Mac Pros are overpriced, everyone knows. But Apple is seriously doing themselves harm on RAM pricing.
To add 8GB on a Mac Pro Quad Core from Apple, it's $1500. From anyone else, it's $250. And people are making noise on how they're ready for the enterprise market? Please. It's getting to the point where Adobe could sell the software AND the computer if it were running on Linux for less money than a Mac Pro flush with RAM. Seems like dangerous territory to me.
Terrorism has always been defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political goals. For states, of course, this definition only applies to the "enemy", which in a sweet twist of fate, includes enemies both foreign and domestic.
The military is a terrorist organization when used in an aggressive manner not congruent with international law. But of course the rules only apply to "them" and not "us."
The last administrations have done nothing to return states rights, and in fact have moved the Executive Branch further outside the bounds of congressional and even judicial oversight. There's no such thing as left and right in American Government. They pander to the left or the right, but their focus is on more government control. They both start the same wars, participate in the same corruption.
The two wedge issues are gay marriage and abortion for the right, which would never survive the "clear and secular purpose" litmus test, and the wedge issues for the left are "Bush is dumb" and "we want change," despite the fact there are no real policy differences. One side refuses to take nuclear options off the table in dealing with Iran, and the other side refuses to take nuclear options off the table when dealing with Iran.
It's really quite beautiful when you think about it. America is a One Party State, complete with gerrymandered lines and mass media that shuts out thirty party options. Why argue about things like our right to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations when you can just leave that out of the discussion entirely?
The dollar is dropping like a rock. If they are an international company, they probably have no choice. When did they make this contract? They may even be getting screwed.
There's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. There is no voice of dissent in American media. Issues that are important are simply left out of the discussion entirely. (Example: how many civilians should we be allowed to kill rather than should be we killing civilians in the first place?)
It's brought employment. "From 2000 through 2005, U.S. multinationals eliminated 2.1 million jobs at home while adding 784,000 to their payrolls abroad, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis." -USAToday
Audi announces that they will not be able to import one of their cars to the USA because of the dollar. So Audi said the dollar is so worthless, they won't bother selling cars to us... and this is a good sign?
BMW announces they will be building a new kind of car in the USA rather than in Germany, and the Japanese continue to build plants in the USA Right. Their workers would demand things like health care, vacation time, a pension plan, and other things enjoyed by all other western workers. Per hour worked, we're the lowest paid, so I guess we should start celebrating that the industries who destroyed the middle class by moving their operations outside the United States, taking advantage of deferred profit loopholes, have returned to give us the same jobs for less money and virtually no benefits? Where can I send a thank you note?
The whole notion that terrorism is a law enforcement matter is absurd... Terrorism is no different than piracy... I'm talking about the modern world, and you're talking about pirates. Unfortunately for you, you picked up on a wonderful example on the depth of morality of those in power. Piracy is committed by those without country - ie, those without power - and privateering is the exact same act committed by those backed by a country - ie, those with power.
Similarly, terrorism is "the enemy" using violence and threats of force to get what "they" want when "they" do not have the official sanction of a recognized state. The War on Terrorism is using violence and threats of force to get what "we" want by using violence and threatening to use force. In this latest round, "we" have directly killed a hundred thousand people, detained over 80,000 without due process, displaced three million Iraqis and a few hundred thousand Afghanis, created a paradise for terrorists who want to train in militias, all in response after "they" killed three thousand civilians in what is undoubtedly the worst terrorist act in history.
Irregardless, let's approach the situation from your point of view. Let's assume that we follow the funding to the source, and bomb the country responsible. (Never mind the argument that we have no legal right to do so under international law.)
The 9/11 Commission said the funding was acquired mostly through "witting and unwitting donors, mostly in the gulf region." I presume these are personal donations through mosques and other NGOs. Over 75% of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We've got money coming from everywhere in the world, funneled into Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the majority being spent keeping the Taliban quiet and well fed as a cover for operations in Afghanistan. If we follow your logic, which countries do we declare war on? How many neighbors of "terrorists" have to die before we stop bombing, or do we just kill civilians in perpetuity for the actions of a non-government organization? Why did we invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia or the UAE, or maintain enough troops in Afghanistan and bring security to the entire country instead of just the capital?
And if terrorism isn't a law enforcement matter, why didn't we bomb the family and neighbors of Timothy McVeigh for harboring terrorists, and wiretap their phones, and render them to other countries where we could torture them?
Oh, that's right. He's one of "us" not one of "them" and is subject to different rules, because we have zero moral integrity.
McCarthy created a national climate of fear over the whole media. There's no media that is afraid of Bush.... His toughest interview was in Ireland. But it's really besides the point.
It is true that the new McCarthyism is less visible, but I believe that's only because it's very difficult to call someone a conspirator and get away with it. If they don't like you, they'll just forget to validate your press pass and cause you to lose your job, or perhaps expose your wife's secret identity through surrogates in the media...
Habeas Corpus isn't suspended for any US Citizen Wrong. Jose Padilla is a good name to start with.
No one knows how many US citizens are being held, because they are secret proceedings done by the military with no oversight, where the accused has no access to view the evidence against them, since it is also secret. This is the kind of thing that caused the Revolutionary War. According to the military, 150 detainees have died while in custody since 2001.
Wiretapping is about Americans getting calls from people overseas in Islamic countries, and that's probably pretty reasonable Sorta-kinda mostly liberty-like feeling or death?
Bush didn't run the economy into the ground, rather the American people ran themselves into the ground because we've chosen to borrow rather than save It's hard to save when you are earning less money than your parents did at the same age, working 10-15 more hours per week, and dealing with an astronomical increase in health care and energy costs.
The price of oil quintupling had nothing to do with the war... http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-IraqOil_10bus.ART.North.Edition1.42010ac.html
Right.
The dollar contraction in value is by design and is designed to foster American exports in manufacturered [sic] goods. Exports are up. Hooray! What benefit has that brought to the average American worker? Are salaries up? Are benefits and retirement options up? Are we exporting technological goods that are bringing our standard of living higher, or just selling more crap that is now affordable to other western nations, allowing us to compete with fierce exporters like Indonesia and Thailand?
