The only reason children are led in school-sponsored group indoctrination, chanting "one nation, under God" every morning, is because there weren't enough flaming crazies in the 1950s to stop it.
Something tells me your personal brand of flaming craziness is all for it, though. Amirite?
Actually, I'm an agnostic, and I dont particuarly give a shit if the words "under God" are in the pledge or not. I find arguing about that specifically to be rather petty and inconsequential.
I support saying the Pledge fully, but not because I'm some mindless sheep that supports blindly following anyone.
I do, however, support saying the Pledge because it is an oath to uphold the principles of the United States Constitution. That's the same document that ensure the right for people like you and me to be having this conversation in a public forum without fear of reprisals. It's the same document that ensures that we are all treated equally, regardless of whether we believe in a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or no God at all (and the right to not believe). It's a Pledge to make sure that we keep our government honest by challenging it when it oversteps it's bounds, or when it wrongly applies the Constitution in ways that were never intended, and which intrude on the rights of the citizens.
You call this indoctrination if you like. But I would suggest that teaching the Pledge and the Constitution can only be a negative thing if the kids are not also taught what limits the government has and why. By the knowledge kids seem to be able to demonstrate about our form of government I'd say there's a serious lack of the latter. They seem to be taught all too well all of the things that this guy should be required to give that guy though... I dont particularly see how that's upholding any principles.
And how is it that this wasnt something that people should fight for until the 1950's? Your statement suggest that you believe the Pledge once had a very real purpose and value. The principles upon which the Constitution was build havent changed. Only the methods and purposes for which it is implemented have. That suggests that you believe in why it was created, and why it is there, but not what is being done to it.
Unless you can point to any other body of governement that at any point so vehemently fought for your rights to disagree with it, then maybe you should rethink your stance and reinvest in the Pledge. Maybe you should redouble your support in those principles, and use that as a platform on which to voice your distaste in what our leaders have corroded into. If more people actually understood the Pledge and stood by it, you'd probably have a lot less angst toward our government.
So the following laws are also unconstitutional? Forcing me to buy auto insurance, forcing me to undergo security checks at the airport (my plane ticket pays for this 'service), forcing me to have a baby seat when I leave the hospital with a newborn, forcing me to licence my car, forcing me to licence my dog, forcing me to register my marriage...
I could go on, but these are all 'good and services' required by law.
You are not required to drive a vehicle. You are only required to buy auto insurance if you choose to drive. You have a choice.
You are not required to fly on a plane. You can choose not to fly. But if you're suggesting that you are paying for the service of being scanned or patted down then you seem to find value in those things that I fail to see... I guess the gasoline and the salaries of the staff are free.
You're required to feed your baby too. Will you argue it's unconstitutional to require you to buy food? While health insurance will not alter your baby's ability to survive an accident (a hospital cannot turn down the treatment of your child) a carseat certainly may.
Again, you're not required to drive, or even buy a car. That's a privilege, and you accept the terms of the privilege if you choose to engage in it. Regardless, the license fees are public (government) not private sector.
You are not required to buy a dog. That being said, I actually agree with you on this one. I think the law sucks. Maybe someone should challenge it... Regardless, the license fees are public (government) not private sector.
No one forces you to register your marriage unless you want to enjoy the tax or legal benefits of it. If you want the perks, register. Regardless, the license fees are public (government) not private sector.
Actually I think there are more on the left that qualify in the zealot category. It's just that they have much smaller followings that people like Beck or Limbaugh (both of also qualify for the zealot category).
Dont let my support of this particular ruling leave ambiguity about my stance on some of the other things I linked. There are provisions in the Patriot Act that I think are equally unconstitutional. One could argue that No Child Left Behind ensures mediocrity. I don't particularly give a shit whether we use 'under God' in the pledge or not, as it applies to seperation of church and state.
Just as BlueFoxLucid suggested, we need people challenging our government and ensuring that they remain true to the principles of the Constitution. People also need to understand that just because a person is opposed to a law by a particular elected official it does not for a second imply support to the policies of any other official.
These lawsuits are no more or less credible than the one suggesting (rightfully) that the Federal govt has no authority to force any private citizen to purchase any good or service from the private sector.
The fact is that there's no shortage of "flaming crazies" on either side of the isle. And as the previous poster suggested, that's a good thing in keeping the flaming crazies who are actually in power, in check.
