This is why we need to label GM food. It's been out for less than ten years, and there is a distinct chance that it may have ill-effects for humans. In a free market, consumers need to know if they are taking a risky product or not.
Excellent point. Another thing to consider: the amount of violence one could show on American TV and in the movies was limited for decades (by law and by general consensus among the big 3 channels and by the movie studios). Thus, there is no graphic violence in Casablanca, the Third Man, the Maltese Falcon, King Kong, etc. And that's just America: one cannot ignore the legacy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the Grand Illusion, and many other great films that weren't made in the US. But people still produced great movies, and, more importantly movies that could not show excessive violence still had an emotional punch. When Bogart shoots Major Strasser in Casablanca, you're shocked, even thought they don't show the blood flowing from his wound.
My sentiments also; this bill sounds like one of those things that politicians introduce to produce headlines and/or to make people think they're protecting their children from the evil stalkers on MySpace. Then, come election time, they can say "We voted for the SAVE-OUR-CHILDREN bill, but Candidate X didn't." In short, it's a political game, which is a pity, since there are so many real problems out there. I've always felt this was a serious defiency of American democracy-- with election after 4 years, any proposal designed to reform schools, reduce poverty, etc. has to pan out in 3 years, which is too short term. As a result, most solutions to come out of the government are Band-aid solutions that look sexy, but do little in the long run.
Yeah, I wish that the threat of a pandemic that could kill millions would be enough to make people think of something higher than money, but, unfortunately, that isn't going to happen-- again, "the wings of Minerva come at dusk." However, it's a definite possibility that the US put pressure on the Indonesians and Baxter to do this deal, so that the US can use any drugs produced by Baxter as a bargaining tool if avian flu does makes it on the big time. Imagine the US pressuring countries with "do what we say, or you won't get this essential medicine and your citizens will die!"
Yeah,after about 3 years of media adulation-- Google has Segways in it's office, it's says it won't do evil stuff!-- it seems like Google has come down to business as usual. I'm sure Bill Gates was young, hungry, honest, and loved at one point, and Google was the company that happened to take the mantle of head Innovators. It was immeadiately evident the honeymoon was over after the China debacle. This is not necessarily Google's failing-- capitilsim is not evil, but it's purely immoral and demands that all participants do anything to get ahead. It's like the giant machine in Fritz Lang's Metropolis-- the impressive facade doesn't hide the fact that people are eaten alive by the machine.
Scene: US border at night.
A lone man is standing on a cliff, watching an abandoned highway with night-vision goggles.
Cut: to down below, a cloud of dust appears on the horizon. the man with the binoculars whispers something into a radio.
Cut: The truck is speeding along the highway. Suddenly a SWAT team jumps out of the bushes an, in true action movie style, shoot out the tires. A man jumps out of the cab. As the he is tied down, a policemen edge up carefully to the back fo the truck.
Voices:
"What is it? cocaine, explosives, arms?"
"No, private, 1000 pounds of illegal lightbulbs. Good work, men. That's one more shipment taken off the streets.
Yeah, I would love to see that happen. However, the pardoning of Nixon set up a bad precedent of "ending our national tragedy," and not punishing those who committed crimes (Kissinger would have a fun time at the dock). One must remember that Bush has a largely corporate mentality-- he makes a plan and then asks a lawyer, such as John Yew or Gonzales, "is this legal? How can we make it legal?." They find an excuse-- "Well, it's alright to suspend habeaus corpus, because it's listed as a privilege and the it doesn't say that everyone gets it." This is a fatuous argument, and it ignores hundreds of years of precedents, but it works for Bush. "Quick and dirty" is his motto.
The events you mentioned took place over a span of 40 years. Furthermore, they were done by a number of different people in different times with different political climates. The Republicans did those things in the span of year. Overachieving is great, but let's be sensible here. I don't claim that the Democrats are saints, but the Republicans completely discredited themselves in twelve months. That's why we have a democratic Congress.
