Meanwhile, private enterprise largely built the Internet after the very early phase, while government did its best to prevent commercial use. You know, companies like Sun, Cisco, etc, etc, etc, etc....
FAIL: Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992
No. Private enterprise did not want the internet. In large part they said "it's just a fad, no significant amount of commerce will be done over the internet." Were you asleep all through the 90's? Here is a typical such article from Newsweek in 1995:
I don't get it. Without government subsidies and other involvement, there would be no internet. So you are arguing that we would be better off without the internet...on the internet no less? Or maybe you were talking about government subsidies to help build power grids, telephone lines, or highways? Our economy would be better without infrastructure that directly enables commerce? Fail.
That's a great idealistic stance. I have a strong suspicion that in this in this case it is just that, an idealistic stance with no relation to the reality of the situation.
First off, you have potentially dangerous chemicals involved. If you use too many or the wrong mixtures, then you potentially adversely affect the public health. There are also danger from using too few chemicals and / or not cleaning the pool.
The there's the issue of the construction of the pool and any potential gas lines, power mains, etc. that would be affected. Not to mention the fact that a poorly constructed pool could very well flood his neighbor/s house. The funny thing is, many of the people in uproar over "why would you need permits and regulations for a pool?" are the very same people who would be outraged over "why wasn't anything done about the potential dangers to the public?" when things go pear shaped.
Laws don't happen in a vacuum. They exist because the general public cannot be trusted, and have likely proven such many times over. That is not to say that there aren't some who would do all their homework and do everything right. The bottom line is whether you realize it or want to admit it or not, there is less burden on the public by having such laws than the burden on the public would be if there were no such laws.
While I appreciate the work you put in your post and I can't disagree with it's premise, it is hard to ignore the fact that Robert Novak was a columnist, and when he outed Plame for Cheney it was fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that the WaHoPo had more than one columnist who got privileged information from the Bush administration in return for favorable treatment in the columns they wrote. Personally, that will always color my perception of the rag regardless of the future makeup of their editorial board.
While it's not a valid excuse for everything you claim to have experienced, it's not like we don't have good reason to be cautious. When's the last time Malaysia had three planes hijacked and flew into highly populated buildings in a highly populated area? Who would even bother doing that to a piddling island like Australia?
While I have to take into the real possibility that you've run into some Joe Rednecks who took their new found authority too seriously(coupled with a likely (admittedly misguided) sense of patriotism and duty,) you don't seem to want to acknowledge or respect that America does not tolerate being attacked...despite the fact that you are probably living a much different and likely better life directly because of how we feel about being attacked. Or would you like to claim you would have been better off if Hitler and Hirohito had been left unchallenged to take over the world?
I am a ACLU card carrying, police hating, freedom loving person, but I am glad my country takes attacks on our soil very seriously, and if you are that upset about our being 'rude' because of that seriousness, stay the fuck out.
What do you mean? Corporations can't be trusted to police themselves and not cut corners when it would help them make more money? Are you saying they can't be trusted not to peddle influence until they make the rules and be in charge of 'enforcing' them too unless strict regulation specifically prohibits them from doing so? Just look at the oil industry...er...
You're kidding right? They have some BS pushed by the ACL and failed twice in parliment for Christ's sake. What do we have:warrant-less wiretapping and seizures at the airport for just looking funny. I'd say we got the better deal.
There, Fixed that for you.
The internet filter in Australia exists only in your mind, parliament smacked down the idea twice.
OTOH, how are those free speech zones and TSA searches going.
Free speech zones got the boot with Bush, near as I can tell. On the contrary, if anything the American left listens too much to it's critics, as evidenced by the firing of an innocent woman last week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOYl0_sz6o
AS far as TSA goes, meh. I doubt there's an airport in this world where passengers aren't scrutinized to some degree. I've flown many times in and from the US without feeling like my freedoms are significantly curtailed.
Well said. Bravo. Rather than accept such attitudes, people should tell Verizon exactly why they're leaving and leave. In my case, I did and went to Sprint who happens to also have much better service and coverage in my area. While Sprint's CS hasn't been completely stellar, it's well above Verizon's, and like erroneus, I always suspected it came from the top. If I hadn't already made the change, I would be making it right now. No-one should tolerate such business practices. Additionally, since they are making a policy of refusing to credit accidental charges, I wonder if that doesn't fall directly under deceptive trade practices since they obviously know that such charges are being unintentionally incurred, and they are knowingly profiting off such as well as implementing policies specifically intended to profit off these deceptive practices.
