To paraphrase an American military hero, Nevada has not yet begun to fight.
First the USDOE's ruling must be agreed to by President Bush. Depending on whether or not Karl Rove thinks it is wise to alienate a state that voted for Bush in 2000, the decision may get reversed here.
If Bush concurs with Abraham then Nevada itself can veto the selection of Yucca Mountain. However, Congress can override this, and it was Congress that suggested Yucca Mountain in the first place.
If Bush agrees and Congress agrees with Abraham, Yucca Mountain still isn't a go, because the state of Nevada and the city of Las Vegas have vowed to sue the US over the planned repository.
If the lawsuits fail, Nevada will still fight it by trying to block the actual waste shipments themselves. The city of Las Vegas will pull over and arrest any trucker hauling waste to Yucca Mountain. Nevada politicians and citizens have promised to block the rail lines leading to Yucca Mountain.
In the end the feds may be able to overcome all this, but it promises to be a VERY long and drawn out fight.
Why rely on M$ and all it's back doors and glaring omissions when you can have your own stuff built to your specifications? I'm a bit surprised it's taken them this long to get here...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Get this straight. I wish to make your job as difficult as possible. I wish to make the telemarketer's job as difficult as possible. I wish to make the spammer's job as difficult as possible. Eventually, no one will take these jobs, and the world will be the better for it. These tactics are not the most effective tool, but it is the only way in which I can get you all to leave me alone.
Again, this is a useless tactic. One, most of the people who actually see these complaints and open that mail are on your side and agree with you that you oughtn't get so much mail. And there's not much I can do about it. I don't send the mail. All we do is deal with what is returned to us. So if you waste your time and money and effort devising new tactics to get back at the junk mailers, it will simply fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. Sure, we might get a kick out of it, but that's about all.
There should be a government maintained opt-out list, but even then that won't solve the problem. Only when people stop replying to or even paying attention to junk mail, only when people make junk mail uneconomical (and you won't achieve that by making my job harder, I'll just quit and they'll hire another bozo) will it cease. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
My current job involves handling mailings and donations for a non-profit organization in San Francisco, CA. We send out lots of direct mail (too much, IMO), and we get lots of people sending it back angrily and even some of them use tactics described in this article.
While it is annoying for us to have to deal with that, the powers that be 'round here still send out the same volume of mail - no, they've actually INCREASED the volume of mail - as before. We who actually open the mail and read the complaints feel your pain, but there isn't much we can do except put them in a file and try in vain to convince the people in charge that their mail campaign is a disastrous failure.
So long as it is economically viable for the junk mailers to send out the stuff, so long as they're at least getting something out of it, then they will continue to do so. And the sheer amount of mail, through the USPS or through your e-mail, is a testament to the basic fact that such mailings are, against all sense, effective.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with all of that. If those government monopolies work, if people are provided for and are free and are living contented lives, then there isn't anything wrong with them.
And, if I hear one more complaint about taxes, I'll have to kick you. Lord. Do you people think everything in this world is free? That you can have a good government without having to pay for it?
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> Can't tell them where to travel? Huh? Since when does America stop anyone from traveling anywhere?
Americans for 40 years were not allowed to travel to Cuba. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> Corporations can in no way take away your freedom.
I'll assume you've never worked for a corporation before. You require a bit of enlightening, my dear.
Corporations can and often do take away your freedom, as well as your privacy. You have zero freedom of speech at work. You can criticize the government all you want and call Bill Clinton a rapist (as many right-wingers do) and suffer no consequences. Now if you criticized your corporation and called your CEO a rapist, you'd be out on your ass real fast.
Corporations routinely monitor employee's e-mail as well as their web browsing. Even though our government does this too, they have to do it covertly, because if it were openly acknowledged, people would have a fit.
Corporations take away your rights to breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water. That right might not be constitutional, but it's an equally important one, I think.
Corporations do not allow employees the freedom of assembly. If you try to organize a union or go out on strike, then you are subject to be fired. Same thing if you blow the whistle on illegal activities. Our labor laws have no teeth.
People too often think corporations have less power and influence than the government. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong that assumption is.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> and happiness is a warm gun. As we all know.
