As opposed to myself, who might have gone into teaching (love history! & know it well) except for the insane licensing requirements.
I expect I would have made an excellent teacher. People regularly tell me that I should be a teacher, rather than wasting my talents on the job I am doing now, but even the private schools could not hire me if they wanted to, because I'm not certified, and I'm not about to jump through hoops, and disqualify myself as a good teacher, by getting certified.
But this problem extends so far. The basic function of government is to restrain evil and encourage good, but our government restrains good and encourages evil. I wonder why we're having problems?
Here's a story about how the Right to Keep and Bear Arms played a part in protecting the lives of citizens in the face of persecution from mob mentality and a complicit local government. It happened in the city where I go to work every day, and it happened less than forty years ago. It's hard to tell, but this article might have been written by a communist or communist-sympathizer, so it should be read with that bias in mind.
Here's another story about how the Right to Keep and Bear Arms prevented another local government (this time in Tennessee) from rigging elections in 1946.
As for the national government, the greatest effect of the 2nd Amendment is hard to judge, as the would-be tyrants are hardly going to inform us of the occasions when they wanted to destroy civil liberties but were too afraid to do so. Certainly, however, it has had some effects. Apparently in the wake of Oklahoma City, the FBI has been more willing to try to negotiate, and find common ground with, various groups that they had previously labelled extremist -- and were surprised to find that they often shared very similar values.
Although not in the United States, it is probably telling that the Afrikaaners in South Africa treated the Zulus (who were willing and able to fight) much differently than the other tribes (who were generally peaceful), and if you read Dr. Livingstone's "Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa", you will discover that those Tswana who learned to resist the Boers were able to maintain more of their freedom than when they had tried to co-exist peacefully. (Search for this book at http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books or http://www.ipl.org.
The Spanish and Portuguese colonists both were happy enough to conduct slave raids on the Guarani Indians, until the Jesuits got permission to arm them -- at which point the slave raids miraculously abated. (Read the famous socialist/communist author Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham's book, "A Vanished Arcadia: The Jesuits in Paraguay", also online at the above addresses, for an account. Cunninghame Graham is a two-part last name, which will help when you try to search for it.)
The lessons of history are plain and clear, and we ignore them at our peril.
As George Washington expressed it, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war." It is as true now as it was then.
I can certainly understand sadness at the widespread lack of concern for persons with disabilities.
As for myself, I have tried to design my HTML to be nearly as useful without images as with. Not only do I like being accessible to as many people as possible, it's also good design, and is easier to search.
I can even understand a law like the ADA if it applies to government buildings and services.
When we start applying such laws to private enterprise, however, we cross the line and our actions become illegitimate. To require private citizens, individually or corporately, to perform various actions, rather than simply to refrain from those actions that harm or threaten others, is tantamount to part-time slavery.
It's true that private solutions don't work 100%, but generally speaking they work better than government solutions that often have a negative value -- that is, cause more problems than they solve.
In this particular case, I'm not incredibly upset, because the extra time required is pretty small, but there is still the principle of the thing, and that irks me. Once again, our government has usurped power unto itself, and by establishing this precedent could become a great danger to everyone -- able and disabled alike.
The good news is, private enterprise is already getting near to finding a solution, not to how to allow the disabled partial access to various parts of the world, but how to allow the disabled full access to all the world -- that is, the recent and expected advances in medical science are darn near miraculous. In another twenty years, either better AI, better medical science, or both, could very well make this debate obsolete, either by AI being able to render almost any page into an understandable format, or by curing virtually any disability.
It does not follow, however, that if a person objects to the ADA, they must not have any compassion. Personally, I've put over 80 books online, in plain ASCII, partly with the understanding that this would be an ideal medium for the blind. I did that at my own expense and with my own time. I do not believe that my compassion extends to forcing others to do as I wish. That sort of compassion I can do without.
Of course governments are more dangerous than the criminals around us. They are, to begin with, usually better armed, and more unfeeling and callous.
The simple fact of the matter is that governments in this century alone have been responsible for the murders of over a hundred million innocent civilians -- a number that the "criminals" could not even hope to compete with, if the "criminals" are even anxious for the dubious honour.
In the United States, billions of dollars are stolen from citizens every year, BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, without any trial, in the name of preventing "crimes" which are explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, making these human rights "criminal" has become the leading cause of *real* crime, where one person harms another.
No wonder people are paranoid. Sometimes they really are out to get you.
There are many good people working in government, and quite a few bad ones as well. In all cases, they are only human -- even the good ones make plenty of mistakes. How much better if the U.S. government were to observe the Constitution which they pretend to respect? How much better if government were limited (as originally designed) so that abuses and mistakes were less likely to happen, and have less scope when they do happen? What a great idea! Why didn't Madison think of it?
One of the oldest principles of law is that the law must be written down, and made public. This serves two purposes: it prevents authority figures from making up arbitrary laws as they go along, and allows citizens to know what the law is.
Are current laws are so amazingly complex (though almost always unnecessary) and so full of legalese, that what the law means basically depends on whatever the authority figure says it is at the time they wish to apply it -- thus, by having enough laws, and interpreting those laws as they see fit, our legal system currently violates this oldest and most important of legal principles.
