Under what rationale? Open source is as close as you can get to pure capitalism. Remember, all capitalism entails is a lack of central authority governing production.
Not true. Capitalism is about self-interest in economic matters. Laissez-faire economics is a type of capitalism and does not call for "hands off" governmental regulation but careful regulation. Therefore, capitalism is not about a lack of centralization, it is about keeping the means of production and distribution in private hands. Ideal communism is about there not being a government to regulate anything because the people giver everything they have to the common good.
Those who create most open source software projects do it not out of altruism, but because they receive something valuable in return, which is often an aspect that is neglected by the average onlooker.
If the value they receive is not monetary, then it has no place in an argument involving economic models.
When someone creates a project, they do it out of a desire for certain functionality. They feel, however, that it is more than a fair tradeoff to relinquish much of the central control offered by copyrights in order to attain the far better quality, innovation, and speed at which open source software is developed. (emphasis added).
Is this not altruism?
Other beneficial factors involve credit for work and experience.
Still not talking about economics here.
Many open source projects are started when somebody wants to learn about a language, a certain type of program, or the hardware it runs opon. Hell, this was Linus' rationale for creating Linux in the first place.
Beginnings do not entirely explain the ends. Marx's vision of communism did not include the brutality that was employed under Stalin and Mao, even though their proclaimed desire was to 'liberate' the slaves of capitalism.
Communism REQUIRES a transitional facist period where a central state stricly *controls everything* This is to re-educate the working class and to ensure there will not be any corruption.
Wrong. Cummunism is the result of a cycle beginning with Fuedalism. Then capitalism, socialism and finally communism. At least that is what Marx and Engel wrote in their manifesto. Capitalism is the state of economic affairs where there is two classes (proletariat and bourgeoisie) and the people are detached from the government. Socialism combines the two classes but leaves the government seperated from the people. Ideally, communism would have the state dissapear completely because the people would not need any centralized control (they are obviously happy according to Marx).
For the record, Fascism is when the state controls the means of distribution, socialism is where the state controls the means of production.
In this case Microsoft, the convicted monopolist, is closer to the central state than the any of the GPL hordes. [conspiracy] I even think that the GPL will ensure that, once Microsoft does control everything, the transition from central control to responsible individual control will be forced to occur where it failed in the past. [/conspiracy] Still, this is more anarchism or libertarian than communist as history defines it.
Microsoft is the epitome of capitalism turning into socialism. As Microsoft completes its domination of the software market, it will control the means of production. Since the people have no purchasing choice, they are controlled. Open Source is, as the parent poster points out, close to ideal communism. Communism as a model is too flawed for practical use because it is the nature of man to be selfish. Hobbes and Machiavelli trumps Marx and Sir Thomas More every time.
Also, motivation [to] do what you want vs. money earned to do what you hate is far more of an incentive for most.
Motivation is important, but motivation to survive is supreme. I would rather code for Microsoft and feed my kids than code for free and enjoy it!
Maybe that part was. But maybe John has some other personal reasons he would like to pontificate on. Google would be no help there.
I went the link provided and was able to link to the OpenBSD home page. Like most Unix based OS's the page was remarkably lacking in specifics. It makes claims like, "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!" Great! Sounds secure, but some people think windows is secure... Reading their page on security I get all kinds of unhelpful information like "OpenBSD believes in strong security" and "...we ship the operating system in a Secure by Default mode." Their explanations lack specifics. Sure "All non-essential services are disabled. " and I will have to "enable daemons and other parts of the system" because of this. I guess my question is how do I convince a non-IS person (VP) that OpenBSD is the way to go. Who is using it? Why are they using it? Is there anyone that has had an OpenBSD box cracked and how was it done? Do you see where I am going here?
How exactly does google answer "Why did you personally choose OpenBSD"? As for your other explainations, induldge me. I don't inherently know anything about *BSD except that it is Unix-like. Why is it better for firewall applications? How is it better than Linux? What makes OpenBSD better than free or net?
What prompted you to use OpenBSD as the platform for the Crunch Box? Not intending to start a BSD flame war, I am interested in why you personally chose OpenBSD versus any other BSD or Linux or anything else.
I bought a 19" E440-B three months ago and noticed the lines immediately. Although initially concerned, I have learned to tune it out. I have been told that these are the support wires for the aperture grill. Smaller monitors only have one. It is this grill that provides such a bright, clear display. Is this true?
That was one of the most poignent and insightful post on this topic I have seen in a while. If the government is by the people, then the people have ultimate responsibility for the government. If they don't like it, they are the only ones who have the power to change it! Too bad 'they' just don't get it.
That's fine, but let me try to clarify why I said what I said. Arab governments desire less direct involvment in the affairs of the Middle East. They want to maintain their own power, but cannot without US aid (Egypt, Turkey, etc.) Those countries who are relatively financially secure (i.e. they have oil) don't need our aid, but do need our protection and/or market for their product (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE). This creates a strong sense of common goals (keep the oil flowing and keep the markets available). The problem is not the government, it is the people. The people see the US supporting dictatorial or authoritarian regimes while they suffer. Egypt has rampant unemployment and low wages. Saudi Arabia has had to decrease dramatically its "welfare" program and force the people to actually get jobs; which are scarce outside the oil and service industries. This is where the hypocrisy enters into the equation. We support one repressive regime, but swiftly denounce and forcably remove another. We support the state sponsored terrorism of Israel but cry out against the Palestinian suicide bombers. More on Israel in a minute.
