What pisses me off is that if I screw up and lose a credit card number into the wild, I get fined 100K. If they lose 40 million cards, what are they gonna do, fine themselves?
Exactly. And that, in my opinion, is why identity theft and similar crimes are still such a huge issue. The banks are not liable for the loss. The consumer or the merchant gets stuck with the loss (the consumer does have some legal protections).
If someone gets a fake card in your name, or steals your card, the merchant usually ends up with the loss. The consumer has certain protections, if they keep track of their account and report it. So the card company then takes it to the merchant. The merchant must provide detailed records of the transaction, and authentication of the card user. They are, basically, at the mercy of the card company. If they cannot prove that they verified the card, to the satisfaction of the card company, then the card company sticks the merchant with the bill.
Which is why the card companies do not get in a panic when tens of thousands of accounts are comprimised. The odds say that they won't get stuck with the loss anyway.
I disagree. I know the standard Slashdot claim is that Lucas is only in it for the money. Squeezing the last dollars out of your childhood memories, etc.
But I don't believe it.
Look at the way he lives. Watch any of the biographies on him. He has never been someone in it for the money. See Donald Trump for an example of how someone in it for the money lives. George could afford a wildly lavish lifestyle. But he doesn't live it.
All the money goes back into the process. ILM. THX. Skywalker Sound. LucasArts. Etc. He likes the job. He likes creating stuff. He likes being a part of new filmmaking technology. That's what he is in it for.
I'll readily agree that he isn't necessarily very good at making movies. At least, not at making good movies. But he hit it big with Star Wars (ANH), and has leveraged it to continute doing what he likes. Fox studios would do anything to get 7-9 made, but it isn't their decision. They gave that right to Lucas back in the 70s.
Just a minor point, but US tax law allows for computer (and most other technology) items to be depreciated over five years, not seven. Which is a little more realistic.
Can you imagine how many new AOL Broadband subscribers there would be if your $20 / month fee included the ability to watch all of the previous seasons Sopranos? or Carnivale?
I already have this feature from Time Warner Cable. Video on Demand. The HBO VOD has at least one season of each show (Soprarnos, Deadwood, etc), plus a few dozen movies (those that are in HBO's current play rotation). I think VOD costs me around $9 a month.
I don't think AOL/TW missed the boat at all. They're pushing the feature hard in my market (Minnesota).
The missing point here is that Social Security benefits are not linked to the performance of the investment. They are based on a percentage of how much you earned with adjustments for inflation (although not directly tied to inflation yet, that's a whole other issue).
So, taking all of your Social Security taxes and putting them in a private account of US Treasury bonds would not give you a retirement that is the same as the current Social Security system.
Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. It's good for those retirees who would have gotten hurt by fast rising inflation (as in the 1970s). It is bad for the people who are forced to pay more into Social Security to make up the difference for those retirees (anyone in the US under 35 today).
As others have noted, the best care in the world is available in the US. But you have to pay for it. It also means the care isn't rationed by the government and you're free to shop around, with your own money, to get the care you want. I can call up my doctor and be seen the same day. I can get many common treatments (flu, mild infections, etc) at a mini-clinic with no appointment, no wait, and only $15 cost.
I, personally, wouldn't call it the "best in the world". And I think a lot of that is a matter of opinion. Other nations certainly do a much better job of providing a range of services to everyone. Canada has universal health care, and is often used as an example of what the US should do. In a recent poll, however, 2/3 of Canadians thought their system was "in crisis". In fact, the same attitude can be found among the French, Swiss, Swedes, and in the United States. No system is perfect.
We've done some of the autopilot systems here. They have a range of uses. Using them to help congested freeways is certainly one of them. It fits more into the sprawling metropolitan area (Atlanta, Minneapolis) than a truly dense urban area (New York). Trains do have the disadvantage of needing transit to and from the station, and a lot of growth in the US is in sparse sprawling suburbs. These areas require people to drive 20 miles from their house to the transit point, and then ride the transit the last 10 miles into the heart of the city (I'm not claiming that this is a good model, it's just the way things seem to be).