That's what you got from the post? Teleprompter jokes? Are you 'disinterested' in the rather poignant insight to Obama's repeated tactic of gathering a group of 'X' people who appear to support him with unwavering resolve? You didn't happen to note the manipulation of perceptions? And it didn't even cross your mind that this is occuring in the middle of several national crisis which one might think would warrant greater attention from our President than a rather transparent publicity stunt?
Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret.
Conversely, Communism/Marxism only works when the people are uninformed, uneducated, and uninspired...
I choose Democracy.
I actually disagree with you though. There are manueverings on the world stage that prevent as many hazards as they cause that would be impossible without some level of secrecy. Not to mention that just because your democracy tells you absolutely everything doesn't mitigate the secrets of every other nation on the globe. You cant learn of and navigate the dangers inherent in the secrets of other nations without at the very least securing informants. And you cant keep informants alive (and thereby retain future informants) if you dont retain secrets.
This WikiLeaks dump includes the identities of our informants. Who are now walking corpses. It's only a matter of time before they are murdered for their actions. And the people whom they've offended are just as likely to filet the informant's kids as they are to put a bullet in the informant's head.
There's a big difference between pointing out a crime and identifying informants who will get murdered when they are outed. There's nothing noble about letting the world know we think Pakistan might not be able to secure it's nukes. There's nothing that helps secure us or anyone else in releasing that Hillary Clinton wonders if other nation's leaders are taking medication. Yet those pieces of information certainly damaging to the relationships we rely on around the world.
You might be able to make a case that a person, or journalist, or even the hacks at WikiLeaks have a right and even a responsibility to bring crimes to the attention of the world. But subverting the relationships between nations "just because" isnt in the same category. It isnt today, it wont be tomorrow, and anyone that wants to try to justify it as such just to see the US govt squirm is intellectually dishonest and moraly corrupt.
So now we've watered Espionage down to whistleblowing?
Last I checked there's nothing illegal in someone pondering if a nation's leader is on drugs, or voicing concern about the security of a nation's weapons of mass destruction. But WikiLeaks putting that on the internet for all to see is seriously damaging to our nation's diplomatic relationships and... whistleblowing?
Your joke is oversimplistic and juvenile, and it proves your intellectual laziness. Its one thing to speak your own mind and voice your own opinions without fear of reprisals. That's what the First Amendment protects. It's quite another to knowingly accept into your possession classified government documents, and then purposefully spread those around the world. It's a crime in every nation, and in many (most?) it would get you executed.
From that perspective, the United States is showing incredible restraint. Some might argue that the US is being chickenshit in not pursuing active and on-going espionage that is damaging to both foreign relations and national security.
You can try to flower this up and redirect the argument, but the simple fact is that WikiLeaks is a small group of self-righteous little pissants that think they have a right to derail international diplomacy. Under the best of all possible circumstances they are incredibly misguided and irresponsible, albeit well-intentioned, idiots. I dont personaly believe they are that noble. Even if WikiLeaks proves that the US does these backroom deals it's not going to stop the back room deals. It's just going to make it much more likely that people refuse to make those deals with the US, and more likely that deals are being done between China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela,... They are helping to silence one of the few nations that truly embraces freedom of speech, pulling a fog over the US ability to pursue intelligence details and make alliances with those nations far less frightening than those mentioned previously, and worse.
And that's aside from the fact that some of this leaked information actually names informants in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan who have aided the US govt and military. Those people, real people guilty of just try to make life better for their families, are walking corpses. It's just a matter of time before they are murdered for what they said. All they did was speak... freely.... They will die for it and you flippantly condemn them by supporting the right to sell them out as casually as if you'd laughed at Jon Stewart joking about George W Bush.
You're exercising your Freedom of Speech right here with callous disregard for the ramifactions, exactly as WikiLeaks has. Just because you have the ability to say a thing, doesnt actually mean you have the 'right' to, depending on the context. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's smart to. You and Assange would both do well to learn that lesson.
So the logical alternatives to 'forcing' me to fund a military are.... what exactly?
1) You lawfully refuse to fund the military but others choose to. Who decides what the military does or how its governed? You, who put forth no investment? Or others who funded it whom you disagree with? If I fund the military but no one in your county chooses to, can I require that the military concentrate its resources defending my county and allowing yours to be overrun? Or do you plan on using the insurance of a military when -you- percieve a danger to yourself? Wouldn't it be interesting if the rich decide to fund the military and then because they paid for it, they decide how its utilized?