Yes. And look where that feeling got John Lennon. I'm sure five shots to the back were real happy and warm. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
OK, this is a brilliant example of what is wrong with Americans. (BTW, I am an American myself, yet I strangely feel that ignorance is a bad thing. I must be an exception).
The concept of human rights and universal declarations of such and even the UN were AMERICAN ideas. It was US who thought of this stuff and who pushed it in 1918, long before it was popular to do so. In the 1940s we also pushed the UN and were a major force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You ought to read "One World", written in 1943 by Wendell Willkie, presidential candidate in 1940.
Can one set of laws cover Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas? That depends on what you mean. Certainly there are some universal standards that work for all of us. Don't make too much of cultural differences, Americans tend to overestimate these are we are very unfamiliar with them. Cultures really aren't all that different, and I think it's fair to say that humans want similar things out of life. It should not be difficult to craft a set of laws reflecting that.
You say that it is arrogant and paternalistic to assume all people should hold the same set of values and beliefs. Again, I think an exception should be made for very basic things, laid out in that Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The author of the original post never said anything about people sharing the same language or culture or government. And even if we did share all that, that doesn't necessarily mean at all that some demagogue would take power.
Remember, Hitler took power in one of the most modern and most culturally and intellectually advanced countries in the world. If it could happen to Germany, it could happen to anybody.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
An interesting program idea. However, I don't think private enterprise is the way to go for space exploration and colonization, for two main reasons.
One: Unreliability. Private enterprises can and often do fail. In contrast, government construction efforts cannot fail. That's why you don't see private enterprise building bridges or giant dams- you simply can't quit if your funding runs out, or you go bankrupt. Travelling in space is, I think, something that cannot be allowed to fail, and therefore, it should be managed and funded by the government.
Two: Undesirability. When I browsed your website I was reminded of the previous era of exploration, beginning in the 15th century. Companies like the East India Company (both Dutch and English) left a horrible record of abuse in Indonesia and India. On a more practical level, look at Sir Walter Raleigh's failed Roanoke Island colony. At the same time, government-sponsored explorations generally met with much more success, while at the same time creating room for private enterprise.
Just a few things to think about.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I'm not surprised that someone finally posted something like this...wondering about leaving America. The thought of leaving my homeland has been in my mind for the last few months, as I see more of the screwed up American system and the dark future that lies ahead.
Why leave? Well, for one, our rights are being frittered away. At work, the Consitutional rights we have to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not recognized. We are not free at our jobs and are serfs to our bosses. We have no control over ourselves at work, which I think leads to the high levels of depression the nation is experiencing, as well as workplace shootings. The worst thing is that since we are so wedded to our free-market ideals and since many of us still love business, then this isn't going to change. Capitalism is like an abusive husband - it may treat you really well at times, but you just know that you'll get smacked around again before long, and one day, it just might kill you.
As we lose power over ourselves at work, we are also losing political power. The democratic rights that we fought very hard over 350 years to gain we are now pissing away through ignorance and complacency. America isn't perfect, and while problems will never go away, that shouldn't mean we ignore them. Corporations rule our country, and that means that neither you nor I nor any associations we form will have any sway over our government.
How do we fix this? The answer, ideally, would be through democratic action, through organization and political action. Instead, I see this country creeping towards fascism. Notice all the posts here from people extolling the Second Amendment the the way to guarantee our rights and freedoms. That's a very telling thing. It used to be that we had some sense of civic virtue, of public good, that would carry us through. We thought that we could take to the streets or use our vote to fix things. Perhaps that was a bit naive, but it did bring many successes in the 1950s and 1960s, to name one period of many. Now, we are turning to violence, or at least the thought of it. That is not a good sign.
I say fascist not just because of the love of violence, but the rabid anti-leftist attitudes many in America hold today. I often wonder if I am the only person in America today who is not ashamed to call himself a liberal. It is one thing to disagree with liberal ideas, it is quite another to blame the demise of the nation on them, the way that has been done lately. You also have a large group of white males (though by no means all) who are very threatened by America's diversity. These people will not react well when they are in the minority. I also have a feeling that once America sinks deeper into decline, that these people will become increasingly vocal and try to turn the clock back in a number of ways. Remember, that is the circumstance that brought Hitler and Mussolini to power, as well as Thatcher (who though not a fascist, did have some overtones of that sort).