Another important element of English common law, the legal system that is arguably the best that has ever existed, is that the common man generally does a pretty good job of deciding issues of law. This is at the root of the idea of trial by jury. This concept is also suffering erosion at present. See the Fully Informed Jury Association.
Christian, Fiscally "liberal" and Socially "conservative"? Isn't there a contradiction in there?
If tax slavery and forced morality are Christian, then I'm a Juddhist Hindislam monk. (In other words, everything but.) But I figure this is likely to be a troll, though there are some people who actually believe in such things. Admittedly, "Me" may have been referring to friendly persuasion and non-coercive measures to promote a better social environment, in which case I heartily applaud him.
In any case, y'all might benefit from a few links:
Advocates for Self-Government has a nice little test to determine your political tendencies. They chart it for fiscal and social beliefs. "Me" would probably an Authoritarian by this reckoning. The main problem with Authoritarianism is that it requires real flesh-and-blood humans to make those decisions for everyone else, and even if you managed to get honest people into office, they still would not have the necessary local knowledge to make those decisions. The result is generally tyranny.
Since the subjects of God and Freedom have come up, you might enjoy God's Free Men and Women. Not exactly mainstream, but noteworthy for their belief that God wants Freedom for his people, a belief that does have significant backing in the Bible.;-);-);-) (Most religions have this, but unfortunately, the folks who come along after the founder, generally whittle this down to virtually nothing.)
For something a bit less controversial, I recently came across Echoes of Gideon which made a point about the story of Gideon that I had not heard before - that the bit about the men being chosen who drank by cupping water with their hands was because those who lapped up water had gotten used to this method because they were used to bowing down to idols.
This is absolutely correct. When I was in school -- not just high school, too -- I tended to get along with people of every group, without really "belonging" to any of them. There were a few cases where someone tried to pick on me, and fortunately there were some good people at the school -- even popular ones -- who would stand up for one another, at least when things started to get out of control. I can only recall a couple instances when there was an actual fight at that school.
But it is also important to realize that not everyone has this environment or the ability to pull it off. In my case it doubtless helped that I was a little taller than average, though I was so skinny that my weight (which is really more important) was less than average. It also doubtless helped that I went to a private high school (notice that none of these shootings have been at private schools) and no one was there who didn't want to be there -- or at least, not for long.
Probably another good influence was that that school did not even have a football team at that time. Since then they have added one, and doubled the tuition to be able to afford it.
Combined with the small size, almost every student could get on at least one of the teams, and that doubtless also helped. I don't know why anyone would think that sports is important, but when someone starts bullying, it does give an interested by-stander a chance to speak up, which they might not otherwise do. All the same, I have seen such simple phrases as "Hey, don't pick on him, he's cool," or "he's all right," work just as well.
I even recall one incident, where another student was waving his arms around in front of me, not actually making physical contact, but acting like he might, just to "get in my face", so to speak. I was fortunate in making a lucky grab, and got a grip on both his wrists. He was rather startled by this turn of events. I looked straight into his eyes, said one word, medium forcefully, "Enough," held his wrists and his gaze for about two seconds, then let him go and turned away. I was quite surprised by the change -- after that, this student not only stopped bothering me, but almost seemed obsequious at times. It should be noted, however, that he had never been a really bad guy, just a bit annoying.
A good sense of humour is another good strategy, but it takes time and work.
Sadly, not everyone is able to develop the necessary skills, and certainly not in time to avoid much of the harassment that occurs in high school. This is why it is important for students to stick up for one another. It is also important to try to befriend the people who are the bullies. Some of them are just jerks, but believe it or not, many of them are just seeking acceptance themselves. If you take the initiative to accept them, not necessarily as a friend, but as a person deserving of respect, they might surprise you -- but don't expect it to work on the first few tries. I believe much of the reason that I was somewhat accepted in high school is because I accepted everyone else, regardless of whether they were smart or stupid, big or small, or whatever. In retrospect, I wish that I had spoken up for others a bit more often, but at the time I didn't have enough self-confidence to do so, especially considering that I was pretty scrawny altogether. My track record wasn't too bad, but I wish it could have been better.
Mind, all the above concerns getting along with others while not conforming. I know absolutely nothing about being in the "in crowd".
I mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating here as well: Some school administrators *do* "get it". Here in Union County, after the shootings, instead of banning trenchcoats or something equally silly, at least one school responded by getting representatives of various social groups within the school to talk to each other. Now *that* is the right tactic to deal with this issue.
Alan R. Light Monroe, N. C.
Some school administrators do get it
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
One bright spot on the news about this last night was the response that the local schools (Union County, N.C.) had come up with: They got some prominent members of various cliques together just to talk and to see each other as people.
While it is only a small step, and one that should have been already encouraged, it does demonstrate that there are in fact school administrators who figured out pretty quickly where the problem lay, and a reasonable response to it.
In the news coverage, they interviewed the kids, who were apparently surprised to learn that people not exactly like them were still human. I don't know how much of that was just for the interview, though. I expect they weren't that stupid before, and aren't that smart now. Still, that sort of meeting probably made a difference.
