I just sent him a quick note suggesting that he is mis-behaving badly, especially with public funds. It is a good thing to send him a note with your thoughts. Be civil, and logical and rational of course as Slashdotters always are.
Email and call your congressmen (woman) and let them know what your feelings are. They obviously are looking out for the moneyed interests and don't have the long view about what the effect on information flow will be. Or worse yet, they know and they want a stratified price structure, so those that can afford it get the good seats and the free Champagne, while the rest of us ride in the tail and can't use their lavatories, even if they are not in use.
Actually Glen is a Libertarian, but why let facts get in the way of a good smear.
"I generally find that when most people get true access to information they start to become more conservative or libertarian in views"
Now I generally find exactly the opposite, especially good hearted (not just selfish greedy people) tend toward more liberal views, like let's not let people starve or freeze to death, just as some basic principles. What I find too is that people tend to gravitate towards other people that believe similar beliefs, which when they look around tend to validate the community thinking. The difference I generally see between liberal and conservative thinking is that the liberals tend to look wider over the society, to the different groups, see what they think and make a judgement if that is for them or not. The conservatives tend to cluster in smaller groups and look inward, some in gated communities (or gated community wanna be's) and laugh and ridicule the rest. There is a wide cynicism that goes with conservative thinking, a very us first view. It is the liberal thinking that go into the Peace Corp and Teach for America and Vista etc. The wider view, being part of the larger community and helping out. The idea that we are all in this together. The conservatives would not think of wasting their time with such activities but will spend the time getting an MBA and learning how to make money off anybody in any situation in any envirionment, as that is a primary goal, self interest. I don't see this is as a long term strategy for the country. We have seen that view almost take the entire economy down in just a few short months. Its hard to argue that it was not this conservative , lets make as much money and we can without any government intervention, (derivitives market) that was the fundemental cause. So if you let the "Free" market reign we all suffer. (well not those that took them money and ran behind the gated community walls). Lets be real, you sample for your poll was very self selective.
. VERY few people that are not elitist or trying to protect their power believe:
1. The governments role in our life should be greatly limited. The idea of handouts/bailouts should be stopped.
Like de-regulating the energy market (Enron) like de-regulating the Savings and Loans (crisis) like not regulating Deriviatives (latest collapse).
I see that you are learning from history here. As to handouts the conservatives and Libertarians in Wall Street benifited so they are not going
to complain. As to Handouts, you would have a lot of seniors and children starve, especially in this economy. You refernce God below, shame on you
forgeting what God and Jesus preached. "If you do it to the least of my brotheren, you do it unto me" paraphrased.
2. If someone works hard they should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. Taxes should not punish the successful.
One of the things about government is it is of the people and by the people and "FOR" the people. We have seen in the past when the Industrial revolution
happened, another period of ultra-wealthy and very poor. This is to the advantage of the Ultra-Wealth but not to the majority of the community. That is why
we got Social Security and 90% top tax brackets (Eisenhowers time) and inheritance tax and anti-trust legistlation and unions. To even the playing field, to see that
no too much was taken by too few, because the country is our country under God and not owned by a small few. Those small few operate in our country
because we allow them to, and provide roads and police and fire and trains,
Refreshing, your kidding, I hope you don't rely on Glenn Beck for your entire source of information. Well to the government, it is built from two parties so they have different points of view, the press which is not doing its job lately should be the source of much objective review, but Glenn Beck is from one Party and not objective so all his information should be suspect for its spin and taint and even its facts.
The Community? and Glenn Beck is not in bed with the Republican propaganda machine churning out conspiracies left and right without regard to the facts. Also responsible in part for the insanity that shows up as members of Congress being shot in the head.
Google is an information company, it vends information about the world and connect people in the world. Now governments, like China want to control information and Google, like any business (or government) will make deals to get done what they think they need to get done. Well Google backed off from the Chinese restrictions but at least they claim to "do no harm" as a goal. That is not any of the goals of Glenn Beck, on the contrary if you listen to him, he is all about harm. Harming anyone that he feels does not believe the things he believes (well ok its an act on his part but like Soopy Sails or PeeWee Herman he keeps a consistant public persona, I personally like the other two better but they all are perverse in their own ways, crazy is crazy even when its an act).
The problem is people believe he knows something and has their best interests at heart. Sad really. I watched Glenn cry on camera once, it was the worst job of acting I have seen in a long time.
Don't watch Glenn Beck. He is a clown and this is one of the professional wrestlers of Republican talk radio and TV, and they want to get rid of NPR so he's and Fox are the only things left to watch. (And whose the biggest looser).
That is true John. But we are looking at what appears to be a data dump of all usernames. To strip usernames is possible in any public site but I suspect they get a feed from those vendors. I could be wrong but the numbers they are looking for and things like google usernames would be harder to find than say Ebay names that could be screen scraped more easily, but then you still have a limited population.