So, should I leave America? I am reluctant to just give up, but I also don't want to stick around when things get ugly. Where do I go? Australia? Canada? The UK? Europe? I hear Ireland's great. But they all have their own issues.
I think that, within 200 years, we will see the triumph of older traditions over those we see in America today. I believe that in places like Europe, or China, or India, among others, there is a deeper sense of history, none of this silly "invent society as we go" business we see here. At the same time, America is the modern Roman Empire, and though the political USA will eventually die, cultural and ideological things that are American will live on, just as many Roman things survive today. But the death of that political USA, like the death of both Roman Empires, will not be pretty.
In the meanwhile, I think this century will see an American Diaspora. Many Americans will leave the country for greener pastures, getting out of the worsening situation here. They will go to places with old traditions, and will be shaped by them, but will also bring along their American ways and ideas. It will be an interesting mixture.
Where, again, to go? The most ideal place is to the stars. But I don't think mankind is headed out that way for a long, long time. Space exploration is a dying thing, which is sad, but it cannot last when we as a people place profit and instant gratification above our higher ideals and ambitions.
Most of you who read this will probably think that I am wrong. I am certain that I am not and that, like Winston Churchill's deeply unpopular criticisms of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the course of future events will prove me right. I wish I would be proven wrong. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
What happened was a power grab by corporate-controlled Congress, which took away the FCC's regulatory powers over low power radio. It might just be a first step in Congress taking over total regulatory control over the airwaves from the FCC, or at the least, making the FCC bend to becoming more corporate friendly.
Something else happened along with the emasculation of low-power radio: Congress gutted a 1996 FCC rule that gave candidates free airtime on NPR. Stations are now under no obligation to do this. Score one more for the corporate establishment!
The current FCC chairman did his best to offset corporate control over the airwaves. He seems to be one of the few in government who wants to protect public ownership of the airwaves. This is a sad day, boys and girls.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I am fully aware of SF's multiple streetcar lines. But my point is that the system used to be much more extensive and carry a lot more commuters. Of course, the original article is itself rather flawed, not mentioning BART, the electric workhorse of the Bay Area these days.
Noe Valley friends? I'm proud to say I don't know a goddamned person from that place. You think I'm some newcomer dotcommie? Hah. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I'm simply going off what my memory tells me from my history class at Berkeley a year or two back. I recall having read something from the '43 senate hearings as well. Not only did they buy (through a subsidiary company, National City Lines) the Bay Area's Key System and LA's Pacific Electric, but they also bought Philly's streetcars and shut them down. I believe it was this one that spurred the Senate action in 1943. More information about this can be found at this link.
Yes, SF has some of these older cars running along Market Street and the Embarcadero. I see them every few minutes from my window here. But that's not quite the same as going all over the city.
And the poster who pointed out that all this is US-centric...well of course it is. To most Americans, the idea that there's a world outside of our own country is one that is easily forgotten, if ever learned. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
The writer of the article seems to call the notion that GM bought out streetcar lines across the country and ran them into the ground so that their buses would have to be used a "corporate conspiracy theory". Well, it's not a theory, it's hard fact. The US Senate held several hearings on this in 1943 and would have taken action to stop GM, but they were inclined to leave GM alone as the company was doing so much for the war effort, going on at the time. So all streetcars, not just electric ones, went the way of the horse and buggy...until recent years.
And yes, BETA should have definitely been on the list.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Paul Johnson has a point, mainly that technology was indispensible to the Renaissance. But neither he nor Katz should overstate its role in what was primarily and intellectual movement. The main driving factors behind the Renaissance were a rediscovery of the virtues classical (Greek and Roman) literature and architecture, which combined with a rising Italian elite that looked for an aesthetic other than Gothic medievalism to wrap themselves in. Also central to the Renaissance was a lessening of the role of religion in thought and a rise in secularism, focusing on the individual being and how it is that unit, not God, that drives a person's destiny.
