It might still be handy in the airspace over Iran... This is of course exactly why a foreigner (read non-US citizen) like myself *doesn't* like it. It allows the US to be more agressive in attacking countries which are just developing nuclear weapons - not a good thing since it entails a war.
Don't get me wrong, I hate to see countries joining the nuclear weapon club but since all of the nuclear powers are holding onto their nukes (except South Africa) and making no real effort to implement the non-profileration pact it hardly seems fair to restirct the number of nukes. There is already enough out there to wipe out human life on earth anyway.
On the other hand this system is completely unable to protect against low-tech delivery methods (shipping a nuke in a cargo container to New York City) so the system is more or less a waste of money.
Because a zygote or a fetus isn't a baby! Many anti-abortionists are also opposed to most forms of birth control as well as regulating (mostly female) sexuality so the issue definitely involves control over a women's body.
According to most accounts it was pretty much in shambles since 1991. I'm not sure you do yourself any favors pointing to the wretched state of the country starting in 1991. That is about the time when the very brutal sanctions regime took place, killing by some accounts 500,000 children a price Allbright thought "was worth it". Whether it is worse now (I think it probably is) is impossible to tell for certain since there is not funding or security for the proper research. You seem to be bringing a lot of your own prejudices to the table. Regardless, the thing to remember is that the Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for a just cause. They are fighting to establish a theocratic fascist dictatorship. It is quite obviously in the best interests of the Iraqi populace to have the American-backed government win -- no matter the aspersions cast on American motives. 1)Every country has the right to defend itself from a foreign attacker, it is recognized in international law and it doesn't rule out resistance based on political criteria. Military solutions don't get much more just. 2)Whether the resistance wants to establish a "theocratic fascist dictatorship" depends on which resistance group you are talking about. I would argue that most people opposed to the occupation do not desire such a state. In addition there is no guarentee that US involvement is going to prevent such a state, or that such a state would turn out worse than say theorcratic monarchists in Saudi Arabia, secular dicatorships like Saddam or the Shah in Iran or whatever else the US will impose. 3)I'm casting the aspersions because I really don't believe the motives ascribed to the US government by both Democracts and Republicans. If I doubt American motives, just think how skeptical an Iraqi is going to be knowing about the 1953 coup, the support for Saddam in the 80s, the betrayl of the uprising at the end of the 1st gulf war, the brutal sanctions, etc... Do you think it is reasonable give this historical context for an Iraqi to take promises of democracy and freedom from the US seriously? Honestly? South Korea was once ruled by a "puppet American government". But look at where South Korea is today. The Korean democracy movement can take credit for democracy in South Korea, not the US which didn't accept the movement until it had already won. The U.S. backed Iraq against Iran, but by the time Saddam gassed the Kurds in the late 80's, the war was over and the U.S. had withdrawn its limited support. No true, the US government supported Saddam right up into the invasion of Kuwait (where the US reinstalled a monarchy, not a democracy I might add!). It is true however that military aid was reduced after the war with Iran (which Saddam started) since it was no longer needed. Also given that the US was a heavy supplier of weapons to Turkey in the early 90s when the military crushed the Kurds there, and did nothing when Saddam crushed the Kurds at the end of the 1st Gulf War it's hard to believe the gassing was a serious humanitarian concern in Washington.
The easiest, least violent and most effective change to US foreign policy isn't to overthrow dictators and despots, but to simply stop supporting them. If you are serious about peace and making the world a better place, try to end US support for say dicators in Uzbekistan or the Gulf States rather than supporting this war.