Your comments on the middle east echo that of liberals, in the true sense of the word, who have no memory of the past. Saddam Hussein was an American pawn who overstepped his bounds in Kuwait, and we didn't assassinate him because the first Bush Administration at least recognized that there is no exit strategy in Iraq, much like other oppressive Islamist regimes we have supported on and off since the 1960s. (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt...) Our purpose is not to spread freedom, else we wouldn't be selling arms to the Shah of Iran in the 70s, or to Saddam and Iran (in secret) in the 80s, and to Saudi Arabia (40 billion since 1990!). Our purpose is to maintain power in a region which holds vast natural resources.
You've fallen into the idea that there exists an entity known as "them" and another known as "us." The only way for fundamental human rights to continue existing is through law which is equally and universally applied, no matter how grotesque you think their actions or politics may be. The correct, legal way to approach the terrorist attacks of September 11th was to find evidence for the crime (remember, acts of war can only be committed by states or breakaway territories), trying the suspects, and then sentencing them. This is why we have the UN and the World Court.
Of course, if you have more faith in military might than the law, you're more than welcome to join the ranks of Stalin, Mussolini, Chairman Mao, and other glorious historical figures.
Whoa. Let me sort of agree with you... if the Bush administration had stuck to the platform of a humble foreign policy, they would have been alright.
All they've done is start a new age of McCarthyism, suspend habeas corpus, agree to formally demolish our borders with Mexico and Canada, extend the powers of the executive branch beyond the oversight of congress, lied under oath or refused to even testify about the terrorist attacks under oath, wiretapped American citizens who are 'guilty' of receiving 'suspicious' phone calls, run the economy into the ground... caused two to three trillion dollars of damage to our economy for a war that was both illegal and unnecessary, which also caused the price of oil to quintuple, and probably caused the sharpest devaluation of the American dollar since the depression...
I'm speaking here of fundamentalists from Christians, Muslims, Hindus, to whatever.
When a small, incredibly noisy portion of society is trying to drag us back into the stone age, people who know better have to speak up. Fundamentalists aren't satisfied with living their own lives. They have so little faith in their own belief system that they believe it needs to be legislated to everyone. Personally, I think this is because people are beginning to recognize intuitively that they would rather live without religion than without science, thus, the greatest threat to religion is the continued success of science, which by definition, is exclusive of a god or many gods.
If members of the scientific community do not speak up, the next generation of young people could hold the ideas of evolution and intelligent design as equals. Imagine that for a second: a veritable mountain of tested theory, which is congruent across every body of science we currently know, would carry the same weight as believing that an invisible man in the sky created the world in a week.
The most solid and clear test was provided by the supreme court over twenty years ago, as to whether something should be taught in government schools, or posted in front of government buildings: is there a clear, secular purpose? It's useful to keep repeating this when they try to dodge the question.
If you set a house on fire, and it causes the death of your neighbors (through fire) and another neighbor dies due to medical complications because the power to their home is lost, explain how the deaths aren't your fault. If you had never started the fire, they would be alive. It's pretty damn simple.
Notice how I'm completely excluding American involvement in WWII and WWI, because we responded to blatant national aggression with clear tactical goals and real international support. Mostly - get Germany subdued, get them back within their original borders, and get out. What's the goal of the War on Terror? Defeat terrorism? David Cross put it best: "You cannot win a war on terrorism. It's like trying to win a war on jealousy."
I have a sense of responsibility for America as an American, because it's the only place I have a voice.
If you believe respecting someone else's responsibility to themselves and the international community should involve bombing their country or sending paramilitary units to try and overthrow their democratically elected government, to be blunt, you're just fucking stupid.
I get numbers from several different sources. The most conservative is the Iraq Body Count, which only counts civilian deaths reported in the media, and only reports Iraq. Their estimate is around 85,000 for civilian deaths from violence. From various reports, about 3500 civilians were killed in the first Gulf War in Iraq - who knows how many were snuffed out after we left. At least a few hundred were killed as we sat and watched Saddam strafe civilian Kurds with helicopters before the troops left Iraq.
Afghanistan is a bit tricker, but I think 4,000 would be a safe number, based on yearly reports from early on in the war. At least 150 people have been tortured to death in US custody according to the US military. (Note: they call it homicide.)
These are only the verified reports, which total 92,500, and that's only in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you might imagine in a warzone, the probability of more civilian deaths than what is reported is pretty close to 100%.
Now, here's where our morality separates us. Regardless of America's intent, our policy has caused certain events to transpire. These are just the people who have died due to direct violence - blood and brains splattering on the walls and on the ground kind of stuff. It doesn't touch the number of people who have died due to medical failure, since we destroyed the vast majority of infrastructure in Iraq. Who knows how many have died due to exposure or sickness. 2,000,000 Iraqis have fled their homeland in desperation, so I can't imagine it's all peaches and cream over there.
Let us now examine what happens when the US leaves theaters of war. For instance, in Vietnam, at least three million civilians and one million combatants died - just on the "communist" side. After we left, more violence took place between the warring factions that were left. Perhaps two million civilians and combatants died in Cambodia, and another hundred thousand in the ensuing Sino-Vietnamese war.
In answer to your question, less people died after we left. However, the real question is not how many died before and after. It is how many would have died if we had stayed out of the mess entirely.
1. you present to me a crime the usa has committed 2. i am aware that this crime is also commited by most other countries in the world 3. therefore, i cannot hold this crime against the usa uniquely
Incorrect.
1. America is ignoring international law and human rights. 2. I would like America to abide by international law and Geneva Conventions. 3. I complain.
If everyone is murdering civilians in the street (which they aren't) then I could see your point.
namely,you wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of an idealized standard of behavior no one actually follows. meanwhile, i wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of its relative cleanliness or dirtiness as compared to other countries
No, you wish to imagine the behavior of the United States instead of simply observing it in comparison to other nations. Again, if you can show me any country which has killed more foreign civilians in the past twenty years, please provide their name.
which reveals a difference in our two goals. you wish to improve the behavior of the usa, and only the behavior of the usa. you only care how the maerican government behaves.
