I think you have the target market entirely wrong. The iPhone is not going to compete with a Blackberry wielded by a businessman. The Blackberry market is a fairly small market that really focuses on young professionals. Your average teenager or college student doesn't have a Blackberry. The iPhone is targeted solidly at the same market as the iPod, which is to say the holy grail of throwing money into the wind to score trendiness, 12-24. Obviously there is going to be plenty of spill over to other markets, but the bread and butter will be a young crowd looking for something 'hip' and new. The iPhone is going to have to be pretty and 'cool' first and functional second. Your Blackberry on the other hand could be the ugliest phone on the face of the planet, yet be kept for its functionality. The iPhone will have no such luxury.
Functionality will of course be important, especially if this market opens up a little, but the 'cool' factor will be paramount. Apple already has a head start on this though. Apple has a killer marketing campaign already in place for the iPod that will be studied religiously by marketing people for years to come. The iPhone with its close relation to the iPod will likely be able to ride off the marketing inertia that the iPod already has. Throw on top of this marketing a spiffy looking product with enough functionality to beat the competition, and you have a winner. Apple also has the advantage in that the cell phone/MP3 hybrid market right now is pathetic. Cell phone markers are just now starting to pull their shit together and make decent hybrid devices, but I am deeply skeptical that they will have enough inertia to compete by the time the iPhone comes out.
If they had another year or two more the competitors to Apple might be able to put up a fight, but as things stand now I personally think that they are screwed and about to get the same kind of beating that device makers in the MP3 market got. It will be another 5 years before good non-Apple mp3/phone devices begin slowly claw their way back. You can see this in the MP3 player market. When Apple hit the mp3 player market, it was the best and it soundly thrashed the competition. Even today, with other companies putting out great non-Apple MP3 devices Apple continues to dominate because the thrashing gave early MP3 player markers was so thorough. I predict the same thing to happen the MP3 player/phone hybrid market.
Yeah man, the system is like totally broken. It is like we don't have any freedom of speech any more. Damn that yeasty little cunt Bush. He is by far the worst mother fucking president ever to set his a clove footed hoof into the oval office. He is a worthless, pig shit, sheep fucking, donkey screwing, cow cunt licking, Nazi who eats babies and rapes more boys then a Catholic priest. How is it that we let these worthless, incompetent, corrupt tyrants that we call Democrats and Republicans steal away our freedom to criticize our piece of shit government without fear of retaliation!?
Where oh where has our freedom of speech gone! I might as well just go pack my bags and movie to Cuba and are not as evil as the the United $tate$ of America.
(this is +1 sarcastic for anyone who is extremely dense)
We still have all the freedom we need to change the government. Just because the voting masses are too stupid to vote for competent leaders doesn't mean that we are somehow victims of tyrants. There are real victims out there who suffer under governments where the leader truly is a dictator and can only be removed through force of arms. There are nations out there without a shred of free press or even a sliver of free political speech. The US is not one of those nations. For the US to change its government, it only needs to vote for someone else. Hell, you don't even need a majority of the population as only half the population votes anyways. Simply getting 1/4 of the population to vote in a new direction would boot the current people out of power. Any failure of government is our failure. We have been blessed with a free and open Republic that easily switches leaders with a minimal amount of corruption. Failure to use this free Republic to remove defective leaders with the ballot box is a failure not of Bush, Carl Rove, Dick Chaney, Kerry, Clinton (either of them), or any other politician. The failure is completely in the hands of the people of the US. The people have the tools to get the information they need if they want to bother to inform themselves, and they have a perfectly workable method of tossing leaders out of power and replacing them with competent ones. Failure to use the tools at hand is not proof that the tools of the Republic are broken, but proof that the people are broken.
If there is any failure in the system of the American Republic, it is that the system of government assumes that people are not lazy and apathetic idiots. The American Republic dumps all governmental power into the hands of the people and assumes they know what to do with it. If there is any failure of the American system, it is an overestimation of the competency of the general citizenry to make the minimal effort it takes to pick and vote for a decent leaders. There might be an excellent system out there that does not rely on a competent citizenry to choose leaders, but that system is not called a Democracy or Republic. We don't suffer from a lack of Democracy (or Republicanism, if you care to nitpick). We have it. We suffer from our own incompetence in using it.
Hell, I personally think that it is telling that one of the least truly democratic (i.e. majority rules) pieces of our government is one of the most celebrated. We celebrate the Bill of Rights as a document that actively fights the forces of democracy by laying out things that not even the stupid majority can take away from individuals. Isn't it a little bit telling that we appreciate the Bill of Rights for its LACK of democracy? Democracy is only the answer if the majority is competent and trustworthy. We don't suffer from a lack of democracy. We suffer from a lack of an incompetent citizenry. Sadly, Democracy is alive and well in the US.
It would be utterly foolish to implement a blanket ban on sterile crops. There are some excellent environmental reasons why sterile crops are good. The most obvious reasons is that if you are the one guy growing some GM modified group surround by a pile of normal crops, having sterile crops is a good way to prevent everyone around you from getting your GM modified seeds. One of the big fears with GM modified crops is that they will spread throughout the ecosystem and into the normal crop supply. If there is later found out to be a flaw with the GM modified crops, then the entire harvest in the whole region might have to be checked for cross-contamination.
Does this make farmers dependent upon seed companies? Sure. Slap some labels on that shit making it clear that if you buy this type of farm seed you will not be able to replant and let farmers decide. I know that right now many farmers pick seeds that can't be replanted anyways because the seeds are cheap and have yields high enough to make the added cost of re-buying seeds worth it.
Unless you are half plant AND have the super human power to absorb genes from plants, it is a pretty safe bet that your chances of eating sterile rice and suddenly going sterile is about as high as eating rice and suddenly gaining the super ability to live off of water and sunlight alone.
Firstly, not having a nuclear warhead explode over your country is a preferable option than having one go off, then turning its lauchsite into glass. If it actually worked, that might be true. Even then, it might also be better to have NO defense because the only response can be a nuclear attack in kind. The whole point of a nuclear deterrent is so that both sides realize that the costs of going into a nuclear war is too high to even contemplate.
The real reason why this silly little system is popular is because it breaks down the concept of MAD. If Iran gets nukes, Iran is not going to launch them because the result would be total annihilation. That said, if I ran was already facing total annihilation in the form of an American attack (conventional or otherwise), Iran might be able to pick off a few cities with nukes. This threat would effectively make Iran a nation that is off limits to military coercion. North Korea already enjoys this status by having a few thousand pieces of artillery loaded up with all manner of horrible non-nuclear weapons (chemical and biological) pointed at the capital of South Korea (which is in artillery range of the North). The result is that the US has never ever contemplated any serious military action against North Korea. Iran wants to score this same status. The ballistic missile defense system breaks this equation. A system that could reliably take down a few dozen missiles would help to void military limits that a nuclear deterrent puts in a nation like the US.
Secondly, the deterrent value of thousands of nuclear warheads is somewhat lost on religious fanatics who don't care if they and a million other faithful get sent straight to Allah. Ah, but here is the rub, and here is why the logic of the ballistic missile defense breaks down. You are making the very poor assumption that the easiest way to blow up a nuke in London or Washington is to strap it onto a few tens of thousand of pounds metal, put a few tons of explosives under it, then launch that missile in a parabolic arc that skips it out into space, and then back down into the Earth's atmosphere onto a target a few tens of thousands of miles away. This is a really bad assumption.
The way that someone is going to nuke the US is by taking an American yacht flying an American flag, loading it up with a nuke encased in led, dropping it right into New York harbor, and pressing the big red button. The ballistic missile defense system is like nailing the front door shut while leaving all the windows wide open. It might make you feel safer, but the truth is that you simply just create a change in tactics. Further, the tactic that you make less effective is the one that a terrorist organization is most likely to be able to not pull off (how many ballistic rocks have you made with duct tape and a few wooden planks).
