I don't know about anyone else, but I think Peaceoholics is doing a good thing by spreading awareness. Before they started their campaign I did not know that Rockstar was going to produce a game about being a bully. The list of perversions in this game was completely unknown to me. Now, as a informed consumer I really can't wait to buy this game. Kick ass Peaceoholics, spread the word!
Wonder if they have a list of games somewhere with that lists the best violent video games out there...
The American mentality when it comes to work is both a gift and a curse. American works are the world's most productive workers. Not only are comparably skilled, intelligent, and creative to their counterparts elsewhere, they have absolutely sick work ethics, especially when it comes to spending time at work. Now, Americans might spend a lot of time working, but so do other people in the world. The difference between Americans and others who work just as long or longer, is that those other people are working in sweatshops because they have. The gift of it is that the US has roughly 5% of the world population, but is 21% of the world's economy. The curse is of course that you have people working like they are in a sweat shop and need money to keep from starving when they don't.
Personally, I am grateful there are nut jobs out there that spend 100 hours a week working. I am sure their contribution to driving up the standard of living for the sane ones is more then just trivial. Successful startups in particular are known for being run by insane work zealots who hire more insane work zealots. I have even known a few, and they are indeed very productive individuals. They are dysfunctional as hell when it comes to their personal lives, but, eh, whatever makes them happy.
Me personally though? I live in America where the poor are more likely to die of a heart attack from over eating then they are to die of starvation. I have a grip on reality. I don't need to work 100 hours to keep from starving. I could ditch my job and flip burgers and I still wouldn't starve. As much as I might enjoy my work, I recognize and appreciate the fact that I don't like it THAT much. I enjoy it above all the other things that someone is willing to pay me for, but not more then I appreciate my free time. I don't delude myself into believing that I love waking up every single morning even when I am tired and just want to sleep in a little longer. If they stopped sending me a paycheck, I would stop coming. If I won a few million, I would retire regardless of my age.
So, my hat goes off to those crazy whack jobs that spend more time at work then they do anywhere else. I appreciate all those wonderful things their hard work goes into producing. I appreciate them even more because I am sane enough to call it quits at 40 hours enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor.
Finally, as to that extra 30% they are making more then me, does it bother me in the slightest? Hell no. They can take their higher pile and do whatever they do with it. Time is money, and my time is worth a hell of a lot more then a few extra tens of thousands of dollars.
Really people, don't work a shitty job and complain. Take a pay cut and work a job that doesn't make you miserable. Leave working like an animal and living by stupid rules like 'no having fun outside of work' to the nut jobs that enjoy that kind of insanity.
I hate to be an ass hole, but who cares? All sorts of animals are dying all the time. Countless cows are being slaughtered. Rats and mice are being exterminated. Cats are killing birds. I crushed a cockroach yesterday. Eh, if you have too many animals, especially of the domestic type, just put a few of them to sleep.
Am I cruel and heartless? Eh, I would call it realistic. Animals are dying all the time, just because some animals are cute and furry doesn't mean that suddenly we need a moral crusade to save them. Honestly, the best evolutionary trait an animal can have these days is either being cute or tasty. Cats and cows will never go extinct.
Part of living in a liberal democracy is that law enforcement compromises when it comes to stopping crime. Law enforcement intentionally has its hands tied. They are massively restricted in their ability to enforce the law. Further, even after they achieve an arrest, the accused is given the benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I don't see this as a deficiency as you apparently do. In our society it is considered better to have a criminal go free, then to have an innocent become a victim of the police. This is one of the roots of our code of laws. This is built into every aspect of our law, from policing policy, to the laws the police work in, all the way to the determination of guilt or innocence.
Police dealing with protestors are no exception. It is considered better to let the protestors break minor laws and be disruptive then it is to have police smash their way through protests putting the lives of thousands of innocent and peaceful people in danger and snuffing their ability exercise their freedom of speech. So, you can advocate that police set up squads to literally beat their way through thick protest crowds and threatening the lives of all of the innocents in their way and innocents who might be trampled try to escape the incoming squad, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. Americans would rather see some college kids illegally use a blow horn when he isn't allowed to then have police causing injury and potentially death trying to enforce noise disturbance violation.
Personally, I am happy that I live in a nation with a liberal police force. I am more then happy to live in a nation that tolerates minor criminal violations in the name of preservation of the freedom of speech, assembly, and protecting innocents who might happen to be in the way. A single minor criminal is not worth the safety of thousands of people.
I am sure that there will be a legal challenge, but it will not be over "dumping". Arguing that a small start up is some how dumping when all the other players are giants is just silly and would never get to a court. The legal challenge will be over the fact that this company is not going to follow the same laws and regulations of a normal cell phone company. The big cell phone companies will claim that the small company should be held to the same regulations (911 standards, quality regulations, ect).
That does NOT give you the right to disrupt them or be violent. If the protesters are then they need to be arrested and prosecuted.
I completely agree in principle. The day they make a magical barrier that no crazy protestors or sound can pass, then I would say that holding protests on top of each other sounds like an awesome idea.
The problem is that it is practically impossible to keep two large groups of charged people on top of each other without them being disruptive. I don't think it is a point that is debatable. Get a few thousand angry college students, Jesus nuts, or any other charged group in the same location, and I can promise that someone in that crowd is going to be a shit head.
Now, the solution you give is to then go ahead and arrest the disruptive participants. This simply isn't possible. I am not sure how many protests you have been to, but all of the ones I have been to of any significant size, they degraded into violence or near violence as soon as the police moved in to arrest people.
The way police handle protests is that they basically set up some boundaries based upon the parade permits in question. They then stick police at those boundaries and completely ignore anything except the boundaries unless there is extreme violence going on. The reason why they do this is to contain any disruption or violence. If someone is sitting in the middle of a large mass of protestors and starts blasting an air horn, there is absolutely nothing the police can do. They can not send in a lone officer to go arrest the guy. The only way they can get to that person is by moving in as line so they don't get whacked in the back, and if they are moving in a line, they are pushing the entire protest, not the one guy being a dick.
Whenever police intervene in protests, the chances for it to degrading into violence goes up dramatically. This is why during the WTO there were radical groups that intentionally went to confront the police. The only recourse the police have is to move in police lines and use tear gas, and such actions always provoke the rest of the relatively peaceful crowd to violence and panic. Police using tear gas on protestors makes headlines, and this is exactly why radical groups do it.
This is also why protestors are kept away from the president. It only takes a couple of nut jobs trying to be disruptive and violent to force the police to march into the protest, and the second that happens all hell breaks loose. When there is a way to create an effective barrier between two groups of people that keeps out people and sound, or when the police get a magical weapon that can pluck disruptive people out of a protest without causing a riot, then you will see protests happening on top of each other. Until then, for the safety of the police, the safety of the protesters, and out of respect for the people that do wish to exercise their right to speech, protests are kept separate.
The issue is that protestors are dicks. Not all of them, but it only takes a few. Recall that WTO meeting in Seattle? This was a perfect example. People could protest. They were kept a block back from where the meeting was happening. What happened? People tried to storm the building. This is why protestors are shoved blocks away from the president when he gives a speech. It isn't the fear of people assembling. It is that some jack ass with a blow horn is going to start bellowing during the speech, or some violent assholes will try and storm the police line. This is also why the pro-president activist get to move in close. They are not about to bring out a blow horn and start trying to disrupt the speech.
As to the point of peaceful assembly, the problem is rarely the violence, it is disruption. You don't have a right to be disruptive when other people are trying to exercise their freedom of speech. It ruins the whole point of assembly and speech if one jack ass with a blow horn can make it impossible for people to hear each other.
Further, it works both ways. I went to a gay pride rally in Boston, and like clock work, there were the crazy "Jesus hates fags" nuts. They were kept out. They were allowed to bellow their lungs out, but they were kept out of ear shot for those who came to participate in the festivities and listen to the speakers. The same things goes with the anti-war rallies. The anti-war folks pick their rout and were given free reign, and the crazy nut jobs dressed in American flags were given a place and police protection where they could hold their own little counter protest outside of earshot.
Really, I don't understand why people find the fact that you can't hold a protest to disrupt another gathering so surprising. So the secret service keeps a few thousand college kids armed with blow horns and catchy but loud chants a few blocks away. Err, no shit.
If a website says, "This is an Al-Qaeda website", and it is not located in UK, you don't need a judge and jury to knock it out. No judge and jury is used when deciding who to bomb. There is no legal proceeding before someone traces a cell phone call in Afghanistan and a GPS bomb arrives on target a few minutes later. When you are actively engaged in hostilities (read that as war) against an organization like Al-Qaeda, decisions are made either by elected representatives, people appointed by them, or people appointed in accordance to the law of created by elected representatives. A jury is not used each time before a hostile action takes place. This is the nature of warfare, and it doesn't change because government agents are knocking out a website in Pakistan, verses government agents knocking out a transmitter in Afghanistan, verse government agents knocking out an Al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq.