On the other side of this, I have worked as a phone rep. In fact I have worked at a contractor who at the time had the Verizon account. I'm not sure if that contractor still does Verizon support, but they take pride in following such practices..."whatever the client wants" even if that client is plainly screwing the customer. Today's version of 'customer service' has made me so disillusioned I am strongly considering getting out of tech and into something like food services, where good customer service and providing quality goods is actually still appreciated and is even rewarded to a large degree.
I would urge both sides (the jingoists and leftists) step back and think about this story. As has been mentioned previously, there is such thing as the fog of war and it is perfectly understandable that anyone carrying a shoulder mounted ANYTHING could be perceived as a threat in a war zone. On the other hand, you have to wonder whether the Apache personnel could have figured out their mistake at some point between firing at the reporters and firing on a civilian who was helping wounded civilians. As for that video, the main issue here is that all war is hell. Call it a cliche if you want, it's the truth. Since war is hell, it should be entered into only as a last resort, and while I would not characterize the Bush doctrine of preemptive war as last resort, even when entered into as a last resort, war is STILL hell.
As for Manning, I think it is fairly clear by reading the conversations with Adrian Lamo that he was having a crisis of conscience. I have mixed feelings about his actions. When he joined the military, he became a literal tool of the government. As such, any issue of conscience should have been brought to his government. I come from a family with a military tradition (my grandfather, uncle, both parents, and my brother were all enlisted) and I was taught that you take your grievances through the chain of command. Despite this, as I have found out in the 'real world,' if you bring such a grievance that no one wants to hear or deal with to people who have no honor (sadly, it seems this includes the majority of people I have known who are in any kind of power) then your grievance will get buried and you will be in a shitstorm. It's pretty clear that he experienced this when he tried to go through proper channels concerning the "anti-iraq literature" and found out that the US was in essence propping up a corrupt dictator. At that point I can understand coming to a moral decision that there was no 'going through channels' and that the greater good could be served by bringing grave injustices out into the light of day. While I don't necessarily agree with his actions, I think characterizing his actions as "all he cared about was hurting the military" would be wrong from what I have read in the linked article and others. On the other hand, I think characterizing him as a "hero whistle blower" might be just as flawed.
In the end, we just have to hope that he did not leak anything that will cause permanent harm to America, and that just maybe what he did leak will cause the politicians and military to rethink policies and make positive changes. A just society should have no fear from the truth.
So you are arguing that we would be better off without interstate roads, public education, and the internet? So far as I can see, there is a vast difference between those things and a free pony. Quite the leap you took there. I think that's the exact point, interstate roads, public education, and yes, even the internet (under the auspice of information infrastructure) are all things that the private sector could not or would not provide, and so the government stepped in, and our society is better off because of it. Should we give government unlimited power over our lives such as in Huxley's Brave New World? No. But no one has suggested we do so. Slippery slope is a fallacious argument to begin with, but if you expect to be taken seriously when you use such a dubious tactic, you need to bridge the gap between general welfare infrastructure and a pony.
Please, kindly take your "general welfare" and shove it up your ass. Your invocation of that clause is illustrative of an inability to read: it's in the preamble, not the body, of the Constitution.
Fail. It's in two places, so I would curb that haughty tone if I were you. Yes it is in the preamble... however it's also in the body: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; "
And yes, Madison certainly stated that the clause was not intended to give Congress unlimited power. That is why the Constitution also includes checks and balances. He certainly did NOT say that the clause should be disregarded completely, as you and the radical right might have us believe.
No matter what, I cannot envision ANY founding father being against ending starvation and poverty for our society if it was within our grasp. The way I see it, we can all pull together and succeed like we did during and after WW2, or the greedy assholes can tear us apart and our great country can fall and fail until we are just another third world country.
Wrong. Two people working together can do the work of 4 people separately. In a survival situation, working together is even more important. The current culture (especially corporate culture) encourages unnecessary competition. People are our greatest asset. We set them at each others throats at our own peril.
You are right about the constitutional right part, but dead wrong about the whole 'perception and image' bullshit. People take themselves and one week of 'bad pr' way too seriously. A company should have the integrity to stand behind a 21 year veteran. Period.
You can't even spell weak, and I'm to take your opinion on education seriously? I don't care if they teach about the contract on America, as long as they include the facts that no term limits bill even made it to the floor, and the portions that passed included bills that cut welfare to teenage mothers, built new prisons to fill, and protected the poor rich corporations from the citizens of the United States. Not to mention at roughly the same time as the contract the Republican controlled legislative branch finished gutting Glass-Steagall, bringing about our current financial woes.