We have developed autopilot systems for trucks and buses. In Minneapolis, buses are allowed to drive on the shoulder of the main highways to avoid congestion. The problem is that the highways were not designed for this. The bus is 9 feet wide, the shoulder is 10 feet wide, often with a concrete barrier at the edge. Not much room for error. The autopilot system we built helps the driver stay within the shoulder, but the driver retains control.
My point was that ITS spending isn't all about working on this futuristic autopilot system. And a lot of the spending towards that end is in pieces that have other applications now, even if there is a vision of a "Minority Report" style atomated highway system in the future.
A lot of the funding, for all purposes, is in jeopardy as the focus is now "homeland security". A lot of transportation researchers are scrambling to make their research applicable to that security (or at least appear applicable). The future of funding is leaning towards things like fertilizer trucks that can detect they've been driven into a major metropolitan area and shut down automatically.
The problem with a train is that you need high population desnity along that route. This isn't all that common in the US, which is sparsely populated compared to much of the world.
ITS applies to rural areas too. I work for the ITS Institute at the University of Minnesota. It's not like ITS is a new thing. It's been around for more than a decade. There is a too.
An example of rural ITS work is driver assistance technologies (like heads-up-display) for snowplows and emergency vehicles (police, ambulance). Driving across a rural farm road in a blizzard can be quite difficult. We developed a HUD system that projected an image of the road, based on DGPS location information.
I'd like to add that I'm not against trains or mass transit. Certain areas of the US can utilize trains effectively, many already do. Personally, I think trains are great for urban areas. In Minnesota, we've finally opened our first urban rail line since the street cars disappeared 50+ years ago. It has surpassed all expectations for passenger levels. Now the people who claimed it would never have been used now claim that the expectations were artifically low. It isn't just the "car lobby". There are people out there who actually fear mass transit as if it's a plot to take away their cars.
Just because it isn't classified doesn't mean the information should be posted on every corner. A lot of information is designated "for official use only", which is dependant upon the agency. It isn't classified, but it also isn't freely distributed.
There are specific legal guidelines regarding classified information. This includes how to classify it, how to store it, how to transport it, and when/how to destroy it. There is a lot of information that should be kept private, but doesn't meet the guidelines for classification.
A directory of all department employees, home phone, address, emergency contact, and home email is an example. This information is not classified. However, I do not know anyone that would want their employer making suck a directory public.
The other main issue regards the distribution of information. State police, fire, and other emergency officials do not have access to classified information at any level. Yet I can imagine information that the federal government may wish to distribute to them while not wanting to make it public knowledge.
Maybe you should try and read the article and the proposed law before jumping to conclusions.
This would only prohibit the release of data that is already prohibited from sale to customers other than the US Government.
As it currently stands, commerical imagery operators are prohibited from selling certain data to anyone but the government. Third parties cannot buy this data. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.
I've been slammed by Sprint. I called them, explained the situation and took note of the date and person called. Of course, the person didn't do anything.
I then called AT&T (who I had been with) and they were more than happy to take back my business plus take down details of the slam. I then sent a letter to my state's Attorney General's office describing the incident. I indicated to them the same thing I did to Sprint. I'd be happy to pay them if (1) they provided an itemized listing of the calls and (2) rebilled the calls at the 7-cent rate I had with AT&T prior to being slammed (the second condition is provided for by law). The AG's office sent back a letter saying they'd bring the matter to Sprint. Sprint then dropped all the charges.
A billing error can be resolved directly with the company. I've had billing errors. I've had the bank cash checks for the incorrect amount. I've never had a firm that wouldn't work to address the issue. It's not like the cable company accidentally charges you for Showtime and then immediately sends your account to a collection agency. It takes months before they even consider selling the debt.
