I don't disagree with the idea that Americans in general are responsible. America, including the American people engaged in the crime of aggression. It is a big deal.
Osama was right on some things. He was a serious politician with serious ideas. He was silly on some ideas, but I don't dismiss him casually.
I agree with what you wrote above. But that's support:
They support the war because it will be over in less than a year They support the war because they support the president They support the war because they are indifferent They support the war because they agreed with the arguments put forward for it (the propaganda).
That's how all issues get supported in a democracy. BTW WWII when it was going on there was some opposition as well. For example the Mothers' Movement which was a right wing (isolationist wing of the Republican party) that opposed the war all during the buildup and well into 1944. People just tend to downplay how large the anti-war and pro-Nazi movement was once the holocaust came to light.
You are kinda repeating yourself. You are trying to have it both ways here.
On the one hand you are trying to argue that life in prison for the guilty is roughly equivalent to the death penalty and thus there isn't much gained by execution. On the other hand you are trying to argue that life in prison for the innocent is wholly different to the death penalty and thus the death penalty can't be used for fear of this additional moral force.
I also disagree we are supposedly a rational society. This isn't the enlightenment where we hold to reason in other areas of policy. I'd say our state policy making is often emotionalism and symbolism run rampant. We are deeply aware of psychology and sociology and how little reason does in fact influence our actions. For example: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Everyone-Else-Hypocrite-Evolution/dp/0691154392 . And ultimately you can't really appeal to reason and then make a purely emotional case that the death penalty is bad because these particular deaths are so much worse than others on emotional grounds.
Whatever justice system we construct will inflict massive injustices on some individuals. The death penalty because it is subject to higher scrutiny substantially reduces those injustices. More innocent people are set free. If the goal is to not punish the innocent then you would want every felony carrying a 20 year sentence of so to be converted to a death penalty case.
Look at the data in this thread. This support continued well into years 2, and 3. It lasted a long time as the evidence came out. It really wasn't until 2006 until you had even a slim stable majority that believed the Iraq war to be a mistake. The highest it ever got was a touch over 60%, and support for the war has grown by almost 10% during Obama's tenure. I'm assuming from moderates and conservatives that don't like Obama but didn't like the war at the time.
We now as a country have unequivocal evidence that Bush falsified the information for war. We have unequivocal evidence that the people who came out against him were intimidated and smeared falsely. There is still little reaction to it. There has been no serious call for example to hand them all over to the hague for war crimes trials. The American people supported the war, they supported the war even knowing their were no weapons of mass destruction, they supported the war even knowing that it would be a hard slog. They only stopped supporting the war when there was no end in sight and then just barely.
I don't really follow the disgust. Assume there is a.5% error rate, that is someone executed who genuinely doesn't deserve a severe penalty. Assume that because of the extra checks that's much better than the 3% error rate for life imprisonment.
Even if I grant that 20% of the 3% get caught, how is the 2.5% better than the.5%? And why isn't the 2.5% equally disgusting. I don't see how the death penalty does anything other than reduce mistakes.
Well I think the number should be much higher than 40 per year. It isn't a cost thing. And it isn't a deterrent thing. Far more criminals are killed by other criminals than the state will ever kill.
What it is I think is a symbolism thing. It is the society reasserting moral authority in a very powerful way. To pick an example: finding Saddam Hussein in a hole, digging him out, having him stand before his victims now helpless in court and then wrapping a rope around his neck asserted to the Iraqis, especially the Sunni and Kurds that their country was their country not a Sunni colony. It was a moment of human freedom.
Andrew Reid Lackey I think is the latest killing. He mutilated the body of a juvenile he just murdered. That's what got him executed rather than life. Lackey came to repentance and wanted the execution he understood the symbolism that through his death he does the most he can to redeem himself for his acts.
Governments make mistakes that kill people all the time. Obviously there are war type actions. But for example not knowing the effects of various pollutants they decide it is safe and and it isn't: an extra 1 in 100k chance of death per year x 300m people x 20 years = 60k extra deaths.
I'm not sure he knowingly fabricated the reasons. I think he knowingly biased the evidence to support his reasons. That's still fraud. So the "Bush lied" meme is well deserved.
But... the claim originally was the poor innocent American public didn't support the war and rogue George Bush did this by himself. And that's BS.. Even as the evidence of the lies came forward the public support for the war remained rather strong. Knowing about the deceptions did not drastically change people's opinions.
Where support was in the hypothetical is different then where it was after we didn't get UN support. The administration won the debate regarding the UN and support rose. You can't assume minds are fixed. There was support for the war before the UN ruled, though people wanted UN support. Once the actual UN process occurred people sided with Bush vs. the French and Russians and decided they didn't like the UN process and didn't weigh it as heavily as they thought they would.
