Well Massachussetts' DMV is hardly the norm. DMV in CO is one big convoluted mess...when I moved here from PA, I had to do 4 discrete things in order to get license and car done. PA's system was not much fun, but CO managed to step up the pain.
No WAY do I want the government in charge of my Internet connection. They already grow (in budget), every year, at a rate faster than inflation - which is already quite ridiculous - if we put them in charge of Internet access, the next step is to have Democrats urging for subsidizing connections for lower income families. And that's going to screw everyone who is making more than 15-20K or whatever the poverty level is these days. Or screw them over again, I should say.
The government already tacks on something like $5 or $6 for federal access charges on phone lines...plus other assorted taxes. I have to check again, but with taxes and these fees, I think it adds $8 to my phone bill - I can't imagine what they'll do to broadband.
Everytime there is a problem and people say, "There outta be a law" or "This needs government oversight" or whatever, they should stop and think twice about that. I can't BELIEVE that we are going to federalize airport security - good grief. Not only is this just plain stupid when one thinks about it, there are specific examples that provide reasons why we shouldn't - Israel has tried this, and decided it wasn't for the best. Why do we have to go through the same pain? It's next to impossible to fire someone from the government, so this is supposed to make us safe HOW?
Besides, anyone running a *nix variant should not be calling tech support EVER. No excuses.
What a ridiculous claim. So an electrician shouldn't call if his power is out? I only call when I'm really trying to point out a problem on their end...i.e., their DNS servers were not accessible by their customers.
If you think that tech support doesn't generate revenue, you may be right...but bad tech support kills lots of revenue. I'll jump on another provider the MINUTE I know I can get better quality support with equal type of service. Unfortunately, AT&T has a monopoly on broadband for the neighborhood I live in.
Case in point: QWest, which used to be USWest, charged me to have my phone changed to my name because my roommate's credit was not good enough to not have to pay some ridiculous deposit to get long distance ($140). I had my credit checked prior, and then, a week later, still no long distance. So I call, and ask what is going on. I'm told that I have to pay a deposit. I was told one week ago that I didn't need one - THAT'S WHY I PAID THE STUPID CHARGE TO HAVE THE NAME SWITCHED. But no go, and they can't reimburse the name change charge, either, what do you know. After having service with Qwest for one year, I'm told "I can have long distance now with no deposit" when I was changing locations in CO...do you think I got it? Fuck no. I'm using calling cards from another vendor for the duration I have Qwest service - and that adds up to thousands over the years, you can be sure. Multiply that by other people like me who refuse to pay any more than absolutely necessary on account of "service" like this, and you've got a lot of $$$ that is going elsewhere.
Service matters. It matters a lot. And I've only called @Home a handful of times - imagine the average luser who has to talk to them all the time. The onus is not on the *customers* to see things your way.
And we all know what platform that software will (and won't) run on.
Hmmm, it will probably run on maybe two vendor's platform (Apple and MS)....and won't on the scores of others:
Solaris, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux, Ultrix...tech support is bad enough NOW when they say, "Go to your Start button and..." and I have to cut them off, and say, nope, not running Windows. To which they reply that they don't support Unix, and they try to get off the phone without doing any basic troubleshooting at all - one time the person on the other end didn't even know what PING was!!!! Good grief. He kept insisting that he can see the DNS in question that I couldn't route to, but I could open up any site by IP (clearly a DNS issue, eh?) and hence there was no problem. He wouldn't give me another DNS to use, either. Nitwit. I got another DNS from another @Home user, and things were flying again. Talk about do-it-yourself customer service. Ugh, can't imagine if they force me to run Windows. I guess I'll go back to dial-up before I tolerate that. Maybe DSL will get here before then...then I can throw them over, or at least threaten it. Competition is good.
This also brings to mind another bit of history: in the mid-90's the telcos bitching about so many people using dial-up, and so they were lobbying to be able to charge per-minute on local calls. Despite the fact that they were probably getting more revenue anyway from people installing extra lines for faxes and computers at home (my uncle at one time had FOUR lines into his house, at one time I used to have two, and paid almost $60 for it). I fail to understand why a company can come up with a model that fails to take into account changes in the tide, and then make customers pay for their mistakes when things change...the telcos complained that they only have (or had) enough switches in some areas to accomodate only 40% of their customers to be on at any one time...how is that the CUSTOMERS burden if that is not enough when things change. It should, by law, IMHO, be 100% : I want the phone to work when I pick it up, regardless of whether there are people dialing up and staying online longer than normal phone conversations, or if there is an act of war like on 9-11...it should work, unless there is a physical failure somewhere. Same with cable companies: if they projected the average use of customers' use to be X, and it then moves up to Y, don't try to gouge people in stupid ways like this - figure out some kind of bar that if you go over, you get charged per GB. I *still* think that telcos were just out to royally screw everyone to be able to pay for their $#@$#% switches that they should have had in the first place.
If they are really so worried about profits, they shouldn't be giving executives big bonuses, and CEO's great big golden parachutes while laying off thousands of workers and screwing their customers. I'm really big on capitalism, but some CEO/executives make way more money than is justified, IMHO, for their ROI.
Remember the days when some cable companies would charge extra for having an extra jack in apartments where they knew how many jacks were in there? That got shot down, eventually. I don't know if it was legislation or not.I didn't have such an apartment or cable at the time, but I know people were screaming bloody murder about it.
I'm sure the kind of demographic that can afford cable modem access have more than one computer, usually. And they won't be too happy if this comes to fruition.
Your fear of government is well-founded. Just witness the past travesties, as well as current expansion (WHY does the government spending have to grow at a rate higher than inflation? There is no need for this whatsoever). You gave some good examples. I think that a certification, done in moderation, would be just fine. A relatively good example would be to look at other "hard" engineering and how it is regulated. It's really not that bad. And this is coming from a Libertarian.:) A little bit of government goes a long way, if, at the outset, it is made clear where their reach should end. Of course, that's problematic, too, I suppose: witness the Second Amendment and all the handwringing over it. Any idiot can understand the intent, and that was the idea, but somehow, it got all twisted up and mangled over the phrase "regulated militia". Sigh. I definitely feel torn over the issue of government involvment in ANYTHING beyond military protection of our borders, and police and justice system keeping the peace, so it is tough. One really has to think twice about dreaming up YAGP (Yet Another Government Program) for every ill. I suggest reading Steve McConnell's _After the Gold Rush_ for better arguments than I can make. There is no reason, of course, that'd it *have* to be the government as the ruling body of Software Engineering, BTW.
