Apple generally enjoys positive PR in print media and perky goodwill in the marketplace, especially from younger, hipper demographics trained from birth to shun expensive labels or corporate identity,
Shun expensive labels or corporate identity?!? What is Apple if not an expensive label or a corporate identity? Don't misunderstand, I kinda like Apple, but I've never understood the way they managed to get people to believe that they were anything other than the BMW or Mercedes of computers: good quality but ultimately too pricey for anybody but yuppies.
The real alternative from the corporate dominated, expensive label, universe is any free Unix (*BSD, Linux, whatever) on cheep hardware. I'm too poor to pay an extra 10-15% for "Apple Engineering", or (more realistically) the Apple Image(TM).
Again, I'm not trying to flame or troll here, I do know that Apple generally produces very high quality products, and I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't use Apple, I just can't see how they got a "rebel" image...
Uh, so citizen of other countries are not entitled to a fair trial? Is that what you are trying to say here?
No, but I suppose it might have seemed that way. I choose to emphisise Padila's citizenship because of the way the original poster phrased his objections. By both any standard of decency, and also by US law, people are entitled to a trial by jury regardless of nationality. Which is how it should be.
I have two objections to the "let's just shoot 'em" crowd, firstly, I never have been able to understand the bizarre notion that somehow fair trails would weaken our ability to fight terrorism. They seem to take this as a given, and it seems completely unfounded to me. The second objection is due to the very nature of a jury trial. The main reason we have fair and open trials is for the benefit of the general population, not really for the accused (though the accused certainly benefits). But we have these trials so that we can be assured that the system is working properly. That the accused is truly guilty, not merely disliked. That the evidence is sufficient, not merely trumped up. Trials exist to proove that the system works. We need that proof, because we do not dare simply trust that the system works. I'm always amazed that the people who claim not to trust the government (in general) are so willing to trust the government (in this specific).
What good does it do to us if a friggin' terrorist who has admitted being a part of the 9/11 is tried in a civilian court? Get real. We should just shoot these guys
Gad I hate replying to AC's, OTOH, this is important. No, we should not just shoot these guys. Padila is an American citizen, the fact that in all likelyhood he's also a terrorist does *not* change his citizenship. All American citizens are entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers, in a fair, and open court. Simply shooting him would be a complete violation of everything this nation stands for. The rules can't apply only when you like them.
I've heard people say things like "In times like this we have to..." and thats BS. If the rules are only there when its easy, then they don't count for diddily. It is just as important important that Padila get a fair trial as it is that Joe Blow the convenience store robber get one.
Really, if we live in a nation where the ruler can say "he's bad, let's just shoot him, no need for a trial", how is that different from the way Saddam ran things?
I am not sure whether this was a typo, or a metaphor referring to his regime, but I wanted to point out that Saddam isn't dead, he is in the custody of US intelligence officers.
You CANNOT exclude people in a democracy. What you are talking about is creating fascism. There should be no limitation on democracy! No if's or but's.
I think you misunderstood me. I said "A democracy also requires a structure that includes certain, very difficult to change, limits. Like the Constitution of the US (or any other democracy)" and "Make it so that it takes more votes than any single sect can muster to put in a theocracy and you never get a theocracy." Nothing there about excluding people, just requiring that it takes a *BIG* majority to make sweeping changes that would exclude people. As you said, if 80% wanted a theocracy we'd get one, but no single sect controls 80% of the vote, which means we don't get one. No exclusion necessary, just making the rules that safeguard our freedom difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to change.
Without that a simple majority could exclude a huge minority (as we've seen in Iran, for example). Again, I'm not in favor of disenfranchising religous types, but I am strongly in favor of building a system where it takes a supermajority to get systematic changes passed. Such as we have for the US Constitution: it takes a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, followed by 3/4 of the State Legislatures to amend the Constitution. This isn't impossible, but it does make it quite difficult for a 51% majority to screw over the remaining 49% of the population.
Going back to Iraq, the Shiite sect accounts for roughly 60%-65% of the population. Under a US style Constitution that isn't enough to get even the 2/3 supermajority required to start a Constitutional amendment mandating Shiite Islam. Even assuming that all Shiite Congressmen voted for the measure (not likely) the Suni minority (roughly 33%-37%) would have enough votes to keep themselves from being disenfranchised. Its not a matter of excluding people, facist like, but rather a matter of making it so that it takes almost all the people agreeing on something to change the basic rules. It tends to keep civil wars down. Sometimes this tends not to work too well (see entries under the US Civil War), but on the whole it keeps a nice balance of power.
Reality is calling 1000 people in a phone survey and saying that they represent the whole American populations opinion? Cmon.
I take it that you haven't studied statistics much. The fact is that if you take a random sampling from a large body you are usually quite accurate. Take a bowl of 15,000 M&Ms and I'll guarantee you that if you get a random sample of 150 you can be accurate to within a few percent of the composition of the total number of M&Ms. Obviously the sample was not completely ranom, it automatically selected for people with telephones, for example. OTOH such sampling methods have been proven to be accurate to within 5%, usually to within 3%. Here's a link to the subject of statistical sampling: isn't Google fun? On to other topics...
