How are you any better? You are simply repeating the Obama and Democratic talking points
Actually I did no such thing. You have a political agenda and you want to see the Obama bogey man everywhere so you do.
- About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance.
Ok, so this tells me three things.
1) You are, or think you are, rich. You like things the way they are and will go through any contortions to convince yourself and others to keep them that way. In short, you are just acting out of your own self-interest.
2) You have never had a major illness. If you think 10% of Americans can absorb the cost you are frankly delusional or completely unacquainted with what the uninsured are charged. Go ahead, risk a kidney transplant. Maybe you can afford it and the 80k a year (for the rest of your life because you will never get insurance again) you'll need for ongoing drugs.
3) You have no idea what the top 10% can afford. If you were serious you would admit that maybe the top 2 of people could risk this. Peope, even those making 100k+ per year would be out of their freaking minds not to get insurance.
And then there's the many people that checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 20%.
Oh, the very scientific "many people" on which your statistic are based. Right. How could anyone doubt that?
And, of course, you fully supported SCHIP, SSI and Medicaid. You're just that kind of caring guy. So why not just transfer those funds into a public option then? Harder to nickle and dime and screw people in committee in the future, eh?
Why do you want to ignore their opinion - do you not believe in democracy?
Fine. Let's have a special election next month on health care - yes or no. What? What? Oh, you shut up pretty quick didn't you?
Like Grandma Pelosi who called us "unAmerican" because we dared to speak up at townmeetings.
Actually you just looked like a bunch of jack asses. Please, speak out more.
Ok, I can see you have your little no-nothing friends modding me down so good luck living your "rich" life. Don't forget to add in the costs of private protection for your family. Since you want to live in a Mexico City society you;ll have to try and survive in such a society.
Your paragraph means NOTHING next to actual statistics.
What are you, the comic relief?
You might want to meditate on the meaning of "actual". Because it is has nothing to do with the bullshit the OP is peddling.
If you would rather believe some number that an interest group or the media makes up rather than the evidence right before your eyes then go right ahead. But, for god's sake, drop the pretense of being learned.
Maybe YOU should take a look at the 16% who don't have health insurance
People like you just piss me off. You read some right wing horse shit and go around spouting it as if you actually know something. Ten bucks says you couldn't spell health insurance two months ago and now you are a self-proclaimed expert with deep insights.
You want to know how I know you are full of shit? Because I occasionally get my ass out from behind a computer screen and actually meet and talk to people. It's really not that hard - it just takes a personality and a bit of heart - and they will talk to you. Go to any shit ass business, and there are hundreds of them w/i a couple of square miles of where you stand, and ask people about their health insurance. Or lack of it. And realize what a stupid, self-absorbed blow hole you have been.
Two years ago my cousin died of cancer because of no insurance. Yeah, he made the mistake of turning 50 years old and at the first opportunity his Fortune 500 company found a way to dump him. Bye bye insurance. Hello shitty, low paying, insurance-you-must-be-joking jobs. All that "care" he was suppose to get? Yeah, good luck getting medicare in his state if you aren't living in a box on the street. All that "hospitals have to help you" shit? Good fucking luck as they shuffle you around and the paper work always seems to get lost until, surprise, surprise - you are dead.
I'm sorry but fuck you and all your health care FUD.
You can't allow mule headed stubbornness to defeat the law.
Right. It's not as if the law has anything to do with justice. It's all about the State, or one asshole judge, imposing its will.
And if the law is totally whacked - say forcing men who have been proven via DNA not to be fathers pay child support - too bad. That's the price of "social stability".
They won't move for reasons I haven't seen mentioned yet. They tend to like things like reliable infrastructures, relatively fair legal systems, etc. And the most important thing of all - the protection of the United States and its military. When country X decides to nationalize their factories and imprison their executives, I'm guessing that knowing the Cayman Islands stands ready to retaliate will be small comfort.
Outsourcing was BIG under the Clinton administration.
You are right about Clinton. The jury is still out on Obama.
Let's remember that Clinton was THE poster boy for the Democratic Leadership Council, the corporate propaganda outlet of the Democratic Party. This group is largely responsible for there being no real difference between parties when it comes corporate influence on policy and legislation. They wanted to get a piece of the corporate gravy train and they sold their souls to get it.
The future? Well, did you discern any difference between the number of private corporate parties given at the Democratic versus Republican conventions? I didn't. Do we think that $175 million of largely corporate money for the inauguration will be free? Regardless of much integrity Obama may have, it is hard to ignore that kind of pressure. Telecom immunity, anyone?