I'm shocked-- the Republican party quite possibly did something illegal and unethical. I mean, it's not like they lied about an entire war, or kept a child molester from prosecution, or took bribes, or had drunken stripper parties in the Watergate with lobbyists!
Perhaps it would be more clearer for people, but what would that do regarding security? If there was a receipt printer in the bottom that dropped into a ballot box, then there would be some way to check an election.
Yeah, the far right is really disturbing. The BNP in particular takes the cake for not participating in British politics normally; their goal is to instead wait for an economic depression and take power (a la the "Nordic Fire" party in V for Vendetta)
The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,, 1977520,00.html):
"The handbook, which sets out a 17-point programme intended to help activists raise levels of support, adds: "We must do this with a sense of urgency as we do not have centuries in which to gradually achieve our aims."
BNP leaders believe they need to increase the number of potential supporters, convinced that many would consider turning to the party at a time of deep economic crisis. Mr Griffin is convinced that the support of just 18% of the British electorate would put the party just "one crisis away from power".
This strategy was laid out by Mr Griffin in a speech to a closed meeting of American white supremacists and European far-right party activists in New Orleans last year. In a recording of the speech obtained by the Guardian, he tells his audience to prepare now for "an age of scarcity that will be a once-in-200-years opportunity".
He not only believes that an economic crisis of catastrophic proportions would present a great opportunity for the BNP: he appears to be convinced that such a crisis is inevitable, the result of global warming, fuel shortages and mounting debt.
"When the revolution comes, the revolution which is going to sweep away this nightmare, it is going to come in Europe, and it's going to come very suddenly," he told the New Orleans audience. "Bang: one month they don't support you, the next month - if you've done your homework and the circumstances are right - they are prepared to support you."
Mussolini and Hitler (the best known examples of the uber-right extremists) weren't liberals, so far as I remember; furthermore, "right" can have many meanings depending on the context or nation. As for Second Life, I'm waiting for some guys to stage a coup, steal everything, and install a military dicatorship. Then the virtual resistance would begin, and the virtual counter-coup and so on....
This doesn't particularly matter to me, since I've essentially given up on the mainstream American media. I'm an American, but I read the Guardian and watch BBC (a public station carries the nightly broadcast); I find that both of these sources don't treat me like an idiot. The problem I have with the American corporate media is that it's entirely parochial. For an example, I recall watching MSNBC (a "liberal" network): there was the news "Israel Planning to Use Nuke on Iran!." I watched an "expert" give the barest details of the plan, then there was a commercial break: "After these messages, we talk to the disqualified Miss America!" The reason why people couldn't identify Iraq on the map prior to 2003 was that they had been spoon-fed this intellectually limiting stuff. Then we went into war, because the media bashed the messaged "Saddam Hussein=bad" into our heads constantly. Media tells people how to think, and shapes them into molds. I would argue that there is no less propaganda in America then there was in the USSR.
Maybe Skynet will oblige you! If the Pentagon has flying drones and software that listens in on every call in America, then they must have killer AI programs!
"Remeber Sudan/Darfur?
Serbiea/Kosovo?
Bosnia?
Tianement Square?
Tibet?
Rwanda?"
The UN is not on Mars, nor in heaven; it's effectives is helped or hindered by how much nation-states want to contribute. Furthermore, the UN traditionally has had a mandate not to intefere in nations because of national sovereighty.
Agreed. The US only started to complain that the UN was ineffective (and cited Oil for Food constantly) when it didn't rubber-stamp the Iraq war. IN that case, the UN Weapons Inspectors were essentially proven right-- there were no WMD's in Iraq. In regards to oil for food, there is no substantiated evidence that anything corrupt has happened: Chalabi was the only one to raise specific charges (and we know how reliable he is.) What Annan's son did is his personal business, and there is no evidence to suggest paternal influence in getting him the job (nor is that a crime).
Good point. Also, I'm sure that anyone who with those games (MOH, COD, CounterStrike) will either be suspected by the US of using them as a training simulation or will be kidnapped and shot by a militia because they were playing "un-Islamic" games.