Do you think they went to war because they "thought it would be fun" or because they thought Sadaam was a threat and getting rid of him could bring stability to a part of the world that needs it?
Ahh, the perils of using "humorous exageration" when debating. No, I don't think that they seriously, literally, went to war for fun. However I don't think there is any doubt that they seriously thought that Hussain was a threat to the US or to "stability in that part of the world". A certian group of government insiders, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, have been trying to get the US to conquer Iraq for more than a decade now. Every single time any act of terror happened their immediate response was to urge war on Iraq, regardless of the source of the terror. Immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing this group was demanding an immediate attack on Iraq; then it turned out that Tim McVeigh was responsible and they shut up for a while. Since they have been incessantly demanding this war, with no apparent reason, for some time now I think its only sensable to look for ulterior motives. Oil and getting to put military bases in Iraq seem like the most likely explinations. Freeing the oppressed Iraqi people is obviously not on their list of priorities because if it was they'd have been working to shut off US support for dictators. Seems like an easy way to work against dictators: stop paying them.
tinfoil hat wearing leftists from being mislead and trying to spin everything into "America is Evil"
I quit wearing my tinfoil hat last week, it clashed with my communist party membership badge:)
More seriously, why is it that people like you manage to spin "criticism of the government" into "hating America". It really pisses me off, I happen to love my country, and I happen to think that its downright revolting that "my" government supports dictators. Which is more patriotic, trying to fix the problems of your government, or pretending that the problems don't exist and calling everyone who disagrees a traitor?
This isn't a Bush government issue, its a US government issue. For the past 50 years the US government has had a policy of supporting dictators, it is anti-American, and immoral, but the government has been doing it. Recall, please, that Saddam was getting massive US backing during a time when the government knew damn well that he was using chemical weapons on the Kurds. One of the most darkly amusing things about the propaganda leading up to this war was the way Rumsfeld would say, horror tinting his voice, that Hussain had "gassed his own people". This picture of Rumsfeld giving a big grin while shaking Hussains hand came from a time when Rumsfeld *KNEW* that Hussain was using chemical weapons on the Kurds and chose to ignore it because it was government policy to support that particular dictator. The American people don't support dictators, which is why so many people (possibly including you) tend to blame the messanger (like me) when I point out that the go
Although I've never tried to build anything difficult from "The Anarchist's Cookbook", I was always under the impression that most of the info was fake and wouldn't work.
I'm not a chemist, but I have heard that the Anarchist's Cookbook features several vital bits of information that are backwards from the way they should be and will result in possibly fatal accidents if the directions are followed as written. I don't know myself, I'm just quoting what I've heard various places.
But it seems like this is somewhere along the lines of telling someone where the nearest drug dealer ir (not comparing the two crimes). Isn't/shouldn't that be illegal?
Generally, telling people how to commit crimes, or telling them where they can obtain illegal things isn't illegal itself. The "Anarchist's Cookbook", for example, includes detailed (if boobytrapped) information on all manner of things ranging from cooking up Meth, to building pipe-bombs. Its perfectly legal.
This makes sense from pretty much anystandpoint you want to look at it from, even though it does sometimes produce odd results. It goes back to the basic idea that crimes are actions, you can't arrest someone for speculating about how nifty it would be to rob a bank (you can, however arrest someone for *planning* to rob the bank, you don't have to actually wait for them to do it). If it were otherwise we'd be entering the wonderful world of Thought Crimes (TM).
Besides, the way it works now leads to some very amusing situations, such as the "wine brick" that was sold during prohibition. This was basically a compressed bunch of raisens. The instruction sheet contained an interesting warning: Caution: Never mix contents in two gallons of warm water to which you have added a pinch of yeast, and one pound of sugar. If this mixture is left to stand in a cloth covered container for two weeks, an ALCOHOLIC beverage will result, which is illegal.
Give me a link to one study that says that, and where they actually found the 70% of the US citizens from. I'll bet it was a very small group of people, from a very poor town in the US. Anyone who has had a college level course in statistics knows you can make a poll say anything you want to if you control the way questions are asked and who participates in it.
Ahh, the old "I don't like the facts so I'll deny them" approach, it'd be nice to see a *new* argument against reality once and a while. While, to a certain degree, you are correct in saying that polls can be manipulated that doesn't mean that any poll which shows results you don't like is wrong. In this particular case the poll came from the Washington Post, conducted nationwide. See for yourself here. The question wasn't some weird trick question, and it wasn't conducted in hicksville. The simple fact is that the distortions and innuendos from the Bush government have convinced a large number of Americans that Saddam was personally behind the attack on the World Trade Center.