This is nothing more then rhetoric for the domestic crowd.
The Russian objections to the US missile defense system are silly. Even if the system ever worked perfectly (it doesn't), it would never be able to stop more then a handful of missiles. Russia has more then a handful of missiles. The only thing the missile defense system can do is blunt an extremely small scale nuclear attack by ballistic missiles. Launch anything BUT that exact type of attack, and the entire missile defense system is worthless. Beyond this, the US has offered to include Russia in the shield, share their tracking data, in general, make a worthless defense against Russian attack even more worthless by making it transparent. North Korea, Iran, and anyone else thinking of how much fun it would be to hold a dozen nukes should be worried. For Russia, this is a joke.
Putin really is just playing to scare his population and score a few 'against America' points. It is a cry for attention and a desperate pleading to PLEASE start some verbal shit to keep his population focused on foreign 'threats' rather than some of the more crushing domestic issues Russia faces. If the Dems kill the program, he will happily take credit for scaring the American weapons of Russia oppression away... when the reality is that the Dems have always found the program to be a waste of money and are happy to tear into a lame duck president on the issue... not because Putin is a scary guy.
Look, the ballistic missile defense system is a joke. We already have one; it is called a few thousand nuclear missiles that can hit anywhere in the globe. I would be the first person to advocate throwing this worthless money hog on a chopping block, or at least relegating it to a lab for more 'research'. That said, Putin's saber rattling has nothing to do with reality. Putin knows that the ballistic missile defense program is a joke, and even if it wasn't a joke, it is only effective against nations with less then a dozen nukes... and it is safe to say Russia has more then a dozen nukes laying around these days.
If you want a real headline, make it this "Putin recall history and tries to invoke Cold War to score domestic political points, Americans continue to piss money into the wind and uphill". This is a domestic issue getting bounced around by a global media and nothing more.
The reason why this is an issue is because even if you use the music completely and 100% legally, you could still have your computer compromised and have one of your music escape into the net. If a few weeks after some of my music finds its way into P2P through completely innocent means, I get an order to hand over my computer and the RIAA gets records from my ISP, I would be fairly pissed off. Apple doesn't even need to play role of the villain. It isn't like the RIAA needs Apple's permission to download songs off of a P2P network and go after the poor bastard who the music is tagged with.
I know it is Apple and we all heart Apple because their products are shinny and we can't find a $ sign into their name, but this is a serious and completely unnecessary flaw in their privacy protection. This is a wide open invitation to the RIAA to go run down innocent people who have committed no crime other then not completely securing all of their data. Even if there is deniability (the virus stoled it, not me, honest!), it won't change the fact that few sane folks have the time and money to sit down and fight that battle with the RIAA.
Apple should be admonished for this obvious and blatant flaw in protecting the privacy of their users. There is not a damn good reason why this vulnerability in privacy should be allowed. I personally have absolutely no intention of exposing myself to such risks. Sadly, I doubt the average user knows that such risks exist, much less how to defend against them.
First, the iPod uses proprietary software to load up its music. You can't just 'drag and drop' music into it like a USB drive and play it. You must use iTunes. The only alternative outside of iTunes are some quasi-hacked open source alternatives. The iPod is not terribly friendly with non-iTunes software.
Second, maybe you have some archaic version of a Creative Zen, but my Creative Zen didn't even come with software to load MP3s. It just piggybacks off of Windows Media or just about any other piece of MP3 playing software with MP3 player support. The only MP3 software I have found that doesn't play nicely with my Zen is iTunes.
Personally, I think you are a tad confused about what MP3 players you have in your hand. You seem to be under the delusion that a Zen can only use Creative software, and you seem to think that an iPod will happily act as as a USB MP3 player. You are wrong on both accounts. Maybe you need to go back and figure out what MP3 players you are actually using. I suggest reading the logos smeared across them.
I bet you also think that when the government needs more money to pay for various programs they should just print more money.
First, oil companies don't set the price. Oil cartels and the various nationalized oil industries partial set the price. The other price of price setting comes from the people who buy the oil. It isn't like Exxon comes out and declares that oil will now sell for $50 a barrel, and if you want it, you better pay. Exxon doesn't set the price. Exxon puts a barrel of oil out on the market and auctions it off to the highest bidder. The only control Exxon can have over the influence on the price of oil is to simply sell less of it (and thus drive the cost up). For better or for worse, Exxon, doesn't actually have that control. OPEC is what decides the supply... and in an auction system, whoever decides the supply decides the price. The big evil oil companies are not squeezing the poor oppressed people. They are just barreling the oil tossing it up on auction.
Second, dropping the price of oil has all sorts of bad consequences. Dropping the price of oil reduces the supplies of oil. Not all oil costs the same to bring up out of the ground. As oil prices go up, it becomes more worthwhile to go after expensive to get oil, increasing the oil supply. Not only do oil companies bring up less oil when the price drops, but the demand for oil goes up. The cheaper the stuff is, the more worthwhile it is to burn it. People think twice about driving a few blocks to the store when it costs $4 a gallon, but think nothing of it if it costs $1. So, you cut supply AND increase demand by dropping the price of oil. If you want rationing, lines in front of gas stations, and not enough oil to go around, putting price controls on oil is an excellent way to do it (as Carter so eloquently proved).
Fourth, the 'record oil profits' come from the horrific volume of oil sales, not a massive margin on each barrel sold. The margin on selling oil is thin. Even if oil companies wanted to operate at no net profit, the price of oil for you at the pump would barely budge. The only reason why they have 'record profits' is because they have record sales and (literally) can't pump the stuff out of the ground fast enough.
Seriously, take a class in economics. This sort of simplistic thinking is the reason why politicians make stupid economic decisions some times. We have dumb voters who don't understand even basic economics pushing politicians to make mind numbingly stupid economic decisions.
If you can't tell the difference between a tolerable romance plot or sub-plot, and the mind numbing crap that Bay makes, you clearly are the one who has not spent any time with women and been dragged to chick flicks. A romance in a movie doesn't have to suck unbearable amounts by definition... unless of course Michael Bay is the asshole who made it. It is like the guy has a Hollywood checklist that he goes over while making the movie.
Explosion? Check. Actions? Check. Lame ass heroes with corny lines? Check. A horrific romance that is forced and contrived into the plot no matter how little it fits and no matter how much it takes away from an otherwise bearable movie? Check.
A romance doesn't have to take away from a movie. Despite what Hollywood demographers think, you actually don't need to stuff a romance into every single movie to make sure that girls like it. Even when you do feel the need to stuff one into the movie, it doesn't have to suck and take away from the movie. Spiderman and Superman both managed to weave action and a small dose of romance without ruining the movie. Pearl Harbor on the other hand managed to destroy otherwise good and fulfilling action with the stupidest fucking romance ever to hit the screen.
Personally, I wish Hollywood would put down the god damn checklist. If the movie is about explosions, giant fucking robots, and other things that clearly are not going to attract an audience looking for romance, they don't actually need to included. It isn't like a geek gets his girlfriend to watch giant robots fight each other by promising a stupid romance interwoven into the plot.
Michael Bay embodies all that is good and bad about Hollywood. This movie will have kick ass special effects for sure, but at the same time it is going to have a fucking stupid romance that has no place in the movie and will surely result in the IQ of the audience dropping a few points. Hollywood loves to jerk off to its own cliches, and a quick glance at the movie trailer shows that it goes through a Hollywood check list to make sure all that is cliche and irritating about Hollywood got thrown in, no matter how utterly inappropriate it is for the movie. So yes, go see this movie for the eye candy, but keep a loaded.45 ready to save yourself from the horrible mind numbing romance and Hollywood cliche that will quickly follow.
"Man, we can't have action movie about space robots without a horrible romance or else girls wouldn't like it!"
