I need to retract my post, not because it's content was wrong, but because it suggests George Carlin was in the wrong.
I know of no modern citizen who has more accurately identified root problems and attacked them at their source than the late great George Carlin. And the parent post is a great example.
> still puts me on record as having supported that person What record would that be?
I have no problem with somebody not voting if he believes elections make no difference, in fact I prefer that. But every citizen should dedicate some effort to whatever they believe does make a difference.
Two points: 1. Moderate incumbents are being dumped by the major parties. Ending up with major party support is no indicator of sanity, either.
2. Has anybody (other than pundits from the major parties) proven that "the vast majority of 3rd part(sic) candidates" are the lunatic fringe? How much time have we spent studying their views, talking to them?
I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house
With all due respect to my hero George Carlin, and with a good chuckle at his cutting insight, there's an old adage that comes to mind: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Not that "doing something" is any better than doing nothing. "Good people" must accurately identify root problems and attack them at their source.
Washing one's hands of a difficult mess is only lying to one's self. Leaving thinking and fighting to others doesn't give anyone any "right to complain."
Is that really the world you want to live in? Where parents keep their children on a 12 inch leash and act as a force field protecting their children from the universe, and the universe from their children? Because that produces kids who are by definition unresponsible, and by training co-dependent.
By the way, the mom was supervising the child. A fact that nobody had disputed until you.
But maybe it's not the way the law does work. Judges may not have free reign to always go with whatever common sense might tell them is fair. They can't ignore the law, they can't make up their own law. If a law is missing, or badly crafted, then injustices happen.
Society is supposed to discuss it and figure out what it thinks the best course would be. Lawmakers are then supposed to fix the law.
> Use his brain. Four year olds can't by any > stretch of the imagination be held accountable.
I think you underestimate the power of imagination.
But the main point is, you're right. We all think it's crazy to pin a woman's death on a toddler riding a bike with training wheels.
We also think it's crazy to blame the victim, an 87 year-old woman who may not have had full situation awareness and may have lacked the agility to evade a collision.
It's also hard to blame the mom - she let her kid ride a bike, which I think our culture considers benign.
The truth is that this was an accident. What's broken here is that somebody has decided to sue unwitting participants for an accident best blamed on happenstance and chaos.
Nice post - I have to agree with both points. Especially the randomly selected NAKative branch.
But I'd flip it around to the ACKative branch. Legislation is automatically vetoed unless a 2/3rd majority can demonstrate they grok its contents, and approve it.
> The Corporation only has the powers of the individuals that own it.
Not sure what you mean there.
Thanks to SCOTUS past and present, a "corporation" is now a (potentially immortal) "person" in its own right.
A special kind of "person" with all the freedoms of a citizen and none of the responsibilities.
- That rarely pays income taxes anywhere nearly proportional to its revenue.
- That can't be incarcerated, or executed, or even really be convicted of any crimes it commits.
A "person" whose profits are private and whose risks are socialized.
A "person" whose voice is amplified over humans in proportional to its corporate income vs median family income.
Think about it. A corporation can literally get away with murder. A corporation could assassinate someone, get caught, and then two or three employees would get fired and punished while the corporation itself could carry on without missing a step.
it can vary in as many directions as there are different political parties (in the US, that's quite a lot.)
Ah yes, the USA. Where the number of thriving political parties is as vast as the number of oceans it touches, and where political philosophies are as varied as the mastodons that roam its plains.
> There is no such thing as a "pro-labor" party, parties are the ideals, either they want more economic freedom or less economic freedom
Owners/Management vs Labor is a power struggle. If there were such a thing as a free market, where employees had power and opportunity on par with employers, then maybe a "pro-labor party" would seem strange or out of place.
But in today's economy, the owners make the rules and frame the debate. "Economic Freedom," as they have defined it, means owners should be free to do whatever the hell they want, and workers should be free to take the scraps they are offered, or be unemployed.
The American Dream that anybody can make it if they work hard is a real nice idea, but the de facto world works that way for vanishingly few workers.
Democrats whine about it out one side of their mouth while preserving it with the other. Republicans buy into the owners' framing with whole-hearted gusto. Libertarians delude themselves that a free market in employment would naturally occur if we just stopped annoying the owners.
Most Republicans weigh in on the owners' side, and most Libertarians too.
Players don't run in a big circle because there is no reasonable expectation they can round all four bases. They're lucky to get one.
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
In general, if a runner thinks he can clear two bases, he'll make a wide curve. Otherwise it's just a beeline for the next base.
perception is initially created by witnessing facts
Far more likely by hearing/reading somebody else passing it along.
Regardless, people don't so much witness facts as perceive them through the filters of beliefs, biases, and expectations they've accumulated over their lifetime.
So, for the purposes of slaughtering innocent woodland creatures, you cleared away forest, bulldozed a hilltop, built a cabin,... and then got an environmental stamp of approval for the project?
You are my hero. Call me up and let's go find Bambi.
> Your first point seems to be an adhominem argument. No, it is an "appeal to authority" argument. If I maligned the author's character while avoiding the actual issue, that would be an ad hominem argument.
>> So investigate it. That's what scientists do, that's what peer review is for. > peer review is not intended to catch fraud But it often does. And you ignored half the sentence - competing scientists are definitely out to disprove each other. That's the whole point of being a scientist, discovering things nobody else understood.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Just askin'.
Looney or not (none of his opponents disagreed), one candidate is not a statistically significant sample.
I need to retract my post, not because it's content was wrong, but because it suggests George Carlin was in the wrong.
I know of no modern citizen who has more accurately identified root problems and attacked them at their source than the late great George Carlin. And the parent post is a great example.
> still puts me on record as having supported that person
What record would that be?