The tactics used by the Bush government to encourage this belief ran from the "Lie loud, retract quiet" brand (in which a government official would say outright that Saddam was involved in 9/11, then later retract the statement on a footnote on page 47), to the simple associative method (in which a government official would begin by talking about Saddam, segue into 9/11, and then swirve back to Saddam, never actually *saying* that they were connected, but giving the impression that they were). The government knew that the average American wouldn't support a war in Iraq based on the "Well, Cheney and Rumsfeld think it would be fun" argument, so they deliberately set out to associate Saddam with 9/11. It worked too. Never underestimate Karl Rove, or the ability of Joe Average to be mislead.
This cannot be done without the support of the common person. But the common person hasn't been getting the education needed to prepare them for a Democracy.
Not a bad idea. Actually, Iraq is probably better set for democracy than many other nations in that region. Saddam was an evil bastard, but he did have a fairly good education system (including schooling for women).
Part of the problem with "democracy" is that simple voting isn't enough. A democracy also requires a structure that includes certain, very difficult to change, limits. Like the Constitution of the US (or any other democracy). That, and a strong judicial branch, is what keeps the fundies in the US from voting in a theocracy, and what (hopefully) will keep a theocracy from forming in Iraq. Make it so that it takes more votes than any single sect can muster to put in a theocracy and you never get a theocracy.
We went in there primarily to (hopefully) increase our own security.
You know, I really do think that GWB believes that. He doesn't read newspapers (link to the first story on this I could find on Google here) so it really would be easy for him to be mislead by his advisors (several of whom have wanted a war with Iraq for more than a decade).
I can't see how this war has done diddily for increasing US security. It took attention (read: money) away from Afghanistan, so now the Taliban is making a comeback. It caused huge rifts between the US and its allies, which will make international police work harder. It caused a lot of effort to be taken off finding Osama. It's caused a lot of Arabs to have personal reason to hate the US and given Al-Quda and other similar outfits a huge pool to recruit from.
I really do wish I could see how the Iraqi war improved our security. I don't really want to believe that we've wasted that much money, and all those lives just because it gives Rumsfeld and Cheney a war they've wanted since the mid 90's.
Again, don't misundertand me, the fact that Saddam is out of power is a good thing. Likewise I have no doubt that most Iraqis are very glad he's out of power. Its the other issues (and the long term in Iraq) that worry me.
Virtually no Americans (Canadians maybe?) believe Hussein planned the 9/11 attack. We are not stupid.
Man I love it when I can be right this easily... The link is to USA Today, hardly my fave newssource, but its as good as any. see, read this Not stupid, just mislead by the Bush government.
As for the Bush government *saying* that Saddam was involved in 9/11, no, no one associated with the Bush government ever actually said it. But they sure did imply it. Here's links to the implications. Remember, when in doubt try the facts, they're much better than your faith in the Bush government, if a bit less comfortable to begin with.
And if you've been paying any attention, you'd see that Bush is trying to get other such despots out of power
Gee, he must be using some sort of weird reverse psychology too complicated for my simple little brain then. I don't quite see how giving $100M to the dictator of Uzbekistan (again, like Saddam, he uses torture, rape, and murder to keep power) will somehow magically get him out of power. He's personal friends with the dictator of Saudi Arabia, guess that's more of his super special reverse psychology at work, huh? And naturally the millions being sent to the dictator of Colombia will get him out of office. Of course, the support for the military regime of Indonesia is a good idea, after all, they've only raped and tortured two Americans lately, so they're ok.
Try again, this time with a grounding in reality instead of propaganda. The Bush government has no interest in supporting democracy worldwide, and it actively provides support to dictatorships just as nasty as Saddam Hussain's Iraq ever was.
Don't misunderstand me, I agree that Saddam need to be taken out of power, and I also agree that the UN isn't good at things like that. But its utter nonesense to pretend that the Bush government is interested in human rights.
I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but to think this whole war effort was JUST to reward rich campaign contributors is ridiculous.
Well, not *just* for that, though it was doubtless a major component of the deal. The fact is that a certain group of Washington insiders (Rumsfeld and Cheney among them) has been wanting a US/Iraq war for some time now. Doubtless both the oil, and the prospect of getting a major US militry base in that region prompted this.
Bear in mind that before the dust had settled from the Oklahoma City bombing this same crowd was calling for an immediate invasion of Iraq. Then they discovered it was done by McVeigh. Right after the *first* WTC attack, this same group was calling for an invasion of Iraq. Right after 9/11, this same group was calling for an invasion of Iraq. If their Aunt Marge got the gout, they called for an invasion of Iraq...
My point here is that these people have, for reasons of their own, wanted an invasion of Iraq for more than a decade now. Liberating the Iraqi people isn't their reason.
Wow. You really like analogy, don't you? Personally, I kinda like analogy, but I think yours was both a bit too long, and a bit too fuzzy.
A few points here that you seem to be either in error on, or putting words into my mouth on.
I have no particular opposition to a for profit corporation making money out of rebuilding Iraq. I object quite strongly to the fact that the contracts have been awarded with no bid to GWB campaign contributors. I also object to the fact that oversight and audit of said firms is non-existant.