Tech then, as now, serves as a tool for a pre-existing movement, not as its catalyst. And there will be no Renaissance today without a corresponding intellectual movement that can use tech. I highly doubt that tech itself will spawn anything, not on its own.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Exactly. Microsoft *is* doomed. The car-company analogy is a very good one, and as the Big Three found themselves in Big Trouble, so will Microsoft in this decade, perhaps the next, as companies in Japan, China, and India figure to be the next Datsun, Honda, and Nissan. And then you'll see Microsoft and the feds acting together, instead of in opposition, a la the Chrysler bailout in 1978. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I think Jon Katz' thoughts on games are very well-made, but he as well as his readers should keep in mind the context this is all happening in. Moral panic is something America has experienced time and again throughout our history, but it seems to be at a heightened level lately.
You see politicians crying out against not just video games, but content on television, in movies, in music, and so on. For Katz' stories to be truly insightful and effective, he needs to show how video games and gamers fit in with the other forms of mass media in terms of behavior, content, and criticism. That'd be most interesting.
As usual though, I think Katz is on the right track, and exposing us to ideas that make us think, even if we think they're crap. Just my two cents before the usual Katz-bashers rear their ugly heads. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Seriously. States' rights is a crock of shit. The reason anyone tries to hold up states' rights is to nullify something the feds are doing. State governments are notoriously easier for large corporations and special interests to manipulate than the federal government. Also, states' rights as a concept has been used to defend some very odious things. Unhappy coincidence? No, I don't think so, and I certainly see nothing wrong with the federal government's decision, either judicial or legislative, being the final word.
The entire point of the federal government existing is to bring unity and commonality to American law, as opposed to having 50 different sets of laws. I see no problems with states having very little opportunity to wiggle out of a federal law. It takes a long-ass time for the feds to agree on anything, not to mention implement it, and when it does get implemented it's usually watered down. So when the feds decide something, the states should live with it. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Someone brought up the 10th Amendment. Throughout much of the 20th century that amendment was ignored because it was convenient to do so. Only in the 1990s was it revived and used, by conservatives to oppose federal mandates, which were largely for liberal-esque programs.
You want evidence that conservatives ignore states' rights on occassion? Well you see what's gone on in the Supreme Court... You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Liberals care just as much about states rights as conservatives do--both only care about it when it is convenient to do so.
The only reason anyone has ever given a hoot about states' rights is because their agenda wasn't being advanced by the federal government, or the feds were doing something counter to their interests. When people made noise about using the federal government to abolish slavery, you got states' rights. When people made noise about the New Deal, people opposed to it cried states' rights. When Congress in the 50s and 60s enacted civil rights laws, segregationists cried states rights. When the feds began enforcing labor and environmental laws, people opposed to them cried states' rights.
States' rights is a useful tool for people to fall back on when they want to fight what the federal government is doing. No one party or ideology has a monopoly on it, and either side will use it when it serves to their advantage. It is exactly like the various arguments being employed about hand counts and such with regards to Florida's election. People don't argue what they are arguing about it because they believe the argument, they argue it because that line of reasoning leads to victory for their candidate.
States' rights is, to me, simply a line of reasoning that has been used in support of some odious things. The Constitution was written to abrogate states' rights, and for good reasons. Yet the principle has lingered, because it can be quite useful, as we've just seen. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Seriously. All the WHO wants is to ensure that the materials on these sites are accurate. I doubt they give a hoot about how it looks, so long as it isn't deceitful.
If you leave it in private hands, then the bottom line becomes more important than accuracy and truth of the information. WHO is an unbiased organization run by the United Nations. "WHO" better to oversee.health sites?!
I'm yet again disappointed by the Katz-bashing. It's not criticism, it's deeply personal, mean-spirited attacks that are utterly baseless. Every time I see a Katz article I also see hundreds of nasty posts that accuse him of all sorts of ridiculous things, or that just basically say "Katz sucks".
Kudos to/. for continuing to run Katz's stories. Without his journalism this site would simply be another techie forum. With it,/. puts itself at the forefront of web sites.
