Umm, do most families need "web server, mail server, VPN server, file server, print server, time server, etc..."? I'm a geek and all, but I don't need or want to run a web or mail server from my home.
Also, you also have to factor in this guy works for Sun. Families don't buy Sun boxes nor would they be buying Sun services (not counting Java for obvious reasons).
It looks like you are unfamiliar with the principles of Non-Cooperation. It is unfortunate that you were inconvenienced, but people expressing themselves to affect change in their society couldn't be a stronger sign of a functional republic. It is the very principle behind the Freedom to Assemble.
As for who can muster the most force, I think the legions of police, S.W.A.T. teams, "free-speech zones", and so forth demonstrates who has the most force at their disposal. Let's also not forget all the tactics that weere used that verged on police misconduct such as preemptive arrest, absence of probable cause, unlawful search and seizure, selective prosecution, prior restraint of free speech and destruction of evidence.
My blood isn't boiling. I don't condone violence. I do, however, stand with my fellow citizens demonstrating in the street - even if I don't agree with them. The street is the only place people without power can speak, and if you ever find that you need to go to the street to be heard, I'll stand with you too.
Here's an idea, actually go to a peace demonstration. I'm a Quaker. I go to peace marches, vigils, rallies, you name it. I've yet to see angry peace protestors (which is one of the primary forms of protest these days). People are also realistic in that they don't believe they will achieve their goal - world peace - today. Your whole argument shows a basic lack of familiarity with demonstrations and what they are intended to accomplish (awareness in the larger population). You should actually go to a protest and talk with people. It will be probably a very interesting experience. I can say it was for me (I had never protested anything prior to the last three years).
I will also say that the first time I went to a peace demonstration I looked down two city blocks full of police in riot gear on either side of the street. If you don't think that's about intimination and repression as much as about public safety, you've never stood in the middle of that street with the knowledge that they are they because of you. I'd also say it is very empowering to march right through that the police. It at least makes you feel like you have a voice and you are using it. When's the last time you felt that as a citizen? For that reason alone it is worth it.
Beautiful. You cite Capital Research to back you up. It's an organization "whose stated mission is to do 'opposition research' exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups." I too need to read more Capital Research because of those terrible liberal causes like watching out for consumers and addressing public health issues - like poisons in the environment - are way out of hand. Thank you for bringing this very important research to our attention, my good sir!
I also like your sense of fair play and objectivity in selecting Michelle Malkin. I much prefer her 2005 perspective rather than this article from 2006 from the liberal spin machine. While we are talking about her ground-breaking research, we should also point out her other important ideas such as her book documenting the important need to bring back Japanese-style internment camps for Arab Americans - which is also coincidentaly based on the cutting-edge research of another person doing important work exposing the myth of the so-called "holocaust".
I can only applaud the efforts of the Slashdot moderators to make sure that your comments get pushed right to the top. No one should be compelled to go through another day without an awareness of these two fascinating, unbiased sources of good information. As a good conservative, I am finally starting to feel like Slashdot is like a second home.
This is not true, when fanatics become the plurality.
I disagree. I think Madison covered this issue in Federalist Paper No. 10. I'll quote Wikipedia's rendering of his argument:
Madison takes the position that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction: removing the causes of faction or controlling its effects. He contends that there are two ways to remove the causes that provoke the development of factions. One, the elimination of liberty, he rejects as unacceptable. The other, creating a society homogeneous in opinion and interest, he sees as impractical because the causes of faction, among them variant economic interests, are inherent in a free society. Madison concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its effects.
Madison notes that the principle of popular sovereignty should prevent minority factions from gaining power. Majority factions are then the problem, and he offers two ways to check them: prevent the "existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time," or alternately render a majority faction unable to act.
I think the argument that you are making here (and that Newt also makes) is that society is of homogeneous opinion or interest. I'd agree with Madison that in a free society, you cannot talk about society-wide values like you do when you say "American Values".
I would also suggest that the reason you don't see right-wing fanatics is because they are probably closer to your worldview. Pointing out the religious right (Christian Identity Movement) or right-wing radio (O'Reilly) is easy. A little less easy, but not much trouble, you could identify other right-wing fanatics from traditional racial hate groups (KKK, neo-Nazis), separatists (Montana Freeman, the Oklahoma City Bombing), primatives (Unabomber) to more traditional groups that might not be considered fanatics, depending on your outlook (Federalist Society, Cato Institute, The Minutemen).