I'm glad you mentioned the armed agents of the EPA, BTW, because very few people know of it. I doubt many will, even if they were given proof. It would have to be on 60 minutes or 20/20 for some people to buy it.
The thing is, the government hasn't exactly had a hands-off approach to software so far, either. Witness the abysmal H1-B program. Talk about meddling with open markets! Let's create a new class of sub-citizens, and put them into indentured servitude, where they are here at the whim of a corporation, meanwhile driving citizens out of work and driving down salaries - yeah, that's free trade, all right.
Sorry, Canada is hardly on the map as far as software goes. Sorry, no offense meant. Russia and India are just burgeoning with people, and with that, talent. Canada has rougly 10% the U.S. population, and that means they'd have to produce 10x the amount of software people per capita to match the amount we have here...and that's before all the H1-B's we've imported, and maybe have citizenships pending...which I hope they get. I can't stand indentured servitude being passed off as "multiculturism" or "diversity". It also makes them demand better pay and benefits, which is something everyone here benefits from. From folks I've talked to, Canada is only immigrated to as a stepping stone to get to the U.S. (this is Canadians saying this as well as those that came to U.S. by way of Canada)
And I know Canada has been complaining of a "brain drain", so they are hardly a big concern right now. India has, as well, but they have so many reserves, I'm sure that it doesn't matter as much.
There's a doublethink in the above. If the H1-B workers really are incompetent, then perhaps employers could hire incompetent Americans instead. If the employers want to pay less, and get less skilled workers, they can do this without recourse to legislation.
Well, well, now you get the picture. There are plenty of H1-B's who have/adequate/ skills. I'm just saying many don't have the QUALIFICATIONS to land similar jobs in their own countries. And I'm sorry, it IS about lowering wages here. You can pretend it's not, but I've been working for over eight years in the industry here in America; I think I'd know. Maybe I don't have a PhD, but I do have eyes and common sense.
I've read the "shame H1B" URL. Shut the borders completely on the grounds of "national security" ? Shame on them for exploiting this tragedy to further their agenda.
If that's what you think this is about, then you HAVE NOT read the site. I'm afraid the site was up long before the attacks. And they aren't pushing to "shut the borders completely", BTW. I, for one, would rather see green cards issued in lieu of a bogus temporary visa.
PS I'm applying for a H1-B. I hold a Ph.D. I know a lot of other people who hold PhDs and are applying for H1-B visas. I don't work "ridiculous hours for ridiculous wages", and I'm probably not in "a certain age group". I suppose you think you're better than me because you're a US citizen. And that I'm just a "code monkey", while you're a "software engineer". Keep dreaming, chump.
Ah, the ad hominem attack. I was wondering when we'd get to that. Based on the terms of debate, I guess you've just lost. And you show your arrogance by jumping to conclusions when you say what I think about you. I have no idea what you are, but an awful lot of H1-B's ARE "code monkeys", as you put it. Not all are, and apparently you don't plan on falling into that category. Good for you; I wouldn't wish that on anyone. If you plan on doing coding here, plan on the long hours, BTW. You might change your tune, unless your situation is very unusual. I suggest you go back to the site and do some reading.
And you also jump to conclusions when you assume that I think I'm a software engineer. I'd like to say I'm aspiring to one, but by no means am I there yet...I'd really like to get into more of an "architect" role, but that's been pretty tough to get into. As for the age range thing, if you are already here, look around you. If not, wait until you get here, and drink in how many fifty-somethings are in the field, actually doing analysis, code or design. They either get run out completely, or are pressured into management. Some do independent consulting. I honestly can't remember the last fifty something I saw that was a FTE programmer/analyst. Or even network admin or DBA...age discrimination is alive and well in the software industry, no doubt about it. At least in the private sector.
Sorry, that's not what is happening AT ALL. Many H1-B's don't have qualifications that would allow them to get a similar job in their own country.
It's all about lowering wages here. There was no shortage of qualified workers here, even before economic downturn. There was only a shortage of workers who were a certain age bracket and willing to work ridiculous hours for ridiculous wages.
For more reading, point your browser to:
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/
I couldn't disagree more. For one thing, I was getting pretty sick and tired of working side-by-side with Johnny-come latelys who didn't even have any experience, much less a CS degree, and being given equal footing, and nearly equal compensation, even though I'm easily 10x as productive. These are also people who do/did it because of "the money" and the coolness factor...some of them didn't EVEN OWN COMPUTERS, and were by no means interested in computers outside of making money with them at work. Didn't know C, didn't know Perl, didn't even know what Linux was, the list goes on and on.
Although the economy tanking isn't a great thing, at least it will shoo folks away who have degrees in hotel and restaurant management, and are calling themselves programmers with no real claim to the title at all.
I think it'd be absolutely GREAT to have a bona fide certification system.
1. H1-B's won't be getting their foot in the door so easily. Esp. the ones that are complete fakes, with little to no real credentials in their own country, but are able to do an end run around any reasonable filtering here. It can take months for some employers to realize they hired a lemon, meanwhile, citizens take up the slack.
2. Accountability. I'm in this for the long haul; it's what I like to do. Those that aren't will be daunted by the process, so bye-bye and good riddance to them.
3. I could go on, but Steve McConnell devoted a lot of pages and time to it in After the Gold Rush. He also makes very good points for it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735608776/ ref=pd_sim_books/102-7518719-3207320
Personally, I think doing this will make any other country's productivity pale in comparison. The only thing India has over us right now is sheer numbers of bodies, but that's pretty scary given that we only have superiority in infrastructure and economic setting....but there's no guarantee that will last.
If we don't do it, we'll be the next auto industry. Remember, we had the opportunity before Japan to change the processes, it was just discarded, so Japan was sold on the idea - and look what happened.
So we should do it ASAP, and smash down any rising competition we have from other nations.
Thing is, you can't help people. People have to help themselves. It's an old saw, but there's a reason for that. There's no reason not to have safety nets and all, but sometimes people have no interest in working...so who's fault is that?
Eliminate the reason for terrorism: poverty, lack of education and injustice. This is much more easy to do obviously.
Well, that's just dopey. It's not our responsibility to eliminate poverty or lack of education in other countries. It's not our responsibility to do it here, why should we do it on an international scale? Also, I don't see Switzerland offering to do it...could it be that they recognize it's not their responsibility, either? Hmmm?
USA's view of the United Nations is distateful: they agree to it only because they can use it to achieve their dominance, they don't see it as an instrument of equality between all people on this planet and of peace, which is its main goal.