The fact is that most people will simply ignore the bills instead of taking some responsibility. If you can't pay, you need to call up the company and talk to them, not throw the bill away and worry about it next month. Almost every single company will work with you to negotiate something (not because they're nice guys, but because it is cheaper for them than foreclosure, reposession, or selling to collection agencies).
I couldn't access the Philly.com link and the third one is a propoganda rag.
The Charleston.net article claims that half of Americans believe Iraqis were among the hijackers in some "pre-war survey" but gives no source for that claim.
The one source we can view is the PIPA survey. The full report is here. On page ten is a question about Iraq's involvement in 9/11. 20% believe Iraq was directly responsible. Which is close to the number who believe the majority of the world was in favor of the war (page 15). Based on this, it would seem a minority of Americans are as ill-informed as you suggest.
I will not claim that I'm happy about the 20% figure, it is still rather high. But I will claim that the US population is no better or worse informed than the rest of the world. I deal extensively with French corporations through my job. Every time I have French citizens in the US, they are shocked that the population is nearly evenly divided. They are surprised of any division at all. One remarked that he'd never seen any news of anti-war sentiment in the US at all.
This has to be the single most idiotic post I've seen in a long time.
The reason the majority of Americans are not in support of the Iraq war has to do with the fact that they didn't expect as many American soldiers to die, and are tired of hearing about it in the news
What, exactly, do you base this claim on? Before the thing ever started, opposition was at about 40% of the US population. Now it is at 50%. There was strong opposition before there were any casualties at all.
Most Americans before the war thought that the majority of the 9/11 highjackers were from Iraq.
This is completely false. The much publicized PIPA poll that linked the source of news to beliefs showed that 50% of Americans believed there was some link between Saddam and al Qaida (which means that half the nation believes there is no link). Whether this is true depends on your definition of a "link", because there was contact and Saddam did habor known terrorists, but there is no evidence Iraq was supporting or had knowledge of al Qaida operations. Still, the majority of Americans have never been confused about the origin of the 9/11 highjackers, as only half even think their organization was linked to Iraq at all.
Excellent post. I was going to bring up the Germany anaolgy, but decided against it. After all, Germany did declare war on us first.
This is something the Pearl Harbor revisionists forget. They bring up the point that Roosevelt wanted to end US isolationism and engage Germany. That much is true, but there was no guarantee that Germany was going to declare war simply because we went to war with Japan. They did have the Tripartite Pact, but even that didn't require Germany to intervene (because Japan attacked the US).
It is sad that people still claim the election was "rigged" or that Bush wasn't elected simply because they didn't understand how the electoral college works in the first place. I'd happily entertain the idea of modifying our electoral process, but not in the middle of an election.
Tax cuts were given to everyone. In terms of percentage, the poor saw a bigger cut than the rich. A family of four making $50,000 a year had their federal income taxes cut by 50%.
In terms of absolute dollar amounts, the rich certainly saw a bigger cut. That's because they paid more in the first place.
The sad fact of Kerry's plan is that he will raise income taxes on the working upper-middle class (above $200,000), while doing nothing about the tax shelters used by the super-rich (both Kerry and Edwards are in the super-rich category).
Which brings me to your "Republicans versus Democrats" slant. It is unfair, and counter-productive. Is Bush representative of all Republicans? Hardly. There are a lot of conservatives who are quite upset with the administration. Is Kerry representative of all Democrats? Also, not true.
Politicians needs to be evaluated individually, and on the issues. The notion of "anyone but Bush" is stupid and dangerous. It implies support for anyone at all, regardless of how bad they are, as long as it is not the current President. There are a lot of people out there who are worse than Bush. I'm not stating that Kerry is one of them, but pointing out that one needs to vote for someone who they believe will act in their interests. Not simply for anyone who isn't the person they dislike.
I totally agree with you on sexual education. Banning discussion on the topic, or severely limiting it (as in only discussing only abstinence) only causes greater problems. All evidence indicates that sexual education does not affect the age of onset of sexual activity, only the precautions taken.
