The problem is that the baby boomer generation promised itself SO MUCH, we're going to go bankrupt from entitlements. Social Security is a small part of it. The real meat is Medicare.
Not really. http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ . Social Security has had a surplus. The only way it's contributed to the debt is that the surplus is spent for other programs before it's collected.
Defense is the single highest budget item by far (895B). Then comes non military discretionary spending(520B). Medicare(491B) and Medicaid(297B) combined don't even match it. Health costs are going up and this spending will become more important in the future, but to use a medical analogy we have to fix the gaping chest wound before we can focus on the infection that might kill us later.
Fastest way to defeat a terrorist is to give him a real job or business to support loved ones with out interference from corruption.
Ah, that would explain why those doctors and engineers who worked and lived in Great Britain blew up the trains a couple years back. If you do a little research on actual terrorists, you will discover that many of them are well-educated people from middle class backgrounds who have excellent job prospects.
All types of people join cults as long as there's some weakness that can be exploited. The cults would be far less powerful if they had to recruit exclusively from a somewhat contented base rather than now.
It is optional for the airlines, and some are considering no longer employing the TSA because of the recent controversy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_go_ot/us_airport_security_private_screeners
So don't let the airlines off the hook. There are three groups at blame here, the gov't for the TSA, the airlines for electing to employ them, and the public for letting it happen(and arguably requesting it in the first place, and arguably requiring the airlines to employ the TSA). If any one of those three were to stop the chain would fail. I hope that we are seeing the last link in that chain to fail, but given how hard it to to change "The Public's" opinion about something I suspect it's only cracks and not a break.
So I found the interview and I don't hear him admit to left leaning bias. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9019
In fact he said the opposite, that the network used to focus on serious news and now focuses too much on opinion pieces and lighter news segments for more appeal.
Thank you. I agree, defining standards are okay, but DHS should be the last one selected to do it. Networks like these need security not security theater.
There are competing services like GFWL, and Blizzard's new BattleNet. GTAIV for example required both a GFWL and Steam authentication even if you bought it through Steam.That's when those services have the potential to get really annoying.
Its ridiculous. One major hypocrisy here in the US is "We believe in capitalism, so long as it benefits us". They are complaining they aren't making money and want to restrict the market, all at the same time having the benefits of a capitalist society, i.e. the ability to innovate and try to out compete without being interfered with by the government.
Corporations are vehicles to make money. They don't care about "capitalism", just about making money. If they can find a way to break the market they won't stop themselves because it would hurt "capitalism". They might use it as convenient propaganda to get their way, but there is no powerful selfless entity that promotes capitalism.
Seriously. If Democrats are pulling this and Republicans are renaming candidates "Rich Whitey" with this bald faced implausible deniability imagine what dirty tricks they are pulling behind closed source code. It's a fucking travesty.
No, the characterization problem is with calling an area a "libertarian paradise" when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort. A "libertarian paradise" is a society without aggression, period. Somalia obviously does not qualify.
At best you're attacking a strawman with another strawman because "Libertarian paradise" is your wording not mine. At worst you're ignoring the point behind the strawman, that aggression exists even in the absence of a strong gov't.
As for "shortcomings", these can only be considered with respect to one's goals. The goals of liberalism are not compatible with the goals of libertarianism, and it makes no sense to condemn either one for failing to meet the other's standards. Any comparison must start by defining a common set of goals against which the philosophy will be measured, based on the audience to which you are attempting to appeal.
Of course it is true that applying principles of one ideology to another is bound to produce conflict. The purpose is to find common ground. If one or both of the parties in the conflict are too dogmatic then the discussion will probably go nowhere. Most people don't wholesale subscribe too one ideology or another though.
If you want to appeal to libertarians, point out how liberalism can reduce aggression via centralized defense. If you want to appeal to liberals, point out how libertarianism can produce more efficient private social services.
Efficient, yes if the social service is question is profitable in the market, but I view efficiency as a means to an end, not a goal itself. There are other human interests that are more important, especially in the social services sector. I agree there are libertarian approaches that would and do improve these services, most of the time.