Further, if the UK does knock out an innocent site, especially that of a citizen, there are legal means to address it. That said, I find it doubtful your local Al-Qaeda representative is going petition the government.
What you are advocating is that bureaucrats and spooks in the British secret service can determine, without any judicial or public review, what speech is acceptable, and enforce whatever restrictions on speech they want through secret means. That is unacceptable in a democracy.
First, you are assuming that the actions that took place were outside British law. I would like to see a single shred of evidence that it is against British law for British agents to knock out the websites for foreign terrorist organization. If you show me that, I will holler and howl with you about how this is illegal. I would say it is safe to say British policy and law allow certain British agencies to knock out terrorist websites.
Second, last time I checked Britain is a democracy. If the citizens are truly disturbed by the government's brutal treatment of Al-Qaeda websites, they can petition their government and enact laws to prevent the actions taking place. Further, British agencies are run by policy and laws enacted by elected representatives. British democracy is more then capable of putting a stop to the victimization of Al-Qaeda websites.
Finally, you seem to be confusing the difference between domestic and foreign affairs. Domestic affairs are handled liberally with all the benefits of trail by jury and the various protections and rights that a British citizen is entitled to. Foreign policy on the other hand does not receive those rights. Britain does not protect British rights for non-British citizens outside of Britain. Britain will not try and arrest Chinese police each and every time they try and enforce Chinese laws that would be illegal in Britain. This means that in Afghanistan, British airplanes will drop bombs on insurgents without a warrant. This means that if an Iranian is hosting an Al-Qaeda website, the British police will not fly to Iran and ask him to come back to Britain for a trial by jury.
If the policy is ever abused, use your democracy to fix it. Until then, I am not going to shed any tears because Al-Qaeda got its web servers knocked out. Show me a shred of evidence that this policy has been abused or that the actions taken were against British law. Other wise, what happened was a good thing.
The reason why protesters are not allowed near where someone else is giving a speech is the same reason why that one ass hole wearing an American flag and has "GOD HATES FAGS" is given his own little corner to shout at the gay pride festivals.
He is being a fucking dick.
I went to see Ralph Nader speak. I live in Boston... so we have more colors of liberal then your average southerner can even begin to imagine. During the middle of the speech, a guy supporting some local Democrat (LaRouche I think it was) stood and started shouting. This isn't a fucking matter of free speech. This is just some jerk trying to disrupt someone else's speech. He is more then welcome to complain that Ralph is going to make Kerry lose (which he didn't), but he can't do it at the top of his lungs while someone else is giving a speech to a large audience.
The secret service pushing protestors away from where the president is giving a speech is the exact same thing. They are not allowed in because people want to hear Bush speak, not a bunch of college students chanting. Setting up a place where both parties can speak seems like a pretty good compromise. Bush gets to have his little speech at his event, and the protesters get to march and chant just out of ear shot.
I personally never understood why people got upset over this issue and act surprised when they are not allowed to protest in shouting distance of an event. Dude, they don't like you in because you are acting like and ass and shouting. If in this nation two groups could coexist in the same area but respect each other it wouldn't be a problem. The gay rights folks wouldn't mind letting the whack-job Jesus nuts into the gay pride parade to watch the festivities, and whack-job pseudo communist with a Chavez t-shirt could go quietly sit and listen to the president's speech. The real problem is that the Jesus nut can't help but screaming and frothing at the mouth at the homosexuals, and the those hip college students with their trendy Urban Outfitters Anarchy shirt can shut the fuck up while Bush speaks.
Personally, I think more events should be held with the singular purpose of getting two completely opposed groups to sit down and talk. Shit, they don't even need to try and agree, just see if you can get equal numbers of people opposed to each other in the same room/park and get some practice letting each other speak without being a jack ass. I won't hold my breath though.
As someone who has actually done research, there is a good reason why scientist hold things back. Often times when you make a discovery, you do it in a half-assed sort of way. You are poking around for something and find it. Now, before you go running to the press, you want to conduct another experiment to make confirm what you actually have. Why? Because if scientist started shouting each time they 'found' something, there would be far too much noise in this world. I recall on experiment I worked on while I was at a nanotechnology company. I had a solid half of a dozen moments where I thought "Holy shit! I found it!" Each time though, I tempered my excitement and performed another experiment to try and confirm what I thought I had.
Of those half of a dozen times where I got excited, only one of them was the true "Eureka!" moment. One time it was simply a defect in the instrument I was using. Another time a part had become defective and had muddled my results. Another time everything looked awesome for the first part of my analysis, but when I did the second part it was clear that there was a problem.
This is not rare. This happens all the time in scientific study. You think you find something, and it turns out to be nothing. You hold back telling the world and having people try and replicate what you did until you yourself know what you did and are sure that you did it right. Only then do you release it to the world. It saves you looking like an idiot when you release promising results a dozen times only to withdraw them, it saves your fellow scientist dozens of false starts, and it save Slashdot from stupid head lines like CANCER IS CURED SCIENTIST SAY, when in fact someone managed to kill a specific type of cancer in a test tube.
These scientist did the right thing. They held back their announcement which was sure to be butchered by the press until such time as they had confirmed their discovery.
So... we can shut people up by dropping a bomb on their heads... but we can't shut down their websites. Right...
It is very simple. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The stated goal of the organization is to kill civilians. In the UK, it is illegal to be a member of said organization. Anything belonging to Al-Qaeda can be seized and any member can be put in prison. In the same way that the UK will merrily track down their financial backings and take the money, they will merrily track down their communications network. Websites OWNED by Al-Qaeda are without a doubt part of their communications network. Just because they don't post their super secret plans on them doesn't make them any less legitimate of goals.
You are more then welcome to declare your support for Palestine, declare what a wretched government the UK is for being Iraq, smear all over your blog that you hope all the Brits in Iraq are beheaded. Any private citizen can do this in the UK. That said, as soon as you smear across your website that you are member of a terrorist organization whose states goal is to intentionally kill citizens of the UK, you lose any sort of 'rights' you have.
Personally, I am totally blown away that people are arguing with a straight face over whether or not organizations that have openly executed terrorist attacks and have declared their intention to conduct more such attacks in the future should be entitled to run websites. If Al-Qaeda was to open up an information booth and recruiting station in London, would you objective if the government shut that down too?
I am blown away that we are even having this argument. Let me be blunt and really get to the heart of it. Al-Qaeda does not have a "right" to own any fucking websites.
I can't believe I am listening to people argue that terrorist organizations have a right to have websites too. Should we offer them free health care and a tax exempt charity states as a religious organization while we are at it?
We were being critical of blocking the words 'democracy' from all blogs having draconian censorship. I am pretty sure that no one has been critical of China's attempt to shut down sites run by terrorist organizations that have in fact killed people and that continue to advocate the death of civilians. No one is silencing complaints against the UK government and its dealings with either its own people or the Middle East. What is being silenced is a website that have the name of a terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for terrorist acts.
Let me put it another way. If a British rapist raped little girls then posted movies of the girls being raped and killed, would you bitch and moan about censorship if the government took that website down?
Finally, get some perspective. These are people that if there were ever found in the UK or ever ran into UK soldiers would be shot or arrested. The UK actively seeks these people out to kill them. If you really are worried about their well being, their 'freedom of speech' rights really are on the bottom of the list next to 'being shot'.
I think when you are willing to shoot someone and revoke their right to life... eh... chances are their rights to blog have also been revoked as well.
Cute argument, but it is silly logic that ends up revoking the sovereignty of a large chunk of the nations of the world, Israel included. Israel has more then its fare share of whack job extremist terrorists. You might even remember little peace agreement back in the 90's that fell apart after an Israeli assassinated one of its architects. Does Israel need its sovereignty revoked? What about the US? The US was not exactly friendly to the occupying British. Hell, the US was down right horrific to the natives and their actions easily could be classified as terrorists. Hell, there are eco-whack-job-terrorists that have committed terrorists acts, does the environment need to surrender now?
It is a silly and stupid argument. It would be nice if the world was that simple, but it isn't. Every cause out there can find a few nut jobs willing to do something stupid. Every cause WILL find a few nut jobs willing to do something stupid, regardless if they want them to or not.
If it is any consolation, Palestinian terrorists will never get what they want. Israel isn't going anywhere any time soon, and Palestine is never going to get all the land Israel took and settled back.
"...If not, then they don't really apply to our laws, since they're not US citizens and are not breaking US laws."
"...If not, then they don't really apply to our laws, since they're not US citizens and are not breaking US laws."