I do think, however, you've totally missed the concept of public decency. It is not fine for you to put up a billboard that says "I'm going to fuck you up the ass" across the street from the local school.
Of course, there is no universal concensus on what is "decent". For a long time in the US, these issues were decided locally. This was by design. What the locals seem appropriate in New York is not what the locals find appropriate in Des Moines. This concept, however, does not work with mass media. First, it was a national issue (with nation-wide television and radio). Now it is an international issue (with the internet and satellite TV).
Personally, I think that there is no need for censorship where there is a level of control. The internet and television do offer a level of control. One can choose what they wish to view. The problem, as I see it, is educating parents. How many times does some clueless parent let their child watch South Park and play violent video games, unaware that these are for adults. And when they do discover they are for adults, they demand censorship so they won't have to go to the trouble of monitoring what their children watch.
As for the Bush comment, it is just plain silly. Do you really think Iran would have allowed us to land troops? As it was, the US provided over $5 million worth of aid to Iran following the earthquake, including numerous airlifts of emergency supplies and the deployment of a 80-person emergency medical team.
You actually think that invading China or Saudi Arabia is a good idea? One is a nuclear power, undefeatable in a conventional war. The other holds the holiest cities in Islam. Plenty of fundamentalist terrorists stepped forward simply because we had troops in the country. I can't imagine what would happen to a western nation trying to occupy it. As much as I dislike Bush's foreign policy, I'll take his over yours any day.
To say that "nothing has changed" is similarly ill-informed. Did a nation that spent decades under a dictatorship suddenly become a model democracy? No. It's foolish to think that would happen. Bush's team was foolish to think that would happen. Gloating and saying "I told you so" doesn't help anything. There are a lot of people trying to make the best of the situation at hand.
There are steps being taken towards democracy. There are improvements. Post World War II Germany had domestic pro-Nazy terrorists who attacked allied troops and pro-democratic leaders for years after the wars. The US, England, and France all used rather aggressive tactics in subduing them, which bear a strong resemblence to what is happening in Iraq. Not that it makes it right. But it means that there is no historical precedent for an invaded nation to suddenly change governments with no difficulty.
Excellent post. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one upset by their move to more of a Maxim type format.
My wife reads it as well. Often before I do, since she usually gets to the mail first.
I've had any number of friend's girlfriends who are shocked that my wife "allows me" to get the magazine. When I press the issue, asking if they've ever actually read one (or even opened one), the answer is always no.
I like your comparison to Cosmo. I'll have to remember the next time one of them gets holier-than-thou and implies that Playboy is in the same category as cheap pornography.
Actually, we fought them twice. The War of Independence was the first. The War of 1812 was the second.
We almost fought them a third time, during the US Civil War. European powers (England and France) were about to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy. President Lincoln freed the slaves, giving the Union the moral high ground, and the European powers wouldn't be seen entering the war to support slavery.
I won't argue about your access point. Segways can get around in a lot more areas than driving a van.
As to cost, however, I think you are off. Segways are about $4,000 each, so the total cost is $40,000. That's a third more than a new Ford ten-passengar van (brand new E350 XLT with 15-passenger seating- $29,685 according to For's website). I'd have to imagine the liability insurance and upkeep for ten Segway rentals is higher than a single van.
How are you "morally repelled" by their ad policy? Seriously.
It's their content. They paid for it. They pay for the servers. I don't see why they don't have every right to decide how to distribute it, whether it is banner ads, forced view ads, or paid subscription. They aren't compelled to provide free content any more than anyone else is.
If you don't want to view their ads, that's fine. Maybe their business model is stupid and doomed to fail. Maybe no one is willing to spend the time to view their ads for free content. That's the free market.
But to suggest that there is something "morally" wrong? That's just absurd.
The US Capitol building used a mix of slave labor and paid tradesmen. Not really that surprising, given it's location and the time period.