Do you think that, just maybe, we see it that way because it isn't an instrument of equality? That may have been the original goal, but it sure as hell isn't now. The U.N. has become completely irrelevant. You can put on the rose-colored glasses, but if you look at it objectively, the U.N. is a cesspool. Why is Sudan on the human right's commission, for Pete's sake? They practiced human slavery at least until the 1980's. And people still bring up that America practiced slavery 140 years ago. Geez. Wake up and smell the corruption and hypocrisy.
Nope, it's legal. As it should be. It just shows our strength to tolerate dissent like this. Settle down. Would a place like Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan ever tolerate this? Hell, no. Well, that's why we are morally superior to these countries.
I would never burn a flag. But I think it should be defended. I think people that *do* burn the flag seriously need a hobby, but that's another story. It's nothing to defend popular speech. It *is* something to defend unpopular speech, and flag-burning is incredibly unpopular. I forget who said it, and the exact quote, but it's a good one, and it definitely applies here: "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." And then there's the "price of freedom is constant vigilance" quote. Both make sense here.
Settle down, there, friend. You seem to have issues with profanity and the CAPS LOCK KEY, THERE! One of the first rules of debate, by the
way, is once you have reduced yourself to profanity and name calling, you have already lost, and don't really deserve any reasonable response.
But I'll try to look past the caps and the profanity and the name-calling, and try to take some of your points at face value:
Okay, you are right. We were not the first to have a representative republic. But we removed the concept of aristocrats and lineages (well sorta, you had to own property, originally, in order to vote) that Britain and others were still using, and still use to this day. We did make important changes that others have copied and maybe improved upon. If representatives are political eliete[sic], then that's only because the voters make them that way. They can't pass it on to their offspring. And while we did model some things on ancient Greece, the tide had changed somewhat...life was no longer being thought of as so disposable as it was in ancient Greece. Slavery took some time to topple, but once the system was set up using terms like "inalienable rights", it was only a matter of time.
And...was Adam Smith practicing capitalism on a grand scale? I think not.
You misunderstand, I think, when I said "our gift to the world...". The gift was showing that these (modified) systems can work, on a grand scale. It's one to come up with a concept, it's quite another to effectively put it into practice. Karl Marx's stuff/sounds/ great on paper, but hasn't been put into any successful practice yet.
BTW, as for me, I have a B.S., and during the time it takes to get a degree, I had to take a few philosophy courses. I also had a really good Civics class in high school (public school, amazingly enough). I also do a lot of independent reading on various topics.
You may be right about the democracy bit, and capitalism...but we did it on a scale never seen before. Well, we didn't do democracy, technically, it's a constitutional representative republic, but anyway..
Capitalism has nothing to do with a better way of life? How else do you gain economic freedoms, then? Of/course/ it has a LOT to do with a better way of life. Jeez.
Our current behavior, huh? You list Cuba and Iran as having sanctions against them. Let me speak about Cuba, because I know more about that situation. There have been cases in Cuba where there has been a "fish shortage". Can that be blamed on the U.S.? Hell, no. They are surrounded by ocean!!! Can they trade with other countries? Hell, yes. Where's the problem, here? You don't see people here fleeing to cuba on bundles of sticks and tiny rubber rafts. If you are talking about drug interdiction stuff in South America, you are correct in saying that is wrong, at least IMHO. We should not be meddling in other countries, just because it doesn't mesh with our current (stupid) drug policy.
Get serious, of course we are on top. It's not just a measure of per capita wealth that puts you on top. I'm talking about military strength, GDP, etc. Besides, how much immigration does Switzerland have? Of course it's easy to be wealthy per capita when you don't allow anyone to immigrate there. And crime rate usually tracks very close to the poverty rate. Wealthy demographic=low crime rate. Big deal. I've never had any crime leveled at me, so why do Europeans always bring this up? The other thing foreigners love to bring up is America's trade deficit...trying to find any little chink in the armor to deal with their country's own shortcomings - I've heard Canadians I work with bring it up all the time.
The other thing *some* Europeans bring up is that their country X is soooooo much better than the U.S., Americans are stupid and ignorant, they only speak English, blah, blah, I'm so superior, blah, blah, you don't understand the bigger picture, blah, blah, I could do just as well in my country, etc. etc. All of which just begs the question: What/are/ you doing here, then? No one enjoys hearing that about their own country. I'll be damned if I would emigrate somewhere, and then bless the locals with diatribes about how much better my country is than theirs. That'd be terribly arrogant and rude of me.
One more thing, if Europe is/so/ progressive now, why do I hear the word "peasant" so much from people who recently left there? We don't have a class structure here based on lineage (you see, it's all about the Benjamins, but even then, in theory anyway, you are subject to the same set of laws), but Europe, or at least parts of it, *still* seems to be getting over that, and not so successfully, from where I sit. Everyone here is a peasant, or should be (well, the Clintons obviously thought they were aristocrats, and above the law). If someone can't deal with that, because they think they are somehow elite, they are stepping foot into the wrong country.
As for other countries and the way in which we helped countries terrorize them: Iran, what did we do there exactly? Iraq, we wanted weapons inspections, and so we placed sanctions on them when we didn't get our way, right? And supposedly thousands of people are dying because of this. The way I understand it, the further (geographically) you get away from Hussein in Iraq, the less death and starvation there is. Which shows that HE is responsible for those deaths...how are the others getting fed or other needs met? He also knows how to get that sanction lifted, he just won't do it.
I notice he's not suffering. And that jackass applauded the terrorists that attacked NYC and Pentagon...hopefully, a trail can be tracked back to him for this, and we'll show him what "terrorism" is...we should have finished that job back in the early 90's. If I was him, I'd make sure my will was in order.
Well here you go, then:
http://www.iconservative.com/speech_being_crimin al ized_in_idaho.htm
He's not being sued, he got charged with some sort of "crime". And since it's a felony, the punishment is apparently five full years in the state penitentiary. I wish I could say it was urban legend.
Re: the McDonald's story, I remember that NPR revealed the aftermath this August, I think, along with some other well-remember cases.
Re: the urban legend about the sueing criminal, I do remember a story (on television, I think) of a storeowner who was repeatedly getting break-ins by (I think) a rooftop window. He decided to wire it up with electricity as a deterrent. A would-be criminal wound up dead because it was more than just a deterrent; it was deadly. But this is a lot different, and the storeowner should be held accountable, at least for negligence.
I know it's late, but man, you just aren't making any sense at all. My point was that the UN should have already decided by now to back us up on the terrorist matter. We shouldn't have to force or try to plead our case for them to do so. It should be obvious.
