The point of writing is to convey meaning; the word 'republic', alone, simply could not have filled that function [in my earlier thread]. Yes, I've studied and read the Constitution, documents pertaining to federalism, and much more. Yes, Republic is used most often [remember languages do evolve, particularly depending on your audience.]. Yes, there is an important distinction between the two words [None of the dictionary definitions draw the distinction that the founders percieved]. However, "republic" in and of itself does not necessarily mean rule of the people [as even your dictionary definition gave]--that which makes our laws just. While democracy alone does not define our nation, it is the essential feature. That is to say, that, we are not only a nation of laws, we're also a nation of the people. Laws can be unjust. People can be unjust. By striking a balance between the two, maintaining a certain internal consistency, we have attained a superior form of government.
That being said, I simply could not have plugged republic in, in place of democracy, in my earlier threads. Neither the popular perception of the word 'republic', nor the dictionary definition [more strict], necessarily include rule of the people. A republic, by your definition, can indefinetly sustain arbitrary laws which defy 100% of the population's will [except for those in power], not true of democracy. It is true that sometimes "pure" democracy [unrestrained democracy] can be unjust (e.g., tyranny of the majority), but I never pretended otherwise. You must realize that both democracy and republic had significantly different connotations when the Constitution was promulgated. The modern definitions of democracy, even those in the dictionaries, simply does not mean that the popular will of the people is unrestrained. In either case, I was not attempting to redraft our nation. It was only that essential feature, rule of the people, that, I was driving at.
No King, no monarch, no dictator, no nobles, no outside authority imposed city ordinances on the protestors; put simply, the laws are democratic. Not only do the laws not violate the Constitution, but they protect it. They protect not only for the majority rights, but also minority. Not even your libertarian doctrine can consistently and rationally argue that the people have the right to do this. Libertarians (as much as I find their thinking incomplete and naive) believe in law too, and it is difficult to argue against such laws. The majority's will is not only a threat in law, but also a threat in force. In addition, when it comes to force the protestors needn't even be a majority. The mob can be less than 1% of the population (e.g., tree huggers, KKK, et. al), but by strategically violating the law, they can shunt everyone's (including your own) Constitutional rights. You believe in the Right to bear arms [not that I do, per se]? Then you also have the right to purchase arms when and where you please [atleast in accordance with the law]. Do you doubt that a sufficient section of our population could be mobilized to baracade [or otherwise interfere (e.g., smash every window in the city till the city evicts them] entirely the operations of gunshops? Obviously they could. So what do we have? Laws to restrain people from doing this, and police to uphold them. It is the only reasonable alternative.
Ok, I'm too tired for the rest (already responded to most of these earlier threads), but in this article you both attempt to say that the US is not a democracy and that people have no choice, while simultaneously asking us to vote Libertarian? Not to mention, you compare the US to the USSR [which is qualitatively and quantitively vastly different in effect, but that is another story. Tell me, if this were the U.S.S.R, do you really believe you would even be allowed to form a libertarian party? And if we're not a democracy, and people don't actually "vote", aren't you just spinning your wheels as a supposed libertarian? There are some fundamental contradictions here. As for the "party" line, there is plenty of that in both the Republican and the Democratic parties, but as for blind and irrational dogma, the Libertarians take the cake.....
You were wrong. You asked me to look 'democracy' up in the dictionary. All the major respected dictionaries [especially Oxford English Dictionary] agree with my definition. I knew I was right to begin with and the dictionaries more than agreed with me. Just because there is, what is in your opinion, a more fitting definition, does not make me incorrect. More particularly, you should not attempt to snub me when you're neither a respected authority, nor is your opinion widely accepted. To effectively call me an ignorant fool is foolish; there are many [arguably, most all] highly respected and intelligent individuals who've called the US a democracy.
Furthermore, "republic" is not any better of a definition. Not all forms of republics even vaguely approximate the US, thus it is far from a complete definition. Let me remind you that the point of language is to convey meaning. When I say "democracy", every remotely educated person knows exactly what it is that i'm referring to, namely, freedom and just law. This is not the case with "republic"; the word does not capture the essence of what the US stands for (witness the U.S.S.R, D.R., and other countless states). Thus "republic" would be a poor choice, and I would argue that the user completely missed the point of English [not to mention other subjects such as History (et. al)].
On another note, the mere fact that a few people fail to excercise the right to vote, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you have a billion dollars in your bank account, but don't want to take the trouble [nominal] to spend it, does that mean you are poor? If you have a car that works perfectly well, and you arbitrarily refuse to drive, does that mean you're not mobile? In this day and age there is no excuse to not vote. Your country isn't failing you, you're failing your country.
Katz is artless and thoughtless. He doesn't dare to think or drive a point home; that would require commitment. Instead, he finds what the latest geek itch (e.g., anti-MS, technophobism, percieved anti-geek movements, etc) is, and vaguely scratches at it. It allows him to ride the geek wave. Now a certain percentage of slashdot geeks [I presume mostly the younger or longhair types], find Katz inspiring, because he "dares to speak contrary to the popular media". In a way, I suppose he does, but it's not his own sentiment [it's merely nominally different than the mainstream]; it is not independant thinking. His words are not full bodied thoughts, they are vague echos of previously voiced concerns.
I'd equate Katz with Rush Limbaugh (sic.?), different sides of the same coin. Both address the fears of their constituency [liberal and conservative extremes, respectively]. Sometimes they may "hit the nail right on the head", but normally they don't. They perform no function in this world, other than legitimizing irrational fears of the readership by lending their name to it. They never even attempt to analyze the situation. They never even really question. They utter incoherant feelings under the guise of rhetoric and post-modernism. In short, they're both hacks.
In this particular article, there may indeed be legitimate concerns regarding DNA manipulation [even though Katz misinterprets most of it] and the like. For example, even though it may tend to be in the best interest of parents to manipulate DNA, is it in society's best interest [and thus in the parents in the long run]? Both evolutionarily speaking, and in the short run. Will society be better off if every child is cut to desired specifications [particularly if they're all essentially the same]? It seems that most of the "geniuses" [much overused term] who've contributed greatly to this world, hardly fit with society's popular conception of genius (e.g., straight As in HS, top of class at "best" colleges, "perfect" job right out of school). I believe this conception hinders in many ways. For example, at the Ivy leagues [a popular societal target], I've seen a singular unimpressiveness with the majority of the graduates. Yes, they tend to be better spoken, better read, more numerate, etc [not to say that these things don't have their value]. They also tend to land better jobs than their counterparts [out of school], but it's mostly inertial. They're the kids who know the system, and who know what it takes to get an "A". This, I believe, creates a certain myopia. Within their own little track of life they may make nominal "gains", but it's rare. For the most part, these kids end up in a much tighter "grouping", if you will. These kinds of kids have never impressed me [not to mention many employeers I know]. Whereas, with the so called "lesser" schools, you see a much broader distribution. Granted, most at the "lesser" schools end up somewhere below the median of the "better" schools [though not as much as most would think, especially later in life]. However, you also tend to see more from "outside" the track at the top of their professions [those who really make a dent].
My point, is that even though it may seem insane for the individual reject the "better track", it may be unwise for society [That is on a strictly quantifiable basis. A spread of personalities, shapes, sizes and others have a certain value as well]. For, without these mavericks, society would still be in the dark ages. Some thing's are better off left without "engineering"--there is a certain interplay that science will never account for [This is not to say that I blame parents for wanting their children to be free from afflication. Nor would I want them to just "accept" it.]
Antibiotics have unquestionably improved the human condition; we would be worse off across the board without them. The problems that are being encountered are the result of mis-use. However, even with mis-use we are certainly better off having the science of antibiotics [even with the development of so called "superbugs"],than not having it at all.
The behavior that we've effectively agreed upon on Tuesday is not relative; it IS wrong. The protestors willing broke the law. They left the city with no other options than to use force to secure democracy. The law simply can't selectively enforce its laws, by applying them to one party (e.g., KKK), but not another (e.g., WTO protestors).
On Wednesday, I admit I don't have all the facts. On the other hand, I don't believe you do either. You witnessesed what you saw with your own eyes [limited by perspective, travel, etc], everything else is 2nd hand [like me]. Nor are you privy the information or the experience the police had, on the whole. They had status reports coming in from around the city. I, in fact, used to live just a couple blocks off Broadway [towards Volunteer Park]; some of my old neighboors had complained to the police about the traffic, a possible reason for the police to take action. The protestors certainly did not have a permit for that, in violation of the law. Neither can you account for the actions of a few in that group, who would loot and cause problems [yet again, some of my neighboors and friends had problems], forcing the police to take action against the whole. Furthermore, it is a mistake to view Tuesday and Wednesday as entirely independant events, the crowds were the essentially the same group of people with the same objectives.