They are breaking US (or in this case, UK) laws. They are listed as a terrorist organization in both nations and have admitted and been shown to have committed terrorist acts. In the US and the UK, that is a crime, regardless of where it occurs in the world. As to the extent of jurisdiction, it is a moot point. Stepping over a political boundary only buys you as much protection as another sovereign nation is willing to afford you. If a pile of terrorist were tanning on some 1 kilometer large desert island in the Caribbean that is technically considered a sovereign nation, I find it highly doubtful the US or the UK would balk at arresting and/or killing them all.
You absolutely can violate the laws of a nation without being in it. The only question is whether or not the nation you are in feels like offering you protection. In this case, I think it is pretty safe to say that no nation is going to complain to the UK that their local Al-Qaeda web sites were knocked off line.
I wouldn't compare the British shoot to kill policy with knocking down Al-Qaeda web sites. Knocking down an Al-Qaeda web site doesn't upset anyone except the border line insane. I mean hell, they smeared the words Al-Qaeda across the top of the website. That is a pretty good indication that those are in fact the guys you are trying to kill - and if you are willing to kill them, it is probably okay to knock down their blog while you are at it, hence the "getting some fucking perspective".
The reason why civil libertarians are pissed about that the British shoot to kill policy is because they shot the wrong guy. The guy they shot wasn't a terrorist. This isn't worrying about the terrorists rights; it is worrying about the rights of civilians to not have their brains blown out because the cops got confused and have itchy trigger fingers. I doubt anyone cares that terrorist will be shot, it is the non-terrorist that get confused for terrorist getting shot that has people worried.
That said, I understand the policy. If you think a guy is about to blow himself up, you might very well pump as many bullets into his brain as you can to keep him from setting off a bomb and killing dozens of people. My impression is that British policy pretty much forbid the use of lethal force in all but the most extreme circumstances before the bombing. After the bombing they changed it such that if the police believed that a suicide bombing was imminent, they could kill the suspect to prevent him from detonating the bomb. That policy isn't bad, it just needs to be refined. The police need to be properly trained as to when it is and is not the time to open fire. American police already have a similar policy. They are much free to use lethal force, but are well drilled as to when they can and can not use it. British police on the other hand have been thrown a new policy, and as the incident where the Brazilian man was shot shows, they clearly were not trained properly in how to implement it.
So... it is a-okay to bomb a terrorist camp and kill everyone in it... but suddenly their 'rights' are violated if someone knocks out their websites? Get a little fucking perspective please.
As to what is accomplished, that is easy. First, it makes low level support more difficult. You want to prevent casual supporters from throwing a few bucks in their direction.
Second, it is a propaganda war. If a terrorist blows himself up in London, murdering a pile of innocent civilians, it is best to deaden whatever benifits they get out of it by making it harder for them to get their message out.
The reason why this is being done is the exact same reason why Britian didn't let the USSR set up a Soviet Army recruiting station in London. Is it going to make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. Is it worth while to try and disrupt a terrorist's cells propaganda machine? Sure, why the hell not.
Put another way, if a British rapist made a website and posted movies of him raping 13 year old girls, would you be terribly upset if it got shut down? Get some fucking perspective.
Capitalism is about value. It just so happens that most people value money. It however does not mean that you can't create an entity within capitalism to that cares about something other then money. Private charities are an excellent example. Charities do not work outside of capitalism. Capitalism has nothing against charities. If people want to shell out money to a charity to receive a warm fuzzy glow in their hearts, more power to them. American charities pump out more money to charitable causes then most governments.
My point is that capitalism is amoral. It doesn't care about money, charity, or anything else. Capitalism is simply a way of using and distributing scarce resources. If everyone valued the environment, social justice, and freedom above all else, companies would find a way to work tirelessly towards those ends. If people bought stock based upon how much it returned in social good, companies would all work towards social good.
Now, clearly this is not the case. People don't buy stock (normally) on how much social good they pump out. They buy stock based upon how much profit they can return the share holders. There is a trend though to incorporate social good into the decision to invest in corporations. There are entire investment firms out there that rate companies based upon the social good or harm that they cause and invest accordingly. The effects are fairly clear. There are companies out there that have altered their business model to be more social responsible. They have written it into their own internal regulations that they will meet certain social standards.
Personally, I think this is a good trend. It simply reinforces what companies already try and do. Companies try and bring value to their share holders. It is important to note the use of the word 'value' over the use of the word 'money'. Money certainly has value, but share holders can choose to value other things. If share holders say that they value social good in addition to money, then corporations will readily alter their business products to give share holders more value.
Governments are a crutch used to overcome people's greed and indifference for one another. If suddenly everyone in the world was altruistic and acted upon altruistic convictions, you could do away with governments and live in a perfect capitalistic and moralistic system. Governments exist to regulate capitalism not because capitalism is greedy or evil, but because people are. People are the problem, not capitalism. If people are acting better, as seen in this instance with Cisco, then you naturally see capitalism act better.
I think that people are missing the point of what a companies responsibility to share holders are. When you own a share, you own a piece of that company In owning a piece of that company, a share holder has say over how that company is run. Normally, share holders simply demand a return on investment in cash. However, there are other things that a share holder can value, and share holder is will within his rights to demand these things. For instance, a share holder might very well value long term investments over short term investments. They might care about the image of the company, if for no other reason then that the image might impact sales. They are also well within their right to value non-monetary things, like freedom, morality, and what not. If Cisco share holders demand that Cisco not only make profit, but also uphold a certain basic moral code in the process, that is well within their rights as partial owners of the company.
People act like this is some abnormality. The truth is that it happens all the time. Many companies throw on a layer of ethics that they follow without the government enforcing them. For some companies, this means meeting a higher standard of pollution control then is required. For others it means that they ensure certain labor practices are followed. If the owners of Cisco want to do something similar, I applaud the action and say more power to them. This is capitalism at work. The share holders are demanding added value for their stocks. If the share holders value freedom, it is their prerogative to demand that the company they own offers more. People forget that capitalism isn't all about money. Capitalism is about value. It just so happens that money is the thing people can generally agree to value. If on the other hand people decide that they want to value something else, capitalism is more then happy to accommodate. I say three cheers for Cisco's share holders. I would rather Cisco's share holders regulate their company then the government.
I agree that America is fucked up when it comes to censorship laws... but at the end of the day I realize that it could be worse. I could live in Australia.
I personally think the chances are very slim, but I don't completely ignore that the moons could align just right. The issue over Taiwan is Chinese national pride, and so isn't a straight look at a cost verse benefit calculation for China. The long and short of it is that the US and China can't fight. In a conventional war, the US will win hands down. Take what the US has in Iraq, drop it in Taiwan, and no one is going to get in that the US doesn't want there.
The flips side to the coin is that Taiwan really only matters to the US in terms of ideology and only vaguely in terms of monetary value. If China really wanted Taiwan, and it decided it was going to invade, it would be safe to bet that it would offer to let the US keep its trade relationships with Taiwan stable. Hence, China could do a lot to remove the monetary value attached to an independent Taiwan.
So, now it comes down to ideology and nationalism. The US doesn't want to let a free democracy fall to China, and China has fanatical nationalism when it comes to Taiwan.
The game is simple. If China invades, the US can defend the island from a conventional attack. Both nations' economies would be crippled by being at war with the other, but China would feel the brunt of the economic pain, as Europe would be more inclined to align behind the US. Militarily, China would be crushed. A few million Chinese might be a force to be reckoned with, but only if you can get them to land and keep them supplied. In this scenario China loses big, and the US mostly wins. However, China can turn this into a no win scenario by nuking the US and subsequently getting nuked in return. Even a limited nuclear war results in both nations losing big. Finally, the US could simply not respond out of fear of entering into a nuclear war over and island off the coast of China, in which case the US loses a little national pride but probably sees no big monetary change.
So, it is a bluffing game. Both sides can 'win', but both sides can prevent the other side create a scenario where everyone loses. The question is always 'does the other guy want me to lose badly enough that he is willing to lose himself?'
My best guess? No rational leader would play such a game. The US and China both do a decent job at picking rational leaders that will do everything in their power to prevent it from getting to that point. The real problem comes in if one nation has an irrational leader. Rational leaders will keep it from ever getting that far and offer ways for the other side to 'bail out' without 'losing face' and maintain the status quo. Rational leaders will do everything in their power to keep from playing a game of chicken. The real issue is if one side doesn't have a rational leader and seeks to create a conflict where someone has to lose.
Personally, I wouldn't bet on anything happening any time soon, barring the US or China getting an irrational leader. If the US decides to fight, the only thing China can do is make everyone lose. If there are going to be fireworks over Taiwan, I would place my money at some point far in the future when China could beat the US military in a conventional war. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that happen though. US military isn't going to have a rival that can beat it in a conventional war for some time to come.
I wouldn't call it 'moving the goal post'. I mean, if immigration is just letting someone in to work, then the US had a really liberal immigration policy with Africa a few hundred years ago. You could work your entire life AND get free transport over along with housing accommodations and excellent job security for the remainder of your (short) life.