And as for your quote about BF, that's my favorite. I guess I'm a "dumb-fuck American". And I guess that makes you a bigot.
In reference to your girlfriend and her, ahem, actions, blue laws aren't enforced anywhere that I've heard of.
What kind of crimes are lower than here? Where? For which states/which European countries? I hear this all the time, but I never see any cites. Call it intellectual curiousity.
And who was innocent that was killed via death penalty? Is life imprisonment of "innocent" individuals any better? Name someone barred from this country for being a communist. There are plenty of card-carrying communists here and now, AFAIK. I cannot name names, but I'm sure I can dig some up.
The USA *is* morally superior to Europe. I hate to say this, because I hear the reverse all the time. Yep. You read that right. I'm no self-loathing American, I'm proud of my country (overall, anyway. we have our faults, but I wouldn't live anywhere else). Our gift to the world was democracy and a laissez-faire type economic system, aka capitalism. You're welcome. We liberated Europe from the Germans. Again, you're welcome. We helped rebuild Europe, INCLUDING GERMANY, after. Again, you're welcome. We rebuilt Japan after WWII, too. Yeah, we're definitely the bad guys. We have the power to crush everyone in the world, and rule the entire world with the iron fist if we were so inclined, yet we don't. Why is that? How do we show such restraint? Is it because we are so morally inferior? I don't think so.
Also, and read this closely, now: the U.S. has not produced such wonderful things like Hitler and Mussolini.
Oh, and please list examples of where we've "bullied other countries for profit". Be as specific as possible.
Lastly, we are hated because we are on top, and it's sour grapes for the most part. It can't be helped. People always despise those on top because they are jealous. Don't believe it? Britain used to be just as hated when they were at the top of their game. Better check your history.
I think you are suffering from inferiority complex because you don't have such deeply philosophical and enlightening shows as Jerry Springer over there?
And no, Pat Buchanan won't win any elections here. And he's about as close to authoritarian as it gets.
And there ARE "sophisticated" Nazis here. Of that I'm sure. They aren't coming across that way, though. Maybe your media is just failing you by not getting intelligent (well, you don't have to be an intellectual giant to bat down this kind of thinking in an open forum) people to debate these chowderheads?
I guess I just don't understand how free speech could be used to "take over a country." It just doesn't make sense.
Maybe your country(s) need to take a look at WHY these people are so hateful? Are there root social conditions that are breeding grounds for this? Is it mostly the poor that gravitate towards this hate? Are immigrants perceived as stealing jobs from citizens? Are Jews perceived as given preferential treatment? Why I would never make excuses for this kind of thinking, one has to wonder why you at least think it's such a problem there. Are you and others merely being over-reactionary, or if not, why is there so much hatred there?
Oops. Extreme right wing? I suppose you are implying the "extreme right wing" is somehow associated with Nazism. That's B.S. I'm a Libertarian, so I'm not sure why I'm defending the so-called right, but anyway:
Actually, the Nazis are authoritarian, to be more correct. Obviously right-left type of descriptions for political leanings has little meaning in the real world. Libertarians have a nice chart where they show things in quadrants. The "left" and the "right" here have a bit of overlap with authoritarian thinking, but just in different areas. I wish I had an URL handy...anyway, a Google search will turn it up if you are really interested.
The right wing is for smaller government, at least in theory, and in targeted areas. I don't think the Nazis agreed with any kind of smaller government. I think the State was all for them. As for these "neo-Nazis", I have no idea what they think. I don't think they are thinking in any political way or any kind of system of government. Hell, they aren't thinking at all, IMHO. The only thing they have to say is "kill the kikes and niggers", or "git 'dem kikes and niggers out of my homeland." After they make those profound statements, they go back at it with their sisters (or cousins, or their mama).
Anyway...
Let's not forget: the/Republican/ Party was the first to fight for civil rights.
All this being said, the only party that has its entire platform built on the concept of true freedom is the Libertarian Party.:)
Well, I'm certainly no military expert, but I think an armed populace has a much better chance of fending off an evil regime than any non-armed populace.
After all, that's why the Nazis asked their population to turn in their guns ("for their safety", note) as one of their first actions when they came to power. Luckily, some opted NOT to do that, and fought back. Guess what? Many of them were able to escape, thereby surviving their gov't. I think some network just made a movie about recently, too. That's good, because many folks seem to get confused about WWII, and how it proves that the Second Amendment is not some kind of rusty old thing that some dead white guys came up with so "they didn't have to pay their taxes."
The second amendment is still VERY relevant. It was only sixty years ago that the world was again reminded in no uncertain terms of that.
Okay, you got me there. My wording was not the best. However, trying to discern WHY they conducted the act should not play a part.
The state of mind, yes. That's why there's 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, kiling in war, etc. Good point. But the way "hate crimes" are prosecuted is entirely a different matter, and I find it offensive and a travesty of justice that my life would be worth less (under such a new set of laws) than a minority or someone with an "alternative" lifestyle.
And hate speech is just ridiculous. Some talk show I listen to, the guy was reading a newspaper clipping about a guy yelling the word "nigger" at a black man who was apparently attacking his wife. I forget all the details, but in any case the man whose wife was being ATTACKED got charged with hate speech. The attacker is lucky he wasn't ventilated, but he chose to be offended? I'm sorry, but if you are attacking someone physically, you lose the right to be offended, that's for sure. At least in a world ruled by common sense.
If neo-Nazism is hate speech, shouldn't any form of pro-Communist speech be classified as hate speech, too? After all, far more people have been killed, tortured, etc. under Communism/Socialism than they have under the Nazis.
Stalin alone killed more of his countrymen than all the people killed in WWII, right? Then there's Castro (which American liberals seem to embrace for some stupid reason, forgetting the man is a killer), the current PRC, etc...it only makes sense, if what you are trying to avoid is another rise to power of another evil regime or human rights violations.
If you are going to embrace censorship, make sure you cover your bases, and ban any speech condoning communism. I guess I'm telling you this only to point up how ridiculous your request is. Actually, if *I* were to propose banning speech, I *would* ban any speech condoning communism (the political version, not the economical one, although both are stupid, the political one is the most dangerous) as an option in the U.S. as I find it horribly atrocious, and history only shows that I'm right. However, even dumbasses have the right to spew their nonsense, so I would never propose this.
Slashdot Mirror
Well Massachussetts' DMV is hardly the norm. DMV in CO is one big convoluted mess...when I moved here from PA, I had to do 4 discrete things in order to get license and car done. PA's system was not much fun, but CO managed to step up the pain.