Incorrect. I can only affect the behavior of my own government. Wishing for other countries to change their behavior is exactly that: wishing. Participating in American politics is something which may be very foreign to you: doing.
if people are cnanibalizing each other south the rio grande, this is ok by you. but if the usa doesn't enforce handicapped parking rules, you are goign to scream high holy indignation.
Nice strawman. However, totally incomprehensible in relation to what I've said. We are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians abroad. I'd like us to stop. That's a real atrocity - not an imagined one. Once we solve our own problems, we can start helping others solve their own. You seem to be of the opinion that I should help my neighbor put out a fire in their back yard while my entire house is engulfed in flames.
frankly, this bias of yours is incpoatible with a moral point of pview. because if anything else, morality teraches us that all huamns must be considered equally. your own point of view is that people are valuable only if they are american. remember: you are the one, as stated by you, interested in only the behavior of americans. so you only care about the usa. which reveals your ethnocentrism
So, I'm ethnocentric because I want my government to stop killing foreigners?
you will excuse me, but i care about the entire world. i don't really care about fat people in north america. i care about the lives of poor africans, indonesians, brazilians. meanwhile, you don't really care about the suffering of these people. you only seem to care about the suffering of these people insofar as they are useful in your prosecution of the usa. because your goal, as stated by you and your focus on the golden rule, is only changing the behavior of the usa
Caring is nice, but summarily meaningless. If you think otherwise, try "caring" about people who are sick in Brazil, versus actually helping someone who lives in your neighborhood. Which action do you think would be more effective?
which is why you are absolutely useless, to the subjec tmatter you are invovled in: global subject matter. you need to focus your criticism to american domestic issues, or you need to lose your american-centered point of view. because you cannot talk about global issues with an american-centered point of view. this makes you morally and intellectually dishonest and useless on the questions you are involving yourself in
Your argument is coming off the rails, here. How, as an American demanding that America stop atrocities committed in other countries, am I "absolutely useless"? Shouldn't that be my reaction? Should I instead focus on how "caring" about the children in Africa will solve the problem of the United States blowing f
I forget to always put things in context, but sometimes that's important. I was in the realm of more modern Western colonial empires, excluding the Nazis and the Japanese. (I've read several accounts of the Rape of Nanking that still make me queasy.) And this also ignores atrocities committed inside borders - Rwanda, Stalinist Russia, etc.
I can think of only the Spanish and the British (pre-18th century colonialism) that have us beat off the top of my head, but I am not well versed in history before the industrial revolution.
I hope these qualifiers continue to be necessary. If we get involved with military action in Iran, I don't know if that will be the case.
In my opinion, debating the morality of ideas in the context of foreign policy is a waste of time. It's the morality of actions that matter.
You seem to think that holding the United States to account somehow excuses the rest of the world. I have never said that. What I have stated, is that we must modify our own behavior before we can expect anyone else to do the same. It's called the Golden Rule, and is the basis for pretty much every system of morality in the world. Furthermore, in the context of the modern world, America has been the most brutal military empire since the end of WWII, in any measurement I can think of - foreign civilians killed, military bases established, the number of conflicts we've been involved with, the amount of troops we have deployed throughout the world... I would invite you to present some counter-examples to this, as I'd love to know about them.
If you want to war with ideas and do nothing in reality, that's your choice. I'd like to participate in my democracy and change things instead of staring off into space.
Alright, maybe english is your second language or you're trolling. You keep repeating the same analogies, which are worthless.
If you want to argue ideas that accomplish nothing, that's fine. Call yourself moral all you want. The only person who will listen to that is you, and if that's the only person you're trying to impress, please, continue.
Have you noticed how the American government, in comparison to the noise about terrorism, says next to nothing about Myanmar, North Korea, and Zimbabwe? Did you miss the point I've made over and over about how we have literally sold weapons to nations who we knew were using those weapons for genocide? In order to tell anyone to stop their crimes against humanity, by virtue of common sense, you must stop your own first in order to have any credibility.
You live in fantasy world, where the US is somehow forced into doing bad things. The fact is, we can stop, and the fact remains, we haven't because our government does not care about doing good. They only care about maintaining power. How can we "fight the worst offender" when we are the worst offender?
Hilariously you state, "they think they are above the law of the input of their own citizens. this is the starting off point for the worst crimes on the planet." Have you been paying attention to all of the Executive orders passed by the President, which say that their part of the government cannot even be subjected to the oversight of Congress?
Morality is maintaining a standard of behavior, regardless of the circumstances. America's morality, if you want to call it that, boils down to a single criteria: whatever action a foreign government engages in is acceptable, as long as they do as they're told. Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds? No problem. Genocide and strife in Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Haiti? Who gives a shit. East Timorese being slaughtered in the street? Oh well, Indonesia needs weapons to kill them, and we're happy to provide them.
Saddam invading Kuwait without our permission? Problem. Cuba not allowing us to do whatever we want inside their borders? Problem. Palestine democratically electing people we don't like? Problem. Latin American countries daring to elect leaders who don't support US hegemony? Problem.
Stop using the word "morality." You have no idea what it means.
I have said, time and time again, my opinion (you are free to call it venom, since action-based moral integrity is such a poisonous idea to you) can only affect the democracy of which I am a citizen and participant. Complaining about "the reds" or "the terrorists" or drug dealers or whatever invisible, endless enemy the government has these days, is participating in propaganda. Debating US foreign policy is called participating in a democracy. The distinction, to me, is crystal clear. I don't know why such a simple concept is eluding you.
China has not caused the deaths of anyone but their own subjects. They have not, to my knowledge, invaded any country since invasion of Mongolia. They have brutally repressed adjacent territories they believe "belong" inside of their own borders - I'm thinking here of Tibet. This does not excuse their brutal behavior towards their own people, but in my opinion, the Chinese people are in charge of their own destiny, and they have not violated any recognized national borders since the last time they were redrawn by the UN. Russia is so weak they can't even impose their will on the Ukraine. Other colonial powers have mostly given up on the mistake of attempting to militarily coerce other nations to bending to their will.