As far as Korea or China, I think you misunderstood me if you thought I was implying those societies were a bastion of tolerance and free loving immigration policies. My girlfriend's parents are from Taiwan. I can honestly say that I have never met more racist people in my entire life. They are sweet and very nice to me, but they have the most convoluted racial and cultural stereotypes stuck in their heads. It is innocent in the sense that they believe things more out of sheer ignorance then anything else, but it is still vaguely disturbing. All Japanese are monsters, marrying a white guy makes you successful, and black men are scary criminals that have massive penises. If I had been half black and half Japanese I am sure my girlfriend's parents would have shit themselves. Worst still, it isn't even isolated to her parents. They have more relatives then in the US then I do, and nearly all of the ones not born in the US carry the same racist stereotypes.
If anything, it is a testament to how well the US integrates other cultures. My girlfriend, despite her parents and relatives, is hippie sociologist who would kick my ass if I ever even so much as thought a racist remark.
Dude, I have no idea what Japan you are talking about, but the one in THIS world is extremely culturally isolated and loathes immigration. Japan does a neat sleight of hand when it comes to immigration. Its laws, if you read them, are fairly reasonable. However, Japan does not use 'law' to determine who can and cannot immigrate. Japan uses 'policy'. Japanese policy is ugly. The worst abuse I have ever seen of it was when I visited Japan for work related reasons. There I met a woman who had lived in Japan all her life, but was the grand parents of imported Korean labor. She was a legal resident, but not a citizen. Let's put it this way, France, which is notorious for having tight immigration laws, has a more liberal immigration system in practice then Japan.
If you want a fun read, try the below.
http://www.tabunka.org/newsletter/immigration_p2.h tml The Immigration Control and Refugee-Recognition Act (ICRRA) was passed in 1951 and subsequently amended in 1981 and 1989. According to this law there are a total of 28 statuses of residence for entry, work or stay in Japan. The various statuses of residence depend upon the activity the foreigner will be performing while in Japan. Each status explicitly states what the foreigner is allowed to do while in Japan and how long he or she is allowed to stay. The statuses range from that of diplomat, journalist or professor, to engineer, college student or temporary visitor. Noticeably absent from the various statuses of residence is that of unskilled worker. This is at the heart of Japan's present immigration farce. Japan includes "entertainers" and "trainees" in the "skilled" worker category. Interestingly these workers account for about one-half of the "skilled" foreign workers in Japan. "Entertainer" is the largest category out of all the sixteen skilled labor categories in terms of numbers of visas issues. The majority of these people are night clubs hostesses or working in the Japan sex industry, and most of them are women from the Philippines, Thailand, Korea, Columbia and more recently Caucasian women from former East Block nations. In addition, these activities also happen to be an important sources of revenues for Japanese organized crime, better known in the vernacular as the yakuza. Trainees are the seconded largest category during the last few years to fill labor shortages in unskilled or 3K job-related industries. When the ICRRA was revised in 1989, it was mainly for the purpose of stemming the growing tide of illegal foreign workers into Japan. In 1988 men were primarily engaged in construction and factory work. The presence of these foreign men as unskilled laborers meant that Japanese industry was becoming more and more dependent upon cheap foreign labor. Soon there was a big push from Japanese industry to the Ministry of Justice to cure labor shortages by increased use of foreign "trainees." This category began to replace illegal workers and continued to fuel cheap unskilled labor into Japan's 3K industries. Student categories also assisted in supplying labor to many night- and daytime industries. The Government of Japan made these categories to fill the gap in its labor shortage as Japan needs unskilled labor, and the rest of Asia is willing to supply it. In regard to the two categories "entertainer" and "trainees," the problem of the labor shortage farce should be properly addressed because these categories make up the dark side of Japan's immigration law. This has also greatly contributed to the exploitation of unskilled cheap labor from Asia without proper welfare and protection by Japanese society.
The budget has gone up, not down. Further, tax revenues were will above expectations this year.
Failing economy
Unemployment is at 5%. You could possibly argue that the shit is getting ready to hit the fan, but most economist will disagree with you. It isn't the 90's, but it sure as hell isn't the 30's either.
global criticism regarding human injustices abroad
The global criticism around US human rights injustices doesn't even exist on the same scale as the Soviet Union. You would have as much luck comparing Texas executions to the Nazi holocaust.
rapid decrease of freedom and increase of governmental power
I am not sure what Soviet Union you are talking about, but the one I recall had a rapid INCREASE in freedoms and a rapid DECREASE in governmental power right before it all fell apart. Further, I would hardly call what is happening in the US a "rapid decrease in freedoms". The US still maintains extremely liberal speech and protest laws. Hell, I was in DC during the height of the anit-war protests, and the place felt more like a hippie commune then a Gestapo police state.
...sounds alot like the SOVIET UNION doesn't it?
Um. No.
The US might be declining. It might fade away to something more like Britain. It will always be a power, but perhaps not THE power. It certainly isn't going to go like the Soviet Union though. The key difference between the US and all other "empires" is that the US has an extremely stable political system and civil society. Hell, it could be argued that the US has one of the MOST stable political systems in the world. The US might be young as a nation compared to Europe, but it has one of the worlds longest running continuous governments in the world. The US political system is so stable that nothing short of a nuclear holocaust could pull it apart, and if there is a nuclear holocaust in the US, you can bet some other place in the world is now the world's largest pane of glass.
The decline of the US is going to be very slow and very boring. The few territories the US holds are connected to the US only in that the US military will defend them. Other then that their governments are almost completely autonomous and could break off at any point. US military bases would be evacuated before they would fight over the land, as a base in the middle of hostile territory isn't worth anything anyways. I hate to dash your hopes, but the decline of the US is going to be dull.
The only possible exciting part would be a battle for Taiwan... but that would suck for everyone, even those not involved. The economic damage would make the fighting look like pocket change.
You are dead wrong. That mentality is what is going to keep the libertarian party a small collection of gun nuts. The American political system DEMANDS compromise. Period. This is not a parliamentary system. You can't run on some nut job extremist position and expect get 50% of the vote. You can't just slink by with a small percentage of support. In the US, you need a majority to get the ball rolling, and a super majority to run with it. Libertarians will never get that in any of our life times.
Libertarians could do more then intellectual bitching on the side lines if they just compromised a little. Libertarians are for making drugs legal. Instead of starting with crack, why not just start with marijuana? Libertarians want to reduce taxes. Instead of promising to abolish the IRS they day they get into office, why not offer a flat tax system and a steady reduction of taxes? Instead of promising to decapitate the government on the first day in office, why not fight for a balanced budget amendment?
Hell, there are even positions they could take to advance libertarian ideals that everyone could at least begin to agree on. You can't argue to abolish taxes and get anywhere, but what if they started taking taxes out of the hands of politicians to spend? Pass a law that takes 5% of your income tax and lets YOU decide where to spend it. Hell, everyone could get behind that and you could starve a few pork barrel projects along the way. People might even get a test for not letting the majority decide how to spend their money.
Libertarians might feel all warm and fuzzy bitching loudly each election, but feeling warm and fuzzy is roughly all they are accomplishing. If libertarians wanted to make a REAL practical difference, they would table their proposals that are far off the deep end and take a reasonable party platform. Take a lesson from the Republicans and Democrats. They too have their extremist nut jobs that don't think even incestuous rape is a good time to get an abortion or that we need to workers revolution to sweep away the capitalist swine. The difference is that they can let their personal ideologies lead they way, but can keep their mouths shut about it long enough to push politics in their direction.
Libertarians need more "mostly" libertarians. "Mostly" libertarians might not abolish public school on the first pass, but I bet they would be a hell of a lot more inclined to try out a voucher system. Given the choice between the two, most "fully" libertarians should prefer the later. As it stands, no one is even discussion the issue, despite a solid 30 years of bitching from the libertarians to the contrary. Take a hint - it isn't working.
Personally, I have stopped listening to the radio. Radio is dying and these dumb ass holes are just killing it quicker. Bribing DJs to play your crap might bump the sales of that particular record, but I bet it causes people to turn off their radio's much quicker and damage the industry as a whole. Personally, I think that radio is on its way out. Why would I listen to the radio when I can shell out $10-20 a month foe satellite radio? Satellite radio doesn't need to play for the lowest common denominator because none of the channels are competing with each other. If anything, they want to specialize such that their listeners can find exactly what they want so they don't jump ship to another satellite radio that does. As an added bonus, there are no commercials. So, other then being 'free', what exactly does the radio have left? Hell, it isn't even free if you value your time. Spending an hour listening to a half hour of commercials and another 20 minutes of shitty music isn't free in my book.