A good response, I like it when people actually respond to the points and don't go ad homineum. Now let me rebut you: We were supposed to leave the country in shambles immediately after Saddam was captured? What a terrible idea. I'll put aside the fact that it was the US invasion that reduced the country to shambles in the first place and take at face value your assumption that the US government administration really has Iraqi humanitarian interests at heart. I actually don't belive this and I think a history of US foreign policy would show this, but I'll grant you this point for the sake of argument. So, the US wants to help Iraq? Get out. The major violence in the country is between insurgents (nationalists and Islamists) and the US forces and its puppet government. This violence will continue until the US leaves, and for awhile thereafter. Since the occupation isn't doing any good, it is best to end it and save American (and perhaps even Iraqi) lives. You can't end the violence in Iraq when you are the cause of it. Elections are on track Just for fun I will again accept your underlying assumption, that the US adminstration wants free elections in Iraq. I don't actually think this is the case given the CIA role in the 1953 coup, US support for Saddam in the 80s, the fact that the the democractic opposition was frozen out of the invasion planning and the criminal Chalabli was put in place - but let's assume the US government wants free elections (it is partly true anyway since they would prefer elections to put in place a pro-US government, but if not they will accepted a spoiled election to keep a strongman in place). If they want free elections they would allow all political groups to participate (including hardline anti-US islamists) instead of killing them, they would allow a free press and they would put in UN observers. They are unlikely to do any of this, only the last one has some hope. We hardly close any newspapers. Only those that directly incite violence. Not true, we can argue about numbers as to how many papers are closed but it is not true that papers are closed for inciting violence in the US. In fact I continue to read papers in the US inciting violence against Iran, a country which is considerably more democratic and free than Saudi Arabia a close US ally. You mean they only close papers in Iraq that incite violence AGAINST THE US OCCUPATION, not violence against the insurgents. One incident of abuse at a prison versus decades of torture, slaughter, and oppression? Good to see you have some perspective. I do, I'm in my 30s so I remember when Saddam Hussien was the West's ally back in the 80s and he gassed Kurds and invaded Iran - all with US backing. So that's why I don't believe the bullshit about human rights. If I want to know about human rights I'll look up Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, which despite their flaws at least at least have a membership that is interested in exposing and preventing human rights abuses.
Um, actually a few US soldiers with aluminum hats and uber guns (as in tanks) did in fact totally decimate a force roughly an order of magnitude more - without ANY deaths. Isn't that even sort of slightly impressive? What would have been really impressive if that force of an order magnitude greater in size was firing their weapons in the air to celebrate the US troop arrival - instead of trying to kill them. Take off your techno goggles for a minute and look at the situation not as a military victory but as a political loss. US troops could have a hundred of such military victories and still lose the war.
that a country the size of California was crushed by our military might I think that this attitude (displayed here in such a crude form and without the usual spin doctoring) is exactly why US troops are facing resistance. They went in their to crush and occupy a country until a compliant stable puppet government could be set up. The last minute humanitarian objectives (democracy, freedom, etc..) are just post-occupation justification pablum. It's not about Saddam, he has been out of power for a long time and the troops haven't left yet. It's not have democracy, the people are powerless, living under curfew and with no elections in sight. It's not about freedom, the US occupation has closed newspapers complaining about the occupation . Nevermind trying to have an election in these conditions. It's not about human rights - Abu Gharib, clusters bombs, depleted uranium, etc..
I don't think it has anything to do with evangelism, that aspect is just propoganda to justify the assault. If it were evangelism the US would be trying to transform Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc... and other undemocratic countries supported by the US. I think the evangelist aspect is similar to "White Man's Burden", the excuse of the British Empire to attack and conquer other countries. It's not to be taken seriously because even if some people with their handle on the levers of power believe it - they will promptly change their mind about it if it is in their interests to do so again and again. I also don't think the US government cares whether other countries are reshaped in their image or not in fact many US allies are quite different in political and cultural terms than the US (Japan, Columbia, Egypt, etc...). The overiding concern of the US is that US companies have access to the markets and resources of that country - if this is the case than any amount of barbarism is tolerable. That's why Cuba under the Batista dictaorship is acceptable, and Cuba under a Castro dicatorship is not. I do think the US is capable of *trying* to do humanitarian intervention overseas (like Somalia) for the purpose of political show - but since such US intervention is outside the framework of the UN it is harmful to international law and relations.
When confronted with using "Terrorist Tactics", the Pres smiles disarmingly and says "Well, we've had it up to here with you. We figured, if you can't beat 'em, become exactly like them. Like the US doesn't already use "Terrorist Tactics" or their equivalents. The only reason US troops don't act as suicide bombers is because 1)They can't 2)They don't have to
They can't because US grunts will refuse the order to blow themselves up. They don't have to because the US air force can drop bombs from the sky at will.