No WAY do I want the government in charge of my Internet connection. They already grow (in budget), every year, at a rate faster than inflation - which is already quite ridiculous - if we put them in charge of Internet access, the next step is to have Democrats urging for subsidizing connections for lower income families. And that's going to screw everyone who is making more than 15-20K or whatever the poverty level is these days. Or screw them over again, I should say.
The government already tacks on something like $5 or $6 for federal access charges on phone lines...plus other assorted taxes. I have to check again, but with taxes and these fees, I think it adds $8 to my phone bill - I can't imagine what they'll do to broadband.
Everytime there is a problem and people say, "There outta be a law" or "This needs government oversight" or whatever, they should stop and think twice about that. I can't BELIEVE that we are going to federalize airport security - good grief. Not only is this just plain stupid when one thinks about it, there are specific examples that provide reasons why we shouldn't - Israel has tried this, and decided it wasn't for the best. Why do we have to go through the same pain? It's next to impossible to fire someone from the government, so this is supposed to make us safe HOW?
Besides, anyone running a *nix variant should not be calling tech support EVER. No excuses.
What a ridiculous claim. So an electrician shouldn't call if his power is out? I only call when I'm really trying to point out a problem on their end...i.e., their DNS servers were not accessible by their customers.
If you think that tech support doesn't generate revenue, you may be right...but bad tech support kills lots of revenue. I'll jump on another provider the MINUTE I know I can get better quality support with equal type of service. Unfortunately, AT&T has a monopoly on broadband for the neighborhood I live in.
Case in point: QWest, which used to be USWest, charged me to have my phone changed to my name because my roommate's credit was not good enough to not have to pay some ridiculous deposit to get long distance ($140). I had my credit checked prior, and then, a week later, still no long distance. So I call, and ask what is going on. I'm told that I have to pay a deposit. I was told one week ago that I didn't need one - THAT'S WHY I PAID THE STUPID CHARGE TO HAVE THE NAME SWITCHED. But no go, and they can't reimburse the name change charge, either, what do you know. After having service with Qwest for one year, I'm told "I can have long distance now with no deposit" when I was changing locations in CO...do you think I got it? Fuck no. I'm using calling cards from another vendor for the duration I have Qwest service - and that adds up to thousands over the years, you can be sure. Multiply that by other people like me who refuse to pay any more than absolutely necessary on account of "service" like this, and you've got a lot of $$$ that is going elsewhere.
Service matters. It matters a lot. And I've only called @Home a handful of times - imagine the average luser who has to talk to them all the time. The onus is not on the *customers* to see things your way.
And we all know what platform that software will (and won't) run on.
Hmmm, it will probably run on maybe two vendor's platform (Apple and MS)....and won't on the scores of others:
Solaris, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux, Ultrix...tech support is bad enough NOW when they say, "Go to your Start button and..." and I have to cut them off, and say, nope, not running Windows. To which they reply that they don't support Unix, and they try to get off the phone without doing any basic troubleshooting at all - one time the person on the other end didn't even know what PING was!!!! Good grief. He kept insisting that he can see the DNS in question that I couldn't route to, but I could open up any site by IP (clearly a DNS issue, eh?) and hence there was no problem. He wouldn't give me another DNS to use, either. Nitwit. I got another DNS from another @Home user, and things were flying again. Talk about do-it-yourself customer service. Ugh, can't imagine if they force me to run Windows. I guess I'll go back to dial-up before I tolerate that. Maybe DSL will get here before then...then I can throw them over, or at least threaten it. Competition is good.
This also brings to mind another bit of history: in the mid-90's the telcos bitching about so many people using dial-up, and so they were lobbying to be able to charge per-minute on local calls. Despite the fact that they were probably getting more revenue anyway from people installing extra lines for faxes and computers at home (my uncle at one time had FOUR lines into his house, at one time I used to have two, and paid almost $60 for it). I fail to understand why a company can come up with a model that fails to take into account changes in the tide, and then make customers pay for their mistakes when things change...the telcos complained that they only have (or had) enough switches in some areas to accomodate only 40% of their customers to be on at any one time...how is that the CUSTOMERS burden if that is not enough when things change. It should, by law, IMHO, be 100% : I want the phone to work when I pick it up, regardless of whether there are people dialing up and staying online longer than normal phone conversations, or if there is an act of war like on 9-11...it should work, unless there is a physical failure somewhere. Same with cable companies: if they projected the average use of customers' use to be X, and it then moves up to Y, don't try to gouge people in stupid ways like this - figure out some kind of bar that if you go over, you get charged per GB. I *still* think that telcos were just out to royally screw everyone to be able to pay for their $#@$#% switches that they should have had in the first place.
If they are really so worried about profits, they shouldn't be giving executives big bonuses, and CEO's great big golden parachutes while laying off thousands of workers and screwing their customers. I'm really big on capitalism, but some CEO/executives make way more money than is justified, IMHO, for their ROI.
Remember the days when some cable companies would charge extra for having an extra jack in apartments where they knew how many jacks were in there? That got shot down, eventually. I don't know if it was legislation or not.I didn't have such an apartment or cable at the time, but I know people were screaming bloody murder about it.
I'm sure the kind of demographic that can afford cable modem access have more than one computer, usually. And they won't be too happy if this comes to fruition.
Your fear of government is well-founded. Just witness the past travesties, as well as current expansion (WHY does the government spending have to grow at a rate higher than inflation? There is no need for this whatsoever). You gave some good examples. I think that a certification, done in moderation, would be just fine. A relatively good example would be to look at other "hard" engineering and how it is regulated. It's really not that bad. And this is coming from a Libertarian. :) A little bit of government goes a long way, if, at the outset, it is made clear where their reach should end. Of course, that's problematic, too, I suppose: witness the Second Amendment and all the handwringing over it. Any idiot can understand the intent, and that was the idea, but somehow, it got all twisted up and mangled over the phrase "regulated militia". Sigh. I definitely feel torn over the issue of government involvment in ANYTHING beyond military protection of our borders, and police and justice system keeping the peace, so it is tough. One really has to think twice about dreaming up YAGP (Yet Another Government Program) for every ill. I suggest reading Steve McConnell's _After the Gold Rush_ for better arguments than I can make. There is no reason, of course, that'd it *have* to be the government as the ruling body of Software Engineering, BTW.
I'm glad you mentioned the armed agents of the EPA, BTW, because very few people know of it. I doubt many will, even if they were given proof. It would have to be on 60 minutes or 20/20 for some people to buy it.