Even if you don't want to shell out for satellite radio, just do Internet radio. Almost every college station these days has their own radio station that gets only travels about a mile away via radio waves, but can be gotten anywhere via the Internet. Radio is dying. I personally don't give a shit if a pile of corporations selling mass produced music fight over the remains.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about anyone else, but I think Peaceoholics is doing a good thing by spreading awareness. Before they started their campaign I did not know that Rockstar was going to produce a game about being a bully. The list of perversions in this game was completely unknown to me. Now, as a informed consumer I really can't wait to buy this game. Kick ass Peaceoholics, spread the word!
Wonder if they have a list of games somewhere with that lists the best violent video games out there...
The American mentality when it comes to work is both a gift and a curse. American works are the world's most productive workers. Not only are comparably skilled, intelligent, and creative to their counterparts elsewhere, they have absolutely sick work ethics, especially when it comes to spending time at work. Now, Americans might spend a lot of time working, but so do other people in the world. The difference between Americans and others who work just as long or longer, is that those other people are working in sweatshops because they have. The gift of it is that the US has roughly 5% of the world population, but is 21% of the world's economy. The curse is of course that you have people working like they are in a sweat shop and need money to keep from starving when they don't.
Personally, I am grateful there are nut jobs out there that spend 100 hours a week working. I am sure their contribution to driving up the standard of living for the sane ones is more then just trivial. Successful startups in particular are known for being run by insane work zealots who hire more insane work zealots. I have even known a few, and they are indeed very productive individuals. They are dysfunctional as hell when it comes to their personal lives, but, eh, whatever makes them happy.
Me personally though? I live in America where the poor are more likely to die of a heart attack from over eating then they are to die of starvation. I have a grip on reality. I don't need to work 100 hours to keep from starving. I could ditch my job and flip burgers and I still wouldn't starve. As much as I might enjoy my work, I recognize and appreciate the fact that I don't like it THAT much. I enjoy it above all the other things that someone is willing to pay me for, but not more then I appreciate my free time. I don't delude myself into believing that I love waking up every single morning even when I am tired and just want to sleep in a little longer. If they stopped sending me a paycheck, I would stop coming. If I won a few million, I would retire regardless of my age.
So, my hat goes off to those crazy whack jobs that spend more time at work then they do anywhere else. I appreciate all those wonderful things their hard work goes into producing. I appreciate them even more because I am sane enough to call it quits at 40 hours enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor.
Finally, as to that extra 30% they are making more then me, does it bother me in the slightest? Hell no. They can take their higher pile and do whatever they do with it. Time is money, and my time is worth a hell of a lot more then a few extra tens of thousands of dollars.
Really people, don't work a shitty job and complain. Take a pay cut and work a job that doesn't make you miserable. Leave working like an animal and living by stupid rules like 'no having fun outside of work' to the nut jobs that enjoy that kind of insanity.
I hate to be an ass hole, but who cares? All sorts of animals are dying all the time. Countless cows are being slaughtered. Rats and mice are being exterminated. Cats are killing birds. I crushed a cockroach yesterday. Eh, if you have too many animals, especially of the domestic type, just put a few of them to sleep.
Am I cruel and heartless? Eh, I would call it realistic. Animals are dying all the time, just because some animals are cute and furry doesn't mean that suddenly we need a moral crusade to save them. Honestly, the best evolutionary trait an animal can have these days is either being cute or tasty. Cats and cows will never go extinct.
Part of living in a liberal democracy is that law enforcement compromises when it comes to stopping crime. Law enforcement intentionally has its hands tied. They are massively restricted in their ability to enforce the law. Further, even after they achieve an arrest, the accused is given the benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I don't see this as a deficiency as you apparently do. In our society it is considered better to have a criminal go free, then to have an innocent become a victim of the police. This is one of the roots of our code of laws. This is built into every aspect of our law, from policing policy, to the laws the police work in, all the way to the determination of guilt or innocence.
Police dealing with protestors are no exception. It is considered better to let the protestors break minor laws and be disruptive then it is to have police smash their way through protests putting the lives of thousands of innocent and peaceful people in danger and snuffing their ability exercise their freedom of speech. So, you can advocate that police set up squads to literally beat their way through thick protest crowds and threatening the lives of all of the innocents in their way and innocents who might be trampled try to escape the incoming squad, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. Americans would rather see some college kids illegally use a blow horn when he isn't allowed to then have police causing injury and potentially death trying to enforce noise disturbance violation.
Personally, I am happy that I live in a nation with a liberal police force. I am more then happy to live in a nation that tolerates minor criminal violations in the name of preservation of the freedom of speech, assembly, and protecting innocents who might happen to be in the way. A single minor criminal is not worth the safety of thousands of people.
I am sure that there will be a legal challenge, but it will not be over "dumping". Arguing that a small start up is some how dumping when all the other players are giants is just silly and would never get to a court. The legal challenge will be over the fact that this company is not going to follow the same laws and regulations of a normal cell phone company. The big cell phone companies will claim that the small company should be held to the same regulations (911 standards, quality regulations, ect).
That does NOT give you the right to disrupt them or be violent. If the protesters are then they need to be arrested and prosecuted.
I completely agree in principle. The day they make a magical barrier that no crazy protestors or sound can pass, then I would say that holding protests on top of each other sounds like an awesome idea.
The problem is that it is practically impossible to keep two large groups of charged people on top of each other without them being disruptive. I don't think it is a point that is debatable. Get a few thousand angry college students, Jesus nuts, or any other charged group in the same location, and I can promise that someone in that crowd is going to be a shit head.
Now, the solution you give is to then go ahead and arrest the disruptive participants. This simply isn't possible. I am not sure how many protests you have been to, but all of the ones I have been to of any significant size, they degraded into violence or near violence as soon as the police moved in to arrest people.
The way police handle protests is that they basically set up some boundaries based upon the parade permits in question. They then stick police at those boundaries and completely ignore anything except the boundaries unless there is extreme violence going on. The reason why they do this is to contain any disruption or violence. If someone is sitting in the middle of a large mass of protestors and starts blasting an air horn, there is absolutely nothing the police can do. They can not send in a lone officer to go arrest the guy. The only way they can get to that person is by moving in as line so they don't get whacked in the back, and if they are moving in a line, they are pushing the entire protest, not the one guy being a dick.
Whenever police intervene in protests, the chances for it to degrading into violence goes up dramatically. This is why during the WTO there were radical groups that intentionally went to confront the police. The only recourse the police have is to move in police lines and use tear gas, and such actions always provoke the rest of the relatively peaceful crowd to violence and panic. Police using tear gas on protestors makes headlines, and this is exactly why radical groups do it.
This is also why protestors are kept away from the president. It only takes a couple of nut jobs trying to be disruptive and violent to force the police to march into the protest, and the second that happens all hell breaks loose. When there is a way to create an effective barrier between two groups of people that keeps out people and sound, or when the police get a magical weapon that can pluck disruptive people out of a protest without causing a riot, then you will see protests happening on top of each other. Until then, for the safety of the police, the safety of the protesters, and out of respect for the people that do wish to exercise their right to speech, protests are kept separate.
The issue is that protestors are dicks. Not all of them, but it only takes a few. Recall that WTO meeting in Seattle? This was a perfect example. People could protest. They were kept a block back from where the meeting was happening. What happened? People tried to storm the building. This is why protestors are shoved blocks away from the president when he gives a speech. It isn't the fear of people assembling. It is that some jack ass with a blow horn is going to start bellowing during the speech, or some violent assholes will try and storm the police line. This is also why the pro-president activist get to move in close. They are not about to bring out a blow horn and start trying to disrupt the speech.
As to the point of peaceful assembly, the problem is rarely the violence, it is disruption. You don't have a right to be disruptive when other people are trying to exercise their freedom of speech. It ruins the whole point of assembly and speech if one jack ass with a blow horn can make it impossible for people to hear each other.
Further, it works both ways. I went to a gay pride rally in Boston, and like clock work, there were the crazy "Jesus hates fags" nuts. They were kept out. They were allowed to bellow their lungs out, but they were kept out of ear shot for those who came to participate in the festivities and listen to the speakers. The same things goes with the anti-war rallies. The anti-war folks pick their rout and were given free reign, and the crazy nut jobs dressed in American flags were given a place and police protection where they could hold their own little counter protest outside of earshot.
Really, I don't understand why people find the fact that you can't hold a protest to disrupt another gathering so surprising. So the secret service keeps a few thousand college kids armed with blow horns and catchy but loud chants a few blocks away. Err, no shit.
If a website says, "This is an Al-Qaeda website", and it is not located in UK, you don't need a judge and jury to knock it out. No judge and jury is used when deciding who to bomb. There is no legal proceeding before someone traces a cell phone call in Afghanistan and a GPS bomb arrives on target a few minutes later. When you are actively engaged in hostilities (read that as war) against an organization like Al-Qaeda, decisions are made either by elected representatives, people appointed by them, or people appointed in accordance to the law of created by elected representatives. A jury is not used each time before a hostile action takes place. This is the nature of warfare, and it doesn't change because government agents are knocking out a website in Pakistan, verses government agents knocking out a transmitter in Afghanistan, verse government agents knocking out an Al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq.