2) No military. -- I don't see this one working out too well, considering there are armed nations that have salivated over the thought of our extinction for generations. North Korea, Venezuala, and Iran are some of the ones at the top end of the list.
Your indignance about the military killing innocents is noble and all. But you don't seem at all concerned about the whackjobs and tyrants who murder innocent people and then deliberately imbed themselves within thier own innocent countryman so as to knowingly use them as human shields against our response. You also casually dismiss the fact that if we didn't have a military (that we're 'forced' to fund), we'd have the military forces of multiple nations and untold numbers of militant groups kicking your front door down and happily putting bullets in your kids.
One thing you've said so far has been correct; The world isnt black and white. Take your own advice and recognize that fact, can your self-righteous soapbox speech and acknowlege the fact that a military to protect a nation is a realistic requirement to maintain sovereignity. Hoping a bunch of self-entitled crybabys like you will fund it out of some patriotic spirit is about as likely as you sprouting wings. Presenting anyone with ownership over it because they funded it when others didn't is just glorified mercenary enrollment.
While you're at it, why dont you actually look up what a libertarian is. You're far from being one as evidenced in many of the things you've stated, and it's painfully obvious how uneducated you are about what that political philosophy actually is. A libertarian will believe that its no one's right to tell anyone else how to live, least of all a formalized government. A law that defines how many kids you have would be in direct contention with a libertarian's views, as would laws governing abortion, same sex marriage, alcohol and drug use and a host of other things our government wishes to regulate. It could be argued that a libertarian would be opposed to compulsory military service, but suggesting a libertarian would by definition be opposed to paying taxes that fund a military would likewise suggest that they would be opposed to paying taxes that fun road construction, and that they were even required to use roads!
It's equally apparent how little you know about what is actually in the Constitution and why its there to begin with.
Maybe engaging in activity that forces military response and gets people killed is inhumane. Asking me to fund said military just ensures a higher likelyhood that my family isnt among those who die. I'm good with that. You could also learn from Sun Tsu and The Art Of War. If you must go to war, you absolutely undeniably crush your enemy with every asset available to you as quickly as possible. Anything less is 'inhumane' because it prolongs the suffering and ensures deaths in exponentialy larger numbers over time. It also prolongs the beginning of rebuilding under unified rule and greater periods of starvation and pain. We no longer think in these terms because we must be compassionate and learn to understand and adapt to our enemies....
If you commit a crime, you forfiet your liberties. Anything less wouldn't be a punishment, now would it?
Quarantine doesnt preclude treatment. Inhumane would be shooting you at first signs of infection and burning the body. It would be selfishly irresponsible of you (and inhumane) to knowingly infect others because you dont want to be quarantined.
Limiting me to one child when I can provide plenty of food for said child, and a home, and care, is inhumane. We allow the worst people in our society to have children. The most violent, vile and evil people can have children. If you tell good, honest people that they cannot you're going to have a serious problem with their response.
And you can give me your crap about how we can ignore it and blahblahblah. Civilizations have been dealing with population controls for thousands of years. Too many people encroaching into an area they arent welcome... war. I dont condone it, I don't support it, but you can damn well bet that's what will happen before global starvation. You might not like it but that's survival instinct.
Are all of you people completely ignorant to the fact that I was criticising the use of CHINA as an appropriate source for social policy?
Are you so completely stupid that you
a) didnt understand the sarcasm disclaimer
b) actually believe I'm the one placing value on one human life over another
c) I'm supportive of any mandated regulation over my reproductive activities?
How is it, exactly, that a Mormon can be told that he has to forgo his religious teachings and stop having kids, but we need to have compassion and understanding for radical muslims who have sworn to kill us in the name of their God?
I don't disagree with you in this regard: There are too many people, and too few efforts to curb population growth.
What I was more interested in pointing out was that someone was holding up a brutal communist regime guilty of a plethora of human rights violations as a beacon of enlightenment. Of all the nations and peoples we should emulate, China is pretty far down on the list. A cavalier dismissal of their lack of compassion to justify social engineering is either ignorant or disgusting.
And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!
Really? So if they were discussing how they were going to respond to talking points it would not give her opposition unfair advantage over the debate of national political events? It would not potentially sway a Presidential election? You don't think that's relevant? Even if she was breaking the law with that email account NO ONE had a right to breach it without credible evidence, least of all some snot-nosed blogger with no law enforcement authority whatsoever.
