higher. Add in a few other factors and some uncertainties and I get an estimated rate of inflation at 200-500%. That's unlikely to be an overestimate, but may well be an underestimate. My first experiment with an e-book reader showed me that I realy hate using them. Also they don't do well at rendering graphics that weren't specifically intended to go on a e-book. [I'm not sure if they handle graphics well that WERE designed to go on an e-book.])

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    63. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a bombing and the response and see people desperately trying to catch a mass murderer. You see a bombing and see a trial run at martial law.

      The level of paranoia and fear mongering is amazing. I think the Federal government is intentionally doing this because I think the more afraid you make people

      The irony is palpable.

    64. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Meaning that in general, there is a specific amount of US dollars that exist at any given point in time.

      The valuation of the USD is based on there being just over 8billion in circulation. Unfortunately, there is well over 3 trillion now in circulation. Few people have caught on since (under Bush1) there has been some serious fudging of numbers by the Fed. They started with just not publishing numbers every month and it escalated...Under Obama the manipulations of the GDP calcs and the debt calcs are a joke.

    65. Re:A century ago, Progressives by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Collecting taxes to direct an economy is obviously less efficient than letting the economy spend its own earnings.

      Obviously?

      It axiomatic to certain dominant schools of economic/financial thought and therefore beyond question to those subscribing. You are unlikely to change these entrenched belief systems by force of reason.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    66. Re:A century ago, Progressives by quax · · Score: 1

      Your language betrays that you are still fully caught up in the bipartisan world-view, which is nothing but a chimera to keep the peasants quarreling amongst themselves.

    67. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      You ask an interesting question about the bridge/factory.

      I would say that no the total wealth hasn't changed at that point in time because the bridge/factory took investment. That investment may or may not have value. Even after the investment is recouped, they can only produce as much wealth as others are willing to spend on what it provides.

      If I build a factory which makes a crappy product that nobody is willing to buy, my wealth has done down. If that same factory makes a wonderful product that is popular, my wealth goes up... but the buyer's net worth goes down slightly.

      For example, when I buy an XBOX from Microsoft. Microsoft has clearly gained some wealth. (let's assume they are profitable in straight sales for simplicity's sake), but my net worth has gone down a little bit. I can't resell that same XBOX for a profit (on average, I'm sure there are fools out there). MS marginally went up, I marginally went down.

      Your question about the total wealth I think is a good one as well. And I suppose it would depend on one's perspective. So let me define mine. I consider wealth to be a measurement of what percentage of the economy you own. The economy can grow/shrink, but the there is only 100% available to have. Your perspective may differ, I'm fine with that, it just means we disagree.

      I think that a more important economic measurement is the **utility** of ones money. Certainly the utility of money has increased over time, because many things have become so cheap there is pretty much no economic barrier to acquisition (for example, I've seen homeless people with cell phones). This to me is not a sign of an increase in wealth, but instead an increase in standards of living.

      In the end, there will always be "have nots", I honestly think that inequality is required for an economy to thrive. People need to have goals to shoot for, things that seem **just** out of reach that they can work for. That's OK. What we can do though is do things to raise the floor so the have nots don't live in unlivable conditions.

    68. Re:A century ago, Progressives by xyzzymage · · Score: 1

      the left relentlessly hates everything that scientists and engineers produce

      Conservatives are the ones against stem-cell research/therapy, the theory of evolution, government investment into researching/developing 'green' energy sources, theory of human-induced global warming, government investment in medical research & public university medical schools, and a lot of other stuff Ican't recall off the top of my head.

      It's also typically conservatives & libertarians that feel that the government shouldn't spend money on oldschool "public works"economic stimulus programs like you mentioned (which are typically left-wing methods of handling a serious recession/depression). They push to instead have deep tax cuts for corporations & highly rich individuals in hope they'll create jobs, and otherwise to strangle government spending -- a massive part of the current fight over the national debt.

      IMHO we'd be best off if the government had (or would)invest stimulus-style funds into a massive public-works project to bring fiber broadband to households around America (just as they did with POTS), then let any ISP sell access as a free market to keep prices low. That alone could catapult us into an "Internet 2.0" (rather than merely "Web 2.0") economic boom.

    69. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      But of course such attempts to re-establish strict hierarchical power structures of feudalism are going to meet with pushback; pretty much the only reason they are possible at all is that many people are arrogant enough to think they'd be along the lords rather than the serfs.

      Make the serfs feel like they're kings and you can get them to vote against their best interest without hardly lifting a finger.

      --
      ~X~
    70. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I would say that no the total wealth hasn't changed at that point in time because the bridge/factory took investment

      I think that you have misunderstood the concept of investment. The whole purpose is to spend money on something that becomes more valuable than the money spent. Hence creating an increase in overall wealth. It's value may be based on its future capacity to produce products and not just the value of the machines, land and buildings.

      So let me define mine. I consider wealth to be a measurement of what percentage of the economy you own.

      Tha'ts a measure of relative personal wealth. But that's not very useful because we were talking about total wealth in the economy.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    71. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the problem with cutting government spending is that it involves firing people, which reduces salaries for everyone by increasing the supply of available labor while reducing the demand for said labor."

      . This assumes that we rely, on a national level, on government employement as a major and necessary booster of economic activity. This isn't fucking Cuba, where half the citizens work for the fucking Dicktator in chief.

      Also, I will cease thinking progressives are ignorant and naive if you stop equating gun ownership and 2nd amendment lover with sister-fucking racist redneck dipshit. I love science. I love to read. I hate war that has material gain as the overriding goal. I am beyond atheist because I ignore the existence argument of god. I don't care if there is or isn't one. I ignore it regardless. Any god that allows things like the holocaust and child rape to occur can go fuck itself and does not deserve my fealty. If no god exists, then I am certainly not worshiping empty space.

      Honestly, the only thing about me that is "conservative" or "right wing" is my strong 2nd amendment support. On everything else I'm basically a fucking liberal. Wow. Never said that before. You heard it here first!

    72. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pav · · Score: 1

      I see a bombing and the response and see people desperately trying to catch a mass murderer. You see a bombing and see a trial run at martial law.

      It's both of course... you just have one eye closed.

      The level of paranoia and fear mongering is amazing. I think the Federal government is intentionally doing this because I think the more afraid you make people

      The irony is palpable.

      Yes, but he's not the one who's missing it.

    73. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      I think that you have misunderstood the concept of investment. The whole purpose is to spend money on something that becomes more valuable than the money spent. Hence creating an increase in overall wealth. It's value may be based on its future capacity to produce products and not just the value of the machines, land and buildings.

      That's the purpose, but it isn't guaranteed to be successful. There is no guaranteed that you will get more out of the investment that you put in. And I would also assert that you are only capable of making out of the investment what others are willing to put in. I could make a bridge and charge a toll. But if no one drives on it, I've lost wealth.

      That's a measure of relative personal wealth. But that's not very useful because we were talking about total wealth in the economy.

      Perhaps you are right about that, honestly, I'm not sure I really see the value of measuring the wealth of a whole economy unless we are discussing how one country can exert economic pressures on another, which is often based just as much in politics as it is in actual wealth. And as a result much more complex.

      In the end, my assertion is simply put. For one to become more wealthy, that wealth has to come from somewhere, typically the consumer. While it is not proof in itself, I cannot think of a single scenario that violates that concept.

    74. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pretty much the only reason they are possible at all is that many people are arrogant enough to think they'd be along the lords rather than the serfs."

      This is as insightful as perhaps anything I've read on this site in the last 5 years.

      This illustrates nicely the biggest source of brainwashing of the American people. No one fantasizes about being the fucked-over wage slave, and that's what most of us are.

    75. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anytime you want to compare to the Democratic Dictatorship of California, I'm sure we've got more stories than you. Hell, there's 800 illegals a day in Chula Vista getting signed up for illegal welfare benefits. We bus the drug cartel's children from the border to the best public schools in the state, daily. Seriously, fuck you.

    76. Re: A century ago, Progressives by oztiks · · Score: 1

      As for Science destroying Religion. I buy that as being an issue but I see the same problems that Religion has simply to be traversed over to Science. Not be abolished by Science.

      Consider the Big Bang as the Atheists' version of Genesis. Consider the way many scholars have begun to explain the Bible to the general public such as Reza Aslan. Look at TV shows such as "Spartacus" and the way their language is contrived in the show. And classically look at Shakespeare's plays in Elizabethan.

      Scientists which take the standpoint that the Bible has been disproved is an undereducated view. The growth / evolution of the human psyche has simply evolved and Science has paved the way in the last couple of hundred years or so, by changing our methods of story telling and explaining situations.

      We have grown as a collective and created language mechanisms that allow us to explain the very definition of a story or situation directly.

      E.G "Joe is a good guy he is very kind and likes to help the homeless". The old school way of telling the story would be "Joe is so kind he gave his own shirt to a homeless person".

      Whether Joe actually did give his shirt to a homeless person is not at all relevant. But the story transmutes Joe's character. The entire bible is built based on this comparative process. It is not false. It wasn't created by a bunch of nutters back in the "day" so-to-speak. No, it was created by the people of that time to tell stories in the way they knew how to.

      The Big Bang is the direct version. Genesis the medieval version which is example driven using the examples of that time to define its very meaning. In any case, Reza Aslan explains it quite well in one of his interviews.

    77. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The whole purpose is to spend money on something that becomes more valuable than the money spent. Hence creating an increase in overall wealth.

      That's the purpose, but it isn't guaranteed to be successful.

      Agreed. There is risk involved. But overall for a growing economy, the average investment returns more than was put in.

      In the end, my assertion is simply put. For one to become more wealthy, that wealth has to come from somewhere, typically the consumer.

      Only using your rather odd measure of wealth -- which is really individual relative wealth. In real economics, the average weath of individuals has increased and the total wealth in the economy has increased over time (but not monotonically). Simply put, increasing total wealth means that for one person to be more wealthy does not require others to be poorer. Many years ago the site manager at the company where I worked put it quite succinctly: the purpose of companies is the creation and distribution of wealth.

      Increasing wealth disparity means that the typical person is becoming relatively less wealthy.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    78. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apples and oranges alert! You seem to confuse real price rises with inflation.

      Cost of food has increased worldwide and is not down to 'devalued' dollar. Actual reason is that there is more and more people and that asia is raising from poverty, so inevitably, resources are getting tighter. Same for other expenses - primarily because of ballooning cost of energy (asia purchase power again playing part) which impacts everything.

      Now, while you point out stagnant or reduced income, what you don't consider is what's up with corporate profits through all that. Embarrassingly for promulgators of "trickle down" fallacy, profits are up. And while most Americans dislike their government because it represents power and taxes, the real power, and the real rip-off, is at the hands of corporations.

      Yet, you are convinced enough to sell their agenda and talk of Government selling bullshit numbers, while you are fed misinformation and distrust towards you own elected government by, oh wait, big (media) corporations.

    79. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      If you followed the links, I'm showing that the original intent you cite has been subsequently corrupted. If you think the Senators are representing the people ahead of their parties and the oligarchs, I submit that you may have been inattentive.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    80. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      In fact, I kinda linked the 17th Amendment there.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    81. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I used the term Progressive specifically to avoid the false Demmican/Republocrat dichotomy. What is your criticism, then?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    82. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      In terms of the national debt and representative value of our government, you're quite correct.
      Which is not the same as saying things are better/worse now. My argument is that concentrating the evil within the Beltway is worth reconsidering.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    83. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      Many years ago the site manager at the company where I worked put it quite succinctly: the purpose of companies is the creation and distribution of wealth.

      I guess what it boils down it, is that I simply don't agree with that. I would instead say that companies create value, which can become wealth if (and only if) consumers choose to exchange their wealth for the value in the companies product. In essence, I believe that something is only as valuable as what you can sell it for (or barter it for, certainly the economy isn't just cash).

    84. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I guess what it boils down it, is that I simply don't agree with that. I would instead say that companies create value, which can become wealth if (and only if) consumers choose to exchange their wealth for the value in the companies product.

      So, if one single investment might not be profitable, no investment can ever be profitable?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    85. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah, blah, blah....(a bunch of "grand plan" conspiracy nonsense snipped)....

      Hi, Glenn Beck!

    86. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > My food bill is about the same as it was a decade ago, my energy bill went up about 5% over 10 years

      No, it isn't. The commodity prices have gone up 30%. There is no combination of circumstances that would result in 5% increase when health AND commodities have increased by over 30%. Lying isn't convincing anyone.

    87. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NAFTA was the real tool that broke Mexico's economy. Once Mexico's economy was ruined beyond repair, the Mexicans themselves became tools to be used to destroy the US economy.

      Mexico's economy was in shambles long before NAFTA was ever even contemplated. Also, what makes you think that Mexicans are the "tools used to destroy the US economy"? Can you actually back this assertion up--whatever it might mean--with rigorous economic studies? I am genuinely curious, albeit sceptical.

    88. Re:A century ago, Progressives by quax · · Score: 1

      It's not about the labels but the left/right dichotomy. It is BS.

    89. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, vice-versa, government spending on largely useless boondoggles can contribute to decreasing the overall wealth of the nation. Why yes, I am looking at the TSA, the F35, the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier...

      AC

    90. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      No, that's not what I said. I am saying that the profits come from somewhere, specifically consumers. They aren't just "magic'ed" into existence. I have yet to see any examples that truly violate that concept.

    91. Re:A century ago, Progressives by unitron · · Score: 1

      It is closed, in that in order to have any value to anyone, those U.S. dollars that leave the country eventually have to come back, or at least everyone everywhere has to believe that they can do so and be honored just as much as if they had never left, so while it may be an infinite and eternal closed loop, it's still closed.

      Those remittances to Mexico are worthless unless they can ultimately be exchanged for goods and services.

      It's not like alchemy, where changing lead into gold results in there being less lead in the universe and more gold.

      If you exchange dollars for the Elbonian national currency, you now have that and someone else now has the dollars, and the total number of either in the world has not been changed by the exchange.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    92. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the main part of investing, the borrowing money to do it.

      That money is created out of nothing, the bank doesn't have a $100M, lend you $1M for your business and have $99M left.

      The bank can lend way way more than the total of its assets, and as long as enough people/businesses succeed its ok.

      Thats extra money/extra wealth in the economy.

    93. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the amendments too? The senate stopped representing the states in 1913.

      Willful ignorance of history. First, because the states became greatly reduced in importance after the Civil War, not the 17th Amendment. Secondly, because of the incredible corruption surrounding the state selection of Senators. That is why we have the 17th, so monied interests aren't buying seats.

      Then, there's the outright dumbfuckery in this talking point. The Senators from Alabama, or Vermont, still represent the states of Alabama, or Vermont, or what have you. Selected by the voters, not aliens from Venus.

    94. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the cost of a resource increases, and the pay doesn't increase in about proportion, that's inflation.

      No, actually, that's not inflation. That's just redistribution of wealth from labor to capital. Inflation means that salaries rise too.

    95. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      The original intent was to have the government composed of a white, male, Protestant, landowning aristocracy "of merit" (ie: they did manage to own land, they must be competent rulers!).

      Fuck the original intent, we should do something that's actually good!

    96. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 0

      How blindingly racist of you. But I suppose, intellectually, your approach is simpler than confessing that 100 years of Progress shall have achieved the unwinding of the Civil War, affording us velvet entitlement handcuffs that are far more stylish than the metal affairs of chattel slavery.
      Thanks, Progress!

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    97. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Collectivist/Individualist? Rousseau/Locke? What?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    98. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Are you living in another universe? You said precisely nothing that applies to the world I live in.

      100 years of Progress shall have achieved the unwinding of the Civil War, affording us velvet entitlement handcuffs that are far more stylish than the metal affairs of chattel slavery.

      What does this even mean?

    99. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a bombing and the response and see people desperately trying to catch a mass murderer. You see a bombing and see a trial run at martial law.

      It's both of course... you just have one eye closed.

      No, no it's not.

      The institutions you are so wary of cannot be hyper-competent and incompetent at the same time.

      Furthermore, to assert that there's some sort of authoritarian grand plan at work, admit that there's zero evidence to support that assertion, then continue to accept it as truth? That's a form of mental illness.

    100. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely put. You need to go look up the "Two Santa Claus Theory". It was coined by a conservative strategist a while back, and it was intended to address a problemt that conservatives found themselves facing: liberals and progressives adopted things like the GI Bill, Social Security, Medicare, workplace protections, consumer protection laws, etc. and those things are actaully pretty popular outside of the Fox News crowd even today, but they were wildly popular back then. They didn't get everything they wanted, or we'd have a national healthcare system right now, just like we gave to Germany and Japan because the executive couldn't impose that on the country, but they could and did impose it on conquered nations after WWII (a war won by "liberals" in a much shorter time than all the conservative screwups that followed it, btw, and one in which war profiteering on the part of large corporations was criminal and prosecuted).

      Those things coincided with the greatest propserity of the middle class this country has ever known, which to me is one reason Republicans oppose them so much. They don't want a powerful middle class because a powerful middle class has a habit of wanting to change things to suit how they'd like things to be. We all know that only the rich should be able to do that, right?

      So here's the problem: people actually like a lot of progressive policies, and they don't like a lot of (allegedly) conservative ones. So how to get elected? I mean, corporate owned electronic voting machines hadn't been invented yet, right? So they came up with the idea that they should get to be Santa Claus twice: people like a good economy, but nobody likes wastefulness especially. So what they do is when conservatives are in power they spend money like drunken sailors at a strip club on anything and everything, even "entitlement" programs that they hate to some degree, but especially of course to their buddies in the defense industry. This, despite their rhetoric, boosts the economy, puts money in peoples' pockets, and makes them look like Santa Claus. Go see pretty much Reagan's entire presidency to watch this in action, but it also happened when W was in office. It's not an accident that he took a surplus that Clinton handed him and turned it into deficits that would make Reagan blush.

      The thing is, that kind of stuff runs up debt and people naturally don't like debt. So then when Democrats get in office they scream about the deficit, about cutting government, about cutting everything. You never hear such small government talk as when conservatives are not in power. So they try to be Santa Claus then too by "getting government off the backs of the people", which is kind of laughable because when was the last time a conservative repealed something that actually affects you? They're quite good at getting government off the backs of the rich by getting rid of rules that keep them from polluting, stealing wages, shipping jobs overseas, etc., but somehow they never get around to this personal freedom stuff they always talk about. Now when Obama leaves office, if he's replaced by a Republican, all of the sudden the debt "crisis" won't be mentioned any more, but what will be mentioned is how Obama "weakend our national defense" and how we need to "make America strong again" and they'll go run up even more debt building even more useless weapons systems. It's what they do. It's what they've done for the last 40 years. For a good lot of those years, the Democrats played into it, like Clinton cutting welfare and the number of government employees (which went UP under W, a fact never mentioned anywhere it seems). Obama mostly hasn't fallen for it, and of course they really, really hate him for that even though many of his policies are pretty much exactly in line with their own, which is why Obama isn't all that popular among thinking liberals and progressives either. It's a start though.

      That, boys and girls, is lesson one on how you get people to vote against their own economic interests.

    101. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safety nets that provide for better risk taking is exactly what conservatives DON'T want despite their mindless adherence to the "free market". Consider this:

      If we have national healthcare in the US, then I'm no longer literally risking my life if I want to start a business. Lots and lots of people are in corporate jobs they absolutely loathe because of healthcare "benefits". Small businesses employ people. Three independently owned shops need accountants, staff, management, etc. Three corporate shops get "economies of scale" (read that as "less people employed"). With small businesses the profits stay in the community where they're generated. With corporations they're electronically sucked off to whatever tax haven the corporate lobbyists have bribed their way into this year.

      Small businesses generally can't individually influence the government on any scale. Large corporations can.