I hope Katz doesn't take all this shit too seriously. He's doing some great stuff here; I only hope that the multitude of small-minded idiots here doesn't take away from that.
When I first read this article, the thing that jumped out at me was that it happened at Mira Costa High School.
This is significant, because Mira Costa is one of the most conformist schools in the country. It is as if you took Columbine and moved it next to the Pacific Ocean. Mira Costa is located in Manhattan Beach, CA, a very nice, well-to-do beach down south of LA. Most of the students there are your usual trendies, popularity whores, and others who place too much value on insiginifcant things.
My girlfriend went to Costa for her freshman year of high school (1995-96), and I know many others from that school. There are a wealth of intelligent, creative, interesting people there, but they tend to get buried beneath the usual layers of bureaucracy and stifling of free expression that is endemic at American schools.
The social atmosphere there was described to me as "oppressive". My girlfriend was one who you would have thought would fit in well--blond hair, white skin, very good-looking--but she refused to play the game, refused to socialize and conform. There is even a patch of grass on the campus where only seniors are allowed, and there was even hazing of freshmen--something I didn't think occurred at Southern California schools. She was happy to move to another school further up the coast, and she told me that she didn't think that her sanity would have survived Costa had she stayed.
To hear, then, that the person who was voted Homecoming King decided to make this kind of statement is an extremely gratifying thing. It shows that, as I've personally seen and suspected, there are a LOT of people who feel exactly as he did, but don't speak out about it or who are not heard.
At the same time, it is very depressing to hear of the MCHS administration's reaction to this statement. It proves yet again that our Constitutional protections of free speech are not respected at our schools, where they're trampled upon by petty dictators (i.e. principals) who see any independent student discussion or speech as threatening.
To me, you cannot have a good education without being allowed to learn how to use your mind. If anyone wonders why our schools are so bad, they might do well to look at how our natural (God-given for you religious folks) curiosities and intellectual talents are beaten down in the name of conformity. And unless people are given outlets for their anger, given ways to express their frustration via free speech, this pent-up feelings could well explode as it did in Colorado in April 1999.
In the end, though, I think this person's act of defiance is a very bright silver lining. If a popular student at Mira Costa can see the idiocy and harm the system causes and actually speak out about it in this small, symbolic way, then there is hope for the schools and teenagers across the country.
Slashdot Mirror
To paraphrase an American military hero, Nevada has not yet begun to fight.
First the USDOE's ruling must be agreed to by President Bush. Depending on whether or not Karl Rove thinks it is wise to alienate a state that voted for Bush in 2000, the decision may get reversed here.
If Bush concurs with Abraham then Nevada itself can veto the selection of Yucca Mountain. However, Congress can override this, and it was Congress that suggested Yucca Mountain in the first place.
If Bush agrees and Congress agrees with Abraham, Yucca Mountain still isn't a go, because the state of Nevada and the city of Las Vegas have vowed to sue the US over the planned repository.
If the lawsuits fail, Nevada will still fight it by trying to block the actual waste shipments themselves. The city of Las Vegas will pull over and arrest any trucker hauling waste to Yucca Mountain. Nevada politicians and citizens have promised to block the rail lines leading to Yucca Mountain.
In the end the feds may be able to overcome all this, but it promises to be a VERY long and drawn out fight.
Why rely on M$ and all it's back doors and glaring omissions when you can have your own stuff built to your specifications? I'm a bit surprised it's taken them this long to get here...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Again, this is a useless tactic. One, most of the people who actually see these complaints and open that mail are on your side and agree with you that you oughtn't get so much mail. And there's not much I can do about it. I don't send the mail. All we do is deal with what is returned to us. So if you waste your time and money and effort devising new tactics to get back at the junk mailers, it will simply fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. Sure, we might get a kick out of it, but that's about all.
There should be a government maintained opt-out list, but even then that won't solve the problem. Only when people stop replying to or even paying attention to junk mail, only when people make junk mail uneconomical (and you won't achieve that by making my job harder, I'll just quit and they'll hire another bozo) will it cease.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
While it is annoying for us to have to deal with that, the powers that be 'round here still send out the same volume of mail - no, they've actually INCREASED the volume of mail - as before. We who actually open the mail and read the complaints feel your pain, but there isn't much we can do except put them in a file and try in vain to convince the people in charge that their mail campaign is a disastrous failure.