If they have user-names did they have other information to verify they had a match across systems? Open questions.
Are we looking at a sever breach here if researchers have access to username on Google and Ebay? And what security do they have to keep those lists out of others hands. Probably the student in the University will keep all that information secure...
DARPA the defense department research arm is obviously wanting to find out how propaganda works so they can form new propaganda and combat others propaganda. This is meta communication like the old idea of subliminal advertizing. They could just interview Carl Rove, that is his specialty. Finding the wedge issues like Gay Rights and the stories around what that is so bad and you should not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
Since it is Governement funded research, I wonder if we will find out about it or will it be classifed?
If we had the satelites above then it might be possible to bypass the kill switch in any country. Remove the Kill Switch option through parallel paths.
The country's children are obese, why, because our food industry has made economic choices, often without knowing long term effects on our bodies and the bodies of our children. It seems resonable to take collective action to say we need to come off that fat roller coaster if we want to outlive our children. Economic incentives is the way to go, tax breaks and taxes combined to make it in peoples and companies economic interest to not continue with unhealthy practices.
Gotta disagree with you there. You can blame the food industry all you want, but that doesn't excuse us, the parents, when we buy McDonald's for dinner five days a week because we can't be bothered to, you know, make healthy choices or cook a healthy meal for our families. It's we-the-parents' fault for plopping our kids down on the sofa with a Nintendo or cable TV instead of taking them to the park to play, because we are so self-centered that we can't take time to actually play and interact with our kids. If I'm too stupid or too lazy to look out for my child's best interests, then pointing fingers at the "food industry" is just rationalizing my own shortcomings as a parent. That doesn't help anything; in fact, it makes the problem worse because it allows me to delude myself into believing I'm a victim, rather than acknowledging the fact that I have the ability to change things so that my kid(s) grow up healthy.
OK you have a point. Lets say people make some bad decisions, like feeding their kids McDonald's too often, but what we have is a nation with what 60% of the kids obese. What your saying is that 60% of the counties parent's send their kids to McDonald's, I think not. I think many of the products produced today by the food industry are not healthy, and the it is hard to find products (other than raw foods) that like that. Many households have both spouses working or are single parent families that work so don't have the luxury to take the time to cook from scratch, and see that the kids do their homework and all the other chores around a family.
If it were the case that say.5 % or 1% of the population was obese maybe your argument is reasonable that those people get what they deserve, which is what your saying right. They should suffer for their decisions, you don't want any part of the solution. But when 60% are obese it is your problem and my problem and everyones problem. It goes beyond bad decisions, it is effecting everyones pocket book and the health of our children and us, and our future.
What do you suggest. Just leave things alone, let them make better decisions and leave you alone. Sorry too late for that.
It seems like your comment on stupid choices would suggest that if someone makes a wrong choice, they should starve, or be homeless, or suffer and die on their own, what do you care, its not your dollar. Well it is your dollar that picks up the mess and my dollar, that runs the emergency rooms and the soap kitchens and Medicaid and Social Security. You don't want to pay but you do, just more and at the end the process and after people have suffered needlessly. I guess its a heart thing, a we are all Americans and we pull together thing. The wild west shootem up died a long time ago, except maybe in Tuscon. I just hope civilization comes quickly to those parts of the country that have not experienced it yet.
Your argument doesn't follow your stated goals. It's a simple fact of life that you reap what you sow. If we take away the consequences of making bad decisions, what incentive do people have to make good decisions, particularly if the good decisions require more work/discipline/expense up front? If I follow you correctly, you say pay out now so that everyone has food, a house, and medical care, even if they didn't work for it. But if the government is going to provide those things, then why should I work my backside off to provide those things for my family AND to pa
"Let's look at government-run health care: the moment you say that the government must be attentive to everyone's health care needs (regardless of their own stupid choices in life), you immediately give the government logical power over your health care as well: do you smoke? what do you eat? do you participate in risky sports? All of these things suddenly become part of the government's purview."
No I think the health of the nation is a legitimate role for government. Like lets say, getting the word on on scientific findings that say DDT or Dioxin or smoking or Lead Paint are harmful to people, or baby cribs that can trap and kill babies inadvertently. To get that word out is one role and benefits us all. The second role is to outlaw or use fines or other legal tools to say prevent people from harming other people, like using lead paint in buildings, or exposing people to second hand smoke that don't want to die of lung cancer. These are not personal choices that effect only the person painting or the person smoking as much as you would like to think.
The country's children are obese, why, because our food industry has made economic choices, often without knowing long term effects on our bodies and the bodies of our children. It seems resonable to take collective action to say we need to come off that fat roller coaster if we want to outlive our children. Economic incentives is the way to go, tax breaks and taxes combined to make it in peoples and companies economic interest to not continue with unhealthy practices.