How did our nation's morals get so out of whack that people actually justify unethical and criminal activity by saying that the ends justify the means?
There's a big difference between ridiculing something something any rational person would see as criminal, unethical and just plain stupid, and defending the big bad government.
I'm right there with you that things should be handled with equality. I'm in full agreement that the rich people with buddies in the right places should burn just as badly as the average joe for the same crime. But your evangelic hatred of 'the man' doesnt accomplish anything more than the aforementioned moron poking a tiger. Be constructive, speak up where you see the injustice, and at least have enough balls to do it front and center. Doing it from the anonymous shadows pretty much makes your indignance petty and ineffectual.
USA Today - didnt look there and didnt mention them.
CNN - one of many... meaning 2. 1 of which was posted after this one on slashdot, and the other in the CNN blogs. Front and center news, that latter one...
Washington Post - didnt look there and didnt mention them.
Fox News - It's not on their syndicated news feeds. Its in the 'Fox Nation' section which is essentially amateur reporters. While it's somewhat moderated, its not exactly a place one would frequent in search of professional reporting. It's the equivelant of the CNN blogs, again not exactly front and center news.
ABC News - It wasnt linked on the front, nor on the front of the Politics secion, and isnt now.
Bottom line here is yes, if you do searches for the articles that pertain to this you do come up with some hits. I wont deny that and didnt before, but I personally dont sit at home trying to make up search phrases to find interesting news stories. You sure didnt get presented with this on casual inspection of any particular news site, nor are you today. But you did here on Slashdot.
My statement that they werent reporting it was not fair. I should have stated that they are not driving this as a top news story, nor in most cases even a relatively interesting news story. It's been relegated to the bloggers and amateurs to bring anywhere remotely close to the surface. It's not on any front pages for mainstream news outlets today and wasnt yesterday. By that right its still a damn good thing that it was on Slashdot or the likelyhood I would have seen anything about it would be pretty small.
Short version, thanks to 'timothy' (the OP) for the link.
An easily phrased lesson? How about this:
Poke a cat with a stick you might get scratched. Poke a tiger with stick and you'll prove validity in Darwinism.
My neighbor, who happens to be a farmer, isnt likely to have anything in his email that could have national political ramifications. While I agree with your premise in principle (that all victimes be given equal consideration under the law), there are crimes which are far more damaging depending on the victim. And the law specifically allows for that variability.
Threatening to commit bodily harm to your neighbor will definately get the local law enforcement spotlight shone on your for a while, and maybe even produce a little jail. Threatening the President, however, will get you a hell of a lot more attention.
This is clearly a case of stoking (well-deserved) anger at BP in order to deflect attention from painfuly obvious unethical behavior by our government.
I havent seen a single person here defend BP, but there are a ton who seem willing to jump up and defend a betrayal of trust by this administration. Who has the agenda?
My annoyance with Obama has nothing to do with his heritage, no matter how much you need to stoke that belief in order to silence the growing discontent. My annoyance is also no less with Obama than it is with most of the political machines that have been prominant or in the majorit in the last 2 decades.
People need to get over the fact that just because a person dislikes Obama's policies doesnt for a second mean that they loved Bush's. I think they are both fucking morons.
The rest of your post can be adequately replied to by simply responding to your last statement:
"Or to put it another way: Do you disagree that the moratorium itself, no matter what was used to justify it, is scientifically sound."
The key phrase there is "no matter what was used to justify it". I don't actually give a shit, in the context of this discussion, if the underlying science is sound or not. That's not the fucking point. The point is that the White House thought it was perfectly accetable to misrepresent the findings of a panel in order to falsely support their own recomendations. You shouldnt give a shit if their recommendation was great. You should be pissed off that your government thinks this kind of behavior is accetable. But instead you're either perfectly willing to overlook the deciet because you agree with the policy (which by the way, makes you just as dishonest as them), or you actually believe that it's ok to lie, cheat and decieve as long as you win (which should make the a lightening rod for ridicule).
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason children are led in school-sponsored group indoctrination, chanting "one nation, under God" every morning, is because there weren't enough flaming crazies in the 1950s to stop it.
Something tells me your personal brand of flaming craziness is all for it, though. Amirite?
Actually, I'm an agnostic, and I dont particuarly give a shit if the words "under God" are in the pledge or not. I find arguing about that specifically to be rather petty and inconsequential.
I support saying the Pledge fully, but not because I'm some mindless sheep that supports blindly following anyone.
