I am en atheist, but I don't see the Christian right as being the greatest danger to our rights in the USA. For all the noise they make, the wall of separation of church and state is strong enough and if anything getting stronger. If I had to pick one, I think the greatest danger is the (entirely secular) utilitarian morality, accepted without question by the "progressive" left, that does not accept any absolutes when it comes to individual rights. What right do you have to eat/drink/smoke whatever you like when other people are obliged by law to pay for your health care? What right do you have to trade in a way that you see as beneficial for yourself when such methods of trading are not beneficial to the economy? etc etc When the standard for deciding whether a particular individual action is acceptable or not is not whether it infringes on other people's rights, but whether it is beneficial to the "society" in some way, you can say goodbye to liberty.
That's not really how the world works. I've worked for half a dozen companies and payroll was one thing that was always done right. It just doesn't pay (in more ways than one) for a company to cheat their employees on pay. But in any case, even if you got screwed what does that prove? It was the workers in that company (HR people or your boss or whoever) who cheated you. You do realize they are employees of that corporation too?
When people compare things like this to slavery and Nazism, they either look like idiots, or if taken seriously degrade what happened during those events.
I was about to make a joke that this "news release" sounds more like a coupon for thinkgeek, then I realized that that's actually what it is!
For a limited time, visitors to ThinkGeek.com can take $10 off any order of $40 or more by using the code PORKBOARD at checkout. The discount applies to merchandise totals and excludes shipping charges, The coupon is good until 6/30/2010 at 11:59PM ET.
LOL at newswires refused to distribute it for some reason
I think one reason NASA is stuck in a rut is the unwillingness to take risks. There is a great talk by Burt Rutan on that subject on TED. The other reason of course is that people are never as careful or as efficient when spending other people's money as when they are spending their own.
So your point is that the US government is an enemy of the constitution and not releasing classified military information is somehow the equivalent of Nazi Nuremberg defense? I
I know plenty of people whose legal name is a single word, such as "Alex", "Max" or "Virgil."
Ummm...really? That must not be fashionable where I live cause I've never met a single one. But your point still stands I guess, a system has to account for that possibility.
Ah, the Harry Reid's "fluoride" strategy. Sure, that will work. I don't know or care about fluoridation in Washoe County but the only information you have is a quote from Reid's team that has been passed around to the media and I don't tend to trust that very much.
As for the social security, it's an unsustainable system that will have to be reformed soon anyway. She is just being honest about it. And no she does not want to abolish it over night, she wants to phase it out for people entering the workforce now (anybody who paid into the system will still receive the benefits) and replaced with an actual interest bearing retirement savings account which will provide MUCH higher income in retirement for the same payment (12.5% of income) than social security does.
I don't understand the purpose of this either but it wouldn't necessarily take much effort. Something like a days_to_live attribute on each field in a database might be enough and it only needs to be set once, when the db is created.
Why is this flamebait? he was answering a question that was asked above him, and I happen to agree with quite a few of those.
Because, as is the norm recently on slashdot, every post that is remotely against big government is quickly modded down into oblivion. Why that is I don't know, probably the average age of/.ers naturally creates a left wing bias. Supposedly said by Churchill: "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain."
I just want to know what government programs started with good intentions (besides perhaps, wars) have made things worse.
Depends on what you mean by making things worse. Some of us think that reducing individual liberty IS making things worse regardless of any other effects. This then includes just about all government actions (except those that protect individual liberty such as the legal system, law enforcement and defence) because they all involve physical force. As Greenspan said "At the bottom of the endless pile of paperwork which characterizes all regulation lies a gun."
But let's focus only on the government actions that made things worse in a more obvious ways.
1. Social Security
Intention: Provide seniors with material security
Result: It makes things worse. By any calculation, if the working people right now were allowed to put the same money they pay into social security (12.5% including employer portion) into an interest bearing retirement account they would receive a much higher payout once they retire, but we are not allowed to opt out.
2. Farm subsidies
Intention: Who knows
Result: Majority of payments go to the largest and wealthiest farmers. Harms developing countries by denying them an opportunity to compete fairly on cost with the US farmers.