If the obese did not end up in the hospitals and health clinics which expensive treatments we would all save money, not to mention our children would not be sick. We have see how the economy got sick, almost terminally ill when we let peoples greed drive the mortgage market and derivitives self regulated. If we have learned anything from history (the Savings and Loan crisis, the Energy Crisis, the morgage crisis, the BP spill...) is that it is our best interest to be involved with things that can effect all of us.
It seems like your comment on stupid choices would suggest that if someone makes a wrong choice, they should starve, or be homeless, or suffer and die on their own, what do you care, its not your dollar. Well it is your dollar that picks up the mess and my dollar, that runs the emergency rooms and the soap kitchens and Medicaid and Social Security. You don't want to pay but you do, just more and at the end the process and after people have suffered needlessly. I guess its a heart thing, a we are all Americans and we pull together thing. The wild west shootem up died a long time ago, except maybe in Tuscon. I just hope civilization comes quickly to those parts of the country that have not experienced it yet.
Whew, I thought that droning noise was in my head. I'll have to look for other evidence that I'm going crazy, like those extra clicks on the phone when I pick it up.
Almost correct. Certainly the spirit of the law and regulations giving authority to the FCC as regulating public utilities of information pathways would suggest that they should have authority here. It is the legalist corporate view that this new pathway of information is not covered by the current laws directly or explicitly so we can go wild west with what ever we want to make a profit.
You are forgetting the the Internet came from the Darpa net and arpa net's which were funded by the government (us the public). It is only now that the businesses think that enough time has gone by that they can make an end run for profits.
In Chicago the CTA did something similar with reconfiguring two parallel CTA lines putting the two least profitable halfs together to be able to claim that that new line was unprofitable and to get rid of it. Well the government stepped in and said fine, pay back all the government money put into that line (that was given with the understanding that those lines would be maintained.). It turned out to be cheaper for the CTA to do the repairs that they were trying to get out of by that practice.
This is a case where a business unit lost sight of the fact that they forgot that what they had was in part owned by the public and they had a responisbility to that public. I see it the same with the Internet. It was designed to be a neutral information highway by the government in conjunction with Universities. Then private business was allowed to use those idea's and structures to build on that base and make a profit. But the core, the beginning, the idea and I suspect the patents are owned by the government and maybe its time to call that marker in.
Typical, " creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
It industry is first, then actually Innovators, makes no sense except from the standpoint of their innovating on a business model, then Investors, and oh yes consumers.
But I can't for the life of me undestand how the certainty of not allowing companies to filter or throttle information on the internet is an UnCertainty. The only uncertainty in their minds is whether they will get a ruling in their favor so they can innovate their new business model to pour more money into the pockets of their investors (which the executives are probably some of the largest investors).
As for the argument that a background check is necessary and why should you object if you have nothing to hide, for a position in the government that requires you to hide information seems a bit uneven in concept. I guess its true if they do not find anything about you they should definitely hire you because, either your clean or your already good at hiding information.
Did't Microsoft already try this idea, but the other social networking sites have just left them in the dust. This is almost like Microsoft's VM's . When I heard of that I said, yeh we call that time sharing and we had it in the early 70's with Mini Computers. Now that micro processors grew into that power footprint, they re-discovered an old technology. History does repeat itself in a never ending spiral. One hopes not a death one.
it is a way of allowing both sides of a story to be heard so people can make informed judgements.
Your opinion on the matter is idiotic and here is why:
There are more than two sides to a story. You obviously mean when YOUR pet-favorite side of the story isnt represented, then 'the other side' should be represented (Should segregationists get equal air time by mandate? How about Anarchists? Do they get equal air time by mandate? What about Furry Fetishists? Pedophiles?)
You had me at idiotic. Ok I'll try to be clearer. Not the other side but opposing views, you know fair and balanced. In our two party system of goverment (and I was refering mostly to political issues) then the other side is pretty well defined in most cases. That would put some breaks on some of the coordinated self consistant delusional frameworks that exist in the current broadcasting realm.
Meanwhile Fox is delivering what its viewers desire to continue watching (profit motive.. their product is the viewers who they sell to the advertisers), rather than what some special interest wants them to see (control of information motive... they dont have a product, just an agenda)
Well the argument would be good if it there wasnt the aspect of cult worship. Where you have the preacher up there selling his church as much as his idea's.
You and the rest of the supporters of the fairness doctrine are far more evil than Fox will ever be.
I dont that that is exactly true. Look at the incitements that the anti abortion groups and muslim extremest and there was that recent fellow that cited G Beck for his terroism. No there are boundries to a society, to behavior and speach that incites behavior. You would think that a Southern TV station should be allowed to show lynchings and tell people that is good and that they should do that?