I do, however, support saying the Pledge because it is an oath to uphold the principles of the United States Constitution. That's the same document that ensure the right for people like you and me to be having this conversation in a public forum without fear of reprisals. It's the same document that ensures that we are all treated equally, regardless of whether we believe in a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or no God at all (and the right to not believe). It's a Pledge to make sure that we keep our government honest by challenging it when it oversteps it's bounds, or when it wrongly applies the Constitution in ways that were never intended, and which intrude on the rights of the citizens.
You call this indoctrination if you like. But I would suggest that teaching the Pledge and the Constitution can only be a negative thing if the kids are not also taught what limits the government has and why. By the knowledge kids seem to be able to demonstrate about our form of government I'd say there's a serious lack of the latter. They seem to be taught all too well all of the things that this guy should be required to give that guy though... I dont particularly see how that's upholding any principles.
And how is it that this wasnt something that people should fight for until the 1950's? Your statement suggest that you believe the Pledge once had a very real purpose and value. The principles upon which the Constitution was build havent changed. Only the methods and purposes for which it is implemented have. That suggests that you believe in why it was created, and why it is there, but not what is being done to it.
Unless you can point to any other body of governement that at any point so vehemently fought for your rights to disagree with it, then maybe you should rethink your stance and reinvest in the Pledge. Maybe you should redouble your support in those principles, and use that as a platform on which to voice your distaste in what our leaders have corroded into. If more people actually understood the Pledge and stood by it, you'd probably have a lot less angst toward our government.
So the following laws are also unconstitutional? Forcing me to buy auto insurance, forcing me to undergo security checks at the airport (my plane ticket pays for this 'service), forcing me to have a baby seat when I leave the hospital with a newborn, forcing me to licence my car, forcing me to licence my dog, forcing me to register my marriage...
I could go on, but these are all 'good and services' required by law.
You are not required to drive a vehicle. You are only required to buy auto insurance if you choose to drive. You have a choice.
You are not required to fly on a plane. You can choose not to fly. But if you're suggesting that you are paying for the service of being scanned or patted down then you seem to find value in those things that I fail to see... I guess the gasoline and the salaries of the staff are free.
You're required to feed your baby too. Will you argue it's unconstitutional to require you to buy food? While health insurance will not alter your baby's ability to survive an accident (a hospital cannot turn down the treatment of your child) a carseat certainly may.
Again, you're not required to drive, or even buy a car. That's a privilege, and you accept the terms of the privilege if you choose to engage in it. Regardless, the license fees are public (government) not private sector.
You are not required to buy a dog. That being said, I actually agree with you on this one. I think the law sucks. Maybe someone should challenge it... Regardless, the license fees are public (government) not private sector.
No one forces you to register your marriage unless you want to enjoy the tax or legal benefits of it. If you want the perks, register. Regardless, the license fees are public (government) not private sector.
I could go on too. Keep em coming.
Actually I think there are more on the left that qualify in the zealot category. It's just that they have much smaller followings that people like Beck or Limbaugh (both of also qualify for the zealot category).
Dont let my support of this particular ruling leave ambiguity about my stance on some of the other things I linked. There are provisions in the Patriot Act that I think are equally unconstitutional. One could argue that No Child Left Behind ensures mediocrity. I don't particularly give a shit whether we use 'under God' in the pledge or not, as it applies to seperation of church and state.
Just as BlueFoxLucid suggested, we need people challenging our government and ensuring that they remain true to the principles of the Constitution. People also need to understand that just because a person is opposed to a law by a particular elected official it does not for a second imply support to the policies of any other official.
You mean like filing a lawsuit because the words "under God" exist in the Pledge of Allegiance?
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/11/08/new-hampshire-lawsuit-filed-against-pledge-of-allegiance.htm
How about lawsuits against the Bush adminstration and the Patriot Act?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/29/terror/main614638.shtml
How about lawsuits filed against Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/education/20cnd-child.html?hp&ex=1114056000&en=fcbac357dd9bb745&ei=5094&partner=homepage
These lawsuits are no more or less credible than the one suggesting (rightfully) that the Federal govt has no authority to force any private citizen to purchase any good or service from the private sector.
The fact is that there's no shortage of "flaming crazies" on either side of the isle. And as the previous poster suggested, that's a good thing in keeping the flaming crazies who are actually in power, in check.