If we were taking a passive or agnostic stance in the region it might make sense that they would be bitter about it, but certainly not to the point of commiting acts of terrorism against us.
If this was the beginning of western involvment in the region, perhaps. Even then however, colonialism was starting us on the road to poor relations by enslaving their economies and creating a social rift between the western educated elite and the common peasant. There is no turning back the clock to assess "what if" so I will refrain from speculation.
Today, there is too great an undercurrent of hatred for anything western in the Middle East, even before the war in Iraq. The people are clamoring for their governments to do something else besides play nice with us. They want desperately to have a democratic government, stop the advances of westernization while at the same time become a set of modernized Islamic nations. That hypocrisy has been the cause of technological stagnation and has furthered the alienation between the west and Islam.
I think the main reason for terrorism against the US is our active support of Isreal, and a close second is that many of the times we have supported Arabs we have left them worse off than they were before.
Those are significant causes, but there is so much more to it than that. Not in any order: Israel, oil (rentier-states), Islamic fundamentalism, post-colonialism, westernization/modernization, past conduct of western nations in the region and Arab nationalism.
So? What's wrong with that? There's no reason international politics needs to be conducted as if it were a pissing contest. How does it serve us to reinforce the world opinion that Americans are nothing but a bunch of swaggering cowboys?
From a moral perspective I agree 100%. However, the leaders of our country are realists and as such view everything in IR in terms of power. They don't care that the people in Jakarta hate the US because of Iraq. All that matters to them is that the interests of the US are secure. If that means pissing on the whole world, then so be it. Personally, I think it is much like kindergardeners in the playground; ultra-demanding and immature.
I think the distinct lack of international support for our current actions in Iraq shows that this is not necessarily true.
On the contrary, those nations are in disagreement with the US, not on what we are doing, but how we are doing it. The French (as much as we love to pick on them) have a very narrow view on how the crisis should have been resolved. They weren't given enough ear time with Bush and got pissed. Again, you have to understand the real reason it went down the way it did. Power and interest is all that matters to these people. The countries that aligned themselves with France did so because of their interests. Simil
And why exactly are those indigenous people violent? Could it perhaps be because Isreal became a nation by invading their territory and continues to attack and oppress them? Isreal's security issues are a direct result of it's use of military force. I really don't think that's the example you wanted to use.
No, that is exactly the example I meant to use. Please see my last journal entry for more information. It is all there.
I would argue that the US has few, if any, security problems beyond what we have created for ourselves with the way we conduct ourselves in the world..
I certainly agree that the US has caused a share of its security problems by actions in other countries. However, as Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Most Arabs have greater issues with our lack of intervention that what we already have done. They want us to go into Israel like we are invading Iraq and fix the conflict between Jews and Arabs. They want us to help them remove their economic and political dependence to the west (caused by post-colonialism and the need to modernize). We are the only nation in the world that has the economic, technological and military means to effect good in the lives of all Arabs. They see us as a potential savior and are jaded by our continued lack of support and hypocrisy. This is the cause of terrorism, IMO. I digress.
If we change the way we conduct ourselves in the world, we would be perceived as weak. Other nations expect us to use our power as only a superpower can. Our hegemony is both a boon and a bane as I mentioned above. People expect us also to provide for their needs and fix their problems.
Restricting the freedoms of Americans will not solve those issues, but respecting the sovereignty of other nations, particularly in the Middle East, just might.
I agree that respect for other states (especially in the Middle East) is an important diplomatic ideal. However, respect for soveriegnty like all factors in power politics is a catch as catch can game. We didn't respect the sovereignty of Yugoslavia or Somalia or Iraq (in 1991), yet there was clear reason not to. The reason was that it suited our interests. That is always the reason one country invades another (money, moral cause, obligation are all secondary to the interests of a state). Don't be confused into thinking we are in Iraq for anything except national interest. Restricting freedoms of Americans shows terrorists that it is harder to commit acts of terror and is the natural response to terrorism. Unfortunately, there is really no effective way to deal with terrorists (at least none have been sucessful).
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Please explain, or perhaps restate.
Sure. If restricting freedoms is the answer to terrorism (as Bush seems to think it is), then that is analogous to resolving the security dilemma (arms race) with trimming the military. They are both attacking the symptoms, not the actual problem.
Our elected officials have unfortunately shown that they understand no solution but violence.
Equally as unfortunate is that there is little hope for our current or future elected officials to change because of the nature of international relations and the position of the US in world affairs. I wish it was not so, but I predict the only change that will take place will be increasing challenges to the US hegemony.
As several very wise men have said, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent". I'll give Asimov credit here, but I believe Voltaire, for one, said something very similar.
I knew I detected a hint of pacifism in your arguments. Nothing wrong with that...but sometimes violence is necessary, expecially when dealing with the incompetent who know nothing else.