As to the actions of a few individual officers, I can't excuse that. Racist remarks and cruel actions [strictly for some sick pleasure] are wrong. On the other hand, some of these complaints are inevitable. That is to say, when you send police officers [or any human] into that situation under those circumstances [faced with such hate, outnumbered, taunted, assaulted, etc], some will lose their cool. Should the city tolerate those acts where it can stop them? No. Are they preventable? I'm not convinced they are. Should the city stop enforcing the law because a few officers can't handle the situation and commit wrongdoings? That comes down to proportionality; however, the proportion in this case would seem to favor action. The fact that a few "innocents" got hurt [from what information I do have], is better than to allow groups to systematically shunt democracy. That is to say, that even though the act might [and that's a big if] be MORE costly [from a human perspective] in the short run, it is the only option in the long run.
However, none of this is to give carte blanche to law authority. We, as a democratic society, still require overview and public scrutiny. Groups such as the ACLU, whatever new fangled organization you're part of, and others serve valuable function in our society. You're right to challenge them and expose what happened [atleast as to how you percieve it] that is all part of democracy. Meanwhile, I do not see this case as a black and white. I can envision [seen/heard/read evidence for some of] complete justification for most of the overall actions of the police. In the final analysis, neither of us decides the law, that is why we have courts. Out of these conflicting accounts and reasoning (e.g., WTO, protestor, cops, city, citizen, you, and me) a decision will emerge. All we can gaurantee is due process, let us hope that people don't attempt to brute force this as well.
Money doesn't vote, people do. No amount of money alone is going to get Forbes or Trump elected. It might increase their visibility, but ultimately people need to vote them in [Unless you're going to claim that the ballots are rigged, which is bs]. Now wealthier people might vote in higher proportions, but they don't elect people, as they are a minority. If the middle class felt particularly strongly about something, and voted anywhere near 90%, the middle class would prevail every time. Even though 90% of the middle class does not vote, they still can, and usually do, ultimately determine the outcome.
The strength of the middle class, even in this day and age, can't be underestimated. For example, flat taxes aren't going happen precisely because the middle class won't go for it. Existing tax structures today take a much much higher percent of wealthier people's wealth, than it does the middle class. You have capital gains, estate taxes, luxary taxes, property taxes, income.....I can go on. Most all are sloped significantly higher past the middle class hump. The fact remains that most all significant tax laws are in accordance with middle class perspectives [not necessarily in their ultimate best interest though]. Even though you occasionally get something which slips by, all in all, the middle class desires normally prevail.
That being said, I think lobbying needs to curbed [not just the "evil" corporations, but unions, and other interest groups as well]; it does have some influence [not the last word]. However, I have very little sympathy for the population as a whole when they fail to exercise their voting rights properly. If they voted properly, it would essentially be a non-issue. Thus, it still is a democracy, as the power does ultimately rest in the hands of the people, even if the people choose not to exercise it. No system of law, short of forcing people to vote a certain way, is going to fix that.
I basically agree with you. I'm not 100% free trade by any means. The complexity that you see in many ways strengthen's my arguments in support of leaving the WTO unmolested. Pardon me if I sound like a snob, but the union meetings are hardly the place to discuss the finer points of economics or trade. These are best handled on a representitive basis [within a democracy]. Most people are a bit misinformed, in that, the WTO alone does not overrule US law. Congress still must vote it all into law before it comes to fruition; there is democratic oversight. The conclusions reached within the WTO are essentially proposals, which can be argued in Congress. The WTO should be allowed to discuss the real issues, free of union propaganda. I'm even somewhat sympathatic [to both parties actually] on the "openess" argument. On one hand, there are benefits to not having to watch what you say for fear of offending someone....On the other hand, having open discussions can moderate certain behaviors [e.g., blind corporatism].....anyhow, I've got another lecture to attend, sorry to rush out. Bye;)
First Point, the person I was replying to indicated that the middle class doesn't have a mind of its own, that the mere mention of 'violence' turned the tide against the protestors. I have friends and family there [mostly upper-middle class], most of whom have damn little respect for the media, and they despised the protestors from the get go.
Secondly, I study economics and finance, I'm not talking out of my ass [though I don't think the world of academics]. There IS a strong empirical argument for free trade, as well as theoretical arguments. Yes, "free trade" can be painfull [It can even be harmfull. Especially if it is perverted and one way], particularly in the short run. Yes, I can see why the Unions might find it distasteful. However, none of this invalidates the opinions of "middle class" Seattlelites agaisnt the protestors.
Thirdly, the protestors concerns [legitimate or not] do not excuse their actions. Put simply, the people of Seattle and the WTO have certain rights; the protestors stepped on these rights and abused the law. You have a right to assemble in the US, but you must do it in accordance with the law. Neither MLK Jr, Thoreau, Ghandi, rebels during the Boston Tea Party,or other recognized authorities on civil disobedience argued for this kind of action. Seattle's laws are promulugated democratically, exist for good of the people, and are reasonable; in other words, they are just [moral]. The protestors, by stepping on these just laws to strike [something else] at what they dislike [or maybe even percieve as "un-just"], strike at democracy itself [they could try voting, gasp]. As I have said in other threads, a relatively small group, by breaking these laws, can throw a wrench in the works of democracy. Perhaps these protestors are representetive of the majority. But it was not voted on. Until that time, the city of Seattle not only has the right to enforce their laws regarding assembly, but an obligation to do so. Turn this problem over, replace the WTO with the NAACP, and the longhairs/unions with the KKK. Would you still argue the KKK has the right? [Not to mention what happened when the schools were de-segregated, pro-lifers blocking abortion clinics, et. al] Or that Seattle isn't allowed to use force? What is a right if you can't use reasonable means to protect it?
Fourthly, Thank you for agreeing with my point of view on 3rd world labor. There is something of a paradox in labor's complaints about it. Yes, in an ideal world they would be allowed to organize unions, collect higher salaries, etc. For the time being however, they are desperate and would be better off with a job, any job. I don't see the Unions doing anything to help them in lieu of the loss of potential jobs ["substandard" conditions]. Additionally, short of a totalitarian government, the odds are, that, these countries' standards would advance, without us imposing it on them [Imposing total "equality" strikes me as an improbable means of helping them. You've got to learn to crawl before you can walk. If these people behaved as most American unions do, they'd NEVER see these manufacturing jobs. The marginal costs of putting factories in third world countries would be far too high, which is what the union leaders are probably banking on]. Empirically, certain Asian countries (e.g., Singapore) have followed that path, and have done rather well. But I digress....
When you have a crowd of people that large, they are capable of denying the democratic rights of the city and the convention, WITHOUT having to even resort to violence--mere force of numbers is sufficient. As others [and I believe you] pointed out, they suceeded in interfering with the WTO, by denying them their rights to move freely [not to mention generally making the event costly for Seattle, forcing the city to deny the WTO a longer visit]. In my belief, the city did what it had to do when the situation reared its ugly head. Occassionally it is necessary to declare martial law and deviate from normal modes of law, in order to preserve democracy. It was simply not possible for the city to do much less on Wednesday (e.g., Sand Point, arrests, etc.). I don't believe the cordon you described would have been effective; the protesters were many thousands strong and could still encompass the entire perimiter, thus denying the WTO movement. Not to mention that the protestors could still deny reasonable use of the city for its citizens, thus leveraging it to deny the WTO its rights. What the police did was both legal and moral [on the aggregate]; it is moral to protect democracy, and the police are the means to do so. Though a few individuals [perhaps even the majority] in that crowd may have had their rights trampled on, the city believed it could do nothing less [I happen to agree from what I've seen, read, heard, etc.]
I believe it is necessary for the law to take the long view. Namely, that, by allowing any group the power to deny democracy by force of numbers is a far greater threat, than the city's temporary treatment of a few in that crowd. You happen to agree with the WTO protestors, thus the city's actions strikes you as unfair and immoral. The city can't arbitrarily decide who deserves protection under the law. Democracy must be allowed to work it's course. All groups deserve protection, be that the WTO, the NAACP, the KKK, you name it. The circumstances in Seattle mandated an increased use of force. The only people that can be really blamed for the clash are the anarchists/looters and those who blocked off the roads--they forced the city's hand on the protestors as a WHOLE.