It is difficult to find a single responsible party in a mess like this. Obviously, most of the responsibility lies on the two students who committed the violence, but a pretty large share also has to go to the students who pushed them to it. Typically enough, it appears from one report I've seen that these students were too cool to eat at the cafeteria, and had just left campus when the shooting started. The other influences are surely too small to be seriously considered, unless you wish to separate possible mental illness from personal responsibility.
It is unsurprising that the gun control debate should erupt here. Let me just say that I believe that the calls for gun control are as badly thought out and as knee-jerk a reaction as the blame placed on the internet and computer games. Everyone seems to be searching for a perfect solution that doesn't exist, and few seem willing to make a reasonable trade-off that will produce a best-case, but far from perfect, result.
Several posters brought up the point of self-esteem -- either too little or too much. I believe that all the talk we hear about low self esteem is so much crap. The problem is two-fold -- self esteem that is too high, and acceptance that is too low. Kids don't need to be told that they are smart and nice and pretty or handsome and so forth, in many cases even if they are. They don't need to have an over-developed ego in which they believe they can do no wrong. On the other hand, they don't need to be told they're worthless either. What they need to be told is that they are valued and loved regardless of whether they are smart or stupid, pretty or pretty ugly, fat or thin, "normal" or "outsider", jock or academic. This needs to be done first by parents and teachers, and then by other students.
My experience in school was probably somewhat different than many of the other/.ers here. I never fit in with *any* group, jock or geek or anything else, but got along reasonably well with everyone. I went to a number of schools, and the best ones in this regard were the relatively small ones, where I often found "jocks" that would stick up for me when the occasional bully tried to push me around. As a whole, the jocks did not impress me much, and some were downright lousy, but it only took a few with a firm sense of right and wrong, willing to stick up for me, to make a huge difference. There were doubtless other contributing factors, and some of these probably helped me in part because I had always treated everyone else with respect.
I also discovered in high school that most of the kids -- even the jerks -- were wonderful to be around when there were only two of us. When they weren't trying to impress others, they had no reason to be cruel, and when being themselves were generally quite nice if sometimes a little shallow. I believe our society could do more to make it the popular thing to treat people right -- that alone would make a tremendous impact. The methods that have been generally used to do this, however, are so incredibly lame that it's incredible that there hasn't been more of a backlash.
Just because I think it's so important, I'm going to repeat again: Don't teach kids self-esteem. Teach that they are loved and accepted without any conditions (but that they would be better off if they studied, acted nice, and so forth).
Since a number of people have said that violence like this does not happen in other countries -- Ha! There are plenty of countries with more violence, or similar incidents. I'm thinking that it wasn't so long ago that someone set fire to a dance club in Sweden, for example. Of course, Kosovo is another example of pointless violence, and other posters have mentioned examples similar to this one in Colorado.
For all that, I believe that one of the worst effects of all this is the result of the media. I hadn't realized that the media could be so stupid until I saw a report on TV last night -- tieing in the Internet, Geeks, Computer Games, Goths, and even Trenchcoats and Gangs into all this, where it should have been extremely obvious by then that none of these had any connection to the shooting. The only thing in the report that might have a connection to this sort of violence was the report itself, which so blatantly ostracised anyone who was not like the reporters who were covering the story -- anyone who thought independently, dressed differently, whatever. This attitude of the media toward anyone who does not meet their idea of what is "normal" can clearly contribute to non-"normal" students being abused and made to feel separate from society, which seems to have been one of the root causes of this shooting. There were a couple cases where the shooters didn't shoot people they knew well, and let them get away -- I don't believe they were completely insane, just driven to insanity by years of hatred and abuse. They had a responsibility to keep themselves from going so far, but they are not the only ones responsible.
Since I'm here, I'll go ahead and put in a plug for genetic engineering -- perhaps if we engineer future generations to have higher intelligence and greater empathy, as well as removing some factors that attribute to aggression, we will have less violence of all sorts in the future.
Well, it's obvious that this poster has no idea what a fallacy is. Can we say non sequiter?
The incident in Colorado reflects only on two disturbed teenagers who didn't get the help they needed.
In the same way, people are individually responsible for their actions. Censorship only serves to make the censored material more interesting. The censored material is a convenient scapegoat for those who demand to find a cause, even when there isn't one, or when it is based on complex interactions that we cannot yet understand. The cries for censorship are the result of hysteria on the part of those who want to be protected from something they can't understand, and who are willing to make things worse in order to give themselves the illusion of security.
In the first half of this century, there were scores of small automobile manufacturers, with factories all over the United States, and in places we no longer think of as having any relation to this industry.
Over the years, many changes occurred: Henry Ford revolutionized the way cars were made, on assembly lines instead of one at a time (much cheaper); starting in the 1950's, companies began to design cars to be safer; in the 1970's, more efficient engines were produced to meet the oil crisis; the list goes on and on, but basically ways were found to improve cars while either reducing the price or at least keeping it stable.
If the author of this article were correct in his assumptions, we could expect to have little choice today in what kind of car we wanted, what options it might have, and so forth.