But it's not! That's the whole point of articles like these... they demonstrate that the US is not an island utopia of freedom in a sea of despots.
It may have demonstrated this for you, but it has not for me. While the U.S. is certainly not the only free nation in the world, no other country has the same set of liberties.
Having a nice bill of rights doesn't mean squat if they aren't respected.
True, but I would argue that the Supreme Court has not sufficiently degraded the rights found therein (or any part of the Constitution) to justify armed revolution. The system may be broken, but it is not beyond repair (yet). I still believe the US is the best in the world, Australia, Germany and Canada included. The US is the only industrialized country that does not exercise socialist economics. We are the only one without nationalized health care for the whole population (only senior citizens on MediCare and poor people on MediCaid). Socialism is government mandated equality of outcome, or in other words an increase of equality at the expense of freedom. By this test, the US is more free than any other (for good or ill I won't opine).
You implied that huge security needs require huge militaries. I suggested huge militaries create huge security needs.
It is valid to say that huge militaries *can* create hugs security needs, but it is not absolute.
The Melians had a huge security need during the Pelopponesian war, but they didn't have a large military. The Spartans didn't buy into their moral high ground argument, so they killed all the men and took all the women and children as slaves.
Israel has huge security concerns and has a large military, but they are not mutually inclusive. Israel has security issues because of a violent indiginous population.
I would argue that the US has a bigger security problem because it is free, than because it has a large military. Freedom of movement, association, speech and immigration all allow terrorism to continue. This is why all of these things have been restricted since 9/11. Does that mean we should continue to restrict freedoms? It is the same solution to trimming the military in order to resolve the security dilemma. I don't pretend to know the answer, but I have elected officials who should and, I trust, do.
I would also have to point out that sometimes our 'inalienable' rights come into conflict with each other.
Applying this to the current case makes a specious argument. He has not been charged with a crime. Where exists a threat to my inalienable right to life or any other right?
Another such example is the right to free exercise to religion, where sometimes one's right to free exercise is circumscribed by a generally applying law.
Correct, a good example of this is the Smith Act as deemed constitutional in Dennis v. US. However, there exists the case of the US District Court v. the United States in which the Court ruled that Judicial warrants were still required despite the need for national security. In the Hawash case, warrants were issued, but the 5th (and 14th) Ammendment was bypassed for reasons of national security. I think the SCOTUS would strike this law down if it had a chance to review it.
It must be nice to criticize a good point with a "troll" comment. Great arguement against the fact that the US government violates its people's rights when it suits them.
I might point out that there has yet to exist a government that does not violate its people's rights when it suits them. The term is called 'soveriegnty', which one of my political science professors likes to call "The legal right to kill its citizens". It is easy to pick on the US because it is the most prosperous, visible and free of any state in the world. And it does suck when it chooses to violate the very freedoms it stands for.
For the record, I agree with the 5th ammendment and think the material witness law is unconstitutional. However, if the will to challenge the law does not exist, it will remain in force, regardless of what the Constitution says.
The Boston Phoenix article is an op-ed on a Brookings report that compares costs of conventional to nuclear weapons. What it does not do is compare how appropriate nuclear weapons are for things like deterrence. How do you deliver 5 MT of TNT to a target in Russia or China within 30 minutes? Can't do it. But you can do it with a 1,000 lb nuclear device. You have to answer the question, "Are nuclear weapons suited for the tasks they are allotted for?" before you can attack their cost.
As for general military expenditures (third link), costs are always greater when you are on the leading edge of technology. All other countries piggy back on the US in terms of military technology.
The quote: "In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States." is out of date and inaccurate. Check with the CBO for up to date and "unbiased" analysis of the 2004 budget.
What freedoms are the military protecting right now if you believe everyone who has something negative to say should just be quiet? Some people just amaze me.
I was not implying that you should remain quiet if you have something negative to say. However, if you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, then you should get some facts first. You have not provided facts relevant to your argument.
My point wasn't to stop all military and defense actions. Just to budget it better. I hardly think the $396,100,000,000.00 spent on military (52% of the total budget) is really as nessesary as the government would like you to believe.
Maybe it isn't, but that is why the Constitution provides for checks and balances in appropriating funds. If you don't like the way the money is being spent, you have a congressperson and two senators to use as a means to effect change. It is really easy for citizens to sit back and blame the government for misspending funds when voter turnout is sometimes as low as 15% (60% in the last presidential election).
You have almost all of the information at your finger tips.
You have access to threat assessments for the Middle East, Asia and Africa? How many NIA's have you read in the past two years? Have you seen any DoD briefings on the deterrence forces in Korea and Japan? SLBM and ICBM force readiness estimates? I don't think you know what information is required to generate the defense budget, but I guess you think the Internet holds all the answers (hint: it doesn't).
And blindly following the administration because "they have access to all the information and I do not" is such a sad thing to hear in this day and age I don't really want to respond to it.
I am not blind, but I do know my limitations. We live in a Republic for a reason and that reason is to keep me from having to know everything about every decision that needs to be made every day. I trust enough in the current system that I am still an American Citizen. Otherwise, I would leave.