In terms of threats/exhortions the US has repeatedly threatened to bomb and attack countries unless their demands are met. This is a standard tactic of any military organization / State with sufficient muscle and is no different in principle from terrorist demands.
Personally, I believe genetically modified plants are required to sustain life on earth with our current population. Any evidence for this, or is this just your personal opinion? Given the arable land that could be used for farmland, energy ineffecient livestock growth on some cropland, still inadequate irrigation in much of the world, etc... I find it unlucky that GM (I am reading transgenic plants here, not traditional breeding practises) is making the difference. Perhaps you mean future population not current population and then we can talk numbers but I have never heard your claim made before, even by the ADM and friends.
No serious student of current events can escape the reality that political freedom and economic prosperity are linked. The old soviet empire attempted to foster economic openness to gain it's productivity benefits while keeping political freedom in the hands of the Party. They failed. China is making the same attempt and the signs are they are also going to fail. Freedom is the natural state of affairs and you can't supress it in one sphere while keeping it in the others. Many countries have "free markets" and capitalist ownership relationships and have remained dictatorships. That includes numerous countries in Western Europe (prior to WW2), Russia and Belarus today, numerous Latin American countries a various points throughout the 20th (El Salvador, Brazil, Argentia, Bolivia, Chile under Pinochet, Nicaurgua under Somoza), a variety of African countries, Asian countries, etc... The link between capitalism and democracy is empirically false.
Hurricane severity may be cyclical, but it doesn't mean global warming is not involved.
Re:Where is American Society going
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
100 years ago when the wife took in some extra laundry to help pay the bills after her husband lost his job they were a family fallen on hard times. Now she is an "entrepreneur". So entrepreneurship isn't neccesarily the sign of a growing or shrinking economy.
BTW the US really is a grossly unequal society (especially by the standards of the developed world) as demonstrated by either Forbes magazine richest 100 Americans or the Gini coeffecient, take your pick. It is not a matter of outlook and I for the record certainly do not think I can solve my computer problems when I hold a hammer in my hand!
Yeah, Sun has done some good things in the past but most of the initatives you cite are quite dated and if you have ever been a sun customer it's hard to judge whether their FOSS gifts makes up for the evil scheming marketroids.
You had me nodding my head for awhile there until you said the real problem is demographic and quoted a 250-300 million population limit out of the sky. Where did that number come from, because I have read much higher numbers just with our current technology. And what do you plan to do with the 95% of the population you don't want on planet earth? This is misanthropic environmentalism at its worst.
Actually back when the original napster was coming out I was wishing that the new technology would promote the spread of near zero cost music around the world and bankrupt the RIAA and its member organizations. I can't speak for all other slashdotters, but I bet a good portion would have been happy with that.
Development of a working nano assembler might do it (manufacturing capabilities would instantly become meaningless, since we would be able to produce enough of _everything_ for _everyone_. Don't tell me that won't change things...)
Given that we can already replicate information for almost nothing, how much do you really think nano assemblers are going to change things? It will have about the same effect as the Internet on information distribution (important) but not enough to end the hunger for material goods. With private ownership of the means of production expect that the owners of these will work hard to create scarcity even when abundance is a mouse click is a button away.
Just a quick point on diesel, it really does produce more nasty carcinogenic particulate matter than conventionally powered engines. (http://www.ems.org/diesel/diesel_partic ulate.html )
The reason disesel cars aren't popular in the US is that most of them produced do not meet pollution standards (trucks have a lower standard).
That's my point. Law is law only to the extent that it arises from legitimate authority. A law doesn't have to arise from a legitimate authority, it can also arise from an illegitimate authority and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case with the majority of laws.
In practise laws are nothing more than a set of agreements, and that is being generous since there isn't always agreement.
It is true in practise the powerful (be they countries or individuals) can break international treaties and get away with it but it doesn't mean that international law doesn't exist, just that it is selectively enforced.
Fascism and Nazism adovocate greater equality?! Perhaps you are confusing throwing Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Homosexuals, Trade Unionists into death camps with "equality"? I think most of those groups would pass on equality if this is what it meant, Nazi's and fascists don't even mention equality as something desirable. Some of the Nazi rhetoric may talk about "brotherhood" (among adult white German men) but they actually increased the exploitation of the working class and the profits of companies like Krupp, etc...