I have no doubt that the average guy in Iraq is quite pleased, even jubulant, that Saddam is dead. Likewise during the initial liberation people were happy, of course. But that sort of thing doesn't last long, its the "what have you done for me lately" syndrome. Probably some of the people attacking US soldiers are old Saddam supporters, but in all likelyhood several of them were part of the celebrations that took place when the Saddam government fell. I say again: someone who hates Saddam can, at the same time, hate the US.
The fact that the average Iraqi doesn't seem to be saying "Look, I just saw a gurilla running that way" and offering help to US forces after an attack tends to indicate that the average Iraqi isn't that happy with the US occupiers. Again, they certainly didn't like Saddam, but they don't have to like the US just because they don't like Saddam.
None of this means that I liked Saddam, or that an occupation of some sort isn't necessary.
The aid money we give to Uzbekistan goes to the people, doesn't it?
Nope, its mostly going to buy the dictator more weapons to oppress them with. That was kinda my point. I'm not in favor of the US assinating foreign heads of state, and I'm not in favor of the US trying to police the world. But the very fricking least our government could do would be to stop supporting dictators.
This is why I say that the Bush government's "we did it because Saddam was bad" line is nothing more than a disgusting lie. Nevermind the fact that the US isn't trying to overthrow other people just as bad, no, the Bush government is supporting people who are as bad as Saddam was. Read up on what the Indonesian dictator is doing to his people (and to American citizens, two were raped and tortured last year). Yet the Bush government is actually working to send aid to the Indonesian dictator. And they have succeeded in getting $100M sent to Uzbekistan, where the dictator engages in rape, murder, and torture, just like Saddam, yet the Bush government treats him like a friend. This is hypocracy, plain and simple, and its why I cannot stand hearing the Bush government claim that it took out Saddam because of his human rights violations.
Starting with the most off-topic issue, then working my way back to topic here.
if tomorrow the US decided to spend 100 billion dollers to rebult all of iraq
Ahem. The US is already spending $87 billion rebuilding Iraq, and current estimates indicate that it will cost at least tripple that overall. The price is doubtless inflated due to the "no-bid, let's just give GWB's friends huge contracts with no oversight and no audit" style of spending the Bush government seems to like, but we (the US taxpayer) has already spent very close to $100 billion. On the US side of things we're seeing the economic crunch greatly accelerated by the Bush government's wild spending coupled with equally wild tax cuts for billionares. Remember, when the Bush government cuts taxes for billionares, *someone's* got to pick up the tab. Guess who gets to foot the bill for GWB's departure from the hunt for Al-Qida? If you said "gee, I guess its the average joe" then you guessed right. The bottom 40% of the population in the US controls about 1% of the money, yet they *pay* about 2% of the taxes. By comparison, the top 1% controls about 36% of the money, and they pay about 36% of the taxes. Dollar for dollar this means that the upper 1% pay half as much in taxes as the bottom 40%.
Look, if 99% of the population supports the US, but theres 1% that don't that means there are going to be ppl willing to kill US soldiers for their belifes
Actually, it would be quite useful if there were some way to get real numbers out of Iraq, but it isn't. I suspect that quite a few more than 1% want the US out. Again, this doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't bad, and that they aren't happy that he's gone; they just want the US gone too. The reason I suspect that more than 1% are unhappy (to put it mildly) with the US is because of what happens *after* a US soldier gets killed: there's usually a cheering crowd gathered around, which can't be good for moral.
More to the point, 1% can't organize the kind of gurilla attacks that we've been seeing. It doesn't take many people to shoot a gun, or fire off an RPG, or what have you, but it does take a rather large support base in the general population to hide the combatants, keep them supplied, etc. Notice that the US soldiers have only caught a handful of Iraqi gurillas. This means that, at a minimum, the average Iraqi isn't helping the US find these gurillas, which implies a certain degree of sympathy with the gurillas.
I honestly don't know what the answer to the problem is, a complete US withdrawl from Iraq at this point would plunge the entire country into the kind of anarchistic chaos that grows dictators, and hurts lots of people. The US soldiers don't like being there, and they are (quite understandably) nervious every time they see an Iraqi. They're trained to respond to a threat of violence with overwealming force; which is great for winning wars, but not so good for keeping order after you win.
More international help would doubtless be tremendously helpful. Unfortunately, the Bush government managed to waste all the goodwill the US had worldwide by starting this war the way he did... The general attitude among other nations seems to be: "He started this war on his own, why should I help now?" I can't say I really blame them for having that attitude, it'd be nice if the other major powers would just forget about all the insults, etc, that the Bush government has smacked them with, but that isn't going to happen.
Of course, in the midst of all this Osama is still at large, Afghanistan is coming back under Taliban control (remember back in the old days when the US beat someone and they stayed beaten? Not under the Bush government), and international terrorism seems to have been completely unaffected by the Bush government's decision to invade Iraq. The entire thing has been a hundreds of billions dollar distraction from the *real* objective of ending kind of terrorism that resulted in 9/11.
The Iraqis are grateful. If you can't see this then you are truly blind.