I imagine lots of things about George Washington would have been disqualifiers if you knew him. You are asking for the impossible. People have to run for office, which means they have to want the office. That's our system. There are one of 3 reasons they want the office:
for love of power to get experience for other office for money i.e. they intend to help their friends via. the public trust
There are no angels that are going to run for office. Politics is about humans ruling humans.
I think there would be more mistakes obviously and less appeals. It would just be like most of our justice system we try to do a pretty good job and then live with what happened.
I think you have unrealistic expectations for a government. As Joe Biden likes to say, "don't compare me to the all-mighty, compare me to the alternative".
Bush had congressional approval and public approval for starting the war in Iraq. We may not like his actions but they were not a secret conspiracy. The fault lies with the American people not just Bush. Continuing the war after 2005 you might have a much better case.
The trend is moving in that direction due to the drop off in crime: http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/01/1-6-12-1.png . Mainly though the "civilized world" is just a euphemism for Europe. China is certainly civilized. Europe and the USA doesn't agree with Europe about lots of internal policy.
We don't know that. If execution became semi-routine the long appeals process associated with the small number of death penalties might dry up. The cost of execution is high because USA legal costs are so high.
I didn't say perfect I said, terrific or if you want excellent. The Mormon order was an unfortunate incident involving a group that had been involved in multiple violent confrontations having to do with land. It could have and should have been handled better. It is very bad policy and Missouri has apologized for it. But it wasn't pure religious discrimination it was an overreaction to a criminal organization of a religious character. The Mormon discrimination a few decades later having to do with polygamy is a far better example of pure religious discrimination.
That being said, I'll stand by what I said. Every country has problems in its history. But the ones in the USA, like that are very rare.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with the idea that Americans in general are responsible. America, including the American people engaged in the crime of aggression. It is a big deal.
Osama was right on some things. He was a serious politician with serious ideas. He was silly on some ideas, but I don't dismiss him casually.
I agree with what you wrote above. But that's support:
They support the war because it will be over in less than a year
They support the war because they support the president
They support the war because they are indifferent
They support the war because they agreed with the arguments put forward for it (the propaganda).
That's how all issues get supported in a democracy. BTW WWII when it was going on there was some opposition as well. For example the Mothers' Movement which was a right wing (isolationist wing of the Republican party) that opposed the war all during the buildup and well into 1944. People just tend to downplay how large the anti-war and pro-Nazi movement was once the holocaust came to light.
You are kinda repeating yourself. You are trying to have it both ways here.
On the one hand you are trying to argue that life in prison for the guilty is roughly equivalent to the death penalty and thus there isn't much gained by execution.
On the other hand you are trying to argue that life in prison for the innocent is wholly different to the death penalty and thus the death penalty can't be used for fear of this additional moral force.
I also disagree we are supposedly a rational society. This isn't the enlightenment where we hold to reason in other areas of policy. I'd say our state policy making is often emotionalism and symbolism run rampant. We are deeply aware of psychology and sociology and how little reason does in fact influence our actions. For example: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Everyone-Else-Hypocrite-Evolution/dp/0691154392 . And ultimately you can't really appeal to reason and then make a purely emotional case that the death penalty is bad because these particular deaths are so much worse than others on emotional grounds.
Whatever justice system we construct will inflict massive injustices on some individuals. The death penalty because it is subject to higher scrutiny substantially reduces those injustices. More innocent people are set free. If the goal is to not punish the innocent then you would want every felony carrying a 20 year sentence of so to be converted to a death penalty case.
Look at the data in this thread. This support continued well into years 2, and 3. It lasted a long time as the evidence came out. It really wasn't until 2006 until you had even a slim stable majority that believed the Iraq war to be a mistake. The highest it ever got was a touch over 60%, and support for the war has grown by almost 10% during Obama's tenure. I'm assuming from moderates and conservatives that don't like Obama but didn't like the war at the time.
We now as a country have unequivocal evidence that Bush falsified the information for war. We have unequivocal evidence that the people who came out against him were intimidated and smeared falsely. There is still little reaction to it. There has been no serious call for example to hand them all over to the hague for war crimes trials. The American people supported the war, they supported the war even knowing their were no weapons of mass destruction, they supported the war even knowing that it would be a hard slog. They only stopped supporting the war when there was no end in sight and then just barely.
I don't really follow the disgust. Assume there is a .5% error rate, that is someone executed who genuinely doesn't deserve a severe penalty. Assume that because of the extra checks that's much better than the 3% error rate for life imprisonment.
