Ah, by "commercially minded" I meant "run with businesslike efficiency," which in the case of government would have to include transparency and openness—as an (e.g.) Bloomberg seems to understand intuitively. I'd hope a "commercially minded" leader would be smart enough to understand that war, initiated for the wrong reasons, is ultimately unprofitable.
But hey, thanks for the judgment on my morality! Always appreciated.
Oh wow, you want me to read about the gold standard? I'm not the one with the staggeringly oversimplified argument purporting a link between "fiat currency" and war. Holy fucking shit.
Leaving the rest of your post aside, I don't buy that commercially minded government has to be a failure. Look at Bloomberg's New York City, for instance. What becomes a problem is when government falls into the hands of people who hate the idea of government, such as the current administration, or Ron Paul.
You know that saying, that the Republicans are the party who say government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it? That's pretty apt to describe a Ron Paul administration. His brand of teenage libertarian wankery could only result in an even greater mess than the eight years preceding. Fortunately, he has no chance whatsoever of winning.
Uggh, no. The Xbox 360 is wholly anathema to the Japanese aesthetic—and I don't just mean in appearance, I mean in design, concept and execution. Here I am, an American-born Japanese, and my gorge rises at the mere mention of that paragon of bad taste. What sort of Japanese-hating sociopath do you have to be to suggest inflicting such an aberration on the innocent grannies of my homeland?
I'd rather not waste my time this Memorial Day weekend arguing with faceless Internet kooks—and let's face it, you have to be pret-t-ty dedicated to your willful ignorance to think Ron Paul would make a good President. I know it's refreshing to hear a candidate speak their mind for once, but the problem is that Ron Paul's mind is fucking insane.
Dear God, you want a racist, homophobic, backwards yahoo with the intelligence of a lobotomized George W. Bush? Ron Paul is like the right-wing Howard Dean: adored rabidly on the internets by people without a clue.
I've always had the impression that people in the U.S. who complain about the limited palette of candidates really don't pay enough attention to the primaries, in which every election cycle you have candidates presenting a goddamn cornucopia of opinions, beliefs, styles, and personalities. Hence my Google News link.
Ron Paul? Racist, Jew-baiting Ron Paul? Economic nitwit Ron Paul who would put us back on the gold standard? "Libertarian" pro-lifer Ron Paul who supports states' rights when it suits his homophobia?
I suggest you google around before deciding to support this guy. And my instincts say don't rely on Wikipedia; ten to one says he's their libertarian darling.
Whatever other analogies you may draw, Facebook is also akin to a world where everyone looks the same, everyone behaves the same, emotive intuition counts for naught, and any expression of nonconformity is greeted by immediate execution. I don't know which I'd rather admin, but I know I'd rather live in a MySpace world.
Christ. Seeing the enumeration of those rules does nothing but reinforce my distaste for Facebook. Are they trying to stifle creativity? Is it their intent to appeal only to the blandest, most literal-minded meatheads? At least MySpace gives you room to breathe.
Go ahead then, mod me down for espousing an alternative perspective.
Exactly. I'd consider a bustling town of 1,000 centered around a village square to be "urban." On the other hand, there are huge swaths of Houston that I'd hesitate to describe as anything but red-state East Jesus.
Whaaat? I escaped the suburbs to the city precisely because I didn't want to depend on a fragile infrastructure run by others. In a city, the infrastructure supporting your life is much less fragile than it is in the countryside, where you're forced to use oil-hungry vehicles to get around, whereas here in the city, you just walk. And your food needs, for example, are more likely to be met in urban areas, since they tend to be hubs for goods and services. It was rural Ireland that starved in the potato famine, not so much Dublin.
I submit that perhaps there aren't that many dissenters regarding climate change in New York City because we've been the most consistently exposed to all sides of the arguments and dismissed the reactionary, red-state stance a long time ago.
That sounds backwards to me. In my reality, only the super rich can afford to live in Manhattan. Who the hell wants to live out in the red-state boonies?
At the risk of strawmanning you, did you also think we'd move to a "paperless economy" in the '90s, when in fact the volume of paper rose exponentially as the internet grew? Seems to have been a similar argument, and flawed for similar reasons.
Also, how can you argue against the fact that people in cities will always be at least as well off as those who depend solely on the internet for information? After all, city-dwellers have access to "meatspace" networks (ugh I hate that term), in addition to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
What?
I see your copypasting is libertarian, too.
Ah, by "commercially minded" I meant "run with businesslike efficiency," which in the case of government would have to include transparency and openness—as an (e.g.) Bloomberg seems to understand intuitively. I'd hope a "commercially minded" leader would be smart enough to understand that war, initiated for the wrong reasons, is ultimately unprofitable.