Only after Bush declared war did some smaller countries hop aboard
Not that this has anything to do with the subject, but Bush does not have authority to declare war, only congress. BTW, congress gave its blessing on this little endeavor and that is all it takes to be legal in America.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the reason those countries aren't threatened is because they aren't threatening anyone else? The US is the most hated nation in the world because we can't seem to keep our noses out of other people's business and we like to tell everyone what to do. In politics that's called Imperialism, but in the real world that's called bullying. Whatever term you use it breeds ill will, and that ill will is the source of the threats against us.
I never offered a reason for the situation, only that it exists.
But do the tax payers of America need to spend billions of dollars a day in order to keep a full arsenal of nuclear weapons? No.
How do you know what the US needs to spend on defense? Do you work for the NSC or Pentagon? No? I thought not. Your ignorance is appalling and you best serve society by remaining quiet than by spouting your ill-informed rhetoric.
Power politics and international security systems are complex. It requires the efforts of thousands of talented people to determine force and deterrance levels for the US military. So unless you have managment experience in this organization, you have no business second guessing the needs of the United States' nuclear arsenal.
The reason I brought up those other countries were as proof that a huge military isn't necessary for a successful country.
Huge militaries are relative to huge security needs. Norway, Canada and Beligum have relatively little threatening them and very little international interests. The US has huge interests and is the single most threatened nation in the world (in terms of power). Apples and Oranges.
Your damn right its not being handled perfectly. There is room for improvement, so why deny Americans of it?
Nothing is ever perfect, but what you are proposing is just as short sighted as the parent post. I don't agree with everything the Bush administration is doing, but I at least realize they have access to all the information and I do not.
"If you think that by threatening me you can get me to do what you want... Well, that's where you're right. But, and I am only saying that because I care , there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."
You'd be amazed at what the rest of the world's media (not under the thumb of the US government) is saying about this illegal war.
I am interested to know why you think this war is illegal. There is no international law AFAIK governing relations between countries. There are treaties and organizations, but none that have the ability to enforce laws in another country.
If you are thinking about the U.N., its resolutions have long upheld the legality of this war. Iraq has been in defiance of U.N. resolutions since before 1990 and one of them (661 if memory serves) states that any member nation can use force to disarm Iraq of WMD. So I fail to see the illegality of this war.
Also, don't confuse international solidarity with legality. France, Germany, Russia and China oppose the war because it harms their interests, not because of the inherent evils of war. The U.S., Britain and Spain support the war because it is in their best interests, not because they are warmongers. No matter where you stand on the issue, try to at least understand the real reasons countries go to war without resorting to base and invalid accusations.
You're assuming every smart person WANTS a job that requires high-level education. I know alot of smart people who take construction jobs because they are simple, require little to learn, and pay well. Work for a small portion of the year, and live frugally. Then you have much more time for what you REALLY love, not do 80-hour weeks for 90% of the year for something related to something you love.
I couldn't agree more. There are exceptions, but if you asked anyone living under the poverty line the one thing they wanted most for their kids, they would say, "To give them a better life than mine". They would likely try to get the best smart genes for their kids they can because smarts are generally associated with success and wealth.
I agree. One thing I must point out is that my arguments are not necessarily my beliefs! I certainly oppose any abuse of children regardless of how you define abuse. However, perspective is everything in a civil society. Before fast travel became common, society became whatever it wanted in various parts of the world. Headhunters, cannibalism, polygamy, female circumcision and many other brutal practices were not only performed, but sanctioned by these "mini" societies. My point was not to "twist" anything you said, but merely to show the inherent confusion it is to use society to justify the actions of a society.
I hope you still accept the existence of a police? If not, read up on clan societies before moving to Afghanistan; no fun to live in.
The police, fire and other services do serve a purpose and I welcome them. However, governments have historically over reached their authority to intrude on the private affairs of their citizens. Being from the US, I have a slightly different view on governmental influence than someone from Sweden. There are great benefits to living in a more socialist society, but at a great cost to freedom, privacy and independence (IMO). I align myself with Henry D. Thoreau who taught that, "That government which governs least, governs best." In fact, he went so far as to say that the perfect society, in which each person was perfectly virtuous, would need no government because there would be nothing to protect against.
If you check the article, you'll see that it was about a mild mental disease that made people more religious.
Sure, but that does not make religion bad, which is what I detected your argument as hinting at.
I argued, with Sweden and USA as examples, that if you don't indoctrinate children into a religion -- they don't become religious. That was behaviour, this is (probably) genetically influenced.
Okay, first of all let me see if I understand. You are saying in the first sentence that religon is learned. In the second sentence you claim that it is probably genetically influenced (not learned or partially learned). As for the first, I would wager that there is some powerful evidence supporting that. However, don't confuse natural tendencies with desires. For example, I grew up in a home that was decidedly without religion. My friends did not practice religion and I had little to do with God until I went to college. Only since then have I developed religous feelings, regardless of parental influence. Even today, I stand at odds with my parents on God. It had to do with my personal choices and desires, that preclude anything a parent can do or say. In fact, I would argue that improper (without love or concern) parenting leads to moral (religous or societal) decay faster than any single other factor.