Further, if the UK does knock out an innocent site, especially that of a citizen, there are legal means to address it. That said, I find it doubtful your local Al-Qaeda representative is going petition the government.
What you are advocating is that bureaucrats and spooks in the British secret service can determine, without any judicial or public review, what speech is acceptable, and enforce whatever restrictions on speech they want through secret means. That is unacceptable in a democracy.
First, you are assuming that the actions that took place were outside British law. I would like to see a single shred of evidence that it is against British law for British agents to knock out the websites for foreign terrorist organization. If you show me that, I will holler and howl with you about how this is illegal. I would say it is safe to say British policy and law allow certain British agencies to knock out terrorist websites.
Second, last time I checked Britain is a democracy. If the citizens are truly disturbed by the government's brutal treatment of Al-Qaeda websites, they can petition their government and enact laws to prevent the actions taking place. Further, British agencies are run by policy and laws enacted by elected representatives. British democracy is more then capable of putting a stop to the victimization of Al-Qaeda websites.
Finally, you seem to be confusing the difference between domestic and foreign affairs. Domestic affairs are handled liberally with all the benefits of trail by jury and the various protections and rights that a British citizen is entitled to. Foreign policy on the other hand does not receive those rights. Britain does not protect British rights for non-British citizens outside of Britain. Britain will not try and arrest Chinese police each and every time they try and enforce Chinese laws that would be illegal in Britain. This means that in Afghanistan, British airplanes will drop bombs on insurgents without a warrant. This means that if an Iranian is hosting an Al-Qaeda website, the British police will not fly to Iran and ask him to come back to Britain for a trial by jury.
If the policy is ever abused, use your democracy to fix it. Until then, I am not going to shed any tears because Al-Qaeda got its web servers knocked out. Show me a shred of evidence that this policy has been abused or that the actions taken were against British law. Other wise, what happened was a good thing.
The reason why protesters are not allowed near where someone else is giving a speech is the same reason why that one ass hole wearing an American flag and has "GOD HATES FAGS" is given his own little corner to shout at the gay pride festivals.
He is being a fucking dick.
I went to see Ralph Nader speak. I live in Boston... so we have more colors of liberal then your average southerner can even begin to imagine. During the middle of the speech, a guy supporting some local Democrat (LaRouche I think it was) stood and started shouting. This isn't a fucking matter of free speech. This is just some jerk trying to disrupt someone else's speech. He is more then welcome to complain that Ralph is going to make Kerry lose (which he didn't), but he can't do it at the top of his lungs while someone else is giving a speech to a large audience.
The secret service pushing protestors away from where the president is giving a speech is the exact same thing. They are not allowed in because people want to hear Bush speak, not a bunch of college students chanting. Setting up a place where both parties can speak seems like a pretty good compromise. Bush gets to have his little speech at his event, and the protesters get to march and chant just out of ear shot.
I personally never understood why people got upset over this issue and act surprised when they are not allowed to protest in shouting distance of an event. Dude, they don't like you in because you are acting like and ass and shouting. If in this nation two groups could coexist in the same area but respect each other it wouldn't be a problem. The gay rights folks wouldn't mind letting the whack-job Jesus nuts into the gay pride parade to watch the festivities, and whack-job pseudo communist with a Chavez t-shirt could go quietly sit and listen to the president's speech. The real problem is that the Jesus nut can't help but screaming and frothing at the mouth at the homosexuals, and the those hip college students with their trendy Urban Outfitters Anarchy shirt can shut the fuck up while Bush speaks.
Personally, I think more events should be held with the singular purpose of getting two completely opposed groups to sit down and talk. Shit, they don't even need to try and agree, just see if you can get equal numbers of people opposed to each other in the same room/park and get some practice letting each other speak without being a jack ass. I won't hold my breath though.
As someone who has actually done research, there is a good reason why scientist hold things back. Often times when you make a discovery, you do it in a half-assed sort of way. You are poking around for something and find it. Now, before you go running to the press, you want to conduct another experiment to make confirm what you actually have. Why? Because if scientist started shouting each time they 'found' something, there would be far too much noise in this world. I recall on experiment I worked on while I was at a nanotechnology company. I had a solid half of a dozen moments where I thought "Holy shit! I found it!" Each time though, I tempered my excitement and performed another experiment to try and confirm what I thought I had.
Of those half of a dozen times where I got excited, only one of them was the true "Eureka!" moment. One time it was simply a defect in the instrument I was using. Another time a part had become defective and had muddled my results. Another time everything looked awesome for the first part of my analysis, but when I did the second part it was clear that there was a problem.
This is not rare. This happens all the time in scientific study. You think you find something, and it turns out to be nothing. You hold back telling the world and having people try and replicate what you did until you yourself know what you did and are sure that you did it right. Only then do you release it to the world. It saves you looking like an idiot when you release promising results a dozen times only to withdraw them, it saves your fellow scientist dozens of false starts, and it save Slashdot from stupid head lines like CANCER IS CURED SCIENTIST SAY, when in fact someone managed to kill a specific type of cancer in a test tube.
These scientist did the right thing. They held back their announcement which was sure to be butchered by the press until such time as they had confirmed their discovery.
So... we can shut people up by dropping a bomb on their heads... but we can't shut down their websites. Right...
It is very simple. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The stated goal of the organization is to kill civilians. In the UK, it is illegal to be a member of said organization. Anything belonging to Al-Qaeda can be seized and any member can be put in prison. In the same way that the UK will merrily track down their financial backings and take the money, they will merrily track down their communications network. Websites OWNED by Al-Qaeda are without a doubt part of their communications network. Just because they don't post their super secret plans on them doesn't make them any less legitimate of goals.
You are more then welcome to declare your support for Palestine, declare what a wretched government the UK is for being Iraq, smear all over your blog that you hope all the Brits in Iraq are beheaded. Any private citizen can do this in the UK. That said, as soon as you smear across your website that you are member of a terrorist organization whose states goal is to intentionally kill citizens of the UK, you lose any sort of 'rights' you have.
Personally, I am totally blown away that people are arguing with a straight face over whether or not organizations that have openly executed terrorist attacks and have declared their intention to conduct more such attacks in the future should be entitled to run websites. If Al-Qaeda was to open up an information booth and recruiting station in London, would you objective if the government shut that down too?
I am blown away that we are even having this argument. Let me be blunt and really get to the heart of it. Al-Qaeda does not have a "right" to own any fucking websites.
I can't believe I am listening to people argue that terrorist organizations have a right to have websites too. Should we offer them free health care and a tax exempt charity states as a religious organization while we are at it?
We were being critical of blocking the words 'democracy' from all blogs having draconian censorship. I am pretty sure that no one has been critical of China's attempt to shut down sites run by terrorist organizations that have in fact killed people and that continue to advocate the death of civilians. No one is silencing complaints against the UK government and its dealings with either its own people or the Middle East. What is being silenced is a website that have the name of a terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for terrorist acts.
Let me put it another way. If a British rapist raped little girls then posted movies of the girls being raped and killed, would you bitch and moan about censorship if the government took that website down?
Finally, get some perspective. These are people that if there were ever found in the UK or ever ran into UK soldiers would be shot or arrested. The UK actively seeks these people out to kill them. If you really are worried about their well being, their 'freedom of speech' rights really are on the bottom of the list next to 'being shot'.
I think when you are willing to shoot someone and revoke their right to life... eh... chances are their rights to blog have also been revoked as well.
Cute argument, but it is silly logic that ends up revoking the sovereignty of a large chunk of the nations of the world, Israel included. Israel has more then its fare share of whack job extremist terrorists. You might even remember little peace agreement back in the 90's that fell apart after an Israeli assassinated one of its architects. Does Israel need its sovereignty revoked? What about the US? The US was not exactly friendly to the occupying British. Hell, the US was down right horrific to the natives and their actions easily could be classified as terrorists. Hell, there are eco-whack-job-terrorists that have committed terrorists acts, does the environment need to surrender now?
It is a silly and stupid argument. It would be nice if the world was that simple, but it isn't. Every cause out there can find a few nut jobs willing to do something stupid. Every cause WILL find a few nut jobs willing to do something stupid, regardless if they want them to or not.
If it is any consolation, Palestinian terrorists will never get what they want. Israel isn't going anywhere any time soon, and Palestine is never going to get all the land Israel took and settled back.
"...If not, then they don't really apply to our laws, since they're not US citizens and are not breaking US laws."
"...If not, then they don't really apply to our laws, since they're not US citizens and are not breaking US laws."
