I hear the DoCoMos will give you a command line that can be activated by voice. So when you call your friend you can really mess with their heads by saying "arr emmm arrr efff star"
Your definition of terrorism includes just about any act of war or resistance. For me, "terrorism" is more accurately used to describe acts that specifically target innocents for political reasons. By your definition I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Jewish resistance to Rome is "terrorism" whereas Rome's attacks on Jews are not terrorism. I'm also not sure how 9-11 was terrorism whereas the campaign in Iraq or Afghanistan - which also killed innocents, directly and indirectly - are not. For me something must specifically target innocents and use the destruction of innocents for political purposes to be considered "terrorism."
As for your notion of surrender, I am all for decreasing US military engagement in the Middle East. But the rest is totally impractical, not to mention a horrible assault on liberties. The only way that could work is if there were no interdependent global economy, if all Americans were one race and had absolutely no relatives or friends or business associates in any other country including Canada and Mexico. Doing this requires more than a "paradigm shift", but even that isn;t going to happen, given the economic problems that would result. It's not even desirable in any way -- the only advantage you cite for this is that it will make bin Laden happy. Fuck that! I think we can decrease US involvement there and make the US less hated among the Arab masses without just appeasing bin Laden.
I think we should kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. In fact I think we should have done that September 12th. But I also think we should decrease US military involvement in the Middle East and allow the people there to have more control over their own affairs.
there's no difference between Jewish resistance in 70 A.D. and Arabic resistance to the Israeli/American Empire now
If that were the case, then you're on the wrong side. What do you really consider terrorism? Resistance to empire? In that case the term has no meaning.
you've failed to notice that what I'm REALLY advocating is the armed isolationist surrender of St. Augustine rather than the genocide of General Titus- because after all, it's much easier to get a new economy than it is to get a new religion.
So your solution is surrender. OK, but count me out. (Who are you planning to surrender to, anyway? bin Laden?)
You didn't even address his character assassination by the Bushistas after his testimony to the 911 Commission. Your comment that he thought "cyberterrorism" was a bigger threat than bin Laden just shows how uninformed you are. Clarke publicly admitted being partially to blame for 911, but his book makes very clear that if anything, people thought he took the OBL threat too seriously prior to 911. And of course the biggest problem is that the Bush Admin stopped listening to him entirely until 911. "Cyberterrorism" was a subset of his concerns, but for him, al Qaeda was the biggest threat America faced since the Cold War, and he made that eminently clear.
and I've pointed it out before. Define "terrorism" in this context. How you can hold up Titus' genocide against the Jews -- he ordered the complete destruction of Judea -- as an example of stopping terrorism is beyond me. It was an attempt to steal gold and, of course, put down Jewish resistance to the Roman empire. Perhaps the morons modding this crap up every time you post it would stop to think if they knew you were advocating genocide based on an example of the near extermination of Jews that was actually an influence on Hitler's strategy of annihilation during WWII.
Officially, we don't worry about China's human rights record -- the U.S. has no problem doing business with them without pressuring them to change the way they treat people. All I did was criticize China -- I never said the U.S. was immune to this sort of criticism, although I do think that even given all the problems you cite (and many others), the U.S. is still far better off, human-rights-wise, than China. Yeah, we have more people in prison than China, but they aren't tortured quite as routinely and they (usually) aren't put there for speaking out against the government. I'm the last to whitewash America's crimes, but don't even try to convince me that it is as bad for political rights in the U.S. as it is in the P.R.C.
No mention that there is possiblities that in the inner cities some democrats voted more than once.
Coz this would never happen in the suburbs.
We need a stronger system to insure each U.S. Citizens gets one, and only one vote. Although, any attempt to do so will be met with accusations of racism voter suppresion, etc.
Only if it is obvious that your goal is to go to inner cities and scare people away from voting machines. What's more important? counting every vote? Or scaring people because you're afraid they might vote twice? Why are you afraid this is more likely in the inner city? I think your sig holds the answers. It sounds to me like you're more interested in disallowing certain groups from voting once.
What does this have to do with trickle down? This guy is a defense contractor working on a JD. He's interested in trickle up, not down, and for folks in that kind of an income bracket, Bush's policies have been a great success.
What I don't get is why people who are so certain that there were no irregularities are opposed to independent verification of the election. If you're right and these machines don't have any problems at all, what could be so wrong with verifying their results? It would shut up most of the whiners and it would give further legitimacy to the winners. And, most importantly, it will help restore some faith in the system.
You're right that you don't need tax breaks to make companies outsource, but so what? The point is the American government shouldn't reward companies for doing that. Why should US taxpayers pay money to lose their jobs? This is corporate welfare, and I think being against such tax breaks does not mean you have to be against globalization or outsourcing per se.
China is reducing its CO2 emissions already. The US accounts for 25% of greenhouse emissions; its output dwarfs that of India and China put together. The US has 5% of the world's population. People whining about the "fairness" of the protocol are ignoring the unfairness in the US polluting the planet at far greater rates than nonindustrialized countries. Read the following from the Centre for Science and the Environment:
The total carbon dioxide emissions from one US citizen in 1996 were 19 times the emissions of one Indian. US emissions in total are still more than double those from China. At a time when a large part of India's population does not even have access to electricity, Bush would like this country to stem its 'survival emissions', so that industrialised countries like the US can continue to have high 'luxury emissions'. This amounts to demanding a freeze on global inequity, where rich countries stay rich, and poor countries stay poor, since carbon dioxide emissions are closely linked to GDP growth.