So we have a mental problem that tend to make people more religious. You're religious and the doctor says that your child will get that problem. Will you ask the disease to be fixed?
That depends on if I consider it a problem. The New Scientist article you pointed to was talking about OCD. Other studies have also pointed to causes of OCD and are more general, stating that OCD comes from many sources (head injuries, upbringing, trauma, etc.) Even the article itself states, "But the study cannot say for certain that religious devotion early in life causes OCD symptoms. It is equally likely that people with those character traits feel more drawn to a religious lifestyle and devote themselves to God." Therefore, there is no direct correlation between religion and OCD.
Slashdot Mirror
Link
Not true. Capitalism is about self-interest in economic matters. Laissez-faire economics is a type of capitalism and does not call for "hands off" governmental regulation but careful regulation. Therefore, capitalism is not about a lack of centralization, it is about keeping the means of production and distribution in private hands. Ideal communism is about there not being a government to regulate anything because the people giver everything they have to the common good.
Those who create most open source software projects do it not out of altruism, but because they receive something valuable in return, which is often an aspect that is neglected by the average onlooker.If the value they receive is not monetary, then it has no place in an argument involving economic models.
When someone creates a project, they do it out of a desire for certain functionality. They feel, however, that it is more than a fair tradeoff to relinquish much of the central control offered by copyrights in order to attain the far better quality, innovation, and speed at which open source software is developed. (emphasis added).Is this not altruism?
Other beneficial factors involve credit for work and experience.Still not talking about economics here.
Many open source projects are started when somebody wants to learn about a language, a certain type of program, or the hardware it runs opon. Hell, this was Linus' rationale for creating Linux in the first place.Beginnings do not entirely explain the ends. Marx's vision of communism did not include the brutality that was employed under Stalin and Mao, even though their proclaimed desire was to 'liberate' the slaves of capitalism.
I even previewed it! Bring on the innuendos.
Wrong. Cummunism is the result of a cycle beginning with Fuedalism. Then capitalism, socialism and finally communism. At least that is what Marx and Engel wrote in their manifesto. Capitalism is the state of economic affairs where there is two classes (proletariat and bourgeoisie) and the people are detached from the government. Socialism combines the two classes but leaves the government seperated from the people. Ideally, communism would have the state dissapear completely because the people would not need any centralized control (they are obviously happy according to Marx).
For the record, Fascism is when the state controls the means of distribution, socialism is where the state controls the means of production.
In this case Microsoft, the convicted monopolist, is closer to the central state than the any of the GPL hordes. [conspiracy] I even think that the GPL will ensure that, once Microsoft does control everything, the transition from central control to responsible individual control will be forced to occur where it failed in the past. [/conspiracy] Still, this is more anarchism or libertarian than communist as history defines it.Microsoft is the epitome of capitalism turning into socialism. As Microsoft completes its domination of the software market, it will control the means of production. Since the people have no purchasing choice, they are controlled. Open Source is, as the parent poster points out, close to ideal communism. Communism as a model is too flawed for practical use because it is the nature of man to be selfish. Hobbes and Machiavelli trumps Marx and Sir Thomas More every time.
Also, motivation [to] do what you want vs. money earned to do what you hate is far more of an incentive for most.Motivation is important, but motivation to survive is supreme. I would rather code for Microsoft and feed my kids than code for free and enjoy it!
Where is the special "Matrix" icon? The standard movie icon just isn't the same...
No, but my boss does.
Maybe that part was. But maybe John has some other personal reasons he would like to pontificate on. Google would be no help there.
I went the link provided and was able to link to the OpenBSD home page. Like most Unix based OS's the page was remarkably lacking in specifics. It makes claims like, "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!" Great! Sounds secure, but some people think windows is secure... Reading their page on security I get all kinds of unhelpful information like "OpenBSD believes in strong security" and "...we ship the operating system in a Secure by Default mode." Their explanations lack specifics. Sure "All non-essential services are disabled. " and I will have to "enable daemons and other parts of the system" because of this. I guess my question is how do I convince a non-IS person (VP) that OpenBSD is the way to go. Who is using it? Why are they using it? Is there anyone that has had an OpenBSD box cracked and how was it done? Do you see where I am going here?
How exactly does google answer "Why did you personally choose OpenBSD"? As for your other explainations, induldge me. I don't inherently know anything about *BSD except that it is Unix-like. Why is it better for firewall applications? How is it better than Linux? What makes OpenBSD better than free or net?
What prompted you to use OpenBSD as the platform for the Crunch Box? Not intending to start a BSD flame war, I am interested in why you personally chose OpenBSD versus any other BSD or Linux or anything else.
I bought a 19" E440-B three months ago and noticed the lines immediately. Although initially concerned, I have learned to tune it out. I have been told that these are the support wires for the aperture grill. Smaller monitors only have one. It is this grill that provides such a bright, clear display. Is this true?
That was one of the most poignent and insightful post on this topic I have seen in a while. If the government is by the people, then the people have ultimate responsibility for the government. If they don't like it, they are the only ones who have the power to change it! Too bad 'they' just don't get it.