      With lots of small businesses, there are lots of choices as to where one can work. Without benefits being tied to your job, you have more freedom to change jobs. People might even (gasp!) choose to work a couple of part time jobs rather than a full time one. It would be economically smart because then you're not risking your entire income stream because of losing a job. People get forced into that same thing now, but that's from a situation of competitive disadvantage and it's not really the same despite appearances. Remove benefits from jobs, remove the distinction between "part time" and "full time" and people would benefit greatly. The reason that would work is simple economics that conservatives roundly ignore constantly: things like health care are not things you can choose to ignore like I can choose to not buy a new computer this year if I can't afford one. Health care doesn't follow the most basic law of a free market: that nobody is coerced to buy or sell. By including that in labor you distort the market in the favor of large employers who can get the best talent cheaper because they can get deals on health care. Remove that and you remove an awful lot of corporate power from the workforce, and conservatives fear that like there's no tomorrow. They'll just never admit it because they're cowards and they know that if their contempt for working people ever becomes known they'll never win another election for a century.

      Conservative leadership pays lip service to small business, but their policies are about doing everything they can to limit them and to limit peoples' practical ability to start up their own companies. Their policies only work by pitting worker against worker and small business against big business. They always need an enemy, and if they don't have one, they'll make one.

    102. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      halves the value of money in over 20 years, which is neither unusual nor particularly harmful

      It is if your salary never increases, or increases at a rate less than doubling every 20 years. You may not have this problem, but in the real world, many people do.

      all you need to do to beat inflation is to hold assets that aren't cash, such as stocks, bonds, a home, land, or commodities

      Again, you may be able to afford to do this, but in the real world, many people can't. And FYI, bonds do not belong in that list (bonds respond negatively to inflation, and positively to deflation), nor does "home" (it is the land that will protect you against inflation, not the building itself which is a depreciating asset).

    103. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's no money created out of nothing at all. You have to pay it all back (with interest), and that money you use to pay it back comes from your businesses revenue (consumers). So no, that isn't just created out of nothing.

    104. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also they don't do well at rendering graphics that weren't specifically intended to go on a e-book. [I'm not sure if they handle graphics well that WERE designed to go on an e-book.]"

      I think this is because the concept of e-readers is flawed. Ee-readers as they exist today are really meant for text-only material, so you can easily increase or decrease the type size as you require. This does not work for documents with photos or illustrations. To my way of thinking, for documents with those features, what you really need is a PDF-viewer device, which of course will have to be close to the size of a letter-sized sheet of paper, for most technical manuals.

    105. Re:A century ago, Progressives by quax · · Score: 1

      The labels are meaningless, probably most self-identified progressives would also identify as individualists. The fact that you keep grasping for them shows me how deeply ingrained this idea of a one dimensional political spectrum seems to be.

      It effectively prevents Americans from coming together to champion common causes that cut across this divide e.g. fighting the ever increasing surveillance, the pointless war on drugs, overseas military adventures that have no benefits to the average American, and a financial industry that has become a drag rather than an enabler for the productive economic sectors.

    106. Re:A century ago, Progressives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

      That's not true, any more than any service business is only a redistributor.

      If all accountant firms closed, and you had to do it yourself, the GDP drops because such paid for services count towards it, but they don't make or consume any materials (except maybe a few pencils and some paper), so they only redistribute income from buyers of the service to workers and owners of the company. Thus, any service organization is a leech on the economy, despite having its numbers counted towards "productivity".

      Like all libertarians, when you apply the same rules to the private sector you want to apply to the government, the private sector doesn't look any better.

    107. Re:A century ago, Progressives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are right (and wrong). It is a closed system for any given moment, but an open system over longer periods. So yes, it is actually both. Sometimes simultaneously. When you buy something in a store, it's a single closed-system transaction. 100,000,000 of those don't change the fundamentals. But the government (and banks) can increase (or decrease) the money supply. Over time.

    108. Re:A century ago, Progressives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Welfare can also be a cost saver. Why do the media continue to portray prisons as places to go to get raped and beaten on a regular basis, and that's just by the guards. I'll give you a hint, it's because the prison system is unsustainable. The welfare wage provides for a life roughly equivalent to prison. So a person on welfare is better to turn to crime. If they succeed, they make money. If they fail, they end up no worse than before. So you have to make prison look significantly worse than they should be to deter their use as poorhouses. Increase welfare and you lose that incentive. That'll help keep prisons empty. And isn't that a good thing?

    109. Re:A century ago, Progressives by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's a shame there isn't a metric to value "expected wages" from education and such, and compare that to income. Then average up the difference for all people, and you get the "under-employment losses" The amount lost because there aren't productive jobs for the people with degrees. Though that only works if we have an AMA style guild for all education outputs. The AMA artificially restricts doctor training to keep the numbers low to keep costs high. The same would need to be done, or the 1,000,000 unemployed literature graduates would be fighting for the 10,000 jobs, and the 99% unemployment may get blamed on the economy, when it's really poor planning by 990,000 people (or poor planning by 1,000,000 people of which 10,000 are simply lucky).

    110. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Courageous · · Score: 1

      The "technical details" that I was ignoring were not in your favor. Which is to say, and to wit: the Federal Reserve has not been "injecting money," they have been replacing a certain type of reserve holding with another. While it's true that this sort of holding carries a potential inflationary risk, two observations apply: 1) There affirmatively has been no noteworthy inflation, and 2) should the risk begin to realize itself, the Fed is not without instruments to reign said inflation in. It's a long conversation. As for saying that I should "look up how things actually work," you could stand to benefit considerably from this yourself.

    111. Re:A century ago, Progressives by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Dude, This is fucking America. We have never, ever all agreed on anything. ... OTOH the problem with cutting government spending is that it involves firing people, which reduces salaries for everyone by increasing the supply of available labor while reducing the demand for said labor...

      Um... Not everyone works for the government!
      (Even though some wish that were true, so they could control it all !)
      Government takes a cut off of the top, so money in the private sector makes more jobs. And no, the "rich" don't take more than the government.
      Also, the printing of the dollar bills does not mean the government owns all of the money. The economy is based on the laws of thermodynamics, and that is not subject to human laws.

    112. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      OK, I deem you one who argues in bad faith.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    113. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Entitlements==slavery. Granted, the propaganda puts a far better face on entitlements than the 20th century variety.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    114. Re:A century ago, Progressives by quax · · Score: 1

      Whatever. No idea what brought this on, but you are apparently stuck in your world view.

    115. Re:A century ago, Progressives by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Even on useless boondoggles the money gets spent in the economy. It's not like they take the money, pile it up and burn it. You still pay for the material and labor to build them. Everyone involved gets payed and then has the opportunity to spend in the economy. Maybe the money could have been spent better but it was still spent.

    116. Re:A century ago, Progressives by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I've had enough experience of postmodernists of late.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    117. Re:A century ago, Progressives by quax · · Score: 1

      Boy, you sure like your labels. So I am a postmodernist now? Well, I guess there's a first for everything. I've been called worse :-)

    118. Re:A century ago, Progressives by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      1. The Big Senate [thirty-thousand.org] no longer represents the people meaningfully.

      2. The Little House [usconstitution.net] no longer represents the 50 States United, or offers any thoughtful feedback to the Big Senate.

      Last I read the Constitution, the Senate represents the States, and the House represents the people.

      While in practice, the Senators represent State and National corporate interests, and the House members represent highly gerrymandered districts that allow them to get away with votes that are against most citizen polling.

  42. The path, not the position by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it's not the position that corrupts. It's the system that requires either candidate, who is successful at getting his name on the ballot paper, to screw-over, lie, back-stab and manipulate, in order to get there. No honest person would ever make it through the selection process. Nor would they ever be able to bring themselves to do all the things necessary to raise the millions of $$ needed to win (or: rather, buy) the campaign.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:The path, not the position by Entropius · · Score: 1

      It happens once in a while. This is why the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was such a tragedy, since she was one of the few in the House who wasn't completely corrupt.

      (--a Tucsonan)

    2. Re:The path, not the position by disposable60 · · Score: 1

      This is well known. Any politician (or candidate with an apparent chance) who threatens 'The System' had better stay out of buses and small planes. If that doesn't work, some patsy will be persuaded to step up.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    3. Re:The path, not the position by Entropius · · Score: 5, Informative

      Giffords wasn't shot by a "patsy", and her shooting had nothing to do with her political views. She was shot by a crazy guy who had no coherent agenda at all. The only connection between the way she practiced politics and her getting shot was that she was holding a "talk to the voters" event in a supermarket parking lot when it happened.

    4. Re:The path, not the position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of you get it. You will only rarely get past the primaries unless you're willing to play ball with $BIG_BOYS (actually they are identifiable, but they're big enough to bring bogus libel charges against even an anonymous poster. Or worse. We all know who they are though. It's all thoroughly documented.)

      Once in a while you get an independently minded politician elected. A Ron Paul or a Cynthia McKinney, who tells it like it is. The system needs a few token "cranks" and "oddballs" to make the Establishment candidates look more "sensible".

    5. Re:The path, not the position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How quickly forgotten, the teachings of master Yoda are. Yes, hmmm.

      Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

    6. Re:The path, not the position by kosty · · Score: 1

      Bill Hicks on what happens between a POTUS election and the Oath of Office... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJPwM8nehkQ

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
  43. Your government by smash · · Score: 2

    ... and its promotion of a xenophobic education system, xenophobic religious presence, and xenophobic foreign policy.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  44. America is a dictatorship alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... a corporate dictatorship. How americans can view obama as a socialist is a testament to corporate propaganda. There is no leftwing in america. Just the hard corporate right and the one party corporate system with two halfs (R&D).

    Historians will have a field day about how the american mind using science and modern media have successfully been brainwashed via school and ads to believe things that are false and go against their own interests.

    1. Re:America is a dictatorship alright... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      From a European perspective, America doesn't have 'left' and 'right' wings. They have the 'right' and 'extreme right' wing.

    2. Re:America is a dictatorship alright... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:America is a dictatorship alright... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      If you ask me, as a European, I cannot even see the difference between the two parties.

      Seriously, if a debate host has to start a sentence with "well, I think we have finally established the first difference between you", you know that you're not dealing with two different parties.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:America is a dictatorship alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, false left-right paradigm again. We have a sinister ambidexterity, you might say, but so do you.

      Totally aside, somebody is having a verticle birthday today, though. Happy, Happy, wishing I were there.

    5. Re:America is a dictatorship alright... by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      So countries that don't share your ideology are dictatorships??? That is convenient for your. We have 'left' European style parties. They are not popular. People in those parties can barely get elected to dog catcher. People in those parties have rallies, websites, newspapers. America is a Republic with popular politicians at all levels of government.

    6. Re:America is a dictatorship alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just from a European perspective, Australia is a pretty right wing country, and even from here, the US has a bunch of Right wingers, and some SERIOUSLY Right wingers

  45. Herman Goring said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    GÃring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
    Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
    GÃring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

    1. Re:Herman Goring said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comment held more weight when more people actually worked on a farm.

    2. Re:Herman Goring said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/on a farm/in a cubicle/g
      There, fixed.

    3. Re:Herman Goring said it best by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And I am sure Goering, as talented (and extra-moral) as he was, was just refining what other had found before him. His writings are still used in teaching, and the current US administration is borrowing heavily.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Herman Goring said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not fixed... "why would some poor slob in a cubicle want to leave his friggin' cubicle"? Because of any reason whatsoever.

    5. Re:Herman Goring said it best by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Only upon an extremely superficial reading of the quote.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  46. conception - inception - perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we all have to agree on "what is fear?" in order to have this conversation - i, for two, don't agree with the definition of fear that most people have been conditioned with.

  47. Human Nature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a lot of talk about human nature, I think that should be changed to American nature. As mentioned, the world does not all live the way Americans do or even aspire to do so. Other countries may have, *gasp*, produced a better way to do things. Arrogance and lack of real empathy may play a part. Unfortunately these problems may be so deep rooted that it will take something big to dislodge them, hopefully there is something that resembles a functioning country afterwards.

  48. Terrorism is the new smuggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the 1700s the government violated civil liberties to stop... SMUGGLING! Terrorism is the new smuggling. And *FUCK* King George. http://libertyfirstfl.org/?p=253

  49. Re: Power by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Don't forget luck. That's an important factor, too.

  50. Fear is inherent. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not a new thing. Remember the Red Scare? Remember the Internment Camps and Witch Hunts? It's the ancient fear of the unknown, of other tribes to be precise.

    Fear is instinctual in humans, granted to us through millions of years of evolution. It exists, and need only be cultivated into hysteria to cloud minds. The fear comes from within, that's what makes it powerful. It should be considered a crime to wield fear against the ignorant masses. Those stoking the fear are fearmongers, or scaremongers -- The word looks familiar because these are the same as warmongers. As the Chomsky showed us decades ago, fear and filters are used to manufacture consent.

    For what ends? Oh, I think we know that too, very well indeed.

    The question is wrong. We know where the fear comes from. The more apt question is why we are more scared of terrorists than fast cars and fast food, which combined claim over four hundred 9/11 scale attacks in victims every year? The answer isn't no one is brave. The answer is no one is educated. It's been over a decade. That's four thousand 9/11 scale attacks in victims... Will you still drive and occasionally eat junk food? Yes? Then how can anyone justify the spending to prevent such a minuscule threat to life in terrorism at such a great cost? It's because they're ignorant.

    A small child turns on the light to reveal what the dark has kept from them, and is no longer afraid. Without ignorance there can be no fear. The scale of the threat is never given context, so it seem more ominous than it is; When in reality its not that big of a deal. Terrible, yes, but so are car accidents and heart attacks, yet we wouldn't agree to give up our Freedoms, Privacy or our French Fries to prevent them.

    The warmongers who want to line their pockets with trillions we could be spending to actually protect and benefit us at home claim Terroists are nothing to sneeze at, but if you set a 9/11 scale attack next to the Flu, you'll notice there are six times more dead Americans every year from the Flu. Fire the liars. Fight fear with facts.

    1. Re:Fear is inherent. by Livius · · Score: 1

      While there's always been fear, it is different now. There was a time when United States bullying at least had some subtlety to it. There was a time when the United States could be called a confident nation without irony. And reasonable fear, such as during the Cold War, was at least channelled into constructive albeit self-serving directions. Fear was exploited positively.

      Now fear is in a positive feedback loop, used to actively create animosities around the world and insecurity at home.

    2. Re:Fear is inherent. by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      "The more apt question is why we are more scared of terrorists than fast cars and fast food, which combined claim over four hundred 9/11 scale attacks in victims every year? "

      Don't forget guns. Despite all evidence to the contrary, including 30k gun deaths per year in the US (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf) gun nuts still insist they are making society safer. Those are people to be afraid of- armed people who don't think. I can't think of anything more frightening.

      What are gun nutz so afraid of that they feel they need to have a gun to protect themselves? Where did THAT fear come from?

    3. Re:Fear is inherent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of those gun deaths are suicides. As recent history in Australia shows, people with the will to commit suicide just substitute a different method. According to Australian gov't stats the drop in firearms related suicides was precisely accompanied by an increase in suicides using non-firearm related methods of about the same size.

      The other failure of your logic is that you ignore guns used in self defense where the gun was never fired. These incidents don't show up in your stats and they are far more common than incidents where someone actually fired their gun.

      The third failure of your logic is that many of those gun related deaths are bad-guy on bad-guy. If guns were somehow not available do you really think two competing drug dealers with millions of dollars potentially on the line will now peacefully co-exist? Do you think they are dependent on home robberies to get firearms, that the drug cartels supplying these people with drugs could not also supply some rifles and pistols from china if asked?

      Legaling pot will probably reduce gun deaths far more than any of the recent gun bans.

    4. Re:Fear is inherent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me up until "chomsky".

    5. Re:Fear is inherent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Master Yoda:
      Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering

      The USA is well on the way to the dark side.

    6. Re:Fear is inherent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From year to year 1/2 to 2/3 of the '30k gun deaths' the GP refers to are suicides. From year to year, the number of times a gun is used to thwart a violent crime (even as reported by the decidedly, and openly, anti-gun Brady group) is one to two orders of magnitude larger than the '30k gun deaths' he thinks is so danged dangerous.

      Let's allow that to sink in for a moment. Even the numbers provided by the anti-gun folks show that guns are used more than 10 times as often to *thwart* violent crimes than to kill people.

      So, by that metric, allowing the common citizen to keep and carry firearms for their own protection is *safer* for those common citizens than barring them from doing so.

      You want to actually cause a drop in that 30k figure? Focus on suicide prevention.
      Want to cause a drop in the number of violent attacks with guns? Focus on gang related crime. After all, that's responsible for about 80% of the non-suicide portion of that 30k figure.

      ironic captcha: democrat

    7. Re:Fear is inherent. by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      It's called differentiation between good gun owners and bad gun owners, dipshit. Yes its more complicated than that but I had to dumb it down sufficiently for you to even begin to understand. Here's a hint: it isn't hunters and target shooters that are shooting up elementary schools.

  51. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS is the real problem. Polarized thinking like this. Just because someone doesn't believe the same thing you do they are automatically mindless drones that can't possibly have a rational thought. Well that goes two-ways bitch!!!

  52. Re:It's older than snakes..... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    Some damn monkey saw a snake and we've all been scared ever since.

  53. Re: Power by davide+marney · · Score: 2

    Capitalism rewards profitable work. Whether that work is easy or hard is immaterial.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  54. Seems complicated, but it is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is simply a lack of education and training of democratic structures in school.

    The higher level education for the rich & powerful probably has "classic" education but lacks democratic structures,

    This then leads to dumb people or smart people with an agenda to spew their propaganda in the media.

    America also has a very strong "You're either with us or against us!" stance which seems to go from policitcs through media through social discussions. With that view, you really cannot go far because there are always "ememies" everywhere. Why are they "enemies"? Because they are not with you on topic X.

  55. Plato by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Plato urges a foundation of music and athletics in an education that produces a brave populace. Music produces a soul strong enough for bravery and athletics produces a habit of valor. Both also form a mind prepared for more abstract learning so that fear can be confronted with contemplation. Perhaps we are not doing enough in these foundational areas.

    1. Re:Plato by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As somebody that found music in school to be a complete and utter waste of time (and I still think that 30 years later), and that found "athletics" to be good for compensating all the sitting around but nothing else, I disagree.

      I learned something valuable in "athletics" though: One time, we had to measure our performance ourselves, and those (and only those, but all of them) that judged themselves "high performers" did lie to make themselves look better.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Plato by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You seem to be standing up for sportsmanship now.

  56. We're asking the wrong question by davide+marney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This post assumes that the actions of the federal government are in response to people's fears. That's your problem right there, you've got it backwards. It's the government who is acting in bad faith to begin with, and is then just looking for some cover to excuse it.

    You didn't really think it takes $4 Trillion to catch a bunch of terrorists, did you?

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  57. Begging The Question Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is how low /. has sunk.

    1. Re:Begging The Question Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm inclined to agree that the article is begging the question. But maybe not in the way that you mean...

      I've had the thought that if Americans were truly and genuinely afraid of Bin Laden then they would have been down on their knees begging for mercy. Or that if Americans really believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - that is, the ability to destroy entire American cities - then they would not have been so eager to start a war with him.

      The thing is, there's this idea that when you're a victim then you're entitled to compensation. So if Americans were victims then they'd be entitled to cheap gas for their SUVs - extracted from under the sands of Iraq. I mean, after all, it wasn't just the American people who were victims of 9/11 - it was the whole American way of life: up to including the American religion (Jesus) and even Santa Claus himself (you do know that Christmas is under attack, after all).

      So, from where I am, it doesn't look like Americans are afraid, per se. Instead it looks like they'd like to justify taking a bigger slice of the pie for themselves - or at the very least not having to share their pie with any poor foreigners.

      TLDR: America's problem isn't fear, it's greed.

  58. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you need to re-read the comment. GP was claiming that the "my side is always right" is the problem, irrespective of the side. He was not claiming the OP was wrong because he disagreed, he was claiming the OP was wrong because he was blaming it all on "the other guy" and not recognising his own guy has the same faults.

  59. Many people are pretty much full of shit... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    ... and they're running away from that. They're really not afraid of X or Y, but rather of having to look at themselves, and prefer their little pretend fears to that. The more power you have, the more this applies to you. People in power simply passing on some of the fear that rules their lives.

    What do you think makes people lust for power in the first place? Impotence, fear, inability to love -- from a distance those are one and the same thing, so calling it fear is "not wrong".

  60. Counter-clockwise by The123king · · Score: 1

    Down the toilet.