Come on, a paradigm shift that operationalizes poststructural Kantian hyperspace in a post-neo-syndicalist fashion is nothing to sneeze at. I concur with the article; this is the pathogenesis of the Bosch-Hegelian refractory-system!
I would comment on this article, but there's a guy in a black war watching me through the window. Maybe it's because of that weird round saucer thing I picked up as a souvenir when I going through New Mexico. What the hell, it makes a wonderful birdbath, what with the Masonic symbols on the side and all.
Humans translate all the senses in chemicals and electrical signals in the brain.To borrow Descartes's example-- a brain in a jar that is fed inputs about the world-- is it not possible that we are just imagining the world and that nothing exists? By that measure, we have ultimate free will, since we create the world out of nothing.
God is one thing; it's not possible to decide how many angels dance on the head of a pin? But saying that everything depends on language is slippery slope; one might pick up on this idea and say that murdering a person is fine, since "I was liberating their soul" or "I was the instrument of justice" (vigilantism). It is important to know whether a person is responsible for their actions, because otherwise life is meaningless and an intelligent human being has as much purpose as a rabbit: to eat, to sleep, and to spread the genes.
I have two points in response to this.
1. Yes, the state takes away some of your freedom to do whatever the hell you want to do, but the question is whether you prefer a state of anarchy, in which anyone can kill you, take your bread, or burn your house down*, to a state that protects you (via the police, fire departments, etc.), takes away the trash everyday, and delivers your mail (in addition to Marxist social problems, which in the 20th century, have become as integral to the state as the night watchmen functions.) This is the idea of the social contract: man gives away some of his freedom to the state in exchange for security. One may argue that the pendulum has fallen to far in one direction (especially with the Patriot Act, etc.) However, it is hard to argue for a state of complete lawlessness.
2. Democracy (whether liberal or socialist) isn't perfect by far, but it does give you enough freedom to say that this is wrong, or that the whole system is wrong. It is the least worst system of governance, to use the old adage, and it has provided the most protections of individual liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why we need to label GM food. It's been out for less than ten years, and there is a distinct chance that it may have ill-effects for humans. In a free market, consumers need to know if they are taking a risky product or not.
Excellent point. Another thing to consider: the amount of violence one could show on American TV and in the movies was limited for decades (by law and by general consensus among the big 3 channels and by the movie studios). Thus, there is no graphic violence in Casablanca, the Third Man, the Maltese Falcon, King Kong, etc. And that's just America: one cannot ignore the legacy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the Grand Illusion, and many other great films that weren't made in the US. But people still produced great movies, and, more importantly movies that could not show excessive violence still had an emotional punch. When Bogart shoots Major Strasser in Casablanca, you're shocked, even thought they don't show the blood flowing from his wound.
My sentiments also; this bill sounds like one of those things that politicians introduce to produce headlines and/or to make people think they're protecting their children from the evil stalkers on MySpace. Then, come election time, they can say "We voted for the SAVE-OUR-CHILDREN bill, but Candidate X didn't." In short, it's a political game, which is a pity, since there are so many real problems out there. I've always felt this was a serious defiency of American democracy-- with election after 4 years, any proposal designed to reform schools, reduce poverty, etc. has to pan out in 3 years, which is too short term. As a result, most solutions to come out of the government are Band-aid solutions that look sexy, but do little in the long run.
Yeah, I wish that the threat of a pandemic that could kill millions would be enough to make people think of something higher than money, but, unfortunately, that isn't going to happen-- again, "the wings of Minerva come at dusk." However, it's a definite possibility that the US put pressure on the Indonesians and Baxter to do this deal, so that the US can use any drugs produced by Baxter as a bargaining tool if avian flu does makes it on the big time. Imagine the US pressuring countries with "do what we say, or you won't get this essential medicine and your citizens will die!"