By contrast, the United States has had troops officially involved in combat operations in Guatemala, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Haiti... (these are just off the top of my head.) This list does not include unofficial involvement by the CIA or other arms of our military. Currently, we have over 170 military bases spread out through the world. Can you name any other country that comes close to 10% of that number? How many foreign military bases are located inside the US? These are not the results of propaganda, but simple observation.
Now, you may, for some reason, think that America should be the police of the world. It's quite obvious to the rest of the world, however, that we are terrible at it. Furthermore, morals and principles have nothing to do with US foreign policy. Please re-read my earlier posts if you somehow think that's not the case.
"Finding the Russian scientists may be a problem being that Russia does not have a Social Security System, as here in America, that allows us to monitor, track down, and capture an American citizen." -Colin Powell
The entire government is corrupt. In my personal opinion, Republicans seem to be obsessed with war, and they certainly have thrown the country into economic turmoil by being unable to balance the budget, and doing the ultimate crass political move by waging war and cutting taxes at the same time. Which is, I think a first in American history. But for the most part, the two puppets are directed by the same corrupt system.
Obviously, if you cherry pick dates from over our entire history, you'll find worse periods of time for certain people. We killed off who knows how many millions of native americans. We enslaved millions of africans. And, what a surprise, some terrible things happened during our civil war.
America has always had no respect for the rights of "non-citizens," who were at one time non-landed white people, and then everyone who was white male was a citizen, and the US government was FORCED to accept women and non-whites as citizens. The government has always been the enemy. The problem is that we are losing rights as regular American citizens. The PATRIOT act was renewed. Bush will try to push through immunity for Telcos that are spying on Americans. Go back to 1980, and see if you can find an analog to the current sentiment of, "Hey, it's okay to spy on US Citizens without a warrant. No problem."
You and all of the other rednecks, as long as you're allowed to keep your guns, will do whatever you're told. That's why the NRA is allowed to be part of the Republican party.
I have started applying for work visas, just in case.
On the matter of injustice, one in nine of every young black male is currently in prison. Crime is rampant, underreported, and there are many bad apples in urban police departments. (Where I live, the gentlemen running for Sheriff on a platform of anti-corruption was assassinated in his front yard. And by assassinated, I mean shot with a rifle in the back of his head from some distance.)
If injustice is a laughing matter for you, then I do pity you for being unable to experience compassion for your own neighbors. It probably explains why you are incapable of feeling the same way for people who speak different languages, go to different places to worship, or wear turbans.
I'm not asking whether troops should be able to send e-mail or post to blogs. I'm asking why they've been deployed in the first place.
Freedom and morality have no effect or influence on American foreign policy or use of our military. We have consistently used force to retain power around valuable resources, propping up regimes, regardless of their political structure, if they do what we tell them to, and obliterating them if they do not do what we tell them to.
These are not the acts of a disinterested republic, but that of a brutal empire.
If you'd like some insight on why we were in Vietnam, you should read the Pentagon papers.
America did not send troops to end genocide in Rwanda. America did not send troops to end genocide in East Timor. America did not send troops to end mass killings in Cambodia, nor will it send troops to end genocide in Darfur.
America did sell weapons to Indonesia while they were exterminating East Timorese. America did sell weapons to Saddam and train his forces, knowing full well that they would be used to repress and exterminate Kurdish rebels. (And most recently, we are allowing Turkey to do the same thing, even violating the sovereignty of Iraq.) America did send CIA forces to train genocidal guerrilla groups that killed tens of thousand of people all over central and south America, and to this day we have our own "anti-terrorist" (which, in reality, means "terrorist on our side") training camp at the School of the Americas.
You want to say you have done something about morality by saying, "China is EVIL! North Korea is EVIL!" You'd like to paint a gold throne and imagine yourself sitting in it. Well, it's a nice idea, if completely useless in reality.
I'm complaining bitterly about the fact that America is a nice place, if you happen to live inside of it. Otherwise, we are as bad, if not worse, than any other empire that the world has seen.
To summarize, and I'd like you to address this point directly if you decide to reply, America has no morality outside of it's own borders, as made clear by our military activities since the end of World War II. (I have given you examples a few paragraphs before.) I think we have to solve our own problems before we start trying to solve the problems of others.
I mistakenly posted my response in another threat. In any case, Russia has been in turmoil since perestroika. That's no secret.
China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. (That's nearly a verbatim description from the US State Department.) They may achieve that through extreme punishment, but you're simply wrong about it being "notoriously lawless."
If you were able to take off your rose-colored freedom glasses, you may note that in all international press, America is seen as the most violent western democracy in the world, given our violent crime rate, in addition to the many thousands of people we kill abroad, whether on purpose or through "collateral damage."
Alright. As an American citizen, can you travel without papers (license, registration, proof of insurance)? Could you travel without papers twenty years ago?
As an American citizen, I am required to provide a Social Security Number to open a bank account, buy a car, get medical care (if I am conscious), and my bank account is flagged and reviewed by numerous government agencies if I ever deposit more than $10,000 in cash into one of my accounts.
Again, twenty years ago, was that the case?
Even as an American citizen, if I am apprehended and suspected of aiding and abetting known terrorists, I can be held without being charged for an indefinite period of time. I will neither have access to a lawyer or have the ability to contact my family and let them know that I am alive.
Again, twenty years ago, was this a possibility?
The FBI can obtain a secret warrant - which I can never see or have reviewed by my attorney - to tap my phone line, even if I happen to answer the phone when a "terrorist" is calling a wrong number.
The problem is that you aren't paying attention. You can label me hysterical, that's fine - I am hysterical. I'm pissed off that you aren't pissed off. I can't believe that it doesn't matter to you that, piece by piece, we are descending into a police state, where it's okay to trade freedom for security.
Soon, you won't be able to get any government services without a national ID card. You won't be permitted to leave the country without applying for an exit visa.
We have lost habeas corpus. We have lost the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. We have lost freedom of the press. And it's only the beginning as long as you sit there and throw names at people, content with whatever passes for existence in your tiny little world.
What happens if you complain about China? Fuck all.
What happens if you complain about American foreign policy, and motivate one other person to vote? Not much, but more than fuck all.