The thing is, the government hasn't exactly had a hands-off approach to software so far, either. Witness the abysmal H1-B program. Talk about meddling with open markets! Let's create a new class of sub-citizens, and put them into indentured servitude, where they are here at the whim of a corporation, meanwhile driving citizens out of work and driving down salaries - yeah, that's free trade, all right.
Sorry, Canada is hardly on the map as far as software goes. Sorry, no offense meant. Russia and India are just burgeoning with people, and with that, talent. Canada has rougly 10% the U.S. population, and that means they'd have to produce 10x the amount of software people per capita to match the amount we have here...and that's before all the H1-B's we've imported, and maybe have citizenships pending...which I hope they get. I can't stand indentured servitude being passed off as "multiculturism" or "diversity". It also makes them demand better pay and benefits, which is something everyone here benefits from. From folks I've talked to, Canada is only immigrated to as a stepping stone to get to the U.S. (this is Canadians saying this as well as those that came to U.S. by way of Canada)
And I know Canada has been complaining of a "brain drain", so they are hardly a big concern right now. India has, as well, but they have so many reserves, I'm sure that it doesn't matter as much.
There's a doublethink in the above. If the H1-B workers really are incompetent, then perhaps employers could hire incompetent Americans instead. If the employers want to pay less, and get less skilled workers, they can do this without recourse to legislation.
/adequate/ skills. I'm just saying many don't have the QUALIFICATIONS to land similar jobs in their own countries. And I'm sorry, it IS about lowering wages here. You can pretend it's not, but I've been working for over eight years in the industry here in America; I think I'd know. Maybe I don't have a PhD, but I do have eyes and common sense.
Well, well, now you get the picture. There are plenty of H1-B's who have
I've read the "shame H1B" URL. Shut the borders completely on the grounds of "national security" ? Shame on them for exploiting this tragedy to further their agenda.
If that's what you think this is about, then you HAVE NOT read the site. I'm afraid the site was up long before the attacks. And they aren't pushing to "shut the borders completely", BTW. I, for one, would rather see green cards issued in lieu of a bogus temporary visa.
PS I'm applying for a H1-B. I hold a Ph.D. I know a lot of other people who hold PhDs and are applying for H1-B visas. I don't work "ridiculous hours for ridiculous wages", and I'm probably not in "a certain age group". I suppose you think you're better than me because you're a US citizen. And that I'm just a "code monkey", while you're a "software engineer". Keep dreaming, chump.
Ah, the ad hominem attack. I was wondering when we'd get to that. Based on the terms of debate, I guess you've just lost. And you show your arrogance by jumping to conclusions when you say what I think about you. I have no idea what you are, but an awful lot of H1-B's ARE "code monkeys", as you put it. Not all are, and apparently you don't plan on falling into that category. Good for you; I wouldn't wish that on anyone. If you plan on doing coding here, plan on the long hours, BTW. You might change your tune, unless your situation is very unusual. I suggest you go back to the site and do some reading.
And you also jump to conclusions when you assume that I think I'm a software engineer. I'd like to say I'm aspiring to one, but by no means am I there yet...I'd really like to get into more of an "architect" role, but that's been pretty tough to get into. As for the age range thing, if you are already here, look around you. If not, wait until you get here, and drink in how many fifty-somethings are in the field, actually doing analysis, code or design. They either get run out completely, or are pressured into management. Some do independent consulting. I honestly can't remember the last fifty something I saw that was a FTE programmer/analyst. Or even network admin or DBA...age discrimination is alive and well in the software industry, no doubt about it. At least in the private sector.
Sorry, that's not what is happening AT ALL. Many H1-B's don't have qualifications that would allow them to get a similar job in their own country.
It's all about lowering wages here. There was no shortage of qualified workers here, even before economic downturn. There was only a shortage of workers who were a certain age bracket and willing to work ridiculous hours for ridiculous wages.
For more reading, point your browser to:
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/
It's about time to end the H1-B program.
I couldn't disagree more. For one thing, I was getting pretty sick and tired of working side-by-side with Johnny-come latelys who didn't even have any experience, much less a CS degree, and being given equal footing, and nearly equal compensation, even though I'm easily 10x as productive. These are also people who do/did it because of "the money" and the coolness factor...some of them didn't EVEN OWN COMPUTERS, and were by no means interested in computers outside of making money with them at work. Didn't know C, didn't know Perl, didn't even know what Linux was, the list goes on and on.
/ ref=pd_sim_books/102-7518719-3207320
Although the economy tanking isn't a great thing, at least it will shoo folks away who have degrees in hotel and restaurant management, and are calling themselves programmers with no real claim to the title at all.
I think it'd be absolutely GREAT to have a bona fide certification system.
1. H1-B's won't be getting their foot in the door so easily. Esp. the ones that are complete fakes, with little to no real credentials in their own country, but are able to do an end run around any reasonable filtering here. It can take months for some employers to realize they hired a lemon, meanwhile, citizens take up the slack.
2. Accountability. I'm in this for the long haul; it's what I like to do. Those that aren't will be daunted by the process, so bye-bye and good riddance to them.
3. I could go on, but Steve McConnell devoted a lot of pages and time to it in After the Gold Rush. He also makes very good points for it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735608776
Personally, I think doing this will make any other country's productivity pale in comparison. The only thing India has over us right now is sheer numbers of bodies, but that's pretty scary given that we only have superiority in infrastructure and economic setting....but there's no guarantee that will last.
If we don't do it, we'll be the next auto industry. Remember, we had the opportunity before Japan to change the processes, it was just discarded, so Japan was sold on the idea - and look what happened.
So we should do it ASAP, and smash down any rising competition we have from other nations.
Thing is, you can't help people. People have to help themselves. It's an old saw, but there's a reason for that. There's no reason not to have safety nets and all, but sometimes people have no interest in working...so who's fault is that?
Eliminate the reason for terrorism: poverty, lack of education and injustice. This is much more easy to do obviously.
Well, that's just dopey. It's not our responsibility to eliminate poverty or lack of education in other countries. It's not our responsibility to do it here, why should we do it on an international scale? Also, I don't see Switzerland offering to do it...could it be that they recognize it's not their responsibility, either? Hmmm?
USA's view of the United Nations is distateful: they agree to it only because they can use it to achieve their dominance, they don't see it as an instrument of equality between all people on this planet and of peace, which is its main goal.
Do you think that, just maybe, we see it that way because it isn't an instrument of equality? That may have been the original goal, but it sure as hell isn't now. The U.N. has become completely irrelevant. You can put on the rose-colored glasses, but if you look at it objectively, the U.N. is a cesspool. Why is Sudan on the human right's commission, for Pete's sake? They practiced human slavery at least until the 1980's. And people still bring up that America practiced slavery 140 years ago. Geez. Wake up and smell the corruption and hypocrisy.