Especially, don't reply to a libertarian by pointing out how liberalism is more effective at implementing regulations and taxes. If they thought fighting "power [of] private actors" and providing "public infrastructure" justified these means they wouldn't be libertarians in the first place.
A fair point, but if a libertarian is unwilling to compromise that there are times when regulation is needed then there is hardly room for meaningful discussion. It's one thing to say there are tradeoffs. It's completely another to say the tradeoffs never matter because one ideology is always "right".
Libertarians care about aggression more than "power". If you believe that aggression is justified to combat non-aggressive power then the only conclusion you can draw is that you are not a libertarian. Limiting "power" is not one of the goals of libertarianism, ergo failing to do so is not a defect.
Maximizing social freedom is one of the goals libertarianism. Failing to recognize that there are actors other than the gov't. that can limit freedom or even be aggressors is a "defect" to use your words.
Libertarianism has absolutely nothing against spending on infrastructure for public use. However, once again, if you believe that aggression is justified to raise the funds then you are obviously not a libertarian. For libertarians, fighting aggression holds a higher priority than providing public goods. If it's possible to do both, great. If not, aggression is still not an option. This is not a shortcoming, but rather the whole point.
Except the point is that this kind of statement encourages libertarians to reject the gov't outright rather than provide any public goods which is exactly what I said in the beginning. If you're too dogmatic in your ideology you will run into the pitfalls of that ideology.
Liberalism and libertarianism would both be perfect if people were perfect, but they are not. Similarly, there is no perfect ideology. Minimizing aggression is different from minimizing gov't. Many libertarians seem more concerned with the latter than the former.
Interesting. It seems curtilage is well defined and within that context the ruling makes more sense. The ability to do this type of search without a warrant is still the key factor.
apparently it's fair game "because the UPS driver can walk on it".
Was that part of the justification used in the ruling? If so, that's a terrible analogy.
a.) The UPS driver still wouldn't be allowed to mess with my car.
b.) The UPS driver has implicit permission(if not explicit by me ordering something through UPS) to walk on my property for a singular purpose. Law Enforcement gets no such implicit promise, that's why they have to "trick" you into consenting to a search.
You have a funny definition of "protected class". You want employers to have the right to fire anyone for actions not related to their job which is not a right they have now unless the employee is hired at-will. Marijuana is currently an exception to this and you're mad the exception is going away. Employers who want to discriminate against marijuana users are the protected class currently.
Your suggestion is impractical and misguided for several reasons. First ethnic groups aren't that different from one another genetically. On average you're more genetically different from your neighbor than ethnic groups are from each other. While the book isn't SF, recommend reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, it takes those concepts from High School genetics and shows how the science has evolved itself. Other posters have pointed out the feasibility and ethical concerns of freezing prisoners, but beyond that humanity is much greater than the sum of its genetics. Reducing each person to genetic value is an interesting perspective, but it is not the only or best perspective that society is viewed from. This kind of argument is similar to the one eugenicists use.
To respond directly to your sig, assuming you've read the rest of Brin's SF novels(especially Sundiver and Earth), check out Glenn Cook's The Dragon Never Sleeps. And Heinlein is still a good read, especially Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land.
It's a picture of a spacesuit.... McCandless happened to be the occupant but it is impossible to tell that from the photo
How many people have been in a U.S. spacesuit in space though? I'm sure there are a number of people who could identify him from the photo based on the limited number of such photos taken. General public at large, no but within the sphere of spaceflight I bet so what's the threshold?
Related question, how do people sell tabloids with celebrity pictures on the front if this law is at all followed?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the baby boomer generation promised itself SO MUCH, we're going to go bankrupt from entitlements. Social Security is a small part of it. The real meat is Medicare.
Not really. http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ . Social Security has had a surplus. The only way it's contributed to the debt is that the surplus is spent for other programs before it's collected.
Defense is the single highest budget item by far (895B). Then comes non military discretionary spending(520B). Medicare(491B) and Medicaid(297B) combined don't even match it. Health costs are going up and this spending will become more important in the future, but to use a medical analogy we have to fix the gaping chest wound before we can focus on the infection that might kill us later.
Fastest way to defeat a terrorist is to give him a real job or business to support loved ones with out interference from corruption.