You're caught in a cycle of anti-politics. You're arguing points that are irrelevant, and engaging spurious nitpicking. For what? To believe instead of know that we are doing the best we can? To shout from sea to shining sea, "Hey, at least we're not as bad as China!"
Also, your analogy is completely lost. I'm complaining about the guy from my representative government taking basic human rights away from others, and ignoring the fact that people in other governments - entirely outside my daily life or cultural influence - are committing crimes inside their own country! This isn't apples and oranges. This is spaceships and pomegranates.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac Pros are overpriced, everyone knows. But Apple is seriously doing themselves harm on RAM pricing.
To add 8GB on a Mac Pro Quad Core from Apple, it's $1500. From anyone else, it's $250. And people are making noise on how they're ready for the enterprise market? Please. It's getting to the point where Adobe could sell the software AND the computer if it were running on Linux for less money than a Mac Pro flush with RAM. Seems like dangerous territory to me.
Terrorism has always been defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political goals. For states, of course, this definition only applies to the "enemy", which in a sweet twist of fate, includes enemies both foreign and domestic.
The military is a terrorist organization when used in an aggressive manner not congruent with international law. But of course the rules only apply to "them" and not "us."
The last administrations have done nothing to return states rights, and in fact have moved the Executive Branch further outside the bounds of congressional and even judicial oversight. There's no such thing as left and right in American Government. They pander to the left or the right, but their focus is on more government control. They both start the same wars, participate in the same corruption.
The two wedge issues are gay marriage and abortion for the right, which would never survive the "clear and secular purpose" litmus test, and the wedge issues for the left are "Bush is dumb" and "we want change," despite the fact there are no real policy differences. One side refuses to take nuclear options off the table in dealing with Iran, and the other side refuses to take nuclear options off the table when dealing with Iran.
It's really quite beautiful when you think about it. America is a One Party State, complete with gerrymandered lines and mass media that shuts out thirty party options. Why argue about things like our right to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations when you can just leave that out of the discussion entirely?
The dollar is dropping like a rock. If they are an international company, they probably have no choice. When did they make this contract? They may even be getting screwed.
Because nuclear proliferation is the greatest single threat to our species.
If you want to loose some sleep, find the BBC Documentary "Baiting the Bear" from 1996.
Similarly, terrorism is "the enemy" using violence and threats of force to get what "they" want when "they" do not have the official sanction of a recognized state. The War on Terrorism is using violence and threats of force to get what "we" want by using violence and threatening to use force. In this latest round, "we" have directly killed a hundred thousand people, detained over 80,000 without due process, displaced three million Iraqis and a few hundred thousand Afghanis, created a paradise for terrorists who want to train in militias, all in response after "they" killed three thousand civilians in what is undoubtedly the worst terrorist act in history.
Irregardless, let's approach the situation from your point of view. Let's assume that we follow the funding to the source, and bomb the country responsible. (Never mind the argument that we have no legal right to do so under international law.)
The 9/11 Commission said the funding was acquired mostly through "witting and unwitting donors, mostly in the gulf region." I presume these are personal donations through mosques and other NGOs. Over 75% of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We've got money coming from everywhere in the world, funneled into Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the majority being spent keeping the Taliban quiet and well fed as a cover for operations in Afghanistan. If we follow your logic, which countries do we declare war on? How many neighbors of "terrorists" have to die before we stop bombing, or do we just kill civilians in perpetuity for the actions of a non-government organization? Why did we invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia or the UAE, or maintain enough troops in Afghanistan and bring security to the entire country instead of just the capital?
And if terrorism isn't a law enforcement matter, why didn't we bomb the family and neighbors of Timothy McVeigh for harboring terrorists, and wiretap their phones, and render them to other countries where we could torture them?
Oh, that's right. He's one of "us" not one of "them" and is subject to different rules, because we have zero moral integrity.
It is true that the new McCarthyism is less visible, but I believe that's only because it's very difficult to call someone a conspirator and get away with it. If they don't like you, they'll just forget to validate your press pass and cause you to lose your job, or perhaps expose your wife's secret identity through surrogates in the media... Habeas Corpus isn't suspended for any US Citizen Wrong. Jose Padilla is a good name to start with.
No one knows how many US citizens are being held, because they are secret proceedings done by the military with no oversight, where the accused has no access to view the evidence against them, since it is also secret. This is the kind of thing that caused the Revolutionary War. According to the military, 150 detainees have died while in custody since 2001. Wiretapping is about Americans getting calls from people overseas in Islamic countries, and that's probably pretty reasonable Sorta-kinda mostly liberty-like feeling or death? Bush didn't run the economy into the ground, rather the American people ran themselves into the ground because we've chosen to borrow rather than save It's hard to save when you are earning less money than your parents did at the same age, working 10-15 more hours per week, and dealing with an astronomical increase in health care and energy costs. The price of oil quintupling had nothing to do with the war... http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-IraqOil_10bus.ART.North.Edition1.42010ac.html
Right. The dollar contraction in value is by design and is designed to foster American exports in manufacturered [sic] goods. Exports are up. Hooray! What benefit has that brought to the average American worker? Are salaries up? Are benefits and retirement options up? Are we exporting technological goods that are bringing our standard of living higher, or just selling more crap that is now affordable to other western nations, allowing us to compete with fierce exporters like Indonesia and Thailand?
Your comments on the middle east echo that of liberals, in the true sense of the word, who have no memory of the past. Saddam Hussein was an American pawn who overstepped his bounds in Kuwait, and we didn't assassinate him because the first Bush Administration at least recognized that there is no exit strategy in Iraq, much like other oppressive Islamist regimes we have supported on and off since the 1960s. (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt...) Our purpose is not to spread freedom, else we wouldn't be selling arms to the Shah of Iran in the 70s, or to Saddam and Iran (in secret) in the 80s, and to Saudi Arabia (40 billion since 1990!). Our purpose is to maintain power in a region which holds vast natural resources.