You're saying that if something exists in a nation's history, that nation can never criticize other on the issue? I guess the Europeans had better back the US on the environmental issues. And war.
Personally, I think where one it presently at is important. No one can change the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Some better links are here, here, and here.
Exactly. And that, in my opinion, is why identity theft and similar crimes are still such a huge issue. The banks are not liable for the loss. The consumer or the merchant gets stuck with the loss (the consumer does have some legal protections).
If someone gets a fake card in your name, or steals your card, the merchant usually ends up with the loss. The consumer has certain protections, if they keep track of their account and report it. So the card company then takes it to the merchant. The merchant must provide detailed records of the transaction, and authentication of the card user. They are, basically, at the mercy of the card company. If they cannot prove that they verified the card, to the satisfaction of the card company, then the card company sticks the merchant with the bill.
Which is why the card companies do not get in a panic when tens of thousands of accounts are comprimised. The odds say that they won't get stuck with the loss anyway.
I disagree. I know the standard Slashdot claim is that Lucas is only in it for the money. Squeezing the last dollars out of your childhood memories, etc.
But I don't believe it.
Look at the way he lives. Watch any of the biographies on him. He has never been someone in it for the money. See Donald Trump for an example of how someone in it for the money lives. George could afford a wildly lavish lifestyle. But he doesn't live it.
All the money goes back into the process. ILM. THX. Skywalker Sound. LucasArts. Etc. He likes the job. He likes creating stuff. He likes being a part of new filmmaking technology. That's what he is in it for.
I'll readily agree that he isn't necessarily very good at making movies. At least, not at making good movies. But he hit it big with Star Wars (ANH), and has leveraged it to continute doing what he likes. Fox studios would do anything to get 7-9 made, but it isn't their decision. They gave that right to Lucas back in the 70s.
Just a minor point, but US tax law allows for computer (and most other technology) items to be depreciated over five years, not seven. Which is a little more realistic.
I already have this feature from Time Warner Cable. Video on Demand. The HBO VOD has at least one season of each show (Soprarnos, Deadwood, etc), plus a few dozen movies (those that are in HBO's current play rotation). I think VOD costs me around $9 a month.
I don't think AOL/TW missed the boat at all. They're pushing the feature hard in my market (Minnesota).
The missing point here is that Social Security benefits are not linked to the performance of the investment. They are based on a percentage of how much you earned with adjustments for inflation (although not directly tied to inflation yet, that's a whole other issue).
So, taking all of your Social Security taxes and putting them in a private account of US Treasury bonds would not give you a retirement that is the same as the current Social Security system.
Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. It's good for those retirees who would have gotten hurt by fast rising inflation (as in the 1970s). It is bad for the people who are forced to pay more into Social Security to make up the difference for those retirees (anyone in the US under 35 today).
As others have noted, the best care in the world is available in the US. But you have to pay for it. It also means the care isn't rationed by the government and you're free to shop around, with your own money, to get the care you want. I can call up my doctor and be seen the same day. I can get many common treatments (flu, mild infections, etc) at a mini-clinic with no appointment, no wait, and only $15 cost.
I, personally, wouldn't call it the "best in the world". And I think a lot of that is a matter of opinion. Other nations certainly do a much better job of providing a range of services to everyone. Canada has universal health care, and is often used as an example of what the US should do. In a recent poll, however, 2/3 of Canadians thought their system was "in crisis". In fact, the same attitude can be found among the French, Swiss, Swedes, and in the United States. No system is perfect.
We've done some of the autopilot systems here. They have a range of uses. Using them to help congested freeways is certainly one of them. It fits more into the sprawling metropolitan area (Atlanta, Minneapolis) than a truly dense urban area (New York). Trains do have the disadvantage of needing transit to and from the station, and a lot of growth in the US is in sparse sprawling suburbs. These areas require people to drive 20 miles from their house to the transit point, and then ride the transit the last 10 miles into the heart of the city (I'm not claiming that this is a good model, it's just the way things seem to be).