I dont argue for control, I argue for more speach, balanced presentations or battling arguments, not censorship. Not having a competition of ideas is censorship. So Fox practices censorship all the time, and I find that evil and harmful.
The government should stay out of content control. Period and End Of Story.
No the common property argument was key to the founding of this country. In that everything not privately owned was owned by the government. That is why unclaimed estates go to the government, why there are public lands and airwaves. Its not a lie, it the foundation.
The government does not want to have censorship powers, there is not government other than us the people. There has been some movement of "censorship" for the common good, like it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. Censorship would be if everyone had tape over their mouth so they could not utter those words. But that is not the case. Things like child pornography I can see should not be available, or snuff video's. I disagree about the swear words thingy. But that is not the reason that the airwaves and the offshore areas are common, or the roads. Its that it is a country of the people by the people and for the people. If we were a monarchy, those would be owned by the King (or Queen).
Thinking that that is common property just to have censorship rights is wrong. But it is true that the the government (our government) might want to not allow a White Supremacist TV station to broadcast, lies, and incitements. That would not be in the interests of the people.
While I agree that the cable lines are not "Public" they do carry stations that do broadcast on the public air waves. They do like a resturant which is privatly owned but considered a public area, open to the public, and laws like the ones that pertain to smoking or serving alcohol have juristiction. I argue that cable is a public space in the same way and I am sure that will be challenged in court at some point.
You're probably right. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just as "LP News" is slanted toward the libertarian perspective. And the "Communist Manifesto" book is slanted towards eliminating private property. It's called freedom of speech/press/expression.
If Fox did not call itself "fair and balanced" and if they did not claim to be a News organization rather than an organ of the Republican Party I would say fine. They misrepresent the news, the truth and lie about themselves, what they represent and what their agenda is, wrapped up in the trappings of News rather than partisan commentary.
When it stepped in and established the Social Security system to provide some financial security to our parents and grand parents and great grandparents so they did not starve to death out in the cold. Kind of like a reaction to a sever economic depression. You would think we would learn from history.
Even if true (which it isn't), this is a pretty classic example of the broken window fallacy.
I would say this is the broken record fallacy actually. The government stepped/s when it is appropriate. Especially in large catastrophies where the size of the problem can not be handled by the local or state where that is happening. Or in the States case, where the local government can't handle it, or in the case of the individual the local steps in where the individual can't handle it and it is seen that action is in the best interests of us people. Often times a particular lunatic fringe calls "Government" the federal government, but that is only one layer on top of at least a local, township, county, state hierarchy of exactly the same thing 'Goverment'
When the government stepped in and protected children wanting to go to public school from harm in the deep south, where lynching had been common practice.
I don't have a big problem with this, but the same government codified these practices of slavery and discrimination to begin with. Am I a hero if I set my neighbors house on fire then put the fire out?
I was not the same government. You know that right. All of the people (Government is people after all as well as laws and regulations) that were around when slavery was first set up in this country were long dead when the the Civil Right movement was able, with the help of the majority concensus to change the practices and laws of some of the States that still wanted to have White Supremacy as a legitemate moral accepted practiced philosophy in parts of the country. What had happened was that the different people that made up the differnt Government said that was wrong and finally acted on that conviction.
The strength of our system is that our Government, yours and mine, are made up of us and changes every few years.
During any national disaster when they step up with help and aid.
Again, broken window fallacy even if one accepts your claim that the gov't actually helps in these scenarios (which it probably does in a lot of cases). Also this doesn't get into the opportunity cost of what could have been done in the absence of gov't involvement. And then you have examples like hurricane Katrina, which are clear examples of where the gov't does lots and lots of harm in an already bad situation.
I would say the broken record fallacy. It has been made clear that almost no one is going to step up to fix a large disaster quickly, without the money to get the job done. That is one of the things that the government has is the budget and mission to step in during a disaster. What company would plan on what to do during an flood or an earthquake, develop plans, stockpile supplies, etc. Not one republican unless he works for Haliburton and has a no bid contract from a Bush/Chaney who both own interests in the company.
The opportunity cost can be measured in lives lost, property distroyed, the lack of economic activity during the disaster. Your suggestion that if the government was not there, something wonderful would have happened I think is not thinking it through.
When our country was attacked, protecting.
Are you referring to 9/11 and the resulting "protective" actions such TSA, Patriot Act and Iraq/Afghan wars? I hope not, because these are things that do a really good job of degrading the quality of life of the average american through immediate effect and tax burden. And of course, 9/11 occurred as the inevitable result of US gov't interference in the politics/economics of the
Slashdot Mirror
govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
I just sent him a quick note suggesting that he is mis-behaving badly, especially with public funds. It is a good thing to send him a note with your thoughts. Be civil, and logical and rational of course as Slashdotters always are.