3. United Nations Funding
Intention: "To maintain international peace and security...blah blah"
Result: It does nothing of the sort. The most it can be said about it is that it provides a discussion forum where countries with dismal human rights record can rant against the USA and western democracies in general.
4. National Endowment for the Arts
Intention: To promote arts etc
Result: Frivolously pays taxpayer money to "selected" artists with connections, while majority of artists get nothing. How would you like to be a struggling artist who pays taxes while knowing that the portion of your money goes to other, more "special", artists based on subjective and vague criteria.
5. Bankrupt and poorly managed government services: Awful public education, among the worst in developed countries. Post Office (now close to bankruptcy). Amtrak (has never been self sufficient in its history) etc etc
I hope you are being sarcastic in your praise of the government. Yes of course they should fight to get more out of our tax dollars but we are talking about a few million here, when the federal government
- loses $25 billion (Yep, lost as in nobody knows what happened to it. Yep, $25 billion)- google "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position" section in the Treasury Dept financial report
- wastes $60 billion annually on Medicare fraud. Just wait until Obamacare kicks in.
- spends at least $90 billion on programs that are "ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose" (partial audit by the white house)
..etc etc this is just the first 3 examples I found on google with easily linkable references. Here's some more.
Even assuming that ALL of the hundreds of government agencies and spending programs are necessary, there are 100s of billions wasted annually just through inefficiency and carelessness with which those programs are managed.
Never heard of chemtrails before but I did notice that my cat is shedding more fur in the summer than in the winter, and there are also more flights from the local airport in the summer. If they can cause cats to shed, imagine what they are doing to your brain! Thanks for opening my eyes.
That may seems so only on the first glance. In reality, the Republican candidate had a 19 point lead in the polls over the Democrat leading candidate (the guy who lost to Alvin Green): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/sc/south_carolina_senate_demint_vs_rawl-1579.html This is in a seat that has been comfortably Republican since the 70s. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to fear and no reason to risk a scandal. On top of that, the Republican primary was very heavily contested and it seems unlikely that many Republicans would choose to vote in a Democrat primary instead (you can't vote in both of course). I have a feeling this is something personal, somebody wanted to embarrass Rawl for whatever reason.
1) to place feelings ahead of rational thinking 2) to confuse rights with desires, needs, or convenience 3) to ignore constitution when convenient 4) to think that there IS such a thing as a free lunch 5) to confuse legal immigrants with illegal immigrants 6) to vote a Kenyan socialist in as the president of the USA
The people who are alleging fraud are claiming that this is a scheme to ensure that the Republican incumbent is re-elected.
It would be a silly scheme though considering that this is a safe Republican seat anyway. Ok if we are going to be throwing conspiracy theories around, how do you know that this is not a scheme by the Democrats to create a scandal that they could blame on the Republicans?
Were the candidates listed alphabetically by first name? Maybe people just selected the first name on the list. Normally I wouldn't think people would do something as dumb as that, but SC is pretty close to Florida.
I like to introduce some perspective when people say things like free market is not so good for long term projects like basic scientific research. USA government spends less than 1% of the annual budget on science. If you want to keep that and cut out the other 99% (well not all of it, there are few legitimate things in there) I'm sure that even the most zealous free market libertarian will be only too happy with that arrangement.
Btw, while the government money is probably the largest source of funding for science in the US, is it by far not the only one. There is a lot of private money in it as well, including private universities as well as business and wealthy individuals money, be it as donations or as investments. It is possible even that the public money drives out the private money just like in this story. Why should we invest in some risky long term project when we can lobby the government for some free money.
Seems like you are being sarcastic, but there is no need. Big businessmen have never been friends of the free market, they have always been only too happy to lobby for as much taxpayer money as they can lay their hands on. It's the conflict of interest I am worried about here. If it was some non-profit environmentalist group that was lobbying for government money I could understand, but not when it's the people who have most to gain financially from such investment.
Slashdot Mirror
I am en atheist, but I don't see the Christian right as being the greatest danger to our rights in the USA. For all the noise they make, the wall of separation of church and state is strong enough and if anything getting stronger. If I had to pick one, I think the greatest danger is the (entirely secular) utilitarian morality, accepted without question by the "progressive" left, that does not accept any absolutes when it comes to individual rights. What right do you have to eat/drink/smoke whatever you like when other people are obliged by law to pay for your health care? What right do you have to trade in a way that you see as beneficial for yourself when such methods of trading are not beneficial to the economy? etc etc When the standard for deciding whether a particular individual action is acceptable or not is not whether it infringes on other people's rights, but whether it is beneficial to the "society" in some way, you can say goodbye to liberty.