Oddly enough, cars, while not exactly cheap, are nonetheless cheap enough that almost every adult in the U.S.A. who wants to drive can afford one, and some people are willing to pay outrageous prices for top-of-the-line models. In the meantime, cars are safer and more efficient than ever before.
There were many consolidations in the industry, and many of the original automobile manufacturers were either bought out or went out of business -- but this has little to do with whether cars can still be a profitable industry -- it only means that it has changed. The same will happen with software, and some current big players don't want to lose their privileged positions, as is proved by the utterly laughable Microsoft article. For consumers, however, free software is great.
You can always vote for a third party as a protest vote. If there are enough protest votes, they might even win, or at least give the others a bit of a shake. I'll be voting Libertarian.
I would vote for the most qualified squirrel, but not are running at present.
Yes, many of the new jobs are terrible ones. Hope this changes soon, but I'm not sure how the Federal Reserve Bank or any other Government institution can change this without producing worse effects.
Re: Blacks in Prison
Not so much related to high unemployment as our nation's ridiculous "War on Drugs", combined with latent racism (often not even recognized by the perpetrators) at many levels. With the great number of excuses given by this War on America to invade privacy, use excessive police powers, and so forth, it is not too surprising that black males have taken a great deal of heat.
Re: Constitution
What is so remarkable about it is that it is a wonderful system of checks and balances, that has kept the U.S.A. a relatively peaceful and extremely prosperous nation since its adoption over two centuries ago. Compare this with most governments around the world, and you will see how remarkable it is. It should not be messed with lightly, and could use some reinforcement.
Damn Yugoslavian website is all graphical -- didn't get far with Lynx. Maybe that's enough reason to bomb them into the Stone Age (except they're already there)?
I'm actually of the opinion that we ought to get all the decent folk out of the whole region and give them asylum, allowing the others to kill each other off. My father suggests that a jeep would be enough for this project.
I certainly appreciate the efforts in free software, in coding, technical writing, advocacy, feedback, and so forth.
For those of us with inadequate technical skills for even these, however, I would remind you that the information age does not refer only to computer information, but to computerized information. If you are qualified to put any sort of useful information online, do so! It can benefit all of us.
My personal preference is in putting public domain literature online. See The On-Line Book Page for information on how to get involved in this.
The problem with Intellectual Property is not that it exists, if only as a legal fiction, but that it is too restrictive and becoming more restricted. Copyright is now "Life of the Author plus 70 years", though it is difficult to conceive how copyright protection for such a long time is likely to increase an author's willingness to create, while it does profoundly restrict new works, and is even sometimes used for censorship. In that sense, the author is right.
There are also some fairly good arguments that Intellectual Property ought to be done away with entirely. In either case, it would behoove our society and culture to reduce IP terms instead of extending them towards infinity.
See this page of mine for a fair amount of information on this topic.
The chief fault with this interpretation is that it considers government coercion to be the only measure of how caring a population is. While U.S. culture does in fact over-emphasize the pursuit of wealth, it is balanced by a cultural expectation that individuals are to support various charities.
Rugged Individualism is something of a myth even within the U.S. Without a strong government to help them out, the early settlers learned to help each other -- and found that they preferred to do it themselves.
Rather than being more caring, socialism (when coerced by the government) is an abdication of one's social responsibilities. From what I've seen discussed here, I have to doubt whether Europe is really more involved in OSS or not. Regardless, an awful lot has been done in the U.S., so there must be something more to this than just capitalism v. socialism.
Nonetheless, the U.S. has its many faults. But then, so does Europe and everywhere else.
So what if the domain HAD been used (or intended for use) as an adult site? Where does Archie Comics get the idea that they own the name Veronica?
If there were actual trademark infringement, I could understand, but unless the site had some relation to the Veronica character in Archie Comics, they have no right to demand that others refrain from using the name, even if it were a pornographic web site. (Though in that case, they'd probably have enough money to win the suit.)
Even within the domain of comics, they would have to prove that the use of Veronica infringed on their trademark. Both Archie and Richie Rich have a character named Reggie. Should they be suing each other for giving characters well-known if not all that common names that pre-existed both their comic strips?
I have some simple logos available at my web site, and even have them in.png format for those of you who don't want to use GIFs (also available). It's a little hard to download the.png files from Netscape (I'm using 4.5), easier from IE 4.0, and neither handle them as graciously as GIFs, but both will display them when included in HTML code.
As for the comment that "Open Source Books" doesn't quite make sense, well, I tend to agree, but Eric Eldred does make a fairly good argument for it. Personally, I'm using Liber which is Latin for both "freedom" and "book".
Regardless of what you call it, though, please get involved now, before it is too late.
Australia and Canada are considering taking the lead of the U.S. and Europe: Please try to stop it now while you can. One of my logos, incidentally, features Henry Lawson. Perhaps I will do another one with Robert Service, both authors whose works I have put online. Many of Service's later works are still under copyright. Lawson is a prime example of how copyright benefits publishers rather than authors. He sold his early works outright before he understood that he could get royalties, and died broke, despite being a best-selling author -- so well loved that he once appeared on the Australian $10 bill. A strange irony, that.
There is much that can still be done, if only there is sufficient public awareness. You can bet that the big media won't get involved. Some of them are the ones behind this assault on our basic freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thing started out because a few people thought Dr. Laurence Godfrey was a jerk.