With this vote, Obama seems to support greater government accountability.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The so-called protections in the recent legislation are a joke. Frankly FISA itself was pretty much a joke in that something like 5 warrants were denied in 30+ years. This current legislation is so bad it made people fight to the end just to keep that old lame level of protection. Don't drink the Washington and MSM kool-aid. It is time to accept that there are now effectively no protections or limits to government power in this area.
Unless you think Obama is an idiot, he did not vote for accountability. Depending on your point of view he either made a smart political calculation or cynically pissed on your rights during his ride to the White House.
Under no circumstances do you deserve a job or should a job be rightfully yours; anyone offering the job, thus, can hire (and fire) for any reason whatsoever. You have no "right" to a job, from anyone....Because once again, the job is not yours for the taking, it is a position offered by someone else, and they can choose and discriminate in any sense they see fit, be they only hire friends or people they personally like, or people that can do the job th
Again, I am not arguing that anyone is entitled to a job. You don't seem stupid so I have to assume you are just being deliberately obtuse in repeating this point in an effort to conceal a losing argument.
And, no, you don't have the right to "discriminate in any sense you see fit". It might be something you would like to do but if you have been discriminating on the very well know parameters of race, gender, etc., during the last 40 or so years you may have been breaking the law.
People keep voting in one half of the criminals--"the people" are truly the gatekeepers in the end, not business--and then business, they are continually patronized by "the people"...
This is interesting but rather off-point. Boycotts and such do offer another avenue to redress matters but don't negate the need to protect political activity directly from corporate interference. It's an additional weapon but not a solution unto itself.
And I have to mention your classic "but are unwilling to accept the tradeoffs and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself" remark. Why is that conservative and pro-business types are always so quick to portray themselves as self-reliant individualists when it is the furthest thing from the truth? At the first sign of competition or any threat to their income streams they flood their lobbyists and trade organizations with cash and go whining to their congressmen for special dispensations. But should an ordinary citizen or consumer seek relief they are tarred as weak and aiming to enlarge the nanny state. It's rank hypocrisy. This isn't the 80s anymore and no one buys it.
Thank you for your whitewashing of Marxism 101 with rather vague "happy sentiments" like "democracy", "political activism", "a balance of power", etc, but you've said rather nothing there.
SWOOSH! If you didn't understand my response to your inane remark the first time I doubt a second attempt will help.
If the corporate foot is on your neck...
I'm sorry but these are four paragraphs of nonsense and invalid assumptions about me and the world not worthy of a response. You are arguing with some little preconceived model in your head, not me.
Ironically being able to publicly see who you donate money to, above $200, is legislation passed by what I assume to be the party that more identifies with your political outlook, the Democrats. Assuming you agree with this, it shows you really do want it all, don't you? You want "openness" and then complain about people being able to scrutinize what you do!
Where is the inconsistency? The information can be publicly available. I am arguing that it shouldn't be accessed or screened by corporations as a basis employment. A corporation may discover I am black or female the moment I walk through the door. That doesn't give them the right to deny me a job on that basis.
And yes, I do want it all - or at least to strive for it. At no point in history has the country been perfect but it moves forward because there are people who push it - unlike all those "self-reliant" folks who are willing to accept "That's just the way it is."
You aren't owed a job, nor are you owed their money. A fascinating concept.
And a concept you came up with all on your own since it has nothing to do with anything I said. A classic attempt at a straw man argument, though perhaps you knew that already.
Again, this "gimme" mentality is frightening: you are not owed the job, it is not something you are "entitled" to, they offer it to whom they want, when they want, much like you call up the plumber when you want and on your terms (and what they agree with).
And all of this has what to do with legal protections against being terminated (or not hired) for political activities? I am not arguing that anyone is "entitled" a job. I'm arguing that their politics (like race, gender, age, etc) should not be considered in hiring or as cause for termination. It's not that radical an idea.
I find it strange when you talk about business getting a stranglehold on government, when that's really a different issue and your solution is... more government? What do you think is going to happen?
You find it strange because you either have never engaged in political activity or haven't thought about the current environment. Or both.