You've fallen into the idea that there exists an entity known as "them" and another known as "us." The only way for fundamental human rights to continue existing is through law which is equally and universally applied, no matter how grotesque you think their actions or politics may be. The correct, legal way to approach the terrorist attacks of September 11th was to find evidence for the crime (remember, acts of war can only be committed by states or breakaway territories), trying the suspects, and then sentencing them. This is why we have the UN and the World Court.
Of course, if you have more faith in military might than the law, you're more than welcome to join the ranks of Stalin, Mussolini, Chairman Mao, and other glorious historical figures.
Whoa. Let me sort of agree with you... if the Bush administration had stuck to the platform of a humble foreign policy, they would have been alright.
All they've done is start a new age of McCarthyism, suspend habeas corpus, agree to formally demolish our borders with Mexico and Canada, extend the powers of the executive branch beyond the oversight of congress, lied under oath or refused to even testify about the terrorist attacks under oath, wiretapped American citizens who are 'guilty' of receiving 'suspicious' phone calls, run the economy into the ground... caused two to three trillion dollars of damage to our economy for a war that was both illegal and unnecessary, which also caused the price of oil to quintuple, and probably caused the sharpest devaluation of the American dollar since the depression...
You say the word "war" like it doesn't mean much.
I'm speaking here of fundamentalists from Christians, Muslims, Hindus, to whatever.
When a small, incredibly noisy portion of society is trying to drag us back into the stone age, people who know better have to speak up. Fundamentalists aren't satisfied with living their own lives. They have so little faith in their own belief system that they believe it needs to be legislated to everyone. Personally, I think this is because people are beginning to recognize intuitively that they would rather live without religion than without science, thus, the greatest threat to religion is the continued success of science, which by definition, is exclusive of a god or many gods.
If members of the scientific community do not speak up, the next generation of young people could hold the ideas of evolution and intelligent design as equals. Imagine that for a second: a veritable mountain of tested theory, which is congruent across every body of science we currently know, would carry the same weight as believing that an invisible man in the sky created the world in a week.
The most solid and clear test was provided by the supreme court over twenty years ago, as to whether something should be taught in government schools, or posted in front of government buildings: is there a clear, secular purpose? It's useful to keep repeating this when they try to dodge the question.
If you set a house on fire, and it causes the death of your neighbors (through fire) and another neighbor dies due to medical complications because the power to their home is lost, explain how the deaths aren't your fault. If you had never started the fire, they would be alive. It's pretty damn simple.
Notice how I'm completely excluding American involvement in WWII and WWI, because we responded to blatant national aggression with clear tactical goals and real international support. Mostly - get Germany subdued, get them back within their original borders, and get out. What's the goal of the War on Terror? Defeat terrorism? David Cross put it best: "You cannot win a war on terrorism. It's like trying to win a war on jealousy."
I have a sense of responsibility for America as an American, because it's the only place I have a voice.
If you believe respecting someone else's responsibility to themselves and the international community should involve bombing their country or sending paramilitary units to try and overthrow their democratically elected government, to be blunt, you're just fucking stupid.
I get numbers from several different sources. The most conservative is the Iraq Body Count, which only counts civilian deaths reported in the media, and only reports Iraq. Their estimate is around 85,000 for civilian deaths from violence. From various reports, about 3500 civilians were killed in the first Gulf War in Iraq - who knows how many were snuffed out after we left. At least a few hundred were killed as we sat and watched Saddam strafe civilian Kurds with helicopters before the troops left Iraq.
Afghanistan is a bit tricker, but I think 4,000 would be a safe number, based on yearly reports from early on in the war. At least 150 people have been tortured to death in US custody according to the US military. (Note: they call it homicide.)
These are only the verified reports, which total 92,500, and that's only in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you might imagine in a warzone, the probability of more civilian deaths than what is reported is pretty close to 100%.
Now, here's where our morality separates us. Regardless of America's intent, our policy has caused certain events to transpire. These are just the people who have died due to direct violence - blood and brains splattering on the walls and on the ground kind of stuff. It doesn't touch the number of people who have died due to medical failure, since we destroyed the vast majority of infrastructure in Iraq. Who knows how many have died due to exposure or sickness. 2,000,000 Iraqis have fled their homeland in desperation, so I can't imagine it's all peaches and cream over there.
Let us now examine what happens when the US leaves theaters of war. For instance, in Vietnam, at least three million civilians and one million combatants died - just on the "communist" side. After we left, more violence took place between the warring factions that were left. Perhaps two million civilians and combatants died in Cambodia, and another hundred thousand in the ensuing Sino-Vietnamese war.
In answer to your question, less people died after we left. However, the real question is not how many died before and after. It is how many would have died if we had stayed out of the mess entirely.
1. you present to me a crime the usa has committed
2. i am aware that this crime is also commited by most other countries in the world
3. therefore, i cannot hold this crime against the usa uniquely
Incorrect.
1. America is ignoring international law and human rights.
2. I would like America to abide by international law and Geneva Conventions.
3. I complain.
If everyone is murdering civilians in the street (which they aren't) then I could see your point.
namely,you wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of an idealized standard of behavior no one actually follows. meanwhile, i wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of its relative cleanliness or dirtiness as compared to other countries
No, you wish to imagine the behavior of the United States instead of simply observing it in comparison to other nations. Again, if you can show me any country which has killed more foreign civilians in the past twenty years, please provide their name.
which reveals a difference in our two goals. you wish to improve the behavior of the usa, and only the behavior of the usa. you only care how the maerican government behaves.
Incorrect. I can only affect the behavior of my own government. Wishing for other countries to change their behavior is exactly that: wishing. Participating in American politics is something which may be very foreign to you: doing.
if people are cnanibalizing each other south the rio grande, this is ok by you. but if the usa doesn't enforce handicapped parking rules, you are goign to scream high holy indignation.