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  61. Re: Power by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Capitalism does not reward hard work. It rewards marketability and cunning investment.

    Actually, what it rewards most is having capital. And what it punishes most is not having capital.

    If I have capital, I can invest it, not particularly cunningly, in S&P 500 ETFs and get a not-terrible return for doing no work at all. At worst, I'll be pulling in 0.5% from my bank with it. If I collect enough capital, then I don't need to do any work whatsoever and I'll be able to live comfortably by demanding other people's work in the form of purchases.

    If I don't have capital, then anything that I buy will be done on credit, making it more expensive than if I had bought it outright. For example, if I use a credit card to buy food and don't pay it off right away, than the cost of my groceries is at least 25% higher due to the payments to the credit card company. So that means that because I started with less capital (for whatever reason), I actually have to work harder to pay for the same things that the person with $150K lying around can just buy.

    An example from my day-to-day: I was lucky enough to be born into a family that could afford to pay for my bachelor's degree. That gave me an income of $2400 or so higher than classmates who started out earning about as much as I did. 2 years later, that translated into the just under $5000 I needed to buy a car to get to a better-paying job, saving me about $3000 a year in car loan payments. So now I'm basically earning $5K more than an equally-hardworking and responsible colleagues and classmates, and that allows me to save up for all sorts of things more easily than they can. The uneven playing field happens to be tilted somewhat in my favor, solely because I started with assets rather than debts.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  62. Paranoia of Political Parties that DOMINATE by BoRegardless · · Score: 0

    The der Spiegal article talked only of nations, but political parties develop fear too & sometimes for different reasons. We see it & hear it on the characters making their routine announcements in front of the cameras, which are often so ludicrous as to be sickly comic.

    Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it." was perhaps a better line than any scriptwriter in Hollywood could do. It shows the juvenile psychological statement implying that some GOD created this law and we have to see what comes down from the "Mount" to know what it is. And God oh God, why did you not warn us ahead of time what we were really getting, in the monumental botch that has ensued?

    Once a political party gets in power in WDC, the ONLY thing that counts is silencing their foes so they STAY in power. That means every form of manipulation Pravda would use in the cold ware and worse, plus the manipulative power of the House and Senate leaders in pursuing, you guessed it, ULTIMATE POWER to pass anything they like, regardless of iF a majority of citizens are/were against it.

    1. Re:Paranoia of Political Parties that DOMINATE by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      The dominating political party then coerces the reports for various media by limiting access to the 'people in power' as a means of picking only those reporters that will 'follow the party line', meaning favorable reviews and reporting or else you are out.

      Hence, reporters fear of losing their 'contacts' and 'stories' drives them to support the fear of the power party, or risk losing their job, as so many of the reporters are just that, acting as a Pravda hard copy for the party in power.

    2. Re:Paranoia of Political Parties that DOMINATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The der Spiegal

      You do realize you just called it "The The Mirror", right? Oh, and it's spelled "Spiegel".

  63. To summarize, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Authoritarianism drives fears.

    Big parts of authoritarianism are religion, corrupt politicians, greedy business. Fix these and the fear will mostly subside.

  64. Two words: "American Idol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

  65. Oh dear, another political story by fa2k · · Score: 1

    Anyway, fear is part of human nature. Groups like governments or nations seem to exhibit the same good and bad personality traits as individuals do

  66. ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA sez:

    And the motivation for doing so is â" fear

    Dunbal sez:

    Nothing has changed because basic human nature is the same. This is the way it will always be. So you get to choose whether you want to be part of the herd near the edge looking for the wolves, or oblivious somewhere the middle, or if you want to be a wolf. Being near the edge isn't a problem because you see the danger coming, so you get a head start. Being in the middle, you don't even realize the danger is there until the whole herd is moving.. And of course being a wolf has its own unique advantages: you get to eat mutton and you get to watch the whole herd fear you. But you have no herd for protection and in trying times, the other wolves don't mind eating wolf, too

    Both the above have failed to realize that there is another entity in the picture --- the one who puts ***FEAR*** in the midst and use it for its own dastardly agenda.

    A true analogy : Fish farmers who ship live fishes in flexitanks used to be troubled by the large number of fish turned belly up during the transit, and finally someone found a simple way to solve the problem --- they put a live crab inside the same flexitank with the fish.

    Because of that one live crab, the fishes were pre-occupied with fear throughout the journey, and as a result, up to 95% of the fishes arrived at the destination still alive.

    Same thing happens in the United States.

    Because of the fear that has been instilled by the government the people forgot about everything else and willingly surrender their rights, their liberty, their privacy, just so they can remain "protected".

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know NOTHING about fish farming, but are you sure the crab didn't just eat the dead fish?

    2. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just in case you missed , it is not the government selling fear thus time (WMD Anyone?), but rather the right wing media. The left media can spin as well, but are simply outclassed by outlets such as fox, which has ingrained itself as 'mainstream'. I have friends from over seas who laugh when they hear Obama is called an extremist.

      Death Panels, socialism, communism, dictators, taking your guns, scandalegate, climategate, gay armageddon, etc.

      The list just goes on and on. I turn on Fox 'news' and they literally have huge flashing red warning banners about whatever talking point is on the menu for today. I hear my right wing friends whispering about the dictator in office, the Muslim friend of the 911 terrorists. The saddest part is that they truly BELIEVE these stories.

      The media is far better equipped at selling fear than the government. The current crop is ripe for the picking.

      The reason? It allows those who are really pulling the strings, like the big money behind every political engine, to control things in a way that makes business more profitable, regardless of the real cost.

    3. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by flyneye · · Score: 1, Insightful

      +1 BINGO!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    4. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *all* of them ? ? ?

      captcha = banquets

    5. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, about this, but blame the government? Why? Better yet how? Is the government promoting the fear, now? or are you confusing the "fear" with the realities of life? Fear is a game. The individual controls their "fear" of, or societies die.Remember Maslov's theory. Apply this to politics, and money, like who has it. Apply that to one of the political parties controlled or influenced by a group of brothers and their advisers. Then follow the news.
        Why do groups form, to communities. For a mutual protection from the meanies? or to sell their goods? creates a difference in traders options. Yes, there is a place for fear. But remember the dune line"fear is the mind killer", it's true then as now.

    6. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Fear comes from within. Others can manipulate people with their own fear, but only if they are fearful people. Things that increase fear: Something new, something sudden and unexpected, vanity. Things that decrease fear - repetition, training, understanding. I could drop a flash bang in the middle of a crowd, and there will be a gauss curve worth of reactions. Most people will panic and run. Some will go hysterical. Others will actually work out what's happening and be calm. The amount of "fear" applied is the same, but individuals express fear differently.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't CAGW government selling fear?

      Isn't trying to pass gun control laws instead of mentally ill control laws selling fear?

      Isn't shutting down national parks at extra cost because non-essential government workers are furloughed selling fear?

      Isn't ignoring a debt ceiling because of promised financial doom selling fear?

      I mean, certainly, the whole Benghazi thing was the opposite ("no, no, no terrorism here, just a nasty you tube video"), although arguably it is supposed to make us fear bad movies put up on youtube.

      Of course you're right on the whole gay armageddon - there's no doubt that the gay marriage war has been lost by the far right, and the only thing left is a holding action...but do you really think the government isn't selling fear anymore?

    8. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by DJRumpy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      FEAR: feeling of anxiety: an unpleasant feeling of anxiety or apprehension caused by the presence or anticipation of danger

      The family of the victims of various shootings at the hands of the mentally ill would beg to differ with you as to something perceived to be a danger, and something that kills your family. There are already gun control laws, and the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee unrestricted access to any weapons a citizen might want. There are already restrictions on automatic weapons, as well as a wide range of military grade weapons, explosives, poisons, WMD's, etc. There are also restrictions on who can gain access to weapons based on criminal history, as well as location. Not one single bill being seriously discussed in congress was taking away anyone's guns, as in every case, currently owned guns were grandfathered in. The vast majority of such legislation was aimed more at sensible background checks. Something even the NRA used to support before they were against it.

      Can you cite any sources whatsoever as to the cost of shutting down a park as opposed to keeping it open? Unless you handle the billing for the various public park departments, you are just parroting talking points you read online or heard on the 'news'. You are also suggesting that they just leave these parks open to the public, which would be like opening the door to your home, and going on vacation for a month, and hoping everyone was on their best behavior. The Fed is legally required to shut down any services that are payed for with discretionary funds when they are no longer legally authorized to pay for such parks to remain open. Period, end of statement. The fact that you are more concerned about some park begin shut down, rather than people being denied food, social services, life saving medicines through various studies, etc, speaks volumes about your priorities.

      No one is 'ignoring' the debt ceiling, and it has been dropping steadily for the last few years. In fact, it's dropping faster than it has since the 1950's. This is probably something you might be aware of if you weren't solidly wrapped up in your fear based news network.

      http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/22/news/economy/deficits/index.html
      http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-debt-load-falling-at-fastest-pace-since-1950s-2012-06-08

      Just as an FYI, Benghazi was a TERRORIST ATTACK, not a 'scandal'.

    9. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the fear that has been instilled by the government the people forgot about everything else and willingly surrender their rights, their liberty, their privacy, just so they can remain "protected".

      This argument keeps coming up... But it's bullshit.
      I, personally, do not willingly give up any liberty for fear, nor have I ever met anyone who would be willing to.
      No one I have actually met has been scared and worried about being protected.
      I almost thing people repeat this same, tired old canard in order to distract themselves from the fact that the government simply does not give a single shit about what you think or want.

    10. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the beginning, humans knew that they were only one bad mood from the gods before they met with death and destruction. Disease, famine, injury, war - all these and more could maim or kill you. In in an era where leveraged force was more the exception than the rule, even a minor injury could put you out of the game and possibly kill you and yours.

      So people made sacrifices to the gods and hoped for the best, knowing that even the most benign gods were prone to go on the occasional rampage.

      In the last few centuries, however, we've abandoned the gods. We think we have made ourselves masters of our own fates, because we can cure many diseases and injuries, have exterminated or reduces many of the external threats, learned to grow crops more efficiently and formed into nations and trading units extensive enough that one part of the country can keep others fed when local conditions such as drought would have previously wrought havoc on the population.

      In other words, we've come to think that peace and plenty are the natural state of all civilized beings.

      But not all humans are civilized, either individually or in groups. And while it helps if you're not a member of a targeted group, ultimately just about any group can be targeted. And, thanks to the incredible leverage that modern humans possess, a single person can kill hundreds with little effort. So paradoxically, the safer we get overall, the more we fear. As in many cases, the closer you get to perfection, the more it costs you. And the fewer the everyday fears, the more impact the extra-ordinary fears have.

    11. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      there's no way i'm putting a crab in my pants

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    12. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by jfengel · · Score: 1, Troll

      At the time of the Iraq war, Fox News and the government were inextricably linked. The head of Fox News was formerly an employee of Republican Presidents, and all down the chain from there the employees have personal links to Bush administration officials. The right wing has switched from political power to media power only because they lost the Presidency. When they regain the Presidency, Fox News and the politically bully pulpit will again be on the same page and working from the same playbook.

      It'll be a bit different next time (in 2016 or 2020 or 2024 or whenever it is), since they appear to have created a monster they can't control. They spent so much time demonizing Democrats that a big chunk of the party thinks of it as the only thing they do, undermining their ability to cut even business-friendly deals, and cutting off their noses to spite their faces in trying to put ideologically-pure candidates in the top spot. Demographics, and the bloom fading from their rose (which was more a matter of being in the right place at the right time, rather than any actual penetration of their ideology), will gradually undercut that. So the next time there's a Republican President, Fox News will be helping them crank out whatever message they want. And it will probably continue to exemplify the "paranoid style".

    13. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's because I used to take care of a 125 gallon fish tank at my high school and the topic of fear+government is old hat, but that bit about the crabs is the most interesting, novel thing I could hope to find in this thread. Of course, now I have to go search to confirm it.

    14. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A true analogy : Fish farmers who ship live fishes in flexitanks used to be troubled by the large number of fish turned belly up during the transit, and finally someone found a simple way to solve the problem --- they put a live crab inside the same flexitank with the fish.

      I would love to see a citation about that.

    15. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Until the administration mandates it anyway, slave.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's made up. Fish farmers add anaesthetics in order to REDUCE stress since it is one of the biggest killers in transporting live fish. Adding a crab to increase fear would kill more fish.

    17. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason? It allows those who are really pulling the strings, like the big money behind every political engine, to control things in a way that makes business more profitable, regardless of the real cost.

      Aren't you just peddling fear of something else ("those who are really pulling the strings, like the big money")?

      Make no mistake, you're absolutely right that Fox news sells fear. But if you think they're the only news network that spreads it and profits from it, you're drinking the Kool-aid.

    18. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't CAGW government selling fear?

      Isn't trying to pass gun control laws instead of mentally ill control laws selling fear?

      Isn't shutting down national parks at extra cost because non-essential government workers are furloughed selling fear?

      Isn't ignoring a debt ceiling because of promised financial doom selling fear?

      Short answers: No, No, No, and WTF?

      Longer Answers:
      1. CAGW is a solidly demonstrated model. Some other theories based on it don't have quite that much evidence yet, but still have some pretty strong chance of being right. In just the last decade, we have had two hurricane seasons which started earlier than what was considered the 'safe' season starting date or lasted beyond the 'safe' ending date. We've had a season where they literally had to add names to the lists to cover all the storms and another that came close.
                  In the US, we've had a tornado season where there were over 500 storms confirmed on radar, when the worst season before it was around 350 (and yes, you can break that data down to look at just the places where doppler radar has been around 20 or 30 years or more, and see the same exceptional spikes in locales where we have a good, long term average for radar data, not just eye witness reports).
                  We've just had a typhoon this year that is estimated to have been off the top of the measurement scale. Most of the worst storm events, such as The New Orleans and New York hurricanes, weren't even part of those unusually bad overall seasons.
                  We've had all sorts of records for rainfall or droubt broken in spectacular ways, in places where the weather records go back hundreds of years, or for some parts of Europe, 15 hundred to two thousand or so, and the high and low rainfall regions shifting shows patterns on large scales consistent with AGW related theories. All that's simply facts - if it makes some people afraid, well, they are still facts. People are repeating them because some people are denying they are facts, not just to cause fear. If some people suspect it's all connected to the more basic AGW theories, well, I suspect a lot of it is, although I'm open to alternatives until and unless the data builds up enough to be more certain.

      2. Several of the proposed gun control laws you mention included background checks as their first and foremost part - Background checks ARE "mentally Ill control laws". Proposed by the "left" - shot down by the NRA.

      3. The sequester was supposed to force the two parties to find better solutions. By definition, it didn't make sensible cuts, for example, it cut the IRS budget, when that meant there were less taxes collected so the problem automatically got worse. Criticising the sequester because it didn't have a bunch of sensible exceptions is criticising it for being exactly what it was supposed to be. What's your alternative, give one side 100% of what it wants and only then start negotiating? Gee, if only the sequester had forced congress to come together and pass a budget without using any of that unpleasant force part...

      4. This question makes no sense. The people who want to raise the debt ceiling don't believe the promises of financial doom. They are the ones arguing that we should not be afraid. The people who want to keep the debt ceiling do believe the promises of financial doom, and so rightly or wrongly want us to be afraid of what happens if the others ignore those promises. Are you really claiming with a straight face that the "left" are the people fear mongering about the deficit?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    19. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Mendy · · Score: 1

      A true analogy : Fish farmers who ship live fishes in flexitanks used to be troubled by the large number of fish turned belly up during the transit, and finally someone found a simple way to solve the problem --- they put a live crab inside the same flexitank with the fish.

      Because of that one live crab, the fishes were pre-occupied with fear throughout the journey, and as a result, up to 95% of the fishes arrived at the destination still alive.

      *or* the crab had eaten all the dead ones.

    20. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by DJRumpy · · Score: 2

      When folks like the Koch brothers are found to directly affect local politics across the entire nation, donating millions to sway election decisions, it becomes simple fact rather than fear.

      Fear itself is not a bad thing, but Irrational fear is. Frightened people are easily controlled. Although your argument might appear to put my statement in the same class, it only appears that way. For example, death panels were widely used to scare people when health care reform was begin drafted. The simple facts are quite different with specific text preventing the fed from denying any type of medical care or 'rationing'. This would be an irrational fear. In my statement, I indicated that big money is pulling the strings. The fact that these political organizations must often disclose their donors, and those donors happen to be folks like the Koch brothers, puts the statement into fact, rather than irrational fear.

      http://philanthropy.com/article/Koch-Brothers-Influence/140227/

      Their donations are public record. They spend millions to sway elections towards business friendly politicians. They aren't the only ones. Does this follow the same category that implied the president was friendly towards the 9/11 Terrorists that killed thousands of Americans, that Death Panels would be used to let the Fed decide who lives and who dies, etc. The above fear mongering had no basis in fact. Even worse, it was peddled by both news outlets, and directly from the mouths of representatives of the government itself. Pailin and her anti-immunization rant is a good example of fear based rhetoric with no basis in fact.

      The following examples are reports, obtained from public disclosures of donations by various political groups, some loosely defined 'charities', etc.

      http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/for-the-media/inthenews/study-tobacco-money.html
      http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/01/12591/gun-lobbys-money-and-power-still-holds-sway-over-congress
      http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/11/local/la-me-special-interests-20100712

      Are they in the same category?

    21. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Creepy · · Score: 0

      Well the debt ceiling forcing a default was a liberal lie (and as a moderate, I'll call you liberals out for lying just like conservatives) - it would be trivial to prioritize the small amount of debt repayment due monthly to avoid a default, and interest payments really are a trivial amount of the monthly budget. Credit rating may have been at risk, but really American livelihood was at stake. What would happen is treasury bonds that mature won't get paid, Social Security payments will drop significantly (because of debt owed to SS), numerous, primarily military projects under the discretionary fund (since these aren't mandatory and won't be prioritized for funding) would be shut down, etc. Liberals don't want to lose their precious Social Security, the elderly rich don't want to lose their T-Bonds, and conservatives don't want to lose their pet military programs. As someone that is not a fan of Social Security, debt, the polarizing of the classes, or big military, this sounds like win-win-win-win to me, but I think in most American't eyes it is lose-lose-(?)-lose. Polarizing of the classes is something the rich is for and the poor and maybe middle class are against.

    22. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Isn't trying to pass gun control laws instead of mentally ill control laws selling fear?

      What "mentally ill control laws" do you propose? Do you propose that, in order to buy a gun, a person would have to be screened by a psychologist or psychiatrist, who would decide whether that person could handle a gun safely?

    23. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that dangerously mentally ill people aren't institutionalized to protect themselves and others from harm. Hell, the mentally ill don't even need guns to do great harm, what with all the sharp sticks, knives and automobiles out there for mayhem.

      How about making it less difficult to involuntarily commit the dangerously mentally ill?

    24. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      No one is 'ignoring' the debt ceiling, and it has been dropping steadily for the last few years. In fact, it's dropping faster than it has since the 1950's.

      We're talking about debt ceiling, and you change the topic to debt load? Let's keep focused on the federal debt, and the federal debt ceiling, rather than conflating it with the entirety of all privately and publicly held debt versus GDP.

    25. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      1) State your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for CAGW. For even more fun, quantify the damage done from 1900 to 2013 to the biosphere due to the approximately 1.0C increase in temperatures - more specifically, show more harm done than benefit.

      2) Mentally ill can harm people in a number of ways without guns - show how you're going to prevent them from doing so with more gun control laws.

      3) Not criticizing the sequester, I'm criticizing the "government shutdown" that affected non-essential government workers, but was cast as some sort of grand armageddon, rather than the two week paid vacation that it ended up as.

      4) The declaration is that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and instead live within the limits of our incoming taxes, there will be financial doom. If there is no financial doom if we don't raise the debt ceiling, why bother raising it? Why not simply live within our means?

    26. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by nbauman · · Score: 1

      How do you propose deciding who is dangerously mentally ill?

    27. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patriot act was passed under Bush. You might want to consider who made it all possible.

    28. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parents second link is debt load. The first relates directly to deficit.