Personally I would like to see China and India held to tough emission standards too, but the Kyoto protocol is a good place to start, and it's telling that just about every other country in the world is willing to deal with the "unfairness" of the treaty.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even rebranded. It literally is the Apple iPod, brought to you by HP. It's called "Apple iPod + HP."
I hear the DoCoMos will give you a command line that can be activated by voice. So when you call your friend you can really mess with their heads by saying "arr emmm arrr efff star"
As for your notion of surrender, I am all for decreasing US military engagement in the Middle East. But the rest is totally impractical, not to mention a horrible assault on liberties. The only way that could work is if there were no interdependent global economy, if all Americans were one race and had absolutely no relatives or friends or business associates in any other country including Canada and Mexico. Doing this requires more than a "paradigm shift", but even that isn;t going to happen, given the economic problems that would result. It's not even desirable in any way -- the only advantage you cite for this is that it will make bin Laden happy. Fuck that! I think we can decrease US involvement there and make the US less hated among the Arab masses without just appeasing bin Laden.
I think we should kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. In fact I think we should have done that September 12th. But I also think we should decrease US military involvement in the Middle East and allow the people there to have more control over their own affairs.
Maybe it's me but I found Evil Dead 1 to be 100% comedy, 0% horror. No doubt that was unintentional though.
If that were the case, then you're on the wrong side. What do you really consider terrorism? Resistance to empire? In that case the term has no meaning.
you've failed to notice that what I'm REALLY advocating is the armed isolationist surrender of St. Augustine rather than the genocide of General Titus- because after all, it's much easier to get a new economy than it is to get a new religion.
So your solution is surrender. OK, but count me out. (Who are you planning to surrender to, anyway? bin Laden?)
Australopithecus was created by God. Intelligent design at work. Humans are actually an evolutionary step backwards.
And mod grandparent down. He presents no evidence of any "questions of credibility and outright partisanship."
You didn't even address his character assassination by the Bushistas after his testimony to the 911 Commission. Your comment that he thought "cyberterrorism" was a bigger threat than bin Laden just shows how uninformed you are. Clarke publicly admitted being partially to blame for 911, but his book makes very clear that if anything, people thought he took the OBL threat too seriously prior to 911. And of course the biggest problem is that the Bush Admin stopped listening to him entirely until 911. "Cyberterrorism" was a subset of his concerns, but for him, al Qaeda was the biggest threat America faced since the Cold War, and he made that eminently clear.
and I've pointed it out before. Define "terrorism" in this context. How you can hold up Titus' genocide against the Jews -- he ordered the complete destruction of Judea -- as an example of stopping terrorism is beyond me. It was an attempt to steal gold and, of course, put down Jewish resistance to the Roman empire. Perhaps the morons modding this crap up every time you post it would stop to think if they knew you were advocating genocide based on an example of the near extermination of Jews that was actually an influence on Hitler's strategy of annihilation during WWII.
Officially, we don't worry about China's human rights record -- the U.S. has no problem doing business with them without pressuring them to change the way they treat people. All I did was criticize China -- I never said the U.S. was immune to this sort of criticism, although I do think that even given all the problems you cite (and many others), the U.S. is still far better off, human-rights-wise, than China. Yeah, we have more people in prison than China, but they aren't tortured quite as routinely and they (usually) aren't put there for speaking out against the government. I'm the last to whitewash America's crimes, but don't even try to convince me that it is as bad for political rights in the U.S. as it is in the P.R.C.
I don't know about that. They're ahead of just about everyone in human rights violations, internet censorship, and repression of religious groups.
if you happen to live in Taiwan.
Coz this would never happen in the suburbs.
We need a stronger system to insure each U.S. Citizens gets one, and only one vote. Although, any attempt to do so will be met with accusations of racism voter suppresion, etc.
Only if it is obvious that your goal is to go to inner cities and scare people away from voting machines. What's more important? counting every vote? Or scaring people because you're afraid they might vote twice? Why are you afraid this is more likely in the inner city? I think your sig holds the answers. It sounds to me like you're more interested in disallowing certain groups from voting once.
the reason SETI has no chance of finding anything is there aren't any aliens!
now that we've solved our problems with crime and security, we really don't need the court system, do we?
What a disappointment. For a minute they looked like frickin' lasers.
That was a close one... I was starting to worry that Apple might be dying again.
Nah -- it's a little thing called "tenure."
What does this have to do with trickle down? This guy is a defense contractor working on a JD. He's interested in trickle up, not down, and for folks in that kind of an income bracket, Bush's policies have been a great success.
I think it's inappropriate to refute his post with such floccinaucinihilipilification.
If he was doing an intern anywhere, don't you think he would have written in Bill Clinton?
What I don't get is why people who are so certain that there were no irregularities are opposed to independent verification of the election. If you're right and these machines don't have any problems at all, what could be so wrong with verifying their results? It would shut up most of the whiners and it would give further legitimacy to the winners. And, most importantly, it will help restore some faith in the system.
You're right that you don't need tax breaks to make companies outsource, but so what? The point is the American government shouldn't reward companies for doing that. Why should US taxpayers pay money to lose their jobs? This is corporate welfare, and I think being against such tax breaks does not mean you have to be against globalization or outsourcing per se.
But that was in the before time, in the long long ago, so I guess it's not relevant to anything he says today.