What I find interesting here is that the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City Bombing did not leap to your mind first. I'd argue that right-wing fanatics have to far more to negatively impact other citizens than left-wing fanatics like those you describe. Why do you think that you missed these? Could it be an indication that it is harder to see that which is closer to your own beliefs?
We do not, however, have to accept EVERYTHING from EVERY culture because that is impossible and insane. Some cultural items from some cultures are mutually exclusive with another culture's items.
No one made this argument. It's a straw man. If you view culture as a heterogenuous mix of differences between communities, ethnic groups, cities, religions and so forth, you don't have this problem. If you insist on talking about an American culture, then you must talk about what is common among them - which as you point out can only be a few things, if any.
As for your assumption about "free speech", you should read the context of some other articles Newt has written.
I'd love to hear more about Newt's views on free speech. Unfortunately, it's not free for me to read them. However, I would say that clearly there is a problem with how the public airwaves are used during elections. I'd love to hear how Newt would propose to solve that particular problem.
Can you give me one good reason why some group can't run ads pointing out the values they hold and comparing them to the values others hold because it is within 90 (three months) of an election?... Free Speech cannot ever be curtailed for any reason...
Yes, I can. Advertising is destructive to the political process. There needs to be some solution, so the winner of elections is not determined by the size of a candidate's advertising budget - or the budget of
Let's see, I quoted "multicultural, situation ethics, and values neutral model" and responded with "different cultures, nuance, or values that differ from his values". It's a one-to-one relationship here, so I am not sure why this is not clear to you.
You also reduce the larger argument he makes to moral relativism. He is talking about assimulation and other topics that have nothing to do with moral relativism. It's clear to me from the quote, but I also read the whole article I linked to - so I may have a better sense of how he sets up his issues than you got from what I included.
You should try giving people more of the benefit of the doubt - perhaps assume you misunderstood something or that something could be made clearer rather than assuming the other person is an idiot, e.g, "I don't think you even read the statement you quoted". You might find yourself having more interesting conversations.
You don't have to trust the news source. You can go to Newt's site and find quotes like these:
The very concept of America is under assault. The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, American peoples, has been assaulted with multicultural, situation ethics, and values neutral model where Western values and American civilization are ignored, minimized or ridiculed.
The bottom line is pluralism acts as a brake on fanaticism. Newt is a fanatic. He wants all of us to recieve "patriotic education". He has no room in his worldview for different cultures, nuance, or values that differ from his values. He has all the answers, so why on earth would we need free speech? We don't have anything to talk about.
Luckily, we don't live in Newt's America, and hopefully, we never will.
First, I am not making an argument that socialization is good for individuals - or that it is even good at all. I am saying schools are designed to socialize people (particularly to submit to authority) and that is their primary purpose. If that is so, then individuals have to answer the question: why stay in school?
Unlike high school, there is not a predominant and perpetual fraternity of "superior", where if you wait it out you'll simply be the superior.
This is mythology. There is a perpetual fraternity of "superior" in the U.S. We have wealthy and powerful families like the Kennedys and Bushes. We have secret societies that serve to connect the powerful with other powerful people, e.g. Skull & Bones. Even if you go down to the level of a typical corporation, people at the C-level tend to be white, male and come from priviledged backgrounds. Sure, there are exceptions, but in the main, we don't live in a meritocracy. The socialization that is the primary purpose of high school is to get you used to this fact, inculcate deference to authority, and create the mental framework where the caged believe they are free while doing what they are told - a necessity in a society like the U.S.
I'm not arguing that this is good or this is the way the world ought to be. I'm simply stating this is the way things are. Further, some people don't even have the wherewithal to go through this exercise because they don't even have the basics, and this is going to have some major long-term consequences.
High school's primary purpose is socialization. While it is possible to get a foundation for a college education at a public high school, what's the motivation for someone who can't afford or does not want to go to college to continue high school? Why not get a GED and actually get paid in a job rather than waste your time with what passes as secondary education in the U.S.? What about young teens that are growing up in poverty? It is a fact that for some getting a job can be a compelling need.