    29. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2

      And again, the original topic was the debt ceiling, not the deficit.

      Neither link addresses the scare-mongering from the government regarding the debt ceiling, and the financial armageddon they claim that would ensue if we actually abided by it.

    30. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Well, it would certainly be more expansive than the current decision making process. It's obvious that we're not doing a good job of identifying and treating dangerous mental illness, but my suspicion is that it will be an order of magnitude easier to solve that problem, than to eliminate all possible ways the dangerously mentally ill can hurt themselves and others.

    31. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it would be trivial to prioritize the small amount of debt repayment due monthly to avoid a default,

      I think you're relying on manipulated government numbers (of course they have been trending down, look at what the CBO is putting out!). The government says the on-book debt is about 1/10th of our liabilities at this point. Any sizable entitlement is still a payment but is no longer part of the reported debt. That doesn't change the monthly deficit in anything but the minds of the ignorant. There is no trivial fix for the ponzi scheme.

      > What would happen is treasury bonds that mature won't get paid, Social Security payments will drop significantly (because of debt owed to SS), numerous, primarily military projects under the discretionary fund (since these aren't mandatory and won't be prioritized for funding) would be shut down, etc.

      You are focusing on the trivial side effects and making impossible predictions on a completely broken economy. When the bond market dries up, forget not paying out in 30 years, that's already a done deal. Worry about nobody buying or trading them at all for a month which is what will kill the USD. Our monthly deficit already outstripped our monthly GDP (although the govt continues to manipulate the number to shore it up). With no hint of sarcasm, I can assure everyone that SS will be suspended and evaporate. It won't be worth running a number of programs that pay out under 500$ a month when food bills threaten to rise to 500 a day. The military will become partially unfunded because US dollars won't be able to buy munitions from anywhere. Food and goods like fatigues and helmets and gsuits and steel wont be imported with non-valued deflated dollars in the following instability. The money supply is now over 3 trillion for 8billion in valuation. The Fed just keeps printing it.

      Forget political leanings...since Reagan's massive spending, both "parties" are to blame for putting incompetents at the helm. These economic decisions being made by adults running a country. It's past the point of no return and Obama will *probably* get out before it's laid at his feet. The oft-promoted idea that he would lead the country to collapse and try to stay in power in the ensuing madness seems a bit far-fetched to me. He didn't lead the country here, he just landed in it and made it worse (like Clinton and the Bush family).

    32. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are already gun control laws, and the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee unrestricted access to any weapons a citizen might want.

      Well actually it does, or rather it's supposed to guarantee that unrestricted access is never taken away. Yes, that includes nukes, biologicals, chems, Solar reactors, black hole generators, universe annihilators, etc.
      The argument of "But our founding fathers did not anticipate X" well you're wrong, they anticipated that they did NOT anticipate everything so they added a process into the Constitution so that it could be updated. If you're not willing or able to amend it, then it shouldn't be subverted using broad arguments about "National Security" or whatever else.
      In turn, trying to use previous subversions of the Constitution is NOT a valid argument to continue doing so.

      Just as an FYI, Benghazi was a TERRORIST ATTACK, not a 'scandal'.

      Actually I'd just call it an Attack. Adding the label of "terrorist" is moving beyond a description of the event and is adding in emotionally-charged language.

    33. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Just in case you missed , it is not the government selling fear thus time (WMD Anyone?), but rather the right wing media. The left media can spin as well, but are simply outclassed by outlets such as fox, which has ingrained itself as 'mainstream'. I have friends from over seas who laugh when they hear Obama is called an extremist.

      You are completely lost in one of the meaningless battles that is exactly one of the fears they are using for control. The idiotic argument of left versus right is nothing more than one of ways the government keeps the people from seeing what it's doing as it slowly usurps the constitution. ZOMG, it's the Republicans/Democrats. We can't let them have power. The world will end if that happens. The reality is they are both equally as bad.

      If you actually objectively watched the crap put out by the MSM left or right all of it is focused on sensationalized meaningless crap and none of it is focused on the right problems. If the MSM were doing their job every news program and newspaper in the country would be screaming to have the assholes who blatantly lied to congress put in jail. It is just incredulous that no has even considered that's what should happen. It should be focused on pissing off the government rather than conciliating it . But you don't see objectively. You only see it through your donkey colored glasses.

      And don't get me wrong. The idiots who think just the Democrats are the problem are in the exact same boat that you are.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    34. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in NY motherfucker. "Taking your guns" is a fucking sick reality for me, so don't even start.

    35. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Just in case you missed , it is not the government selling fear thus time (WMD Anyone?), but rather the right wing media.

      The left-wing media is mostly selling fear of the right-wing media.

      Incidentally, the reason why the left wing isn't as good at the fear thing is because nobody on the left wing would ever consider shovelling millions into "think tanks" whose only job is to think up talking points and Orwellian language when there are hungry people to feed. The right wing doesn't consider that sort of thing to be a waste of money.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    36. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but like a lot of things, it takes a Democrat to truly use stupid Republican-backed legislation as an Orwellian tool. Oh, can't wait till all the ticket police start serving with SWAT teams.

    37. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Or get's the SCOTUS to rule it a tax.

    38. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely lost in one of the meaningless battles that is exactly one of the fears they are using for control. The idiotic argument of left versus right is nothing more than one of ways the government keeps the people from seeing what it's doing as it slowly usurps the constitution. ZOMG, it's the Republicans/Democrats. We can't let them have power. The world will end if that happens. The reality is they are both equally as bad.

      I just love how the wingnuts have shifted from trying to defend the indefensible to the ludicrous assertion "well your partisans are just as bad as ours!" Clue: the Republicans have gone off the deep end into Lalaland. Deal with it. This is nothing more than a false equivalency fallacy.

      If you actually objectively watched the crap put out by the MSM left or right all of it is focused on sensationalized meaningless crap and none of it is focused on the right problems.

      Please do enlighten us, oh prescient One. What exactly do you think are the "right problems" we should be focused on? Be specific. I'm go to go out on a limb here and guess that you won't be able to answer this question. This is called misdirection. ("The problem isn't over here, it's over there!")

      If the MSM were doing their job every news program and newspaper in the country would be screaming to have the assholes who blatantly lied to congress put in jail. It is just incredulous that no has even considered that's what should happen.

      I am, again, going to go out on a limb and guess that your list of people who should be put in jail is rather politically lopsided. But go ahead and prove me wrong. I dare you! Don't get me wrong. I am all for holding people who lie to Congress accountable. All too often, though, this sort of exercise quickly turns into a political witch hunt with a thin veneer of "just trying to get to the TRVTH" as the barest cover.

      It should be focused on pissing off the government rather than conciliating it . But you don't see objectively. You only see it through your donkey colored glasses.

      SNORT! Yeah, right. "I have a clear, objective view of the world. You, on the other hand, are trapped in your own parochial, partisan biases." Whatever.

    39. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is stupid. Instead of trying to blame "the other guys" realize you areexactly the same, but just voting for a different political party.

      The idea that the left doesn't sow hate and fear is pathetically unintelligent. Both sides do it, and both sides complain about the other side doing it as they can't smell their own shit any more.

    40. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who is currently taking medication for some "mental illness"?

    41. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The fear spread by Fox not-News was a masquerade getting the electorate to fear everything possible except those they truly did need to fear, those that have stolen their democracy out from underneath them. The rich and greedy, the real threat, the psychopaths at the helm of a self destructing society. Those that paid for the ads on Fox not-News and who in return got additional propaganda as news to favour what ever they wanted it to favour, basically politics for sale to the highest bidder. So next time there is any brand of US President, and make no mistake with the current brand Fox not-News is doing a top masquerade job by repeatedly attacking them for what they are not in the vain attempt of hiding what they are, an exact political continuation of the Reagan political era, shifting further right season by season. You have a Republican president, that is about as far from a progressive liberal as you can get.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the news that US govt is arming Al-Qaeda in Syria to kill civilians and troops? Taliban v2.0. He is supporting the 9/11 crowd.

      So sadly, they're right.

      Your left vs right bullshit is FUCKED, get over it, replace your leadership system, 1 term limit, no cushy retirement pay - what happened to service for the people?

    43. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by greenbird · · Score: 1

      I just love how the wingnuts have shifted from trying to defend the indefensible to the ludicrous assertion "well your partisans are just as bad as ours!" Clue: the Republicans have gone off the deep end into Lalaland. Deal with it. This is nothing more than a false equivalency fallacy.

      Yeah, cause Obama has been a paragon in defense of the constitution and rule of law. I'm not going to bother arguing beyond that as it's evident in anything you read outside the left wing propaganda that can only be your staple. There is no point in arguing with the likes of you because you're so far gone from reality that it would make no difference and so closed minded no seep of reality would be visible.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    44. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares about your captcha.

    45. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death Panels, socialism, communism, dictators, taking your guns, scandalegate, climategate, gay armageddon, etc.

      we didn't start the fire
      it was always burning since the world's been turnin'
      we didn't start the fire
      No we didn't light it
      But we tried to fight it.... or did we?

    46. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to chime in on all of this, but the concerns about mentally ill control laws in background checks are there because of the ability to change the definition of what constitutes a mental illness as well as concerns that people may not seek help if they fear doctor patient confidentiality is no longer intact. You've already go the issue of a pregnant woman in Wisconsin who made the mistake of being honest with her doctor about a prescription medication that involved social services. Doctor patient confidentiality must remain intact and all of those extra precautions still don't do you any good if the person just steals the guns instead. NRA happens to be correct in that instance.

    47. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by John.Banister · · Score: 2

      If the size of the problem was small enough that one crab could eat the fish they lost during the trip, then they wouldn't have considered it a problem. Crab fishermen use fear also. If their tank is fairly full, they hang an octopus at the hatch cover on the tank, so that the crab all back away and make room for more.

    48. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares about you not caring about his captcha.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    49. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but this is BS. *I* do not fear terrorists. The probability of *me* being killed by a terrorist is very low. I am soooo much more likely to be maimed in a car accident or catch a nasty fatal disease.

      In fact, on a probabilistic scale, terrorism threat would not be significant for me unless I am going trekking in Pakistan with an USA flag in one hand and a leg of pork in another.

    50. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You misunderstand what the debt ceiling is. The debt is already incurred, meaning we are already obligated to pay for that existing debt. Raising the debt ceiling allows congress to borrow as needed for short term income to pay off incoming debt. It does not authorize additional spending or incurring any new deb (only congress can do that with spending bills). I assume by 'doom', you are generalizing. We've already seen one immediate affect of not raising the debt ceiling the last time they failed to do so. Our credit rating was dropped, costing us billions more in interest, much like your interest rate spikes if you miss a payment. This isn't rocket science. Our credit worthiness allows us to do things that a poor credit rating does not. It's really just that simple.

      The root cause of 'spending' is Congress, not the debt ceiling. The right has turned the debt ceiling into some bogeyman without any context as to what it is, and why it's necessary to raise it.

      If you are looking to address a spending problem (ex: live within our means), then tell congress to stop authorizing such spending. They control the purse strings. Playing with the debt ceiling is like giving your children your credit card, letting them max it out, and then refusing to pay the bill when it shows up in the mail because you think it was irresponsible to let you children max out your card.

      Regarding your 'mentally ill' statement, a mentally ill person could certainly harm someone with a knife for example. but it's unlikely they could commit mass murder without being stopped. They could do the same with a rock, but again it's unlikely they could kill 20, 30, or more people before being disarmed and contained. I suspect you knew that before you put up that particular straw man argument.

      For you climate change question, you are making an assumption that the short term result is harmful, when in actuality, one may see an increase in growing seasons. That doesn't mean it's not harmful, but rather shortsighted to assume that those changes will remain beneficial. Eventually when the increase begins to affect planetary ecosystems to such a degree that they break, you are faced with flooding, increased storm activity, etc.

      As to short term damage, you need only look at the last few decades of increased storm activity, both in number, and in power.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-10/record-typhoon-damage-shows-aquino-s-task-in-philippine-tragedy.html

      Here in the US, we also had two record storms that caused billions in damage. Each considered a 'storm of the century' except they both happened in the same decade (Katrina and Sandy). As the temperature increases, climatologists predict even more increase in storm severity. You are providing yet another straw man argument that says "Look here..short term, this hasn't caused any issues at all". The same could be said for poison, until it reaches a toxic level.

      That two week 'vacation' as you call it had a larger impact than simply sending people home for two weeks. Those two weeks without pay affected every business that takes such money in, affecting their bottom lines, which in turn affects the goods that they order and produce. The work that would have been done in those two weeks became backlogged, causing new work when they return to also be delayed. Any fees and fines that would have been collected by the government were lost revenue. Any contacts that the government would have spent would be pended or cancelled, causing more ripples in the business sector. The CBO estimates that the shutdown costs about $300 million a day in lost economic activity. The shutdown was never just about 800,000 people being sent home for two weeks.

    51. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand what the debt ceiling is.

      Oh, I fully understand what it is - it just appears you don't want to admit it what it means.

      The debt ceiling is a limit on debt that we are supposed to abide by, because debt is dangerous. If we continually raise it, it really isn't a limit at all.

      If we're going to have a debt limit, we should abide by it - but instead, we're told that not ignoring will have armageddon like consequences, rendering it ineffective for its intended purpose.

      The truth of the matter, the armageddon like consequences are only temporarily hidden by debt limit increases, and in fact, the delay in dealing with what we must deal with only makes the final reckoning worse.

      Eventually when the increase begins to affect planetary ecosystems to such a degree that they break, you are faced with flooding, increased storm activity, etc.

      Except that cumulative cyclonic energy doesn't show an upward trend during the past 150 years of warming. Proposition falsified (despite your anecdotal claims of doom).

    52. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      So you're carrying the same thing in both hands.

      awesome.gif

    53. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Putting bible verses in your signature isn't helping your case.

    54. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a republican POV for you. The government could oppress the citizenry by limiting their access to guns as is done by so many oppressive regimes, so it would be better if they just diagnosed more people as mentally ill and imprisoned them. ..

    55. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, it's not 'fear' keeping the fish alive in those tanks. What happens is this:

      During the trip, some fish die.
      In tanks without the crab, those fish rot, and poison the water, thereby killing other fish, who die, rot, etc...
      In tanks with the crab, the early dead fish are eaten by the crab, and the water quality remains comparatively high, so other fish aren't killed by a toxic environment.

      It's biology, not psychology that's keeping those fish alive.

    56. Re:***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fear comes from ignorance. Some of that ignorance comes from incredible arrogance: people in the US think that the US is the "best" in the world at everything, so they doesn't need to bother to learn from anyone else. Want proof? Just look at the regular media around you. It's filled with noise about (American) celebrities and their doings, instead of insightful (not stereotyping!!) pieces on how other cultures function. Even in a day and age where Google translate makes it easy, very few Americans will go look at why Sweden has such a low crime rate. (See the slashdot article). Or look at why income disparity is linked to an amazing assortment of social ills. (Exercise for the reader to find the peer reviewed literature). Even on slashdot, people would rather learn about the latest shoot-em-up game, than learn about non-english speaking cultures. (Count news articles). When people from other cultures move to your country, you demand that they assimilate, because of course their traditions have absolutely no value to you.

      Guess what?? Americans aren't the best at absolutely everything, and certainly not democracy.

        If you're American, think about listening to your gut telling you how offensive it is to listen to this. Doesn't make it any less true. Your response of being outraged -- and that of your country-folk -- gives you justification for your willful ignorance. You can choose to continue your arrogance and ignorance, or start figuring out how to listen to the rest of the world with a view to making friends, instead of claiming that everyone hates you out of envy. (Yep, your Republican and Democrat parties must be the source of all envy and hatred towards you.)

    57. Re: ***FEAR*** as a very powerful tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Several of the proposed gun control laws you mention included background checks as their first and foremost part - Background checks ARE "mentally Ill control laws". Proposed by the "left" - shot down by the NRA.

      Um... You need to check your 'facts'.

      a) Background checks are already in place for every sale of a firearm *except* those between two private individuals who, by law, do not (and cannot) have access to the background check system.

      b) The NRA *supported* the creation of the background check system we already have in place.

      c) Background checks do nothing to *control* the mentally ill {please define}. They *at best* keep *legally purchased* firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. It does *nothing* to prevent the illegal sale or transfer of *anything*, because those folks who aren't law-abiding don't bother to go through legal channels to acquire the firearms they use.

      Unfortunately, the term 'mentally ill' is quite ambiguous, and means vastly different things to different people based on their own preconceptions. (My definition for purposes of this discussion is: Someone who has been adjudicated, in a court of law, with representation and expert testimony in their defense, as being a danger to themselves or others.) Years and years ago, we had a mental health system in place that actually kept the dangerously mentally ill off the streets. Unfortunately, there were few controls of that system in place, and it became too easy to get people committed, and those who were supposed to be taking care of the committed folks all too often abused and/or neglected them instead. As a result, the entire system was dismantled, and those folks now 'roam the streets', often because they have nowhere to go and no one to care for them.

  67. USA fear. Please take this as not being nasty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, I agree that USA is gripped in fear. as the the exact reason, I'm not sure.
    I recently visited from Australia and had a couple of people comment to me how dangerous it is here in Australia since we have "Had Our Guns taken Away from Us In Australia..."
    You never see people walking around here with guns. One of our friends we visited there had a couple of loaded revolver cylinders sitting on his kitchen bench along with his coffee cups and stuff. That would never be seen here.
    I feel MUCH safer in Oz than in America. And the level of shootings in Australia are much lower than in the USA.
    We noticed how fearfully Americans seemed to be to us, and my wife is from there originally. She is so happy to be living in Australia instead of America.
    Our observations seem to us that the gun lobby works hard to generate fear to justify their stand, and I think your government and your media are both lending a hand too as it is a lot easier to control the masses if they are fearful.
    Just this afternoon some friends of ours introduced us to the TV show, The Newsroom.
    We have only seen a couple of Youtube videos, one part of the first episode where the main character was interviewed in a collage I think, and the other his news report on the Tea Party. Both are so true.
    I would encourage you all to try to look at media other than your main networks as your "normal" media is very controlled.
    There is a joke going around, at the USA's expense, that unfortunately has a lot of truth in it.
    It goes as follows..... "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography".
    On one of my trips to America, I had someone ask me to say something in Australian. They really did not know what my native language was.
    That is pretty sad.
    We love visiting America and have a great number of wonderful friends there. You do have a great country but it is in real danger of being destroyed by the fear and suspicion generated by various lobby groups.
    The fear that interest groups there have put into the public mind about changes to fix your heath system is very apparent to those living overseas. That is a great example of the fear being used to push an agenda that keeps those that profit from your very expensive and VERY BROKEN health system going.
    My wife had to have a hysterectomy and here in Australia it cost us NOTHING!!! We all pay a small amount extra in out taxes and so we are covered. If it is critical, you get seen pretty fast, but elective stuff can take quite a while. One can take out private insurance (not tied to your work) to speed that up.
    One of our USA friends had a 3 hour stay in your intensive care while his insurance did not cover him as he had just been sacked from his work. It cost him $42,000 for the 3 hours!!! There is no way that that is moral. But your vested interests there want to keep you all paying lots for you heath system, and are plainly using fear to do it.
    Sorry for this bit of a rant, but we really worry for our friends and my wife's family over there. It is very plain to see "from afar".

  68. This feels like a new low for Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They let through a troll post aimed at an entire country.

    1. Re:This feels like a new low for Slashdot... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Read it, think about it, and _then_ dare to call it "troll" again. It is very far from your simplistic views.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  69. Re: Power by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

    IOW they're either disabled, dumb or idealistic.

    Or some of us just love our jobs, despite the fact that the pay sucks.

  70. parent shows Exhibit A: fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of people.

  71. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1, excellent !

  72. Not fear - money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    You only have to walk around certain Virginia suburbs, where the multi-million dollar houses are all owned by people whose companies comprise the intelligence/industrial apparatus, to know that it's all about the money, not about fear.

    When you build tanks and planes, you have to have huge factories, lots of space, lots of overhead. Bear Stearns and other companies only need a fancy headquarters and a few cubicle farms, and the rest is profit.

    Surveillance is the new defense contracting boondoggle.