This is exactly as accurate as a liberal being presented with a decision on a tax cut always voting "grape".
That's what you got from the post? Teleprompter jokes? Are you 'disinterested' in the rather poignant insight to Obama's repeated tactic of gathering a group of 'X' people who appear to support him with unwavering resolve? You didn't happen to note the manipulation of perceptions? And it didn't even cross your mind that this is occuring in the middle of several national crisis which one might think would warrant greater attention from our President than a rather transparent publicity stunt?
Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret.
Conversely, Communism/Marxism only works when the people are uninformed, uneducated, and uninspired...
I choose Democracy.
I actually disagree with you though. There are manueverings on the world stage that prevent as many hazards as they cause that would be impossible without some level of secrecy. Not to mention that just because your democracy tells you absolutely everything doesn't mitigate the secrets of every other nation on the globe. You cant learn of and navigate the dangers inherent in the secrets of other nations without at the very least securing informants. And you cant keep informants alive (and thereby retain future informants) if you dont retain secrets.
This WikiLeaks dump includes the identities of our informants. Who are now walking corpses. It's only a matter of time before they are murdered for their actions. And the people whom they've offended are just as likely to filet the informant's kids as they are to put a bullet in the informant's head.
There's a big difference between pointing out a crime and identifying informants who will get murdered when they are outed. There's nothing noble about letting the world know we think Pakistan might not be able to secure it's nukes. There's nothing that helps secure us or anyone else in releasing that Hillary Clinton wonders if other nation's leaders are taking medication. Yet those pieces of information certainly damaging to the relationships we rely on around the world.
You might be able to make a case that a person, or journalist, or even the hacks at WikiLeaks have a right and even a responsibility to bring crimes to the attention of the world. But subverting the relationships between nations "just because" isnt in the same category. It isnt today, it wont be tomorrow, and anyone that wants to try to justify it as such just to see the US govt squirm is intellectually dishonest and moraly corrupt.
So now we've watered Espionage down to whistleblowing?
... whistleblowing?
Last I checked there's nothing illegal in someone pondering if a nation's leader is on drugs, or voicing concern about the security of a nation's weapons of mass destruction. But WikiLeaks putting that on the internet for all to see is seriously damaging to our nation's diplomatic relationships and
Your joke is oversimplistic and juvenile, and it proves your intellectual laziness. Its one thing to speak your own mind and voice your own opinions without fear of reprisals. That's what the First Amendment protects. It's quite another to knowingly accept into your possession classified government documents, and then purposefully spread those around the world. It's a crime in every nation, and in many (most?) it would get you executed.
... They are helping to silence one of the few nations that truly embraces freedom of speech, pulling a fog over the US ability to pursue intelligence details and make alliances with those nations far less frightening than those mentioned previously, and worse.
From that perspective, the United States is showing incredible restraint. Some might argue that the US is being chickenshit in not pursuing active and on-going espionage that is damaging to both foreign relations and national security.
You can try to flower this up and redirect the argument, but the simple fact is that WikiLeaks is a small group of self-righteous little pissants that think they have a right to derail international diplomacy. Under the best of all possible circumstances they are incredibly misguided and irresponsible, albeit well-intentioned, idiots. I dont personaly believe they are that noble. Even if WikiLeaks proves that the US does these backroom deals it's not going to stop the back room deals. It's just going to make it much more likely that people refuse to make those deals with the US, and more likely that deals are being done between China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela,
And that's aside from the fact that some of this leaked information actually names informants in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan who have aided the US govt and military. Those people, real people guilty of just try to make life better for their families, are walking corpses. It's just a matter of time before they are murdered for what they said. All they did was speak... freely.... They will die for it and you flippantly condemn them by supporting the right to sell them out as casually as if you'd laughed at Jon Stewart joking about George W Bush.
You're exercising your Freedom of Speech right here with callous disregard for the ramifactions, exactly as WikiLeaks has. Just because you have the ability to say a thing, doesnt actually mean you have the 'right' to, depending on the context. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's smart to. You and Assange would both do well to learn that lesson.
So the logical alternatives to 'forcing' me to fund a military are.... what exactly?
1) You lawfully refuse to fund the military but others choose to. Who decides what the military does or how its governed? You, who put forth no investment? Or others who funded it whom you disagree with? If I fund the military but no one in your county chooses to, can I require that the military concentrate its resources defending my county and allowing yours to be overrun? Or do you plan on using the insurance of a military when -you- percieve a danger to yourself? Wouldn't it be interesting if the rich decide to fund the military and then because they paid for it, they decide how its utilized?