Doesn't making a film counting as doing something? It's certainly more than you or I are doing posting on slashdot! i don't think we can presume to tell people to go into politics or shut up, politics isn't for everyone and Moore I think is a much more talented film maker than politician.
I'm not sure what you mean by "propagandist" but the only relation between the two of them is that they both made strongly political films.
Otherwise they have nothing in common, they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, Leni doing fascist films glorifying Hitler and the German Reich and Moore's commentary is basically social democract anti-Bush commentary.
The techniques of Leni's most famous film (Triumph of the Will) are completely different from Moore. If I remeber correctly there is almost no dialogue in the entire other than some clips from Hitler's speeches. Mostly it is just pictures of adoring Germans gazing at Hitler. Moore actually engages people, apparently in his Fahrenheit911 film he even interviews US soliders who SUPPORT Bush and the war. Leni does not even interview dissenters (or even supporters of Hitler), she just stiches together pro-Nazi images. How can you possibily place them in the same category?
You picked a bad example, since it is just a transcript from an interview. Citations are generally not provided in this format for Chomsky or other writers. If you are famous and too busy to write a book (well researched academic books can take years to write) you can generally find somebody to interview you and write it up. It's fast, but definitely not scholarly. Having read both Chomsky (several books) and Moore (2 books) Chomsky definitely comes across not the more rigourous writer whereas Moore is much more accessible. Take a look at Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle", "Detering Democracy" if you want to read something well referenced and researched.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your Dad might have been a bit confused about his job. He obviously thought it was to satisfy customers. In truth, it was to satisfy the people paying his paycheck. Wrong. His job is whatever he makes of it and it is likely he took the job to satisfy himself not management. Management may say that your job is to satisfy them, make them happy, etc... and from THEIR perspective it is true. However if his Dad is like any other worker he will do what he thinks is the best and justify it to management later. It is the technicians perogative as a human being to second guess management and decide what service to provide to customers or risk being turned into a lifeless, souless machine. Yes, there is a conflict here, it is called class struggle. In the real world there are many more choices than doing it managements way or quitting the job.
Slashdot Mirror
It might still be handy in the airspace over Iran...
This is of course exactly why a foreigner (read non-US citizen) like myself *doesn't* like it. It allows the US to be more agressive in attacking countries which are just developing nuclear weapons - not a good thing since it entails a war.
Don't get me wrong, I hate to see countries joining the nuclear weapon club but since all of the nuclear powers are holding onto their nukes (except South Africa) and making no real effort to implement the non-profileration pact it hardly seems fair to restirct the number of nukes. There is already enough out there to wipe out human life on earth anyway.
On the other hand this system is completely unable to protect against low-tech delivery methods (shipping a nuke in a cargo container to New York City) so the system is more or less a waste of money.
Because a zygote or a fetus isn't a baby! Many anti-abortionists are also opposed to most forms of birth control as well as regulating (mostly female) sexuality so the issue definitely involves control over a women's body.
I'm not sure you do yourself any favors pointing to the wretched state of the country starting in 1991. That is about the time when the very brutal sanctions regime took place, killing by some accounts 500,000 children a price Allbright thought "was worth it". Whether it is worse now (I think it probably is) is impossible to tell for certain since there is not funding or security for the proper research.
You seem to be bringing a lot of your own prejudices to the table. Regardless, the thing to remember is that the Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for a just cause. They are fighting to establish a theocratic fascist dictatorship. It is quite obviously in the best interests of the Iraqi populace to have the American-backed government win -- no matter the aspersions cast on American motives.
1)Every country has the right to defend itself from a foreign attacker, it is recognized in international law and it doesn't rule out resistance based on political criteria. Military solutions don't get much more just.
2)Whether the resistance wants to establish a "theocratic fascist dictatorship" depends on which resistance group you are talking about. I would argue that most people opposed to the occupation do not desire such a state. In addition there is no guarentee that US involvement is going to prevent such a state, or that such a state would turn out worse than say theorcratic monarchists in Saudi Arabia, secular dicatorships like Saddam or the Shah in Iran or whatever else the US will impose.