Yeah Hollywood, I bet all the girls out there that don't want to watch sci-fi noticed the romance in the preview and are now dying to go see this movie.
I doubt we could ever stop a Hurricane in the near future, but if we could predict killer Hurricanes as they near the coast and then downgrade them, that would certainly be a worthy endeavor. While any manipulation of Hurricane strength would almost certainly be costly, it would be a whole hell of a lot cheaper then something like Katrina. It isn't like you need to stop them all, just the ones that are set to do massive amounts of damage... and you don't even need to stop it, just degrade its intensity.
But they never wanted the invasion in the first place. Suddenly they are to blame for the consequences, when this never would have happened if they were listened to before the war.
Ha! Exactly what party was 'against the war' in the first place? It takes a real bit of revisionist history to forget that the elected bodies of the US passed the authorization for the war not just by a simple majority, but a super majority. The House voted 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. That is more then enough support to pass a frigging constitutional amendment, and it was about as bipartisan as you can possibly get. If we accept that the war was a mistake and a failure, it was a mistake and a failure for the entire republican system of American government. Every single piece of the our system gave a green light, from the electorate, to the intelligence, to the military, to every single branch of government, and both political parties. Every single check and balance that might have stopped this failed, and we had a lot of checks and balances. The US, all of the US, is as responsible as any nation can possibly be.
What about the same standards for those who pushed to go to war? They never spoke of the consequences. It was supposed to be an easy war, where we would be greeted with flowers as liberators. Even after the war, we were supposed to believe that Iraq is a happy, burgeoning democracy.
That doesn't change the fact that every single piece of American democracy gave a thumbs up. Every single institution that was supposed to be running oversight on intelligence, our elected representatives who were supposed to ask hard questions, our executive branch which was supposed to have a plan, and the electorate which is supposed to put in power competent leaders and pressure them when they fail... every single piece of this system gave a green light and thumbs up. Not only did every single piece of this system give a green light, but each and every single one of these entities gave an enthusiastic thumbs up with super majorities.
[quote]Why doesn't it also make you sick that all those people who talk about staying in Iraq never talk about the consequences of staying?[/quote]
They do talk about the consequences of staying. Perhaps not enough to your liking, but no one is pretending that staying doesn't involve loss of American life and coin.
[quote]There will bve violence either way. You seem to believe that the US occupation is somehow stopping violence. There is no evidence of this, there's tons of violence right now, much of it inspired by the occupation. Do you have any definitive evidence to show that violence would increase after a withdrawal?[/quote]
This is simply silly. Can you honestly say with a straight face that Shiites go run off and murder Sunnis because the Americans are there? Can you say with a straight face that if the Americans leave and the central government loses what little fire power it has to keep the militias from murdering each other, they Iraqis will suddenly start killing each other less? Can you really say with a straight face that the Shiites are suddenly going to forget 50 years of brutal oppression and not slaughter every Sunni they can get their hands on? This is a laughable. I suppose you think that Rwanda got better when the UN peace keepers pulled out too? I bet you think that the Jews would have had an easier time if we just hadn't gone to war with Germany. Maybe Darfur will magically fix itself if the international community turns its back on it.
There certainly is violence in Iraq right now, but there is one thing you don't see. You don't see entire sections of Iraq declaring independence. You don't see open armies. You don't see Iraqi government troops slaughtering towns of ethnic minorities wholesale. You don't see these things because the US would crush any group that tried such open acts of violence. Instead, we see a civil war of assassinations and small scale attacks. Take out the on
[quote]I have never heard ANYONE say anything like this. Can you point me to quotes from a specific person, or are these people merely fictional characters you created? Tell me who it is that thinks like this.
You claim that it is "the people who want to pull out." But I want a pull out, and I know dozens of others who want a pull-out, and none of us think it will be pretty.[/quote]
True, few politician or intellectuals declare that the US leaving results in Iraq becoming a happy utopia land. That said, they all pretty much universally refuse to talk about what happens after the US leaves and the consequences of leaving, other then that Americans stop dying and spending money.
Can you show me a single pro-leaving politician describing the kind of genocide that could result from the US leaving and declaring that he can accept that in order to save a handful of American lives and dollars? The pro-leaving camp is shoving their heads in dirt when it comes to the consiquences of leaving. They are not claiming a happy utopia... but then again, they make no claims. They don't own up to the fact that by pulling out bad things are going to happen to the Iraqi people.
The common attitude of the people who want to pull out is that if we pull out, Iraq ceases to exist. It becomes another shit hole part of the world where people are killing each other and we don't need to worry about. It becomes just another miserable nation like Rwanda or the Sudan. We feel a little bit of sympathy for them, and we might even send a few bucks to some charity trying to feed them, but we don't see it as our responsibility to do anything about it. Perhaps we can wash our hands of genocides the likes of which we saw in Rwanda and Sudan. We didn't start them, and we don't need to play the worlds police. We can point out that Europe could get off its ass once in a while and go gallivanting around its back yard stopping genocides for once.
Iraq is not so simple. No matter how much we would like to wash our hands of it, we can't. The US kicked over the one brutal dictator who seemed to be able to hold back the tribal chaos. His methods were not pretty, but they certainly resulted in fewer casualties (well, minus that whole 10 year Iran War thing). There is no washing our hands of this. No amount of ignoring the consequences of leaving is going to make Iraq just another Rwanda that is not our problem. Iraq is our problem. We created it.
Like I said, I am not against leaving. If we truly believe that we can't win, why waste the blood and money? I am just disgusted at the politicians and intellectuals who utterly ignore and refuse to talk about the consequences of leaving. If we need to pull out, we should do it with our eyes wide open. If that means the American public feels a little guilt for kicking off a genocide, good. Better we feel a little guilt at creating and leaving an ethnic genocide to grow, then happily stuffing our heads in the sand. If the US wants to play world police, the US better damn well accept the full responsibilities that that entails.
The next time the US eyes some tin-pot dictator strong memories of Iraq should flare up. We should remember that kicking over someone's dictator makes those people our responsibility, and if we are not ready to pay in blood and treasure for decades, we have no business running around the world with guns. This realization starts with Iraq and accepting the horrific price that the Iraqi people are going to pay when we leave them in the mess we created. Anti-war politicians utterly refusing to speak of the consequences of US actions should make any human sick. We should leave feeling guilty at what we have wrought and what we have doomed the Iraqi people to, not leave smugly feeling like we one-upped Bush and have more money for social spending now.
Your comment fails to appreciate (a) the fact that most of the violence in Iraq comes from native Iraqis; foreigners, while not insignificant, are the vast minority; and (b) that doesn't take very many civilian deaths to really annoy an occupied population.
Leaving wont change this. It isn't like the US pulling up stakes and leaving is going to make the violence suddenly vanish. The vast majority of deaths in Iraq these days is not collateral damage, and it isn't Americans even kill insurgents. The vast majority of deaths stem from Sunni and Shiites trying to kill each other with a helping of Al-Qaeda suicide bombers to keep everyone perpetual pissed, as if Saddam's brutal treatment of the Shiites wasn't enough. Look, we have seen this kind of warfare before.
After the Jews Holocaust of World War II, the world declared never again. Kosovo, Rwanda, and Darfur are all examples of the sort tide the US is desperately trying to push back. The 'never again' mantra has rung hollow in the face of these horrific genocides.
Right now the US stands in an ugly place. One option is to spend money and lives trying to hold back the genocide that is all but certain to take place in the absence of a hundred thousand+ multinational forces. The US can probably stabilize things in the end, but it might take years, and it might require more American blood and money. Iraq can't stay in genocide mode forever, and as long as the US is there outright genocide is impossible.
The other option is for the US to pack up their bags, offer some empty apologies for killing the brutal authoritarian who was keeping chaos at bay, hand the current government a check, and give any who help us and fears for their life US citizenship for them and their family and a free airplane ride to the nation of their choice. I am not completely against the idea.