Ah, that would explain why those doctors and engineers who worked and lived in Great Britain blew up the trains a couple years back. If you do a little research on actual terrorists, you will discover that many of them are well-educated people from middle class backgrounds who have excellent job prospects.
All types of people join cults as long as there's some weakness that can be exploited. The cults would be far less powerful if they had to recruit exclusively from a somewhat contented base rather than now.
It is optional for the airlines, and some are considering no longer employing the TSA because of the recent controversy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_go_ot/us_airport_security_private_screeners
So don't let the airlines off the hook. There are three groups at blame here, the gov't for the TSA, the airlines for electing to employ them, and the public for letting it happen(and arguably requesting it in the first place, and arguably requiring the airlines to employ the TSA). If any one of those three were to stop the chain would fail. I hope that we are seeing the last link in that chain to fail, but given how hard it to to change "The Public's" opinion about something I suspect it's only cracks and not a break.
Responding to your sig... ;-)
http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/tsa-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again
It's interesting that it likely doesn't, considering the way the officials acted in this instance:
http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
Awesome read btw.
The goal of the Israelis is airport security. The goal of the TSA is increased pubic acceptance of fascism. You can see the difference.
Most appropriate. Typo. Ever.
So I found the interview and I don't hear him admit to left leaning bias.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9019
In fact he said the opposite, that the network used to focus on serious news and now focuses too much on opinion pieces and lighter news segments for more appeal.
Thank you. I agree, defining standards are okay, but DHS should be the last one selected to do it. Networks like these need security not security theater.
Yay Dr. Who / Petrified reference!
The main problem with a bullet wound is that it used to be a normal functioning part of the body and not a bullet wound...
You mean context is important when determining intent? Say it ain't so!
There are competing services like GFWL, and Blizzard's new BattleNet. GTAIV for example required both a GFWL and Steam authentication even if you bought it through Steam.That's when those services have the potential to get really annoying.
Its ridiculous. One major hypocrisy here in the US is "We believe in capitalism, so long as it benefits us". They are complaining they aren't making money and want to restrict the market, all at the same time having the benefits of a capitalist society, i.e. the ability to innovate and try to out compete without being interfered with by the government.
Corporations are vehicles to make money. They don't care about "capitalism", just about making money. If they can find a way to break the market they won't stop themselves because it would hurt "capitalism". They might use it as convenient propaganda to get their way, but there is no powerful selfless entity that promotes capitalism.
Were you planning on putting non-human blood, let alone putting non-mammal blood, into your bloodstream?
Someone's been reading too many comic books.
Seriously. If Democrats are pulling this and Republicans are renaming candidates "Rich Whitey" with this bald faced implausible deniability imagine what dirty tricks they are pulling behind closed source code. It's a fucking travesty.
No, the characterization problem is with calling an area a "libertarian paradise" when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort. A "libertarian paradise" is a society without aggression, period. Somalia obviously does not qualify.
At best you're attacking a strawman with another strawman because "Libertarian paradise" is your wording not mine. At worst you're ignoring the point behind the strawman, that aggression exists even in the absence of a strong gov't.
As for "shortcomings", these can only be considered with respect to one's goals. The goals of liberalism are not compatible with the goals of libertarianism, and it makes no sense to condemn either one for failing to meet the other's standards. Any comparison must start by defining a common set of goals against which the philosophy will be measured, based on the audience to which you are attempting to appeal.
Of course it is true that applying principles of one ideology to another is bound to produce conflict. The purpose is to find common ground. If one or both of the parties in the conflict are too dogmatic then the discussion will probably go nowhere. Most people don't wholesale subscribe too one ideology or another though.
If you want to appeal to libertarians, point out how liberalism can reduce aggression via centralized defense. If you want to appeal to liberals, point out how libertarianism can produce more efficient private social services.
Efficient, yes if the social service is question is profitable in the market, but I view efficiency as a means to an end, not a goal itself. There are other human interests that are more important, especially in the social services sector. I agree there are libertarian approaches that would and do improve these services, most of the time.