3)I'm casting the aspersions because I really don't believe the motives ascribed to the US government by both Democracts and Republicans. If I doubt American motives, just think how skeptical an Iraqi is going to be knowing about the 1953 coup, the support for Saddam in the 80s, the betrayl of the uprising at the end of the 1st gulf war, the brutal sanctions, etc... Do you think it is reasonable give this historical context for an Iraqi to take promises of democracy and freedom from the US seriously? Honestly?
South Korea was once ruled by a "puppet American government". But look at where South Korea is today.
The Korean democracy movement can take credit for democracy in South Korea, not the US which didn't accept the movement until it had already won.
The U.S. backed Iraq against Iran, but by the time Saddam gassed the Kurds in the late 80's, the war was over and the U.S. had withdrawn its limited support.
No true, the US government supported Saddam right up into the invasion of Kuwait (where the US reinstalled a monarchy, not a democracy I might add!). It is true however that military aid was reduced after the war with Iran (which Saddam started) since it was no longer needed.
Also given that the US was a heavy supplier of weapons to Turkey in the early 90s when the military crushed the Kurds there, and did nothing when Saddam crushed the Kurds at the end of the 1st Gulf War it's hard to believe the gassing was a serious humanitarian concern in Washington.
The easiest, least violent and most effective change to US foreign policy isn't to overthrow dictators and despots, but to simply stop supporting them. If you are serious about peace and making the world a better place, try to end US support for say dicators in Uzbekistan or the Gulf States rather than supporting this war.
A good response, I like it when people actually respond to the points and don't go ad homineum. Now let me rebut you:
We were supposed to leave the country in shambles immediately after Saddam was captured? What a terrible idea.
I'll put aside the fact that it was the US invasion that reduced the country to shambles in the first place and take at face value your assumption that the US government administration really has Iraqi humanitarian interests at heart. I actually don't belive this and I think a history of US foreign policy would show this, but I'll grant you this point for the sake of argument. So, the US wants to help Iraq? Get out. The major violence in the country is between insurgents (nationalists and Islamists) and the US forces and its puppet government. This violence will continue until the US leaves, and for awhile thereafter. Since the occupation isn't doing any good, it is best to end it and save American (and perhaps even Iraqi) lives. You can't end the violence in Iraq when you are the cause of it.
Elections are on track
Just for fun I will again accept your underlying assumption, that the US adminstration wants free elections in Iraq. I don't actually think this is the case given the CIA role in the 1953 coup, US support for Saddam in the 80s, the fact that the the democractic opposition was frozen out of the invasion planning and the criminal Chalabli was put in place - but let's assume the US government wants free elections (it is partly true anyway since they would prefer elections to put in place a pro-US government, but if not they will accepted a spoiled election to keep a strongman in place). If they want free elections they would allow all political groups to participate (including hardline anti-US islamists) instead of killing them, they would allow a free press and they would put in UN observers. They are unlikely to do any of this, only the last one has some hope.
We hardly close any newspapers. Only those that directly incite violence.
Not true, we can argue about numbers as to how many papers are closed but it is not true that papers are closed for inciting violence in the US. In fact I continue to read papers in the US inciting violence against Iran, a country which is considerably more democratic and free than Saudi Arabia a close US ally. You mean they only close papers in Iraq that incite violence AGAINST THE US OCCUPATION, not violence against the insurgents.
One incident of abuse at a prison versus decades of torture, slaughter, and oppression? Good to see you have some perspective.
I do, I'm in my 30s so I remember when Saddam Hussien was the West's ally back in the 80s and he gassed Kurds and invaded Iran - all with US backing. So that's why I don't believe the bullshit about human rights. If I want to know about human rights I'll look up Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, which despite their flaws at least at least have a membership that is interested in exposing and preventing human rights abuses.
Um, actually a few US soldiers with aluminum hats and uber guns (as in tanks) did in fact totally decimate a force roughly an order of magnitude more - without ANY deaths. Isn't that even sort of slightly impressive?
What would have been really impressive if that force of an order magnitude greater in size was firing their weapons in the air to celebrate the US troop arrival - instead of trying to kill them.