Nope, it's legal. As it should be. It just shows our strength to tolerate dissent like this. Settle down. Would a place like Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan ever tolerate this? Hell, no. Well, that's why we are morally superior to these countries.
I would never burn a flag. But I think it should be defended. I think people that *do* burn the flag seriously need a hobby, but that's another story. It's nothing to defend popular speech. It *is* something to defend unpopular speech, and flag-burning is incredibly unpopular. I forget who said it, and the exact quote, but it's a good one, and it definitely applies here: "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." And then there's the "price of freedom is constant vigilance" quote. Both make sense here.
And I think you meant "packing", not "backing".
Ah, a self-loathing diatribe.
/sounds/ great on paper, but hasn't been put into any successful practice yet.
Settle down, there, friend. You seem to have issues with profanity and the CAPS LOCK KEY, THERE! One of the first rules of debate, by the
way, is once you have reduced yourself to profanity and name calling, you have already lost, and don't really deserve any reasonable response.
But I'll try to look past the caps and the profanity and the name-calling, and try to take some of your points at face value:
Okay, you are right. We were not the first to have a representative republic. But we removed the concept of aristocrats and lineages (well sorta, you had to own property, originally, in order to vote) that Britain and others were still using, and still use to this day. We did make important changes that others have copied and maybe improved upon. If representatives are political eliete[sic], then that's only because the voters make them that way. They can't pass it on to their offspring. And while we did model some things on ancient Greece, the tide had changed somewhat...life was no longer being thought of as so disposable as it was in ancient Greece. Slavery took some time to topple, but once the system was set up using terms like "inalienable rights", it was only a matter of time.
And...was Adam Smith practicing capitalism on a grand scale? I think not.
You misunderstand, I think, when I said "our gift to the world...". The gift was showing that these (modified) systems can work, on a grand scale. It's one to come up with a concept, it's quite another to effectively put it into practice. Karl Marx's stuff
BTW, as for me, I have a B.S., and during the time it takes to get a degree, I had to take a few philosophy courses. I also had a really good Civics class in high school (public school, amazingly enough). I also do a lot of independent reading on various topics.
You may be right about the democracy bit, and capitalism...but we did it on a scale never seen before. Well, we didn't do democracy, technically, it's a constitutional representative republic, but anyway..
/course/ it has a LOT to do with a better way of life. Jeez.
/are/ you doing here, then? No one enjoys hearing that about their own country. I'll be damned if I would emigrate somewhere, and then bless the locals with diatribes about how much better my country is than theirs. That'd be terribly arrogant and rude of me.
/so/ progressive now, why do I hear the word "peasant" so much from people who recently left there? We don't have a class structure here based on lineage (you see, it's all about the Benjamins, but even then, in theory anyway, you are subject to the same set of laws), but Europe, or at least parts of it, *still* seems to be getting over that, and not so successfully, from where I sit. Everyone here is a peasant, or should be (well, the Clintons obviously thought they were aristocrats, and above the law). If someone can't deal with that, because they think they are somehow elite, they are stepping foot into the wrong country.
Capitalism has nothing to do with a better way of life? How else do you gain economic freedoms, then? Of
Our current behavior, huh? You list Cuba and Iran as having sanctions against them. Let me speak about Cuba, because I know more about that situation. There have been cases in Cuba where there has been a "fish shortage". Can that be blamed on the U.S.? Hell, no. They are surrounded by ocean!!! Can they trade with other countries? Hell, yes. Where's the problem, here? You don't see people here fleeing to cuba on bundles of sticks and tiny rubber rafts. If you are talking about drug interdiction stuff in South America, you are correct in saying that is wrong, at least IMHO. We should not be meddling in other countries, just because it doesn't mesh with our current (stupid) drug policy.
Get serious, of course we are on top. It's not just a measure of per capita wealth that puts you on top. I'm talking about military strength, GDP, etc. Besides, how much immigration does Switzerland have? Of course it's easy to be wealthy per capita when you don't allow anyone to immigrate there. And crime rate usually tracks very close to the poverty rate. Wealthy demographic=low crime rate. Big deal. I've never had any crime leveled at me, so why do Europeans always bring this up? The other thing foreigners love to bring up is America's trade deficit...trying to find any little chink in the armor to deal with their country's own shortcomings - I've heard Canadians I work with bring it up all the time.
The other thing *some* Europeans bring up is that their country X is soooooo much better than the U.S., Americans are stupid and ignorant, they only speak English, blah, blah, I'm so superior, blah, blah, you don't understand the bigger picture, blah, blah, I could do just as well in my country, etc. etc. All of which just begs the question: What
One more thing, if Europe is
As for other countries and the way in which we helped countries terrorize them: Iran, what did we do there exactly? Iraq, we wanted weapons inspections, and so we placed sanctions on them when we didn't get our way, right? And supposedly thousands of people are dying because of this. The way I understand it, the further (geographically) you get away from Hussein in Iraq, the less death and starvation there is. Which shows that HE is responsible for those deaths...how are the others getting fed or other needs met? He also knows how to get that sanction lifted, he just won't do it.
I notice he's not suffering. And that jackass applauded the terrorists that attacked NYC and Pentagon...hopefully, a trail can be tracked back to him for this, and we'll show him what "terrorism" is...we should have finished that job back in the early 90's. If I was him, I'd make sure my will was in order.
What arrogance. You think you can change people's beliefs or not, depending on what they hate?
How does what they hate make any difference? Isn't it still hate? One is race warfare, the other is class warfare.
And you completely ignored the fact that the sum total of death under Communism far exceeds that of the Nazis.
I'll ignore your last comment/cheap shot; it's beneath me.
Well here you go, then:n al ized_in_idaho.htm
http://www.iconservative.com/speech_being_crimi
He's not being sued, he got charged with some sort of "crime". And since it's a felony, the punishment is apparently five full years in the state penitentiary. I wish I could say it was urban legend.
Re: the McDonald's story, I remember that NPR revealed the aftermath this August, I think, along with some other well-remember cases.
Re: the urban legend about the sueing criminal, I do remember a story (on television, I think) of a storeowner who was repeatedly getting break-ins by (I think) a rooftop window. He decided to wire it up with electricity as a deterrent. A would-be criminal wound up dead because it was more than just a deterrent; it was deadly. But this is a lot different, and the storeowner should be held accountable, at least for negligence.
I'm not talking about Lincoln. I'm talking about the 20th century. Look it up, friend.