Yeah,after about 3 years of media adulation-- Google has Segways in it's office, it's says it won't do evil stuff!-- it seems like Google has come down to business as usual. I'm sure Bill Gates was young, hungry, honest, and loved at one point, and Google was the company that happened to take the mantle of head Innovators. It was immeadiately evident the honeymoon was over after the China debacle. This is not necessarily Google's failing-- capitilsim is not evil, but it's purely immoral and demands that all participants do anything to get ahead. It's like the giant machine in Fritz Lang's Metropolis-- the impressive facade doesn't hide the fact that people are eaten alive by the machine.
Scene: US border at night. A lone man is standing on a cliff, watching an abandoned highway with night-vision goggles. Cut: to down below, a cloud of dust appears on the horizon. the man with the binoculars whispers something into a radio. Cut: The truck is speeding along the highway. Suddenly a SWAT team jumps out of the bushes an, in true action movie style, shoot out the tires. A man jumps out of the cab. As the he is tied down, a policemen edge up carefully to the back fo the truck. Voices: "What is it? cocaine, explosives, arms?" "No, private, 1000 pounds of illegal lightbulbs. Good work, men. That's one more shipment taken off the streets.
Yeah, I would love to see that happen. However, the pardoning of Nixon set up a bad precedent of "ending our national tragedy," and not punishing those who committed crimes (Kissinger would have a fun time at the dock). One must remember that Bush has a largely corporate mentality-- he makes a plan and then asks a lawyer, such as John Yew or Gonzales, "is this legal? How can we make it legal?." They find an excuse-- "Well, it's alright to suspend habeaus corpus, because it's listed as a privilege and the it doesn't say that everyone gets it." This is a fatuous argument, and it ignores hundreds of years of precedents, but it works for Bush. "Quick and dirty" is his motto.
Yeah, I think that this is the point where Diebold passed from complete incompetence to an utter farce.
The events you mentioned took place over a span of 40 years. Furthermore, they were done by a number of different people in different times with different political climates. The Republicans did those things in the span of year. Overachieving is great, but let's be sensible here. I don't claim that the Democrats are saints, but the Republicans completely discredited themselves in twelve months. That's why we have a democratic Congress.
I'm shocked-- the Republican party quite possibly did something illegal and unethical. I mean, it's not like they lied about an entire war, or kept a child molester from prosecution, or took bribes, or had drunken stripper parties in the Watergate with lobbyists!
Perhaps it would be more clearer for people, but what would that do regarding security? If there was a receipt printer in the bottom that dropped into a ballot box, then there would be some way to check an election.
Thank you!
Yeah, the far right is really disturbing. The BNP in particular takes the cake for not participating in British politics normally; their goal is to instead wait for an economic depression and take power (a la the "Nordic Fire" party in V for Vendetta) The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,, 1977520,00.html):
"The handbook, which sets out a 17-point programme intended to help activists raise levels of support, adds: "We must do this with a sense of urgency as we do not have centuries in which to gradually achieve our aims."
BNP leaders believe they need to increase the number of potential supporters, convinced that many would consider turning to the party at a time of deep economic crisis. Mr Griffin is convinced that the support of just 18% of the British electorate would put the party just "one crisis away from power".
This strategy was laid out by Mr Griffin in a speech to a closed meeting of American white supremacists and European far-right party activists in New Orleans last year. In a recording of the speech obtained by the Guardian, he tells his audience to prepare now for "an age of scarcity that will be a once-in-200-years opportunity".
He not only believes that an economic crisis of catastrophic proportions would present a great opportunity for the BNP: he appears to be convinced that such a crisis is inevitable, the result of global warming, fuel shortages and mounting debt.
"When the revolution comes, the revolution which is going to sweep away this nightmare, it is going to come in Europe, and it's going to come very suddenly," he told the New Orleans audience. "Bang: one month they don't support you, the next month - if you've done your homework and the circumstances are right - they are prepared to support you."
Mussolini and Hitler (the best known examples of the uber-right extremists) weren't liberals, so far as I remember; furthermore, "right" can have many meanings depending on the context or nation. As for Second Life, I'm waiting for some guys to stage a coup, steal everything, and install a military dicatorship. Then the virtual resistance would begin, and the virtual counter-coup and so on....