So long as it is economically viable for the junk mailers to send out the stuff, so long as they're at least getting something out of it, then they will continue to do so. And the sheer amount of mail, through the USPS or through your e-mail, is a testament to the basic fact that such mailings are, against all sense, effective.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with all of that. If those government monopolies work, if people are provided for and are free and are living contented lives, then there isn't anything wrong with them.
And, if I hear one more complaint about taxes, I'll have to kick you. Lord. Do you people think everything in this world is free? That you can have a good government without having to pay for it?
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> Can't tell them where to travel? Huh? Since when does America stop anyone from traveling anywhere? Americans for 40 years were not allowed to travel to Cuba.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I'll assume you've never worked for a corporation before. You require a bit of enlightening, my dear.
Corporations can and often do take away your freedom, as well as your privacy. You have zero freedom of speech at work. You can criticize the government all you want and call Bill Clinton a rapist (as many right-wingers do) and suffer no consequences. Now if you criticized your corporation and called your CEO a rapist, you'd be out on your ass real fast.
Corporations routinely monitor employee's e-mail as well as their web browsing. Even though our government does this too, they have to do it covertly, because if it were openly acknowledged, people would have a fit.
Corporations take away your rights to breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water. That right might not be constitutional, but it's an equally important one, I think.
Corporations do not allow employees the freedom of assembly. If you try to organize a union or go out on strike, then you are subject to be fired. Same thing if you blow the whistle on illegal activities. Our labor laws have no teeth.
People too often think corporations have less power and influence than the government. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong that assumption is.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> and happiness is a warm gun. As we all know. Yes. And look where that feeling got John Lennon. I'm sure five shots to the back were real happy and warm.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
The concept of human rights and universal declarations of such and even the UN were AMERICAN ideas. It was US who thought of this stuff and who pushed it in 1918, long before it was popular to do so. In the 1940s we also pushed the UN and were a major force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You ought to read "One World", written in 1943 by Wendell Willkie, presidential candidate in 1940.
Can one set of laws cover Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas? That depends on what you mean. Certainly there are some universal standards that work for all of us. Don't make too much of cultural differences, Americans tend to overestimate these are we are very unfamiliar with them. Cultures really aren't all that different, and I think it's fair to say that humans want similar things out of life. It should not be difficult to craft a set of laws reflecting that.
You say that it is arrogant and paternalistic to assume all people should hold the same set of values and beliefs. Again, I think an exception should be made for very basic things, laid out in that Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The author of the original post never said anything about people sharing the same language or culture or government. And even if we did share all that, that doesn't necessarily mean at all that some demagogue would take power.
Remember, Hitler took power in one of the most modern and most culturally and intellectually advanced countries in the world. If it could happen to Germany, it could happen to anybody.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
One: Unreliability. Private enterprises can and often do fail. In contrast, government construction efforts cannot fail. That's why you don't see private enterprise building bridges or giant dams- you simply can't quit if your funding runs out, or you go bankrupt. Travelling in space is, I think, something that cannot be allowed to fail, and therefore, it should be managed and funded by the government.
Two: Undesirability. When I browsed your website I was reminded of the previous era of exploration, beginning in the 15th century. Companies like the East India Company (both Dutch and English) left a horrible record of abuse in Indonesia and India. On a more practical level, look at Sir Walter Raleigh's failed Roanoke Island colony. At the same time, government-sponsored explorations generally met with much more success, while at the same time creating room for private enterprise.
Just a few things to think about.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Why leave? Well, for one, our rights are being frittered away. At work, the Consitutional rights we have to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not recognized. We are not free at our jobs and are serfs to our bosses. We have no control over ourselves at work, which I think leads to the high levels of depression the nation is experiencing, as well as workplace shootings. The worst thing is that since we are so wedded to our free-market ideals and since many of us still love business, then this isn't going to change. Capitalism is like an abusive husband - it may treat you really well at times, but you just know that you'll get smacked around again before long, and one day, it just might kill you.