I have no problem with them teaching about Goldwater either, at least he was honest about his views, unlike today's neocons who talk out of both sides of their mouths. But if you are going to talk about Goldwater, you'd better mention that because of the 'socialist' leadership of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (socialized highways), Kennedy, and LBJ, our country enjoyed financial dominance and raised our standard of living exponentially.
And I don't know of any knowledgeable person who thinks Nixon started Vietnam, and I have never seen a textbook that gave that 'impression'. Please present said textbook. Perhaps it is the fact that he promised to get us out and then completely failed to do so that confuses some people.
Military engineers might be able to do better, without the conflicts of interest involved such as when BP says it is leaking 5000 barrels a day and then says their sippy straw that is hardly denting the spill is taking in 5000 barrels a day...
But yeah, the time for the government to be effective on this issue was in the past, when the oil companies were allowed to go deeper and deeper without new regulations. Face it, this is free market capitalism at it's finest. If a company has a choice between using old technology and safety protocols or spending money on new technology and safety protocols, you know which one they are going to choose every time. And it's no surprise the new Republican darling Rand Paul wants you to think it was an accident. As usual, Republicans are all about responsibility except when it's them or their beloved corporations and financial institutions. And just like those corporations, it's always everybody else's fault and never theirs.
The GOVERNMENT is the problem? Really?! This was free market capitalism at it's finest. Oh wait... collusion and price fixing never happen, at least if you believe the free market advocates. And it is the government haters who are usually the largest opponent of any regulations with teeth, so all they CAN do is fine companies. Meanwhile, you decry the government getting any money, yet you certainly enjoy the internet, roads, bridges, police, fire departments, clean tap water, disease-free food, the military's protection, etc... And you think it cost nothing to create and prosecute this case and others like it? If people put half the energy they spend complaining about the government into making the government better, (even if only educating themselves about the government) we would all be much better off.
Respect the status quo, never question authority or religion. Never do anything controversial. People have a right to not be offended.- Things a total tool says.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't need a citation for common knowledge, but since knowledge evidently is not too common:
Exhibit A: DARPANET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
Exhibit B: TCP/IP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#TCP.2FIP
Exhibit C: High Performance Computing Act of 1991
http://www.nitrd.gov/congressional/laws/pl_102-194.html
Meanwhile, private enterprise largely built the Internet after the very early phase, while government did its best to prevent commercial use. You know, companies like Sun, Cisco, etc, etc, etc, etc....
FAIL: Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992
Nuff said.
No. Private enterprise did not want the internet. In large part they said "it's just a fad, no significant amount of commerce will be done over the internet." Were you asleep all through the 90's? Here is a typical such article from Newsweek in 1995:
http://www.newsweek.com/1995/02/26/the-internet-bah.html
I don't get it. Without government subsidies and other involvement, there would be no internet. So you are arguing that we would be better off without the internet...on the internet no less? Or maybe you were talking about government subsidies to help build power grids, telephone lines, or highways? Our economy would be better without infrastructure that directly enables commerce? Fail.
That's a great idealistic stance. I have a strong suspicion that in this in this case it is just that, an idealistic stance with no relation to the reality of the situation.
First off, you have potentially dangerous chemicals involved. If you use too many or the wrong mixtures, then you potentially adversely affect the public health. There are also danger from using too few chemicals and / or not cleaning the pool.
The there's the issue of the construction of the pool and any potential gas lines, power mains, etc. that would be affected. Not to mention the fact that a poorly constructed pool could very well flood his neighbor/s house. The funny thing is, many of the people in uproar over "why would you need permits and regulations for a pool?" are the very same people who would be outraged over "why wasn't anything done about the potential dangers to the public?" when things go pear shaped.
Laws don't happen in a vacuum. They exist because the general public cannot be trusted, and have likely proven such many times over. That is not to say that there aren't some who would do all their homework and do everything right. The bottom line is whether you realize it or want to admit it or not, there is less burden on the public by having such laws than the burden on the public would be if there were no such laws.
While I appreciate the work you put in your post and I can't disagree with it's premise, it is hard to ignore the fact that Robert Novak was a columnist, and when he outed Plame for Cheney it was fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that the WaHoPo had more than one columnist who got privileged information from the Bush administration in return for favorable treatment in the columns they wrote. Personally, that will always color my perception of the rag regardless of the future makeup of their editorial board.
While it's not a valid excuse for everything you claim to have experienced, it's not like we don't have good reason to be cautious. When's the last time Malaysia had three planes hijacked and flew into highly populated buildings in a highly populated area? Who would even bother doing that to a piddling island like Australia?
