When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
That line of yours gave me a chuckle when I read the following one!
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy".
You've "backed it up" for me with that first quote!
However, when I prefaced my opinion with, "It appears to me," it proved more literal than I initially intended. Everywhere I go: roadways, airports, stores, restaurants, sporting events, etc -- I see a lack of common courtesy. You mentioned that you are aware of "abuse that people give out in public". When I look around, I not only see abuse, but rudeness, impatience, and a general lack of common courtesy as well.
To be fair, there are those of us who still like to extend a complement, allow someone to merge, say "please" and "thank you", etc; but it does seem to be more and more "out of fashion", for lack of a better term.
Given the progressive mantra of, "Intolerance must not be tolerated!", I feel we have become too tolerant of the abuse that you see in public, as well as the lack of common courtesy I see in public. So, perhaps in our determined efforts to be tolerant (for the sake of tolerance?), we have only ourselves to blame...
Is it fair to say that the internet would be quite a bit more polite if you had to publicly stand by your statements just as if you were standing on your soap-box in the town square?
It appears to me that one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy. I understand the need for anonymity in certain situations. I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Where does the middle-ground lie between anonymity and personal responsibility? For now it appears that is determined, case-by-case, in the courts. Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, the web will remain troll-ridden. If that's a victory for free-speech, it's not a very satisfying one.
All I want to know is why congress exempted themselves from having to abide by this monstrosity of a bill? If there is anyone who thinks the congressional majority has the best interest of the people who will have to live under this mess -- you are seriously, indescribably gullible. PJ O'Rourke said it best, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait til you see how much it costs when it's 'free'."
doshell wrote: "...I meant to say "as successful in life as they want"..."
Perhaps it would be more accurately phrased as, "as successful in life as their personal capabilities and motivations allow, with no guarantees." Rather, that has always been my perception. Capitalism encourages and motivates one to aim high. Even if one never reaches one's ultimate pinnacle of success (or even gets close to it), the chances of improving one's situation in the process are far better.
Communism motivates... um... I'm at a loss here. You have little to no control over your own success and on the chance that you do excel at something, the reward for your efforts is that your productivity is divided up, against your will, with whomever the central controlling authority decides is next in line -- but it does equalize "fairness", albeit arbitrarily.
But you are absolutely correct! Neither is a perfect system. As I said before, everyone has a choice to make, up to a certain point, ie:
Those in a capitalist system are generally free to migrate into a communist system if they so choose. Those in a communist system generally are not allowed the choice to migrate to a capitalist system (or any other system) without the permission of the central controlling authority.
Hopefully, they choose what's best for their situation.
It is the liberal-left that aspires to the idealized abstraction of a perfect society where everything down to the individual is tightly controlled and regulated by a centralized, beneficent govt.There are no winners and no losers -- everyone is perfectly equal.
In actual practice, neither a perfect market nor a perfect government is possible.
Generally speaking, there is only the seemingly endless struggle between the liberal-left which demands "equality in outcome" through govt-control over individuals with a heavy intolerance for self-responsibility/self-sufficiency -and- the conservative-right which promotes "equality in opportunity" through limited govt-control with a high expectation for self-responsibility/self-sufficiency.
You places yer bets... you takes yer chances... Choose wisely.
The difference is that when it comes right down to it: fail to pay your taxes and the nanny-state liberal government can enforce their will at the point of a gun; whereas, *YOU* make a knowing, willing choice whether or not to buy a coke and add to Coca Cola's revenue stream.
Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. Don't lay down and cede that responsibility to the govt.
It seems to me that paper-voting corruption happens either prior to entering the voting booth (ie registering the dead) or by paper ballots that are either "lost" or "discovered" after the polls close and before counts or re-counts. There's no need to alter the actual ballots cast. Consider ACORN, corpses voting in Chicago, the unmitigated polling disgrace for the MN senator's seat, etc. Heck, the race between Franken and Coleman was so fouled-up in the count *and* re-count(s) that it probably should have been a complete do-over to sort it out fairly. For now, the re-counting shenanigans on both sides appears headed for court approval. Don't even get me started with Gore/Bush and Florida...
It comes down to a choice between two fallible processes. Which one can be corrupted less?