We have developed autopilot systems for trucks and buses. In Minneapolis, buses are allowed to drive on the shoulder of the main highways to avoid congestion. The problem is that the highways were not designed for this. The bus is 9 feet wide, the shoulder is 10 feet wide, often with a concrete barrier at the edge. Not much room for error. The autopilot system we built helps the driver stay within the shoulder, but the driver retains control.
My point was that ITS spending isn't all about working on this futuristic autopilot system. And a lot of the spending towards that end is in pieces that have other applications now, even if there is a vision of a "Minority Report" style atomated highway system in the future.
A lot of the funding, for all purposes, is in jeopardy as the focus is now "homeland security". A lot of transportation researchers are scrambling to make their research applicable to that security (or at least appear applicable). The future of funding is leaning towards things like fertilizer trucks that can detect they've been driven into a major metropolitan area and shut down automatically.
The problem with a train is that you need high population desnity along that route. This isn't all that common in the US, which is sparsely populated compared to much of the world.
ITS applies to rural areas too. I work for the ITS Institute at the University of Minnesota. It's not like ITS is a new thing. It's been around for more than a decade. There is a too.
An example of rural ITS work is driver assistance technologies (like heads-up-display) for snowplows and emergency vehicles (police, ambulance). Driving across a rural farm road in a blizzard can be quite difficult. We developed a HUD system that projected an image of the road, based on DGPS location information.
I'd like to add that I'm not against trains or mass transit. Certain areas of the US can utilize trains effectively, many already do. Personally, I think trains are great for urban areas. In Minnesota, we've finally opened our first urban rail line since the street cars disappeared 50+ years ago. It has surpassed all expectations for passenger levels. Now the people who claimed it would never have been used now claim that the expectations were artifically low. It isn't just the "car lobby". There are people out there who actually fear mass transit as if it's a plot to take away their cars.
Just because it isn't classified doesn't mean the information should be posted on every corner. A lot of information is designated "for official use only", which is dependant upon the agency. It isn't classified, but it also isn't freely distributed.
There are specific legal guidelines regarding classified information. This includes how to classify it, how to store it, how to transport it, and when/how to destroy it. There is a lot of information that should be kept private, but doesn't meet the guidelines for classification.
A directory of all department employees, home phone, address, emergency contact, and home email is an example. This information is not classified. However, I do not know anyone that would want their employer making suck a directory public.
The other main issue regards the distribution of information. State police, fire, and other emergency officials do not have access to classified information at any level. Yet I can imagine information that the federal government may wish to distribute to them while not wanting to make it public knowledge.
This would only prohibit the release of data that is already prohibited from sale to customers other than the US Government.
As it currently stands, commerical imagery operators are prohibited from selling certain data to anyone but the government. Third parties cannot buy this data. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.
I then called AT&T (who I had been with) and they were more than happy to take back my business plus take down details of the slam. I then sent a letter to my state's Attorney General's office describing the incident. I indicated to them the same thing I did to Sprint. I'd be happy to pay them if (1) they provided an itemized listing of the calls and (2) rebilled the calls at the 7-cent rate I had with AT&T prior to being slammed (the second condition is provided for by law). The AG's office sent back a letter saying they'd bring the matter to Sprint. Sprint then dropped all the charges.
A billing error can be resolved directly with the company. I've had billing errors. I've had the bank cash checks for the incorrect amount. I've never had a firm that wouldn't work to address the issue. It's not like the cable company accidentally charges you for Showtime and then immediately sends your account to a collection agency. It takes months before they even consider selling the debt.
The fact is that most people will simply ignore the bills instead of taking some responsibility. If you can't pay, you need to call up the company and talk to them, not throw the bill away and worry about it next month. Almost every single company will work with you to negotiate something (not because they're nice guys, but because it is cheaper for them than foreclosure, reposession, or selling to collection agencies).