While I have to take into the real possibility that you've run into some Joe Rednecks who took their new found authority too seriously(coupled with a likely (admittedly misguided) sense of patriotism and duty,) you don't seem to want to acknowledge or respect that America does not tolerate being attacked...despite the fact that you are probably living a much different and likely better life directly because of how we feel about being attacked. Or would you like to claim you would have been better off if Hitler and Hirohito had been left unchallenged to take over the world?
I am a ACLU card carrying, police hating, freedom loving person, but I am glad my country takes attacks on our soil very seriously, and if you are that upset about our being 'rude' because of that seriousness, stay the fuck out.
What do you mean? Corporations can't be trusted to police themselves and not cut corners when it would help them make more money? Are you saying they can't be trusted not to peddle influence until they make the rules and be in charge of 'enforcing' them too unless strict regulation specifically prohibits them from doing so? Just look at the oil industry...er...
There, Fixed that for you.
The internet filter in Australia exists only in your mind, parliament smacked down the idea twice.
OTOH, how are those free speech zones and TSA searches going.
Free speech zones got the boot with Bush, near as I can tell. On the contrary, if anything the American left listens too much to it's critics, as evidenced by the firing of an innocent woman last week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOYl0_sz6o
AS far as TSA goes, meh. I doubt there's an airport in this world where passengers aren't scrutinized to some degree. I've flown many times in and from the US without feeling like my freedoms are significantly curtailed.
Yeah, the SCOTUS that appointed a president was SUCH a model of government restraint.
Well said. Bravo. Rather than accept such attitudes, people should tell Verizon exactly why they're leaving and leave. In my case, I did and went to Sprint who happens to also have much better service and coverage in my area. While Sprint's CS hasn't been completely stellar, it's well above Verizon's, and like erroneus, I always suspected it came from the top. If I hadn't already made the change, I would be making it right now. No-one should tolerate such business practices. Additionally, since they are making a policy of refusing to credit accidental charges, I wonder if that doesn't fall directly under deceptive trade practices since they obviously know that such charges are being unintentionally incurred, and they are knowingly profiting off such as well as implementing policies specifically intended to profit off these deceptive practices.
On the other side of this, I have worked as a phone rep. In fact I have worked at a contractor who at the time had the Verizon account. I'm not sure if that contractor still does Verizon support, but they take pride in following such practices..."whatever the client wants" even if that client is plainly screwing the customer. Today's version of 'customer service' has made me so disillusioned I am strongly considering getting out of tech and into something like food services, where good customer service and providing quality goods is actually still appreciated and is even rewarded to a large degree.
I would urge both sides (the jingoists and leftists) step back and think about this story. As has been mentioned previously, there is such thing as the fog of war and it is perfectly understandable that anyone carrying a shoulder mounted ANYTHING could be perceived as a threat in a war zone. On the other hand, you have to wonder whether the Apache personnel could have figured out their mistake at some point between firing at the reporters and firing on a civilian who was helping wounded civilians. As for that video, the main issue here is that all war is hell. Call it a cliche if you want, it's the truth. Since war is hell, it should be entered into only as a last resort, and while I would not characterize the Bush doctrine of preemptive war as last resort, even when entered into as a last resort, war is STILL hell.
As for Manning, I think it is fairly clear by reading the conversations with Adrian Lamo that he was having a crisis of conscience. I have mixed feelings about his actions. When he joined the military, he became a literal tool of the government. As such, any issue of conscience should have been brought to his government. I come from a family with a military tradition (my grandfather, uncle, both parents, and my brother were all enlisted) and I was taught that you take your grievances through the chain of command. Despite this, as I have found out in the 'real world,' if you bring such a grievance that no one wants to hear or deal with to people who have no honor (sadly, it seems this includes the majority of people I have known who are in any kind of power) then your grievance will get buried and you will be in a shitstorm. It's pretty clear that he experienced this when he tried to go through proper channels concerning the "anti-iraq literature" and found out that the US was in essence propping up a corrupt dictator. At that point I can understand coming to a moral decision that there was no 'going through channels' and that the greater good could be served by bringing grave injustices out into the light of day. While I don't necessarily agree with his actions, I think characterizing his actions as "all he cared about was hurting the military" would be wrong from what I have read in the linked article and others. On the other hand, I think characterizing him as a "hero whistle blower" might be just as flawed.
In the end, we just have to hope that he did not leak anything that will cause permanent harm to America, and that just maybe what he did leak will cause the politicians and military to rethink policies and make positive changes. A just society should have no fear from the truth.