    I don't believe it's about fear at all. It's about greed and easy money.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Not fear - money by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I don't believe it's about fear at all.

      Yes, it is fear. Fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  73. It isn't about fear it is about hidden costs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't about fear it is about hidden costs. The claimed benefits of the security state tactics are wildly exaggerated by politicians and the media; while the costs of lost freedom are unjustifiably dismissed. Seriously, how many people would actually say "Yes, I'm afraid every day."? No one.

    The subversion of democracy is not an accident of the police state, it is the goal.

  74. yeah, its weird by joss · · Score: 1

    This is pretty good:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oww4Ap3YZA

    but it doesnt explain why US tv, particuarly news, is so much more paranoid than in europe

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    1. Re:yeah, its weird by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, we have a long history of "oh, it won't be so bad, that can't happen to me". Or we simply don't consider ourselves so important that everything has to happen to us just 'cause it happened to someone else.

      And while you can shoot news with fear, it gets old really fast. Now, you can see that as positive, but it also means that whatever we get all ruffled over quickly dies down again. The whole NSA deal is almost forgotten already. And nobody cares about Snowden anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  75. They are not a target. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the ex-colonies of Europe have pretty much forgotten about European Imperialism or at least have forgiven them. Sure they have some North African immigrants that are bit off the wall, but never the less, the World doesn't hate them.

    They all hate the US now.

    No thanks to propaganda from the Arab and Persian World (granted some of it has some truth to it - like our pathological carte blanche support of Israel and turning a blind eye to her version of Apartheid), the entire Muslim World thinks of the US as the "Great Satan"

    And I think most Americans realize that.

    We have a century of military based diplomacy - just look at how we got control of the Panama Canal and subsequently pissing off most of our neighbors here in the Western Hemisphere.

    I think the only reason the Canadians don't hate us is because they pity us to much.

    1. Re:They are not a target. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      We pity you and we're sorry about what you have become.

  76. Re: Power by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    Capitalism rewards giving people what they want. Hard work has nothing to do with it, nor luck or cunning. Marketing can affect what people want, but at the end of the day you make money by exchanging goods and services with people. If nobody wants it, you aren't going to make money. Please note that what people say they want is not necessarily what they actually want.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  77. dumb down by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Over the past 40 or so years, the (lack of) education in the USA, the increase in pop culture, has lead to a decline in the overall intelligence of the average citizen, and allowed them to be more easily controlled. All you have to do now to panic the average citizen, is to "tweet" something and just allow that to spread fear. I've seen it happen on the left AND the right. Someone tweets out they are going to take away X, and it blows up worse than a 6 year old starting a rumor about so and so having cooties on the playground!

  78. The Fine Article is about Freedom by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

    In a long-lived slashdot tradition, it doesn't appear that anyone on this discussion thread read the fine article. It argues that freedom is the root of fear in America. More specifically it is the freedom myth - that we are a nation founded in freedom - that is the root of all fear and paranoia in America. He compares 3 countries with what he defines as cultures of fear based in freedom myth as the root of their anti-democratic evils: the US, Israel and Apartheid South Africa.

    In his view we are slaves to a culture created in the back of covered wagons, with women and children cowering in fear from the isolation and danger crossing the frontier alone.

    I suppose it is left to the reader to divine what the solution would be if the problem is that we venerate freedom too much.

    1. Re:The Fine Article is about Freedom by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Indeed an eye opening clearly written article it was. I will add a point the article did NOT cover and might have touched upon as to WHY freedom is the root of fear in today's society a bit more.

      Bureaucracies are promiscuous and breed like weeds in the US and Congress never restricts them as they are the output & support of the 'leaders' in Congress who tend to be 'lifers' in their jobs. The lifers in WDC want to perpetuate their party and power, & that means they must ultimately attack legitimate honest citizens in the US who do not support the lifer's power.

      You could say a Wash. DC 'lifer' is a dictator and I would not argue the point. The DS article noted that Hitler was the ultimate dictator.

    2. Re:The Fine Article is about Freedom by Livius · · Score: 1

      Other countries don't use 'freedom' as a euphemism for an us-versus-the-barbarians mentality.

    3. Re:The Fine Article is about Freedom by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      He compares 3 countries with what he defines as cultures of fear based in freedom myth as the root of their anti-democratic evils: the US, Israel and Apartheid South Africa.

      So he just lumps together the countries the European Left loves to hate with no regard for their actual political and ideological orientations?

      US: ultra-capitalist oligarchy pretending to be a two-party democracy
      Israel: military rule in one area with sectionalist social democracy in the other area.
      South Africa: EXTREME sectionalism based on actual tribal affiliation, coupled to a legacy of extreme racism.

      If I was going to make an analysis, I would call sectionalism the common factor between these countries' problems, not a "fear based in freedom-myth". That, however, requires that we actually admit the United States has factions and sectionalism at all, which the dominant factions in the US refuse to admit (because by doing so they can cast themselves as the One True Representative Faction of all Americans rather than as a two-party system representing what are increasingly two separate nations).

  79. Stand your ground by rve · · Score: 1

    As to stand your ground laws and yurpians: nowhere in Europe will you find a duty-to-retreat law. If you want to be more like Europe, have stand your ground laws everywhere (but without so many guns)

    If you harm an attacker while defending yourself, a court will judge whether it was proportional (decapitating someone for poking your with a finger would not be proportional) and necessary (after disarming and disabling an attacker, killing him anyway would be considered excessive). If so, you'll be aquitted.

  80. Helpless populace by beaverdownunder · · Score: 1

    With zero chance of facing a ground invasion for at least the last 50 years, but at times a very high risk of death from above, Americans (and to a lesser extent Canadians) were forced to empower themselves by looking for "the enemy within" typically in the form of spies, unlikely to ever repel an invading soldier themselves.

    When terrorism made that enemy within even more insidious, the paranoia spreaded, and it wasn't long before "scope creep" set in, causing large sections of the population to mistrust each other not as terrorists, but for simply not sharing each other's interests, for the potential to change their "way of life".

  81. Re:It's older than snakes..... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    To be fair - the damned monkey watched as the snake ate all her babies. Yeah, there's good reason to fear snakes, unless you've grown to be so big that a snake no longer views you as a menu item. Which also explains why some people don't like those little miniature panthers that other people like to keep in their houses.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  82. The fear is a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans aren't afraid. Every brave American is being told, by politicians and the media, that their friends and family are afraid. That they are alone and beholden to a fictional terrified democratic majority who the politicians claim to be serving. This is a lie to isolate Americans from each other and disempower the American public.

    Discuss.

  83. It comes from propaganda by jonwil · · Score: 2

    The American propaganda machine (lead by the 24-hour news channels like Fox, MSNBC and CNN and backed up by other news outlets) dwarfs anything seen in Germany under Hitler or Russia under Stalin.

    And, as others have said, its all about the bread (or rather Big Macs, Original Recipe and Coca-Cola) and the circuses (or rather Big Brother, Iron Man and Lady Gaga).

    Someone needs to find a way to make politics as exciting as reality TV, that might get people to care more about how their country is run...

    1. Re:It comes from propaganda by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If someone found a way to make politics as exciting as reality TV, it would instantly be outlawed. The very last thing the powers that are need is a population interested in politics.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  84. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Capitalism does not reward hard work

    The rallying cry of armchair economists whose parents' hard work pay the tuition and their dorm fees, and who major in fields with no actual physical labor or science involved.

    Don't forget to count all the commas in James Joyce while you're at it.

  85. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks interested in the topic would do well to check out Jesse Walker's new book The United States of Paranoia. Bottom line: it's been a large factor in American life from colonial times. Left, right and center.

  86. We deserve neither by markdavis · · Score: 1

    " People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. "

    -Ben Franklin

  87. Fear is a primevil emotion by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    just like religion uses the fear of death and hell to manipulate their congregation, the govt uses fear to manipulate the population, seems like there is always some ghost of an enemy wanting to take away our freedoms and kill us, and it seems the biggest enemy of our freedoms turns out is the US Govt themselves

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  88. Of course we fear too much! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
    For decades, we've been being bombarded with a new list of things that can kill us pretty regularly.

    cigarettes

    Nucular!!!

    assorted foods, depending on era - fats, carbs, red meat, alcohol, trans-fats, whatever the bugaboo-du-jour is today...

    cell phones in cars

    guns. since Kennedy was killed, guns have been one of our favorite bugaboos - doesn't matter how rare an event is (I'm looking at school shootings), it'll be used to panic parents (& kids).

    And on and on. There's always something to be terrified of in the news, most of which, in the big picture, don't matter a hill of beans....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Of course we fear too much! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You could just have posted the video.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  89. it's genetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    About 50% of the population is wired to be afraid. It's a survival trait. They generally gravitate toward the republican party because of this orientation bias. Ask the media to stop pandering to fear to get click throughs.

  90. Re: Power by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately not. There is no reward for feeding the starving poor - even though food is definitely what they want, and there are very many of them.

    The reward comes from giving owners of capital what they want, but not "people" in general.

  91. Re: Power by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    And by reward, I mean financial reward, ofc.

    All motivation ultimately comes down to love, whether that's for people or shiny. If you love people, you can certainly gain reward from just being lovely to them.

  92. Re: Power by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    That is called networking now.

    It's not what you know, it is who you know...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  93. You say leftwing dictatorship like it's bad by gelfling · · Score: 1

    It's not so bad once you get used to it. Lot's of people have them and say they're wonderful. They have to. All Hail Dear Leader

  94. Fear and Greed by landoltjp · · Score: 2

    America is 'the land of Opportunity", that is "I can succeed". It is a land of personal wealth and invidual accomplishments.

    Don't get me wrong, there are MANY people that make a difference for a lot of other people. But the central premise is individual success as a primary objective. And Greed, at some minor or maor level, is a motivator to succeed personally.

    So you've succeeded, and your greed helped. Now you have success, and you want to keep it.

    So you are afraid.

    And you want to control the situation to keep what you got
    And control others to keep them from getting what you got.

    1. Re:Fear and Greed by landoltjp · · Score: 1

      I guess a logical progression of this is that, the more success you have, the greater the potential for your fear, so the stronger your desire for control. That explains why those who can AND do succeed might influence a significant level of control on others.

      I've qualified ALL of what I've written. Not everyone who succeeds is greedy, and not everyone who is greedy succeeds.

  95. Each other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm terrified of the sheer number of clueless around me.

    Examining the House of Representatives should convince anyone that as a people many of us simply don't have a grip.

    1. Re:Each other by koan · · Score: 1

      Yes but does this mean that in general people all over the World "don't have a grip" or is there something unique to the US.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  96. It comes from the top by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    And it always has. Just now its far stronger and targeted.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  97. It isn't fear by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    By asking a question like "Where Does America's Fear Come From" your audience will presuppose that fear is the cause. But is that really it? I don't think the average American is afraid of terrorists. Things like anger, self-righteousness, and the military-industrial complex are more likely explanations. The "fear of terrorism" thing is an after-the-fact justification. Those in power need justification, and 9/11 fell right into their hands. I suspect that it is going to be a lot tougher to milk that for another decade. But the damage is already done, the power grab successful.

    The article opens by citing a fictional character. These TV show characters are not indicative of actual Americans. They are overdone stereotypes. Let us not look at the caricatures to understand ourselves. The average American is, however, gullible and apathetic. That is why America was unable to stop the power grab.

  98. Tough at the top. So imagine a higher top. by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    I've been poor (but I was not), and I've been what I thought was rich. This is what I'd say about fear.

    To answer this question one source of inspiration could be high stakes investment psychology. The more you have the more you fear to lose. The more you fear, the more you fear to lose. Arrogance blinds us to reality.

    Fear of an easy life?
    It's tough at the top.

    So.... dream of a higher top.

  99. Re: Power by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    From experience I can tell you: Nobody ever got rich by "hard work". Getting rich is mostly doing the right thing at the right time and having an incredible dose of luck. Hard work has little, if anything, to do with it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  100. Re: Power by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It rewards profitability. Whether you actually work for it is purely optional.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  101. Re: Power by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    Good post - indeed, the most important ingredient for success under capitalism is to already have success!

    But it's still true that you'll be best rewarded for the most cunning investments - assuming you have any money to invest. Of the remainder, those who are most marketable will be able to earn an initial amount to invest. It's the old "10 starving dogs in a cage with enough food for 5" thing, though - one will take half the food, 2 will eat reasonably, a couple more will win a few scraps, and the other 5 will starve.

  102. You should be afraid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't win a war to save your asses.

  103. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't take long to disintegrate into partisan politics, huh? As Falconhell already pointed out, Herr Bush instituted most of the stuff that Obama plays with today. Think about it, Herr Coward.

    And while he began with claims of reversing "Herr Bush's" misdeeds bringing "change" and returning the to road of righteousness, he failed to even attempt to do so. He didn't even try while he had a brief period of near carte blanche. It is his fault for lying. It is his fault for not trying to do the right thing. It is his fault for embracing and extending the misdeeds of his predecessor. It is his fault for continuing to be the lying politician and urinating on the so called platform of "hope" that got him elected.(Hope is not an action or strategy you ignorant fucks!) It is his fault for not just perpetuating the manipulation by fear but for creating his own new and higher level of manipulation by fear.

    With him now six years at the head of the nation and the supposed "leader of the free world" it is hard to find someone else who bears more responsibility. Despite all of his bloviating, he remains complicit and doesn't attempt to denounce any of the misdeeds intentionally used for fear mongering and manipulation of the populace.

  104. Who are these cowards ? by mbone · · Score: 1

    Who are these cowards ? I sure don't know any. Do they exist, or are they a convenient fiction cooked up by politicians and government contractors?

  105. Nobody Ever Got Fired For Buying IBM by hduff · · Score: 1

    Here's an analogy /.'ers can understand: Nobody Ever Got Fired For Buying IBM.

    This is why legislators and "leaders" at all level make the choices they do. They fear losing their jobs and their power, so they pander to the anxieties of those they work for and will rely on any convenient rationale for their actions. They build their culture on this fear and cannot challenge it or conquer it.

    We do have nothing to fear but fear itself, because that is what drives us politically.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  106. The Power of Nightmares .. by codeusirae · · Score: 3, Informative

    A series of three documentaries about the use of fear for political gain

    "Narrator: In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a War on Terror.

    But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media. This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world, and both had a very similar explanation of what caused that failure.

    These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret organized evil that threatens the world, a fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful
    ."

    1. Re:The Power of Nightmares .. by marcroelofs · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that link, almost 10 years old and even more apt then ever. Damn it.

      This makes my hair stand on end: And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

  107. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that a pure capitalist environment was recently shut down by the so called 'capitalists', right?

    I'm referring to Silk Road, of course. Not bound by morality or ethics, just unrestricted supply and demand.

  108. The only thing I fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is the government.

  109. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hardest workers I've ever met are all dirt poor. They either lack the fortune or the inclination to make money - IOW they're either disabled, dumb or idealistic. (And note well that there's nothing wrong with being any of these, with the proviso that being thick does not include wilful ignorance.)

    You call the mere absence of an inclination to bullshit others into working for you "disabled", "dumb", or "idealistic"?

    Do you really think that "not a sociopath" should be considered an extraordinary condition?

    Are you an American or what?

  110. Where is the USA headed? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I will tell you.

    In 100 years there won't be a USA. There will be a north American confederacy of states, composed of what was the USA and Canada. It will be a massively decentralised confederacy. Most transportation will be by electric train. Personal transport will be by bicycle. The suburbs will have been abandoned and plowed back into farms. Much of the midwest USA will no longer be habitable due to drought and the collapse of the acquifers from draining them and from poisoning them via gas fracking earlier in the century. This confederacy will eventually unravel as the temperatures increase and the southern sections migrate north. Plagues (most flu but also drug resistant bacteria) will sweep through the urban populations, killing millions. In 1000 years, the population, compared to 2013, will have been more than decimated. What is left of humanity will live in valleys in high elevations, or near the Arctic and Antarctic circle. There will be very little metals left, and many people will live as hunter gatherers. Those cursed with civilisation will mostly live in coastal cities in Siberia and Canada and the horn of S. America. Fishing villages will appear in the archepelago of Antarctica. The level of technology will, at best, be roughly that of the 16th century.

    In 10,000 years, the few metals will have long ago oxidised. The few million remaining people will live as hunter gatherers in Siberia and Canada and Antarctica. Everything between the 50th parallels will be a hot desert or a hellish jungle where the wet-bulb temp far exceeds human survival. The few temperate forests left will be in the far north and south. The pyramids will be underwater, and the rest of the world's cities were dismantled and stripped for metals 9,500 years earlier. The Anthropocene will have disrupted the glacial cycle, and the world won't grow cold again for another 50,000 - 100,000 years. In 100,000,000 years, the earth will be a bit warmer than today, as the sun continues to increase its radiance as helium "ash" collects at the core. The decendants of racoons will have evolved and grown into furry bipeds with opposable thumbs and complex social systems. They will re-invent the wheel, and perhaps the scientific method. They will dig into the earth and find a thin layer of carbon and radioactivity. They will find our skeletons, most of them dated to within a few millennia, and realise what happened:

    At the edge of the forest is where there is the most activity and disruption. Weed species abound - crappy, sappy, trees with shallow roots, shrubs and grasses that strangle other plants, and this constant churn over territory and nutrients bounded by the soil and the sun permits for a great deal of opportunity for animals and plants to reproduce. One of these weed species evolved in Africa 103,000,000 years earlier than these racoonish scientists. The species was bipedal and omnivorous and highly social. Breaking into bands of 30 to 50 and assembling into crowds of 150 they believed that unseen beings controlled their world. They built shrines to these beings after a particularly cold ice age. To build these shrines they needed members of their society in place all year round, and thus devised small villages and agriculture. This permitted over population, but it also created hierarchy in their society. Where previously sociopathic behaviour was not tolerated in the small bands (murderers were punished by death), sociopaths were now able to flourish and institute systems of slavery and domination. These systems evolved the villages into cities; areas of such density that they required the import of resources. Emphasis on require. Soon, millions of people were slaughter by one city or group of cities for their resources. Shortly there after, the species discovered huge carbon deposits which were burned as fuel, and powered this weed species into planetary dominance. The oceans were quickly emptied of fish, and the air was filled with CO2, and the population skyrocketed. All of the metals that could be extracted, were.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Where is the USA headed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love trains and bicycles as much as the next guy. They are my two favorite modes of transportation by a very wide margin. But personal autonomous vehicles that harvest latent energy from the environment is the future.

      People have been predicting the cascading collapse of the human house of cards for a very long time, and there is a continuous string of disruptive technologies being introduced, which fundamentally and permanently alter the core assumptions.

      What if humans evolve to not require metal?
      Or not have bodies?
      Or discover a way to infuse every atom on earth with intelligence?

      I would place my bets on any of those three possibilities before I'd bet that today's assumptions are still valid even 100 years from now.

    2. Re:Where is the USA headed? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      That was certainly interesting

      We get most our useful metals from "un-oxidising" them, so I think it rather silly to say in 10,000 we won't have any because they will be "oxidised". The crust of the earth is over 20 miles thick and full of nifty useful oxides we can exploit for thousands of years. We have millenia of fossil fuel supply (unfortunately), plenty of coal. In space there is an infinite supply of metal ore and the energy to refine them. We've known how to smelt ores for thousands of years, so I don't see any barrier to any sentient species to make metal in any future age. It can even be done with the most primative of application of concentrated solar power.

      The only mass deaths by influenza were caused by secondary infection, not the virus itself (e.g. spanish flu), so I don't think viral plague need be a fear other than a tailored biological warfare agent. Antibiotic resistance thus far has been only a very minor nuisance to be any real threat, more hype than reality. In fact, most the problem seems to be lack of sanitary conditions at our hospitals, Re-architecting our hospitals and methods of care so killing supergerms outside the body can be done with powerful chemicals is an easy fix

      As for the long haul,
      Raccoons? they've been around for 37 million years. But human to ape happened much faster. Maybe a sentient whale species will go onto land, or another ape species comes forward

    3. Re:Where is the USA headed? by martinQblank · · Score: 1

      But we will we still have American Idol?