Business controls the political process through money, not numbers. The other 90+ percent of the population has its vote (numbers) and its willingness to invest energy in the political activity. Through (political) employment discrimination business has cast a chill on people's willingness to invest their private time and energy in political change. The act of exercising your rights as a citizen could cost you your livelihood. So business not only perverts the system through its cash but also the sword it wields over people's income. That's unacceptable and a danger to democracy itself.
Short of killing business executives, how would you expect to redress the situation if not by the power of government? All efforts thus far to limit the influence of money on the political process have failed and as long as money is considered speech (and corporations considered "persons") it isn't going to change. At least by preventing business from engaging in political employment discrimination some manner of balance can be maintained.
It has nothing to do with Rambo; it has more to do with not accepting communist principles and the idea that that world is supposed to work exactly as I want it to all the time.
By "communist principles" you must mean commitment to democracy, multi-party voting, political activism, and a balance of power through equal votes and legal protections.
Sorry but your effort to paint people as ingrates for wanting to remove the corporate foot from their necks just isn't working for a lot of us.
Maybe you should be more careful about your own reputation if it's so sullied you cannot find a job, or be a little smarter with what you say to people.
And maybe it would behoove you to not see the world quite so simplistically. Activities as basic as making a charitable contribution can be looked up online in seconds. In the electronic age it is an almost effortless exercise to ruin someone's reputation and there are companies that can be hired to both destroy and attempt to resurrect someone. Think about that for awhile and see if you still feel as smug about the issue.
Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.
Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.
"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.
That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.
No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.
It looks like more than one reason but it really isn't.
What you list is very old knowledge dating at least as far back as the Romans and generally referred to as "bread and circuses". In essence, keep the populace fed and distracted and they won't rebel.
You miss one very big innovation against dissent in modern America though - the corporate culture. The world of employment - background checks, drug tests, internet searches of what potential (and actual) employees are doing, etc. - puts a whole extra layer of difficulty and fear between citizens and their government. In most states you can be fired for any reason at all and have no legal recourse. That not only chills but deep freezes a lot of free speech and expression. Without laws to curb the corporations democracy, or what is left of it, is ultimately screwed.
Under the law, someone presents them with a certification that they have authority for the tap they are requesting. This could be a court order or a certification from the AG or one of the offices designated. The telecoms don't institute a court proceeding to see if the order is legal or anything.
So you are saying that after more than 30 years of FISA the telecomms didn't know that installing taps that suck up virtually ALL the phone and internet traffic on millions of people wasn't illegal because someone may, or may not, have given them a piece a paper? This didn't strike them as the slightest bit odd? Their $800/hr lawyers took one look and said all was peachy keen, no worries? Just how much glue to do you inhale on a daily basis?
Your second paragraph is complete rubbish as well, as another poster noted elsewhere.
Are these your idea of vibrant economies? Shouldn't they be rolling in money from all those outsourced jobs?
More than 20 state pay HIGHER than the federal minimum wage. Now YOU find reputable evidence that they have lost significant numbers of jobs? Did their hotels close? Is everyone now mowing their own lawns? Did the fast food industry collapse?
It sounds more like you're going off half cocked on something you know very little about.
You see, I could have conceded some of your better points, agreed to disagree, and wished us both luck that Obama gets elected and that he turns out to be the leader we both hope. Instead, you have to be a douche bag and say something like that - for the SECOND time. You see a high UID and think I am a passionate but imprudent 20yo when in fact you have no idea of the depth of my knowledge or commitment. Here's a hint: the first campaign I worked on was for Eugene McCarthy and chances are things I have forgotten about politics you have yet to learn.
Fine, you want to protect your candidate. I get it. We can argue numbers and all manner of inside baseball tidbits until our fingers bleed. Personally I think the chances of criminal prosecutions are about as likely revisiting Iran-Contra. But it is all besides the point.
It doesn't matter whether the Dems can win the argument over FISA, it is important that they MAKE it and it is important that Obama be seen to lead. The careful (and arguably correct) political calculus you lay out isn't "change", it is more of the same. Picking only fights you know you can win isn't leadership. Standing up for what is right even when you know you are going to lose is leadership. The fight begets its own rewards and if they don't win this time they have laid out the intellectual terrain for the next fight rather than just letting the Republicans define the parameters while they cower because they might be called bad names like "weak".
Change doesn't come with a single election or a single person. It comes with a long term effort to lay out the arguments, fight for them, and convince people over time that you are right. The biggest majority in history won't bring change if the elected officials don't stand for much of anything and haven't earned the right to wield power.