Yup. So grateful that they've been killing American solders at a rate of roughly 1 per day since GWB's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op. Interesting way these Iraqis show their gratitude...
Look, I'm not saying that Saddam Hussain wasn't a vile thug, he was. The fact that he is out of power is a good thing, no argument. But. Hating Saddam isn't the same as loving the US. Most Iraqis are doubtless overjoyed that Saddam's government has been toppled, that doesn't mean they like a US occupation of their country either.
On a broader note, I object to the "we're doing it for the poor downtroden people" chest-thumping coming from the Bush government because it is a horrible lie. The same Bush government that is now telling us the war was about human rights, not oil or WMD, has steadfastly ignored the abuses of other dictators, and continues to provide military support for several people at least as bad as Hussain. Look at Indonesia and Uzbekistan, both ruled with an iron fist by people who use mass murder and torture (just like Saddam). Yet neither nation is even being publicly rebuked by the Bush government. Uzbekistan is getting $100M in aid, and the Bush government is pushing to "normalize" military relations with the dictator of Indonesia.
As soon as the Bush government stops giving money and military support to torturing, mass murdering, dictatorships, I'll start believing the "we did it because Saddam was a bad man" line. But let's be honest, getting rid of the vile Saddam Hussain was a side issue. The real issue was letting Halliburton and other corporations that gave millions in "campaign contributons" access to Iraq's oil.
Bullshit. I'm not and I don't know anybody else that is. You're trolling, right?
Naah, he isn't. He's being innaccurate, but not trolling. What he doubtless meant was that roughly 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussain was responsible for the attacks on September 11. The frightening thing is that this figure does seem to be accurate.
The Bush government never actually *said* that Hussain was behind 9/11, but various officials, press announcements, State of the Union Addresses, etc, implied it rather strongly. Since our "liberal" media wouldn't dream of correcting the Bush government's insinuations the image of Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind stuck in the public's mind.
But I think 'Cat' kinda gets into the Long timeline (or atleast thats what I remember) which is probably why I equate Moon with the Long books.
Yup. Cat does get into the Long timeline (along with more than a few others), and Lazerus is a major character in Cat, which doubtless explains your confusion since both Mike the computer, and Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis both make appearances furthur complicating matters.
Isn't it just possible that someone with a different point of view could have something worth saying? Or do such opinions frighten you so much that you feel you have only verbal violence to resort too.
It is not only possible, but likely, that people with different points of view have something worth saying. That doesn't mean that everyone with a different point of view has something worth saying. Opinions different from mine don't frighten me, I don't always like them, but they are necessary, stagnation leads to death. What frightens me is the fact that the mindless superstition the grandparent was espousing is currently being allowed to overrule sane judgement on a topic of utter importance to the survival of my species.
Rushing headlong into any unnecessary creation and eradication of human life, however, should be taken no less lightly than the extinction of a species. Such events occur, BECAUSE of a lack of appreciation for their existence, and a desire to benefit (usually commercially) by ending it.
I quite agree, and frankly the lack of safety measures at the for-profit biotech corporations worries me greatly. I am not saying that genetic research should be taken lightly, or taken without appropriate precautions. But I do say that the outright banning of research into human genetics, or the use of stem cells, etc, is absolutely wrong. Regulation, yes. Monitoring, yes. But the grandparent wasn't expressing concern about the possible accidents, or misues of biotechnology. He was demanding, in the name of his own personal religious beliefs, that we completely abandon research into the subject.
It is utterly and completely insane to allow the religious superstitions of some people to dictate that research into *any* subject be banned. I will freely admit that I am quite afraid of the superstitious gaining political power over science. It has happened several times in the past, and the results have never been pretty. People like the grandparent poster were part of the mob that flayed the Librarian at Alexandria alive, then roasted her on the fires as they burned the library. The same sort of thinking resulted in witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the mass murder of the Albigensian "heritics", etc.
It is not a large step from "this evil science must be banned" to "the evil scientists must be burned". My reply to the grandparent poster was harsh, I probably shouldn't have been so nasty to him. But I do fear him and his ilk...
Starship Troopers the movie is ten times better than the ponderous monstrosity which is Starship Troopers the book.
Wow. I have honestly never met someone who thought that. I've met several people who liked the movie and never read the book, and I even know a few people who like both, but I have never found a single person who was exposed to both and liked the movie better.
Not trying to argue with you, its a matter of opinion, just expressing amazement.
Out of curiosity, do you like the movie, or just dislike the book so much the movie seems better, or what? I ask because your post didn't actually make it clear weather you liked the movie, or just really hated the book.
Frankly I think all his Lazurus Long books except 'Moon' are trash.
Ummm, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress isn't a Lazerus Long book. Different timeline. Lazerus is part of Heinlein's Future History timeline, while the timeline from Moon is only brought up in two other books: The Rolling Stones, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.
There's a down side to being able to keep people alive longer. Maybe you haven't noticed that the world's population is on the rise, more people are living in povery, lots of people don't have food, and Social Security is going bankrupt.