It's easy for people on Slashdot to talk about ditch diggers and burger flippers. Most people with the time and access to learn about computers aren't wondering where their next meal is coming from, how they are going to keep the electricity on, or whether they might get shot when they step out of their house.
People on Slashdot, with a possible few exceptions, don't even understand the problem -- much less are they able to offer a solution to it. Your question is wasted here.
What exactly is "the more important stuff"? Egyptians thought the Pharoahs were pretty important - big monuments and all of that - yet for many years no one could figure out what those hieroglyphs meant.
Indus script is another example, still undecipherable. You could also check out the Straight Dope for other examples, i.e., Linear A (Greece, 1800 B.C.), Zapotec (Mexico, 500 B.C.), Meroitic (Sudan, 300 B.C.), Isthmian (Central America, A.D. 200), and Rongorongo (Easter Island, A.D. 1800).
I guess the point I am trying to make is that what is most important may not be obvious. 500 years from now people might wonder what daily life was like today and find the gossip columns of our day a treasure trove of information, whereas if we had to consider it we might come to the conclusion its all dreck.
It's not a good idea to let the present decide what's important for subsequent generations. Because what their needs are and perspective will be quite different from ours.
Assuming you want the job, of course... What if you got elected through some fluke?
Well, I'd have to say that's the price of liberty. Ideally, this is exactly who would end up being elected - people that don't really want the job but do it out of a sense of duty to the republic and because having someone that wants the job in the job is so dangerous.
If you had a write-in ballot, you could always write yourself in....who else to better represent your views? If you open that possibility, then mandatory voting is not a problem.
If we are going to go to fantasy land, why not add:
1. A voting requirement to get government services - water, electricity, licenses, etc. 2. Institute immediate recall of any politician, for any reason.
You should use the actual old phrase of Proudhon rather than a bastardized form, i.e., property is theft. The question is whether copyright is a tool for the subjugation of the labor of others. For example, copyright law that enables people other than the original creator to benefit from the work is a clear example of theft - where someone benefits who did not contribute to creating something that others pay for with their labor. Winnie the Pooh being one work that comes to mind from the "real" world.
So, you can't just claim Copyright is the answer. You have to do more work as to what you mean by copyright, how it works in a particular environment like Second Life, what you mean by legitimate/original/creation, and so forth. The fact that you don't want to spell all these things out in a Slashdot post is understandable - perhaps you might give the parent the same consideration.
Nice straw man. When I'm talking "let's cut the military budget", I'm talking Iraq, Star Wars, nuclear weapons development, CIA black operations, secret prisons, sales of weapons to other countries like Iraq, etc. I've seen figures that put Iraq costs at more than $500 billion. If you use "official figures [nationalpriorities.org]" you get something like $340 billion. Using your figures that would account for all borrowing by the government for 1/3 of the year, it's not an insignificant amount.
You are not thinking very critically if you think that the cost of something like the War on Iraq all fall under the umbrella of the military budget and is not part of the budget of these other services. You're basically trying to interpret my argument as saying all of the budget of these other services rather than the point I was making about how these funds are hidden in a portion of the budget of other services.
You also fail to address my point about the previously borrowed money for military expenses like "money borrowed in 1991 to pay the fuel bill for the 101st Airborne during Desert Storm". It is a very important point that the bulk of our debt is to pay for past military adventures. It's disingenious to not label these expenses as military expenses rather than lump them in as debt expense. If the government is borrowing $2.55 billion a day, I want the portion that is being used to pay for current or past military operations to be included in the military portion of the budget. Then, we might get somewhat of a real sense of how much of our money is going to the military. Here's a hint. It's not 20%.
Actually, I'm making an argument - a fairly simple one at that. Once again, you are using the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority with a touch of ad hominum rather than simply making whatever point that would demonstrate what you believe to be the flaw in my reasoning. The reason we don't have the basis for an intelligent discussion is because you are making assumptions about how much I know and how much you think you know. For all you know, I could be Robert McChesney and for all I know, you could have no experience in the field at all. Even if you do have a lot of experience, it is wasted without any kind of sound argumentation, which is to say it is wasted here. Again, why bother posting or replying at all?