I know it's late, but man, you just aren't making any sense at all. My point was that the UN should have already decided by now to back us up on the terrorist matter. We shouldn't have to force or try to plead our case for them to do so. It should be obvious.
And as for your quote about BF, that's my favorite. I guess I'm a "dumb-fuck American". And I guess that makes you a bigot.
In reference to your girlfriend and her, ahem, actions, blue laws aren't enforced anywhere that I've heard of.
What kind of crimes are lower than here? Where? For which states/which European countries? I hear this all the time, but I never see any cites. Call it intellectual curiousity.
And who was innocent that was killed via death penalty? Is life imprisonment of "innocent" individuals any better? Name someone barred from this country for being a communist. There are plenty of card-carrying communists here and now, AFAIK. I cannot name names, but I'm sure I can dig some up.
The USA *is* morally superior to Europe. I hate to say this, because I hear the reverse all the time. Yep. You read that right. I'm no self-loathing American, I'm proud of my country (overall, anyway. we have our faults, but I wouldn't live anywhere else). Our gift to the world was democracy and a laissez-faire type economic system, aka capitalism. You're welcome. We liberated Europe from the Germans. Again, you're welcome. We helped rebuild Europe, INCLUDING GERMANY, after. Again, you're welcome. We rebuilt Japan after WWII, too. Yeah, we're definitely the bad guys. We have the power to crush everyone in the world, and rule the entire world with the iron fist if we were so inclined, yet we don't. Why is that? How do we show such restraint? Is it because we are so morally inferior? I don't think so.
Also, and read this closely, now: the U.S. has not produced such wonderful things like Hitler and Mussolini.
Oh, and please list examples of where we've "bullied other countries for profit". Be as specific as possible.
Lastly, we are hated because we are on top, and it's sour grapes for the most part. It can't be helped. People always despise those on top because they are jealous. Don't believe it? Britain used to be just as hated when they were at the top of their game. Better check your history.
Oh, forgot to add these comments, too:
I think you are suffering from inferiority complex because you don't have such deeply philosophical and enlightening shows as Jerry Springer over there?
And no, Pat Buchanan won't win any elections here. And he's about as close to authoritarian as it gets.
And there ARE "sophisticated" Nazis here. Of that I'm sure. They aren't coming across that way, though. Maybe your media is just failing you by not getting intelligent (well, you don't have to be an intellectual giant to bat down this kind of thinking in an open forum) people to debate these chowderheads?
I guess I just don't understand how free speech could be used to "take over a country." It just doesn't make sense.
Maybe your country(s) need to take a look at WHY these people are so hateful? Are there root social conditions that are breeding grounds for this? Is it mostly the poor that gravitate towards this hate? Are immigrants perceived as stealing jobs from citizens? Are Jews perceived as given preferential treatment? Why I would never make excuses for this kind of thinking, one has to wonder why you at least think it's such a problem there. Are you and others merely being over-reactionary, or if not, why is there so much hatred there?
Oops. Extreme right wing? I suppose you are implying the "extreme right wing" is somehow associated with Nazism. That's B.S. I'm a Libertarian, so I'm not sure why I'm defending the so-called right, but anyway:
/Republican/ Party was the first to fight for civil rights.
:)
Actually, the Nazis are authoritarian, to be more correct. Obviously right-left type of descriptions for political leanings has little meaning in the real world. Libertarians have a nice chart where they show things in quadrants. The "left" and the "right" here have a bit of overlap with authoritarian thinking, but just in different areas. I wish I had an URL handy...anyway, a Google search will turn it up if you are really interested.
The right wing is for smaller government, at least in theory, and in targeted areas. I don't think the Nazis agreed with any kind of smaller government. I think the State was all for them. As for these "neo-Nazis", I have no idea what they think. I don't think they are thinking in any political way or any kind of system of government. Hell, they aren't thinking at all, IMHO. The only thing they have to say is "kill the kikes and niggers", or "git 'dem kikes and niggers out of my homeland." After they make those profound statements, they go back at it with their sisters (or cousins, or their mama).
Anyway...
Let's not forget: the
All this being said, the only party that has its entire platform built on the concept of true freedom is the Libertarian Party.
Well, I'm certainly no military expert, but I think an armed populace has a much better chance of fending off an evil regime than any non-armed populace.
After all, that's why the Nazis asked their population to turn in their guns ("for their safety", note) as one of their first actions when they came to power. Luckily, some opted NOT to do that, and fought back. Guess what? Many of them were able to escape, thereby surviving their gov't. I think some network just made a movie about recently, too. That's good, because many folks seem to get confused about WWII, and how it proves that the Second Amendment is not some kind of rusty old thing that some dead white guys came up with so "they didn't have to pay their taxes."
The second amendment is still VERY relevant. It was only sixty years ago that the world was again reminded in no uncertain terms of that.
Okay, you got me there. My wording was not the best. However, trying to discern WHY they conducted the act should not play a part.
The state of mind, yes. That's why there's 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, kiling in war, etc. Good point. But the way "hate crimes" are prosecuted is entirely a different matter, and I find it offensive and a travesty of justice that my life would be worth less (under such a new set of laws) than a minority or someone with an "alternative" lifestyle.
And hate speech is just ridiculous. Some talk show I listen to, the guy was reading a newspaper clipping about a guy yelling the word "nigger" at a black man who was apparently attacking his wife. I forget all the details, but in any case the man whose wife was being ATTACKED got charged with hate speech. The attacker is lucky he wasn't ventilated, but he chose to be offended? I'm sorry, but if you are attacking someone physically, you lose the right to be offended, that's for sure. At least in a world ruled by common sense.
If neo-Nazism is hate speech, shouldn't any form of pro-Communist speech be classified as hate speech, too? After all, far more people have been killed, tortured, etc. under Communism/Socialism than they have under the Nazis.
Stalin alone killed more of his countrymen than all the people killed in WWII, right? Then there's Castro (which American liberals seem to embrace for some stupid reason, forgetting the man is a killer), the current PRC, etc...it only makes sense, if what you are trying to avoid is another rise to power of another evil regime or human rights violations.
If you are going to embrace censorship, make sure you cover your bases, and ban any speech condoning communism. I guess I'm telling you this only to point up how ridiculous your request is. Actually, if *I* were to propose banning speech, I *would* ban any speech condoning communism (the political version, not the economical one, although both are stupid, the political one is the most dangerous) as an option in the U.S. as I find it horribly atrocious, and history only shows that I'm right. However, even dumbasses have the right to spew their nonsense, so I would never propose this.