Even if I grant that 20% of the 3% get caught, how is the 2.5% better than the .5%? And why isn't the 2.5% equally disgusting. I don't see how the death penalty does anything other than reduce mistakes.
Well I think the number should be much higher than 40 per year. It isn't a cost thing. And it isn't a deterrent thing. Far more criminals are killed by other criminals than the state will ever kill.
What it is I think is a symbolism thing. It is the society reasserting moral authority in a very powerful way. To pick an example: finding Saddam Hussein in a hole, digging him out, having him stand before his victims now helpless in court and then wrapping a rope around his neck asserted to the Iraqis, especially the Sunni and Kurds that their country was their country not a Sunni colony. It was a moment of human freedom.
Andrew Reid Lackey I think is the latest killing. He mutilated the body of a juvenile he just murdered. That's what got him executed rather than life. Lackey came to repentance and wanted the execution he understood the symbolism that through his death he does the most he can to redeem himself for his acts.
Governments make mistakes that kill people all the time. Obviously there are war type actions. But for example not knowing the effects of various pollutants they decide it is safe and and it isn't: an extra 1 in 100k chance of death per year x 300m people x 20 years = 60k extra deaths.
You do the best you can. There is no alternative.
I'm not sure he knowingly fabricated the reasons. I think he knowingly biased the evidence to support his reasons. That's still fraud. So the "Bush lied" meme is well deserved.
But... the claim originally was the poor innocent American public didn't support the war and rogue George Bush did this by himself. And that's BS.. Even as the evidence of the lies came forward the public support for the war remained rather strong. Knowing about the deceptions did not drastically change people's opinions.
You can deploy OSX server to "the cloud" if you want. For example: http://xcloud.me/
Where support was in the hypothetical is different then where it was after we didn't get UN support. The administration won the debate regarding the UN and support rose. You can't assume minds are fixed. There was support for the war before the UN ruled, though people wanted UN support. Once the actual UN process occurred people sided with Bush vs. the French and Russians and decided they didn't like the UN process and didn't weigh it as heavily as they thought they would.
Exactly.
I imagine lots of things about George Washington would have been disqualifiers if you knew him. You are asking for the impossible. People have to run for office, which means they have to want the office. That's our system. There are one of 3 reasons they want the office:
for love of power
to get experience for other office
for money i.e. they intend to help their friends via. the public trust
There are no angels that are going to run for office. Politics is about humans ruling humans.
Apple does offer syncing for small businesses: http://www.apple.com/osx/server/
Not only that they offer an almost no setup hardware bundle: http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/server/
10.6 -> 10.7 was much worse. Get used to it Apple is picking up the pace for developers not slowing it down.
Holding people to unrealistic expectations makes them stop trying.
May 2003 Gallop 79%
Here is a timeline which shows how high it was and how high it stayed: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uayr5i28vkcki2wjl04pxa.gif
I think there would be more mistakes obviously and less appeals. It would just be like most of our justice system we try to do a pretty good job and then live with what happened.
I think you have unrealistic expectations for a government. As Joe Biden likes to say, "don't compare me to the all-mighty, compare me to the alternative".
So what? He had well over majority approval. Well over majority approval means the congress acted in the public interest as defined by the public.
Bush had congressional approval and public approval for starting the war in Iraq. We may not like his actions but they were not a secret conspiracy. The fault lies with the American people not just Bush. Continuing the war after 2005 you might have a much better case.
The trend is moving in that direction due to the drop off in crime: http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/01/1-6-12-1.png . Mainly though the "civilized world" is just a euphemism for Europe. China is certainly civilized. Europe and the USA doesn't agree with Europe about lots of internal policy.
Just to add to your excellent comment. What causes discomfort in holding your breath is the buildup of C02 not the lack of O2.
We don't know that. If execution became semi-routine the long appeals process associated with the small number of death penalties might dry up. The cost of execution is high because USA legal costs are so high.
I didn't say perfect I said, terrific or if you want excellent. The Mormon order was an unfortunate incident involving a group that had been involved in multiple violent confrontations having to do with land. It could have and should have been handled better. It is very bad policy and Missouri has apologized for it. But it wasn't pure religious discrimination it was an overreaction to a criminal organization of a religious character. The Mormon discrimination a few decades later having to do with polygamy is a far better example of pure religious discrimination.
That being said, I'll stand by what I said. Every country has problems in its history. But the ones in the USA, like that are very rare.
Pity the most heavily used environment isn't open source. If only something like Android existed.
Unless you define desktop ever more narrowly open source is finally doing fine in that space.