    4. Re:Where is the USA headed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your writings interesting and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Can you recommend a local fight club?

    5. Re:Where is the USA headed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wah. So the sky is falling.

      Do you know why the world will end up the way you predict? Not because of some evil elite that is subverting the economic system, or some technological weapon that gets into the wrong hands.

      But because people like you, intelligent logical people, are busy sitting around playing WoW and writing essays like this, saying how shitty everything is and how it's all the fault of everyone else, instead of doing ANYTHING to fix ANY of these problems. Did you think your brilliant essay would change everyone's minds, and they'd all suddenly start worshipping you and asking for more advice?

      I donate to the local food kitchen. I plant in a community garden. I recycle. I sponsor children in the third world. I'm converting my house to solar. I vote in every election. I educate myself every day, even though I graduated college. I was in the Peace Corps. I worked at an after school program for youth. I bought an electric car. I donate to the EFF, the ACLU, and the NAACP.

      What the fuck you have YOU every done to try to fix anything, besides your slashdot whining?

      I didn't think so.

    6. Re:Where is the USA headed? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      I donate to the local food kitchen.

      Interesting. So do I. I also run the office Xmas food fund. Gotta feed people.

      I plant in a community garden.

      There are none here, so I tend my own with a neighbour.

      I recycle.

      As do I.

      I sponsor children in the third world.

      As do I.

      I'm converting my house to solar.

      Recently moved into this house, so first order of business is re-insulation to reduce load, and then shift to geothermal HVAC. Due to neighbour's trees, solar isn't a great idea on my house. But the guy across the street will have an easy time of it.

      I vote in every election.

      I can't. I'm not a citizen of the country I live in.

      I educate myself every day, even though I graduated college.

      I'm a professor, so that's my job. :-)

      I was in the Peace Corps.

      I've travelled a good bit. Never did Peace corp.

      I worked at an after school program for youth.

      Similar: I read stories at a children's library for a number of years.

      I bought an electric car.

      I ride a bicycle. Just bought a new trailer for it! Works great, esp. for getting groceries and hauling stuff.

      I donate to the EFF, the ACLU, and the NAACP.

      I donate to EFF, Greenpeace, Amnesty Int'l, and a local charity for underprivileged youth.

      So, in terms of what I do, you and I are very very similar. The difference is, you seem to think technical civilisation is by its nature a net good. I do not. I don't see it as good or bad. It is simply the present condition of humans. Nothing lasts forever, and thermodynamics will not be denied. In my work as an educator, I explain very carefully and precisely to university students the precarious situation society and the biosphere are in, and I explain how due to the luck of the draw, their generation is going to have to do all the heavy lifting. My generation can point the direction toward "better" policies, but they and their kids are the ones who are going to get stuck doing stupid shit like building dikes around NYC and having to deal with uncontrollable plagues, and dealing with north bound migration and drought etc.

      We're not going back to some "idyllic garden". Even if humans disappeared tomorrow, there would still be a massive rise in temperature for the next few centuries.

      I don't see the loss of civilisation and the disappearance of humanity as a bad thing. It's just how the universe operates. I don't see the glass as half full (as optimists such as yourself do), nor do I see the glass as half empty (as pessimists like the Peak Oil crew, and the likes of Guy McPherson, and similar doomers do). To me, the glass is simply asymmetric to its contents.

      In our dealings with society, we should work to reduce suffering, especially of the innocent. We should work at developing a humane and socialist system based around human need not private greed. We need to solarise our societies as much as possible. But this will not get us out of the thermo-demo dynamic trap. We are in the Anthropocene. That tiny human caused geological blip that triggered a major extinction event. Denying its so won't change it. But it's basically the same deal as Kubler Ross stages. First is denial... I'm well into the acceptance phase on the death of civilisation and the fate of humanity. It's not as big a deal as you might think.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    7. Re:Where is the USA headed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most metals are extracted as oxides. But cool story bro.

    8. Re:Where is the USA headed? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Where is the USA headed? by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Are you available for kids parties? :)

    10. Re:Where is the USA headed? by darenw · · Score: 1

      Best read of the day!

    11. Re:Where is the USA headed? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Did you just get back from a showing of Hunger Games?

    12. Re:Where is the USA headed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not quite December 1 yet, you can still get this NaNoWriMo project done if you try!

  111. Re:Control... Fear and Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The traditional way to control people is with religion. Since the American society is slowly maturing and moving a way from religion and its fear of imaginary sky beings, the control freaks in Washington have to find another way to control the hoi polloi and the easiest one is fear of an imagined enemy. This worked well during the imaginary cold war and it seems to work even better during the imaginary terrorism war.

  112. Is it just me by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    ...Or is anyone else fearful of America continuing on as it's been for the last 12 years? Hell man, bring on the change. it all comes down to local police enforcing the laws. In this way, it's clearly the blind people that aren't thinking, and enforcing ridiculousness that is creating what we are calling 'fear'.

    The other day I pulled up to a line of cars that were all waiting behind this one asshole that was at the stop sign. It's a 4-way stop, and at a very relaxed intersection, so to have a line of cars indicated that they had already been there a long time. I was so far back that I couldn't see if the guy in the car was dead, or having car trouble, and all the other people were just waiting. I waited for a full minute, and the guy never moved, so I pulled around everyone. Well, there was a policeman right behind me. That mother fucker pulled me over for illegally passing over a double-yellow line. $180 ticket I have to pay now, and there was no alternative other than waiting indefinitely for the guy in the front to go (this was per the cop).

    Honestly I can't care less about fear. It's stupidity that I'm concerned about. When all logic that has been generated by evolution seems to be disregarded, in the name of ideals local agendas, there's a need to get together and discuss/resolve, however Americans are so divided. And I think that is what everyone else is concerned about too, maybe I'm wrong.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  113. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still blaming Bush I see. Well, you democrats and other progressive fuckwads can't seem to accept responsibility for your own failings, which is why we have to show up and punch you in the face from time to time.

    Not that it's terribly hard, considering how badly your puppet Obama is all tangled up in his strings, and his rats are leaving the sinking ship.

  114. The US fear nothing by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    No country in history ever feared anything. But its leaders do. And the leaders of the US do fear. Mostly, they fear their own population.

    The citizens of the US are used to a VERY high standard of living. Food, water, shelter were not really high up on the worries totem-pole of the average US citizen. Look back at the 80s and 90s when our living standard reached its peak. Our worries were far, far away from the basic needs.

    We lived this life at the expense of a lot of other areas of the planet. Sure, we donated to starving children and sang "We are the world", but face it, we gave because, hell, it didn't cut into our way of living. And it made us feel good (another thing that was quite up there with our "needs", which alone should tell you about how much we really "needed"). The idea that we'd need to cut back our living standards never crossed our minds. This isn't now any kind of accusation that we should have done it, it is simply to state the fact that we're used to our standard of living and that we don't even want to consider lowering it.

    Now, the 90s are over and the bubble of the millenium burst, and now we face stiff competition in the market. China woke up and noticed that it has a HUGE worker potential that not only can produce like there's no tomorrow, but that is also not used to as high a living standard as we are. Of course, companies decide to move away. Well, DUH. Competing with China in the dumping wage department, though, is not really an option for a country like the US, for many reasons. Not that it wasn't tried, of course, and also reliably our politicians didn't do anything about it until it's too late now (and they still don't, not that it could revert anything). Dumping wages in the US, like we get to see now, have the predictable effect that we also face now: Less money for the "average Joe" to spend.

    The US, though, has an economy that relies heavily on services. Over 3/4 of the people and the GDP were in services. Now, services is the first area people cut back when money gets tight. Well, be honest, if you have money to buy food or get a haircut, which one is it going to be? And if you can't pay your rent that dripping faucet isn't as big a problem, so it keeps dripping because the money goes to your landlord.

    This has a downward spiral effect. Fewer people having money to spend on services, so service providers have to shut down, creating more unemployed people, leading to fewer people having money to spend on services.

    This little detour across the US economy should illustrate my next point: Our standard of living is in free fall. Our standard of living also included that we're able to hire people for certain jobs that we don't want to do or that we think we cannot do "perfectly". The job of the wedding planner comes to mind as a service that simply can only exist in a society that has an incredible surplus of resources. How many people can still afford that? Hell, how many can afford a "decent" wedding? Or funeral?

    This, of course, leads to unrest. People are unhappy about that situation. And that is dangerous to those in power. Because to them, the situation is still beneficial.

    This is pretty much all the US, or rather, those in power in the US, have to fear right now: Their own population. Or rather, individuals that might form a focal point as a leader of an uprising. Finding and eliminating those leaders is paramount now. Of course, elimination currently does not mean killing, at least not yet. Right now the weapon of choice is disinformation, slander and destroying credibility. I.e. the usual first line remedy against dissent. Right now, this usually still suffices.

    But to do this, you have to be able to first of all FIND them, and find them early enough that they cannot form a group of people who support and follow them. The very last thing you need as a government is that your opposition can gain momentum. And for that, well, you have to be able to identify people who could be such focal point material early.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  115. Fear sells, and we are buying... by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

    Fear sells. It isn't just the government that uses it. Spend an afternoon listening to Alex Jones or Talk Radio in general. Watch what people are watching on TV and the movies. Zombie and horror movies are big time right now. Look at what everyone is being told in church, "it's the End Times."

    It's all just capitalism in action. If fear makes people part with their money, then someone is going to be dishing out the fear.

    I don't know what the exact solution is, but in capitalism, when the market dries up, the sellers move on to different markets.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
  116. Realization of unsustainability by Misagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that the fear at the top has come from the realisation that the way the US works is unsustainable in the long term. I am thinking primarily of the debt-based economy that is based on economic growth to function, the large dependence on oil and the effects of global warming becoming more apparent.

    These are smart people. They understand that change from post-WWII model is inevitable and that this change may not come easy.
    There is a large probability of future social unrest, riots and organised armed resistance against the ruling caste, so they do what they think is necessary for them to retain control of the country in the future. This is what I think is the real reason behind the de-democratisation of USA.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:Realization of unsustainability by ms7285 · · Score: 1

      Power does know that change is coming. It is trying its damnedest to prevent the populace to realize it. That is why we 'insure' flood zones for reconstruction. A HUGE portion of the high priced vacation homes( and trophy homes) will be underwater in 2 decades. The mechanization of production and distribution will eliminate many casual jobs and concentrate retail power. As the un-employable sector grows it will increase pressure to produce rock-stars in all disciplines. 'Power' will skim the 'profit' from the stars to maintain its hold(as it always has). These 'star harvesters' are one of the most cherished stars to be harvested(ie personal managers, project managers, and venture capitalists . . . ) On the bottom end: Personal productivity to local markets will be the crucible for local economics. DIY manufacturing, construction, farming will be made more effective with personal process mechanization. In the end creativity and dedication to excellence(locally defined or cheaply marketed) will redefine the local and thus the global socio-eco-scape. The cab-on-demand will expand with rob-cars and so will robo-delivery-vehicles. Robo-delivery of construction-waldos. Time-shared agri-bots. BUT only if we can reduce the energy/ resource/ poison density to a sustainable scale.

  117. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big problem you're griping about is how Obama got re-elected in the first place last November. In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. The US is a nation of apathetic people, we deserve a fucknut like Obama.

  118. Re:It's Obama's fault by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Obama has done more to destroy democracy in 5 years, than all the other presidents combined.

    Lol Trust me Bush did more damage in one year than the whole of the current presidents will ever do.

    President Bush had little effect on democracy in the US, and President Obama not much more (it was mainly his supporters in the IRS that engaged in political oppression). As to the rest of your post, it's like reading a left wing satire.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  119. Re:It's older than snakes..... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    If the wolf befriends you, he'll wait till you're good and dead before eating you, and will feel a little bad about doing it.

    That fucking mini-panther will start gnawing on your as soon as it THINKS you can't stop it. You won't be dead before you're own cat will start eating your ass.

    Evil creatures, people who own them really don't understand that the cat is the smartest animal in the home.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  120. Re:It's Obama's fault by BenfromMO · · Score: 2

    Well we can take the partisanship out of it if you wish? All of the stuff Obama plays with could have been stopped at any time while he was president, and yet it still continues and he still voted for the extension of the Patriot Act when he was a senator, so I don't think politics has anything to do with the two political parties who are both statists and just want to control us as much as possible. Indeed, for myself, I call Bush Herr Bush and Obama Herr Obama because they are both fascists of different stripes that get off on telling others what they can and can not do. While bush liked to tell us that we have the right to get groped in airports and have a right to treat people like cattle in Guatanamo Bay, we have Obama busy telling us what we can and can not eat, what kinds of power we can use to generate electricity, and so on and so forth. Its seeming more and more like every politician is just trying to trump the previous idiot/dumbass and take away even more of our freedoms while the people shout out about how their political party is so much better....yea partisan politics has sure solved these issues well.

    Of course, both political parties are just being fascists for "our own good" and so will tell us what we can eat, what healthcare we can have, and what we can say via the Patriot Act. There is no freedom party in this country because they are all after their own fascist little power trips and they all want to go to war for "our own good" while we the people get shafted with politicians who use our own money to shaft us and turn around and send our young men to die on their pointless little wars. Politics is dead in the US right now if you ask me, and fascism is alive and kicking with the NSA still recording our phone calls for our own protection. We still live in a free country (sort of) but that has sure changed in the last 15 years when we used to have so many more freedoms. I too wonder where this all ends.

  121. Where the US is heading for by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is simply a police state, in the velvet-clad incarnation of a surveillance state. [ This goes true, alas, also for certain western European states, most of all Britain and the Netherlands- ]

    Fear, indeed, may be a good label to stick upon some of the deeper undercurrents that began flowing through, or rather: under, western culture since september 2001. As bad a motivator as it is, fear is a powerful one. Couple that with consumption and the benumbedness of the lower socio-economic strata ( in the US case I think explicitly of the urbanized black population in its pit of misery ) and you have the most effective tool there is, for less-than-well-intended or simply *stupid* politicians. to bring society under minute control. All the while, most John Does in that same society will still think they live in a "free" country, even bragging about it.

    The only thing that would help here were revolution, a revolution of courage. I think of citizens, united in new parties, declaring independence - of or in smaller states. Although for a very unjust cause, the southern states were fighting for just reasons and stood on justified ground. Their attempt at breaking away from the Union could be repeated with peaceful means. Next year, Scotland will be voting on formal independence from the UK - an historical opportunity to get those hateful cameras off their streets, and GCHQ out of their backyard. In the Netherlands, it will needs be done with different means, as breakaway is nearly impossible in such small entities.

    All in all, though, I wonder how millions of reasonably smart citizens can undergo the current climate of repression [ see Sarah Harrison's comment on calling a duck a duck ] without a tinge or mere inkling of revolt ?

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  122. Re:Power by pakar · · Score: 1

    Equalized in terms of that all people are worth the same - Yes.
    Equalized in terms of that all people gets the same amount of wealth - No.

    Life is a long struggle, but making it so everyone have the same opportunities to start with is something we should strive for.

    Two things in life that most people want and need.. Education and healthcare... Make those two free for everyone and the world would be come a much more interesting and safe place..

  123. Re:It's Obama's fault by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    People like you are why the fucknuts get elected who go out of their way to pass crap like the Patriot Act, and to invade other countries for no reason.

    Afghanistan was invaded for refusing to dismantle al Qaida and turn over the demanded leaders after al Qaida attacked the US on 9/11. NATO stood behind the US in its self-defense. It is the only time the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty has ever been used in war.

    Iraq was invaded because Saddam had his government act as if it had WMD to fool the Iranians because he thought there was no way that the US and UN would act forcefully to his apparent defiance. He was mistaken.

    Nobody went out of their way to pass the Patriot Act, it was a response to the genuine internal security threat posed by al Qaida. And just to be clear, it was passed by Congress. That is the same Congress that prior to that had busied itself with milk price supports, farm policy, taxes, labor law, government budgets, and every other issue it works on.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  124. Oh No We Would Never Do That! by bobwalt · · Score: 1

    European hypocrisy has hit new heights. The Europeans practically invented spying on allies and the British had pretty much developed it into an art form by the start of WW1. The British were known for an active foreign policy in which they manipulated their allies into actions that fit their policy goals. There is some thought that in the post WW1 period they maneuvered the international scene so as to break up the budding alliance between the US and the Japanese. This was done to because the combined navies would prove too much a challenge to British power at sea. The French are just as bad as they have a tendency to break into the hotel rooms of their allies diplomats and search them. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks.".

    1. Re:Oh No We Would Never Do That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europeans today are hypocritical because entirely different Europeans did a bunch of ugly stuff before WW1? By that logic, anyone anywhere criticizing anything is hypocritical, cause all countries have some history of violence and ugliness.

    2. Re:Oh No We Would Never Do That! by bobwalt · · Score: 1

      If they were not still doing it to the best of their capability you might be right.

  125. American fear is rooted in the same thing by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    as everyone else's- ignorance. Ignorance scares the crap out of me.

  126. Better Than Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is having a problem but I suspect we might be getting better instead of worse with a couple of exceptions. I was born during WWII and grew up in an era in which the public lived under tremendous propaganda and false history. A couple of lousy republican presidents essentially screwed up so badly that the veil cracked down the middle and the public began to get the picture that they were being lied to and taken advantage of. The fianl straw was Bush lying and targeting Iraq. But even that might be considered just an error if it had not been for the use of torture. Once it was revealed that the US was in fact torturing inmates the jig was up. The cover ups in the murder of John and Bobby Kennedy as well as Dr. King all the while became more and more obvious.
                    Even the most dramatic and basic beliefs and events in our history need to be exposed. Almost anyone these days can runa search on the "Flying Tigers" and make note of when they first fired upon Japanese troops. I am not for a moment suggesting that it was wrong to fight Japan but we simply can not deny that we had an organized group equipped with military weapons by the US composed of US airmen at war with Japan well before Pearl Harbor. Yet our national pretense was that the US was attacked suddenly and that we were so innocent in that conflict. In a way who fired first doesn't have so much meaning. But if one considers that the causes of the conflict were certainly not so one sided as we have been lead to believe. If the US had behaved differently Japan may have never tunred to war. The catch being that we have no chance at all of knowing just what went on to provoke the need for Japan to go to war.

  127. Fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fear will keep the local systems in-line.

  128. The litany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration...."

  129. MEDIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    terrorism couldn't work without media reporting them.

    Imagine an incident happened in china and the government failed to prevent it - the whole area would be sealed, story would be described as unintended gas explosion due to leak, reporters who wish to find out and spread truth would be silenced so nobody can know anything for sure. As a result while everyone condemns the government, nobody actually feels terrorized. The families and friends of terrorists would probably cry because their mission ultimately failed, terrorists died for absolutely nothing.

    If you wish it to stop now, shut down your TV, stop reading newspapers. When you hear about it, don't care. Don't give a fuck about other people and terrorists would eventually give up.

  130. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly covered under idealistic &/or dumb.

    Enjoy!

  131. Re:USA fear. Please take this as not being nasty.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, looking at it from the other end of the marble, it's not that much different.

    But I think the differences in the health system might even shed some light on the question. In Europe, like with you, we pay for health care with our taxes. And not a small portion of my paycheck goes to our health system every month. I certainly pay more than I will probably ever get out. That's ok, though. It not only gives me security, but it also gives me the good feeling that someone else who is less fortunate than me and riddled with some malady can get the treatment he needs despite not being able to afford it. And this is the general sentiment towards the whole deal here.

    Despite everything that happened lately, the feeling of solidarity between the people, at least within a country, is still present. Even the support for other countries in the Union that need it right now is fairly high, especially if you consider that very few have anything to do with Greece. Interestingly, when people complain about it, it's not that they complain about us having to pay for the Greek unemployment or the Greek retirement (which we don't, btw, but it would be nice if we did!), the complaint is about propping up the failing banks of Greece.

    And that's, IMO, the big difference. We do not see our neighbor as our competitor, we see them as our partner. We don't relish in his plight, we help him out of it. And in turn we do kinda expect him to do the same, within reason, of course, but also with some justification. I don't fear any unemployed guy who needs money to hit me over the head for the 20 bucks in my wallet. Not only because our social service keeps him afloat, fed and sheltered, but also because I know that he doesn't see me as the reason for his misery.