But hey, thanks for the judgment on my morality! Always appreciated.
Oh, God. Cue "9/11 was an inside job!" nutbags.
Oh wow, you want me to read about the gold standard? I'm not the one with the staggeringly oversimplified argument purporting a link between "fiat currency" and war. Holy fucking shit.
Leaving the rest of your post aside, I don't buy that commercially minded government has to be a failure. Look at Bloomberg's New York City, for instance. What becomes a problem is when government falls into the hands of people who hate the idea of government, such as the current administration, or Ron Paul.
You know that saying, that the Republicans are the party who say government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it? That's pretty apt to describe a Ron Paul administration. His brand of teenage libertarian wankery could only result in an even greater mess than the eight years preceding. Fortunately, he has no chance whatsoever of winning.
Uggh, no. The Xbox 360 is wholly anathema to the Japanese aesthetic—and I don't just mean in appearance, I mean in design, concept and execution. Here I am, an American-born Japanese, and my gorge rises at the mere mention of that paragon of bad taste. What sort of Japanese-hating sociopath do you have to be to suggest inflicting such an aberration on the innocent grannies of my homeland?
In other words, an iMac with the built-in Apple Remote Desktop client.
I'd rather not waste my time this Memorial Day weekend arguing with faceless Internet kooks—and let's face it, you have to be pret-t-ty dedicated to your willful ignorance to think Ron Paul would make a good President. I know it's refreshing to hear a candidate speak their mind for once, but the problem is that Ron Paul's mind is fucking insane.
Not sure why that was supposed to be flamebait. If you doubt any of the above regarding Ron Paul, feel free to Google it.
Dear God, you want a racist, homophobic, backwards yahoo with the intelligence of a lobotomized George W. Bush? Ron Paul is like the right-wing Howard Dean: adored rabidly on the internets by people without a clue.
I've always had the impression that people in the U.S. who complain about the limited palette of candidates really don't pay enough attention to the primaries, in which every election cycle you have candidates presenting a goddamn cornucopia of opinions, beliefs, styles, and personalities. Hence my Google News link.
Ron Paul? Racist, Jew-baiting Ron Paul? Economic nitwit Ron Paul who would put us back on the gold standard? "Libertarian" pro-lifer Ron Paul who supports states' rights when it suits his homophobia?
I suggest you google around before deciding to support this guy. And my instincts say don't rely on Wikipedia; ten to one says he's their libertarian darling.
"Either"? Either who?
I hope you're not buying into the myth that there are only two viable presidential candidates, when in fact there are so many more.
Be that as it may, we're still not nearly as full of ourselves as are, apparently, you. Get bent.
Whatever other analogies you may draw, Facebook is also akin to a world where everyone looks the same, everyone behaves the same, emotive intuition counts for naught, and any expression of nonconformity is greeted by immediate execution. I don't know which I'd rather admin, but I know I'd rather live in a MySpace world.
Christ. Seeing the enumeration of those rules does nothing but reinforce my distaste for Facebook. Are they trying to stifle creativity? Is it their intent to appeal only to the blandest, most literal-minded meatheads? At least MySpace gives you room to breathe.
Go ahead then, mod me down for espousing an alternative perspective.
Exactly. I'd consider a bustling town of 1,000 centered around a village square to be "urban." On the other hand, there are huge swaths of Houston that I'd hesitate to describe as anything but red-state East Jesus.
Whaaat? I escaped the suburbs to the city precisely because I didn't want to depend on a fragile infrastructure run by others. In a city, the infrastructure supporting your life is much less fragile than it is in the countryside, where you're forced to use oil-hungry vehicles to get around, whereas here in the city, you just walk. And your food needs, for example, are more likely to be met in urban areas, since they tend to be hubs for goods and services. It was rural Ireland that starved in the potato famine, not so much Dublin.
I submit that perhaps there aren't that many dissenters regarding climate change in New York City because we've been the most consistently exposed to all sides of the arguments and dismissed the reactionary, red-state stance a long time ago.
http://www.felixsalmon.com/000839.html
Blogger. Could live and work from anywhere, according to you. Read this to find out why he doesn't.
Yup... everything's more accessible in the city, and pretty much always will be.
That sounds backwards to me. In my reality, only the super rich can afford to live in Manhattan. Who the hell wants to live out in the red-state boonies?
At the risk of strawmanning you, did you also think we'd move to a "paperless economy" in the '90s, when in fact the volume of paper rose exponentially as the internet grew? Seems to have been a similar argument, and flawed for similar reasons.
Also, how can you argue against the fact that people in cities will always be at least as well off as those who depend solely on the internet for information? After all, city-dwellers have access to "meatspace" networks (ugh I hate that term), in addition to the internet.