That's fine, but let me try to clarify why I said what I said. Arab governments desire less direct involvment in the affairs of the Middle East. They want to maintain their own power, but cannot without US aid (Egypt, Turkey, etc.) Those countries who are relatively financially secure (i.e. they have oil) don't need our aid, but do need our protection and/or market for their product (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE). This creates a strong sense of common goals (keep the oil flowing and keep the markets available). The problem is not the government, it is the people. The people see the US supporting dictatorial or authoritarian regimes while they suffer. Egypt has rampant unemployment and low wages. Saudi Arabia has had to decrease dramatically its "welfare" program and force the people to actually get jobs; which are scarce outside the oil and service industries. This is where the hypocrisy enters into the equation. We support one repressive regime, but swiftly denounce and forcably remove another. We support the state sponsored terrorism of Israel but cry out against the Palestinian suicide bombers. More on Israel in a minute.
If we were taking a passive or agnostic stance in the region it might make sense that they would be bitter about it, but certainly not to the point of commiting acts of terrorism against us.
If this was the beginning of western involvment in the region, perhaps. Even then however, colonialism was starting us on the road to poor relations by enslaving their economies and creating a social rift between the western educated elite and the common peasant. There is no turning back the clock to assess "what if" so I will refrain from speculation.
Today, there is too great an undercurrent of hatred for anything western in the Middle East, even before the war in Iraq. The people are clamoring for their governments to do something else besides play nice with us. They want desperately to have a democratic government, stop the advances of westernization while at the same time become a set of modernized Islamic nations. That hypocrisy has been the cause of technological stagnation and has furthered the alienation between the west and Islam.
I think the main reason for terrorism against the US is our active support of Isreal, and a close second is that many of the times we have supported Arabs we have left them worse off than they were before.
Those are significant causes, but there is so much more to it than that. Not in any order: Israel, oil (rentier-states), Islamic fundamentalism, post-colonialism, westernization/modernization, past conduct of western nations in the region and Arab nationalism.
So? What's wrong with that? There's no reason international politics needs to be conducted as if it were a pissing contest. How does it serve us to reinforce the world opinion that Americans are nothing but a bunch of swaggering cowboys?
From a moral perspective I agree 100%. However, the leaders of our country are realists and as such view everything in IR in terms of power. They don't care that the people in Jakarta hate the US because of Iraq. All that matters to them is that the interests of the US are secure. If that means pissing on the whole world, then so be it. Personally, I think it is much like kindergardeners in the playground; ultra-demanding and immature.
I think the distinct lack of international support for our current actions in Iraq shows that this is not necessarily true.
On the contrary, those nations are in disagreement with the US, not on what we are doing, but how we are doing it. The French (as much as we love to pick on them) have a very narrow view on how the crisis should have been resolved. They weren't given enough ear time with Bush and got pissed. Again, you have to understand the real reason it went down the way it did. Power and interest is all that matters to these people. The countries that aligned themselves with France did so because of their interests. Simil
BTW, love your sig...
And why exactly are those indigenous people violent? Could it perhaps be because Isreal became a nation by invading their territory and continues to attack and oppress them? Isreal's security issues are a direct result of it's use of military force. I really don't think that's the example you wanted to use.No, that is exactly the example I meant to use. Please see my last journal entry for more information. It is all there.
I would argue that the US has few, if any, security problems beyond what we have created for ourselves with the way we conduct ourselves in the world..I certainly agree that the US has caused a share of its security problems by actions in other countries. However, as Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Most Arabs have greater issues with our lack of intervention that what we already have done. They want us to go into Israel like we are invading Iraq and fix the conflict between Jews and Arabs. They want us to help them remove their economic and political dependence to the west (caused by post-colonialism and the need to modernize). We are the only nation in the world that has the economic, technological and military means to effect good in the lives of all Arabs. They see us as a potential savior and are jaded by our continued lack of support and hypocrisy. This is the cause of terrorism, IMO. I digress.
If we change the way we conduct ourselves in the world, we would be perceived as weak. Other nations expect us to use our power as only a superpower can. Our hegemony is both a boon and a bane as I mentioned above. People expect us also to provide for their needs and fix their problems.
Restricting the freedoms of Americans will not solve those issues, but respecting the sovereignty of other nations, particularly in the Middle East, just might.I agree that respect for other states (especially in the Middle East) is an important diplomatic ideal. However, respect for soveriegnty like all factors in power politics is a catch as catch can game. We didn't respect the sovereignty of Yugoslavia or Somalia or Iraq (in 1991), yet there was clear reason not to. The reason was that it suited our interests. That is always the reason one country invades another (money, moral cause, obligation are all secondary to the interests of a state). Don't be confused into thinking we are in Iraq for anything except national interest. Restricting freedoms of Americans shows terrorists that it is harder to commit acts of terror and is the natural response to terrorism. Unfortunately, there is really no effective way to deal with terrorists (at least none have been sucessful).
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Please explain, or perhaps restate.Sure. If restricting freedoms is the answer to terrorism (as Bush seems to think it is), then that is analogous to resolving the security dilemma (arms race) with trimming the military. They are both attacking the symptoms, not the actual problem.