That's not really how the world works. I've worked for half a dozen companies and payroll was one thing that was always done right. It just doesn't pay (in more ways than one) for a company to cheat their employees on pay. But in any case, even if you got screwed what does that prove? It was the workers in that company (HR people or your boss or whoever) who cheated you. You do realize they are employees of that corporation too?
When people compare things like this to slavery and Nazism, they either look like idiots, or if taken seriously degrade what happened during those events.
He's just obeying the Goodwin's law
And what makes political interest morally superior to economic interest?
You're out of luck. According to this list ALL top 100 best places to work happen to be in the US! Or maybe this is a survey of US companies only.
I was about to make a joke that this "news release" sounds more like a coupon for thinkgeek, then I realized that that's actually what it is!
For a limited time, visitors to ThinkGeek.com can take $10 off any order of $40 or more by using the code PORKBOARD at checkout. The discount applies to merchandise totals and excludes shipping charges, The coupon is good until 6/30/2010 at 11:59PM ET.
LOL at newswires refused to distribute it for some reason
I think one reason NASA is stuck in a rut is the unwillingness to take risks. There is a great talk by Burt Rutan on that subject on TED. The other reason of course is that people are never as careful or as efficient when spending other people's money as when they are spending their own.
So your point is that the US government is an enemy of the constitution and not releasing classified military information is somehow the equivalent of Nazi Nuremberg defense? I
I know plenty of people whose legal name is a single word, such as "Alex", "Max" or "Virgil."
Ummm...really? That must not be fashionable where I live cause I've never met a single one. But your point still stands I guess, a system has to account for that possibility.
That may be so but showing that adding some substance to the water supply is beneficial in some way is not a sufficient argument for doing so.
Ah, the Harry Reid's "fluoride" strategy. Sure, that will work. I don't know or care about fluoridation in Washoe County but the only information you have is a quote from Reid's team that has been passed around to the media and I don't tend to trust that very much.
As for the social security, it's an unsustainable system that will have to be reformed soon anyway. She is just being honest about it. And no she does not want to abolish it over night, she wants to phase it out for people entering the workforce now (anybody who paid into the system will still receive the benefits) and replaced with an actual interest bearing retirement savings account which will provide MUCH higher income in retirement for the same payment (12.5% of income) than social security does.
And in case of Vegas they expose far more than their eyes.
She is not crazy at all and if you think huffington post is a reliable source of information on conservative candidates then you are crazy.
How about having her describe her opinions instead instead: http://www.sharronangle.com/issues/
Or how about the opinion of the people of Nevada: Angle: 50% Reid: 39%
I don't understand the purpose of this either but it wouldn't necessarily take much effort. Something like a days_to_live attribute on each field in a database might be enough and it only needs to be set once, when the db is created.
Why is this flamebait? he was answering a question that was asked above him, and I happen to agree with quite a few of those.
/.ers naturally creates a left wing bias. Supposedly said by Churchill: "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain."
Because, as is the norm recently on slashdot, every post that is remotely against big government is quickly modded down into oblivion. Why that is I don't know, probably the average age of
I just want to know what government programs started with good intentions (besides perhaps, wars) have made things worse.
Depends on what you mean by making things worse. Some of us think that reducing individual liberty IS making things worse regardless of any other effects. This then includes just about all government actions (except those that protect individual liberty such as the legal system, law enforcement and defence) because they all involve physical force. As Greenspan said "At the bottom of the endless pile of paperwork which characterizes all regulation lies a gun."
But let's focus only on the government actions that made things worse in a more obvious ways.
1. Social Security
Intention: Provide seniors with material security
Result: It makes things worse. By any calculation, if the working people right now were allowed to put the same money they pay into social security (12.5% including employer portion) into an interest bearing retirement account they would receive a much higher payout once they retire, but we are not allowed to opt out.