Take off your techno goggles for a minute and look at the situation not as a military victory but as a political loss. US troops could have a hundred of such military victories and still lose the war.
that a country the size of California was crushed by our military might
I think that this attitude (displayed here in such a crude form and without the usual spin doctoring) is exactly why US troops are facing resistance. They went in their to crush and occupy a country until a compliant stable puppet government could be set up. The last minute humanitarian objectives (democracy, freedom, etc..) are just post-occupation justification pablum.
It's not about Saddam, he has been out of power for a long time and the troops haven't left yet.
It's not have democracy, the people are powerless, living under curfew and with no elections in sight.
It's not about freedom, the US occupation has closed newspapers complaining about the occupation . Nevermind trying to have an election in these conditions.
It's not about human rights - Abu Gharib, clusters bombs, depleted uranium, etc..
I don't think it has anything to do with evangelism, that aspect is just propoganda to justify the assault. If it were evangelism the US would be trying to transform Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc... and other undemocratic countries supported by the US. I think the evangelist aspect is similar to "White Man's Burden", the excuse of the British Empire to attack and conquer other countries. It's not to be taken seriously because even if some people with their handle on the levers of power believe it - they will promptly change their mind about it if it is in their interests to do so again and again.
I also don't think the US government cares whether other countries are reshaped in their image or not in fact many US allies are quite different in political and cultural terms than the US (Japan, Columbia, Egypt, etc...). The overiding concern of the US is that US companies have access to the markets and resources of that country - if this is the case than any amount of barbarism is tolerable. That's why Cuba under the Batista dictaorship is acceptable, and Cuba under a Castro dicatorship is not.
I do think the US is capable of *trying* to do humanitarian intervention overseas (like Somalia) for the purpose of political show - but since such US intervention is outside the framework of the UN it is harmful to international law and relations.
When confronted with using "Terrorist Tactics", the Pres smiles disarmingly and says "Well, we've had it up to here with you. We figured, if you can't beat 'em, become exactly like them.
Like the US doesn't already use "Terrorist Tactics" or their equivalents. The only reason US troops don't act as suicide bombers is because 1)They can't 2)They don't have to
They can't because US grunts will refuse the order to blow themselves up. They don't have to because the US air force can drop bombs from the sky at will.
In terms of threats/exhortions the US has repeatedly threatened to bomb and attack countries unless their demands are met. This is a standard tactic of any military organization / State with sufficient muscle and is no different in principle from terrorist demands.
Personally, I believe genetically modified plants are required to sustain life on earth with our current population.
Any evidence for this, or is this just your personal opinion? Given the arable land that could be used for farmland, energy ineffecient livestock growth on some cropland, still inadequate irrigation in much of the world, etc... I find it unlucky that GM (I am reading transgenic plants here, not traditional breeding practises) is making the difference. Perhaps you mean future population not current population and then we can talk numbers but I have never heard your claim made before, even by the ADM and friends.
No serious student of current events can escape the reality that political freedom and economic prosperity are linked. The old soviet empire attempted to foster economic openness to gain it's productivity benefits while keeping political freedom in the hands of the Party. They failed. China is making the same attempt and the signs are they are also going to fail. Freedom is the natural state of affairs and you can't supress it in one sphere while keeping it in the others.
Many countries have "free markets" and capitalist ownership relationships and have remained dictatorships. That includes numerous countries in Western Europe (prior to WW2), Russia and Belarus today, numerous Latin American countries a various points throughout the 20th (El Salvador, Brazil, Argentia, Bolivia, Chile under Pinochet, Nicaurgua under Somoza), a variety of African countries, Asian countries, etc... The link between capitalism and democracy is empirically false.
Hotter earth- > warmer water -> more hurricanes
Hurricane severity may be cyclical, but it doesn't mean global warming is not involved.
100 years ago when the wife took in some extra laundry to help pay the bills after her husband lost his job they were a family fallen on hard times. Now she is an "entrepreneur". So entrepreneurship isn't neccesarily the sign of a growing or shrinking economy.
BTW the US really is a grossly unequal society (especially by the standards of the developed world) as demonstrated by either Forbes magazine richest 100 Americans or the Gini coeffecient, take your pick. It is not a matter of outlook and I for the record certainly do not think I can solve my computer problems when I hold a hammer in my hand!
Yeah, Sun has done some good things in the past but most of the initatives you cite are quite dated and if you have ever been a sun customer it's hard to judge whether their FOSS gifts makes up for the evil scheming marketroids.