Email and call your congressmen (woman) and let them know what your feelings are. They obviously are looking out for the moneyed interests and don't have the long view about what the effect on information flow will be. Or worse yet, they know and they want a stratified price structure, so those that can afford it get the good seats and the free Champagne, while the rest of us ride in the tail and can't use their lavatories, even if they are not in use.
Actually Glen is a Libertarian, but why let facts get in the way of a good smear.
"I generally find that when most people get true access to information they start to become more conservative or libertarian in views"
Now I generally find exactly the opposite, especially good hearted (not just selfish greedy people) tend toward more liberal views, like let's not let people starve or freeze to death, just as some basic principles. What I find too is that people tend to gravitate towards other people that believe similar beliefs, which when they look around tend to validate the community thinking. The difference I generally see between liberal and conservative thinking is that the liberals tend to look wider over the society, to the different groups, see what they think and make a judgement if that is for them or not. The conservatives tend to cluster in smaller groups and look inward, some in gated communities (or gated community wanna be's) and laugh and ridicule the rest. There is a wide cynicism that goes with conservative thinking, a very us first view. It is the liberal thinking that go into the Peace Corp and Teach for America and Vista etc. The wider view, being part of the larger community and helping out. The idea that we are all in this together. The conservatives would not think of wasting their time with such activities but will spend the time getting an MBA and learning how to make money off anybody in any situation in any envirionment, as that is a primary goal, self interest. I don't see this is as a long term strategy for the country. We have seen that view almost take the entire economy down in just a few short months. Its hard to argue that it was not this conservative , lets make as much money and we can without any government intervention, (derivitives market) that was the fundemental cause. So if you let the "Free" market reign we all suffer. (well not those that took them money and ran behind the gated community walls). Lets be real, you sample for your poll was very self selective.
. VERY few people that are not elitist or trying to protect their power believe:
1. The governments role in our life should be greatly limited. The idea of handouts/bailouts should be stopped.
Like de-regulating the energy market (Enron) like de-regulating the Savings and Loans (crisis) like not regulating Deriviatives (latest collapse).
I see that you are learning from history here. As to handouts the conservatives and Libertarians in Wall Street benifited so they are not going
to complain. As to Handouts, you would have a lot of seniors and children starve, especially in this economy. You refernce God below, shame on you
forgeting what God and Jesus preached. "If you do it to the least of my brotheren, you do it unto me" paraphrased.
2. If someone works hard they should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. Taxes should not punish the successful.
One of the things about government is it is of the people and by the people and "FOR" the people. We have seen in the past when the Industrial revolution
happened, another period of ultra-wealthy and very poor. This is to the advantage of the Ultra-Wealth but not to the majority of the community. That is why
we got Social Security and 90% top tax brackets (Eisenhowers time) and inheritance tax and anti-trust legistlation and unions. To even the playing field, to see that
no too much was taken by too few, because the country is our country under God and not owned by a small few. Those small few operate in our country
because we allow them to, and provide roads and police and fire and trains,
Refreshing, your kidding, I hope you don't rely on Glenn Beck for your entire source of information. Well to the government, it is built from two parties so they have different points of view, the press which is not doing its job lately should be the source of much objective review, but Glenn Beck is from one Party and not objective so all his information should be suspect for its spin and taint and even its facts.
The Community? and Glenn Beck is not in bed with the Republican propaganda machine churning out conspiracies left and right without regard to the facts. Also responsible in part for the insanity that shows up as members of Congress being shot in the head.
Google is an information company, it vends information about the world and connect people in the world. Now governments, like China want to control information and Google, like any business (or government) will make deals to get done what they think they need to get done. Well Google backed off from the Chinese restrictions but at least they claim to "do no harm" as a goal. That is not any of the goals of Glenn Beck, on the contrary if you listen to him, he is all about harm. Harming anyone that he feels does not believe the things he believes (well ok its an act on his part but like Soopy Sails or PeeWee Herman he keeps a consistant public persona, I personally like the other two better but they all are perverse in their own ways, crazy is crazy even when its an act).
The problem is people believe he knows something and has their best interests at heart. Sad really. I watched Glenn cry on camera once, it was the worst job of acting I have seen in a long time.
Don't watch Glenn Beck. He is a clown and this is one of the professional wrestlers of Republican talk radio and TV, and they want to get rid of NPR so he's and Fox are the only things left to watch. (And whose the biggest looser).
And quite possibly that ground station would be in a different country that the country that wanted to kill it did not have access to.
That is true John. But we are looking at what appears to be a data dump of all usernames. To strip usernames is possible in any public site but I suspect they get a feed from those vendors. I could be wrong but the numbers they are looking for and things like google usernames would be harder to find than say Ebay names that could be screen scraped more easily, but then you still have a limited population.