This doesn't particularly matter to me, since I've essentially given up on the mainstream American media. I'm an American, but I read the Guardian and watch BBC (a public station carries the nightly broadcast); I find that both of these sources don't treat me like an idiot. The problem I have with the American corporate media is that it's entirely parochial. For an example, I recall watching MSNBC (a "liberal" network): there was the news "Israel Planning to Use Nuke on Iran!." I watched an "expert" give the barest details of the plan, then there was a commercial break: "After these messages, we talk to the disqualified Miss America!" The reason why people couldn't identify Iraq on the map prior to 2003 was that they had been spoon-fed this intellectually limiting stuff. Then we went into war, because the media bashed the messaged "Saddam Hussein=bad" into our heads constantly. Media tells people how to think, and shapes them into molds. I would argue that there is no less propaganda in America then there was in the USSR.
Maybe Skynet will oblige you! If the Pentagon has flying drones and software that listens in on every call in America, then they must have killer AI programs!
"Remeber Sudan/Darfur? Serbiea/Kosovo? Bosnia? Tianement Square? Tibet? Rwanda?" The UN is not on Mars, nor in heaven; it's effectives is helped or hindered by how much nation-states want to contribute. Furthermore, the UN traditionally has had a mandate not to intefere in nations because of national sovereighty.
Agreed. The US only started to complain that the UN was ineffective (and cited Oil for Food constantly) when it didn't rubber-stamp the Iraq war. IN that case, the UN Weapons Inspectors were essentially proven right-- there were no WMD's in Iraq. In regards to oil for food, there is no substantiated evidence that anything corrupt has happened: Chalabi was the only one to raise specific charges (and we know how reliable he is.) What Annan's son did is his personal business, and there is no evidence to suggest paternal influence in getting him the job (nor is that a crime).
Good point. Also, I'm sure that anyone who with those games (MOH, COD, CounterStrike) will either be suspected by the US of using them as a training simulation or will be kidnapped and shot by a militia because they were playing "un-Islamic" games.
Come on, a paradigm shift that operationalizes poststructural Kantian hyperspace in a post-neo-syndicalist fashion is nothing to sneeze at. I concur with the article; this is the pathogenesis of the Bosch-Hegelian refractory-system!
I would comment on this article, but there's a guy in a black war watching me through the window. Maybe it's because of that weird round saucer thing I picked up as a souvenir when I going through New Mexico. What the hell, it makes a wonderful birdbath, what with the Masonic symbols on the side and all.
Humans translate all the senses in chemicals and electrical signals in the brain.To borrow Descartes's example-- a brain in a jar that is fed inputs about the world-- is it not possible that we are just imagining the world and that nothing exists? By that measure, we have ultimate free will, since we create the world out of nothing.
God is one thing; it's not possible to decide how many angels dance on the head of a pin? But saying that everything depends on language is slippery slope; one might pick up on this idea and say that murdering a person is fine, since "I was liberating their soul" or "I was the instrument of justice" (vigilantism). It is important to know whether a person is responsible for their actions, because otherwise life is meaningless and an intelligent human being has as much purpose as a rabbit: to eat, to sleep, and to spread the genes.
I have two points in response to this. 1. Yes, the state takes away some of your freedom to do whatever the hell you want to do, but the question is whether you prefer a state of anarchy, in which anyone can kill you, take your bread, or burn your house down*, to a state that protects you (via the police, fire departments, etc.), takes away the trash everyday, and delivers your mail (in addition to Marxist social problems, which in the 20th century, have become as integral to the state as the night watchmen functions.) This is the idea of the social contract: man gives away some of his freedom to the state in exchange for security. One may argue that the pendulum has fallen to far in one direction (especially with the Patriot Act, etc.) However, it is hard to argue for a state of complete lawlessness. 2. Democracy (whether liberal or socialist) isn't perfect by far, but it does give you enough freedom to say that this is wrong, or that the whole system is wrong. It is the least worst system of governance, to use the old adage, and it has provided the most protections of individual liberty.
But do they tell you what to do if there are snakes in a suborbital plane? Until then, I don't feel safe in space.