The Charleston.net article claims that half of Americans believe Iraqis were among the hijackers in some "pre-war survey" but gives no source for that claim.
The one source we can view is the PIPA survey. The full report is here. On page ten is a question about Iraq's involvement in 9/11. 20% believe Iraq was directly responsible. Which is close to the number who believe the majority of the world was in favor of the war (page 15). Based on this, it would seem a minority of Americans are as ill-informed as you suggest.
I will not claim that I'm happy about the 20% figure, it is still rather high. But I will claim that the US population is no better or worse informed than the rest of the world. I deal extensively with French corporations through my job. Every time I have French citizens in the US, they are shocked that the population is nearly evenly divided. They are surprised of any division at all. One remarked that he'd never seen any news of anti-war sentiment in the US at all.
The reason the majority of Americans are not in support of the Iraq war has to do with the fact that they didn't expect as many American soldiers to die, and are tired of hearing about it in the news
What, exactly, do you base this claim on? Before the thing ever started, opposition was at about 40% of the US population. Now it is at 50%. There was strong opposition before there were any casualties at all.
Most Americans before the war thought that the majority of the 9/11 highjackers were from Iraq.
This is completely false. The much publicized PIPA poll that linked the source of news to beliefs showed that 50% of Americans believed there was some link between Saddam and al Qaida (which means that half the nation believes there is no link). Whether this is true depends on your definition of a "link", because there was contact and Saddam did habor known terrorists, but there is no evidence Iraq was supporting or had knowledge of al Qaida operations. Still, the majority of Americans have never been confused about the origin of the 9/11 highjackers, as only half even think their organization was linked to Iraq at all.
Excellent post. I was going to bring up the Germany anaolgy, but decided against it. After all, Germany did declare war on us first.
This is something the Pearl Harbor revisionists forget. They bring up the point that Roosevelt wanted to end US isolationism and engage Germany. That much is true, but there was no guarantee that Germany was going to declare war simply because we went to war with Japan. They did have the Tripartite Pact, but even that didn't require Germany to intervene (because Japan attacked the US).
It is sad that people still claim the election was "rigged" or that Bush wasn't elected simply because they didn't understand how the electoral college works in the first place. I'd happily entertain the idea of modifying our electoral process, but not in the middle of an election.
Tax cuts were given to everyone. In terms of percentage, the poor saw a bigger cut than the rich. A family of four making $50,000 a year had their federal income taxes cut by 50%.
In terms of absolute dollar amounts, the rich certainly saw a bigger cut. That's because they paid more in the first place.
The sad fact of Kerry's plan is that he will raise income taxes on the working upper-middle class (above $200,000), while doing nothing about the tax shelters used by the super-rich (both Kerry and Edwards are in the super-rich category).
Which brings me to your "Republicans versus Democrats" slant. It is unfair, and counter-productive. Is Bush representative of all Republicans? Hardly. There are a lot of conservatives who are quite upset with the administration. Is Kerry representative of all Democrats? Also, not true.
Politicians needs to be evaluated individually, and on the issues. The notion of "anyone but Bush" is stupid and dangerous. It implies support for anyone at all, regardless of how bad they are, as long as it is not the current President. There are a lot of people out there who are worse than Bush. I'm not stating that Kerry is one of them, but pointing out that one needs to vote for someone who they believe will act in their interests. Not simply for anyone who isn't the person they dislike.
Last paragraph should read "pro-Nazi" not "Nazy". I've been at work too long today. :-)
I totally agree with you on sexual education. Banning discussion on the topic, or severely limiting it (as in only discussing only abstinence) only causes greater problems. All evidence indicates that sexual education does not affect the age of onset of sexual activity, only the precautions taken.
I do think, however, you've totally missed the concept of public decency. It is not fine for you to put up a billboard that says "I'm going to fuck you up the ass" across the street from the local school.