If they have user-names did they have other information to verify they had a match across systems? Open questions.
Are we looking at a sever breach here if researchers have access to username on Google and Ebay? And what security do they have to keep those lists out of others hands. Probably the student in the University will keep all that information secure...
Yah right.
DARPA the defense department research arm is obviously wanting to find out how propaganda works so they can form new propaganda and combat others propaganda. This is meta communication like the old idea of subliminal advertizing. They could just interview Carl Rove, that is his specialty. Finding the wedge issues like Gay Rights and the stories around what that is so bad and you should not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
Since it is Governement funded research, I wonder if we will find out about it or will it be classifed?
Since Microsoft has been allegedly been caught re-posting Google searches If you brought down Google, Bing would disappear as well.
If we had the satelites above then it might be possible to bypass the kill switch in any country. Remove the Kill Switch option through parallel paths.
The country's children are obese, why, because our food industry has made economic choices, often without knowing long term effects on our bodies and the bodies of our children. It seems resonable to take collective action to say we need to come off that fat roller coaster if we want to outlive our children. Economic incentives is the way to go, tax breaks and taxes combined to make it in peoples and companies economic interest to not continue with unhealthy practices.
Gotta disagree with you there. You can blame the food industry all you want, but that doesn't excuse us, the parents, when we buy McDonald's for dinner five days a week because we can't be bothered to, you know, make healthy choices or cook a healthy meal for our families. It's we-the-parents' fault for plopping our kids down on the sofa with a Nintendo or cable TV instead of taking them to the park to play, because we are so self-centered that we can't take time to actually play and interact with our kids. If I'm too stupid or too lazy to look out for my child's best interests, then pointing fingers at the "food industry" is just rationalizing my own shortcomings as a parent. That doesn't help anything; in fact, it makes the problem worse because it allows me to delude myself into believing I'm a victim, rather than acknowledging the fact that I have the ability to change things so that my kid(s) grow up healthy.
OK you have a point. Lets say people make some bad decisions, like feeding their kids McDonald's
too often, but what we have is a nation with what 60% of the kids obese. What your saying is that 60% of the counties parent's send their kids to McDonald's, I think not. I think many of the products produced today by the food industry are not healthy, and the it is hard to find products (other than raw foods) that like that. Many households have both spouses working or are single parent families that work so don't have the luxury to take the time to cook from scratch, and see that the kids do their homework and all the other chores around a family.
If it were the case that say .5 % or 1% of the population was obese maybe your argument is reasonable that those people get what they deserve, which is what your saying right. They should suffer for their decisions, you don't want any part of the solution. But when 60% are obese it is your problem and my problem and everyones problem. It goes beyond bad decisions, it is effecting everyones pocket book and the health of our children and us, and our future.
What do you suggest. Just leave things alone, let them make better decisions and leave you alone. Sorry too late for that.
It seems like your comment on stupid choices would suggest that if someone makes a wrong choice, they should starve, or be homeless, or suffer and die on their own, what do you care, its not your dollar. Well it is your dollar that picks up the mess and my dollar, that runs the emergency rooms and the soap kitchens and Medicaid and Social Security. You don't want to pay but you do, just more and at the end the process and after people have suffered needlessly. I guess its a heart thing, a we are all Americans and we pull together thing. The wild west shootem up died a long time ago, except maybe in Tuscon. I just hope civilization comes quickly to those parts of the country that have not experienced it yet.
Your argument doesn't follow your stated goals. It's a simple fact of life that you reap what you sow. If we take away the consequences of making bad decisions, what incentive do people have to make good decisions, particularly if the good decisions require more work/discipline/expense up front? If I follow you correctly, you say pay out now so that everyone has food, a house, and medical care, even if they didn't work for it. But if the government is going to provide those things, then why should I work my backside off to provide those things for my family AND to pa
"Let's look at government-run health care: the moment you say that the government must be attentive to everyone's health care needs (regardless of their own stupid choices in life), you immediately give the government logical power over your health care as well: do you smoke? what do you eat? do you participate in risky sports? All of these things suddenly become part of the government's purview."
No I think the health of the nation is a legitimate role for government. Like lets say, getting the word on on scientific findings that say DDT or Dioxin or smoking or Lead Paint are harmful to people, or baby cribs that can trap and kill babies inadvertently. To get that word out is one role and benefits us all. The second role is to outlaw or use fines or other legal tools to say prevent people from harming other people, like using lead paint in buildings, or exposing people to second hand smoke that don't want to die of lung cancer. These are not personal choices that effect only the person painting or the person smoking as much as you would like to think.
The country's children are obese, why, because our food industry has made economic choices, often without knowing long term effects on our bodies and the bodies of our children. It seems resonable to take collective action to say we need to come off that fat roller coaster if we want to outlive our children. Economic incentives is the way to go, tax breaks and taxes combined to make it in peoples and companies economic interest to not continue with unhealthy practices.