What a load of psuedo intellectual BS
on
WTO + SDMI = NWO
·
· Score: 2
You have mighty selective hearing. Most of the WTO protestors were middle class. Furthermore, even if the WTO ultimately succeeds, that does not necessarily mean the middle class is being manipulated. What ever happened to self-interest as a motivator? I have friends and family who work in downtown Seattle. Frankly, they were pissed at the demonstrators because they blocked off their buildings and the like. They taunted and assaulted some as well. Plenty of reason to be pissed off, no the media did not force their thinking.
You give these lobbies far too much credit in terms of the influence they exert. The elite themselves don't have any signifigant lobbies. Yes there are corporate lobbies, but these represent middle and upper-middle class interests as well. Meanwhile, you totally ignore programs such as welfare, the disproportinately high tax programs against the wealthy, OSHA, environmental laws, etc.
Who are you to stand on this imaginary intellectual pedastool and judge all others simply because you disagree with them. Perhaps it is your psuedo-intellectual highschool/college aged middle class thinking that is cloudy. Perhaps Green Peace or some other longhair group has your ear bent. You're not even making an intellectual argument against free trade. You simply don't like it, and you assume that all who disagree with you are either "elite" or being manipulated...anyways, you're hopeless. bye
My parents developed FLIR (night vision) for the military/aerospace in the 70s and 80s; I heard a few stories when I was growing up. One of which, is that during the vietnam war (I believe) the military was experimenting with some active night vision technology for foot soldiers. The way it worked was that they would have a soldier stand up with an infrared lamp flashlight type deal and illuminate in front, and the soldiers in his company would wear special filter glasses. Anyhow, it turns out that asian's can see just slightly more into the infrared than caucasians, such that lamp was visible to some of them. The developers never realized this and the soldiers discovered the hard way. It didn't take them long to realize that it was equivalent to wearing a big flashing sign saying "shoot me". Eventually the soldier's refused to carry the lamp, it took the brass/developers a couple weeks to find out though.
To answer your 50k people question, the protestors could have NOT blocked off all surrounding roads (sidewalk included) [As I said earlier, the protestors tried and planned to interfere]. When the police asked them to backup, many of the protesters refused and were very confrontational [mistakenly believing it is their right to do so]. The police soon discovered that mere requests were insufficient, and thus were forced to resort to force. When I say the police should have "shown more force", I mean that the police could have been better organized. They should have displayed their authority more clearly (e.g., highly visible riot horses) early on in the game. By being as outnumbered and inexperienced as they were, it encouraged an escalation of unruly acts, and consequently leading to more excessive USES of force by individual officers. However, none of this is to say that the city was not right to use what means that they did. (e.g., the directive to use tear gas, in general)
Do the people of Seattle have the right to make use of the downtown area free of unnecessary blockage? Yes. Does the WTO have the right to meet? Yes. What is a right if you can't use reasonable means to protect it? I, for one, believe the police first tried to be reasonable. Failing that, they were forced escalate the use of force in correspondence with the problem. In short, the police used reasonable force to support just laws on the aggregate. In an ideal world, every person (protestors included) would have had immediate protection and access to a lawyer. [They didn't have enough officers to process everyone properly, particularly those who refused to cooperate] However, we don't live in an ideal world. Past a certain point [the crucial point--where I believe the city might have averted the situation, as I mentioned above],the city had no other option then to weigh the rights of the crowd [those few who would cooperate or the "innocent"] against the rights of the people of Seattle and the WTO. I'm not inclined to say "Oh well, Let's just ignore the problem", particularly when store fronts are being torn up and fires are being started. It was a dangerous situation.
To reiterate my previous comments, reverse the situation. What if instead of the WTO, it was the NAACP that was meeting. If 50k white supremists (et. al) suceed in blocking off and shutting down the convention [not to mention looting], what would you do? The NAACP and the city have a right to meet. What are the city's options? Legally, the city can't arbitrarily discriminate between the protestors [white nuts && WTO nuts]. I suspect you, and most others, would follow the Seattle's line of reasoning, and consequently actions, when the shit hits the fan. Though some of the white supremists might be protesting within the law, and some outsiders might be assaulted, the police can't sort them all out logistically. In action, is effectively denying the rights of the city and the convention. The situation mandated action. I'm not convinced Seattle could have used any less force, on the aggregate, to secure their rights.
"See how easily the 'powerful' upper middle class was turned against the Seattle protests by a simple bandying of the term 'violent'." Nevermind the millions of dollars this cost Seattle. Nevermind the fact that the protestors blocked the downtown area off for several days. Nevermind the fact that there are sound economic arguments for free trade. Nevermind the fact that many stores were looted and vandalized. Nevermind the fact that Seattle has never been a very entrenched city (it is a largely middle class and diverse city). Because you disagree with the WTO, obviously it is the upper middle class who're the fools. Right? Give me a break. Though I don't agree with the previous poster, the "middle class" and the "upper middle class" are largely different groups--you are confusing the two. You are forgetting your history if you believe it is the lower classes that are the politically active ones; the lower middle class have carried many more significant revolutions and political shifts. America's middle class fears change because they lead a relatively comfortable existance, and the marginal costs of revolution far outweigh the marginal benefits revolution could bring. Thus no revolution.
Do you really believe that the bulk of the upper class (or even the upper-middle class) would have elected Bill Clinton, or any other democrat, president? How many lobbies / interest groups represent upper class constituencies? Do you believe the upper class would have opted to be taxed at steeper effective rates? (e.g., income, capital gains, estate taxes, luxary taxes, etc.)
Furthermore, who do you believe most of protestors were? They were largely middle and upper middle class (college aged/long hair types). Not many "poor" or "upper class" people there, I assure you. Does the WTO represent the status quo (static)? Not exactly. The WTO wants to drastically step up "free trade". The only coherant (arguably) and unified voice against WTO was labor vs. exportation of jobs. What you saw was, in fact, a somewhat violent (and blind in my opinion) back-lash to change by mostly middle class individuals (e.g.: Unions).
Somewhat off the subject, it strikes me that most of the cries for "human rights" are some what hypcritical. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these 3rd world countries don't need to use slavery (it costs more!) to support industry; their people want to put food on the table. Though 50 cents may be dirt by American standards, the people of these countries have no other options. They work at these "low" wages of their own volition, because it's the best choice they've got. Who are these liberals (and Union ploys under liberal* causes) to say they can't work them? [empirically there is a lot of evidence that these manufacturing positions ultimately bring greatly increased mobility] I've yet to see these same activists provide them with more palatable alternatives. Nor do they protest for lack of industry, only when Union jobs are at stake do they voice "concern". These Unions fear losing their jobs/salaries--change; it is as simple as that (well almost).
You underestimate the middle class. Though there is a certain amount of apathy in the middle class and the upper/upper-middle classes are disproportinately more powerfull, the reigns of control rest largely in the hands of the middle class. The government hardly makes any significant sustained actions (atleast those under political purview) that runs significantly afoul of the middle class. This has been demonstrated numerous times. Though I suspect the "globalization" initiatives will not be entirely scuttled, it will not happen if there is wide disapproval amongst the middle class. No amount of "media control" [I think this is mostly bullshit] by the "social elite" will change this. If, for example, the middle class learned (or came to believe) that they lost 20% of their salaries to 3rd world nations in the next year, the WTO and all its corresponding laws would vanish, for all intents and purposes.
I have friends and family who were there. The protestors were TRYING to block traffic. The police made certain requests [legal/just] of them (e.g., backup), which the crowd refused to obey. Then they started trashing buildings and the like. Though I suspect the protestors were hostile long before the police were, who "started" the hostilities makes little difference.
I have little doubt that some of the police went a little overboard, but nor do I doubt that the protesters left them with few choices. The police had to walk a very fine line. On one hand they must maintain order, on the other hand they're heavily outnumbered by a mob of angry people. It is difficult to treat everyone with white gloves in such a situation (as you would under normal circumstances). Particularly in a city such as Seattle, which, unlike many cities on the east coast, has never once had to contend with this kind of situation--the police and the city were illequipped to deal with the situation (they didn't show enough 'force' at the get go). Though a few individual police officers may have stepped over that line, the police on the whole were right to enforce the law. I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court will frown on Seattle's actions (not on an individual basis), if it ever reaches that stage.