I know that Larry King Live is entertainment and not news. It isn't journalism, and journalistic standards don't apply. If I am mistaken in some way, I'd love to know why. However, this post isn't particularly helpful because you do not articulate why you think I am "very mistaken" and choose to make an appeal to your authority rather than specifically address that point. If you are going to go that route, why bother replying at all?
If you were a journalist you should be keenly aware that there are different standards for different kinds of content. Journalists supposedly adhere to a different (unbiased) standard when they are presenting something as news versus when they are presenting editorial. An interview is essentially an editorial and is not subject to the same standards as a news piece.
Moreover, applying the journalistic standards to a piece of editorial is a form of censorship. The fact that you (and whoever is at these so called news outlets) have trouble differentiating between the two and as a result commit acts of censorship is precisely the point of this article.
Nice straw man. When I'm talking "let's cut the military budget", I'm talking Iraq, Star Wars, nuclear weapons development, CIA black operations, secret prisons, sales of weapons to other countries like Iraq, etc. I've seen figures that put Iraq costs at more than $500 billion. If you use "official figures" you get something like $340 billion. Using your figures that would account for all borrowing by the government for 1/3 of the year, it's not an insignificant amount.
You are not thinking very critically if you think that the cost of something like the War on Iraq all fall under the umbrella of the military budget and is not part of the budget of these other services. You're basically trying to interpret my argument as saying all of the budget of these other services rather than the point I was making about how these funds are hidden in a portion of the budget of other services.
You also fail to address my point about the previously borrowed money for military expenses like "money borrowed in 1991 to pay the fuel bill for the 101st Airborne during Desert Storm". It is a very important point that the bulk of our debt is to pay for past military adventures. It's disingenious to not label these expenses as military expenses rather than lump them in as debt expense. If the government is borrowing $2.55 billion a day, I want the portion that is being used to pay for current or past military operations to be included in the military portion of the budget. Then, we might get somewhat of a real sense of how much of our money is going to the military. Here's a hint. It's not 20%.
Can you explain how VA benefits to provide health care to veteran's injured in Iraq is not a military expense? If you use the figures from the offical U.S. Budget, you get 20%. However, the war on Iraq is not included in the budget and is funded through a special package. The funding has to be borrowed, and just like when I borrow money from the bank to buy something I cannot offered (like a house) I have to include the interest costs of borrowing this money in my accounting of its costs. Federal deficit costs that came from the wide variety of military actions we have been involved in since WWII, from Korea to Iraq to Nicaraqua (the first "War on Terror") to the funding we gave Hussien before he stopped following our orders. All of this costs money and should appropriately be assigned to military spending.
The flaw in your old saw is that you make the error of assuming the budget actually covers everything and that it properly categories expenses. All you have to do is think about how much is being spent in Iraq to get a sense that there is a serious flaw in your argument. Add in the money being spent on "Homeland Defense", Veterans Affairs, NASA, Department of Energy, that are primarily related to the military, and you have a lot more than 20%. Can you point out why you take the official numbers and cannot bring yourself to admit that there might be some bogus accounting going on here?
They do this already; it's called a referendum. Let's take a look at one that was on my ballot today:
"For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and.50 caliber rifles?"
The clause "For the health and safety of children and the entire community" is completely unnecessary for the substantive question. Yet, it has been included to appropriately frame the measure to make sure it will pass. The position statements and how they are worded is key.
Any invasion of armed forces of one state into the territory of another state is aggression - and is a crime under international law. Can you tell me when the U.S. invasion of Iraq began if not in 2003? If you want to say that it was a continuation of a conflict that started with the invasion of Kuwait, then you would need to explain why it is appropriate in 2003 to launch another invasion and why the U.S. supported Iraq in a similar invasion of Iran a few years earlier.
Are there occasions where invasions of a state's territory by another state is not aggression? I'd say no. I think there is room for peace keeping, humanitarian and other forces comprised of many nations under the control of an international body like the U.N. to perform functions to keep the peace or to address crimes against humanity that governments carry out against their own populations.
However, it is not appropriate that the U.S. try to assume this role because it is necessarily framed by U.S. self-interest. There is a reason the U.S. military is in Iraq and not in Darfur - and those reasons have nothing to do with democracy, Islamofascism, or whatever the story of the week is from the White House.