2) No military. -- I don't see this one working out too well, considering there are armed nations that have salivated over the thought of our extinction for generations. North Korea, Venezuala, and Iran are some of the ones at the top end of the list.
Your indignance about the military killing innocents is noble and all. But you don't seem at all concerned about the whackjobs and tyrants who murder innocent people and then deliberately imbed themselves within thier own innocent countryman so as to knowingly use them as human shields against our response. You also casually dismiss the fact that if we didn't have a military (that we're 'forced' to fund), we'd have the military forces of multiple nations and untold numbers of militant groups kicking your front door down and happily putting bullets in your kids.
One thing you've said so far has been correct; The world isnt black and white. Take your own advice and recognize that fact, can your self-righteous soapbox speech and acknowlege the fact that a military to protect a nation is a realistic requirement to maintain sovereignity. Hoping a bunch of self-entitled crybabys like you will fund it out of some patriotic spirit is about as likely as you sprouting wings. Presenting anyone with ownership over it because they funded it when others didn't is just glorified mercenary enrollment.
While you're at it, why dont you actually look up what a libertarian is. You're far from being one as evidenced in many of the things you've stated, and it's painfully obvious how uneducated you are about what that political philosophy actually is. A libertarian will believe that its no one's right to tell anyone else how to live, least of all a formalized government. A law that defines how many kids you have would be in direct contention with a libertarian's views, as would laws governing abortion, same sex marriage, alcohol and drug use and a host of other things our government wishes to regulate. It could be argued that a libertarian would be opposed to compulsory military service, but suggesting a libertarian would by definition be opposed to paying taxes that fund a military would likewise suggest that they would be opposed to paying taxes that fun road construction, and that they were even required to use roads!
It's equally apparent how little you know about what is actually in the Constitution and why its there to begin with.
Maybe engaging in activity that forces military response and gets people killed is inhumane. Asking me to fund said military just ensures a higher likelyhood that my family isnt among those who die. I'm good with that. You could also learn from Sun Tsu and The Art Of War. If you must go to war, you absolutely undeniably crush your enemy with every asset available to you as quickly as possible. Anything less is 'inhumane' because it prolongs the suffering and ensures deaths in exponentialy larger numbers over time. It also prolongs the beginning of rebuilding under unified rule and greater periods of starvation and pain. We no longer think in these terms because we must be compassionate and learn to understand and adapt to our enemies....
If you commit a crime, you forfiet your liberties. Anything less wouldn't be a punishment, now would it?
Quarantine doesnt preclude treatment. Inhumane would be shooting you at first signs of infection and burning the body. It would be selfishly irresponsible of you (and inhumane) to knowingly infect others because you dont want to be quarantined.
Limiting me to one child when I can provide plenty of food for said child, and a home, and care, is inhumane. We allow the worst people in our society to have children. The most violent, vile and evil people can have children. If you tell good, honest people that they cannot you're going to have a serious problem with their response.
And you can give me your crap about how we can ignore it and blahblahblah. Civilizations have been dealing with population controls for thousands of years. Too many people encroaching into an area they arent welcome... war. I dont condone it, I don't support it, but you can damn well bet that's what will happen before global starvation. You might not like it but that's survival instinct.
Doing anything to my body without my concent is inhumane. Period.
You or anyone else ever tries to 'snip' anything on me without my permission and I'll help to 'aerate' you in return.
Are all of you people completely ignorant to the fact that I was criticising the use of CHINA as an appropriate source for social policy?
Are you so completely stupid that you
a) didnt understand the sarcasm disclaimer
b) actually believe I'm the one placing value on one human life over another
c) I'm supportive of any mandated regulation over my reproductive activities?
How is it, exactly, that a Mormon can be told that he has to forgo his religious teachings and stop having kids, but we need to have compassion and understanding for radical muslims who have sworn to kill us in the name of their God?
I don't disagree with you in this regard: There are too many people, and too few efforts to curb population growth.
What I was more interested in pointing out was that someone was holding up a brutal communist regime guilty of a plethora of human rights violations as a beacon of enlightenment. Of all the nations and peoples we should emulate, China is pretty far down on the list. A cavalier dismissal of their lack of compassion to justify social engineering is either ignorant or disgusting.
And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!
Yes, it's sarcasm.