Especially, don't reply to a libertarian by pointing out how liberalism is more effective at implementing regulations and taxes. If they thought fighting "power [of] private actors" and providing "public infrastructure" justified these means they wouldn't be libertarians in the first place.
A fair point, but if a libertarian is unwilling to compromise that there are times when regulation is needed then there is hardly room for meaningful discussion. It's one thing to say there are tradeoffs. It's completely another to say the tradeoffs never matter because one ideology is always "right".
Libertarians care about aggression more than "power". If you believe that aggression is justified to combat non-aggressive power then the only conclusion you can draw is that you are not a libertarian. Limiting "power" is not one of the goals of libertarianism, ergo failing to do so is not a defect.
Maximizing social freedom is one of the goals libertarianism. Failing to recognize that there are actors other than the gov't. that can limit freedom or even be aggressors is a "defect" to use your words.
Libertarianism has absolutely nothing against spending on infrastructure for public use. However, once again, if you believe that aggression is justified to raise the funds then you are obviously not a libertarian. For libertarians, fighting aggression holds a higher priority than providing public goods. If it's possible to do both, great. If not, aggression is still not an option. This is not a shortcoming, but rather the whole point.
Except the point is that this kind of statement encourages libertarians to reject the gov't outright rather than provide any public goods which is exactly what I said in the beginning. If you're too dogmatic in your ideology you will run into the pitfalls of that ideology.
Liberalism and libertarianism would both be perfect if people were perfect, but they are not. Similarly, there is no perfect ideology. Minimizing aggression is different from minimizing gov't. Many libertarians seem more concerned with the latter than the former.
The characterization problem is most people like to ignore the shortcomings of their philosophy which exaggerating others.
Liberals like to ignore the potential for the gov't. abuse of individual choice through well meaning intentions.
Libertarians like to ignore the power private actors can hold in absence of regulation.
Liberals like to forget to save during upturns.
Libertarians like to forget to spend on the needed public infrastructure.
I'm worried this will end up being like Counter-Strike: Source.
Interesting. It seems curtilage is well defined and within that context the ruling makes more sense. The ability to do this type of search without a warrant is still the key factor.
Curtilage.
apparently it's fair game "because the UPS driver can walk on it".
Was that part of the justification used in the ruling? If so, that's a terrible analogy. a.) The UPS driver still wouldn't be allowed to mess with my car. b.) The UPS driver has implicit permission(if not explicit by me ordering something through UPS) to walk on my property for a singular purpose. Law Enforcement gets no such implicit promise, that's why they have to "trick" you into consenting to a search.
Given what the internet consists of I wouldn't be surprised if it started leering at us.
You have a funny definition of "protected class". You want employers to have the right to fire anyone for actions not related to their job which is not a right they have now unless the employee is hired at-will. Marijuana is currently an exception to this and you're mad the exception is going away. Employers who want to discriminate against marijuana users are the protected class currently.
Your suggestion is impractical and misguided for several reasons. First ethnic groups aren't that different from one another genetically. On average you're more genetically different from your neighbor than ethnic groups are from each other. While the book isn't SF, recommend reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, it takes those concepts from High School genetics and shows how the science has evolved itself. Other posters have pointed out the feasibility and ethical concerns of freezing prisoners, but beyond that humanity is much greater than the sum of its genetics. Reducing each person to genetic value is an interesting perspective, but it is not the only or best perspective that society is viewed from. This kind of argument is similar to the one eugenicists use.
To respond directly to your sig, assuming you've read the rest of Brin's SF novels(especially Sundiver and Earth), check out Glenn Cook's The Dragon Never Sleeps. And Heinlein is still a good read, especially Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land.
because of the library's historic entitlement to a copy of every volume published in the UK.
Is that everything published, even foreign works published in the UK or just things that originated in the U.K.
If so, why does that sound so small?
It's a picture of a spacesuit .... McCandless happened to be the occupant but it is impossible to tell that from the photo
How many people have been in a U.S. spacesuit in space though? I'm sure there are a number of people who could identify him from the photo based on the limited number of such photos taken. General public at large, no but within the sphere of spaceflight I bet so what's the threshold?
Related question, how do people sell tabloids with celebrity pictures on the front if this law is at all followed?