As for the Constitution, I think it is fairly clear that the Constitution is given Congress the power to define Defense policy goals and it is the President's role to execute them. Many people make the erroneous assumption that Commander-in-Chief means the President can do whatever he pleases with the military. That, my friend, is a huge leap. The fact that this President believes he not only is charged with executing plans - but deciding for himseff what they are without any kind of public debate like that which would occur in Congress is antithetical to a republic.
As for War Crimes. it specifically states that war crimes include those actions prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907. I'll save you thr trouble of finding them:
Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons; (b) to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; (c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (d) To declare that no quarter will be given; (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; (f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention; (g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; (h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes....It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Art. 28. The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
You could start with aggression. Aggression is defined as invading another country. Interestingly enough, the United States signed on to the acceptence of the World Court after filing an objection that it could not be prosecuted for aggression. Yet, the United States dropped out of the World Court once it became clear that it would be held accountable for our actions in Nicaragua that were lesser charges than aggression.
George Bush's handling of the International Criminal Court is also instructive. Standards created by the Nuremberg trials certainly indicate that the invasion should come before an international court of some sort.
Even if you believe that there should be no check on U.S. sovereignty, I think you could make good arguments that the war on Iraq broke many U.S. laws - the Constitution (declaration of war by congress and the questionable nature of the blank check written by Congress with the AUMF), the War Crimes Act, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, do most families need "web server, mail server, VPN server, file server, print server, time server, etc..."? I'm a geek and all, but I don't need or want to run a web or mail server from my home.
Also, you also have to factor in this guy works for Sun. Families don't buy Sun boxes nor would they be buying Sun services (not counting Java for obvious reasons).
I think http://www.witness.org/ is worth mentioning. They have articles and guides like Effective Strategies for Video Advocacy, "Tips & Techniques" Training Video and Manual and so forth that might help you get some ideas.
It looks like you are unfamiliar with the principles of Non-Cooperation. It is unfortunate that you were inconvenienced, but people expressing themselves to affect change in their society couldn't be a stronger sign of a functional republic. It is the very principle behind the Freedom to Assemble.
As for who can muster the most force, I think the legions of police, S.W.A.T. teams, "free-speech zones", and so forth demonstrates who has the most force at their disposal. Let's also not forget all the tactics that weere used that verged on police misconduct such as preemptive arrest, absence of probable cause, unlawful search and seizure, selective prosecution, prior restraint of free speech and destruction of evidence.
My blood isn't boiling. I don't condone violence. I do, however, stand with my fellow citizens demonstrating in the street - even if I don't agree with them. The street is the only place people without power can speak, and if you ever find that you need to go to the street to be heard, I'll stand with you too.
Here's an idea, actually go to a peace demonstration. I'm a Quaker. I go to peace marches, vigils, rallies, you name it. I've yet to see angry peace protestors (which is one of the primary forms of protest these days). People are also realistic in that they don't believe they will achieve their goal - world peace - today. Your whole argument shows a basic lack of familiarity with demonstrations and what they are intended to accomplish (awareness in the larger population). You should actually go to a protest and talk with people. It will be probably a very interesting experience. I can say it was for me (I had never protested anything prior to the last three years).
I will also say that the first time I went to a peace demonstration I looked down two city blocks full of police in riot gear on either side of the street. If you don't think that's about intimination and repression as much as about public safety, you've never stood in the middle of that street with the knowledge that they are they because of you. I'd also say it is very empowering to march right through that the police. It at least makes you feel like you have a voice and you are using it. When's the last time you felt that as a citizen? For that reason alone it is worth it.
Beautiful. You cite Capital Research to back you up. It's an organization "whose stated mission is to do 'opposition research' exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups." I too need to read more Capital Research because of those terrible liberal causes like watching out for consumers and addressing public health issues - like poisons in the environment - are way out of hand. Thank you for bringing this very important research to our attention, my good sir!
I also like your sense of fair play and objectivity in selecting Michelle Malkin. I much prefer her 2005 perspective rather than this article from 2006 from the liberal spin machine. While we are talking about her ground-breaking research, we should also point out her other important ideas such as her book documenting the important need to bring back Japanese-style internment camps for Arab Americans - which is also coincidentaly based on the cutting-edge research of another person doing important work exposing the myth of the so-called "holocaust".