That said, we really need to understanding what the 'screw you guys, I am going home' option means. We need to consciously recognize and accept that by doing this, we could kick off a true genocide and spawn a massive three way regional proxy war with 'moderate' Arab states funding the Sunnis in a battle against Iranian funded Shiites. Further, we need to accept that the one group that really would be sad to see us leave, the Kurds, are going to get the pissed pounded out of them by the Turks when they declare an independent Kurdistan. Further, we need to accept that the one Arab state that can honestly claim to be a moderate democracy, the Turks, are going to have a large hunk of their nation flare up in violence as Turkish Kurds try and join Iraqi Kurds in independence.
If we can consciously accept all of this, bow to idea that all of this might come to pass, bow to the idea that we are going to wash our hands of this mess, and bow to the idea that America spawned a genocide and refused to pay in blood to stop it, THEN I am fine with us leaving. Sadly, this is not what is happening. The people that want to pull out frame the retreat as if as soon as the US leaves the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds will all of a sudden put down their weapons and hug. Listen to the people who want to pull out, and you get the impression that leaving would be doing Iraq a favor and that a simple retreat will solve all problems. It wont. It will solve the Americans problem for sure... they will stop paying in blood and money to fix the mess they made, but it will not solve anything in Iraq. Instead, the one force that is desperately trying to keep the waring parties from slaughtering each other will be gone, and only Iraq's weak and pathetic central government will stand in the way of genocide.
I would say it is safe to say that the number of soldiers handing out candy and flowers vastly outnumbers the numbers that are stacking up naked Iraqi's in pyramids.
Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea. Not every soldier that goes to Iraq raps a few women and then guns down some kids. Hell, the entire 'surge' is based around the idea of sacrificing more Americans to save more Iraqis. Right now US soldiers are setting practically undefended in outposts all over Baghdad instead of turtling up in their bases and air striking anything that looks threatening. The point of the shift in strategy was basically to put Americans more in the line of fire and restrain the force they can use so that fewer civilians die. They are focusing on civilian protection instead of force protection.
I don't think people fully realize what this means. We KNOW that more soldiers will die as we expose them in an effort to defend the civilian population. I am sympathetic that the army is a tad irritated at being called baby killers while everyone ignores the fact that they are paying in American blood to reduce civilian casualties inflicted by both collateral damage and intentional terrorist/sectarian attacks.
Now, it can certainly be argued that this is a complete waste of American lives. It can certainly be argued that we would be better off to saying we are sorry for kicking over their iron fisted dictator that kept them you line, write out a big check, and tell them good luck on not committing genocide against each other. That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective. If they want to show that they do more then gun down civilians, let them. God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.
If you think that making it so that party candidates are selected by the parties and not by a popular vote will some how improve liberty in the US, please do share your insight. I am all for developing a system of government that puts liberty above all else (even democracy), but I fail how making it so that in a two party system the parties pick their candidates based upon political ass kissing makes for more liberty.
Fuck man... I didn't realize it until you enlightened me with the word of truth dude... shit.... that is some heavy shit... it is like the corporations are all like... yeah... man.... but not in a cool way. Fuck man. Shit. Pass me another hit.
Show me a single fucking shred of evidence of what you claim, and then we can pretend like you are not a paranoid nut case. The evil shadow puppets pulling the strings of the car companies are so good they can hide their 3vil connection between keeping fuel prices high and cars... but for some fucking reason can't seem to keep Japanese car companies from beating the piss out of them. I suggest we hire new evil shadow puppets.
Despite how it might look, American car companies are not actually trying to shoot themselves in the face with a shot gun. It might look they are, but in truth they are genuinely surprised when the loud 'boom' is followed by pain and blood.
There is not a reason in the world why any car company would want to kill off something like this. Why the fuck would any car company not want a magical technology that lets them beat government regulations, offer higher value to customers, and let them sell 30 ton SUVs with a cool California approved 30 MPG. Pssst... high oil costs don't help car companies. When someone fills up at Citgo and sends a pile of money to Chavez, car companies don't actually get any money in that transaction. In fact, if you get pissed off about how much money you are sending off and use your car less, they end up getting LESS money as your car wears down slower and you buy fewer cars. If car companies could make cars run on happy thoughts, they would.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations don't sit around trying to figure out the must stupid and irrational way possible to both lose money and look like malevolent entities that run off crushed babies.
All of that said, I find the claims in this article to be dubious at best. Perhaps there is some energy savings, but I really doubt they are that dramatic.
There is one good reason for giving states a say in who gets picked; we have a two party system. The way our votes are cut up, it is extremely hard for a third party to get their heads in the door. As a result, we tend to be a little bit loose on party affiliation. Republicans and Democrats break ranks FAR more then in a parliamentary system due to everyone being forced onto one side or the other. The result is that the American system is about the person first, and the party second. That isn't to say that the party doesn't matter (it does), but personality, and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way, intelligence is a personality trait, is the arbiter of who ultimately wins.
The result is that you want a system that judges personalities first and parties second. By giving state voters a say in what personality is used to front the party, the process is more democratic. The only alternative to this sort of system is to implement a style of democracy that is truly party based. I don't really see the constitution getting rewritten any time soon to make the system more open to multiple parties. Until such time, the horse race is probably the best way to do this.
1) They want to nab 'really bad people'. If they can't press any charges, you certainly might consider throwing people who had committed atrocities under the Soviet regime out of power.
2) There is a limited amount of history rewriting going on in East Germany with former communist party folks saying that it wasn't "that bad". Common sense would dictate having to build walls and minefields around your nation to keep people IN would suggest that it was indeed "that bad"... but we love our moral relativism. Having the records for historical record keeping could help keep the history revisionist at bay.
That's because you're only a "bad guy" if you lose. No you are the "bad guy" if you have to build a fucking wall around your nation then station it with mines and machine guns to keep people in it. Last time I checked, western Europe and the US never had to build a fucking wall to keep people from fleeing their nation in terror.
Seriously people. Get a fucking grip and get over the moral relativism. It was bad. East Germany didn't throw build the Berlin wall for shits and giggles. People were not dancing in the street when it come down (on both sides) because it was the sad end of a merry social experience.
The DvD might cost 50 cents to make, but local stores don't get them at 50 cents a pop. Local stores pay far closer to what you pay. This technology could potentially cut the cost to the store that sell the DvD by reducing stolen inventory. Because stores that sell DvDs are actually competitive and don't have a government granted monopoly like the makers of the DvD do (in the form of copyright), prices will fall if the cost of the system is less than the amount of money saved in reduced theft.
Competitive markets actually work. That fancy computer you are sitting in front of is a result of one of the most horrifically competitive markets in the world (semiconductors), and that is why you have what would be a super computer in 1980 humming away on your desktop (or laptop). While the copyright owners are not playing by normal competitive rules, the stores that sell the DvDs are. Anything to reduce their costs is going to result in lower costs for the consumer.
This is absolutely ZERO to do with piracy. This is a scheme to prevent good old fashion 'slide the DvD into your pants and walk out' theft. You could still buy the DvD and go home and rip and copy it.
The point of any security measure is not to be invulnerable. If invulnerability is all you will settle for, get out now. It doesn't exist. The point is to increase the cost/risk/time it takes to beat the system (whatever that system might be). In this case, it means that if you want to steal a DvD you can't just walk out with it. You either need a machine to activate the DvD, which I imagine will not be free nor easily obtainable, or you need to work some social engineering magic... which increases your chances of getting caught.
Will people get around this? Sure. Would it deter a fair number of opportunist thieves if it actually works? Absolutely. The real question is if the new defense will actually pay for itself. There is no point in implementing such a system if the cost inflicted is more then money saved from fewer thefts.
