OK, I try not to gripe about most of what the government wastes my tax dollars on, but seriously.
Mod me down for redundant crybabying, but......
What on god's green earth could they actually need $1 Billion for? OK, I know that's redundant, in that they almost never need these amounts, and that it's mostly waste, but I am truly mystified as to how they can even PRETEND to need it. I RTFA and I can't even tell what they're planning to spend it on. 250 new agents beefing up the monitoring system, and a new "forensics" lab for past crimes (read: data mining)? That's not $1 Billion.
I'm sure there are privacy threats in this too, but I have to say that one of the things that offends me most about this is that they're using MY tax dollars for this... and I get essentially no say in it whatsoever.
The Chinese government objects to maps that depict certain regions as being separate sovereign countries, such as Tibet and Taiwan, which the Chinese government holds are both part of China.
This would be similar to a map being published that showed Alaska as a separate country, or as part of Canada, as opposed to it being part of the USA.
I don't think that's quite a fair parallel.
I also don't think it's quite right to lump Tibet and Taiwan together in this argument. Tibet, whatever the rights and wrongs, has actually been occupied by the PRC since the '50s. Taiwan, since the end of the Chinese Civil War, has never been occupied by the PRC. Indeed, for many years it was considered "China" by much of the west.
It's more like, say, American Samoa or Puerto Rico being shown as different countries.
This is actually a very good point, in my opinion.
Seriously, with the importance of the Internet in everyday life, is there a case that this actually infringes on a person's civil rights, or at least on their basic rights?
Yes, I know Internet usage is not a civil right per se. However, in the USA and Canada, it's becoming extremely difficult to carry out certain basic functions off line. When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper?
Banning someone from internet access for something so trivial would severely restrict their life, IMHO.
...until a meteor hits a major city. Then people will be asking why NASA didn't do anything even though they cut their budget to near nothing.
No, the scenario for when that happens was already established by 9/11:
Politicians will say that it was lack of tax dollars (rather than the waste thereof) that led to this, and will use it as an excuse to dramatically raise taxes, and about 5% of the increase will be spent on NASA. The rest will be spent on wars, useless bureaucracy, and lining certain people's pockets.
Anyone who even vaguely objects will be shouted down to the cries of "Do you want everyone to be killed by another meteor?" "Think of the children," and "We have to sacrifice some of our money if we want to be safe!"
The scary thing is, I can easily see this happening, and I can see people defending it vigorously.
Hardly - a person in their late teens in the mid 60s would be in their late 50s now.
How about all the young Barry Goldwater Republicans? Plenty of them around now in their 50s.
As a matter of fact, some of them are even having a significant impact (not in a good way, I admit) on current US politics. Hillary Clinton was a "Goldwater Republican" back in the day. Of course, she turned to the dark side..
Regardless, we're not talking about Lincoln or the Civil War here - it's recent history and there are plenty of people actively around from that time. They're not gone. Just silent, corrupted, or jaded into apathy.
What does matter, very much, is that the party which builds its entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values continues to embrace these people.
I am always amazed at how the anti-Republican bias comes out in this way.
The rabid concentration on "God, Country, Traditional Values" is a more recent development in the Republican party.
It wasn't always like this - Regan started the trend (trying to capture the evangelical crowd) to some degree, and it went into overdrive with the current President.
The Republican party was truly about limited government, and protecting freedoms. But, it was protecting freedoms FROM BEING TAKEN AWAY BY THE GOVERNMENT.
People seem to forget that not so long ago (the 1960's!) the Democrats were FOR segregation, and the Republicans were AGAINST it. Yet now, somehow Democrats are "the only ones with a conscience" and the Republicans are the "Racist bigots."
Traditional Republicans that I know are outraged at the current state of the party. The blind faith, the Patriot Act, massive overspending, foreign interventionism, and big government are about as UN-Republican as you can get.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is not the distro you're looking for..."
"You can move about your business..."- 1 Redundant?