Now, millions of people know Dr. Laurence Godfrey is a jerk.
Somehow I doubt that was his intent.
Alan
As opposed to myself, who might have gone into teaching (love history! & know it well) except for the insane licensing requirements.
I expect I would have made an excellent teacher. People regularly tell me that I should be a teacher, rather than wasting my talents on the job I am doing now, but even the private schools could not hire me if they wanted to, because I'm not certified, and I'm not about to jump through hoops, and disqualify myself as a good teacher, by getting certified.
But this problem extends so far. The basic function of government is to restrain evil and encourage good, but our government restrains good and encourages evil. I wonder why we're having problems?
Alan Light
Here's a story about how the Right to Keep and Bear Arms played a part in protecting the lives of citizens in the face of persecution from mob mentality and a complicit local government. It happened in the city where I go to work every day, and it happened less than forty years ago. It's hard to tell, but this article might have been written by a communist or communist-sympathizer, so it should be read with that bias in mind.
Here's another story about how the Right to Keep and Bear Arms prevented another local government (this time in Tennessee) from rigging elections in 1946.
As for the national government, the greatest effect of the 2nd Amendment is hard to judge, as the would-be tyrants are hardly going to inform us of the occasions when they wanted to destroy civil liberties but were too afraid to do so. Certainly, however, it has had some effects. Apparently in the wake of Oklahoma City, the FBI has been more willing to try to negotiate, and find common ground with, various groups that they had previously labelled extremist -- and were surprised to find that they often shared very similar values.
Although not in the United States, it is probably telling that the Afrikaaners in South Africa treated the Zulus (who were willing and able to fight) much differently than the other tribes (who were generally peaceful), and if you read Dr. Livingstone's "Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa", you will discover that those Tswana who learned to resist the Boers were able to maintain more of their freedom than when they had tried to co-exist peacefully. (Search for this book at http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books or http://www.ipl.org.
The Spanish and Portuguese colonists both were happy enough to conduct slave raids on the Guarani Indians, until the Jesuits got permission to arm them -- at which point the slave raids miraculously abated. (Read the famous socialist/communist author Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham's book, "A Vanished Arcadia: The Jesuits in Paraguay", also online at the above addresses, for an account. Cunninghame Graham is a two-part last name, which will help when you try to search for it.)
The lessons of history are plain and clear, and we ignore them at our peril.
As George Washington expressed it, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war." It is as true now as it was then.
Alan Light
When I saw the subject line, this is the one that immediately came to mind.
Alan
I can certainly understand sadness at the widespread lack of concern for persons with disabilities.
As for myself, I have tried to design my HTML to be nearly as useful without images as with. Not only do I like being accessible to as many people as possible, it's also good design, and is easier to search.
I can even understand a law like the ADA if it applies to government buildings and services.
When we start applying such laws to private enterprise, however, we cross the line and our actions become illegitimate. To require private citizens, individually or corporately, to perform various actions, rather than simply to refrain from those actions that harm or threaten others, is tantamount to part-time slavery.
It's true that private solutions don't work 100%, but generally speaking they work better than government solutions that often have a negative value -- that is, cause more problems than they solve.
In this particular case, I'm not incredibly upset, because the extra time required is pretty small, but there is still the principle of the thing, and that irks me. Once again, our government has usurped power unto itself, and by establishing this precedent could become a great danger to everyone -- able and disabled alike.
The good news is, private enterprise is already getting near to finding a solution, not to how to allow the disabled partial access to various parts of the world, but how to allow the disabled full access to all the world -- that is, the recent and expected advances in medical science are darn near miraculous. In another twenty years, either better AI, better medical science, or both, could very well make this debate obsolete, either by AI being able to render almost any page into an understandable format, or by curing virtually any disability.
It does not follow, however, that if a person objects to the ADA, they must not have any compassion. Personally, I've put over 80 books online, in plain ASCII, partly with the understanding that this would be an ideal medium for the blind. I did that at my own expense and with my own time. I do not believe that my compassion extends to forcing others to do as I wish. That sort of compassion I can do without.
Alan
Of course governments are more dangerous than the criminals around us. They are, to begin with, usually better armed, and more unfeeling and callous.
The simple fact of the matter is that governments in this century alone have been responsible for the murders of over a hundred million innocent civilians -- a number that the "criminals" could not even hope to compete with, if the "criminals" are even anxious for the dubious honour.
In the United States, billions of dollars are stolen from citizens every year, BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, without any trial, in the name of preventing "crimes" which are explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, making these human rights "criminal" has become the leading cause of *real* crime, where one person harms another.
No wonder people are paranoid. Sometimes they really are out to get you.
There are many good people working in government, and quite a few bad ones as well. In all cases, they are only human -- even the good ones make plenty of mistakes. How much better if the U.S. government were to observe the Constitution which they pretend to respect? How much better if government were limited (as originally designed) so that abuses and mistakes were less likely to happen, and have less scope when they do happen? What a great idea! Why didn't Madison think of it?