    I've had a very different feeling in the US. Especially as soon as you leave the extremely rural areas, the distrust between people gets to a really unhealthy level.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  132. weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With weakness comes fear.

  133. PATRIOT act clarification by mpercy · · Score: 1

    I'm no fan of the PATRIOT Act nor of the Republican Party, but I do think it needs to be pointed out that the PATRIOT Act was passed 98-1 in the Senate (Senator Russ Feingold (D Wisconsin) was the only senator who voted against it). Every other Democrat in the Senate voted for the Act. In 2006 when the Act was up for renewal, little changed as it was renewed 89-10, albeit with 9 of the 10 nays being from Democrats. The yeas in the Senate reads like a who's-who of the Democrat Party: Harry Reid (D NV) and Hillary Clinton (D NY) voted in favor both times; Obama also voted Yea when he was in the Senate in 2006. It passed the House easily too, 357-66 (Nancy Pelosi was a Yea in 2001) and 280-138 in 2006. The opposition in the House was largely, but not entirely, from Democrats; however, D's voted for the bill more than 2-1. In 2011, Pres. Obama signed a reauthorization bill into law. That reauthorization bill passed the House 250-153 and the Senate 72-23, again with Democrats in the Senate voting nearly 2-1 in favor. It may be noteworthy that Rand Paul (R KY) was a No vote.

  134. The Power of Nightmares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An very insightful answer to this is Adam Curtis' 3-part documentary "The Power of Nightmares". Easy to view online with a simple search. For example, at archive.org. Highly recommended.

  135. The tyrant traitor Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the scariest thing out there.

    1. Re:The tyrant traitor Obama by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, you should showed the original poster where our fear comes from: Irrational sets of lies from cowards.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  136. "The Power of Nightmares: The Politics of Fear" by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    That is the title of an excellent BBC series from 2004, that addresses this topic. The contention is that fear has replaced promises of a better tomorrow as the leverage point politicians exploit to persuade the masses. It is available on Netflix, here: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Power-of-Nightmares/70035190?strkid=2097735933_4_0&strackid=4c753cb9c81ba8d_4_srl&trkid=222336

  137. From your own head. by koan · · Score: 2

    The US is heading in 2 directions, a revolution of violence or a complete collapse coupled with fascism that will begin within the next 5 years.

    It's been my opinion that the US is being dismantled, rights, culture, education, unity.

    Massive injections of illegal aliens, multiple languages, central religion discredited, collapsed public school system, uneducated children with no culture (think about it what is your culture?) collapsed economy, continually putting the same kind of sociopathic people into the same positions of power.

    I think the US is viewed as a problem to a unified one World government and so the termites were dispatched to our financial system, our media was corrupted and now America has no central culture (worth mentioning) and therefore no unity.

    We are not "A people".

    A public fractured and fighting against its self, economic collapse, well you get the picture.

    If you look at history these violent revolutions create a lot of chaos, some things change but given enough time the new society will succumb to the same issues as the last one.

    The only society that works long term is one in which all the participants are forever vigilant and active against the creep of stupidity.

    That leaves the USA out.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  138. You assume "fear" and are mistaken. by TwineLogic · · Score: 1

    The reason many US citizens follow orders is a belief or assumption that "The Natural Order is the Moral Order." That is the title of a view in which those who are already in power, and those who are physically strong, are perceived as having the moral authority over what is right and wrong. Those who believe this have a habit of thinking that person arrive in positions of power because they inherently deserved to arrive there. Subsequently, it is immoral to question their authority.

    This mode of thinking is clearly explained in George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics, in which Lakoff clarifies the mistaken belief system of those who engage in it. His book is based upon, but does not cite, the theories from Scripts People Live and the related world-changing books on psychology.

    In short, OP proposes that the average American citizen supports tyranny after making some conscious decision to assuage their own fear. This is mistaken. In fact, the average American supports tyranny after not realizing they alreay elected it last time, and otherwise without applying much thinking at all.

    Finally, if there were an emotion I would attribute most of the lack of thinking to, that is not fear but hate. The same people who engage in the poor thinking described above are simply not fond of intelligent people, and would rather oppose them simply for the pleasure of thwarting any ideas thay are unable apprehend, which would be most new ideas.

  139. Those who travel abroard tend to be nicer/better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I've seen is that a society's fellows who get to a position where they can travel to other countries (and who want to see other countries) tend to be just a nicer type of person all around.

    In Germany I thought well, the Americans you run into working or studying in Europe tend to be well mannered, intelligent, good looking people. What a wonderful bunch!

    And then I visited the U.S. and saw the "Red States." What a shock!

    But it is the same in reverse. If you go to the hinterlands of any European country, you will find that society's rednecks, who are far different from the thoughtful and empathetic versions of that society who travel abroad. An Austrian rural farmer can be every bit the equal of Honey Boo-Boo.

  140. Hate Em~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clowns

  141. Oh...and by koan · · Score: 1

    Fear (the irrational type I believe this article is addressing) comes from your head, fear is mainly generated by ignorance, you don't understand what's going on so you're uncomfortable, the news exacerbates that feeling, so take a long hard look at modern media in the US.

    I dream sometimes I can shut off ever TV and every movie, even stop the Internet, force people to deal with each other face to face.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  142. Re: Power by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    There are many rewards for feeding the starving poor. Norman Borlaug is probably the biggest winner in that respect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

    Monsanto catches a lot of crap nowadays, but is greatly interested in increasing agricultural production. Sadly most of the gains we've made recently in increasing crop production have gone to stupid things like ethanol production which would go away under capitalist circumstances, but I digress.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  143. Ruled by fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we -are- a christian nation afterall.

  144. Fear is delectable and this is why: by couchslug · · Score: 1

    The US is an anti-intellectual Hellmouth (if you've not read the Katz pieces, read them) full of brutal Superstitionist simpletons.
    The simple are paranoid, and "fear of everything" feels like a wise precaution and feels like a Special Insight. Consider the folks who imagine chemtrails and other plots which supposedly seek to control them.
    If you are worth controlling, you must have value! Fear of terror implies you are worth terrorising. Fear of Illuminati control implies you are worth controlling.
    In NO popular fantasy (or religion, superstition works the same way) does the fantasist "not fucking matter" or is "safe from evil because Evil doesn't care to bother with trifles".
    It is easy for the Right wing in the US to feed the egos of simpletons using fear, so they do. Bonus is the addiction to Scary News nets eyeballs and media profit. If you spend time chatting with Foxtards (Libtards also exist, I don't much respect anyone) they thrive on each delicious nugget of frightening news about the Negro Menace in the Oval Office, never mind that he is functionally Bush's Tan Sequel.
    Superstition controls simpletons by making guilt (Alan Watts was correct) a virtue. The guilty don't just fear their Sky Fairy, but are conditioned to delicious guilty fear. That fear conditions them to lash out at perceived enemies so they didn't mind building a surveillance state to fend off Brown People. Now they perceive a Brown Person to control it (missing that a politician has no color) and they suddenly fear that too.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  145. Going a bit off topic. by mevets · · Score: 1

    Diem was executed on Nov 2, 1963. Three weeks later, JFK was assassinated.
    Everybody (outside the US) seemed to know about the US involvement in the coup and execution.
    Why does this never come up in the endless theories about the JFK assassination?

  146. Gun ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or more accurately obsession with the right to bear arms and the thought that someone is going to come and take your freedom away.

    Ironic since this is the best misdirection act ever played. You're government can get away with anything - as long as you still have your guns. There is a hilarious clip on Youtube of Fox News pundits advocating elimination of every single other amendment. But not the 2nd! Anything but the 2nd!

    That's like stealing your penis.

    So you get a gun to protect yourself from your government taking your guns away.

  147. fear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, as published in Samuel Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Volume Two: The Year of Crisis, 1933 (New York: Random House, 1938), 11–16.

  148. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the general public has been convinced that it is evil and wrong to balance opportunity with free healthcare, and similarly, there are constant attacks on public schooling. Ironically, they have been tricked into thinking that they can become part of the upper class if they just work a little harder, so they actively work against the very mechanisms which could elevate them.

  149. legitimacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it wasn't fear, what was it that inspired Germany's role in imposing the first euro-bloc levy on bank deposits? Any why would anyone in their right mind deposit money in a European bank any more?

    Tapping Angela Merkel's cell phone might not be gentlemanly, but espionage seldom is. It hardly "delegitimizes" American democracy, and the shocked tones of outrage coming from government officials the world over, regarding what is routine, traditional spying, are just a bit much, considering they all do things like this, too. Yes, Snowden's revelations are important, but kicking Uncle Sam when he's down is hypocritical, and worse, distracts people from noticing who the real actors behind the NSA's real excesses are, or even that they exist. Because those same actors are doing the same things under cover of *their* governments, as well. Long live interlocking international boards of directors.

    I will defer comment on Kurbjuweit's simplistic psychoanalysis to the armchair shrinks and quarterbacks who find this sort of thing interesting even if irrelevant.

  150. Re: Power by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    My hat off to you, sir! It is a very important thing to acknowledge that you enjoyed some benefits that other people lacked due to the mere reason of being born with less.

  151. Re:It's older than snakes..... by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

    Evil creatures, people who own them really don't understand that the cat is the smartest animal in the home.

    Perhaps, but I wish I had a dime for every time my dumbass has smacked herself in the face with her tail.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  152. Where Does America's Fear Come From? by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Their arrogance...

  153. Over a hundred years ago... by caogdin3419 · · Score: 1

    ...Gladstone wrote:

    "We look forward to the time when the Power of Love
    will replace the Love of Power.

    "Then will our world know the blessings of peace."

    Still the unachieved aspiration, because the geedy will always be with us. Our only salvation as a country, in my view, is to use the tax code to limit the ratio between the income of the poor, and the income of the rich. Getting rich is a reward for delivering value. It is not, however, a sanction to behave badly toward your fellow man. Only a society that lives by the maxim that those who gain the most, owe the most, can ever experience freedom for all.

  154. good economic times = the boredom to create fears by KernelMuncher · · Score: 1

    Post the Great Depression, the USA has had a pretty good run as far as a high standard of living for its residents. That's true even with the numerous recessions that have occurred over the decades. Everybody in the middle class has two cars, color TV's and big houses. America is the land of plenty.

    I think all this economic prosperity has given Americans the luxury to sit around and dream up things to be afraid of. The populace isn't concerned with thoughts of their next meal or hyperinflation. Instead they deal with their boredom by manufacturing fears. Some of these topics are legitimately worth being concerned about (though likely not to the degree we've obsessed over them as a nation). Others were simply paranoia:

    1950's = Communists
    1960's = hippies
    1970's = industrial toxins in environment give us cancer
    1980's = Communists again under Regan
    1990's = crack epidemic / drug wars
    2000's = terrorists

  155. Re: Power by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

    Hard work has little, if anything, to do with it.

    I agree with part of your statement, and there are definitely those who more or less have money dropped into their lap by heredity or circumstance, but I do believe hard work is a major contributor to wealth in many if not most cases. The trick is to know where to apply that effort - there are people that break their back for their employer, but almost no one gets rich working for someone else. I suppose that falls under "doing the right thing at the right time", but I personally know two millionaires that started out as average Joes, and without the ridiculous amount of effort both put into their businesses, they'd still be writing code for someone else.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  156. From their brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which in homo sapiens sapiens is known as the amygdala

  157. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd go even further to say that capitalism rewards harnessing the work of others, for personal profit.

    Even miners and farmers are harnessing natural processes (work of others) for personal profit.

  158. Re: Power by Teun · · Score: 1
    Yes but...

    Present-day capitalism (the Anglo-Saxon model) is about short-term profits while the longest lasting nations and companies were run for long-term profit.

    Profits made on for example high-frequency trading are not benefiting the economy and society, rather the contrary.
    I prefer the long-term view.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  159. Re:It's older than snakes..... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

    And some people don't like the miniature panthers inside the house because the damn things are reservoirs for toxoplasmosis, which in humans causes severe birth defects and has been associated with high risk and criminal behaviors.

    Keep the cats outside, where they belong. Especially if there is anyone living with you who might someday get pregnant.

    --
    Will
  160. America is full of pussies. by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's as simple as that, and I am an American myself. I sure as hell wasn't one of the masses crying for "protection" and for the government to infiltrate every aspect of every citizen's lives back when 9/11 happened. My exact thoughts at the time were something along the lines of, "shit happens. People will get over it." Only, apparently I was wrong about people "getting over" it; if they really did, we wouldn't have the dragnet of mass surveillance placed upon us by the federal government as we do now and find ourselves forced to figure out how to reclaim our 4th-Amendment rights (and others).

    All 9/11 did was make the whole horde of pussies come out in droves and produce legislation to help drive the government into the ground and weaken its people. The worthless yellow journalism that is the mainstream news sure as hell didn't help much. If that is what the terrorists wanted (to erode the U.S. into a rogue, fascist government with powerless citizens), the Americans didn't put up much of a fight, because that is exactly what they got and with no trouble at all.

    The way I see it, the real "terrorists" are my own government. Its citizens need to grow a pair and quit going apeshit over "terrorist attacks" and stand up for their rights and freedoms. It's ironic the way people sharply and strongly react to even just the word "terrorists"; why no talk of all the *wars* going on? Why does no one give a fuck about those, some of which the U.S. is directly a part of? How did people get such a strong hatred of terrorists that kill, and not their own government that does the same fucking thing *on their own behalf*? Looks like another win by the mainstream news corporations, which no doubt have their own political agendas.

    1. Re:America is full of pussies. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      All 9/11 did was make the whole horde of pussies come out in droves and produce legislation to help drive the government into the ground and weaken its people.

      Don't you remember how quickly the USA PATRIOT Act was put together and voted on?
      September 11, 2001: New York was attacked
      October 23, 2001: The PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House
      October 24, 2001: The PATRIOT Act was passed in the House
      October 25, 2001: The PATRIOT Act was passed in the Senate
      October 26, 2001: The PATRIOT Act is signed into law by President George W. Bush.

      Elapsed Time: 6 weeks
      That was "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:America is full of pussies. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      You are mostly right about how the people reacted after 9/11. But don't forget, the legislation was drafted well before the event took place. The 9/11 attack was only the rallying cry that allowed them to get the votes needed to pass that legislation into law. People are indeed scared and panicky, but other people too advantage of the situation to grab power for themselves.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  161. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod points: +infinity

  162. Complete And Utter Bullshit by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    This article is a gigantic mess of exaggerated, distorted BS.

    Among its very many flaws, is that it makes the mistake of equating actions of the government with the "will of the people"... suggesting that government is acting as a reflection of citizen fear. When in reality, the opposite is true: the government has been trying to rule the populace through fear, using the largely manufactured bugaboo of terrorism.

    The article was obviously written by someone who (A) doesn't know much about America, or (B) doesn't like it. Or both.

    As just one simple element of proof, consider: most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing, and are trying to stop it.

    1. Re:Complete And Utter Bullshit by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing

      I find this hard to believe. Most seem rather apathetic.

      and are trying to stop it.

      I find this much harder to believe.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Complete And Utter Bullshit by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing"

      Polls say that indeed, pretty consistently, most Americans are: against most foreign military intervention, against surveillance by government, against increasing militarization of law enforcement, against drone strikes, against the TSA, against the "War on Drugs" and at least most of the "War on Terror"... in fact, against pretty much EVERYTHING the government has tried to sell us via scare tactics.

      Yet the author of TFA claims it's the other way around: that the American people are pushing these policies on Government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      Your assertion that "most seem rather apathetic" is actually more proof that the government is behind it, not "The People": if they're apathetic, then they're not going to be all fired up, urging the government to invade yet another country, are they?

      I find this much harder to believe.

      Point taken. I'll amend my comment: "Most Americans don't like it, and many are trying to stop it."

    3. Re:Complete And Utter Bullshit by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Polls say that indeed, pretty consistently, most Americans are: against most foreign military intervention, against surveillance by government, against increasing militarization of law enforcement, against drone strikes, against the TSA, against the "War on Drugs" and at least most of the "War on Terror"... in fact, against pretty much EVERYTHING the government has tried to sell us via scare tactics.

      Depends on the poll. And frankly, I don't really trust any polls of this type (no matter what the results are) to begin with.

      Your assertion that "most seem rather apathetic" is actually more proof that the government is behind it, not "The People":

      In cases of war, maybe. Apathy is certainly not helping.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Complete And Utter Bullshit by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Depends on the poll."

      Yes, it does, but the things I mentioned have been shown to be majority view by the majority of polls by different organizations: gallup, roper, pew, etc.

      "I don't really trust any polls of this type (no matter what the results are) to begin with."

      I don't either, unless the results are pretty consistent across different polls by different organizations.

      "In cases of war, maybe. Apathy is certainly not helping."

      Apparently that one was a WHOOSH.

    5. Re:Complete And Utter Bullshit by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't either, unless the results are pretty consistent across different polls by different organizations.

      Well, it all really comes down to whether or not these organizations poll in such a way that it's representative of most of the population and ask questions in a neutral manner; if they don't, then it matters far less to me that they come up with similar results. The degree in which people support or oppose these policies and laws also matters to me. How many people would support/stop caring about this sort of nonsense if it was changed only slightly, even perhaps in ineffective ways?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  163. Cable TV News by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Read an interesting article last year that said a lot of the 'fear' was a direct consequence of the rise of ratings-driven for-profit cable news. The news channels needed to fill their airtime with something and fear-driven programming kept eyeballs on the TV sets. Fear of terrorists, fear of child abductors - Fear, fear, fear.

  164. It comes from the change in power by paiute · · Score: 1

    Back in the days when General Electric and General Motors were the dominant influence in Washington, fear was bad. Fear might keep Americans from buying a new car or a washing machine. So fear was a bad thing for politicians to use as a hammer. Now that the dominant influence in Washington is the military-industrial complex, fear is good. Fear keeps the public monies flowing to Halliburon and Raytheon and Lockheed. So fear is a good thing for politicians to run out.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  165. Re:USA fear. Please take this as not being nasty.. by dk20 · · Score: 1

    When i lived in Calgary (AB) I went to some small city in Montana and was asked about living in an igloo, and about our brutally cold winters. Since we drove and it was only a few hours i was always curious where this extra "cold" came from.
    It sure wasn't warm in Montana, just like it freezing cold back in Calgary at the time.

  166. enough already by almechist · · Score: 2

    I keep seeing the same old pointless 2nd amendment arguments debated over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Enough already, OK? I'm not a gun owner and my politics are anything but conservative, but geez, "the right to bear arms" seems pretty damn clear to me. America is a country where citizens are allowed to have guns, always has been and always will be. I just wish liberals would recognize this truth and drop the issue for good. Gun control is the single most alienating issue I know of on the Left, it does nothing but make enemies of good folk who might otherwise be natural allies. Liberals need to just walk away from the whole arms thing and pretend it never existed. For whatever reason and regardless of the justification, guns in America are here to stay. Deal with it. And yes, I will say it plainly, the sad fact is that occasionally a Columbine or a Sandy Hook is bound to happen, this is the true price we pay for being an armed society of imperfect human beings. Too bad I've never once heard a politician from either side of the aisle get up and admit that or anything remotely like it. It's the truth, though, we should accept it and move on.

    For the record, I thought hard about posting this as an AC, but in the end chose not to. Truth is nothing to be ashamed of.

  167. Re:good economic times = the boredom to create fea by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Despotism != Dictatorship. All democracies fall into despotism, Ben Franklin was right.

    1) Prosperous people have more to lose; therefore, more to fear. (not boredom) The wealthy fear any changes to the status quo despite their relatively high security; it's a historic trend which characterizes them. A middle class could be expected inherit a tiny bit of those traits. A proper Buddhist for example, is largely free from such fears for good reason (one could argue that the fears help motivate the accumulation of wealth.)

    2) Post WW2 was the biggest rise in propaganda in history, social engineering was proven highly effective as the techniques from WW1 were so brilliantly demonstrated and refined before and during WW2. Commercialization of the science made it into an industry (it renamed itself "P.R.".) Fundamental concept tracing all the way (formally) back to Freud is the appeal to "base emotions" - FEAR being a huge one.