An inkling is an old word, which I, and many others, grew up with. It means "a slight knowledge or vague notion." And god no, I would have never considered political science. I'll give you a hint though, I have a very strong aversion to bullshit (particularly the academic kind).
Main Entry: democracy Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -cies Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy Date: 1576 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Webster's dictionary has it as:
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
A precise definition of democracy might be had by consulting the OED. Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
My definition is in fact the most widely accepted definition. Furthermore, it does not conflict at all with any of the pertinant definitions put forth by the widely regarded academic authorities on the English language. If you wish to argue semantics, you should atleast be fully apprised as to the actual situation. This is particularly true, given that you haven't an inkling as to my education.
I'm pro-trade and WTO (for the most part), but Nike is a marketing company, nothing more. Their prices are higher than just about every shoe. They practically created the 100 dollar tennis shoe. And their quality? Well I atleast don't think it to be any better than the competitors at similar prices levels.
To save my fingers effort, jump to this URL (same thread, different branch) for my reply: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/02/161 8248&cid=284
The city, state, and federal government are perfectly within their rights to force these protests to act reasonably (e.g., not blocking all traffic and trade in the city)--these laws are just and moral. The actions of the protesters are hardly civil disobedience as defined by Martin Luther King, or that of our forfathers. The protestors are trying to FORCE their view on others by blocking traffic (et. al)--this is not a right. The others, whom i'm sure you'll refer to (e.g., King), did not use such tactics. Yes, King did defy some local laws, which were leveraged unfairly against them to quash their protest. He himself said the law was "...just on its face and unjust in its application." He was arrested for protesting without a permit, but the permit was unjustly denied as a means to maintain the status quo. This is simply not the case here.
When the revolutionaries "broke" laws, they were breaking unjust laws. Namely, that England did not have the right to impose such law on them in the first place. Compare this to our laws regarding assembly. We are a democratic nation, and the laws were promulgated justly and for good reason. We, as a nation, can't allow every group, minority or majority, to have their way by force of numbers.
The people in Seattle could make themselves heard by simply protesting in an organized and reasonable fashion. In other words, they have to leave a means of entrance and exit (according to law). Futhermore, the people have other means to address their concerns. They can cast their vote, if they are indeed as significant a part of the population as indicated, they can sway the elections considerably. The early revolutionaries had no such options.
Force is not the way of developed nations--it is disruptive of our democracy. Put this in perspective. If we allowed such "protests", relatively small groups of people can force the hand of democracy by force of numbers. Civil rights would have never happened. Abortion clinics, and other such controversial places can be trivially shutdown by only a handfull of people. [Atleast the pro-lifers (though I disagree with them) are acting directly against the percieved injustice, by attemping to block entrance and consequently the "injustice".] What do you propose we do when some nutty group (e.g., the KKK) tries to force their viewpoint like that? Is the majority supposed to come down there and push them out of the way? That would result in inevitable violence and damage. The practical alternative is to have such laws, and police to enforce them.
The fact of the matter is that reasoned debate, application of just law, and protest in accordance with justice have proven an effective means for securing democracy. To deviate from this, to allow the few [perhaps there is broad support for these protestors, but we have no vote on this yet] to bully an entire city and governance, is sheer insanity. Regardless of your personal views on the subject, you must be consistent above all else.
If you can decrypt it to watch it in a DVD machine, you can always theoretically rip it. I see nothing "fundamental" about it. It may be logistically tough, and a pain in the ass, but it remains do-able none the less. Futhermore, I can almost gaurantee you that someone will discover a way to rip it and view it practically, some time in the future.
Disclaimer: I am not a crypto expert, but this is pretty common sense.
Capitalism may sound unfair at first inspection. However, long experience has taught us that anything else is simply worse. You can say whatever you wish about Marx; every implimentation of his teachings have failed miserably. Capitalism, for all it's flaws, works.
It never ceases to amaze me how academics such as yourself, can claim that it's just the many implimentations that are wrong. It never seems occur to you, that, perhaps the blue prints themselves are flawed. Others yet, will say that man is simply too greedy. Yet little attention is paid to the fact that central allocation of resources causes inevitable failure, it always has. Not just in communism, but in all other forms of government.
You can populate your socialist country with people just as benevolent as Mother Theresa, with just as many resources (e.g., minerals, man power, intelligence, etc.), and it will never be able to compete with capitalism. Let us assume that you have finite resources, 50 projects and only enough for a small percentage of those. Do you expect some stuffed shirt behind a desk to know the value of each project, the technical merits, etc.? Or would you put faith in the academics? Well you simply can't do that. It doesn't work. The free markets have a way of working such problems out. Yes, some fail. But those who have a pattern of success tend to get more resources. In Capitalism, money tends to find its way into the hands of capable individuals. Products that are desired, tend to be brought to market. Socialism? It pretends to know what the people want. Yet it doesn't ask. It is this static state, assuming that everything can be administered from a far that does great damage to the people. How many risk takers do we see in socialist systems?
Ignoring even the efficiency issues in Socialism/Marxism/Communism, it presumes that the greatest good, is when everything is "equal". That some may have different needs and desires completely escapes them. You might be happy only working 40 hours a week and taking home 50k a year. But to me, I'd rather work 80 hours a week or merely working harder, and take home 200k a year. It shows no understanding of risk aversion. You may call this Cookie cutter society "right", but I call it "wrong". If you ever had the benefit of traveling to a communist country, you might know what i'm talking about. There is a certain grey lifelessness--a simple lack of vitality and all things that bring pleasure. It is not just about the money either. I've travelled through Mexico, and other equally poor areas, and the people, though poor, are atleast VITAL.
Anyways, regarding "theft" in capitalism. My father emmigrated from Germany after WWII with hardly a penny to his name. Though he enjoyed a partial education at the Gymnasium, his education was not complete. He put himself through engineering school, became the one of the best in his field, if not the best, and eventually made millions. He did not benefit from these arisocrat rents that you liberals love to speak of. He went out on a limb, embraced RISK, and frankly, worked his ass off. Is the hourly employee making 10 dollars an hour, punching the clock at exactly 4:00 necessarily entitled to his "fair" share of the profits he made in his company? No, he did not share in the risk. He demands pay, he would choose to forgo any risk (while my father in much in the same position embraced it). Did my father give stock options and the like to his employees? Yes, they did profit from his sucess. The problem is, that when you use law, an ackward tool by its very nature, to decide how much of that pie should be cut and restributed, you begin to interfere with the process.
There are so many quantitative and qualitative factors that go into starting up a company and developing a truely innovative product, that I simply can't name them all here. I can assume that you have never witnessed the entreprenurial process like I have, since you seem to have so little appreciation for the things I've described--that which makes our country great. Do a rare few enjoy these 'aristocratic rents'? Perhaps they do. Is this the majority? I think not. Does capitalism necessarily imply it? Certainly not. Is capitalism zero-sum? No, definetly not. I am a firm believer in Pareto optimatlity. That is to say, that when the rich get richer, poor are no poorer, and perhaps ever even richer. This has been shown empirically in capitalism. Whereas with Marxism, no matter how benevolent the intentions (highly debatable), everyone is poorer (well except the few thugs in power).
I have the first version, it sucks in my opinion. What documentation they do provide is OK, but they don't go into enough depth in anything to make it really worthwhile. It can't compare to O'Rielly and Associates (ORA) books (e.g., Programming Perl, etc.). I'm of the belief that a beginner is far better off getting a reasonable foothold in one or two languages, than a superficial understanding of many. Perhaps the 2nd edition is improved (with all the recent linux attention...), but I doubt it.
This device is passive, meaning it doesn't emit any RF to detect. Conventional radar emits microwave energy, and allows for countermeasures (by homing in on the radar source). This system, if my interpretation is correct, detects the plane based on civilian RF (e.g., FM, AM, etc.) noise. If this technology does not depend on single sources (e.g., large radio towers), but rather a multitude of smaller civilian emissions, it would be very hard for the US to squash, atleast not without causing a lot of collateral damage. That is a pretty big technological leap; not yet developed/implimented anywhere.
However, this development is not an end game by any means. I have little doubt that the US will come up with ways to circumvent it. What is really troublesome for the military, I suspect, is that it could probably be implimented by 3rd world countries which otherwise don't have the resources for such defense mechanisms.
...I personally feel that stealth is a bad way to play the game. Cheaper unmanned vehicles is far better....fly more, who cares if they shoot a few down....