So you are arguing that we would be better off without interstate roads, public education, and the internet? So far as I can see, there is a vast difference between those things and a free pony. Quite the leap you took there. I think that's the exact point, interstate roads, public education, and yes, even the internet (under the auspice of information infrastructure) are all things that the private sector could not or would not provide, and so the government stepped in, and our society is better off because of it. Should we give government unlimited power over our lives such as in Huxley's Brave New World? No. But no one has suggested we do so. Slippery slope is a fallacious argument to begin with, but if you expect to be taken seriously when you use such a dubious tactic, you need to bridge the gap between general welfare infrastructure and a pony.
Please, kindly take your "general welfare" and shove it up your ass. Your invocation of that clause is illustrative of an inability to read: it's in the preamble, not the body, of the Constitution.
Fail. It's in two places, so I would curb that haughty tone if I were you. Yes it is in the preamble... however it's also in the body:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; "
And yes, Madison certainly stated that the clause was not intended to give Congress unlimited power. That is why the Constitution also includes checks and balances. He certainly did NOT say that the clause should be disregarded completely, as you and the radical right might have us believe.
No matter what, I cannot envision ANY founding father being against ending starvation and poverty for our society if it was within our grasp. The way I see it, we can all pull together and succeed like we did during and after WW2, or the greedy assholes can tear us apart and our great country can fall and fail until we are just another third world country.
Isn't that actually a Lego plotter?
Like fire or any other powerful force, government can help or harm, depending upon how it is applied.
Wrong. Two people working together can do the work of 4 people separately. In a survival situation, working together is even more important. The current culture (especially corporate culture) encourages unnecessary competition. People are our greatest asset. We set them at each others throats at our own peril.
Many "non-American" cars are actually manufactured in America these days. And the last Republican Mayor of Detroit was in 1961.
You are right about the constitutional right part, but dead wrong about the whole 'perception and image' bullshit. People take themselves and one week of 'bad pr' way too seriously. A company should have the integrity to stand behind a 21 year veteran. Period.
Nerd rage about spelling often?
Crickets...
You can't even spell weak, and I'm to take your opinion on education seriously? I don't care if they teach about the contract on America, as long as they include the facts that no term limits bill even made it to the floor, and the portions that passed included bills that cut welfare to teenage mothers, built new prisons to fill, and protected the poor rich corporations from the citizens of the United States. Not to mention at roughly the same time as the contract the Republican controlled legislative branch finished gutting Glass-Steagall, bringing about our current financial woes.
I have no problem with them teaching about Goldwater either, at least he was honest about his views, unlike today's neocons who talk out of both sides of their mouths. But if you are going to talk about Goldwater, you'd better mention that because of the 'socialist' leadership of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (socialized highways), Kennedy, and LBJ, our country enjoyed financial dominance and raised our standard of living exponentially.
And I don't know of any knowledgeable person who thinks Nixon started Vietnam, and I have never seen a textbook that gave that 'impression'. Please present said textbook. Perhaps it is the fact that he promised to get us out and then completely failed to do so that confuses some people.
Military engineers might be able to do better, without the conflicts of interest involved such as when BP says it is leaking 5000 barrels a day and then says their sippy straw that is hardly denting the spill is taking in 5000 barrels a day...
But yeah, the time for the government to be effective on this issue was in the past, when the oil companies were allowed to go deeper and deeper without new regulations. Face it, this is free market capitalism at it's finest. If a company has a choice between using old technology and safety protocols or spending money on new technology and safety protocols, you know which one they are going to choose every time. And it's no surprise the new Republican darling Rand Paul wants you to think it was an accident. As usual, Republicans are all about responsibility except when it's them or their beloved corporations and financial institutions. And just like those corporations, it's always everybody else's fault and never theirs.
The GOVERNMENT is the problem? Really?! This was free market capitalism at it's finest. Oh wait... collusion and price fixing never happen, at least if you believe the free market advocates. And it is the government haters who are usually the largest opponent of any regulations with teeth, so all they CAN do is fine companies. Meanwhile, you decry the government getting any money, yet you certainly enjoy the internet, roads, bridges, police, fire departments, clean tap water, disease-free food, the military's protection, etc... And you think it cost nothing to create and prosecute this case and others like it? If people put half the energy they spend complaining about the government into making the government better, (even if only educating themselves about the government) we would all be much better off.
Respect the status quo, never question authority or religion. Never do anything controversial. People have a right to not be offended.- Things a total tool says.