If the obese did not end up in the hospitals and health clinics which expensive treatments we would all save money, not to mention our children would not be sick. We have see how the economy got sick, almost terminally ill when we let peoples greed drive the mortgage market and derivitives self regulated. If we have learned anything from history (the Savings and Loan crisis, the Energy Crisis, the morgage crisis, the BP spill...) is that it is our best interest to be involved with things that can effect all of us.
It seems like your comment on stupid choices would suggest that if someone makes a wrong choice, they should starve, or be homeless, or suffer and die on their own, what do you care, its not your dollar. Well it is your dollar that picks up the mess and my dollar, that runs the emergency rooms and the soap kitchens and Medicaid and Social Security. You don't want to pay but you do, just more and at the end the process and after people have suffered needlessly. I guess its a heart thing, a we are all Americans and we pull together thing. The wild west shootem up died a long time ago, except maybe in Tuscon. I just hope civilization comes quickly to those parts of the country that have not experienced it yet.
Whew, I thought that droning noise was in my head. I'll have to look for other evidence that I'm going crazy, like those extra clicks on the phone when I pick it up.
Almost correct. Certainly the spirit of the law and regulations giving authority to the FCC as regulating public utilities of information pathways would suggest that they should have authority here. It is the legalist corporate view that this new pathway of information is not covered by the current laws directly or explicitly so we can go wild west with what ever we want to make a profit.
You are forgetting the the Internet came from the Darpa net and arpa net's which were funded by the government (us the public). It is only now that the businesses think that enough time has gone by that they can make an end run for profits.
In Chicago the CTA did something similar with reconfiguring two parallel CTA lines putting the two least profitable halfs together to be able to claim that that new line was unprofitable and to get rid of it. Well the government stepped in and said fine, pay back all the government money put into that line (that was given with the understanding that those lines would be maintained.). It turned out to be cheaper for the CTA to do the repairs that they were trying to get out of by that practice.
This is a case where a business unit lost sight of the fact that they forgot that what they had was in part owned by the public and they had a responisbility to that public. I see it the same with the Internet. It was designed to be a neutral information highway by the government in conjunction with Universities. Then private business was allowed to use those idea's and structures to build on that base and make a profit. But the core, the beginning, the idea and I suspect the patents are owned by the government and maybe its time to call that marker in.
Typical, " creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
It industry is first, then actually Innovators, makes no sense except from the standpoint of their innovating on a business model, then Investors, and oh yes consumers.
But I can't for the life of me undestand how the certainty of not allowing companies to filter or throttle information on the internet is an UnCertainty. The only uncertainty in their minds is whether they will get a ruling in their favor so they can innovate their new business model to pour more money into the pockets of their investors (which the executives are probably some of the largest investors).
As for the argument that a background check is necessary and why should you object if you have nothing to hide, for a position in the government that requires you to hide information seems a bit uneven in concept. I guess its true if they do not find anything about you they should definitely hire you because, either your clean or your already good at hiding information.
That is a truly troubling thought.
Did't Microsoft already try this idea, but the other social networking sites have just left them in the dust. This is almost like Microsoft's VM's . When I heard of that I said, yeh we call that time sharing and we had it in the early 70's with Mini Computers. Now that micro processors grew into that power footprint, they re-discovered an old technology. History does repeat itself in a never ending spiral. One hopes not a death one.
it is a way of allowing both sides of a story to be heard so people can make informed judgements.
Your opinion on the matter is idiotic and here is why:
There are more than two sides to a story. You obviously mean when YOUR pet-favorite side of the story isnt represented, then 'the other side' should be represented (Should segregationists get equal air time by mandate? How about Anarchists? Do they get equal air time by mandate? What about Furry Fetishists? Pedophiles?)
You had me at idiotic. Ok I'll try to be clearer. Not the other side but opposing views, you know fair and balanced. In our two party system of goverment (and I was refering mostly to political issues) then the other side is pretty well defined in most cases. That would put some breaks on some of the coordinated self consistant delusional frameworks that exist in the current broadcasting realm.
Meanwhile Fox is delivering what its viewers desire to continue watching (profit motive.. their product is the viewers who they sell to the advertisers), rather than what some special interest wants them to see (control of information motive... they dont have a product, just an agenda)
Well the argument would be good if it there wasnt the aspect of cult worship. Where you have the preacher up there selling his church as much as his idea's.
You and the rest of the supporters of the fairness doctrine are far more evil than Fox will ever be.
I dont that that is exactly true. Look at the incitements that the anti abortion groups and muslim extremest and there was that recent fellow that cited G Beck for his terroism. No there are boundries to a society, to behavior and speach that incites behavior. You would think that a Southern TV station should be allowed to show lynchings and tell people that is good and that they should do that?