You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last. Brooking's, American Heritage, and lots of other think tanks can be 'flexible' in what they advocate based upon the party flavor of the month. Cato is unbending, rock solid, and deeply principled. Now, you can argue that their principles are abhorrent, but anyone who knows anything about Cato can not say that their principles are bent by who gives them money. They are Libertarians who are as happy to criticize business, Democrats, Republics, and anyone else who violates their principles (and all three do, regularly).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have the target market entirely wrong. The iPhone is not going to compete with a Blackberry wielded by a businessman. The Blackberry market is a fairly small market that really focuses on young professionals. Your average teenager or college student doesn't have a Blackberry. The iPhone is targeted solidly at the same market as the iPod, which is to say the holy grail of throwing money into the wind to score trendiness, 12-24. Obviously there is going to be plenty of spill over to other markets, but the bread and butter will be a young crowd looking for something 'hip' and new. The iPhone is going to have to be pretty and 'cool' first and functional second. Your Blackberry on the other hand could be the ugliest phone on the face of the planet, yet be kept for its functionality. The iPhone will have no such luxury.
Functionality will of course be important, especially if this market opens up a little, but the 'cool' factor will be paramount. Apple already has a head start on this though. Apple has a killer marketing campaign already in place for the iPod that will be studied religiously by marketing people for years to come. The iPhone with its close relation to the iPod will likely be able to ride off the marketing inertia that the iPod already has. Throw on top of this marketing a spiffy looking product with enough functionality to beat the competition, and you have a winner. Apple also has the advantage in that the cell phone/MP3 hybrid market right now is pathetic. Cell phone markers are just now starting to pull their shit together and make decent hybrid devices, but I am deeply skeptical that they will have enough inertia to compete by the time the iPhone comes out.
If they had another year or two more the competitors to Apple might be able to put up a fight, but as things stand now I personally think that they are screwed and about to get the same kind of beating that device makers in the MP3 market got. It will be another 5 years before good non-Apple mp3/phone devices begin slowly claw their way back. You can see this in the MP3 player market. When Apple hit the mp3 player market, it was the best and it soundly thrashed the competition. Even today, with other companies putting out great non-Apple MP3 devices Apple continues to dominate because the thrashing gave early MP3 player markers was so thorough. I predict the same thing to happen the MP3 player/phone hybrid market.
Yeah man, the system is like totally broken. It is like we don't have any freedom of speech any more. Damn that yeasty little cunt Bush. He is by far the worst mother fucking president ever to set his a clove footed hoof into the oval office. He is a worthless, pig shit, sheep fucking, donkey screwing, cow cunt licking, Nazi who eats babies and rapes more boys then a Catholic priest. How is it that we let these worthless, incompetent, corrupt tyrants that we call Democrats and Republicans steal away our freedom to criticize our piece of shit government without fear of retaliation!?
Where oh where has our freedom of speech gone! I might as well just go pack my bags and movie to Cuba and are not as evil as the the United $tate$ of America.
(this is +1 sarcastic for anyone who is extremely dense)
We still have all the freedom we need to change the government. Just because the voting masses are too stupid to vote for competent leaders doesn't mean that we are somehow victims of tyrants. There are real victims out there who suffer under governments where the leader truly is a dictator and can only be removed through force of arms. There are nations out there without a shred of free press or even a sliver of free political speech. The US is not one of those nations. For the US to change its government, it only needs to vote for someone else. Hell, you don't even need a majority of the population as only half the population votes anyways. Simply getting 1/4 of the population to vote in a new direction would boot the current people out of power. Any failure of government is our failure. We have been blessed with a free and open Republic that easily switches leaders with a minimal amount of corruption. Failure to use this free Republic to remove defective leaders with the ballot box is a failure not of Bush, Carl Rove, Dick Chaney, Kerry, Clinton (either of them), or any other politician. The failure is completely in the hands of the people of the US. The people have the tools to get the information they need if they want to bother to inform themselves, and they have a perfectly workable method of tossing leaders out of power and replacing them with competent ones. Failure to use the tools at hand is not proof that the tools of the Republic are broken, but proof that the people are broken.
If there is any failure in the system of the American Republic, it is that the system of government assumes that people are not lazy and apathetic idiots. The American Republic dumps all governmental power into the hands of the people and assumes they know what to do with it. If there is any failure of the American system, it is an overestimation of the competency of the general citizenry to make the minimal effort it takes to pick and vote for a decent leaders. There might be an excellent system out there that does not rely on a competent citizenry to choose leaders, but that system is not called a Democracy or Republic. We don't suffer from a lack of Democracy (or Republicanism, if you care to nitpick). We have it. We suffer from our own incompetence in using it.
Hell, I personally think that it is telling that one of the least truly democratic (i.e. majority rules) pieces of our government is one of the most celebrated. We celebrate the Bill of Rights as a document that actively fights the forces of democracy by laying out things that not even the stupid majority can take away from individuals. Isn't it a little bit telling that we appreciate the Bill of Rights for its LACK of democracy? Democracy is only the answer if the majority is competent and trustworthy. We don't suffer from a lack of democracy. We suffer from a lack of an incompetent citizenry. Sadly, Democracy is alive and well in the US.
It would be utterly foolish to implement a blanket ban on sterile crops. There are some excellent environmental reasons why sterile crops are good. The most obvious reasons is that if you are the one guy growing some GM modified group surround by a pile of normal crops, having sterile crops is a good way to prevent everyone around you from getting your GM modified seeds. One of the big fears with GM modified crops is that they will spread throughout the ecosystem and into the normal crop supply. If there is later found out to be a flaw with the GM modified crops, then the entire harvest in the whole region might have to be checked for cross-contamination.
Does this make farmers dependent upon seed companies? Sure. Slap some labels on that shit making it clear that if you buy this type of farm seed you will not be able to replant and let farmers decide. I know that right now many farmers pick seeds that can't be replanted anyways because the seeds are cheap and have yields high enough to make the added cost of re-buying seeds worth it.
Unless you are half plant AND have the super human power to absorb genes from plants, it is a pretty safe bet that your chances of eating sterile rice and suddenly going sterile is about as high as eating rice and suddenly gaining the super ability to live off of water and sunlight alone.
The real reason why this silly little system is popular is because it breaks down the concept of MAD. If Iran gets nukes, Iran is not going to launch them because the result would be total annihilation. That said, if I ran was already facing total annihilation in the form of an American attack (conventional or otherwise), Iran might be able to pick off a few cities with nukes. This threat would effectively make Iran a nation that is off limits to military coercion. North Korea already enjoys this status by having a few thousand pieces of artillery loaded up with all manner of horrible non-nuclear weapons (chemical and biological) pointed at the capital of South Korea (which is in artillery range of the North). The result is that the US has never ever contemplated any serious military action against North Korea. Iran wants to score this same status. The ballistic missile defense system breaks this equation. A system that could reliably take down a few dozen missiles would help to void military limits that a nuclear deterrent puts in a nation like the US. Secondly, the deterrent value of thousands of nuclear warheads is somewhat lost on religious fanatics who don't care if they and a million other faithful get sent straight to Allah. Ah, but here is the rub, and here is why the logic of the ballistic missile defense breaks down. You are making the very poor assumption that the easiest way to blow up a nuke in London or Washington is to strap it onto a few tens of thousand of pounds metal, put a few tons of explosives under it, then launch that missile in a parabolic arc that skips it out into space, and then back down into the Earth's atmosphere onto a target a few tens of thousands of miles away. This is a really bad assumption.
The way that someone is going to nuke the US is by taking an American yacht flying an American flag, loading it up with a nuke encased in led, dropping it right into New York harbor, and pressing the big red button. The ballistic missile defense system is like nailing the front door shut while leaving all the windows wide open. It might make you feel safer, but the truth is that you simply just create a change in tactics. Further, the tactic that you make less effective is the one that a terrorist organization is most likely to be able to not pull off (how many ballistic rocks have you made with duct tape and a few wooden planks).
This is nothing more then rhetoric for the domestic crowd.