If you look at the House vote it's pretty apparent that most of the Democrats who voted for the FISA amendment were either blue dogs, up for a tough reelection in a swing state, or both.
105 Dem congressmen voted for and 128 against. If you think there are 105 blue dog Dems in the House then YOU don't know what you are talking about. Incumbent congressmen almost NEVER lose and in a year when the Republican brand is as popular as child molestation most of those congressmen have nothing whatsoever to fear.
The whole point of this "change" mantra is to create a working majority and seek compromises that are in the best interests of everyone.
Capitulation is not compromise. This FISA bill in in the interests of no one but the Bush administration and a hand full of corporations. If you can't stand up for what is right in something this clear cut then chances are that you won't do it next time or the time after that.
However, we don't know at this time if Obama is actually providing any support in rounding up the necessary votes.
He is not just another senator now. He is the de facto leader of the party. If he can't get 39 other Dems to kill this then he (a) doesn't really want to do so or (b) isn't the leader he claims.
It's time to roll up the "change" mantra and throw it out like soiled bedding. This is politics-as-usual. Sorry, but in my experience when candidates take the safe way out it is an indication that they will do the same when in office. There are always political risks and voters to be alienated. Either they are the kind of persons who take principled stances or they aren't.
People are begging for a leader and Obama just disappointed them again.
They were asked to help their country and got some bad legal advice.
The companies knew they were breaking the law. They have the best FISA lawyers in the world on retainer but decided to break the law anyway.
But it really isn't about the corporations or the outcome of law suits. By granting them immunity the illegal Bush programs will never make it to court and thus the public will never know exactly what went on or how extensive the spying is. Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is obeying any laws at all in an area they can keep in the dark just by mumbling "National Security"?
supported giving a $300 billion tax-payer funded corporate bail out...
It never ceases to amaze me. The return on investment for contributing (bribing) to federal legislators is just phenomenal. There is nothing else like it in the known universe. For a couple hundred thousand you can often walk away with tens of millions. Politicians seem to have little sense of the value of their favors or they wouldn't sell themselves so cheaply. Maybe the fact that it isn't their money has something to do with it...
CEO's do not set their own compensation, the board of directors does.
You clearly have no idea how things work in the real world. CEOs always try to pack the Board with their supporters, cut deals on the Board's compensation based on their own, recommend Directors for seats on other companies' boards, etc.
Now carry on with your ignorant corporate cheerleading.
It seems like the folks pursuing the holy grail of machine sentience have always looked to birth a fully adult machine sentience.
Put another way, they have largely tried to build a brain w/o a nervous system. For some specific AIs that might be ok but for the grand promise that everyone expects, a machine needs sensors and the ability to build its own world map that grows and changes over time. Sorry, but some pre-fab knowledge database will never cut it. In this sense I think Phillipe Kahn probably has it right when he focuses on sensors.
It's also necessary to understand human intelligence as an evolutionary hack. We are at best composed of partially integrated components that evolved independently during different periods. The human being is the best argument against Intelligent Design and arguably not an optimal goal for an AI.
he *can't* be a messiah, even if people want him to be. Politics is *never* all about one person, no matter how powerful the office or influential the person, and so some degree compromise is inevitable.
Kudos for a well written and thoughtful post.
My objection is that there are some issues on which one does not compromise. And this is one. There is a bold line in the sand here. Not just immunity for a handful of corporations but the 4th Amendment itself.
This bill is not a compromise it is an abomination and it disturbs me that Obama seems to be slithering away. Sure, he says he will fight it but that just means he will put on a little show while everyone in the know understands that the deal has already been cut and it is all just theater at this point.
If Obama really stands for something, if he really has convictions and possesses the persuasive powers everyone has been led to believe, then he should be able to get the necessary Democratic senators to filibuster this thing into a procedural black hole.
I am tired of hearing candidates talk about how they are leaders. He's got the nomination. He is the defacto party leader. It's time to walk the walk. Let loose with an articulate explanation on why this bill undercuts everything American. Take a few of the millions he already has in the bank and convince voters on why they are bunch of knuckleheads if they fall for the spin that surrounds this bill. Stop being a play-it-safe candidate and LEAD NOW. He may loose a few votes in the shallow end of the gene pool but he will win over 10 ten times as many. People are practically begging for someone to stand up and do the right thing. Mr. Obama - Yes You Can!
Slashdot Mirror
How are you any better? You are simply repeating the Obama and Democratic talking points
Actually I did no such thing. You have a political agenda and you want to see the Obama bogey man everywhere so you do.