I do think it's a bit humorous that in spite of the technology available to us, we still have (arguably significant) "voting irregularities" -- while other countries seems to manage as well (or perhaps better) with the low-tech of purple fingers. Sometimes we need to be reminded of the K.I.S.S. principle.
I refuse to believe that a highly secure, trustworthy and reliable system can not be developed with the talent available within the U.S. Secure the system down to one-person/one-vote first. Address coercion seperately. For that matter, I feel that how voters are influenced, lobbied, begged and/or coerced prior to casting their vote is a "people" problem, not a technology problem.
However, I also believe that the type of politicians we seem to be perpetually stuck with will *never* allow a highly secure, trustworthy and reliable system to be implemented because they rather rely on the ability to "massage the numbers" either overtly (as in MN & FL) or covertly (as in Chicago's voting zombies).
Warts and all, I'd still choose the U.S. over any other country. Opinions will likely vary...
I'll give you this: your grossly incorrect, knee-jerk assumptions are persistent...
I merely agreed with the sentiment of the quoted statesman. I find it interesting that you offer no alternative to the sentiment, yet take the time to argue with straw-man tactics and leaping assumptions. If you have an opinion of a better form of govt, state it and then get on with your life. This isn't that difficult, Sparky.
Your reply is a knee-jerk assumption.
For either business or pleasure, I've been to 22 countries outside of the USA (to include China). I'm confident that I have a very good foundation for my opinion. Of course, one isn't required to have personal experience with other types of government to arrive at the same conclusion (but it helps).
As far as I can tell, based on personal experiences and the experiences of others, Churchill was spot-on with his observation. But this is/., so a good word for the USA can't be allowed to stand without some form of challenge or rebuke. I suppose we should thank you for doing your part to keep/. in balance. I'll leave it at that.
Attributed to Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." The USA has some very vocal critics but even with it's warts, there's no place else I'd personally rather be. Of course,/. opinions will certainly vary...
So what if Republicans are scared of the multi-pierced, tattooed, "haven't bathed in a month", circus-freak-protester wing of the Democrat party who were trying to sneak buckets of human waste into tossing range of the GOP convention? Who wouldn't be?
On the other hand, all it takes to scare a liberal-progressive Democrat is for a kid to merely pray at a high-school graduation. The mere thought can cause liberal-progressives to froth at the mouth and piss-backwards for *days* until the threat of prayer is removed by any and all means necessary (ACLU, lawyers, cops, protests -- even if they have to refuse a diploma to the student).
So even though opinions vary, everyone's scared of something...
...that the majority of/. does not approve of the Republican VP nominee??
I find it hard to understand why more folks don't see the US as *seriously* screwed if either Obama/Biden *OR* McCain/Palin wins.
Obama has *minimal* experience to be president, but has great stage presence.
Palin has *minimal* experience to be president, but has great stage presence.
McCain and Biden are both old-boy networkers, both are camera whores, both love the sound of their own voices, both are "old" Washington insiders, both just need to get lost.
Both tickets seem evenly matched... Just like the USA!
With the USA being ideologically split right down the middle -- a situation that I see becoming more and more entrenched with each election -- I wouldn't be surprised if all future elections are decided by a (judicial) coin toss.
The only remarkable difference in the current race is that the Dem's are stuck comparing their #1 candidate to the Rep's #2 candidate - which makes sense because I doubt McCain will make the full four-year term.
I seriously doubt there will ever be a candidate that either party can/will nominate that will be acceptable to a large majority of the country. No more will a candidate win a majority worth bragging about.
Third party candidates have (so far as I can recall) all appeared to be looney and have only the most laughable chance of winning.
I guess the only thing anyone on either side can do is bitch. Here was my $.02 worth (not factored for inflation).
I've heard similar situations described as "lowering the fences", as in:
Company/Management creates a less than desireable working environment (various issues with mgmt-style, training, hiring, wages, operating processes, etc, etc, etc) that tends to lower the fences just low enough so that their strongest horses can jump over to greener pastures. That leaves the company with the low performing nags who can't clear the fence.
Variations on a theme, I guess...
-JD-
Slashdot Mirror
That line of yours gave me a chuckle when I read the following one!