I know I said "mod me down for redundant crybabying" but I though on Slashdot that meant:
"Please don't mod me down, I'm a redundant crybaby, you insensitive clod!"You're giving legislators way too much credit.
I'm sure a good rhetorician would be able to argue this point.
But, no matter how good his argument, the ONLY thing on the evening news will be "Senator supports child porn as therapy... pictures at 11."
And they know it.
OK, I try not to gripe about most of what the government wastes my tax dollars on, but seriously. Mod me down for redundant crybabying, but...... What on god's green earth could they actually need $1 Billion for? OK, I know that's redundant, in that they almost never need these amounts, and that it's mostly waste, but I am truly mystified as to how they can even PRETEND to need it. I RTFA and I can't even tell what they're planning to spend it on. 250 new agents beefing up the monitoring system, and a new "forensics" lab for past crimes (read: data mining)? That's not $1 Billion. I'm sure there are privacy threats in this too, but I have to say that one of the things that offends me most about this is that they're using MY tax dollars for this... and I get essentially no say in it whatsoever.
I don't think that's quite a fair parallel.
I also don't think it's quite right to lump Tibet and Taiwan together in this argument. Tibet, whatever the rights and wrongs, has actually been occupied by the PRC since the '50s. Taiwan, since the end of the Chinese Civil War, has never been occupied by the PRC. Indeed, for many years it was considered "China" by much of the west.
It's more like, say, American Samoa or Puerto Rico being shown as different countries.
This is actually a very good point, in my opinion.
Seriously, with the importance of the Internet in everyday life, is there a case that this actually infringes on a person's civil rights, or at least on their basic rights?
Yes, I know Internet usage is not a civil right per se. However, in the USA and Canada, it's becoming extremely difficult to carry out certain basic functions off line. When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper?
Banning someone from internet access for something so trivial would severely restrict their life, IMHO.
...until a meteor hits a major city. Then people will be asking why NASA didn't do anything even though they cut their budget to near nothing.No, the scenario for when that happens was already established by 9/11:
Politicians will say that it was lack of tax dollars (rather than the waste thereof) that led to this, and will use it as an excuse to dramatically raise taxes, and about 5% of the increase will be spent on NASA. The rest will be spent on wars, useless bureaucracy, and lining certain people's pockets.
Anyone who even vaguely objects will be shouted down to the cries of "Do you want everyone to be killed by another meteor?" "Think of the children," and "We have to sacrifice some of our money if we want to be safe!"
The scary thing is, I can easily see this happening, and I can see people defending it vigorously.
Actual Republicans of yesteryear gone?
Hardly - a person in their late teens in the mid 60s would be in their late 50s now.
How about all the young Barry Goldwater Republicans? Plenty of them around now in their 50s.
As a matter of fact, some of them are even having a significant impact (not in a good way, I admit) on current US politics. Hillary Clinton was a "Goldwater Republican" back in the day. Of course, she turned to the dark side..
Regardless, we're not talking about Lincoln or the Civil War here - it's recent history and there are plenty of people actively around from that time. They're not gone. Just silent, corrupted, or jaded into apathy.
I am always amazed at how the anti-Republican bias comes out in this way.
The rabid concentration on "God, Country, Traditional Values" is a more recent development in the Republican party.
It wasn't always like this - Regan started the trend (trying to capture the evangelical crowd) to some degree, and it went into overdrive with the current President.
The Republican party was truly about limited government, and protecting freedoms. But, it was protecting freedoms FROM BEING TAKEN AWAY BY THE GOVERNMENT.
People seem to forget that not so long ago (the 1960's!) the Democrats were FOR segregation, and the Republicans were AGAINST it. Yet now, somehow Democrats are "the only ones with a conscience" and the Republicans are the "Racist bigots."
Traditional Republicans that I know are outraged at the current state of the party. The blind faith, the Patriot Act, massive overspending, foreign interventionism, and big government are about as UN-Republican as you can get.
No points for guessing who I voted for this time!