- About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance.
Ok, so this tells me three things.
1) You are, or think you are, rich. You like things the way they are and will go through any contortions to convince yourself and others to keep them that way. In short, you are just acting out of your own self-interest.
2) You have never had a major illness. If you think 10% of Americans can absorb the cost you are frankly delusional or completely unacquainted with what the uninsured are charged. Go ahead, risk a kidney transplant. Maybe you can afford it and the 80k a year (for the rest of your life because you will never get insurance again) you'll need for ongoing drugs.
3) You have no idea what the top 10% can afford. If you were serious you would admit that maybe the top 2 of people could risk this. Peope, even those making 100k+ per year would be out of their freaking minds not to get insurance.
And then there's the many people that checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 20%.
Oh, the very scientific "many people" on which your statistic are based. Right. How could anyone doubt that?
And, of course, you fully supported SCHIP, SSI and Medicaid. You're just that kind of caring guy. So why not just transfer those funds into a public option then? Harder to nickle and dime and screw people in committee in the future, eh?
Why do you want to ignore their opinion - do you not believe in democracy?
Fine. Let's have a special election next month on health care - yes or no. What? What? Oh, you shut up pretty quick didn't you?
Like Grandma Pelosi who called us "unAmerican" because we dared to speak up at townmeetings.
Actually you just looked like a bunch of jack asses. Please, speak out more.
Ok, I can see you have your little no-nothing friends modding me down so good luck living your "rich" life. Don't forget to add in the costs of private protection for your family. Since you want to live in a Mexico City society you;ll have to try and survive in such a society.
Your paragraph means NOTHING next to actual statistics.
What are you, the comic relief?
You might want to meditate on the meaning of "actual". Because it is has nothing to do with the bullshit the OP is peddling.
If you would rather believe some number that an interest group or the media makes up rather than the evidence right before your eyes then go right ahead. But, for god's sake, drop the pretense of being learned.
Maybe YOU should take a look at the 16% who don't have health insurance
People like you just piss me off. You read some right wing horse shit and go around spouting it as if you actually know something. Ten bucks says you couldn't spell health insurance two months ago and now you are a self-proclaimed expert with deep insights.
You want to know how I know you are full of shit? Because I occasionally get my ass out from behind a computer screen and actually meet and talk to people. It's really not that hard - it just takes a personality and a bit of heart - and they will talk to you. Go to any shit ass business, and there are hundreds of them w/i a couple of square miles of where you stand, and ask people about their health insurance. Or lack of it. And realize what a stupid, self-absorbed blow hole you have been.
Two years ago my cousin died of cancer because of no insurance. Yeah, he made the mistake of turning 50 years old and at the first opportunity his Fortune 500 company found a way to dump him. Bye bye insurance. Hello shitty, low paying, insurance-you-must-be-joking jobs. All that "care" he was suppose to get? Yeah, good luck getting medicare in his state if you aren't living in a box on the street. All that "hospitals have to help you" shit? Good fucking luck as they shuffle you around and the paper work always seems to get lost until, surprise, surprise - you are dead.
I'm sorry but fuck you and all your health care FUD.
You can't allow mule headed stubbornness to defeat the law.
Right. It's not as if the law has anything to do with justice. It's all about the State, or one asshole judge, imposing its will.
And if the law is totally whacked - say forcing men who have been proven via DNA not to be fathers pay child support - too bad. That's the price of "social stability".
Fuck that.
But... they won't want.
They won't move for reasons I haven't seen mentioned yet. They tend to like things like reliable infrastructures, relatively fair legal systems, etc. And the most important thing of all - the protection of the United States and its military. When country X decides to nationalize their factories and imprison their executives, I'm guessing that knowing the Cayman Islands stands ready to retaliate will be small comfort.
The problem was humans suck at telling robots what to do.
Most of them can barely control their dogs. Thankfully freaky smart and strong personal robots won't present such challenges. Ha!
Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote
As long as corporations can spend vast sums to confuse at least 50% of the voters and fill pockets on Capital Hill it doesn't much matter.
Outsourcing was BIG under the Clinton administration.
You are right about Clinton. The jury is still out on Obama.
Let's remember that Clinton was THE poster boy for the Democratic Leadership Council, the corporate propaganda outlet of the Democratic Party. This group is largely responsible for there being no real difference between parties when it comes corporate influence on policy and legislation. They wanted to get a piece of the corporate gravy train and they sold their souls to get it.