    3) Culture of fear: Government, Industry... P.R. exploited FEAR for it's powerful influence over rational thought like never before on multiple fronts post WW2. This founded a culture of fear; and the benefactors having every motivation to promote and continue that state of fear to maintain their power/influence. Politically, this meant a never ending supply of ghosts but economically, it ALSO was employed with arguably greater negative impacts on society. Economics is a good one; our witch doctors (economists) shouldn't be upset and we can't address problems because it might destroy all the prosperity etc. (even if it has logical and historical backing, don't upset the "gods" continue to sacrifice virgins to the volcano.)

    4) Ignorance breeds fear. Overconfidence breeds ignorance. Americans are embarrassingly overconfident and there are plenty of studies...

    5) Distractions... again appeal to "base emotions" but also combined with the promotion selfishness (also a result of a socially engineered consumer society.) This greatly increases willful ignorance. Also, it adds to a feeling of powerlessness due to the lack of participation and observation. All that combined with the never ending list of pleasant escapes from reality.... One doesn't even need to try to make things unpleasant to get people to tune out; but they DO often resort to making issues unpleasant and more so today as things get worse to keep people retreating back to their escapes (which is a huge industry in itself, which doesn't have to advertize misery; that is free... and luckily for them it is a relative perspective for the human brain.)

  168. Because we forgot Ben Franklin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."

  169. FDR by operagost · · Score: 1

    Ironically, Fdr delegitimized democracy with his extra-constitutional actions during the Depression and, especially, WWII.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  170. read wiki on "common era". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You are aprtially right on the secular part, because it make a LOT of sence in academia for example. But this is not new.

    The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English,[8] and traced back to Latin usage among European Christians to 1615, as vulgaris aerae,[9] and to 1635 in English as Vulgar Era. At those times, the expressions were all used interchangeably with "Christian Era", and "vulgar" meant "not regal" rather than "crudely indecent". Use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century. Since the later 20th century, use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by publishers emphasizing secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians.

    And plenty of source in wiki footnote.

  171. The Future by Sir+Foxx · · Score: 1

    They fear what is coming. Resources are running out. Within the next 100 years you are going to see upheaval the world has never seen, due to the size of the world population and it's reliance on oil. As that runs out, food production will be disrupted and with that comes a desperate populace and that is dangerous. Along with Climate Change, you will see nations go to war over what is left and it's inevitable it will eventually go nuclear. The people at the top see this, know this and in their misguided attempts, are trying to setup a control apparatus to protect themselves and hope they can contain things to enjoy the level of comfort they have achieved for themselves. Be glad you're living now, because the next 100 years are going to be bleak and dark. Of course if we ever get the fusion thing to work, we may be able to avert this, but with what we've done to the environment and how the oceans are quickly becoming dead zones, I think the future shown in the movie "Soylent Green" is going to more of guide(referring to environment not really the eating of people) than a work of fiction.

    --
    "I don't which is worse, that everyone has a price, or that the price is always so low"--Hobbes
  172. last bastion of freedom by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1
    "While far from a dictatorship"

    While there is no obvious personality cult, i would argue based on legislative actions of usa (and usa actions outside domestic and international law) that usa already lives in a functional dictatorship

  173. Maniacal surveillance power by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    After fully reading the article, I do not think it is fear that motivates the current Administration.

    It is Power that seems to motivate them. The NSA does what it does because it can. The administration supports, funds, and uses all the surveillance knowledge, even if not for anything else other than economic espionage and advantage, because it can. It isn't fear as a motivator, it's maniacal surveillance power.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  174. That was Bin Laden's plan all along. by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Read "Bin Laden - The Man Who Declared War on America. This was published in 1999, before 9/11, and as a result is a reasonably hype-free biography. It quotes bin Laden during the years he was building up his organization.

    I'm doing this from memory, but one of the key points bin Laden made to his followers was that, to defeat the United States, it had to be weakened first. He was writing this in the 1990s. (Situation in the 1990s: USSR was history, previous US war was four days of total victory over Iraq in Kuwait, balanced budget in US, US economically dominant in world, most of world wanted to be more like US.) He discusses how to weaken the US. Bin Laden specifically discusses how to make the US paranoid and more heavy-handed, and thus a less competent opponent and a less desirable alternative to Islam. That was the goal of his terror campaign.

    Mission accomplished.

  175. Agreed by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    You didn't really think it takes $4 Trillion to catch a bunch of terrorists, did you?

    Agreed.

    More likely: takes a lot of financing to build and maintain a constant global police-state surveillance system that monitors everyone, all the time, with apparent impunity.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  176. Thank goodness for politifact ; ) by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    "PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times to help you find the truth in American politics. Reporters and editors from the Times fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups and rate them on our Truth-O-Meter"

    http://www.politifact.com/

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  177. Let me elaborate too much by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    YOU ARE STANDING on a narrow ledge facing a smooth cliff. It's a long way down. You slide your left foot along the ledge and set your weight onto it.

    But your heel rocks ever so slightly. There was a tiny ridge next to it, a feature not visible to the eye, and your heel has slipped off of it. The angle of your foot has changed in such a way that if you stood upright you'd be leaning away from the cliff.

    Thoughts of the abyss are ever present and a dull wordless roar of panic is rising -- but your mind turns away from the roar and you allow yourself to become analytical. A surging notion flows towards your heel which needs to stretch and move (which way?? Is this the right way??) and it is done.

    A moment of tenseness as the heel has settled and stiffened into its new angle. Your thoughts brush past the leg which trembles as if its muscles are being instructed to move also (no! The heel is enough!), eye and inner ear are waiting for confirmation that you are all right. The world is silent and still.

    You are waiting for the simple and instinctive confirmation of balance. In a moment you will sense it, your mind will roll completely over in relief and grasp lofty topics, how far to go, is that a bird's nest, time to glance at the view.

    But not at this moment.
    You are still waiting for balance.

    What if that moment does not arrive?

    Woke up. Got out of bed. We arrive every day whether or not we travel. Sleep is nature's way of restoring and preserving mental balance. It is a journey of chemically induced stupor as mental pathways of context valley are visited and revisited, erosion becomes memory becomes self. Things that interest us, worry us, concern us or beg us to action arise during sleep; they may appear as vividly as if awake or deeply veiled in symbolism. Even boredom and a yearning for excitement has its turn as the sleeping mind free-associates in ways that may seem fantastic or absurd, they move in eccentric yet stable orbits bound by the gravitational center of self. There are many ways we recover balance during sleep that are too easily dismissed by the waking mind. You may be impulsive and decisive while awake, come to some reluctant but firm conclusion. If you have glossed over something important, unpleasant, it will return to you while asleep. Like the reality of the cliff, trapped within sleep there is no way to avoid it. So in sleep we face our fears and live through them to the end. Be it resolve to action, acceptance or curiosity in new directions -- sleep is necessary to meld impulsive actions into convictions.

    Is America getting enough sleep?
    Do we completely awaken?

    Dragged a comb across my head. A greasy comb dipped in Wild Root Cream Oil. Muscle cars and cheap oil, Route 66, returned veterans, Crusader Rabbit, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Engelbert Humperdinck, the Stones, Iron Butterfly. Culture an ever changing whirlwind spanning yesterday and tomorrow; but the day after tomorrow is strange to those born last week. A great many of us carry memories of times so different from those of younger generations, an incredible divide has formed. Opinions may differ but stories matter also, and it is through stories we communicate. Despite the great many options available to connect with one another there is scarcely time these days for storytelling and story-listening. The young seek their fortunes and seek places, returning only for shared meals and brief small-talk. As the learning process has become cyclical and seasonal so has our interaction with those younger and older: as necessary, when necessary. Many today exist in a between-time where survival is of great importance and the here and now is a lonely place to be, distanced from family and friends of our youth. Our eldest vaguely recall a time when more stars were visible and there was leisure in the evening hours for big-talk. Some day they,

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  178. Sheepdog = egotistical right wing sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that the people who describe themselves as sheepdogs are invariably a listener of Alex Jones who thinks his CCW firearms, and arsenal of AR-15 assault weapons empower him as protector of democracy. Meanwhile these very same people speak of insurrection against democracy as Obama voters are obviously just moochers who were promised free stuff, so that election obviously shouldn't count because their preferred guy didn't run. Then they will speak about how Laissez-faire capitalism is the only acceptable form of economic system and how privatizing everything off to corporations and completely dismantling the social safety net is the only course for the country to survive. What they don't realize is then the corporations will be the ones with all the power in this libertarian "paradise", not themselves with their little gun collection as they picture themselves in their sheepdog fantasy. All these sheepdogs accomplish is they are mindless puppets spouting the ideology of their masters that will rise up and rule them and the rest of country. Meanwhile the feel superior to the "sheep" as they feel they have this hidden knowledge on how the world works and how they themselves will rise up and rule it when the shit hits the fan. Such self serving bullshit.

  179. Re: Power by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Don't be such a fool. Everybody knows that no one ever does anything for any other reason than the money.

  180. Where's the computer shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    600+ comments.
    With a non-nerd/tech story.
    Are you getting ready to begin product placement ads?
    Or is Slashdot now an NSA honeypot?

  181. s/is heading for/was exposed as/g by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, it already is an Orwellian police-state, as exposed by the whistle-blower(s).

    In 50yrs or so, perhaps supporting facts will be declassified, or FOIA access-able, but more likely as history has taught: any evidence of wrongdoing will likely be destroyed.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
    1. Re:s/is heading for/was exposed as/g by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      .. it already is an Orwellian police-state...

      Which is the gist of what I said, without having wanted to say it *that* explicitly. With the current state of affairs, I would simply refuse to travel to the US, even if ordered to do so by my employer.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  182. That would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds like a paradise to me. I can't wait until the collapse!

  183. Europe Afraid. by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    The writer of the article seems more afraid than most Americans. I understand people's desire to delegitimize American democracy. It makes it hard to scare your own people if the Big Bad is a democracy run by reasonable people. No the Devil needs to be crazy, paranoid, ignorant, and corrupt. They need Americans to be oppressed, afraid, and waiting for Europe to save them.

  184. Summary wrong by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

    because it imagines USA has democracy to begin with. You can define anything you want to be democracy, but it's best defined as Proportional Representation. Most people in the USA don't even know what that is. Plato : The penalty for not being involved in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.

    --
    work in progress
  185. peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    through superior firepower

  186. Baron Rothschild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This question was easy

  187. Puritans by Coppit · · Score: 1

    From what I can tell, nakedness drives American fear.

  188. two things: by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    TV and ignorance. Ignorance allows people to be easily manipulated, because they don't know or don't question, and TV / mass media is the manipulator that encourages ignorance and sells fear. Turn on the tube and count the instances of violence in 4 hours, on a major channel. Count the number of shootings, explosions, bullets fired. Count the number of violent "others". Informed people who are not subject to a daily barrage of scare tactics are not easily led, so best to keep them dumb and scared, and they will vote against their own interests every time.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  189. The government and media jingoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's who manufactures it all.

  190. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cold Fjord, paid shill.

  191. Same as religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fear has been used forever by the Catholic church to control people. It's only right that if something works as well as it does there then it will be used elsewhere....

  192. WWII Americans were brave by davecb · · Score: 1

    They may have been scared, but they helped defeat two separate enemy countries, at great cost in loss of life. Now they're running from a group that would fit into a small office building.

    Where are the people like my Uncle Ken, who stood up to a continent full of enemies? Who climbed cliffs under fire at Pointe du Hoc to do so?

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:WWII Americans were brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have been scared, but they helped defeat two separate enemy countries, at great cost in loss of life. Now they're running from a group that would fit into a small office building. Where are the people like my Uncle Ken, who stood up to a continent full of enemies? Who climbed cliffs under fire at Pointe du Hoc to do so?

      To you from failing hands we throw
      The torch; be yours to hold it high.
      If ye break faith with us who die
      We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
      In Flanders fields.

      If he's still alive, tell him this X'er is sorry. We fucked up. We thought we won in 1991 when the Berlin wall came down and the Warsaw Pact imploded.

  193. Fear comes from our growing national deficit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If other countries stop loaning us money, then the USA will entirely fall apart. So we need a strong military able to conquer everybody on the planet 10 times over, with military power centers in each country on the planet to ensure that doesn't happen.

  194. " Where is the U.S. heading?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straight to hell, that's where.

  195. Re:It's Obama's fault by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Still blaming Bush I see.

    How did you get that from that post?

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  196. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one takes you seriously.

  197. I was a tourist in Paris ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    With the exception of the waiters in Paris, you mean.

    I live in Paris... the waiters are fine. The tourists are a pain in the ass.

    I was a tourist in Paris. "Hello" / "bonjour", "please" / "sil vous plait" and "thank you" / "merci" was about all the french I needed. Waiters, clerks, cashiers, etc. were all friendly. Being courteous enough to start by saying hello in the local language and let them be the first to speak english seems to work exceptionally well across Europe, Paris included.

  198. Re: Power by nbauman · · Score: 1

    But it's still true that you'll be best rewarded for the most cunning investments - assuming you have any money to invest.

    I don't think that anybody can invest money more cleverly than anybody else. John Bogle, the guy who started the Vanguard mutual fund, said that nobody can beat the market, or a market basket, and he had some pretty convincing arguments.

    It's the old "10 starving dogs in a cage with enough food for 5" thing, though - one will take half the food, 2 will eat reasonably, a couple more will win a few scraps, and the other 5 will starve.

    Several years ago, I looked up the distribution of family income in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, by fifths. It was roughly like this:

    First fifth: $100,000/yr

    Second fifth: $50,000/yr

    Third fifth: $25,000/yr

    Fourth fifth: $12,500/yr

    Bottom fifth: $6,000/yr

    Get it? The families in the top fifth earned as much income as everybody else below them, and so do the families in each fifth, until you reach the bottom.

    That was about 1985. The inequality has gotten greater since. And the distribution of wealth is much more unequal.

  199. Re:It's Obama's fault by Sabriel · · Score: 1

    Afghanistan was invaded because it was a trap.

    Iraq was invaded because Saddam bit the hand that fed him.

    There were other reasons, of course. The above are still true.

    As for the Patriot Act, I'll agree it was a response - the wrong one. How many in Congress even read what they voted on?

  200. this sums it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are heading toward a governrment that tells you what to buy,when,and how much.
    depending on how there latest tax scam plays out.
    its not about whats good for the people.its how to pay for all the retirment and health benifits
    for federal employee's.
    10 trillion + and counting.
    day brightener regards
    mike

  201. Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the difference between journalism and what is nowadays peddled by The Aussie and his media empire. Worst of all, they have lowered the bar for public discourse and for other news outlets.

  202. Where is the U.S. heading? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Where is the U.S. heading?

    Downward, of course. It is the only way one may go when being at the top. And it is a good reason to fear anything.

    Note that this is not such a big deal, as going downward does not means collapsing, it just means leaving the first rank to another else.

  203. We've always been at war with Eastasia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough said.

  204. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up

  205. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit

  206. Re:USA fear. Please take this as not being nasty.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    American ex-pat here, quite happy that his daughter is growing up in Oz rather than the US, on account of most of the factors you've named or alluded to.

    She was born by Caesarian, BTW. Would've bankrupted us in the US, as my publisher had just gone under, leaving me with about $75K in unpaid invoices/contracts... and no health insurance. Good times.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  207. Re:Those who travel abroard tend to be nicer/bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This, precisely. Those of us from the U.S. who want to/have traveled abroad are of a different character than the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing morons who go through life making apes around the world look bad, yammering on about how "the U.S. is the greatest country in the world", while simultaneously having never been anywhere else, and therefore having no point of reference with which to make such a comparison.

  208. America. Faith. In. God. Who. Loves them in spite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I hear. Americans sing they make me feel they want to be a Jesus person of love

  209. Re: Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for saying this.

    I used to be reasonably financially secure until I had to borrow money for medical expenses. Now I'm unable to pay one debt because of the fees imposed for not paying another previously.

    It costs an incredible amount of money to be poor.

  210. Another key point by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The destruction of effective (read: well-funded) primary education. It is far easier to lead the majority of people by their noses when they have been intentionally deprived of critical thinking skills.

  211. It's called the power of nightmares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fear comes from the government and the "spin doctors" who feed the public it's information. Long ago the power of hope just wasn't enough anymore so the people in charge spin everything into something dreadful. Just look at the news. "Is your tap water killing you? Check back in for the 11 oclock news to find out". It sells products, it elects people based on a prom like high school wanna be democracy, and keeps "lobbying" and Quantitive Easing moving right along... Or else the terrorist will get you.....

  212. Arnold Toynbee had it 60 years ago. by SlideRuleGuy · · Score: 0

    If you're looking for a deeper explanation that goes beyond the "they're all pussies now" kind, read Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History. (Or read the D. C. Somervell abridgement...it's a lot shorter.) Toynbee was amazingly prescient, and if you adjust for a few factors, his cyclical view of history is rolling along as predicted for the U.S. and the West in general.

    Where his view needs some adjustment is in two areas: Today, the largest nations can project their militaries anywhere on the globe at the push of a button. This alters how cultures behave at their boundaries. Now that our world is fully divvied up, borders don't shift like the tides. Secondly, with the internet and global media, ideas spread at light speed around the planet. So good ideas and bad alike spread very quickly. But America and the West are a visionless bunch to whom the rest of the world no longer looks for leadership. And we're clearly in decline.

  213. Time for some Math by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    okay in V1 we have of Xk fish say 40% of them going belly up in transit THIS IS A BAD THING
    in V2 we have 4% of them going belly up and say 1.2% of them being Crab Food THIS IS A LOT BETTER

    Now the trick is if the total of dead fish and eaten fish is less than the former dead fish total you might want a crab in the tanks

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  214. I fear that Republicans and Democrats are only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worried about the other. I worry that both are completely nuts.

  215. Wage slavery by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "If you wish to keep slaves, you must have all kinds of guards. The cheapest way to have guards is to have the slaves pay taxes to finance their own guards. To fool the slaves, you tell them that they are not slaves and that they have Freedom. You tell them they need Law and Order to protect them against bad slaves. Then you tell them to elect a Government. Give them Freedom to vote and they will vote for their own guards and pay their salary. They will then believe they are Free persons. Then give them money to earn, count and spend and they will be too busy to notice the slavery they are in." --Alexander Warbucks

  216. Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, America is a democratic *republic*, not a *democracy*.

  217. The fears of the US come from several angles. by intermodal · · Score: 1

    First, there's the "if we stop now, and they find out we were doing it, won't it look like we realized we were wrong and hurt our ability to start again?"

    Second, there's the "we have to look like we're doing things to stop terrorists, even when we're not".

    Third, there's the "We make a living at this, so if we stop, we're out of a job".

    Fourth, there's the "politicians find it expedient for us to continue.

    Fifth, there's the "every other country is doing it".

    Shall I continue?

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  218. The fact we've all participated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that all of us who have participated in the mainstream and made it to adulthood have in someway participated in something we see as unethical.

    And the fact when it comes down, the people in charge, running the show, or otherwise in a position to do something, will suffer no or little consequnces, and those on the bottom will be blamed for those on the top, so it can be burried.

    Like everytime you hear about hollywood bitch about Capitalism, you asked them if they'd look in the mirror sometimes.

  219. fear can stem from guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider:
    In the early years we had to defend ourselves against the Godless heathen savages who wanted to attack us for no reason
    Then southerners had to defend themselves against the attacks of newly freed black people who would attack them for no reason.
    Then middle class folks had to defend themselves against all the impoverished urban minorities who wanted to attack for no good reason.
    Now we all have to defend ourselves against all the foreigners who want to attack us for no good reason.
    I know, they all just hate us for our freedoms.

  220. Re: Power by Dabido · · Score: 1

    They're from Lake Wobegon.

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  221. Re:It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None. It would have been physically impossible for the House of Representatives to read the bill, because the finalized text of the bill was not yet available to *be* read. The Senate, on the other hand, would only have had to read and understood several pages of dense legalese per minute in order to have meaningfully read the bill before voting on it.

    Literally *nobody* read the USA PATRIOT Act before voting it into law.