Slashdot Mirror
The point of writing is to convey meaning; the word 'republic', alone, simply could not have filled that function [in my earlier thread]. Yes, I've studied and read the Constitution, documents pertaining to federalism, and much more. Yes, Republic is used most often [remember languages do evolve, particularly depending on your audience.]. Yes, there is an important distinction between the two words [None of the dictionary definitions draw the distinction that the founders percieved]. However, "republic" in and of itself does not necessarily mean rule of the people [as even your dictionary definition gave]--that which makes our laws just. While democracy alone does not define our nation, it is the essential feature. That is to say, that, we are not only a nation of laws, we're also a nation of the people. Laws can be unjust. People can be unjust. By striking a balance between the two, maintaining a certain internal consistency, we have attained a superior form of government.
That being said, I simply could not have plugged republic in, in place of democracy, in my earlier threads. Neither the popular perception of the word 'republic', nor the dictionary definition [more strict], necessarily include rule of the people. A republic, by your definition, can indefinetly sustain arbitrary laws which defy 100% of the population's will [except for those in power], not true of democracy. It is true that sometimes "pure" democracy [unrestrained democracy] can be unjust (e.g., tyranny of the majority), but I never pretended otherwise. You must realize that both democracy and republic had significantly different connotations when the Constitution was promulgated. The modern definitions of democracy, even those in the dictionaries, simply does not mean that the popular will of the people is unrestrained. In either case, I was not attempting to redraft our nation. It was only that essential feature, rule of the people, that, I was driving at.
No King, no monarch, no dictator, no nobles, no outside authority imposed city ordinances on the protestors; put simply, the laws are democratic. Not only do the laws not violate the Constitution, but they protect it. They protect not only for the majority rights, but also minority. Not even your libertarian doctrine can consistently and rationally argue that the people have the right to do this. Libertarians (as much as I find their thinking incomplete and naive) believe in law too, and it is difficult to argue against such laws. The majority's will is not only a threat in law, but also a threat in force. In addition, when it comes to force the protestors needn't even be a majority. The mob can be less than 1% of the population (e.g., tree huggers, KKK, et. al), but by strategically violating the law, they can shunt everyone's (including your own) Constitutional rights. You believe in the Right to bear arms [not that I do, per se]? Then you also have the right to purchase arms when and where you please [atleast in accordance with the law]. Do you doubt that a sufficient section of our population could be mobilized to baracade [or otherwise interfere (e.g., smash every window in the city till the city evicts them] entirely the operations of gunshops? Obviously they could. So what do we have? Laws to restrain people from doing this, and police to uphold them. It is the only reasonable alternative.
Ok, I'm too tired for the rest (already responded to most of these earlier threads), but in this article you both attempt to say that the US is not a democracy and that people have no choice, while simultaneously asking us to vote Libertarian? Not to mention, you compare the US to the USSR [which is qualitatively and quantitively vastly different in effect, but that is another story. Tell me, if this were the U.S.S.R, do you really believe you would even be allowed to form a libertarian party? And if we're not a democracy, and people don't actually "vote", aren't you just spinning your wheels as a supposed libertarian? There are some fundamental contradictions here. As for the "party" line, there is plenty of that in both the Republican and the Democratic parties, but as for blind and irrational dogma, the Libertarians take the cake.....
anyways, bed time.
Bye
You were wrong. You asked me to look 'democracy' up in the dictionary. All the major respected dictionaries [especially Oxford English Dictionary] agree with my definition. I knew I was right to begin with and the dictionaries more than agreed with me. Just because there is, what is in your opinion, a more fitting definition, does not make me incorrect. More particularly, you should not attempt to snub me when you're neither a respected authority, nor is your opinion widely accepted. To effectively call me an ignorant fool is foolish; there are many [arguably, most all] highly respected and intelligent individuals who've called the US a democracy.
Furthermore, "republic" is not any better of a definition. Not all forms of republics even vaguely approximate the US, thus it is far from a complete definition. Let me remind you that the point of language is to convey meaning. When I say "democracy", every remotely educated person knows exactly what it is that i'm referring to, namely, freedom and just law. This is not the case with "republic"; the word does not capture the essence of what the US stands for (witness the U.S.S.R, D.R., and other countless states). Thus "republic" would be a poor choice, and I would argue that the user completely missed the point of English [not to mention other subjects such as History (et. al)].
On another note, the mere fact that a few people fail to excercise the right to vote, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you have a billion dollars in your bank account, but don't want to take the trouble [nominal] to spend it, does that mean you are poor? If you have a car that works perfectly well, and you arbitrarily refuse to drive, does that mean you're not mobile? In this day and age there is no excuse to not vote. Your country isn't failing you, you're failing your country.
I don't care if I sound uptight, but this grit thing simply isn't funny. Particularly after the Nth time hearing different variations of it.
Katz is artless and thoughtless. He doesn't dare to think or drive a point home; that would require commitment. Instead, he finds what the latest geek itch (e.g., anti-MS, technophobism, percieved anti-geek movements, etc) is, and vaguely scratches at it. It allows him to ride the geek wave. Now a certain percentage of slashdot geeks [I presume mostly the younger or longhair types], find Katz inspiring, because he "dares to speak contrary to the popular media". In a way, I suppose he does, but it's not his own sentiment [it's merely nominally different than the mainstream]; it is not independant thinking. His words are not full bodied thoughts, they are vague echos of previously voiced concerns.
I'd equate Katz with Rush Limbaugh (sic.?), different sides of the same coin. Both address the fears of their constituency [liberal and conservative extremes, respectively]. Sometimes they may "hit the nail right on the head", but normally they don't. They perform no function in this world, other than legitimizing irrational fears of the readership by lending their name to it. They never even attempt to analyze the situation. They never even really question. They utter incoherant feelings under the guise of rhetoric and post-modernism. In short, they're both hacks.
In this particular article, there may indeed be legitimate concerns regarding DNA manipulation [even though Katz misinterprets most of it] and the like. For example, even though it may tend to be in the best interest of parents to manipulate DNA, is it in society's best interest [and thus in the parents in the long run]? Both evolutionarily speaking, and in the short run. Will society be better off if every child is cut to desired specifications [particularly if they're all essentially the same]? It seems that most of the "geniuses" [much overused term] who've contributed greatly to this world, hardly fit with society's popular conception of genius (e.g., straight As in HS, top of class at "best" colleges, "perfect" job right out of school). I believe this conception hinders in many ways. For example, at the Ivy leagues [a popular societal target], I've seen a singular unimpressiveness with the majority of the graduates. Yes, they tend to be better spoken, better read, more numerate, etc [not to say that these things don't have their value]. They also tend to land better jobs than their counterparts [out of school], but it's mostly inertial. They're the kids who know the system, and who know what it takes to get an "A". This, I believe, creates a certain myopia. Within their own little track of life they may make nominal "gains", but it's rare. For the most part, these kids end up in a much tighter "grouping", if you will. These kinds of kids have never impressed me [not to mention many employeers I know]. Whereas, with the so called "lesser" schools, you see a much broader distribution. Granted, most at the "lesser" schools end up somewhere below the median of the "better" schools [though not as much as most would think, especially later in life]. However, you also tend to see more from "outside" the track at the top of their professions [those who really make a dent].
My point, is that even though it may seem insane for the individual reject the "better track", it may be unwise for society [That is on a strictly quantifiable basis. A spread of personalities, shapes, sizes and others have a certain value as well]. For, without these mavericks, society would still be in the dark ages. Some thing's are better off left without "engineering"--there is a certain interplay that science will never account for [This is not to say that I blame parents for wanting their children to be free from afflication. Nor would I want them to just "accept" it.]
Antibiotics have unquestionably improved the human condition; we would be worse off across the board without them. The problems that are being encountered are the result of mis-use. However, even with mis-use we are certainly better off having the science of antibiotics [even with the development of so called "superbugs"],than not having it at all.
The behavior that we've effectively agreed upon on Tuesday is not relative; it IS wrong. The protestors willing broke the law. They left the city with no other options than to use force to secure democracy. The law simply can't selectively enforce its laws, by applying them to one party (e.g., KKK), but not another (e.g., WTO protestors).