Our elected officials have unfortunately shown that they understand no solution but violence.Equally as unfortunate is that there is little hope for our current or future elected officials to change because of the nature of international relations and the position of the US in world affairs. I wish it was not so, but I predict the only change that will take place will be increasing challenges to the US hegemony.
As several very wise men have said, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent". I'll give Asimov credit here, but I believe Voltaire, for one, said something very similar.I knew I detected a hint of pacifism in your arguments. Nothing wrong with that...but sometimes violence is necessary, expecially when dealing with the incompetent who know nothing else.
It may have demonstrated this for you, but it has not for me. While the U.S. is certainly not the only free nation in the world, no other country has the same set of liberties.
Having a nice bill of rights doesn't mean squat if they aren't respected.True, but I would argue that the Supreme Court has not sufficiently degraded the rights found therein (or any part of the Constitution) to justify armed revolution. The system may be broken, but it is not beyond repair (yet). I still believe the US is the best in the world, Australia, Germany and Canada included. The US is the only industrialized country that does not exercise socialist economics. We are the only one without nationalized health care for the whole population (only senior citizens on MediCare and poor people on MediCaid). Socialism is government mandated equality of outcome, or in other words an increase of equality at the expense of freedom. By this test, the US is more free than any other (for good or ill I won't opine).
It is valid to say that huge militaries *can* create hugs security needs, but it is not absolute.
The Melians had a huge security need during the Pelopponesian war, but they didn't have a large military. The Spartans didn't buy into their moral high ground argument, so they killed all the men and took all the women and children as slaves.
Israel has huge security concerns and has a large military, but they are not mutually inclusive. Israel has security issues because of a violent indiginous population.
I would argue that the US has a bigger security problem because it is free, than because it has a large military. Freedom of movement, association, speech and immigration all allow terrorism to continue. This is why all of these things have been restricted since 9/11. Does that mean we should continue to restrict freedoms? It is the same solution to trimming the military in order to resolve the security dilemma. I don't pretend to know the answer, but I have elected officials who should and, I trust, do.
Applying this to the current case makes a specious argument. He has not been charged with a crime. Where exists a threat to my inalienable right to life or any other right?
Another such example is the right to free exercise to religion, where sometimes one's right to free exercise is circumscribed by a generally applying law.Correct, a good example of this is the Smith Act as deemed constitutional in Dennis v. US. However, there exists the case of the US District Court v. the United States in which the Court ruled that Judicial warrants were still required despite the need for national security. In the Hawash case, warrants were issued, but the 5th (and 14th) Ammendment was bypassed for reasons of national security. I think the SCOTUS would strike this law down if it had a chance to review it.
I might point out that there has yet to exist a government that does not violate its people's rights when it suits them. The term is called 'soveriegnty', which one of my political science professors likes to call "The legal right to kill its citizens". It is easy to pick on the US because it is the most prosperous, visible and free of any state in the world. And it does suck when it chooses to violate the very freedoms it stands for.
For the record, I agree with the 5th ammendment and think the material witness law is unconstitutional. However, if the will to challenge the law does not exist, it will remain in force, regardless of what the Constitution says.
The Boston Phoenix article is an op-ed on a Brookings report that compares costs of conventional to nuclear weapons. What it does not do is compare how appropriate nuclear weapons are for things like deterrence. How do you deliver 5 MT of TNT to a target in Russia or China within 30 minutes? Can't do it. But you can do it with a 1,000 lb nuclear device. You have to answer the question, "Are nuclear weapons suited for the tasks they are allotted for?" before you can attack their cost.
As for general military expenditures (third link), costs are always greater when you are on the leading edge of technology. All other countries piggy back on the US in terms of military technology.
The quote: "In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States." is out of date and inaccurate. Check with the CBO for up to date and "unbiased" analysis of the 2004 budget.
What freedoms are the military protecting right now if you believe everyone who has something negative to say should just be quiet? Some people just amaze me.I was not implying that you should remain quiet if you have something negative to say. However, if you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, then you should get some facts first. You have not provided facts relevant to your argument.
My point wasn't to stop all military and defense actions. Just to budget it better. I hardly think the $396,100,000,000.00 spent on military (52% of the total budget) is really as nessesary as the government would like you to believe.Maybe it isn't, but that is why the Constitution provides for checks and balances in appropriating funds. If you don't like the way the money is being spent, you have a congressperson and two senators to use as a means to effect change. It is really easy for citizens to sit back and blame the government for misspending funds when voter turnout is sometimes as low as 15% (60% in the last presidential election).
You have almost all of the information at your finger tips.You have access to threat assessments for the Middle East, Asia and Africa? How many NIA's have you read in the past two years? Have you seen any DoD briefings on the deterrence forces in Korea and Japan? SLBM and ICBM force readiness estimates? I don't think you know what information is required to generate the defense budget, but I guess you think the Internet holds all the answers (hint: it doesn't).