Of course, there is no universal concensus on what is "decent". For a long time in the US, these issues were decided locally. This was by design. What the locals seem appropriate in New York is not what the locals find appropriate in Des Moines. This concept, however, does not work with mass media. First, it was a national issue (with nation-wide television and radio). Now it is an international issue (with the internet and satellite TV).
Personally, I think that there is no need for censorship where there is a level of control. The internet and television do offer a level of control. One can choose what they wish to view. The problem, as I see it, is educating parents. How many times does some clueless parent let their child watch South Park and play violent video games, unaware that these are for adults. And when they do discover they are for adults, they demand censorship so they won't have to go to the trouble of monitoring what their children watch.
As for the Bush comment, it is just plain silly. Do you really think Iran would have allowed us to land troops? As it was, the US provided over $5 million worth of aid to Iran following the earthquake, including numerous airlifts of emergency supplies and the deployment of a 80-person emergency medical team.
You actually think that invading China or Saudi Arabia is a good idea? One is a nuclear power, undefeatable in a conventional war. The other holds the holiest cities in Islam. Plenty of fundamentalist terrorists stepped forward simply because we had troops in the country. I can't imagine what would happen to a western nation trying to occupy it. As much as I dislike Bush's foreign policy, I'll take his over yours any day.
To say that "nothing has changed" is similarly ill-informed. Did a nation that spent decades under a dictatorship suddenly become a model democracy? No. It's foolish to think that would happen. Bush's team was foolish to think that would happen. Gloating and saying "I told you so" doesn't help anything. There are a lot of people trying to make the best of the situation at hand.
There are steps being taken towards democracy. There are improvements. Post World War II Germany had domestic pro-Nazy terrorists who attacked allied troops and pro-democratic leaders for years after the wars. The US, England, and France all used rather aggressive tactics in subduing them, which bear a strong resemblence to what is happening in Iraq. Not that it makes it right. But it means that there is no historical precedent for an invaded nation to suddenly change governments with no difficulty.
Excellent post. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one upset by their move to more of a Maxim type format.
My wife reads it as well. Often before I do, since she usually gets to the mail first.
I've had any number of friend's girlfriends who are shocked that my wife "allows me" to get the magazine. When I press the issue, asking if they've ever actually read one (or even opened one), the answer is always no.
I like your comparison to Cosmo. I'll have to remember the next time one of them gets holier-than-thou and implies that Playboy is in the same category as cheap pornography.
Actually, we fought them twice. The War of Independence was the first. The War of 1812 was the second.
We almost fought them a third time, during the US Civil War. European powers (England and France) were about to enter the war on the side of the Confederacy. President Lincoln freed the slaves, giving the Union the moral high ground, and the European powers wouldn't be seen entering the war to support slavery.
I won't argue about your access point. Segways can get around in a lot more areas than driving a van.
As to cost, however, I think you are off. Segways are about $4,000 each, so the total cost is $40,000. That's a third more than a new Ford ten-passengar van (brand new E350 XLT with 15-passenger seating- $29,685 according to For's website). I'd have to imagine the liability insurance and upkeep for ten Segway rentals is higher than a single van.
How are you "morally repelled" by their ad policy? Seriously.
It's their content. They paid for it. They pay for the servers. I don't see why they don't have every right to decide how to distribute it, whether it is banner ads, forced view ads, or paid subscription. They aren't compelled to provide free content any more than anyone else is.
If you don't want to view their ads, that's fine. Maybe their business model is stupid and doomed to fail. Maybe no one is willing to spend the time to view their ads for free content. That's the free market.
But to suggest that there is something "morally" wrong? That's just absurd.
Slave labour on the increase in China
The US Capitol building used a mix of slave labor and paid tradesmen. Not really that surprising, given it's location and the time period.
You're saying that if something exists in a nation's history, that nation can never criticize other on the issue? I guess the Europeans had better back the US on the environmental issues. And war.
Personally, I think where one it presently at is important. No one can change the past.