On Wednesday, I admit I don't have all the facts. On the other hand, I don't believe you do either. You witnessesed what you saw with your own eyes [limited by perspective, travel, etc], everything else is 2nd hand [like me]. Nor are you privy the information or the experience the police had, on the whole. They had status reports coming in from around the city. I, in fact, used to live just a couple blocks off Broadway [towards Volunteer Park]; some of my old neighboors had complained to the police about the traffic, a possible reason for the police to take action. The protestors certainly did not have a permit for that, in violation of the law. Neither can you account for the actions of a few in that group, who would loot and cause problems [yet again, some of my neighboors and friends had problems], forcing the police to take action against the whole. Furthermore, it is a mistake to view Tuesday and Wednesday as entirely independant events, the crowds were the essentially the same group of people with the same objectives.
As to the actions of a few individual officers, I can't excuse that. Racist remarks and cruel actions [strictly for some sick pleasure] are wrong. On the other hand, some of these complaints are inevitable. That is to say, when you send police officers [or any human] into that situation under those circumstances [faced with such hate, outnumbered, taunted, assaulted, etc], some will lose their cool. Should the city tolerate those acts where it can stop them? No. Are they preventable? I'm not convinced they are. Should the city stop enforcing the law because a few officers can't handle the situation and commit wrongdoings? That comes down to proportionality; however, the proportion in this case would seem to favor action. The fact that a few "innocents" got hurt [from what information I do have], is better than to allow groups to systematically shunt democracy. That is to say, that even though the act might [and that's a big if] be MORE costly [from a human perspective] in the short run, it is the only option in the long run.
However, none of this is to give carte blanche to law authority. We, as a democratic society, still require overview and public scrutiny. Groups such as the ACLU, whatever new fangled organization you're part of, and others serve valuable function in our society. You're right to challenge them and expose what happened [atleast as to how you percieve it] that is all part of democracy. Meanwhile, I do not see this case as a black and white. I can envision [seen/heard/read evidence for some of] complete justification for most of the overall actions of the police. In the final analysis, neither of us decides the law, that is why we have courts. Out of these conflicting accounts and reasoning (e.g., WTO, protestor, cops, city, citizen, you, and me) a decision will emerge. All we can gaurantee is due process, let us hope that people don't attempt to brute force this as well.
Money doesn't vote, people do. No amount of money alone is going to get Forbes or Trump elected. It might increase their visibility, but ultimately people need to vote them in [Unless you're going to claim that the ballots are rigged, which is bs]. Now wealthier people might vote in higher proportions, but they don't elect people, as they are a minority. If the middle class felt particularly strongly about something, and voted anywhere near 90%, the middle class would prevail every time. Even though 90% of the middle class does not vote, they still can, and usually do, ultimately determine the outcome.
The strength of the middle class, even in this day and age, can't be underestimated. For example, flat taxes aren't going happen precisely because the middle class won't go for it. Existing tax structures today take a much much higher percent of wealthier people's wealth, than it does the middle class. You have capital gains, estate taxes, luxary taxes, property taxes, income.....I can go on. Most all are sloped significantly higher past the middle class hump. The fact remains that most all significant tax laws are in accordance with middle class perspectives [not necessarily in their ultimate best interest though]. Even though you occasionally get something which slips by, all in all, the middle class desires normally prevail.
That being said, I think lobbying needs to curbed [not just the "evil" corporations, but unions, and other interest groups as well]; it does have some influence [not the last word]. However, I have very little sympathy for the population as a whole when they fail to exercise their voting rights properly. If they voted properly, it would essentially be a non-issue. Thus, it still is a democracy, as the power does ultimately rest in the hands of the people, even if the people choose not to exercise it. No system of law, short of forcing people to vote a certain way, is going to fix that.
I basically agree with you. I'm not 100% free trade by any means. The complexity that you see in many ways strengthen's my arguments in support of leaving the WTO unmolested. Pardon me if I sound like a snob, but the union meetings are hardly the place to discuss the finer points of economics or trade. These are best handled on a representitive basis [within a democracy]. Most people are a bit misinformed, in that, the WTO alone does not overrule US law. Congress still must vote it all into law before it comes to fruition; there is democratic oversight. The conclusions reached within the WTO are essentially proposals, which can be argued in Congress. The WTO should be allowed to discuss the real issues, free of union propaganda. I'm even somewhat sympathatic [to both parties actually] on the "openess" argument. On one hand, there are benefits to not having to watch what you say for fear of offending someone....On the other hand, having open discussions can moderate certain behaviors [e.g., blind corporatism].....anyhow, I've got another lecture to attend, sorry to rush out. Bye ;)
First Point, the person I was replying to indicated that the middle class doesn't have a mind of its own, that the mere mention of 'violence' turned the tide against the protestors. I have friends and family there [mostly upper-middle class], most of whom have damn little respect for the media, and they despised the protestors from the get go.
Secondly, I study economics and finance, I'm not talking out of my ass [though I don't think the world of academics]. There IS a strong empirical argument for free trade, as well as theoretical arguments. Yes, "free trade" can be painfull [It can even be harmfull. Especially if it is perverted and one way], particularly in the short run. Yes, I can see why the Unions might find it distasteful. However, none of this invalidates the opinions of "middle class" Seattlelites agaisnt the protestors.
Thirdly, the protestors concerns [legitimate or not] do not excuse their actions. Put simply, the people of Seattle and the WTO have certain rights; the protestors stepped on these rights and abused the law. You have a right to assemble in the US, but you must do it in accordance with the law. Neither MLK Jr, Thoreau, Ghandi, rebels during the Boston Tea Party,or other recognized authorities on civil disobedience argued for this kind of action. Seattle's laws are promulugated democratically, exist for good of the people, and are reasonable; in other words, they are just [moral]. The protestors, by stepping on these just laws to strike [something else] at what they dislike [or maybe even percieve as "un-just"], strike at democracy itself [they could try voting, gasp]. As I have said in other threads, a relatively small group, by breaking these laws, can throw a wrench in the works of democracy. Perhaps these protestors are representetive of the majority. But it was not voted on. Until that time, the city of Seattle not only has the right to enforce their laws regarding assembly, but an obligation to do so. Turn this problem over, replace the WTO with the NAACP, and the longhairs/unions with the KKK. Would you still argue the KKK has the right? [Not to mention what happened when the schools were de-segregated, pro-lifers blocking abortion clinics, et. al] Or that Seattle isn't allowed to use force? What is a right if you can't use reasonable means to protect it?
Fourthly, Thank you for agreeing with my point of view on 3rd world labor. There is something of a paradox in labor's complaints about it. Yes, in an ideal world they would be allowed to organize unions, collect higher salaries, etc. For the time being however, they are desperate and would be better off with a job, any job. I don't see the Unions doing anything to help them in lieu of the loss of potential jobs ["substandard" conditions]. Additionally, short of a totalitarian government, the odds are, that, these countries' standards would advance, without us imposing it on them [Imposing total "equality" strikes me as an improbable means of helping them. You've got to learn to crawl before you can walk. If these people behaved as most American unions do, they'd NEVER see these manufacturing jobs. The marginal costs of putting factories in third world countries would be far too high, which is what the union leaders are probably banking on]. Empirically, certain Asian countries (e.g., Singapore) have followed that path, and have done rather well. But I digress....
When you have a crowd of people that large, they are capable of denying the democratic rights of the city and the convention, WITHOUT having to even resort to violence--mere force of numbers is sufficient. As others [and I believe you] pointed out, they suceeded in interfering with the WTO, by denying them their rights to move freely [not to mention generally making the event costly for Seattle, forcing the city to deny the WTO a longer visit]. In my belief, the city did what it had to do when the situation reared its ugly head. Occassionally it is necessary to declare martial law and deviate from normal modes of law, in order to preserve democracy. It was simply not possible for the city to do much less on Wednesday (e.g., Sand Point, arrests, etc.). I don't believe the cordon you described would have been effective; the protesters were many thousands strong and could still encompass the entire perimiter, thus denying the WTO movement. Not to mention that the protestors could still deny reasonable use of the city for its citizens, thus leveraging it to deny the WTO its rights. What the police did was both legal and moral [on the aggregate]; it is moral to protect democracy, and the police are the means to do so. Though a few individuals [perhaps even the majority] in that crowd may have had their rights trampled on, the city believed it could do nothing less [I happen to agree from what I've seen, read, heard, etc.]
I believe it is necessary for the law to take the long view. Namely, that, by allowing any group the power to deny democracy by force of numbers is a far greater threat, than the city's temporary treatment of a few in that crowd. You happen to agree with the WTO protestors, thus the city's actions strikes you as unfair and immoral. The city can't arbitrarily decide who deserves protection under the law. Democracy must be allowed to work it's course. All groups deserve protection, be that the WTO, the NAACP, the KKK, you name it. The circumstances in Seattle mandated an increased use of force. The only people that can be really blamed for the clash are the anarchists/looters and those who blocked off the roads--they forced the city's hand on the protestors as a WHOLE.