And blindly following the administration because "they have access to all the information and I do not" is such a sad thing to hear in this day and age I don't really want to respond to it.I am not blind, but I do know my limitations. We live in a Republic for a reason and that reason is to keep me from having to know everything about every decision that needs to be made every day. I trust enough in the current system that I am still an American Citizen. Otherwise, I would leave.
Only after Bush declared war did some smaller countries hop aboardNot that this has anything to do with the subject, but Bush does not have authority to declare war, only congress. BTW, congress gave its blessing on this little endeavor and that is all it takes to be legal in America.
I never offered a reason for the situation, only that it exists.
How do you know what the US needs to spend on defense? Do you work for the NSC or Pentagon? No? I thought not. Your ignorance is appalling and you best serve society by remaining quiet than by spouting your ill-informed rhetoric.
Power politics and international security systems are complex. It requires the efforts of thousands of talented people to determine force and deterrance levels for the US military. So unless you have managment experience in this organization, you have no business second guessing the needs of the United States' nuclear arsenal.
The reason I brought up those other countries were as proof that a huge military isn't necessary for a successful country.Huge militaries are relative to huge security needs. Norway, Canada and Beligum have relatively little threatening them and very little international interests. The US has huge interests and is the single most threatened nation in the world (in terms of power). Apples and Oranges.
Your damn right its not being handled perfectly. There is room for improvement, so why deny Americans of it?Nothing is ever perfect, but what you are proposing is just as short sighted as the parent post. I don't agree with everything the Bush administration is doing, but I at least realize they have access to all the information and I do not.
You believe everything you read don't you?
"If you think that by threatening me you can get me to do what you want... Well, that's where you're right. But, and I am only saying that because I care , there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."
I am interested to know why you think this war is illegal. There is no international law AFAIK governing relations between countries. There are treaties and organizations, but none that have the ability to enforce laws in another country.
If you are thinking about the U.N., its resolutions have long upheld the legality of this war. Iraq has been in defiance of U.N. resolutions since before 1990 and one of them (661 if memory serves) states that any member nation can use force to disarm Iraq of WMD. So I fail to see the illegality of this war.
Also, don't confuse international solidarity with legality. France, Germany, Russia and China oppose the war because it harms their interests, not because of the inherent evils of war. The U.S., Britain and Spain support the war because it is in their best interests, not because they are warmongers. No matter where you stand on the issue, try to at least understand the real reasons countries go to war without resorting to base and invalid accusations.
I couldn't agree more. There are exceptions, but if you asked anyone living under the poverty line the one thing they wanted most for their kids, they would say, "To give them a better life than mine". They would likely try to get the best smart genes for their kids they can because smarts are generally associated with success and wealth.
I agree. One thing I must point out is that my arguments are not necessarily my beliefs! I certainly oppose any abuse of children regardless of how you define abuse. However, perspective is everything in a civil society. Before fast travel became common, society became whatever it wanted in various parts of the world. Headhunters, cannibalism, polygamy, female circumcision and many other brutal practices were not only performed, but sanctioned by these "mini" societies. My point was not to "twist" anything you said, but merely to show the inherent confusion it is to use society to justify the actions of a society.
I hope you still accept the existence of a police? If not, read up on clan societies before moving to Afghanistan; no fun to live in.The police, fire and other services do serve a purpose and I welcome them. However, governments have historically over reached their authority to intrude on the private affairs of their citizens. Being from the US, I have a slightly different view on governmental influence than someone from Sweden. There are great benefits to living in a more socialist society, but at a great cost to freedom, privacy and independence (IMO). I align myself with Henry D. Thoreau who taught that, "That government which governs least, governs best." In fact, he went so far as to say that the perfect society, in which each person was perfectly virtuous, would need no government because there would be nothing to protect against.
If you check the article, you'll see that it was about a mild mental disease that made people more religious.Sure, but that does not make religion bad, which is what I detected your argument as hinting at.
I argued, with Sweden and USA as examples, that if you don't indoctrinate children into a religion -- they don't become religious. That was behaviour, this is (probably) genetically influenced.Okay, first of all let me see if I understand. You are saying in the first sentence that religon is learned. In the second sentence you claim that it is probably genetically influenced (not learned or partially learned). As for the first, I would wager that there is some powerful evidence supporting that. However, don't confuse natural tendencies with desires. For example, I grew up in a home that was decidedly without religion. My friends did not practice religion and I had little to do with God until I went to college. Only since then have I developed religous feelings, regardless of parental influence. Even today, I stand at odds with my parents on God. It had to do with my personal choices and desires, that preclude anything a parent can do or say. In fact, I would argue that improper (without love or concern) parenting leads to moral (religous or societal) decay faster than any single other factor.
So we have a mental problem that tend to make people more religious. You're religious and the doctor says that your child will get that problem. Will you ask the disease to be fixed?That depends on if I consider it a problem. The New Scientist article you pointed to was talking about OCD. Other studies have also pointed to causes of OCD and are more general, stating that OCD comes from many sources (head injuries, upbringing, trauma, etc.) Even the article itself states, "But the study cannot say for certain that religious devotion early in life causes OCD symptoms. It is equally likely that people with those character traits feel more drawn to a religious lifestyle and devote themselves to God." Therefore, there is no direct correlation between religion and OCD.