You had me nodding my head for awhile there until you said the real problem is demographic and quoted a 250-300 million population limit out of the sky. Where did that number come from, because I have read much higher numbers just with our current technology. And what do you plan to do with the 95% of the population you don't want on planet earth? This is misanthropic environmentalism at its worst.
Journalist may lean to the left, but their bosses and editors don't.
Actually back when the original napster was coming out I was wishing that the new technology would promote the spread of near zero cost music around the world and bankrupt the RIAA and its member organizations. I can't speak for all other slashdotters, but I bet a good portion would have been happy with that.
Given that we can already replicate information for almost nothing, how much do you really think nano assemblers are going to change things? It will have about the same effect as the Internet on information distribution (important) but not enough to end the hunger for material goods. With private ownership of the means of production expect that the owners of these will work hard to create scarcity even when abundance is a mouse click is a button away.
Just a quick point on diesel, it really does produce more nasty carcinogenic particulate matter than conventionally powered engines.c ulate.html )
(http://www.ems.org/diesel/diesel_parti
The reason disesel cars aren't popular in the US is that most of them produced do not meet pollution standards (trucks have a lower standard).
Obligated by what authority?
That's my point. Law is law only to the extent that it arises from legitimate authority.
A law doesn't have to arise from a legitimate authority, it can also arise from an illegitimate authority and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case with the majority of laws.
In practise laws are nothing more than a set of agreements, and that is being generous since there isn't always agreement.
It is true in practise the powerful (be they countries or individuals) can break international treaties and get away with it but it doesn't mean that international law doesn't exist, just that it is selectively enforced.
Fascism and Nazism adovocate greater equality?! Perhaps you are confusing throwing Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Homosexuals, Trade Unionists into death camps with "equality"? I think most of those groups would pass on equality if this is what it meant, Nazi's and fascists don't even mention equality as something desirable. Some of the Nazi rhetoric may talk about "brotherhood" (among adult white German men) but they actually increased the exploitation of the working class and the profits of companies like Krupp, etc...
4/9 of the juries were Amercian, only 1 was French.
Doesn't making a film counting as doing something? It's certainly more than you or I are doing posting on slashdot! i don't think we can presume to tell people to go into politics or shut up, politics isn't for everyone and Moore I think is a much more talented film maker than politician.
I'm not sure what you mean by "propagandist" but the only relation between the two of them is that they both made strongly political films.
Otherwise they have nothing in common, they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, Leni doing fascist films glorifying Hitler and the German Reich and Moore's commentary is basically social democract anti-Bush commentary.
The techniques of Leni's most famous film (Triumph of the Will) are completely different from Moore. If I remeber correctly there is almost no dialogue in the entire other than some clips from Hitler's speeches. Mostly it is just pictures of adoring Germans gazing at Hitler. Moore actually engages people, apparently in his Fahrenheit911 film he even interviews US soliders who SUPPORT Bush and the war. Leni does not even interview dissenters (or even supporters of Hitler), she just stiches together pro-Nazi images. How can you possibily place them in the same category?
You picked a bad example, since it is just a transcript from an interview. Citations are generally not provided in this format for Chomsky or other writers. If you are famous and too busy to write a book (well researched academic books can take years to write) you can generally find somebody to interview you and write it up. It's fast, but definitely not scholarly.
Having read both Chomsky (several books) and Moore (2 books) Chomsky definitely comes across not the more rigourous writer whereas Moore is much more accessible. Take a look at Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle", "Detering Democracy" if you want to read something well referenced and researched.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your Dad might have been a bit confused about his job. He obviously thought it was to satisfy customers. In truth, it was to satisfy the people paying his paycheck.
Wrong. His job is whatever he makes of it and it is likely he took the job to satisfy himself not management. Management may say that your job is to satisfy them, make them happy, etc... and from THEIR perspective it is true. However if his Dad is like any other worker he will do what he thinks is the best and justify it to management later. It is the technicians perogative as a human being to second guess management and decide what service to provide to customers or risk being turned into a lifeless, souless machine. Yes, there is a conflict here, it is called class struggle. In the real world there are many more choices than doing it managements way or quitting the job.