They are breaking US (or in this case, UK) laws. They are listed as a terrorist organization in both nations and have admitted and been shown to have committed terrorist acts. In the US and the UK, that is a crime, regardless of where it occurs in the world. As to the extent of jurisdiction, it is a moot point. Stepping over a political boundary only buys you as much protection as another sovereign nation is willing to afford you. If a pile of terrorist were tanning on some 1 kilometer large desert island in the Caribbean that is technically considered a sovereign nation, I find it highly doubtful the US or the UK would balk at arresting and/or killing them all.
You absolutely can violate the laws of a nation without being in it. The only question is whether or not the nation you are in feels like offering you protection. In this case, I think it is pretty safe to say that no nation is going to complain to the UK that their local Al-Qaeda web sites were knocked off line.
I wouldn't compare the British shoot to kill policy with knocking down Al-Qaeda web sites. Knocking down an Al-Qaeda web site doesn't upset anyone except the border line insane. I mean hell, they smeared the words Al-Qaeda across the top of the website. That is a pretty good indication that those are in fact the guys you are trying to kill - and if you are willing to kill them, it is probably okay to knock down their blog while you are at it, hence the "getting some fucking perspective".
The reason why civil libertarians are pissed about that the British shoot to kill policy is because they shot the wrong guy. The guy they shot wasn't a terrorist. This isn't worrying about the terrorists rights; it is worrying about the rights of civilians to not have their brains blown out because the cops got confused and have itchy trigger fingers. I doubt anyone cares that terrorist will be shot, it is the non-terrorist that get confused for terrorist getting shot that has people worried.
That said, I understand the policy. If you think a guy is about to blow himself up, you might very well pump as many bullets into his brain as you can to keep him from setting off a bomb and killing dozens of people. My impression is that British policy pretty much forbid the use of lethal force in all but the most extreme circumstances before the bombing. After the bombing they changed it such that if the police believed that a suicide bombing was imminent, they could kill the suspect to prevent him from detonating the bomb. That policy isn't bad, it just needs to be refined. The police need to be properly trained as to when it is and is not the time to open fire. American police already have a similar policy. They are much free to use lethal force, but are well drilled as to when they can and can not use it. British police on the other hand have been thrown a new policy, and as the incident where the Brazilian man was shot shows, they clearly were not trained properly in how to implement it.
So... it is a-okay to bomb a terrorist camp and kill everyone in it... but suddenly their 'rights' are violated if someone knocks out their websites? Get a little fucking perspective please.
As to what is accomplished, that is easy. First, it makes low level support more difficult. You want to prevent casual supporters from throwing a few bucks in their direction.
Second, it is a propaganda war. If a terrorist blows himself up in London, murdering a pile of innocent civilians, it is best to deaden whatever benifits they get out of it by making it harder for them to get their message out.
The reason why this is being done is the exact same reason why Britian didn't let the USSR set up a Soviet Army recruiting station in London. Is it going to make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. Is it worth while to try and disrupt a terrorist's cells propaganda machine? Sure, why the hell not.
Put another way, if a British rapist made a website and posted movies of him raping 13 year old girls, would you be terribly upset if it got shut down? Get some fucking perspective.
Capitalism is about value. It just so happens that most people value money. It however does not mean that you can't create an entity within capitalism to that cares about something other then money. Private charities are an excellent example. Charities do not work outside of capitalism. Capitalism has nothing against charities. If people want to shell out money to a charity to receive a warm fuzzy glow in their hearts, more power to them. American charities pump out more money to charitable causes then most governments.
My point is that capitalism is amoral. It doesn't care about money, charity, or anything else. Capitalism is simply a way of using and distributing scarce resources. If everyone valued the environment, social justice, and freedom above all else, companies would find a way to work tirelessly towards those ends. If people bought stock based upon how much it returned in social good, companies would all work towards social good.
Now, clearly this is not the case. People don't buy stock (normally) on how much social good they pump out. They buy stock based upon how much profit they can return the share holders. There is a trend though to incorporate social good into the decision to invest in corporations. There are entire investment firms out there that rate companies based upon the social good or harm that they cause and invest accordingly. The effects are fairly clear. There are companies out there that have altered their business model to be more social responsible. They have written it into their own internal regulations that they will meet certain social standards.
Personally, I think this is a good trend. It simply reinforces what companies already try and do. Companies try and bring value to their share holders. It is important to note the use of the word 'value' over the use of the word 'money'. Money certainly has value, but share holders can choose to value other things. If share holders say that they value social good in addition to money, then corporations will readily alter their business products to give share holders more value.
Governments are a crutch used to overcome people's greed and indifference for one another. If suddenly everyone in the world was altruistic and acted upon altruistic convictions, you could do away with governments and live in a perfect capitalistic and moralistic system. Governments exist to regulate capitalism not because capitalism is greedy or evil, but because people are. People are the problem, not capitalism. If people are acting better, as seen in this instance with Cisco, then you naturally see capitalism act better.
I think that people are missing the point of what a companies responsibility to share holders are. When you own a share, you own a piece of that company In owning a piece of that company, a share holder has say over how that company is run. Normally, share holders simply demand a return on investment in cash. However, there are other things that a share holder can value, and share holder is will within his rights to demand these things. For instance, a share holder might very well value long term investments over short term investments. They might care about the image of the company, if for no other reason then that the image might impact sales. They are also well within their right to value non-monetary things, like freedom, morality, and what not. If Cisco share holders demand that Cisco not only make profit, but also uphold a certain basic moral code in the process, that is well within their rights as partial owners of the company.
People act like this is some abnormality. The truth is that it happens all the time. Many companies throw on a layer of ethics that they follow without the government enforcing them. For some companies, this means meeting a higher standard of pollution control then is required. For others it means that they ensure certain labor practices are followed. If the owners of Cisco want to do something similar, I applaud the action and say more power to them. This is capitalism at work. The share holders are demanding added value for their stocks. If the share holders value freedom, it is their prerogative to demand that the company they own offers more. People forget that capitalism isn't all about money. Capitalism is about value. It just so happens that money is the thing people can generally agree to value. If on the other hand people decide that they want to value something else, capitalism is more then happy to accommodate. I say three cheers for Cisco's share holders. I would rather Cisco's share holders regulate their company then the government.
I agree that America is fucked up when it comes to censorship laws... but at the end of the day I realize that it could be worse. I could live in Australia.
I personally think the chances are very slim, but I don't completely ignore that the moons could align just right. The issue over Taiwan is Chinese national pride, and so isn't a straight look at a cost verse benefit calculation for China. The long and short of it is that the US and China can't fight. In a conventional war, the US will win hands down. Take what the US has in Iraq, drop it in Taiwan, and no one is going to get in that the US doesn't want there.
The flips side to the coin is that Taiwan really only matters to the US in terms of ideology and only vaguely in terms of monetary value. If China really wanted Taiwan, and it decided it was going to invade, it would be safe to bet that it would offer to let the US keep its trade relationships with Taiwan stable. Hence, China could do a lot to remove the monetary value attached to an independent Taiwan.
So, now it comes down to ideology and nationalism. The US doesn't want to let a free democracy fall to China, and China has fanatical nationalism when it comes to Taiwan.
The game is simple. If China invades, the US can defend the island from a conventional attack. Both nations' economies would be crippled by being at war with the other, but China would feel the brunt of the economic pain, as Europe would be more inclined to align behind the US. Militarily, China would be crushed. A few million Chinese might be a force to be reckoned with, but only if you can get them to land and keep them supplied. In this scenario China loses big, and the US mostly wins. However, China can turn this into a no win scenario by nuking the US and subsequently getting nuked in return. Even a limited nuclear war results in both nations losing big. Finally, the US could simply not respond out of fear of entering into a nuclear war over and island off the coast of China, in which case the US loses a little national pride but probably sees no big monetary change.
So, it is a bluffing game. Both sides can 'win', but both sides can prevent the other side create a scenario where everyone loses. The question is always 'does the other guy want me to lose badly enough that he is willing to lose himself?'
My best guess? No rational leader would play such a game. The US and China both do a decent job at picking rational leaders that will do everything in their power to prevent it from getting to that point. The real problem comes in if one nation has an irrational leader. Rational leaders will keep it from ever getting that far and offer ways for the other side to 'bail out' without 'losing face' and maintain the status quo. Rational leaders will do everything in their power to keep from playing a game of chicken. The real issue is if one side doesn't have a rational leader and seeks to create a conflict where someone has to lose.
Personally, I wouldn't bet on anything happening any time soon, barring the US or China getting an irrational leader. If the US decides to fight, the only thing China can do is make everyone lose. If there are going to be fireworks over Taiwan, I would place my money at some point far in the future when China could beat the US military in a conventional war. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that happen though. US military isn't going to have a rival that can beat it in a conventional war for some time to come.
I wouldn't call it 'moving the goal post'. I mean, if immigration is just letting someone in to work, then the US had a really liberal immigration policy with Africa a few hundred years ago. You could work your entire life AND get free transport over along with housing accommodations and excellent job security for the remainder of your (short) life.