Nice strawman. However, totally incomprehensible in relation to what I've said. We are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians abroad. I'd like us to stop. That's a real atrocity - not an imagined one. Once we solve our own problems, we can start helping others solve their own. You seem to be of the opinion that I should help my neighbor put out a fire in their back yard while my entire house is engulfed in flames.
frankly, this bias of yours is incpoatible with a moral point of pview. because if anything else, morality teraches us that all huamns must be considered equally. your own point of view is that people are valuable only if they are american. remember: you are the one, as stated by you, interested in only the behavior of americans. so you only care about the usa. which reveals your ethnocentrism
So, I'm ethnocentric because I want my government to stop killing foreigners?
you will excuse me, but i care about the entire world. i don't really care about fat people in north america. i care about the lives of poor africans, indonesians, brazilians. meanwhile, you don't really care about the suffering of these people. you only seem to care about the suffering of these people insofar as they are useful in your prosecution of the usa. because your goal, as stated by you and your focus on the golden rule, is only changing the behavior of the usa
Caring is nice, but summarily meaningless. If you think otherwise, try "caring" about people who are sick in Brazil, versus actually helping someone who lives in your neighborhood. Which action do you think would be more effective?
which is why you are absolutely useless, to the subjec tmatter you are invovled in: global subject matter. you need to focus your criticism to american domestic issues, or you need to lose your american-centered point of view. because you cannot talk about global issues with an american-centered point of view. this makes you morally and intellectually dishonest and useless on the questions you are involving yourself in
Your argument is coming off the rails, here. How, as an American demanding that America stop atrocities committed in other countries, am I "absolutely useless"? Shouldn't that be my reaction? Should I instead focus on how "caring" about the children in Africa will solve the problem of the United States blowing f
I forget to always put things in context, but sometimes that's important. I was in the realm of more modern Western colonial empires, excluding the Nazis and the Japanese. (I've read several accounts of the Rape of Nanking that still make me queasy.) And this also ignores atrocities committed inside borders - Rwanda, Stalinist Russia, etc.
I can think of only the Spanish and the British (pre-18th century colonialism) that have us beat off the top of my head, but I am not well versed in history before the industrial revolution.
I hope these qualifiers continue to be necessary. If we get involved with military action in Iran, I don't know if that will be the case.
In my opinion, debating the morality of ideas in the context of foreign policy is a waste of time. It's the morality of actions that matter.
You seem to think that holding the United States to account somehow excuses the rest of the world. I have never said that. What I have stated, is that we must modify our own behavior before we can expect anyone else to do the same. It's called the Golden Rule, and is the basis for pretty much every system of morality in the world. Furthermore, in the context of the modern world, America has been the most brutal military empire since the end of WWII, in any measurement I can think of - foreign civilians killed, military bases established, the number of conflicts we've been involved with, the amount of troops we have deployed throughout the world... I would invite you to present some counter-examples to this, as I'd love to know about them.
If you want to war with ideas and do nothing in reality, that's your choice. I'd like to participate in my democracy and change things instead of staring off into space.
Alright, maybe english is your second language or you're trolling. You keep repeating the same analogies, which are worthless.
If you want to argue ideas that accomplish nothing, that's fine. Call yourself moral all you want. The only person who will listen to that is you, and if that's the only person you're trying to impress, please, continue.
Have you noticed how the American government, in comparison to the noise about terrorism, says next to nothing about Myanmar, North Korea, and Zimbabwe? Did you miss the point I've made over and over about how we have literally sold weapons to nations who we knew were using those weapons for genocide? In order to tell anyone to stop their crimes against humanity, by virtue of common sense, you must stop your own first in order to have any credibility.
You live in fantasy world, where the US is somehow forced into doing bad things. The fact is, we can stop, and the fact remains, we haven't because our government does not care about doing good. They only care about maintaining power. How can we "fight the worst offender" when we are the worst offender?
Hilariously you state, "they think they are above the law of the input of their own citizens. this is the starting off point for the worst crimes on the planet." Have you been paying attention to all of the Executive orders passed by the President, which say that their part of the government cannot even be subjected to the oversight of Congress?
Morality is maintaining a standard of behavior, regardless of the circumstances. America's morality, if you want to call it that, boils down to a single criteria: whatever action a foreign government engages in is acceptable, as long as they do as they're told. Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds? No problem. Genocide and strife in Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Haiti? Who gives a shit. East Timorese being slaughtered in the street? Oh well, Indonesia needs weapons to kill them, and we're happy to provide them.
Saddam invading Kuwait without our permission? Problem. Cuba not allowing us to do whatever we want inside their borders? Problem. Palestine democratically electing people we don't like? Problem. Latin American countries daring to elect leaders who don't support US hegemony? Problem.
Stop using the word "morality." You have no idea what it means.
I have said, time and time again, my opinion (you are free to call it venom, since action-based moral integrity is such a poisonous idea to you) can only affect the democracy of which I am a citizen and participant. Complaining about "the reds" or "the terrorists" or drug dealers or whatever invisible, endless enemy the government has these days, is participating in propaganda. Debating US foreign policy is called participating in a democracy. The distinction, to me, is crystal clear. I don't know why such a simple concept is eluding you.
China has not caused the deaths of anyone but their own subjects. They have not, to my knowledge, invaded any country since invasion of Mongolia. They have brutally repressed adjacent territories they believe "belong" inside of their own borders - I'm thinking here of Tibet. This does not excuse their brutal behavior towards their own people, but in my opinion, the Chinese people are in charge of their own destiny, and they have not violated any recognized national borders since the last time they were redrawn by the UN. Russia is so weak they can't even impose their will on the Ukraine. Other colonial powers have mostly given up on the mistake of attempting to militarily coerce other nations to bending to their will.
By contrast, the United States has had troops officially involved in combat operations in Guatemala, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Haiti... (these are just off the top of my head.) This list does not include unofficial involvement by the CIA or other arms of our military. Currently, we have over 170 military bases spread out through the world. Can you name any other country that comes close to 10% of that number? How many foreign military bases are located inside the US? These are not the results of propaganda, but simple observation.
Now, you may, for some reason, think that America should be the police of the world. It's quite obvious to the rest of the world, however, that we are terrible at it. Furthermore, morals and principles have nothing to do with US foreign policy. Please re-read my earlier posts if you somehow think that's not the case.
Publicly state that you are thinking about killing the president. See how long it takes to receive a visit from the Secret Service.