I dont argue for control, I argue for more speach, balanced presentations or battling arguments, not censorship. Not having a competition of ideas is censorship. So Fox practices censorship all the time, and I find that evil and harmful.
The government should stay out of content control. Period and End Of Story.
No the common property argument was key to the founding of this country. In that everything not privately owned was owned by the government. That is why unclaimed estates go to the government, why there are public lands and airwaves. Its not a lie, it the foundation.
The government does not want to have censorship powers, there is not government other than us the people. There has been some movement of "censorship" for the common good, like it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. Censorship would be if everyone had tape over their mouth so they could not utter those words. But that is not the case. Things like child pornography I can see should not be available, or snuff video's. I disagree about the swear words thingy. But that is not the reason that the airwaves and the offshore areas are common, or the roads. Its that it is a country of the people by the people and for the people. If we were a monarchy, those would be owned by the King (or Queen).
Thinking that that is common property just to have censorship rights is wrong. But it is true that the the government (our government) might want to not allow a White Supremacist TV station to broadcast, lies, and incitements. That would not be in the interests of the people.
See it is already starting.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/12/31/2127230/YouTube-Legally-Considered-a-TV-Station-In-Italy
While I agree that the cable lines are not "Public" they do carry stations that do broadcast on the public air waves. They do like a resturant which is privatly owned but considered a public area, open to the public, and laws like the ones that pertain to smoking or serving alcohol have juristiction. I argue that cable is a public space in the same way and I am sure that will be challenged in court at some point.
You're probably right. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just as "LP News" is slanted toward the libertarian perspective.
And the "Communist Manifesto" book is slanted towards eliminating private property.
It's called freedom of speech/press/expression.
If Fox did not call itself "fair and balanced" and if they did not claim to be a News organization rather than an organ of the Republican Party I would say fine. They misrepresent the news, the truth and lie about themselves, what they represent and what their agenda is, wrapped up in the trappings of News rather than partisan commentary.
"Name one time government did any good"
When it stepped in and established the Social Security system to provide some financial security to our parents and grand parents and great grandparents so they did not starve to death out in the cold. Kind of like a reaction to a sever economic depression. You would think we would learn from history.
Even if true (which it isn't), this is a pretty classic example of the broken window fallacy.
I would say this is the broken record fallacy actually. The government stepped/s when it is appropriate. Especially in large catastrophies where the size of the problem can not be handled by the local or state where that is happening. Or in the States case, where the local government can't handle it, or in the case of the individual the local steps in where the individual can't handle it and it is seen that action is in the best interests of us people. Often times a particular lunatic fringe calls "Government" the federal government, but that is only one layer on top of at least a local, township, county, state hierarchy of exactly the same thing 'Goverment'
When the government stepped in and protected children wanting to go to public school from harm in the deep south, where lynching had been common practice.
I don't have a big problem with this, but the same government codified these practices of slavery and discrimination to begin with. Am I a hero if I set my neighbors house on fire then put the fire out?
I was not the same government. You know that right. All of the people (Government is people after all as well as laws and regulations) that were around when slavery was first set up in this country were long dead when the the Civil Right movement was able, with the help of the majority concensus to change the practices and laws of some of the States that still wanted to have White Supremacy as a legitemate moral accepted practiced philosophy in parts of the country. What had happened was that the different people that made up the differnt Government said that was wrong and finally acted on that conviction.
The strength of our system is that our Government, yours and mine, are made up of us and changes every few years.
During any national disaster when they step up with help and aid.
Again, broken window fallacy even if one accepts your claim that the gov't actually helps in these scenarios (which it probably does in a lot of cases). Also this doesn't get into the opportunity cost of what could have been done in the absence of gov't involvement. And then you have examples like hurricane Katrina, which are clear examples of where the gov't does lots and lots of harm in an already bad situation.
I would say the broken record fallacy. It has been made clear that almost no one is going to step up to fix a large disaster quickly, without the money to get the job done. That is one of the things that the government has is the budget and mission to step in during a disaster. What company would plan on what to do during an flood or an earthquake, develop plans, stockpile supplies, etc. Not one republican unless he works for Haliburton and has a no bid contract from a Bush/Chaney who both own interests in the company.
The opportunity cost can be measured in lives lost, property distroyed, the lack of economic activity during the disaster. Your suggestion that if the government was not there, something wonderful would have happened I think is not thinking it through.
When our country was attacked, protecting.
Are you referring to 9/11 and the resulting "protective" actions such TSA, Patriot Act and Iraq/Afghan wars? I hope not, because these are things that do a really good job of degrading the quality of life of the average american through immediate effect and tax burden. And of course, 9/11 occurred as the inevitable result of US gov't interference in the politics/economics of the