The Russian objections to the US missile defense system are silly. Even if the system ever worked perfectly (it doesn't), it would never be able to stop more then a handful of missiles. Russia has more then a handful of missiles. The only thing the missile defense system can do is blunt an extremely small scale nuclear attack by ballistic missiles. Launch anything BUT that exact type of attack, and the entire missile defense system is worthless. Beyond this, the US has offered to include Russia in the shield, share their tracking data, in general, make a worthless defense against Russian attack even more worthless by making it transparent. North Korea, Iran, and anyone else thinking of how much fun it would be to hold a dozen nukes should be worried. For Russia, this is a joke.
Putin really is just playing to scare his population and score a few 'against America' points. It is a cry for attention and a desperate pleading to PLEASE start some verbal shit to keep his population focused on foreign 'threats' rather than some of the more crushing domestic issues Russia faces. If the Dems kill the program, he will happily take credit for scaring the American weapons of Russia oppression away... when the reality is that the Dems have always found the program to be a waste of money and are happy to tear into a lame duck president on the issue... not because Putin is a scary guy.
Look, the ballistic missile defense system is a joke. We already have one; it is called a few thousand nuclear missiles that can hit anywhere in the globe. I would be the first person to advocate throwing this worthless money hog on a chopping block, or at least relegating it to a lab for more 'research'. That said, Putin's saber rattling has nothing to do with reality. Putin knows that the ballistic missile defense program is a joke, and even if it wasn't a joke, it is only effective against nations with less then a dozen nukes... and it is safe to say Russia has more then a dozen nukes laying around these days.
If you want a real headline, make it this "Putin recall history and tries to invoke Cold War to score domestic political points, Americans continue to piss money into the wind and uphill". This is a domestic issue getting bounced around by a global media and nothing more.
The reason why this is an issue is because even if you use the music completely and 100% legally, you could still have your computer compromised and have one of your music escape into the net. If a few weeks after some of my music finds its way into P2P through completely innocent means, I get an order to hand over my computer and the RIAA gets records from my ISP, I would be fairly pissed off. Apple doesn't even need to play role of the villain. It isn't like the RIAA needs Apple's permission to download songs off of a P2P network and go after the poor bastard who the music is tagged with.
I know it is Apple and we all heart Apple because their products are shinny and we can't find a $ sign into their name, but this is a serious and completely unnecessary flaw in their privacy protection. This is a wide open invitation to the RIAA to go run down innocent people who have committed no crime other then not completely securing all of their data. Even if there is deniability (the virus stoled it, not me, honest!), it won't change the fact that few sane folks have the time and money to sit down and fight that battle with the RIAA.
Apple should be admonished for this obvious and blatant flaw in protecting the privacy of their users. There is not a damn good reason why this vulnerability in privacy should be allowed. I personally have absolutely no intention of exposing myself to such risks. Sadly, I doubt the average user knows that such risks exist, much less how to defend against them.
First, the iPod uses proprietary software to load up its music. You can't just 'drag and drop' music into it like a USB drive and play it. You must use iTunes. The only alternative outside of iTunes are some quasi-hacked open source alternatives. The iPod is not terribly friendly with non-iTunes software.
Second, maybe you have some archaic version of a Creative Zen, but my Creative Zen didn't even come with software to load MP3s. It just piggybacks off of Windows Media or just about any other piece of MP3 playing software with MP3 player support. The only MP3 software I have found that doesn't play nicely with my Zen is iTunes.
Personally, I think you are a tad confused about what MP3 players you have in your hand. You seem to be under the delusion that a Zen can only use Creative software, and you seem to think that an iPod will happily act as as a USB MP3 player. You are wrong on both accounts. Maybe you need to go back and figure out what MP3 players you are actually using. I suggest reading the logos smeared across them.
I bet you also think that when the government needs more money to pay for various programs they should just print more money.
First, oil companies don't set the price. Oil cartels and the various nationalized oil industries partial set the price. The other price of price setting comes from the people who buy the oil. It isn't like Exxon comes out and declares that oil will now sell for $50 a barrel, and if you want it, you better pay. Exxon doesn't set the price. Exxon puts a barrel of oil out on the market and auctions it off to the highest bidder. The only control Exxon can have over the influence on the price of oil is to simply sell less of it (and thus drive the cost up). For better or for worse, Exxon, doesn't actually have that control. OPEC is what decides the supply... and in an auction system, whoever decides the supply decides the price. The big evil oil companies are not squeezing the poor oppressed people. They are just barreling the oil tossing it up on auction.
Second, dropping the price of oil has all sorts of bad consequences. Dropping the price of oil reduces the supplies of oil. Not all oil costs the same to bring up out of the ground. As oil prices go up, it becomes more worthwhile to go after expensive to get oil, increasing the oil supply. Not only do oil companies bring up less oil when the price drops, but the demand for oil goes up. The cheaper the stuff is, the more worthwhile it is to burn it. People think twice about driving a few blocks to the store when it costs $4 a gallon, but think nothing of it if it costs $1. So, you cut supply AND increase demand by dropping the price of oil. If you want rationing, lines in front of gas stations, and not enough oil to go around, putting price controls on oil is an excellent way to do it (as Carter so eloquently proved).
Fourth, the 'record oil profits' come from the horrific volume of oil sales, not a massive margin on each barrel sold. The margin on selling oil is thin. Even if oil companies wanted to operate at no net profit, the price of oil for you at the pump would barely budge. The only reason why they have 'record profits' is because they have record sales and (literally) can't pump the stuff out of the ground fast enough.
Seriously, take a class in economics. This sort of simplistic thinking is the reason why politicians make stupid economic decisions some times. We have dumb voters who don't understand even basic economics pushing politicians to make mind numbingly stupid economic decisions.
If you can't tell the difference between a tolerable romance plot or sub-plot, and the mind numbing crap that Bay makes, you clearly are the one who has not spent any time with women and been dragged to chick flicks. A romance in a movie doesn't have to suck unbearable amounts by definition... unless of course Michael Bay is the asshole who made it. It is like the guy has a Hollywood checklist that he goes over while making the movie.
Explosion? Check.
Actions? Check.
Lame ass heroes with corny lines? Check.
A horrific romance that is forced and contrived into the plot no matter how little it fits and no matter how much it takes away from an otherwise bearable movie? Check.
A romance doesn't have to take away from a movie. Despite what Hollywood demographers think, you actually don't need to stuff a romance into every single movie to make sure that girls like it. Even when you do feel the need to stuff one into the movie, it doesn't have to suck and take away from the movie. Spiderman and Superman both managed to weave action and a small dose of romance without ruining the movie. Pearl Harbor on the other hand managed to destroy otherwise good and fulfilling action with the stupidest fucking romance ever to hit the screen.
Personally, I wish Hollywood would put down the god damn checklist. If the movie is about explosions, giant fucking robots, and other things that clearly are not going to attract an audience looking for romance, they don't actually need to included. It isn't like a geek gets his girlfriend to watch giant robots fight each other by promising a stupid romance interwoven into the plot.
Here is the one problem.
.45 ready to save yourself from the horrible mind numbing romance and Hollywood cliche that will quickly follow.
Michael Bay is a fucking idiot.
Michael Bay embodies all that is good and bad about Hollywood. This movie will have kick ass special effects for sure, but at the same time it is going to have a fucking stupid romance that has no place in the movie and will surely result in the IQ of the audience dropping a few points. Hollywood loves to jerk off to its own cliches, and a quick glance at the movie trailer shows that it goes through a Hollywood check list to make sure all that is cliche and irritating about Hollywood got thrown in, no matter how utterly inappropriate it is for the movie. So yes, go see this movie for the eye candy, but keep a loaded
"Man, we can't have action movie about space robots without a horrible romance or else girls wouldn't like it!"
Yeah Hollywood, I bet all the girls out there that don't want to watch sci-fi noticed the romance in the preview and are now dying to go see this movie.