As we lose power over ourselves at work, we are also losing political power. The democratic rights that we fought very hard over 350 years to gain we are now pissing away through ignorance and complacency. America isn't perfect, and while problems will never go away, that shouldn't mean we ignore them. Corporations rule our country, and that means that neither you nor I nor any associations we form will have any sway over our government.
How do we fix this? The answer, ideally, would be through democratic action, through organization and political action. Instead, I see this country creeping towards fascism. Notice all the posts here from people extolling the Second Amendment the the way to guarantee our rights and freedoms. That's a very telling thing. It used to be that we had some sense of civic virtue, of public good, that would carry us through. We thought that we could take to the streets or use our vote to fix things. Perhaps that was a bit naive, but it did bring many successes in the 1950s and 1960s, to name one period of many. Now, we are turning to violence, or at least the thought of it. That is not a good sign.
I say fascist not just because of the love of violence, but the rabid anti-leftist attitudes many in America hold today. I often wonder if I am the only person in America today who is not ashamed to call himself a liberal. It is one thing to disagree with liberal ideas, it is quite another to blame the demise of the nation on them, the way that has been done lately. You also have a large group of white males (though by no means all) who are very threatened by America's diversity. These people will not react well when they are in the minority. I also have a feeling that once America sinks deeper into decline, that these people will become increasingly vocal and try to turn the clock back in a number of ways. Remember, that is the circumstance that brought Hitler and Mussolini to power, as well as Thatcher (who though not a fascist, did have some overtones of that sort).
So, should I leave America? I am reluctant to just give up, but I also don't want to stick around when things get ugly. Where do I go? Australia? Canada? The UK? Europe? I hear Ireland's great. But they all have their own issues.
I think that, within 200 years, we will see the triumph of older traditions over those we see in America today. I believe that in places like Europe, or China, or India, among others, there is a deeper sense of history, none of this silly "invent society as we go" business we see here. At the same time, America is the modern Roman Empire, and though the political USA will eventually die, cultural and ideological things that are American will live on, just as many Roman things survive today. But the death of that political USA, like the death of both Roman Empires, will not be pretty.
In the meanwhile, I think this century will see an American Diaspora. Many Americans will leave the country for greener pastures, getting out of the worsening situation here. They will go to places with old traditions, and will be shaped by them, but will also bring along their American ways and ideas. It will be an interesting mixture.
Where, again, to go? The most ideal place is to the stars. But I don't think mankind is headed out that way for a long, long time. Space exploration is a dying thing, which is sad, but it cannot last when we as a people place profit and instant gratification above our higher ideals and ambitions.
Most of you who read this will probably think that I am wrong. I am certain that I am not and that, like Winston Churchill's deeply unpopular criticisms of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the course of future events will prove me right. I wish I would be proven wrong.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Something else happened along with the emasculation of low-power radio: Congress gutted a 1996 FCC rule that gave candidates free airtime on NPR. Stations are now under no obligation to do this. Score one more for the corporate establishment!
The current FCC chairman did his best to offset corporate control over the airwaves. He seems to be one of the few in government who wants to protect public ownership of the airwaves. This is a sad day, boys and girls.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Noe Valley friends? I'm proud to say I don't know a goddamned person from that place. You think I'm some newcomer dotcommie? Hah.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Yes, SF has some of these older cars running along Market Street and the Embarcadero. I see them every few minutes from my window here. But that's not quite the same as going all over the city.
And the poster who pointed out that all this is US-centric...well of course it is. To most Americans, the idea that there's a world outside of our own country is one that is easily forgotten, if ever learned.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
And yes, BETA should have definitely been on the list.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Tech then, as now, serves as a tool for a pre-existing movement, not as its catalyst. And there will be no Renaissance today without a corresponding intellectual movement that can use tech. I highly doubt that tech itself will spawn anything, not on its own.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Exactly. Microsoft *is* doomed. The car-company analogy is a very good one, and as the Big Three found themselves in Big Trouble, so will Microsoft in this decade, perhaps the next, as companies in Japan, China, and India figure to be the next Datsun, Honda, and Nissan. And then you'll see Microsoft and the feds acting together, instead of in opposition, a la the Chrysler bailout in 1978.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You see politicians crying out against not just video games, but content on television, in movies, in music, and so on. For Katz' stories to be truly insightful and effective, he needs to show how video games and gamers fit in with the other forms of mass media in terms of behavior, content, and criticism. That'd be most interesting.