You have mighty selective hearing. Most of the WTO protestors were middle class. Furthermore, even if the WTO ultimately succeeds, that does not necessarily mean the middle class is being manipulated. What ever happened to self-interest as a motivator? I have friends and family who work in downtown Seattle. Frankly, they were pissed at the demonstrators because they blocked off their buildings and the like. They taunted and assaulted some as well. Plenty of reason to be pissed off, no the media did not force their thinking.
You give these lobbies far too much credit in terms of the influence they exert. The elite themselves don't have any signifigant lobbies. Yes there are corporate lobbies, but these represent middle and upper-middle class interests as well. Meanwhile, you totally ignore programs such as welfare, the disproportinately high tax programs against the wealthy, OSHA, environmental laws, etc.
Who are you to stand on this imaginary intellectual pedastool and judge all others simply because you disagree with them. Perhaps it is your psuedo-intellectual highschool/college aged middle class thinking that is cloudy. Perhaps Green Peace or some other longhair group has your ear bent. You're not even making an intellectual argument against free trade. You simply don't like it, and you assume that all who disagree with you are either "elite" or being manipulated...anyways, you're hopeless. bye
Hi,
My parents developed FLIR (night vision) for the military/aerospace in the 70s and 80s; I heard a few stories when I was growing up. One of which, is that during the vietnam war (I believe) the military was experimenting with some active night vision technology for foot soldiers. The way it worked was that they would have a soldier stand up with an infrared lamp flashlight type deal and illuminate in front, and the soldiers in his company would wear special filter glasses. Anyhow, it turns out that asian's can see just slightly more into the infrared than caucasians, such that lamp was visible to some of them. The developers never realized this and the soldiers discovered the hard way. It didn't take them long to realize that it was equivalent to wearing a big flashing sign saying "shoot me". Eventually the soldier's refused to carry the lamp, it took the brass/developers a couple weeks to find out though.
To answer your 50k people question, the protestors could have NOT blocked off all surrounding roads (sidewalk included) [As I said earlier, the protestors tried and planned to interfere]. When the police asked them to backup, many of the protesters refused and were very confrontational [mistakenly believing it is their right to do so]. The police soon discovered that mere requests were insufficient, and thus were forced to resort to force. When I say the police should have "shown more force", I mean that the police could have been better organized. They should have displayed their authority more clearly (e.g., highly visible riot horses) early on in the game. By being as outnumbered and inexperienced as they were, it encouraged an escalation of unruly acts, and consequently leading to more excessive USES of force by individual officers. However, none of this is to say that the city was not right to use what means that they did. (e.g., the directive to use tear gas, in general)
Do the people of Seattle have the right to make use of the downtown area free of unnecessary blockage? Yes. Does the WTO have the right to meet? Yes. What is a right if you can't use reasonable means to protect it? I, for one, believe the police first tried to be reasonable. Failing that, they were forced escalate the use of force in correspondence with the problem. In short, the police used reasonable force to support just laws on the aggregate. In an ideal world, every person (protestors included) would have had immediate protection and access to a lawyer. [They didn't have enough officers to process everyone properly, particularly those who refused to cooperate] However, we don't live in an ideal world. Past a certain point [the crucial point--where I believe the city might have averted the situation, as I mentioned above],the city had no other option then to weigh the rights of the crowd [those few who would cooperate or the "innocent"] against the rights of the people of Seattle and the WTO. I'm not inclined to say "Oh well, Let's just ignore the problem", particularly when store fronts are being torn up and fires are being started. It was a dangerous situation.
To reiterate my previous comments, reverse the situation. What if instead of the WTO, it was the NAACP that was meeting. If 50k white supremists (et. al) suceed in blocking off and shutting down the convention [not to mention looting], what would you do? The NAACP and the city have a right to meet. What are the city's options? Legally, the city can't arbitrarily discriminate between the protestors [white nuts && WTO nuts]. I suspect you, and most others, would follow the Seattle's line of reasoning, and consequently actions, when the shit hits the fan. Though some of the white supremists might be protesting within the law, and some outsiders might be assaulted, the police can't sort them all out logistically. In action, is effectively denying the rights of the city and the convention. The situation mandated action. I'm not convinced Seattle could have used any less force, on the aggregate, to secure their rights.
"See how easily the 'powerful' upper middle class was turned against the Seattle protests by a simple bandying of the term 'violent'." Nevermind the millions of dollars this cost Seattle. Nevermind the fact that the protestors blocked the downtown area off for several days. Nevermind the fact that there are sound economic arguments for free trade. Nevermind the fact that many stores were looted and vandalized. Nevermind the fact that Seattle has never been a very entrenched city (it is a largely middle class and diverse city). Because you disagree with the WTO, obviously it is the upper middle class who're the fools. Right? Give me a break. Though I don't agree with the previous poster, the "middle class" and the "upper middle class" are largely different groups--you are confusing the two. You are forgetting your history if you believe it is the lower classes that are the politically active ones; the lower middle class have carried many more significant revolutions and political shifts. America's middle class fears change because they lead a relatively comfortable existance, and the marginal costs of revolution far outweigh the marginal benefits revolution could bring. Thus no revolution.
Do you really believe that the bulk of the upper class (or even the upper-middle class) would have elected Bill Clinton, or any other democrat, president? How many lobbies / interest groups represent upper class constituencies? Do you believe the upper class would have opted to be taxed at steeper effective rates? (e.g., income, capital gains, estate taxes, luxary taxes, etc.)
Furthermore, who do you believe most of protestors were? They were largely middle and upper middle class (college aged/long hair types). Not many "poor" or "upper class" people there, I assure you. Does the WTO represent the status quo (static)? Not exactly. The WTO wants to drastically step up "free trade". The only coherant (arguably) and unified voice against WTO was labor vs. exportation of jobs. What you saw was, in fact, a somewhat violent (and blind in my opinion) back-lash to change by mostly middle class individuals (e.g.: Unions).
Somewhat off the subject, it strikes me that most of the cries for "human rights" are some what hypcritical. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these 3rd world countries don't need to use slavery (it costs more!) to support industry; their people want to put food on the table. Though 50 cents may be dirt by American standards, the people of these countries have no other options. They work at these "low" wages of their own volition, because it's the best choice they've got. Who are these liberals (and Union ploys under liberal* causes) to say they can't work them? [empirically there is a lot of evidence that these manufacturing positions ultimately bring greatly increased mobility] I've yet to see these same activists provide them with more palatable alternatives. Nor do they protest for lack of industry, only when Union jobs are at stake do they voice "concern". These Unions fear losing their jobs/salaries--change; it is as simple as that (well almost).
You underestimate the middle class. Though there is a certain amount of apathy in the middle class and the upper/upper-middle classes are disproportinately more powerfull, the reigns of control rest largely in the hands of the middle class. The government hardly makes any significant sustained actions (atleast those under political purview) that runs significantly afoul of the middle class. This has been demonstrated numerous times. Though I suspect the "globalization" initiatives will not be entirely scuttled, it will not happen if there is wide disapproval amongst the middle class. No amount of "media control" [I think this is mostly bullshit] by the "social elite" will change this. If, for example, the middle class learned (or came to believe) that they lost 20% of their salaries to 3rd world nations in the next year, the WTO and all its corresponding laws would vanish, for all intents and purposes.
I have friends and family who were there. The protestors were TRYING to block traffic. The police made certain requests [legal/just] of them (e.g., backup), which the crowd refused to obey. Then they started trashing buildings and the like. Though I suspect the protestors were hostile long before the police were, who "started" the hostilities makes little difference.
I have little doubt that some of the police went a little overboard, but nor do I doubt that the protesters left them with few choices. The police had to walk a very fine line. On one hand they must maintain order, on the other hand they're heavily outnumbered by a mob of angry people. It is difficult to treat everyone with white gloves in such a situation (as you would under normal circumstances). Particularly in a city such as Seattle, which, unlike many cities on the east coast, has never once had to contend with this kind of situation--the police and the city were illequipped to deal with the situation (they didn't show enough 'force' at the get go). Though a few individual police officers may have stepped over that line, the police on the whole were right to enforce the law. I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court will frown on Seattle's actions (not on an individual basis), if it ever reaches that stage.