Fucking idiots.
I doubt we could ever stop a Hurricane in the near future, but if we could predict killer Hurricanes as they near the coast and then downgrade them, that would certainly be a worthy endeavor. While any manipulation of Hurricane strength would almost certainly be costly, it would be a whole hell of a lot cheaper then something like Katrina. It isn't like you need to stop them all, just the ones that are set to do massive amounts of damage... and you don't even need to stop it, just degrade its intensity.
But they never wanted the invasion in the first place. Suddenly they are to blame for the consequences, when this never would have happened if they were listened to before the war.
Ha! Exactly what party was 'against the war' in the first place? It takes a real bit of revisionist history to forget that the elected bodies of the US passed the authorization for the war not just by a simple majority, but a super majority. The House voted 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. That is more then enough support to pass a frigging constitutional amendment, and it was about as bipartisan as you can possibly get. If we accept that the war was a mistake and a failure, it was a mistake and a failure for the entire republican system of American government. Every single piece of the our system gave a green light, from the electorate, to the intelligence, to the military, to every single branch of government, and both political parties. Every single check and balance that might have stopped this failed, and we had a lot of checks and balances. The US, all of the US, is as responsible as any nation can possibly be.
What about the same standards for those who pushed to go to war? They never spoke of the consequences. It was supposed to be an easy war, where we would be greeted with flowers as liberators. Even after the war, we were supposed to believe that Iraq is a happy, burgeoning democracy.
That doesn't change the fact that every single piece of American democracy gave a thumbs up. Every single institution that was supposed to be running oversight on intelligence, our elected representatives who were supposed to ask hard questions, our executive branch which was supposed to have a plan, and the electorate which is supposed to put in power competent leaders and pressure them when they fail... every single piece of this system gave a green light and thumbs up. Not only did every single piece of this system give a green light, but each and every single one of these entities gave an enthusiastic thumbs up with super majorities.
[quote]Why doesn't it also make you sick that all those people who talk about staying in Iraq never talk about the consequences of staying?[/quote]
They do talk about the consequences of staying. Perhaps not enough to your liking, but no one is pretending that staying doesn't involve loss of American life and coin.
[quote]There will bve violence either way. You seem to believe that the US occupation is somehow stopping violence. There is no evidence of this, there's tons of violence right now, much of it inspired by the occupation. Do you have any definitive evidence to show that violence would increase after a withdrawal?[/quote]
This is simply silly. Can you honestly say with a straight face that Shiites go run off and murder Sunnis because the Americans are there? Can you say with a straight face that if the Americans leave and the central government loses what little fire power it has to keep the militias from murdering each other, they Iraqis will suddenly start killing each other less? Can you really say with a straight face that the Shiites are suddenly going to forget 50 years of brutal oppression and not slaughter every Sunni they can get their hands on? This is a laughable. I suppose you think that Rwanda got better when the UN peace keepers pulled out too? I bet you think that the Jews would have had an easier time if we just hadn't gone to war with Germany. Maybe Darfur will magically fix itself if the international community turns its back on it.
There certainly is violence in Iraq right now, but there is one thing you don't see. You don't see entire sections of Iraq declaring independence. You don't see open armies. You don't see Iraqi government troops slaughtering towns of ethnic minorities wholesale. You don't see these things because the US would crush any group that tried such open acts of violence. Instead, we see a civil war of assassinations and small scale attacks. Take out the on
[quote]I have never heard ANYONE say anything like this. Can you point me to quotes from a specific person, or are these people merely fictional characters you created? Tell me who it is that thinks like this.
You claim that it is "the people who want to pull out." But I want a pull out, and I know dozens of others who want a pull-out, and none of us think it will be pretty.[/quote]
True, few politician or intellectuals declare that the US leaving results in Iraq becoming a happy utopia land. That said, they all pretty much universally refuse to talk about what happens after the US leaves and the consequences of leaving, other then that Americans stop dying and spending money.
Can you show me a single pro-leaving politician describing the kind of genocide that could result from the US leaving and declaring that he can accept that in order to save a handful of American lives and dollars? The pro-leaving camp is shoving their heads in dirt when it comes to the consiquences of leaving. They are not claiming a happy utopia... but then again, they make no claims. They don't own up to the fact that by pulling out bad things are going to happen to the Iraqi people.
The common attitude of the people who want to pull out is that if we pull out, Iraq ceases to exist. It becomes another shit hole part of the world where people are killing each other and we don't need to worry about. It becomes just another miserable nation like Rwanda or the Sudan. We feel a little bit of sympathy for them, and we might even send a few bucks to some charity trying to feed them, but we don't see it as our responsibility to do anything about it. Perhaps we can wash our hands of genocides the likes of which we saw in Rwanda and Sudan. We didn't start them, and we don't need to play the worlds police. We can point out that Europe could get off its ass once in a while and go gallivanting around its back yard stopping genocides for once.
Iraq is not so simple. No matter how much we would like to wash our hands of it, we can't. The US kicked over the one brutal dictator who seemed to be able to hold back the tribal chaos. His methods were not pretty, but they certainly resulted in fewer casualties (well, minus that whole 10 year Iran War thing). There is no washing our hands of this. No amount of ignoring the consequences of leaving is going to make Iraq just another Rwanda that is not our problem. Iraq is our problem. We created it.
Like I said, I am not against leaving. If we truly believe that we can't win, why waste the blood and money? I am just disgusted at the politicians and intellectuals who utterly ignore and refuse to talk about the consequences of leaving. If we need to pull out, we should do it with our eyes wide open. If that means the American public feels a little guilt for kicking off a genocide, good. Better we feel a little guilt at creating and leaving an ethnic genocide to grow, then happily stuffing our heads in the sand. If the US wants to play world police, the US better damn well accept the full responsibilities that that entails.
The next time the US eyes some tin-pot dictator strong memories of Iraq should flare up. We should remember that kicking over someone's dictator makes those people our responsibility, and if we are not ready to pay in blood and treasure for decades, we have no business running around the world with guns. This realization starts with Iraq and accepting the horrific price that the Iraqi people are going to pay when we leave them in the mess we created. Anti-war politicians utterly refusing to speak of the consequences of US actions should make any human sick. We should leave feeling guilty at what we have wrought and what we have doomed the Iraqi people to, not leave smugly feeling like we one-upped Bush and have more money for social spending now.
Your comment fails to appreciate (a) the fact that most of the violence in Iraq comes from native Iraqis; foreigners, while not insignificant, are the vast minority; and (b) that doesn't take very many civilian deaths to really annoy an occupied population.
Leaving wont change this. It isn't like the US pulling up stakes and leaving is going to make the violence suddenly vanish. The vast majority of deaths in Iraq these days is not collateral damage, and it isn't Americans even kill insurgents. The vast majority of deaths stem from Sunni and Shiites trying to kill each other with a helping of Al-Qaeda suicide bombers to keep everyone perpetual pissed, as if Saddam's brutal treatment of the Shiites wasn't enough. Look, we have seen this kind of warfare before.
After the Jews Holocaust of World War II, the world declared never again. Kosovo, Rwanda, and Darfur are all examples of the sort tide the US is desperately trying to push back. The 'never again' mantra has rung hollow in the face of these horrific genocides.
Right now the US stands in an ugly place. One option is to spend money and lives trying to hold back the genocide that is all but certain to take place in the absence of a hundred thousand+ multinational forces. The US can probably stabilize things in the end, but it might take years, and it might require more American blood and money. Iraq can't stay in genocide mode forever, and as long as the US is there outright genocide is impossible.
The other option is for the US to pack up their bags, offer some empty apologies for killing the brutal authoritarian who was keeping chaos at bay, hand the current government a check, and give any who help us and fears for their life US citizenship for them and their family and a free airplane ride to the nation of their choice. I am not completely against the idea.