I can only applaud the efforts of the Slashdot moderators to make sure that your comments get pushed right to the top. No one should be compelled to go through another day without an awareness of these two fascinating, unbiased sources of good information. As a good conservative, I am finally starting to feel like Slashdot is like a second home.
I disagree. I think Madison covered this issue in Federalist Paper No. 10. I'll quote Wikipedia's rendering of his argument:
I think the argument that you are making here (and that Newt also makes) is that society is of homogeneous opinion or interest. I'd agree with Madison that in a free society, you cannot talk about society-wide values like you do when you say "American Values".
I would also suggest that the reason you don't see right-wing fanatics is because they are probably closer to your worldview. Pointing out the religious right (Christian Identity Movement) or right-wing radio (O'Reilly) is easy. A little less easy, but not much trouble, you could identify other right-wing fanatics from traditional racial hate groups (KKK, neo-Nazis), separatists (Montana Freeman, the Oklahoma City Bombing), primatives (Unabomber) to more traditional groups that might not be considered fanatics, depending on your outlook (Federalist Society, Cato Institute, The Minutemen).
What I find interesting here is that the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City Bombing did not leap to your mind first. I'd argue that right-wing fanatics have to far more to negatively impact other citizens than left-wing fanatics like those you describe. Why do you think that you missed these? Could it be an indication that it is harder to see that which is closer to your own beliefs?
No one made this argument. It's a straw man. If you view culture as a heterogenuous mix of differences between communities, ethnic groups, cities, religions and so forth, you don't have this problem. If you insist on talking about an American culture, then you must talk about what is common among them - which as you point out can only be a few things, if any.
I'd love to hear more about Newt's views on free speech. Unfortunately, it's not free for me to read them. However, I would say that clearly there is a problem with how the public airwaves are used during elections. I'd love to hear how Newt would propose to solve that particular problem.
Yes, I can. Advertising is destructive to the political process. There needs to be some solution, so the winner of elections is not determined by the size of a candidate's advertising budget - or the budget of
Touché. =)
Let's see, I quoted "multicultural, situation ethics, and values neutral model" and responded with "different cultures, nuance, or values that differ from his values". It's a one-to-one relationship here, so I am not sure why this is not clear to you.
You also reduce the larger argument he makes to moral relativism. He is talking about assimulation and other topics that have nothing to do with moral relativism. It's clear to me from the quote, but I also read the whole article I linked to - so I may have a better sense of how he sets up his issues than you got from what I included.
You should try giving people more of the benefit of the doubt - perhaps assume you misunderstood something or that something could be made clearer rather than assuming the other person is an idiot, e.g, "I don't think you even read the statement you quoted". You might find yourself having more interesting conversations.
You don't have to trust the news source. You can go to Newt's site and find quotes like these:
The bottom line is pluralism acts as a brake on fanaticism. Newt is a fanatic. He wants all of us to recieve "patriotic education". He has no room in his worldview for different cultures, nuance, or values that differ from his values. He has all the answers, so why on earth would we need free speech? We don't have anything to talk about.
Luckily, we don't live in Newt's America, and hopefully, we never will.
First, I am not making an argument that socialization is good for individuals - or that it is even good at all. I am saying schools are designed to socialize people (particularly to submit to authority) and that is their primary purpose. If that is so, then individuals have to answer the question: why stay in school?
This is mythology. There is a perpetual fraternity of "superior" in the U.S. We have wealthy and powerful families like the Kennedys and Bushes. We have secret societies that serve to connect the powerful with other powerful people, e.g. Skull & Bones. Even if you go down to the level of a typical corporation, people at the C-level tend to be white, male and come from priviledged backgrounds. Sure, there are exceptions, but in the main, we don't live in a meritocracy. The socialization that is the primary purpose of high school is to get you used to this fact, inculcate deference to authority, and create the mental framework where the caged believe they are free while doing what they are told - a necessity in a society like the U.S.
I'm not arguing that this is good or this is the way the world ought to be. I'm simply stating this is the way things are. Further, some people don't even have the wherewithal to go through this exercise because they don't even have the basics, and this is going to have some major long-term consequences.
High school's primary purpose is socialization. While it is possible to get a foundation for a college education at a public high school, what's the motivation for someone who can't afford or does not want to go to college to continue high school? Why not get a GED and actually get paid in a job rather than waste your time with what passes as secondary education in the U.S.? What about young teens that are growing up in poverty? It is a fact that for some getting a job can be a compelling need.