As far as Korea or China, I think you misunderstood me if you thought I was implying those societies were a bastion of tolerance and free loving immigration policies. My girlfriend's parents are from Taiwan. I can honestly say that I have never met more racist people in my entire life. They are sweet and very nice to me, but they have the most convoluted racial and cultural stereotypes stuck in their heads. It is innocent in the sense that they believe things more out of sheer ignorance then anything else, but it is still vaguely disturbing. All Japanese are monsters, marrying a white guy makes you successful, and black men are scary criminals that have massive penises. If I had been half black and half Japanese I am sure my girlfriend's parents would have shit themselves. Worst still, it isn't even isolated to her parents. They have more relatives then in the US then I do, and nearly all of the ones not born in the US carry the same racist stereotypes.
If anything, it is a testament to how well the US integrates other cultures. My girlfriend, despite her parents and relatives, is hippie sociologist who would kick my ass if I ever even so much as thought a racist remark.
Dude, I have no idea what Japan you are talking about, but the one in THIS world is extremely culturally isolated and loathes immigration. Japan does a neat sleight of hand when it comes to immigration. Its laws, if you read them, are fairly reasonable. However, Japan does not use 'law' to determine who can and cannot immigrate. Japan uses 'policy'. Japanese policy is ugly. The worst abuse I have ever seen of it was when I visited Japan for work related reasons. There I met a woman who had lived in Japan all her life, but was the grand parents of imported Korean labor. She was a legal resident, but not a citizen. Let's put it this way, France, which is notorious for having tight immigration laws, has a more liberal immigration system in practice then Japan.
h tml
If you want a fun read, try the below.
http://www.tabunka.org/newsletter/immigration_p2.
The Immigration Control and Refugee-Recognition Act (ICRRA) was passed in 1951 and subsequently amended in 1981 and 1989. According to this law there are a total of 28 statuses of residence for entry, work or stay in Japan. The various statuses of residence depend upon the activity the foreigner will be performing while in Japan. Each status explicitly states what the foreigner is allowed to do while in Japan and how long he or she is allowed to stay. The statuses range from that of diplomat, journalist or professor, to engineer, college student or temporary visitor.
Noticeably absent from the various statuses of residence is that of unskilled worker. This is at the heart of Japan's present immigration farce. Japan includes "entertainers" and "trainees" in the "skilled" worker category. Interestingly these workers account for about one-half of the "skilled" foreign workers in Japan. "Entertainer" is the largest category out of all the sixteen skilled labor categories in terms of numbers of visas issues. The majority of these people are night clubs hostesses or working in the Japan sex industry, and most of them are women from the Philippines, Thailand, Korea, Columbia and more recently Caucasian women from former East Block nations. In addition, these activities also happen to be an important sources of revenues for Japanese organized crime, better known in the vernacular as the yakuza.
Trainees are the seconded largest category during the last few years to fill labor shortages in unskilled or 3K job-related industries. When the ICRRA was revised in 1989, it was mainly for the purpose of stemming the growing tide of illegal foreign workers into Japan. In 1988 men were primarily engaged in construction and factory work. The presence of these foreign men as unskilled laborers meant that Japanese industry was becoming more and more dependent upon cheap foreign labor. Soon there was a big push from Japanese industry to the Ministry of Justice to cure labor shortages by increased use of foreign "trainees." This category began to replace illegal workers and continued to fuel cheap unskilled labor into Japan's 3K industries. Student categories also assisted in supplying labor to many night- and daytime industries.
The Government of Japan made these categories to fill the gap in its labor shortage as Japan needs unskilled labor, and the rest of Asia is willing to supply it. In regard to the two categories "entertainer" and "trainees," the problem of the labor shortage farce should be properly addressed because these categories make up the dark side of Japan's immigration law. This has also greatly contributed to the exploitation of unskilled cheap labor from Asia without proper welfare and protection by Japanese society.
The budget has gone up, not down. Further, tax revenues were will above expectations this year.
Failing economy
Unemployment is at 5%. You could possibly argue that the shit is getting ready to hit the fan, but most economist will disagree with you. It isn't the 90's, but it sure as hell isn't the 30's either.
global criticism regarding human injustices abroad
The global criticism around US human rights injustices doesn't even exist on the same scale as the Soviet Union. You would have as much luck comparing Texas executions to the Nazi holocaust.
rapid decrease of freedom and increase of governmental power
I am not sure what Soviet Union you are talking about, but the one I recall had a rapid INCREASE in freedoms and a rapid DECREASE in governmental power right before it all fell apart. Further, I would hardly call what is happening in the US a "rapid decrease in freedoms". The US still maintains extremely liberal speech and protest laws. Hell, I was in DC during the height of the anit-war protests, and the place felt more like a hippie commune then a Gestapo police state.
Um. No.
The US might be declining. It might fade away to something more like Britain. It will always be a power, but perhaps not THE power. It certainly isn't going to go like the Soviet Union though. The key difference between the US and all other "empires" is that the US has an extremely stable political system and civil society. Hell, it could be argued that the US has one of the MOST stable political systems in the world. The US might be young as a nation compared to Europe, but it has one of the worlds longest running continuous governments in the world. The US political system is so stable that nothing short of a nuclear holocaust could pull it apart, and if there is a nuclear holocaust in the US, you can bet some other place in the world is now the world's largest pane of glass.
The decline of the US is going to be very slow and very boring. The few territories the US holds are connected to the US only in that the US military will defend them. Other then that their governments are almost completely autonomous and could break off at any point. US military bases would be evacuated before they would fight over the land, as a base in the middle of hostile territory isn't worth anything anyways. I hate to dash your hopes, but the decline of the US is going to be dull.
The only possible exciting part would be a battle for Taiwan... but that would suck for everyone, even those not involved. The economic damage would make the fighting look like pocket change.
You are dead wrong. That mentality is what is going to keep the libertarian party a small collection of gun nuts. The American political system DEMANDS compromise. Period. This is not a parliamentary system. You can't run on some nut job extremist position and expect get 50% of the vote. You can't just slink by with a small percentage of support. In the US, you need a majority to get the ball rolling, and a super majority to run with it. Libertarians will never get that in any of our life times.
Libertarians could do more then intellectual bitching on the side lines if they just compromised a little. Libertarians are for making drugs legal. Instead of starting with crack, why not just start with marijuana? Libertarians want to reduce taxes. Instead of promising to abolish the IRS they day they get into office, why not offer a flat tax system and a steady reduction of taxes? Instead of promising to decapitate the government on the first day in office, why not fight for a balanced budget amendment?
Hell, there are even positions they could take to advance libertarian ideals that everyone could at least begin to agree on. You can't argue to abolish taxes and get anywhere, but what if they started taking taxes out of the hands of politicians to spend? Pass a law that takes 5% of your income tax and lets YOU decide where to spend it. Hell, everyone could get behind that and you could starve a few pork barrel projects along the way. People might even get a test for not letting the majority decide how to spend their money.
Libertarians might feel all warm and fuzzy bitching loudly each election, but feeling warm and fuzzy is roughly all they are accomplishing. If libertarians wanted to make a REAL practical difference, they would table their proposals that are far off the deep end and take a reasonable party platform. Take a lesson from the Republicans and Democrats. They too have their extremist nut jobs that don't think even incestuous rape is a good time to get an abortion or that we need to workers revolution to sweep away the capitalist swine. The difference is that they can let their personal ideologies lead they way, but can keep their mouths shut about it long enough to push politics in their direction.
Libertarians need more "mostly" libertarians. "Mostly" libertarians might not abolish public school on the first pass, but I bet they would be a hell of a lot more inclined to try out a voucher system. Given the choice between the two, most "fully" libertarians should prefer the later. As it stands, no one is even discussion the issue, despite a solid 30 years of bitching from the libertarians to the contrary. Take a hint - it isn't working.
Personally, I have stopped listening to the radio. Radio is dying and these dumb ass holes are just killing it quicker. Bribing DJs to play your crap might bump the sales of that particular record, but I bet it causes people to turn off their radio's much quicker and damage the industry as a whole. Personally, I think that radio is on its way out. Why would I listen to the radio when I can shell out $10-20 a month foe satellite radio? Satellite radio doesn't need to play for the lowest common denominator because none of the channels are competing with each other. If anything, they want to specialize such that their listeners can find exactly what they want so they don't jump ship to another satellite radio that does. As an added bonus, there are no commercials. So, other then being 'free', what exactly does the radio have left? Hell, it isn't even free if you value your time. Spending an hour listening to a half hour of commercials and another 20 minutes of shitty music isn't free in my book.
Even if you don't want to shell out for satellite radio, just do Internet radio. Almost every college station these days has their own radio station that gets only travels about a mile away via radio waves, but can be gotten anywhere via the Internet. Radio is dying. I personally don't give a shit if a pile of corporations selling mass produced music fight over the remains.