There is that. OTOH, if current trends continue we'll be seeing a shrinking population soon as contraceptive technology gets better and cheaper. Already several First World nations are seeing a shrinking population.
Slashdot Mirror
The real alternative from the corporate dominated, expensive label, universe is any free Unix (*BSD, Linux, whatever) on cheep hardware. I'm too poor to pay an extra 10-15% for "Apple Engineering", or (more realistically) the Apple Image(TM).
Again, I'm not trying to flame or troll here, I do know that Apple generally produces very high quality products, and I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't use Apple, I just can't see how they got a "rebel" image...
I have two objections to the "let's just shoot 'em" crowd, firstly, I never have been able to understand the bizarre notion that somehow fair trails would weaken our ability to fight terrorism. They seem to take this as a given, and it seems completely unfounded to me. The second objection is due to the very nature of a jury trial. The main reason we have fair and open trials is for the benefit of the general population, not really for the accused (though the accused certainly benefits). But we have these trials so that we can be assured that the system is working properly. That the accused is truly guilty, not merely disliked. That the evidence is sufficient, not merely trumped up. Trials exist to proove that the system works. We need that proof, because we do not dare simply trust that the system works. I'm always amazed that the people who claim not to trust the government (in general) are so willing to trust the government (in this specific).
I've heard people say things like "In times like this we have to..." and thats BS. If the rules are only there when its easy, then they don't count for diddily. It is just as important important that Padila get a fair trial as it is that Joe Blow the convenience store robber get one.
Really, if we live in a nation where the ruler can say "he's bad, let's just shoot him, no need for a trial", how is that different from the way Saddam ran things?
.
And yes, I do know that XP has some serious stability improvements; I use it when I play games that WineX can't handle.
Without that a simple majority could exclude a huge minority (as we've seen in Iran, for example). Again, I'm not in favor of disenfranchising religous types, but I am strongly in favor of building a system where it takes a supermajority to get systematic changes passed. Such as we have for the US Constitution: it takes a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, followed by 3/4 of the State Legislatures to amend the Constitution. This isn't impossible, but it does make it quite difficult for a 51% majority to screw over the remaining 49% of the population.
Going back to Iraq, the Shiite sect accounts for roughly 60%-65% of the population. Under a US style Constitution that isn't enough to get even the 2/3 supermajority required to start a Constitutional amendment mandating Shiite Islam. Even assuming that all Shiite Congressmen voted for the measure (not likely) the Suni minority (roughly 33%-37%) would have enough votes to keep themselves from being disenfranchised. Its not a matter of excluding people, facist like, but rather a matter of making it so that it takes almost all the people agreeing on something to change the basic rules. It tends to keep civil wars down. Sometimes this tends not to work too well (see entries under the US Civil War), but on the whole it keeps a nice balance of power.
I take it that you haven't studied statistics much. The fact is that if you take a random sampling from a large body you are usually quite accurate. Take a bowl of 15,000 M&Ms and I'll guarantee you that if you get a random sample of 150 you can be accurate to within a few percent of the composition of the total number of M&Ms. Obviously the sample was not completely ranom, it automatically selected for people with telephones, for example. OTOH such sampling methods have been proven to be accurate to within 5%, usually to within 3%. Here's a link to the subject of statistical sampling: isn't Google fun? On to other topics...
Ahh, the perils of using "humorous exageration" when debating. No, I don't think that they seriously, literally, went to war for fun. However I don't think there is any doubt that they seriously thought that Hussain was a threat to the US or to "stability in that part of the world". A certian group of government insiders, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, have been trying to get the US to conquer Iraq for more than a decade now. Every single time any act of terror happened their immediate response was to urge war on Iraq, regardless of the source of the terror. Immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing this group was demanding an immediate attack on Iraq; then it turned out that Tim McVeigh was responsible and they shut up for a while. Since they have been incessantly demanding this war, with no apparent reason, for some time now I think its only sensable to look for ulterior motives. Oil and getting to put military bases in Iraq seem like the most likely explinations. Freeing the oppressed Iraqi people is obviously not on their list of priorities because if it was they'd have been working to shut off US support for dictators. Seems like an easy way to work against dictators: stop paying them.
I quit wearing my tinfoil hat last week, it clashed with my communist party membership badge :)
More seriously, why is it that people like you manage to spin "criticism of the government" into "hating America". It really pisses me off, I happen to love my country, and I happen to think that its downright revolting that "my" government supports dictators. Which is more patriotic, trying to fix the problems of your government, or pretending that the problems don't exist and calling everyone who disagrees a traitor?