I have no problem with somebody not voting if he believes elections make no difference, in fact I prefer that. But every citizen should dedicate some effort to whatever they believe does make a difference.
Two points:
1. Moderate incumbents are being dumped by the major parties. Ending up with major party support is no indicator of sanity, either.
2. Has anybody (other than pundits from the major parties) proven that "the vast majority of 3rd part(sic) candidates" are the lunatic fringe? How much time have we spent studying their views, talking to them?
I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house
With all due respect to my hero George Carlin, and with a good chuckle at his cutting insight, there's an old adage that comes to mind: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Not that "doing something" is any better than doing nothing. "Good people" must accurately identify root problems and attack them at their source.
Washing one's hands of a difficult mess is only lying to one's self. Leaving thinking and fighting to others doesn't give anyone any "right to complain."
Is that really the world you want to live in? Where parents keep their children on a 12 inch leash and act as a force field protecting their children from the universe, and the universe from their children? Because that produces kids who are by definition unresponsible, and by training co-dependent.
By the way, the mom was supervising the child. A fact that nobody had disputed until you.
Great answer. I think that's how it should work.
But maybe it's not the way the law does work. Judges may not have free reign to always go with whatever common sense might tell them is fair. They can't ignore the law, they can't make up their own law. If a law is missing, or badly crafted, then injustices happen.
Society is supposed to discuss it and figure out what it thinks the best course would be. Lawmakers are then supposed to fix the law.
> Use his brain. Four year olds can't by any
> stretch of the imagination be held accountable.
I think you underestimate the power of imagination.
But the main point is, you're right. We all think it's crazy to pin a woman's death on a toddler riding a bike with training wheels.
We also think it's crazy to blame the victim, an 87 year-old woman who may not have had full situation awareness and may have lacked the agility to evade a collision.
It's also hard to blame the mom - she let her kid ride a bike, which I think our culture considers benign.
The truth is that this was an accident. What's broken here is that somebody has decided to sue unwitting participants for an accident best blamed on happenstance and chaos.
Aren't you ignoring half of what he quoted?
and to provide minimum guarantees for the fairness and quick resolution of judicial or alternative proceedings.
The law (which he probably didn't write) says that accountability starts at four years old. The child was four.
What else was the judge supposed to do?
Fractional Reserve Physics FTW!
> if you put them in the right chair, their performance increases
As far as ROI goes, I think a better investment might be teachers, books, and paper.
Just sayin'
Nice post - I have to agree with both points. Especially the randomly selected NAKative branch.
But I'd flip it around to the ACKative branch. Legislation is automatically vetoed unless a 2/3rd majority can demonstrate they grok its contents, and approve it.
> The Corporation only has the powers of the individuals that own it.
Not sure what you mean there.
Thanks to SCOTUS past and present, a "corporation" is now a (potentially immortal) "person" in its own right.
A special kind of "person" with all the freedoms of a citizen and none of the responsibilities.
- That rarely pays income taxes anywhere nearly proportional to its revenue.
- That can't be incarcerated, or executed, or even really be convicted of any crimes it commits.
A "person" whose profits are private and whose risks are socialized.
A "person" whose voice is amplified over humans in proportional to its corporate income vs median family income.
Think about it. A corporation can literally get away with murder. A corporation could assassinate someone, get caught, and then two or three employees would get fired and punished while the corporation itself could carry on without missing a step.
> I think you need to stop posting kneejerk responses
That's a tall order, friend. But thanks for straightening me out.
it can vary in as many directions as there are different political parties (in the US, that's quite a lot.)
Ah yes, the USA. Where the number of thriving political parties is as vast as the number of oceans it touches, and where political philosophies are as varied as the mastodons that roam its plains.
> There is no such thing as a "pro-labor" party, parties are the ideals, either they want more economic freedom or less economic freedom
Owners/Management vs Labor is a power struggle. If there were such a thing as a free market, where employees had power and opportunity on par with employers, then maybe a "pro-labor party" would seem strange or out of place.
But in today's economy, the owners make the rules and frame the debate. "Economic Freedom," as they have defined it, means owners should be free to do whatever the hell they want, and workers should be free to take the scraps they are offered, or be unemployed.
The American Dream that anybody can make it if they work hard is a real nice idea, but the de facto world works that way for vanishingly few workers.
Democrats whine about it out one side of their mouth while preserving it with the other. Republicans buy into the owners' framing with whole-hearted gusto. Libertarians delude themselves that a free market in employment would naturally occur if we just stopped annoying the owners.
Most Republicans weigh in on the owners' side, and most Libertarians too.
Players don't run in a big circle because there is no reasonable expectation they can round all four bases. They're lucky to get one.
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
In general, if a runner thinks he can clear two bases, he'll make a wide curve. Otherwise it's just a beeline for the next base.
perception is initially created by witnessing facts
Far more likely by hearing/reading somebody else passing it along.
Regardless, people don't so much witness facts as perceive them through the filters of beliefs, biases, and expectations they've accumulated over their lifetime.
Since when does "general perception" relate in any way to verifiable facts?
Well duh.
Democrats are unamerican, and strategerizing like that just hurts the thinkbone.
So, for the purposes of slaughtering innocent woodland creatures, you cleared away forest, bulldozed a hilltop, built a cabin, ... and then got an environmental stamp of approval for the project?
You are my hero. Call me up and let's go find Bambi.
What is it you think he's going to hunt?
> Your first point seems to be an adhominem argument.
No, it is an "appeal to authority" argument. If I maligned the author's character while avoiding the actual issue, that would be an ad hominem argument.
>> So investigate it. That's what scientists do, that's what peer review is for.
> peer review is not intended to catch fraud
But it often does. And you ignored half the sentence - competing scientists are definitely out to disprove each other. That's the whole point of being a scientist, discovering things nobody else understood.