The future? Well, did you discern any difference between the number of private corporate parties given at the Democratic versus Republican conventions? I didn't. Do we think that $175 million of largely corporate money for the inauguration will be free? Regardless of much integrity Obama may have, it is hard to ignore that kind of pressure. Telecom immunity, anyone?
With this vote, Obama seems to support greater government accountability.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The so-called protections in the recent legislation are a joke. Frankly FISA itself was pretty much a joke in that something like 5 warrants were denied in 30+ years. This current legislation is so bad it made people fight to the end just to keep that old lame level of protection. Don't drink the Washington and MSM kool-aid. It is time to accept that there are now effectively no protections or limits to government power in this area.
Unless you think Obama is an idiot, he did not vote for accountability. Depending on your point of view he either made a smart political calculation or cynically pissed on your rights during his ride to the White House.
Under no circumstances do you deserve a job or should a job be rightfully yours; anyone offering the job, thus, can hire (and fire) for any reason whatsoever. You have no "right" to a job, from anyone....Because once again, the job is not yours for the taking, it is a position offered by someone else, and they can choose and discriminate in any sense they see fit, be they only hire friends or people they personally like, or people that can do the job th
Again, I am not arguing that anyone is entitled to a job. You don't seem stupid so I have to assume you are just being deliberately obtuse in repeating this point in an effort to conceal a losing argument.
And, no, you don't have the right to "discriminate in any sense you see fit". It might be something you would like to do but if you have been discriminating on the very well know parameters of race, gender, etc., during the last 40 or so years you may have been breaking the law.
People keep voting in one half of the criminals--"the people" are truly the gatekeepers in the end, not business--and then business, they are continually patronized by "the people"...
This is interesting but rather off-point. Boycotts and such do offer another avenue to redress matters but don't negate the need to protect political activity directly from corporate interference. It's an additional weapon but not a solution unto itself.
And I have to mention your classic "but are unwilling to accept the tradeoffs and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself" remark. Why is that conservative and pro-business types are always so quick to portray themselves as self-reliant individualists when it is the furthest thing from the truth? At the first sign of competition or any threat to their income streams they flood their lobbyists and trade organizations with cash and go whining to their congressmen for special dispensations. But should an ordinary citizen or consumer seek relief they are tarred as weak and aiming to enlarge the nanny state. It's rank hypocrisy. This isn't the 80s anymore and no one buys it.
Thank you for your whitewashing of Marxism 101 with rather vague "happy sentiments" like "democracy", "political activism", "a balance of power", etc, but you've said rather nothing there.
SWOOSH! If you didn't understand my response to your inane remark the first time I doubt a second attempt will help.
If the corporate foot is on your neck...
I'm sorry but these are four paragraphs of nonsense and invalid assumptions about me and the world not worthy of a response. You are arguing with some little preconceived model in your head, not me.
Ironically being able to publicly see who you donate money to, above $200, is legislation passed by what I assume to be the party that more identifies with your political outlook, the Democrats. Assuming you agree with this, it shows you really do want it all, don't you? You want "openness" and then complain about people being able to scrutinize what you do!
Where is the inconsistency? The information can be publicly available. I am arguing that it shouldn't be accessed or screened by corporations as a basis employment. A corporation may discover I am black or female the moment I walk through the door. That doesn't give them the right to deny me a job on that basis.
And yes, I do want it all - or at least to strive for it. At no point in history has the country been perfect but it moves forward because there are people who push it - unlike all those "self-reliant" folks who are willing to accept "That's just the way it is."
And a concept you came up with all on your own since it has nothing to do with anything I said. A classic attempt at a straw man argument, though perhaps you knew that already.
And all of this has what to do with legal protections against being terminated (or not hired) for political activities? I am not arguing that anyone is "entitled" a job. I'm arguing that their politics (like race, gender, age, etc) should not be considered in hiring or as cause for termination. It's not that radical an idea.
You find it strange because you either have never engaged in political activity or haven't thought about the current environment. Or both.
Business controls the political process through money, not numbers. The other 90+ percent of the population has its vote (numbers) and its willingness to invest energy in the political activity. Through (political) employment discrimination business has cast a chill on people's willingness to invest their private time and energy in political change. The act of exercising your rights as a citizen could cost you your livelihood. So business not only perverts the system through its cash but also the sword it wields over people's income. That's unacceptable and a danger to democracy itself.