You've "backed it up" for me with that first quote!
However, when I prefaced my opinion with, "It appears to me," it proved more literal than I initially intended. Everywhere I go: roadways, airports, stores, restaurants, sporting events, etc -- I see a lack of common courtesy. You mentioned that you are aware of "abuse that people give out in public". When I look around, I not only see abuse, but rudeness, impatience, and a general lack of common courtesy as well.
To be fair, there are those of us who still like to extend a complement, allow someone to merge, say "please" and "thank you", etc; but it does seem to be more and more "out of fashion", for lack of a better term.
Given the progressive mantra of, "Intolerance must not be tolerated!", I feel we have become too tolerant of the abuse that you see in public, as well as the lack of common courtesy I see in public. So, perhaps in our determined efforts to be tolerant (for the sake of tolerance?), we have only ourselves to blame...
Is it fair to say that the internet would be quite a bit more polite if you had to publicly stand by your statements just as if you were standing on your soap-box in the town square?
It appears to me that one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy. I understand the need for anonymity in certain situations. I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Where does the middle-ground lie between anonymity and personal responsibility? For now it appears that is determined, case-by-case, in the courts. Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, the web will remain troll-ridden. If that's a victory for free-speech, it's not a very satisfying one.
All I want to know is why congress exempted themselves from having to abide by this monstrosity of a bill? If there is anyone who thinks the congressional majority has the best interest of the people who will have to live under this mess -- you are seriously, indescribably gullible. PJ O'Rourke said it best, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait til you see how much it costs when it's 'free'."
doshell wrote: "...I meant to say "as successful in life as they want"..."
Perhaps it would be more accurately phrased as, "as successful in life as their personal capabilities and motivations allow, with no guarantees." Rather, that has always been my perception. Capitalism encourages and motivates one to aim high. Even if one never reaches one's ultimate pinnacle of success (or even gets close to it), the chances of improving one's situation in the process are far better.
Communism motivates... um... I'm at a loss here. You have little to no control over your own success and on the chance that you do excel at something, the reward for your efforts is that your productivity is divided up, against your will, with whomever the central controlling authority decides is next in line -- but it does equalize "fairness", albeit arbitrarily.
But you are absolutely correct! Neither is a perfect system. As I said before, everyone has a choice to make, up to a certain point, ie:
Those in a capitalist system are generally free to migrate into a communist system if they so choose. Those in a communist system generally are not allowed the choice to migrate to a capitalist system (or any other system) without the permission of the central controlling authority.
Hopefully, they choose what's best for their situation.
It is the liberal-left that aspires to the idealized abstraction of a perfect society where everything down to the individual is tightly controlled and regulated by a centralized, beneficent govt.There are no winners and no losers -- everyone is perfectly equal.
In actual practice, neither a perfect market nor a perfect government is possible.
Generally speaking, there is only the seemingly endless struggle between the liberal-left which demands "equality in outcome" through govt-control over individuals with a heavy intolerance for self-responsibility/self-sufficiency -and- the conservative-right which promotes "equality in opportunity" through limited govt-control with a high expectation for self-responsibility/self-sufficiency.
You places yer bets... you takes yer chances... Choose wisely.
The difference is that when it comes right down to it: fail to pay your taxes and the nanny-state liberal government can enforce their will at the point of a gun; whereas, *YOU* make a knowing, willing choice whether or not to buy a coke and add to Coca Cola's revenue stream. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. Don't lay down and cede that responsibility to the govt.
I wonder if the "baffled" parents received their primary education in a public school system or private/home-schooled?
It seems to me that paper-voting corruption happens either prior to entering the voting booth (ie registering the dead) or by paper ballots that are either "lost" or "discovered" after the polls close and before counts or re-counts. There's no need to alter the actual ballots cast. Consider ACORN, corpses voting in Chicago, the unmitigated polling disgrace for the MN senator's seat, etc. Heck, the race between Franken and Coleman was so fouled-up in the count *and* re-count(s) that it probably should have been a complete do-over to sort it out fairly. For now, the re-counting shenanigans on both sides appears headed for court approval. Don't even get me started with Gore/Bush and Florida...