This isn't a Bush government issue, its a US government issue. For the past 50 years the US government has had a policy of supporting dictators, it is anti-American, and immoral, but the government has been doing it. Recall, please, that Saddam was getting massive US backing during a time when the government knew damn well that he was using chemical weapons on the Kurds. One of the most darkly amusing things about the propaganda leading up to this war was the way Rumsfeld would say, horror tinting his voice, that Hussain had "gassed his own people". This picture of Rumsfeld giving a big grin while shaking Hussains hand came from a time when Rumsfeld *KNEW* that Hussain was using chemical weapons on the Kurds and chose to ignore it because it was government policy to support that particular dictator. The American people don't support dictators, which is why so many people (possibly including you) tend to blame the messanger (like me) when I point out that the go
This makes sense from pretty much anystandpoint you want to look at it from, even though it does sometimes produce odd results. It goes back to the basic idea that crimes are actions, you can't arrest someone for speculating about how nifty it would be to rob a bank (you can, however arrest someone for *planning* to rob the bank, you don't have to actually wait for them to do it). If it were otherwise we'd be entering the wonderful world of Thought Crimes (TM).
Besides, the way it works now leads to some very amusing situations, such as the "wine brick" that was sold during prohibition. This was basically a compressed bunch of raisens. The instruction sheet contained an interesting warning:
Caution: Never mix contents in two gallons of warm water
to which you have added a pinch of yeast, and one pound of sugar.
If this mixture is left to stand in a cloth covered container
for two weeks, an ALCOHOLIC beverage will result, which is illegal.
The tactics used by the Bush government to encourage this belief ran from the "Lie loud, retract quiet" brand (in which a government official would say outright that Saddam was involved in 9/11, then later retract the statement on a footnote on page 47), to the simple associative method (in which a government official would begin by talking about Saddam, segue into 9/11, and then swirve back to Saddam, never actually *saying* that they were connected, but giving the impression that they were). The government knew that the average American wouldn't support a war in Iraq based on the "Well, Cheney and Rumsfeld think it would be fun" argument, so they deliberately set out to associate Saddam with 9/11. It worked too. Never underestimate Karl Rove, or the ability of Joe Average to be mislead.
Part of the problem with "democracy" is that simple voting isn't enough. A democracy also requires a structure that includes certain, very difficult to change, limits. Like the Constitution of the US (or any other democracy). That, and a strong judicial branch, is what keeps the fundies in the US from voting in a theocracy, and what (hopefully) will keep a theocracy from forming in Iraq. Make it so that it takes more votes than any single sect can muster to put in a theocracy and you never get a theocracy.
I can't see how this war has done diddily for increasing US security. It took attention (read: money) away from Afghanistan, so now the Taliban is making a comeback. It caused huge rifts between the US and its allies, which will make international police work harder. It caused a lot of effort to be taken off finding Osama. It's caused a lot of Arabs to have personal reason to hate the US and given Al-Quda and other similar outfits a huge pool to recruit from.
I really do wish I could see how the Iraqi war improved our security. I don't really want to believe that we've wasted that much money, and all those lives just because it gives Rumsfeld and Cheney a war they've wanted since the mid 90's.
Again, don't misundertand me, the fact that Saddam is out of power is a good thing. Likewise I have no doubt that most Iraqis are very glad he's out of power. Its the other issues (and the long term in Iraq) that worry me.
I should have written "dictatorial regime" rather than "dictator" when refering to Indonesia.
As for the Bush government *saying* that Saddam was involved in 9/11, no, no one associated with the Bush government ever actually said it. But they sure did imply it. Here's links to the implications. Remember, when in doubt try the facts, they're much better than your faith in the Bush government, if a bit less comfortable to begin with.
There, isn't reality better than fantasy?
Try again, this time with a grounding in reality instead of propaganda. The Bush government has no interest in supporting democracy worldwide, and it actively provides support to dictatorships just as nasty as Saddam Hussain's Iraq ever was.
Don't misunderstand me, I agree that Saddam need to be taken out of power, and I also agree that the UN isn't good at things like that. But its utter nonesense to pretend that the Bush government is interested in human rights.
Bear in mind that before the dust had settled from the Oklahoma City bombing this same crowd was calling for an immediate invasion of Iraq. Then they discovered it was done by McVeigh. Right after the *first* WTC attack, this same group was calling for an invasion of Iraq. Right after 9/11, this same group was calling for an invasion of Iraq. If their Aunt Marge got the gout, they called for an invasion of Iraq...
My point here is that these people have, for reasons of their own, wanted an invasion of Iraq for more than a decade now. Liberating the Iraqi people isn't their reason.
A few points here that you seem to be either in error on, or putting words into my mouth on.
Nope, its mostly going to buy the dictator more weapons to oppress them with. That was kinda my point. I'm not in favor of the US assinating foreign heads of state, and I'm not in favor of the US trying to police the world. But the very fricking least our government could do would be to stop supporting dictators.
This is why I say that the Bush government's "we did it because Saddam was bad" line is nothing more than a disgusting lie. Nevermind the fact that the US isn't trying to overthrow other people just as bad, no, the Bush government is supporting people who are as bad as Saddam was. Read up on what the Indonesian dictator is doing to his people (and to American citizens, two were raped and tortured last year). Yet the Bush government is actually working to send aid to the Indonesian dictator. And they have succeeded in getting $100M sent to Uzbekistan, where the dictator engages in rape, murder, and torture, just like Saddam, yet the Bush government treats him like a friend. This is hypocracy, plain and simple, and its why I cannot stand hearing the Bush government claim that it took out Saddam because of his human rights violations.