That said, we really need to understanding what the 'screw you guys, I am going home' option means. We need to consciously recognize and accept that by doing this, we could kick off a true genocide and spawn a massive three way regional proxy war with 'moderate' Arab states funding the Sunnis in a battle against Iranian funded Shiites. Further, we need to accept that the one group that really would be sad to see us leave, the Kurds, are going to get the pissed pounded out of them by the Turks when they declare an independent Kurdistan. Further, we need to accept that the one Arab state that can honestly claim to be a moderate democracy, the Turks, are going to have a large hunk of their nation flare up in violence as Turkish Kurds try and join Iraqi Kurds in independence.
If we can consciously accept all of this, bow to idea that all of this might come to pass, bow to the idea that we are going to wash our hands of this mess, and bow to the idea that America spawned a genocide and refused to pay in blood to stop it, THEN I am fine with us leaving. Sadly, this is not what is happening. The people that want to pull out frame the retreat as if as soon as the US leaves the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds will all of a sudden put down their weapons and hug. Listen to the people who want to pull out, and you get the impression that leaving would be doing Iraq a favor and that a simple retreat will solve all problems. It wont. It will solve the Americans problem for sure... they will stop paying in blood and money to fix the mess they made, but it will not solve anything in Iraq. Instead, the one force that is desperately trying to keep the waring parties from slaughtering each other will be gone, and only Iraq's weak and pathetic central government will stand in the way of genocide.
I would say it is safe to say that the number of soldiers handing out candy and flowers vastly outnumbers the numbers that are stacking up naked Iraqi's in pyramids.
Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea. Not every soldier that goes to Iraq raps a few women and then guns down some kids. Hell, the entire 'surge' is based around the idea of sacrificing more Americans to save more Iraqis. Right now US soldiers are setting practically undefended in outposts all over Baghdad instead of turtling up in their bases and air striking anything that looks threatening. The point of the shift in strategy was basically to put Americans more in the line of fire and restrain the force they can use so that fewer civilians die. They are focusing on civilian protection instead of force protection.
I don't think people fully realize what this means. We KNOW that more soldiers will die as we expose them in an effort to defend the civilian population. I am sympathetic that the army is a tad irritated at being called baby killers while everyone ignores the fact that they are paying in American blood to reduce civilian casualties inflicted by both collateral damage and intentional terrorist/sectarian attacks.
Now, it can certainly be argued that this is a complete waste of American lives. It can certainly be argued that we would be better off to saying we are sorry for kicking over their iron fisted dictator that kept them you line, write out a big check, and tell them good luck on not committing genocide against each other. That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective. If they want to show that they do more then gun down civilians, let them. God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.
If you think that making it so that party candidates are selected by the parties and not by a popular vote will some how improve liberty in the US, please do share your insight. I am all for developing a system of government that puts liberty above all else (even democracy), but I fail how making it so that in a two party system the parties pick their candidates based upon political ass kissing makes for more liberty.
Fuck man... I didn't realize it until you enlightened me with the word of truth dude... shit.... that is some heavy shit... it is like the corporations are all like... yeah... man.... but not in a cool way. Fuck man. Shit. Pass me another hit.
Show me a single fucking shred of evidence of what you claim, and then we can pretend like you are not a paranoid nut case. The evil shadow puppets pulling the strings of the car companies are so good they can hide their 3vil connection between keeping fuel prices high and cars... but for some fucking reason can't seem to keep Japanese car companies from beating the piss out of them. I suggest we hire new evil shadow puppets.
Despite how it might look, American car companies are not actually trying to shoot themselves in the face with a shot gun. It might look they are, but in truth they are genuinely surprised when the loud 'boom' is followed by pain and blood.
There is not a reason in the world why any car company would want to kill off something like this. Why the fuck would any car company not want a magical technology that lets them beat government regulations, offer higher value to customers, and let them sell 30 ton SUVs with a cool California approved 30 MPG. Pssst... high oil costs don't help car companies. When someone fills up at Citgo and sends a pile of money to Chavez, car companies don't actually get any money in that transaction. In fact, if you get pissed off about how much money you are sending off and use your car less, they end up getting LESS money as your car wears down slower and you buy fewer cars. If car companies could make cars run on happy thoughts, they would.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations don't sit around trying to figure out the must stupid and irrational way possible to both lose money and look like malevolent entities that run off crushed babies.
All of that said, I find the claims in this article to be dubious at best. Perhaps there is some energy savings, but I really doubt they are that dramatic.
There is one good reason for giving states a say in who gets picked; we have a two party system. The way our votes are cut up, it is extremely hard for a third party to get their heads in the door. As a result, we tend to be a little bit loose on party affiliation. Republicans and Democrats break ranks FAR more then in a parliamentary system due to everyone being forced onto one side or the other. The result is that the American system is about the person first, and the party second. That isn't to say that the party doesn't matter (it does), but personality, and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way, intelligence is a personality trait, is the arbiter of who ultimately wins.
The result is that you want a system that judges personalities first and parties second. By giving state voters a say in what personality is used to front the party, the process is more democratic. The only alternative to this sort of system is to implement a style of democracy that is truly party based. I don't really see the constitution getting rewritten any time soon to make the system more open to multiple parties. Until such time, the horse race is probably the best way to do this.
There are two reasons to do this.
1) They want to nab 'really bad people'. If they can't press any charges, you certainly might consider throwing people who had committed atrocities under the Soviet regime out of power.
2) There is a limited amount of history rewriting going on in East Germany with former communist party folks saying that it wasn't "that bad". Common sense would dictate having to build walls and minefields around your nation to keep people IN would suggest that it was indeed "that bad"... but we love our moral relativism. Having the records for historical record keeping could help keep the history revisionist at bay.
Seriously people. Get a fucking grip and get over the moral relativism. It was bad. East Germany didn't throw build the Berlin wall for shits and giggles. People were not dancing in the street when it come down (on both sides) because it was the sad end of a merry social experience.
The DvD might cost 50 cents to make, but local stores don't get them at 50 cents a pop. Local stores pay far closer to what you pay. This technology could potentially cut the cost to the store that sell the DvD by reducing stolen inventory. Because stores that sell DvDs are actually competitive and don't have a government granted monopoly like the makers of the DvD do (in the form of copyright), prices will fall if the cost of the system is less than the amount of money saved in reduced theft.
Competitive markets actually work. That fancy computer you are sitting in front of is a result of one of the most horrifically competitive markets in the world (semiconductors), and that is why you have what would be a super computer in 1980 humming away on your desktop (or laptop). While the copyright owners are not playing by normal competitive rules, the stores that sell the DvDs are. Anything to reduce their costs is going to result in lower costs for the consumer.
This is absolutely ZERO to do with piracy. This is a scheme to prevent good old fashion 'slide the DvD into your pants and walk out' theft. You could still buy the DvD and go home and rip and copy it.
The point of any security measure is not to be invulnerable. If invulnerability is all you will settle for, get out now. It doesn't exist. The point is to increase the cost/risk/time it takes to beat the system (whatever that system might be). In this case, it means that if you want to steal a DvD you can't just walk out with it. You either need a machine to activate the DvD, which I imagine will not be free nor easily obtainable, or you need to work some social engineering magic... which increases your chances of getting caught.
Will people get around this? Sure. Would it deter a fair number of opportunist thieves if it actually works? Absolutely. The real question is if the new defense will actually pay for itself. There is no point in implementing such a system if the cost inflicted is more then money saved from fewer thefts.
You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last. Brooking's, American Heritage, and lots of other think tanks can be 'flexible' in what they advocate based upon the party flavor of the month. Cato is unbending, rock solid, and deeply principled. Now, you can argue that their principles are abhorrent, but anyone who knows anything about Cato can not say that their principles are bent by who gives them money. They are Libertarians who are as happy to criticize business, Democrats, Republics, and anyone else who violates their principles (and all three do, regularly).