It's easy for people on Slashdot to talk about ditch diggers and burger flippers. Most people with the time and access to learn about computers aren't wondering where their next meal is coming from, how they are going to keep the electricity on, or whether they might get shot when they step out of their house.
People on Slashdot, with a possible few exceptions, don't even understand the problem -- much less are they able to offer a solution to it. Your question is wasted here.
What exactly is "the more important stuff"? Egyptians thought the Pharoahs were pretty important - big monuments and all of that - yet for many years no one could figure out what those hieroglyphs meant.
Indus script is another example, still undecipherable. You could also check out the Straight Dope for other examples, i.e., Linear A (Greece, 1800 B.C.), Zapotec (Mexico, 500 B.C.), Meroitic (Sudan, 300 B.C.), Isthmian (Central America, A.D. 200), and Rongorongo (Easter Island, A.D. 1800).
I guess the point I am trying to make is that what is most important may not be obvious. 500 years from now people might wonder what daily life was like today and find the gossip columns of our day a treasure trove of information, whereas if we had to consider it we might come to the conclusion its all dreck.
It's not a good idea to let the present decide what's important for subsequent generations. Because what their needs are and perspective will be quite different from ours.
Well, I'd have to say that's the price of liberty. Ideally, this is exactly who would end up being elected - people that don't really want the job but do it out of a sense of duty to the republic and because having someone that wants the job in the job is so dangerous.
If you had a write-in ballot, you could always write yourself in....who else to better represent your views? If you open that possibility, then mandatory voting is not a problem.
If we are going to go to fantasy land, why not add:
1. A voting requirement to get government services - water, electricity, licenses, etc.
2. Institute immediate recall of any politician, for any reason.
You should use the actual old phrase of Proudhon rather than a bastardized form, i.e., property is theft. The question is whether copyright is a tool for the subjugation of the labor of others. For example, copyright law that enables people other than the original creator to benefit from the work is a clear example of theft - where someone benefits who did not contribute to creating something that others pay for with their labor. Winnie the Pooh being one work that comes to mind from the "real" world.
So, you can't just claim Copyright is the answer. You have to do more work as to what you mean by copyright, how it works in a particular environment like Second Life, what you mean by legitimate/original/creation, and so forth. The fact that you don't want to spell all these things out in a Slashdot post is understandable - perhaps you might give the parent the same consideration.
I'm reposting this comment since it didn't thread properly.
Actually, I'm making an argument - a fairly simple one at that. Once again, you are using the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority with a touch of ad hominum rather than simply making whatever point that would demonstrate what you believe to be the flaw in my reasoning. The reason we don't have the basis for an intelligent discussion is because you are making assumptions about how much I know and how much you think you know. For all you know, I could be Robert McChesney and for all I know, you could have no experience in the field at all. Even if you do have a lot of experience, it is wasted without any kind of sound argumentation, which is to say it is wasted here. Again, why bother posting or replying at all?
I know that Larry King Live is entertainment and not news. It isn't journalism, and journalistic standards don't apply. If I am mistaken in some way, I'd love to know why. However, this post isn't particularly helpful because you do not articulate why you think I am "very mistaken" and choose to make an appeal to your authority rather than specifically address that point. If you are going to go that route, why bother replying at all?
If you were a journalist you should be keenly aware that there are different standards for different kinds of content. Journalists supposedly adhere to a different (unbiased) standard when they are presenting something as news versus when they are presenting editorial. An interview is essentially an editorial and is not subject to the same standards as a news piece.
Moreover, applying the journalistic standards to a piece of editorial is a form of censorship. The fact that you (and whoever is at these so called news outlets) have trouble differentiating between the two and as a result commit acts of censorship is precisely the point of this article.
Nice straw man. When I'm talking "let's cut the military budget", I'm talking Iraq, Star Wars, nuclear weapons development, CIA black operations, secret prisons, sales of weapons to other countries like Iraq, etc. I've seen figures that put Iraq costs at more than $500 billion. If you use "official figures" you get something like $340 billion. Using your figures that would account for all borrowing by the government for 1/3 of the year, it's not an insignificant amount.