Oh, right, I'm just paranoid.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/170992_prosser28.html
"Finding the Russian scientists may be a problem being that Russia does not have a Social Security System, as here in America, that allows us to monitor, track down, and capture an American citizen." -Colin Powell
The entire government is corrupt. In my personal opinion, Republicans seem to be obsessed with war, and they certainly have thrown the country into economic turmoil by being unable to balance the budget, and doing the ultimate crass political move by waging war and cutting taxes at the same time. Which is, I think a first in American history. But for the most part, the two puppets are directed by the same corrupt system.
Obviously, if you cherry pick dates from over our entire history, you'll find worse periods of time for certain people. We killed off who knows how many millions of native americans. We enslaved millions of africans. And, what a surprise, some terrible things happened during our civil war.
America has always had no respect for the rights of "non-citizens," who were at one time non-landed white people, and then everyone who was white male was a citizen, and the US government was FORCED to accept women and non-whites as citizens. The government has always been the enemy. The problem is that we are losing rights as regular American citizens. The PATRIOT act was renewed. Bush will try to push through immunity for Telcos that are spying on Americans. Go back to 1980, and see if you can find an analog to the current sentiment of, "Hey, it's okay to spy on US Citizens without a warrant. No problem."
You and all of the other rednecks, as long as you're allowed to keep your guns, will do whatever you're told. That's why the NRA is allowed to be part of the Republican party.
I have started applying for work visas, just in case.
On the matter of injustice, one in nine of every young black male is currently in prison. Crime is rampant, underreported, and there are many bad apples in urban police departments. (Where I live, the gentlemen running for Sheriff on a platform of anti-corruption was assassinated in his front yard. And by assassinated, I mean shot with a rifle in the back of his head from some distance.)
If injustice is a laughing matter for you, then I do pity you for being unable to experience compassion for your own neighbors. It probably explains why you are incapable of feeling the same way for people who speak different languages, go to different places to worship, or wear turbans.
I'm not asking whether troops should be able to send e-mail or post to blogs. I'm asking why they've been deployed in the first place.
Freedom and morality have no effect or influence on American foreign policy or use of our military. We have consistently used force to retain power around valuable resources, propping up regimes, regardless of their political structure, if they do what we tell them to, and obliterating them if they do not do what we tell them to.
These are not the acts of a disinterested republic, but that of a brutal empire.
If you'd like some insight on why we were in Vietnam, you should read the Pentagon papers.
America did not send troops to end genocide in Rwanda. America did not send troops to end genocide in East Timor. America did not send troops to end mass killings in Cambodia, nor will it send troops to end genocide in Darfur.
America did sell weapons to Indonesia while they were exterminating East Timorese. America did sell weapons to Saddam and train his forces, knowing full well that they would be used to repress and exterminate Kurdish rebels. (And most recently, we are allowing Turkey to do the same thing, even violating the sovereignty of Iraq.) America did send CIA forces to train genocidal guerrilla groups that killed tens of thousand of people all over central and south America, and to this day we have our own "anti-terrorist" (which, in reality, means "terrorist on our side") training camp at the School of the Americas.
You want to say you have done something about morality by saying, "China is EVIL! North Korea is EVIL!" You'd like to paint a gold throne and imagine yourself sitting in it. Well, it's a nice idea, if completely useless in reality.
I'm complaining bitterly about the fact that America is a nice place, if you happen to live inside of it. Otherwise, we are as bad, if not worse, than any other empire that the world has seen.
To summarize, and I'd like you to address this point directly if you decide to reply, America has no morality outside of it's own borders, as made clear by our military activities since the end of World War II. (I have given you examples a few paragraphs before.) I think we have to solve our own problems before we start trying to solve the problems of others.
I mistakenly posted my response in another threat. In any case, Russia has been in turmoil since perestroika. That's no secret.
China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. (That's nearly a verbatim description from the US State Department.) They may achieve that through extreme punishment, but you're simply wrong about it being "notoriously lawless."
If you were able to take off your rose-colored freedom glasses, you may note that in all international press, America is seen as the most violent western democracy in the world, given our violent crime rate, in addition to the many thousands of people we kill abroad, whether on purpose or through "collateral damage."
Alright. As an American citizen, can you travel without papers (license, registration, proof of insurance)? Could you travel without papers twenty years ago?
As an American citizen, I am required to provide a Social Security Number to open a bank account, buy a car, get medical care (if I am conscious), and my bank account is flagged and reviewed by numerous government agencies if I ever deposit more than $10,000 in cash into one of my accounts.
Again, twenty years ago, was that the case?
Even as an American citizen, if I am apprehended and suspected of aiding and abetting known terrorists, I can be held without being charged for an indefinite period of time. I will neither have access to a lawyer or have the ability to contact my family and let them know that I am alive.
Again, twenty years ago, was this a possibility?
The FBI can obtain a secret warrant - which I can never see or have reviewed by my attorney - to tap my phone line, even if I happen to answer the phone when a "terrorist" is calling a wrong number.
The problem is that you aren't paying attention. You can label me hysterical, that's fine - I am hysterical. I'm pissed off that you aren't pissed off. I can't believe that it doesn't matter to you that, piece by piece, we are descending into a police state, where it's okay to trade freedom for security.
Soon, you won't be able to get any government services without a national ID card. You won't be permitted to leave the country without applying for an exit visa.
We have lost habeas corpus. We have lost the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. We have lost freedom of the press. And it's only the beginning as long as you sit there and throw names at people, content with whatever passes for existence in your tiny little world.
What happens if you complain about China? Fuck all.
What happens if you complain about American foreign policy, and motivate one other person to vote? Not much, but more than fuck all.
You're caught in a cycle of anti-politics. You're arguing points that are irrelevant, and engaging spurious nitpicking. For what? To believe instead of know that we are doing the best we can? To shout from sea to shining sea, "Hey, at least we're not as bad as China!"
Also, your analogy is completely lost. I'm complaining about the guy from my representative government taking basic human rights away from others, and ignoring the fact that people in other governments - entirely outside my daily life or cultural influence - are committing crimes inside their own country! This isn't apples and oranges. This is spaceships and pomegranates.
That was an incredibly unrelated and vapid comment. But, thanks for wasting your time. Lord knows how else you could have misused it.