An inkling is an old word, which I, and many others, grew up with. It means "a slight knowledge or vague notion." And god no, I would have never considered political science. I'll give you a hint though, I have a very strong aversion to bullshit (particularly the academic kind).
Merrion-Websters dictionary has it as:
Main Entry: democracy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Webster's dictionary has it as:
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
A precise definition of democracy might be had by consulting the OED. Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
My definition is in fact the most widely accepted definition. Furthermore, it does not conflict at all with any of the pertinant definitions put forth by the widely regarded academic authorities on the English language. If you wish to argue semantics, you should atleast be fully apprised as to the actual situation. This is particularly true, given that you haven't an inkling as to my education.
Thank you for your kind words,
~Fall
I'm pro-trade and WTO (for the most part), but Nike is a marketing company, nothing more. Their prices are higher than just about every shoe. They practically created the 100 dollar tennis shoe. And their quality? Well I atleast don't think it to be any better than the competitors at similar prices levels.
To save my fingers effort, jump to this URL (same thread, different branch) for my reply:1 8248&cid=284
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/02/16
Thanks,
The city, state, and federal government are perfectly within their rights to force these protests to act reasonably (e.g., not blocking all traffic and trade in the city)--these laws are just and moral. The actions of the protesters are hardly civil disobedience as defined by Martin Luther King, or that of our forfathers. The protestors are trying to FORCE their view on others by blocking traffic (et. al)--this is not a right. The others, whom i'm sure you'll refer to (e.g., King), did not use such tactics. Yes, King did defy some local laws, which were leveraged unfairly against them to quash their protest. He himself said the law was "...just on its face and unjust in its application." He was arrested for protesting without a permit, but the permit was unjustly denied as a means to maintain the status quo. This is simply not the case here.
When the revolutionaries "broke" laws, they were breaking unjust laws. Namely, that England did not have the right to impose such law on them in the first place. Compare this to our laws regarding assembly. We are a democratic nation, and the laws were promulgated justly and for good reason. We, as a nation, can't allow every group, minority or majority, to have their way by force of numbers.
The people in Seattle could make themselves heard by simply protesting in an organized and reasonable fashion. In other words, they have to leave a means of entrance and exit (according to law). Futhermore, the people have other means to address their concerns. They can cast their vote, if they are indeed as significant a part of the population as indicated, they can sway the elections considerably. The early revolutionaries had no such options.
Force is not the way of developed nations--it is disruptive of our democracy. Put this in perspective. If we allowed such "protests", relatively small groups of people can force the hand of democracy by force of numbers. Civil rights would have never happened. Abortion clinics, and other such controversial places can be trivially shutdown by only a handfull of people. [Atleast the pro-lifers (though I disagree with them) are acting directly against the percieved injustice, by attemping to block entrance and consequently the "injustice".] What do you propose we do when some nutty group (e.g., the KKK) tries to force their viewpoint like that? Is the majority supposed to come down there and push them out of the way? That would result in inevitable violence and damage. The practical alternative is to have such laws, and police to enforce them.
The fact of the matter is that reasoned debate, application of just law, and protest in accordance with justice have proven an effective means for securing democracy. To deviate from this, to allow the few [perhaps there is broad support for these protestors, but we have no vote on this yet] to bully an entire city and governance, is sheer insanity. Regardless of your personal views on the subject, you must be consistent above all else.
If you can decrypt it to watch it in a DVD machine, you can always theoretically rip it. I see nothing "fundamental" about it. It may be logistically tough, and a pain in the ass, but it remains do-able none the less. Futhermore, I can almost gaurantee you that someone will discover a way to rip it and view it practically, some time in the future.
Disclaimer: I am not a crypto expert, but this is pretty common sense.
Capitalism may sound unfair at first inspection. However, long experience has taught us that anything else is simply worse. You can say whatever you wish about Marx; every implimentation of his teachings have failed miserably. Capitalism, for all it's flaws, works.
It never ceases to amaze me how academics such as yourself, can claim that it's just the many implimentations that are wrong. It never seems occur to you, that, perhaps the blue prints themselves are flawed. Others yet, will say that man is simply too greedy. Yet little attention is paid to the fact that central allocation of resources causes inevitable failure, it always has. Not just in communism, but in all other forms of government.
You can populate your socialist country with people just as benevolent as Mother Theresa, with just as many resources (e.g., minerals, man power, intelligence, etc.), and it will never be able to compete with capitalism. Let us assume that you have finite resources, 50 projects and only enough for a small percentage of those. Do you expect some stuffed shirt behind a desk to know the value of each project, the technical merits, etc.? Or would you put faith in the academics? Well you simply can't do that. It doesn't work. The free markets have a way of working such problems out. Yes, some fail. But those who have a pattern of success tend to get more resources. In Capitalism, money tends to find its way into the hands of capable individuals. Products that are desired, tend to be brought to market. Socialism? It pretends to know what the people want. Yet it doesn't ask. It is this static state, assuming that everything can be administered from a far that does great damage to the people. How many risk takers do we see in socialist systems?
Ignoring even the efficiency issues in Socialism/Marxism/Communism, it presumes that the greatest good, is when everything is "equal". That some may have different needs and desires completely escapes them. You might be happy only working 40 hours a week and taking home 50k a year. But to me, I'd rather work 80 hours a week or merely working harder, and take home 200k a year. It shows no understanding of risk aversion. You may call this Cookie cutter society "right", but I call it "wrong". If you ever had the benefit of traveling to a communist country, you might know what i'm talking about. There is a certain grey lifelessness--a simple lack of vitality and all things that bring pleasure. It is not just about the money either. I've travelled through Mexico, and other equally poor areas, and the people, though poor, are atleast VITAL.
Anyways, regarding "theft" in capitalism. My father emmigrated from Germany after WWII with hardly a penny to his name. Though he enjoyed a partial education at the Gymnasium, his education was not complete. He put himself through engineering school, became the one of the best in his field, if not the best, and eventually made millions. He did not benefit from these arisocrat rents that you liberals love to speak of. He went out on a limb, embraced RISK, and frankly, worked his ass off. Is the hourly employee making 10 dollars an hour, punching the clock at exactly 4:00 necessarily entitled to his "fair" share of the profits he made in his company? No, he did not share in the risk. He demands pay, he would choose to forgo any risk (while my father in much in the same position embraced it). Did my father give stock options and the like to his employees? Yes, they did profit from his sucess. The problem is, that when you use law, an ackward tool by its very nature, to decide how much of that pie should be cut and restributed, you begin to interfere with the process.
There are so many quantitative and qualitative factors that go into starting up a company and developing a truely innovative product, that I simply can't name them all here. I can assume that you have never witnessed the entreprenurial process like I have, since you seem to have so little appreciation for the things I've described--that which makes our country great. Do a rare few enjoy these 'aristocratic rents'? Perhaps they do. Is this the majority? I think not. Does capitalism necessarily imply it? Certainly not. Is capitalism zero-sum? No, definetly not. I am a firm believer in Pareto optimatlity. That is to say, that when the rich get richer, poor are no poorer, and perhaps ever even richer. This has been shown empirically in capitalism. Whereas with Marxism, no matter how benevolent the intentions (highly debatable), everyone is poorer (well except the few thugs in power).
I have the first version, it sucks in my opinion. What documentation they do provide is OK, but they don't go into enough depth in anything to make it really worthwhile. It can't compare to O'Rielly and Associates (ORA) books (e.g., Programming Perl, etc.). I'm of the belief that a beginner is far better off getting a reasonable foothold in one or two languages, than a superficial understanding of many. Perhaps the 2nd edition is improved (with all the recent linux attention...), but I doubt it.
This device is passive, meaning it doesn't emit any RF to detect. Conventional radar emits microwave energy, and allows for countermeasures (by homing in on the radar source). This system, if my interpretation is correct, detects the plane based on civilian RF (e.g., FM, AM, etc.) noise. If this technology does not depend on single sources (e.g., large radio towers), but rather a multitude of smaller civilian emissions, it would be very hard for the US to squash, atleast not without causing a lot of collateral damage. That is a pretty big technological leap; not yet developed/implimented anywhere.
However, this development is not an end game by any means. I have little doubt that the US will come up with ways to circumvent it. What is really troublesome for the military, I suspect, is that it could probably be implimented by 3rd world countries which otherwise don't have the resources for such defense mechanisms.
...I personally feel that stealth is a bad way to play the game. Cheaper unmanned vehicles is far better....fly more, who cares if they shoot a few down....