Really? So if they were discussing how they were going to respond to talking points it would not give her opposition unfair advantage over the debate of national political events? It would not potentially sway a Presidential election? You don't think that's relevant? Even if she was breaking the law with that email account NO ONE had a right to breach it without credible evidence, least of all some snot-nosed blogger with no law enforcement authority whatsoever.
How did our nation's morals get so out of whack that people actually justify unethical and criminal activity by saying that the ends justify the means?
There's a big difference between ridiculing something something any rational person would see as criminal, unethical and just plain stupid, and defending the big bad government.
I'm right there with you that things should be handled with equality. I'm in full agreement that the rich people with buddies in the right places should burn just as badly as the average joe for the same crime. But your evangelic hatred of 'the man' doesnt accomplish anything more than the aforementioned moron poking a tiger. Be constructive, speak up where you see the injustice, and at least have enough balls to do it front and center. Doing it from the anonymous shadows pretty much makes your indignance petty and ineffectual.
USA Today - didnt look there and didnt mention them.
CNN - one of many... meaning 2. 1 of which was posted after this one on slashdot, and the other in the CNN blogs. Front and center news, that latter one...
Washington Post - didnt look there and didnt mention them.
Fox News - It's not on their syndicated news feeds. Its in the 'Fox Nation' section which is essentially amateur reporters. While it's somewhat moderated, its not exactly a place one would frequent in search of professional reporting. It's the equivelant of the CNN blogs, again not exactly front and center news.
ABC News - It wasnt linked on the front, nor on the front of the Politics secion, and isnt now.
Bottom line here is yes, if you do searches for the articles that pertain to this you do come up with some hits. I wont deny that and didnt before, but I personally dont sit at home trying to make up search phrases to find interesting news stories. You sure didnt get presented with this on casual inspection of any particular news site, nor are you today. But you did here on Slashdot.
My statement that they werent reporting it was not fair. I should have stated that they are not driving this as a top news story, nor in most cases even a relatively interesting news story. It's been relegated to the bloggers and amateurs to bring anywhere remotely close to the surface. It's not on any front pages for mainstream news outlets today and wasnt yesterday. By that right its still a damn good thing that it was on Slashdot or the likelyhood I would have seen anything about it would be pretty small.
Short version, thanks to 'timothy' (the OP) for the link.
An easily phrased lesson? How about this:
Poke a cat with a stick you might get scratched. Poke a tiger with stick and you'll prove validity in Darwinism.
My neighbor, who happens to be a farmer, isnt likely to have anything in his email that could have national political ramifications. While I agree with your premise in principle (that all victimes be given equal consideration under the law), there are crimes which are far more damaging depending on the victim. And the law specifically allows for that variability.
Threatening to commit bodily harm to your neighbor will definately get the local law enforcement spotlight shone on your for a while, and maybe even produce a little jail. Threatening the President, however, will get you a hell of a lot more attention.
By this line of reasoning if I find the key to your front door hidden under your doormat, then it's acceptable for me to enter your home.
This is clearly a case of stoking (well-deserved) anger at BP in order to deflect attention from painfuly obvious unethical behavior by our government.
I havent seen a single person here defend BP, but there are a ton who seem willing to jump up and defend a betrayal of trust by this administration. Who has the agenda?
My annoyance with Obama has nothing to do with his heritage, no matter how much you need to stoke that belief in order to silence the growing discontent. My annoyance is also no less with Obama than it is with most of the political machines that have been prominant or in the majorit in the last 2 decades.
People need to get over the fact that just because a person dislikes Obama's policies doesnt for a second mean that they loved Bush's. I think they are both fucking morons.
Oh, right. The debate is over...
The rest of your post can be adequately replied to by simply responding to your last statement: "Or to put it another way: Do you disagree that the moratorium itself, no matter what was used to justify it, is scientifically sound."
The key phrase there is "no matter what was used to justify it". I don't actually give a shit, in the context of this discussion, if the underlying science is sound or not. That's not the fucking point. The point is that the White House thought it was perfectly accetable to misrepresent the findings of a panel in order to falsely support their own recomendations. You shouldnt give a shit if their recommendation was great. You should be pissed off that your government thinks this kind of behavior is accetable. But instead you're either perfectly willing to overlook the deciet because you agree with the policy (which by the way, makes you just as dishonest as them), or you actually believe that it's ok to lie, cheat and decieve as long as you win (which should make the a lightening rod for ridicule).