It comes down to a choice between two fallible processes. Which one can be corrupted less?
I do think it's a bit humorous that in spite of the technology available to us, we still have (arguably significant) "voting irregularities" -- while other countries seems to manage as well (or perhaps better) with the low-tech of purple fingers. Sometimes we need to be reminded of the K.I.S.S. principle.
I refuse to believe that a highly secure, trustworthy and reliable system can not be developed with the talent available within the U.S. Secure the system down to one-person/one-vote first. Address coercion seperately. For that matter, I feel that how voters are influenced, lobbied, begged and/or coerced prior to casting their vote is a "people" problem, not a technology problem.
However, I also believe that the type of politicians we seem to be perpetually stuck with will *never* allow a highly secure, trustworthy and reliable system to be implemented because they rather rely on the ability to "massage the numbers" either overtly (as in MN & FL) or covertly (as in Chicago's voting zombies).
Warts and all, I'd still choose the U.S. over any other country. Opinions will likely vary...
I'll give you this: your grossly incorrect, knee-jerk assumptions are persistent...
I merely agreed with the sentiment of the quoted statesman. I find it interesting that you offer no alternative to the sentiment, yet take the time to argue with straw-man tactics and leaping assumptions. If you have an opinion of a better form of govt, state it and then get on with your life. This isn't that difficult, Sparky.
Your reply is a knee-jerk assumption. For either business or pleasure, I've been to 22 countries outside of the USA (to include China). I'm confident that I have a very good foundation for my opinion. Of course, one isn't required to have personal experience with other types of government to arrive at the same conclusion (but it helps). As far as I can tell, based on personal experiences and the experiences of others, Churchill was spot-on with his observation. But this is /., so a good word for the USA can't be allowed to stand without some form of challenge or rebuke. I suppose we should thank you for doing your part to keep /. in balance. I'll leave it at that.
Attributed to Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." The USA has some very vocal critics but even with it's warts, there's no place else I'd personally rather be. Of course, /. opinions will certainly vary...
So what if Republicans are scared of the multi-pierced, tattooed, "haven't bathed in a month", circus-freak-protester wing of the Democrat party who were trying to sneak buckets of human waste into tossing range of the GOP convention? Who wouldn't be?
On the other hand, all it takes to scare a liberal-progressive Democrat is for a kid to merely pray at a high-school graduation. The mere thought can cause liberal-progressives to froth at the mouth and piss-backwards for *days* until the threat of prayer is removed by any and all means necessary (ACLU, lawyers, cops, protests -- even if they have to refuse a diploma to the student).
So even though opinions vary, everyone's scared of something...
...that the majority of /. does not approve of the Republican VP nominee??
I find it hard to understand why more folks don't see the US as *seriously* screwed if either Obama/Biden *OR* McCain/Palin wins.
Obama has *minimal* experience to be president, but has great stage presence.
Palin has *minimal* experience to be president, but has great stage presence.
McCain and Biden are both old-boy networkers, both are camera whores, both love the sound of their own voices, both are "old" Washington insiders, both just need to get lost.
Both tickets seem evenly matched... Just like the USA!
With the USA being ideologically split right down the middle -- a situation that I see becoming more and more entrenched with each election -- I wouldn't be surprised if all future elections are decided by a (judicial) coin toss.
The only remarkable difference in the current race is that the Dem's are stuck comparing their #1 candidate to the Rep's #2 candidate - which makes sense because I doubt McCain will make the full four-year term.
I seriously doubt there will ever be a candidate that either party can/will nominate that will be acceptable to a large majority of the country. No more will a candidate win a majority worth bragging about.
Third party candidates have (so far as I can recall) all appeared to be looney and have only the most laughable chance of winning.
I guess the only thing anyone on either side can do is bitch. Here was my $.02 worth (not factored for inflation).
I've heard similar situations described as "lowering the fences", as in: Company/Management creates a less than desireable working environment (various issues with mgmt-style, training, hiring, wages, operating processes, etc, etc, etc) that tends to lower the fences just low enough so that their strongest horses can jump over to greener pastures. That leaves the company with the low performing nags who can't clear the fence. Variations on a theme, I guess... -JD-