Alan R. Light
One of the oldest principles of law is that the law must be written down, and made public. This serves two purposes: it prevents authority figures from making up arbitrary laws as they go along, and allows citizens to know what the law is.
Are current laws are so amazingly complex (though almost always unnecessary) and so full of legalese, that what the law means basically depends on whatever the authority figure says it is at the time they wish to apply it -- thus, by having enough laws, and interpreting those laws as they see fit, our legal system currently violates this oldest and most important of legal principles.
Another important element of English common law, the legal system that is arguably the best that has ever existed, is that the common man generally does a pretty good job of deciding issues of law. This is at the root of the idea of trial by jury. This concept is also suffering erosion at present. See the Fully Informed Jury Association.
Alan R. Light
Christian, Fiscally "liberal" and Socially "conservative"? Isn't there a contradiction in there?
If tax slavery and forced morality are Christian, then I'm a Juddhist Hindislam monk. (In other words, everything but.) But I figure this is likely to be a troll, though there are some people who actually believe in such things. Admittedly, "Me" may have been referring to friendly persuasion and non-coercive measures to promote a better social environment, in which case I heartily applaud him.
In any case, y'all might benefit from a few links:
Alan R. Light
This is absolutely correct. When I was in school -- not just high school, too -- I tended to get along with people of every group, without really "belonging" to any of them. There were a few cases where someone tried to pick on me, and fortunately there were some good people at the school -- even popular ones -- who would stand up for one another, at least when things started to get out of control. I can only recall a couple instances when there was an actual fight at that school.
But it is also important to realize that not everyone has this environment or the ability to pull it off. In my case it doubtless helped that I was a little taller than average, though I was so skinny that my weight (which is really more important) was less than average. It also doubtless helped that I went to a private high school (notice that none of these shootings have been at private schools) and no one was there who didn't want to be there -- or at least, not for long.
Probably another good influence was that that school did not even have a football team at that time. Since then they have added one, and doubled the tuition to be able to afford it.
Combined with the small size, almost every student could get on at least one of the teams, and that doubtless also helped. I don't know why anyone would think that sports is important, but when someone starts bullying, it does give an interested by-stander a chance to speak up, which they might not otherwise do. All the same, I have seen such simple phrases as "Hey, don't pick on him, he's cool," or "he's all right," work just as well.
I even recall one incident, where another student was waving his arms around in front of me, not actually making physical contact, but acting like he might, just to "get in my face", so to speak. I was fortunate in making a lucky grab, and got a grip on both his wrists. He was rather startled by this turn of events. I looked straight into his eyes, said one word, medium forcefully, "Enough," held his wrists and his gaze for about two seconds, then let him go and turned away. I was quite surprised by the change -- after that, this student not only stopped bothering me, but almost seemed obsequious at times. It should be noted, however, that he had never been a really bad guy, just a bit annoying.
A good sense of humour is another good strategy, but it takes time and work.
Sadly, not everyone is able to develop the necessary skills, and certainly not in time to avoid much of the harassment that occurs in high school. This is why it is important for students to stick up for one another. It is also important to try to befriend the people who are the bullies. Some of them are just jerks, but believe it or not, many of them are just seeking acceptance themselves. If you take the initiative to accept them, not necessarily as a friend, but as a person deserving of respect, they might surprise you -- but don't expect it to work on the first few tries. I believe much of the reason that I was somewhat accepted in high school is because I accepted everyone else, regardless of whether they were smart or stupid, big or small, or whatever. In retrospect, I wish that I had spoken up for others a bit more often, but at the time I didn't have enough self-confidence to do so, especially considering that I was pretty scrawny altogether. My track record wasn't too bad, but I wish it could have been better.
Mind, all the above concerns getting along with others while not conforming. I know absolutely nothing about being in the "in crowd".
I mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating here as well: Some school administrators *do* "get it". Here in Union County, after the shootings, instead of banning trenchcoats or something equally silly, at least one school responded by getting representatives of various social groups within the school to talk to each other. Now *that* is the right tactic to deal with this issue.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, N. C.
One bright spot on the news about this last night was the response that the local schools (Union County, N.C.) had come up with: They got some prominent members of various cliques together just to talk and to see each other as people.
While it is only a small step, and one that should have been already encouraged, it does demonstrate that there are in fact school administrators who figured out pretty quickly where the problem lay, and a reasonable response to it.
In the news coverage, they interviewed the kids, who were apparently surprised to learn that people not exactly like them were still human. I don't know how much of that was just for the interview, though. I expect they weren't that stupid before, and aren't that smart now. Still, that sort of meeting probably made a difference.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
It is difficult to find a single responsible party in a mess like this. Obviously, most of the responsibility lies on the two students who committed the violence, but a pretty large share also has to go to the students who pushed them to it. Typically enough, it appears from one report I've seen that these students were too cool to eat at the cafeteria, and had just left campus when the shooting started. The other influences are surely too small to be seriously considered, unless you wish to separate possible mental illness from personal responsibility.
/.ers here. I never fit in with *any* group, jock or geek or anything else, but got along reasonably well with everyone. I went to a number of schools, and the best ones in this regard were the relatively small ones, where I often found "jocks" that would stick up for me when the occasional bully tried to push me around. As a whole, the jocks did not impress me much, and some were downright lousy, but it only took a few with a firm sense of right and wrong, willing to stick up for me, to make a huge difference. There were doubtless other contributing factors, and some of these probably helped me in part because I had always treated everyone else with respect.