2. Farm subsidies
Intention: Who knows
Result: Majority of payments go to the largest and wealthiest farmers. Harms developing countries by denying them an opportunity to compete fairly on cost with the US farmers.
3. United Nations Funding
Intention: "To maintain international peace and security...blah blah"
Result: It does nothing of the sort. The most it can be said about it is that it provides a discussion forum where countries with dismal human rights record can rant against the USA and western democracies in general.
4. National Endowment for the Arts
Intention: To promote arts etc
Result: Frivolously pays taxpayer money to "selected" artists with connections, while majority of artists get nothing. How would you like to be a struggling artist who pays taxes while knowing that the portion of your money goes to other, more "special", artists based on subjective and vague criteria.
5. Bankrupt and poorly managed government services: Awful public education, among the worst in developed countries. Post Office (now close to bankruptcy). Amtrak (has never been self sufficient in its history) etc etc
Can I go on?
I don't watch Glenn Beck. I didn't realize Obamacare is a dirty word now, that's what a lot of people call it:
...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007679-503544.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208383695408513.html
I hope you are being sarcastic in your praise of the government. Yes of course they should fight to get more out of our tax dollars but we are talking about a few million here, when the federal government
- loses $25 billion (Yep, lost as in nobody knows what happened to it. Yep, $25 billion)- google "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position" section in the Treasury Dept financial report
- wastes $60 billion annually on Medicare fraud. Just wait until Obamacare kicks in.
- spends at least $90 billion on programs that are "ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose" (partial audit by the white house)
..etc etc this is just the first 3 examples I found on google with easily linkable references. Here's some more.
Even assuming that ALL of the hundreds of government agencies and spending programs are necessary, there are 100s of billions wasted annually just through inefficiency and carelessness with which those programs are managed.
Never heard of chemtrails before but I did notice that my cat is shedding more fur in the summer than in the winter, and there are also more flights from the local airport in the summer. If they can cause cats to shed, imagine what they are doing to your brain! Thanks for opening my eyes.
That may seems so only on the first glance. In reality, the Republican candidate had a 19 point lead in the polls over the Democrat leading candidate (the guy who lost to Alvin Green): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/sc/south_carolina_senate_demint_vs_rawl-1579.html This is in a seat that has been comfortably Republican since the 70s. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to fear and no reason to risk a scandal. On top of that, the Republican primary was very heavily contested and it seems unlikely that many Republicans would choose to vote in a Democrat primary instead (you can't vote in both of course). I have a feeling this is something personal, somebody wanted to embarrass Rawl for whatever reason.
It's right there in the Webster's:
to liberal
(verb)
1) to place feelings ahead of rational thinking
2) to confuse rights with desires, needs, or convenience
3) to ignore constitution when convenient
4) to think that there IS such a thing as a free lunch
5) to confuse legal immigrants with illegal immigrants
6) to vote a Kenyan socialist in as the president of the USA
The people who are alleging fraud are claiming that this is a scheme to ensure that the Republican incumbent is re-elected.
It would be a silly scheme though considering that this is a safe Republican seat anyway. Ok if we are going to be throwing conspiracy theories around, how do you know that this is not a scheme by the Democrats to create a scandal that they could blame on the Republicans?
Were the candidates listed alphabetically by first name? Maybe people just selected the first name on the list. Normally I wouldn't think people would do something as dumb as that, but SC is pretty close to Florida.
I like to introduce some perspective when people say things like free market is not so good for long term projects like basic scientific research. USA government spends less than 1% of the annual budget on science. If you want to keep that and cut out the other 99% (well not all of it, there are few legitimate things in there) I'm sure that even the most zealous free market libertarian will be only too happy with that arrangement.
Btw, while the government money is probably the largest source of funding for science in the US, is it by far not the only one. There is a lot of private money in it as well, including private universities as well as business and wealthy individuals money, be it as donations or as investments. It is possible even that the public money drives out the private money just like in this story. Why should we invest in some risky long term project when we can lobby the government for some free money.
Seems like you are being sarcastic, but there is no need. Big businessmen have never been friends of the free market, they have always been only too happy to lobby for as much taxpayer money as they can lay their hands on. It's the conflict of interest I am worried about here. If it was some non-profit environmentalist group that was lobbying for government money I could understand, but not when it's the people who have most to gain financially from such investment.