Actually, it would be quite useful if there were some way to get real numbers out of Iraq, but it isn't. I suspect that quite a few more than 1% want the US out. Again, this doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't bad, and that they aren't happy that he's gone; they just want the US gone too. The reason I suspect that more than 1% are unhappy (to put it mildly) with the US is because of what happens *after* a US soldier gets killed: there's usually a cheering crowd gathered around, which can't be good for moral.
More to the point, 1% can't organize the kind of gurilla attacks that we've been seeing. It doesn't take many people to shoot a gun, or fire off an RPG, or what have you, but it does take a rather large support base in the general population to hide the combatants, keep them supplied, etc. Notice that the US soldiers have only caught a handful of Iraqi gurillas. This means that, at a minimum, the average Iraqi isn't helping the US find these gurillas, which implies a certain degree of sympathy with the gurillas.
I honestly don't know what the answer to the problem is, a complete US withdrawl from Iraq at this point would plunge the entire country into the kind of anarchistic chaos that grows dictators, and hurts lots of people. The US soldiers don't like being there, and they are (quite understandably) nervious every time they see an Iraqi. They're trained to respond to a threat of violence with overwealming force; which is great for winning wars, but not so good for keeping order after you win.
More international help would doubtless be tremendously helpful. Unfortunately, the Bush government managed to waste all the goodwill the US had worldwide by starting this war the way he did... The general attitude among other nations seems to be: "He started this war on his own, why should I help now?" I can't say I really blame them for having that attitude, it'd be nice if the other major powers would just forget about all the insults, etc, that the Bush government has smacked them with, but that isn't going to happen.
Of course, in the midst of all this Osama is still at large, Afghanistan is coming back under Taliban control (remember back in the old days when the US beat someone and they stayed beaten? Not under the Bush government), and international terrorism seems to have been completely unaffected by the Bush government's decision to invade Iraq. The entire thing has been a hundreds of billions dollar distraction from the *real* objective of ending kind of terrorism that resulted in 9/11.
Look, I'm not saying that Saddam Hussain wasn't a vile thug, he was. The fact that he is out of power is a good thing, no argument. But. Hating Saddam isn't the same as loving the US. Most Iraqis are doubtless overjoyed that Saddam's government has been toppled, that doesn't mean they like a US occupation of their country either.
On a broader note, I object to the "we're doing it for the poor downtroden people" chest-thumping coming from the Bush government because it is a horrible lie. The same Bush government that is now telling us the war was about human rights, not oil or WMD, has steadfastly ignored the abuses of other dictators, and continues to provide military support for several people at least as bad as Hussain. Look at Indonesia and Uzbekistan, both ruled with an iron fist by people who use mass murder and torture (just like Saddam). Yet neither nation is even being publicly rebuked by the Bush government. Uzbekistan is getting $100M in aid, and the Bush government is pushing to "normalize" military relations with the dictator of Indonesia.
As soon as the Bush government stops giving money and military support to torturing, mass murdering, dictatorships, I'll start believing the "we did it because Saddam was a bad man" line. But let's be honest, getting rid of the vile Saddam Hussain was a side issue. The real issue was letting Halliburton and other corporations that gave millions in "campaign contributons" access to Iraq's oil.
The Bush government never actually *said* that Hussain was behind 9/11, but various officials, press announcements, State of the Union Addresses, etc, implied it rather strongly. Since our "liberal" media wouldn't dream of correcting the Bush government's insinuations the image of Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind stuck in the public's mind.
I quite agree, and frankly the lack of safety measures at the for-profit biotech corporations worries me greatly. I am not saying that genetic research should be taken lightly, or taken without appropriate precautions. But I do say that the outright banning of research into human genetics, or the use of stem cells, etc, is absolutely wrong. Regulation, yes. Monitoring, yes. But the grandparent wasn't expressing concern about the possible accidents, or misues of biotechnology. He was demanding, in the name of his own personal religious beliefs, that we completely abandon research into the subject.
It is utterly and completely insane to allow the religious superstitions of some people to dictate that research into *any* subject be banned. I will freely admit that I am quite afraid of the superstitious gaining political power over science. It has happened several times in the past, and the results have never been pretty. People like the grandparent poster were part of the mob that flayed the Librarian at Alexandria alive, then roasted her on the fires as they burned the library. The same sort of thinking resulted in witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the mass murder of the Albigensian "heritics", etc.
It is not a large step from "this evil science must be banned" to "the evil scientists must be burned". My reply to the grandparent poster was harsh, I probably shouldn't have been so nasty to him. But I do fear him and his ilk...
Not trying to argue with you, its a matter of opinion, just expressing amazement.
Out of curiosity, do you like the movie, or just dislike the book so much the movie seems better, or what? I ask because your post didn't actually make it clear weather you liked the movie, or just really hated the book.