Short of killing business executives, how would you expect to redress the situation if not by the power of government? All efforts thus far to limit the influence of money on the political process have failed and as long as money is considered speech (and corporations considered "persons") it isn't going to change. At least by preventing business from engaging in political employment discrimination some manner of balance can be maintained.
By "communist principles" you must mean commitment to democracy, multi-party voting, political activism, and a balance of power through equal votes and legal protections.
Sorry but your effort to paint people as ingrates for wanting to remove the corporate foot from their necks just isn't working for a lot of us.
And maybe it would behoove you to not see the world quite so simplistically. Activities as basic as making a charitable contribution can be looked up online in seconds. In the electronic age it is an almost effortless exercise to ruin someone's reputation and there are companies that can be hired to both destroy and attempt to resurrect someone. Think about that for awhile and see if you still feel as smug about the issue.
Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.
Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.
"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.
That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.
No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.
It looks like more than one reason but it really isn't.
What you list is very old knowledge dating at least as far back as the Romans and generally referred to as "bread and circuses". In essence, keep the populace fed and distracted and they won't rebel.
You miss one very big innovation against dissent in modern America though - the corporate culture. The world of employment - background checks, drug tests, internet searches of what potential (and actual) employees are doing, etc. - puts a whole extra layer of difficulty and fear between citizens and their government. In most states you can be fired for any reason at all and have no legal recourse. That not only chills but deep freezes a lot of free speech and expression. Without laws to curb the corporations democracy, or what is left of it, is ultimately screwed.
Under the law, someone presents them with a certification that they have authority for the tap they are requesting. This could be a court order or a certification from the AG or one of the offices designated. The telecoms don't institute a court proceeding to see if the order is legal or anything.
So you are saying that after more than 30 years of FISA the telecomms didn't know that installing taps that suck up virtually ALL the phone and internet traffic on millions of people wasn't illegal because someone may, or may not, have given them a piece a paper? This didn't strike them as the slightest bit odd? Their $800/hr lawyers took one look and said all was peachy keen, no worries? Just how much glue to do you inhale on a daily basis?
Your second paragraph is complete rubbish as well, as another poster noted elsewhere.
Refute it or accept it. Or just walk away.
States with no minimum wage (but must follow federal wage): Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee.
Poverty rate: Alabama (7th), Louisiana (2nd), Mississippi (1st), South Carolina (10th), Tennessee (11th).
Are these your idea of vibrant economies? Shouldn't they be rolling in money from all those outsourced jobs?
More than 20 state pay HIGHER than the federal minimum wage. Now YOU find reputable evidence that they have lost significant numbers of jobs? Did their hotels close? Is everyone now mowing their own lawns? Did the fast food industry collapse?
Actually the first and only goal of the government should be to uphold the rights of its citizenry, but feel free to continue to mischaracterize.
What's astonishing is that you can say that with a straight face less than 24 hours after the FISA vote.
It sounds more like you're going off half cocked on something you know very little about.
You see, I could have conceded some of your better points, agreed to disagree, and wished us both luck that Obama gets elected and that he turns out to be the leader we both hope. Instead, you have to be a douche bag and say something like that - for the SECOND time. You see a high UID and think I am a passionate but imprudent 20yo when in fact you have no idea of the depth of my knowledge or commitment. Here's a hint: the first campaign I worked on was for Eugene McCarthy and chances are things I have forgotten about politics you have yet to learn.
Fine, you want to protect your candidate. I get it. We can argue numbers and all manner of inside baseball tidbits until our fingers bleed. Personally I think the chances of criminal prosecutions are about as likely revisiting Iran-Contra. But it is all besides the point.
It doesn't matter whether the Dems can win the argument over FISA, it is important that they MAKE it and it is important that Obama be seen to lead. The careful (and arguably correct) political calculus you lay out isn't "change", it is more of the same. Picking only fights you know you can win isn't leadership. Standing up for what is right even when you know you are going to lose is leadership. The fight begets its own rewards and if they don't win this time they have laid out the intellectual terrain for the next fight rather than just letting the Republicans define the parameters while they cower because they might be called bad names like "weak".
Change doesn't come with a single election or a single person. It comes with a long term effort to lay out the arguments, fight for them, and convince people over time that you are right. The biggest majority in history won't bring change if the elected officials don't stand for much of anything and haven't earned the right to wield power.
But we can hope...