It is unsurprising that the gun control debate should erupt here. Let me just say that I believe that the calls for gun control are as badly thought out and as knee-jerk a reaction as the blame placed on the internet and computer games. Everyone seems to be searching for a perfect solution that doesn't exist, and few seem willing to make a reasonable trade-off that will produce a best-case, but far from perfect, result.
Several posters brought up the point of self-esteem -- either too little or too much. I believe that all the talk we hear about low self esteem is so much crap. The problem is two-fold -- self esteem that is too high, and acceptance that is too low. Kids don't need to be told that they are smart and nice and pretty or handsome and so forth, in many cases even if they are. They don't need to have an over-developed ego in which they believe they can do no wrong. On the other hand, they don't need to be told they're worthless either. What they need to be told is that they are valued and loved regardless of whether they are smart or stupid, pretty or pretty ugly, fat or thin, "normal" or "outsider", jock or academic. This needs to be done first by parents and teachers, and then by other students.
My experience in school was probably somewhat different than many of the other
I also discovered in high school that most of the kids -- even the jerks -- were wonderful to be around when there were only two of us. When they weren't trying to impress others, they had no reason to be cruel, and when being themselves were generally quite nice if sometimes a little shallow. I believe our society could do more to make it the popular thing to treat people right -- that alone would make a tremendous impact. The methods that have been generally used to do this, however, are so incredibly lame that it's incredible that there hasn't been more of a backlash.
Just because I think it's so important, I'm going to repeat again: Don't teach kids self-esteem. Teach that they are loved and accepted without any conditions (but that they would be better off if they studied, acted nice, and so forth).
Since a number of people have said that violence like this does not happen in other countries -- Ha! There are plenty of countries with more violence, or similar incidents. I'm thinking that it wasn't so long ago that someone set fire to a dance club in Sweden, for example. Of course, Kosovo is another example of pointless violence, and other posters have mentioned examples similar to this one in Colorado.
For all that, I believe that one of the worst effects of all this is the result of the media. I hadn't realized that the media could be so stupid until I saw a report on TV last night -- tieing in the Internet, Geeks, Computer Games, Goths, and even Trenchcoats and Gangs into all this, where it should have been extremely obvious by then that none of these had any connection to the shooting. The only thing in the report that might have a connection to this sort of violence was the report itself, which so blatantly ostracised anyone who was not like the reporters who were covering the story -- anyone who thought independently, dressed differently, whatever. This attitude of the media toward anyone who does not meet their idea of what is "normal" can clearly contribute to non-"normal" students being abused and made to feel separate from society, which seems to have been one of the root causes of this shooting. There were a couple cases where the shooters didn't shoot people they knew well, and let them get away -- I don't believe they were completely insane, just driven to insanity by years of hatred and abuse. They had a responsibility to keep themselves from going so far, but they are not the only ones responsible.
Since I'm here, I'll go ahead and put in a plug for genetic engineering -- perhaps if we engineer future generations to have higher intelligence and greater empathy, as well as removing some factors that attribute to aggression, we will have less violence of all sorts in the future.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, NC
Social cataclysm?
Over a century of domestic peace, the longest-lasting constitution in the world, and you call it Social Cataclysm?
Any credibility you may have had has now been lost.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
Well, it's obvious that this poster has no idea what a fallacy is. Can we say non sequiter?
The incident in Colorado reflects only on two disturbed teenagers who didn't get the help they needed.
In the same way, people are individually responsible for their actions. Censorship only serves to make the censored material more interesting. The censored material is a convenient scapegoat for those who demand to find a cause, even when there isn't one, or when it is based on complex interactions that we cannot yet understand. The cries for censorship are the result of hysteria on the part of those who want to be protected from something they can't understand, and who are willing to make things worse in order to give themselves the illusion of security.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
In the first half of this century, there were scores of small automobile manufacturers, with factories all over the United States, and in places we no longer think of as having any relation to this industry.
Over the years, many changes occurred: Henry Ford revolutionized the way cars were made, on assembly lines instead of one at a time (much cheaper); starting in the 1950's, companies began to design cars to be safer; in the 1970's, more efficient engines were produced to meet the oil crisis; the list goes on and on, but basically ways were found to improve cars while either reducing the price or at least keeping it stable.
If the author of this article were correct in his assumptions, we could expect to have little choice today in what kind of car we wanted, what options it might have, and so forth.
Oddly enough, cars, while not exactly cheap, are nonetheless cheap enough that almost every adult in the U.S.A. who wants to drive can afford one, and some people are willing to pay outrageous prices for top-of-the-line models. In the meantime, cars are safer and more efficient than ever before.
There were many consolidations in the industry, and many of the original automobile manufacturers were either bought out or went out of business -- but this has little to do with whether cars can still be a profitable industry -- it only means that it has changed. The same will happen with software, and some current big players don't want to lose their privileged positions, as is proved by the utterly laughable Microsoft article. For consumers, however, free software is great.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
You can always vote for a third party as a protest vote. If there are enough protest votes, they might even win, or at least give the others a bit of a shake. I'll be voting Libertarian.