You are not thinking very critically if you think that the cost of something like the War on Iraq all fall under the umbrella of the military budget and is not part of the budget of these other services. You're basically trying to interpret my argument as saying all of the budget of these other services rather than the point I was making about how these funds are hidden in a portion of the budget of other services.
You also fail to address my point about the previously borrowed money for military expenses like "money borrowed in 1991 to pay the fuel bill for the 101st Airborne during Desert Storm". It is a very important point that the bulk of our debt is to pay for past military adventures. It's disingenious to not label these expenses as military expenses rather than lump them in as debt expense. If the government is borrowing $2.55 billion a day, I want the portion that is being used to pay for current or past military operations to be included in the military portion of the budget. Then, we might get somewhat of a real sense of how much of our money is going to the military. Here's a hint. It's not 20%.
Can you explain how VA benefits to provide health care to veteran's injured in Iraq is not a military expense? If you use the figures from the offical U.S. Budget, you get 20%. However, the war on Iraq is not included in the budget and is funded through a special package. The funding has to be borrowed, and just like when I borrow money from the bank to buy something I cannot offered (like a house) I have to include the interest costs of borrowing this money in my accounting of its costs. Federal deficit costs that came from the wide variety of military actions we have been involved in since WWII, from Korea to Iraq to Nicaraqua (the first "War on Terror") to the funding we gave Hussien before he stopped following our orders. All of this costs money and should appropriately be assigned to military spending.
The flaw in your old saw is that you make the error of assuming the budget actually covers everything and that it properly categories expenses. All you have to do is think about how much is being spent in Iraq to get a sense that there is a serious flaw in your argument. Add in the money being spent on "Homeland Defense", Veterans Affairs, NASA, Department of Energy, that are primarily related to the military, and you have a lot more than 20%. Can you point out why you take the official numbers and cannot bring yourself to admit that there might be some bogus accounting going on here?
They do this already; it's called a referendum. Let's take a look at one that was on my ballot today:
The clause "For the health and safety of children and the entire community" is completely unnecessary for the substantive question. Yet, it has been included to appropriately frame the measure to make sure it will pass. The position statements and how they are worded is key.
Any invasion of armed forces of one state into the territory of another state is aggression - and is a crime under international law. Can you tell me when the U.S. invasion of Iraq began if not in 2003? If you want to say that it was a continuation of a conflict that started with the invasion of Kuwait, then you would need to explain why it is appropriate in 2003 to launch another invasion and why the U.S. supported Iraq in a similar invasion of Iran a few years earlier.
Are there occasions where invasions of a state's territory by another state is not aggression? I'd say no. I think there is room for peace keeping, humanitarian and other forces comprised of many nations under the control of an international body like the U.N. to perform functions to keep the peace or to address crimes against humanity that governments carry out against their own populations.
However, it is not appropriate that the U.S. try to assume this role because it is necessarily framed by U.S. self-interest. There is a reason the U.S. military is in Iraq and not in Darfur - and those reasons have nothing to do with democracy, Islamofascism, or whatever the story of the week is from the White House.
As for the Constitution, I think it is fairly clear that the Constitution is given Congress the power to define Defense policy goals and it is the President's role to execute them. Many people make the erroneous assumption that Commander-in-Chief means the President can do whatever he pleases with the military. That, my friend, is a huge leap. The fact that this President believes he not only is charged with executing plans - but deciding for himseff what they are without any kind of public debate like that which would occur in Congress is antithetical to a republic.
As for War Crimes. it specifically states that war crimes include those actions prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907. I'll save you thr trouble of finding them:
I can make a quick short list where the p
You could start with aggression. Aggression is defined as invading another country. Interestingly enough, the United States signed on to the acceptence of the World Court after filing an objection that it could not be prosecuted for aggression. Yet, the United States dropped out of the World Court once it became clear that it would be held accountable for our actions in Nicaragua that were lesser charges than aggression.
George Bush's handling of the International Criminal Court is also instructive. Standards created by the Nuremberg trials certainly indicate that the invasion should come before an international court of some sort.
Even if you believe that there should be no check on U.S. sovereignty, I think you could make good arguments that the war on Iraq broke many U.S. laws - the Constitution (declaration of war by congress and the questionable nature of the blank check written by Congress with the AUMF), the War Crimes Act, etc.