You forgot COBOL.
You forgot Forth, a write-only language if there ever was one.
If you look at the House vote it's pretty apparent that most of the Democrats who voted for the FISA amendment were either blue dogs, up for a tough reelection in a swing state, or both.
105 Dem congressmen voted for and 128 against. If you think there are 105 blue dog Dems in the House then YOU don't know what you are talking about. Incumbent congressmen almost NEVER lose and in a year when the Republican brand is as popular as child molestation most of those congressmen have nothing whatsoever to fear.
The whole point of this "change" mantra is to create a working majority and seek compromises that are in the best interests of everyone.
Capitulation is not compromise. This FISA bill in in the interests of no one but the Bush administration and a hand full of corporations. If you can't stand up for what is right in something this clear cut then chances are that you won't do it next time or the time after that.
However, we don't know at this time if Obama is actually providing any support in rounding up the necessary votes.
He is not just another senator now. He is the de facto leader of the party. If he can't get 39 other Dems to kill this then he (a) doesn't really want to do so or (b) isn't the leader he claims.
It's time to roll up the "change" mantra and throw it out like soiled bedding. This is politics-as-usual. Sorry, but in my experience when candidates take the safe way out it is an indication that they will do the same when in office. There are always political risks and voters to be alienated. Either they are the kind of persons who take principled stances or they aren't.
People are begging for a leader and Obama just disappointed them again.
They were asked to help their country and got some bad legal advice.
The companies knew they were breaking the law. They have the best FISA lawyers in the world on retainer but decided to break the law anyway.
But it really isn't about the corporations or the outcome of law suits. By granting them immunity the illegal Bush programs will never make it to court and thus the public will never know exactly what went on or how extensive the spying is. Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is obeying any laws at all in an area they can keep in the dark just by mumbling "National Security"?
supported giving a $300 billion tax-payer funded corporate bail out...
It never ceases to amaze me. The return on investment for contributing (bribing) to federal legislators is just phenomenal. There is nothing else like it in the known universe. For a couple hundred thousand you can often walk away with tens of millions. Politicians seem to have little sense of the value of their favors or they wouldn't sell themselves so cheaply. Maybe the fact that it isn't their money has something to do with it...
CEO's do not set their own compensation, the board of directors does.
You clearly have no idea how things work in the real world. CEOs always try to pack the Board with their supporters, cut deals on the Board's compensation based on their own, recommend Directors for seats on other companies' boards, etc.
Now carry on with your ignorant corporate cheerleading.
It seems like the folks pursuing the holy grail of machine sentience have always looked to birth a fully adult machine sentience.
Put another way, they have largely tried to build a brain w/o a nervous system. For some specific AIs that might be ok but for the grand promise that everyone expects, a machine needs sensors and the ability to build its own world map that grows and changes over time. Sorry, but some pre-fab knowledge database will never cut it. In this sense I think Phillipe Kahn probably has it right when he focuses on sensors.
It's also necessary to understand human intelligence as an evolutionary hack. We are at best composed of partially integrated components that evolved independently during different periods. The human being is the best argument against Intelligent Design and arguably not an optimal goal for an AI.
he *can't* be a messiah, even if people want him to be. Politics is *never* all about one person, no matter how powerful the office or influential the person, and so some degree compromise is inevitable.
Kudos for a well written and thoughtful post.
My objection is that there are some issues on which one does not compromise. And this is one. There is a bold line in the sand here. Not just immunity for a handful of corporations but the 4th Amendment itself.
This bill is not a compromise it is an abomination and it disturbs me that Obama seems to be slithering away. Sure, he says he will fight it but that just means he will put on a little show while everyone in the know understands that the deal has already been cut and it is all just theater at this point.
If Obama really stands for something, if he really has convictions and possesses the persuasive powers everyone has been led to believe, then he should be able to get the necessary Democratic senators to filibuster this thing into a procedural black hole.
I am tired of hearing candidates talk about how they are leaders. He's got the nomination. He is the defacto party leader. It's time to walk the walk. Let loose with an articulate explanation on why this bill undercuts everything American. Take a few of the millions he already has in the bank and convince voters on why they are bunch of knuckleheads if they fall for the spin that surrounds this bill. Stop being a play-it-safe candidate and LEAD NOW. He may loose a few votes in the shallow end of the gene pool but he will win over 10 ten times as many. People are practically begging for someone to stand up and do the right thing. Mr. Obama - Yes You Can!