I would vote for the most qualified squirrel, but not are running at present.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, NC
Re: Jobs
Yes, many of the new jobs are terrible ones. Hope this changes soon, but I'm not sure how the Federal Reserve Bank or any other Government institution can change this without producing worse effects.
Re: Blacks in Prison
Not so much related to high unemployment as our nation's ridiculous "War on Drugs", combined with latent racism (often not even recognized by the perpetrators) at many levels. With the great number of excuses given by this War on America to invade privacy, use excessive police powers, and so forth, it is not too surprising that black males have taken a great deal of heat.
Re: Constitution
What is so remarkable about it is that it is a wonderful system of checks and balances, that has kept the U.S.A. a relatively peaceful and extremely prosperous nation since its adoption over two centuries ago. Compare this with most governments around the world, and you will see how remarkable it is. It should not be messed with lightly, and could use some reinforcement.
Re: Kosovo
Why are we there?
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
Damn Yugoslavian website is all graphical -- didn't get far with Lynx. Maybe that's enough reason to bomb them into the Stone Age (except they're already there)?
I'm actually of the opinion that we ought to get all the decent folk out of the whole region and give them asylum, allowing the others to kill each other off. My father suggests that a jeep would be enough for this project.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
I certainly appreciate the efforts in free software, in coding, technical writing, advocacy, feedback, and so forth.
For those of us with inadequate technical skills for even these, however, I would remind you that the information age does not refer only to computer information, but to computerized information. If you are qualified to put any sort of useful information online, do so! It can benefit all of us.
My personal preference is in putting public domain literature online. See The On-Line Book Page for information on how to get involved in this.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
The problem with Intellectual Property is not that it exists, if only as a legal fiction, but that it is too restrictive and becoming more restricted. Copyright is now "Life of the Author plus 70 years", though it is difficult to conceive how copyright protection for such a long time is likely to increase an author's willingness to create, while it does profoundly restrict new works, and is even sometimes used for censorship. In that sense, the author is right.
There are also some fairly good arguments that Intellectual Property ought to be done away with entirely. In either case, it would behoove our society and culture to reduce IP terms instead of extending them towards infinity.
See this page of mine for a fair amount of information on this topic.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
The chief fault with this interpretation is that it considers government coercion to be the only measure of how caring a population is. While U.S. culture does in fact over-emphasize the pursuit of wealth, it is balanced by a cultural expectation that individuals are to support various charities.
Rugged Individualism is something of a myth even within the U.S. Without a strong government to help them out, the early settlers learned to help each other -- and found that they preferred to do it themselves.
Rather than being more caring, socialism (when coerced by the government) is an abdication of one's social responsibilities. From what I've seen discussed here, I have to doubt whether Europe is really more involved in OSS or not. Regardless, an awful lot has been done in the U.S., so there must be something more to this than just capitalism v. socialism.
Nonetheless, the U.S. has its many faults. But then, so does Europe and everywhere else.
Alan.
So what if the domain HAD been used (or intended for use) as an adult site? Where does Archie Comics get the idea that they own the name Veronica?
If there were actual trademark infringement, I could understand, but unless the site had some relation to the Veronica character in Archie Comics, they have no right to demand that others refrain from using the name, even if it were a pornographic web site. (Though in that case, they'd probably have enough money to win the suit.)
Even within the domain of comics, they would have to prove that the use of Veronica infringed on their trademark. Both Archie and Richie Rich have a character named Reggie. Should they be suing each other for giving characters well-known if not all that common names that pre-existed both their comic strips?
Alan R. Light
I have some simple logos available at my web site, and even have them in .png format for those of you who don't want to use GIFs (also available). It's a little hard to download the .png files from Netscape (I'm using 4.5), easier from IE 4.0, and neither handle them as graciously as GIFs, but both will display them when included in HTML code.
As for the comment that "Open Source Books" doesn't quite make sense, well, I tend to agree, but Eric Eldred does make a fairly good argument for it. Personally, I'm using Liber which is Latin for both "freedom" and "book".
Regardless of what you call it, though, please get involved now, before it is too late.
Australia and Canada are considering taking the lead of the U.S. and Europe: Please try to stop it now while you can. One of my logos, incidentally, features Henry Lawson. Perhaps I will do another one with Robert Service, both authors whose works I have put online. Many of Service's later works are still under copyright. Lawson is a prime example of how copyright benefits publishers rather than authors. He sold his early works outright before he understood that he could get royalties, and died broke, despite being a best-selling author -- so well loved that he once appeared on the Australian $10 bill. A strange irony, that.
There is much that can still be done, if only there is sufficient public awareness. You can bet that the big media won't get involved. Some of them are the ones behind this assault on our basic freedoms.
Alan R. Light
No kidding. I don't recall which brand of UNIX,
but that's the message that's shown up
on my csh accounts since I got online in 1988.
Just incredible. Perhaps AOL will trademark
"Season's Greetings" and "Merry Christmas",
in hopes of cornering the holiday market. . . .
Alan