As usual though, I think Katz is on the right track, and exposing us to ideas that make us think, even if we think they're crap. Just my two cents before the usual Katz-bashers rear their ugly heads.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
The entire point of the federal government existing is to bring unity and commonality to American law, as opposed to having 50 different sets of laws. I see no problems with states having very little opportunity to wiggle out of a federal law. It takes a long-ass time for the feds to agree on anything, not to mention implement it, and when it does get implemented it's usually watered down. So when the feds decide something, the states should live with it.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
No, but when Reagan got it, he *did* end the case against IBM...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Someone brought up the 10th Amendment. Throughout much of the 20th century that amendment was ignored because it was convenient to do so. Only in the 1990s was it revived and used, by conservatives to oppose federal mandates, which were largely for liberal-esque programs.
You want evidence that conservatives ignore states' rights on occassion? Well you see what's gone on in the Supreme Court...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
States' rights is a useful tool for people to fall back on when they want to fight what the federal government is doing. No one party or ideology has a monopoly on it, and either side will use it when it serves to their advantage. It is exactly like the various arguments being employed about hand counts and such with regards to Florida's election. People don't argue what they are arguing about it because they believe the argument, they argue it because that line of reasoning leads to victory for their candidate.
States' rights is, to me, simply a line of reasoning that has been used in support of some odious things. The Constitution was written to abrogate states' rights, and for good reasons. Yet the principle has lingered, because it can be quite useful, as we've just seen.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Seriously. All the WHO wants is to ensure that the materials on these sites are accurate. I doubt they give a hoot about how it looks, so long as it isn't deceitful.
If you leave it in private hands, then the bottom line becomes more important than accuracy and truth of the information. WHO is an unbiased organization run by the United Nations. "WHO" better to oversee .health sites?!
Kudos to /. for continuing to run Katz's stories. Without his journalism this site would simply be another techie forum. With it, /. puts itself at the forefront of web sites.
I hope Katz doesn't take all this shit too seriously. He's doing some great stuff here; I only hope that the multitude of small-minded idiots here doesn't take away from that.
This is significant, because Mira Costa is one of the most conformist schools in the country. It is as if you took Columbine and moved it next to the Pacific Ocean. Mira Costa is located in Manhattan Beach, CA, a very nice, well-to-do beach down south of LA. Most of the students there are your usual trendies, popularity whores, and others who place too much value on insiginifcant things.
My girlfriend went to Costa for her freshman year of high school (1995-96), and I know many others from that school. There are a wealth of intelligent, creative, interesting people there, but they tend to get buried beneath the usual layers of bureaucracy and stifling of free expression that is endemic at American schools.
The social atmosphere there was described to me as "oppressive". My girlfriend was one who you would have thought would fit in well--blond hair, white skin, very good-looking--but she refused to play the game, refused to socialize and conform. There is even a patch of grass on the campus where only seniors are allowed, and there was even hazing of freshmen--something I didn't think occurred at Southern California schools. She was happy to move to another school further up the coast, and she told me that she didn't think that her sanity would have survived Costa had she stayed.
To hear, then, that the person who was voted Homecoming King decided to make this kind of statement is an extremely gratifying thing. It shows that, as I've personally seen and suspected, there are a LOT of people who feel exactly as he did, but don't speak out about it or who are not heard.
At the same time, it is very depressing to hear of the MCHS administration's reaction to this statement. It proves yet again that our Constitutional protections of free speech are not respected at our schools, where they're trampled upon by petty dictators (i.e. principals) who see any independent student discussion or speech as threatening.
To me, you cannot have a good education without being allowed to learn how to use your mind. If anyone wonders why our schools are so bad, they might do well to look at how our natural (God-given for you religious folks) curiosities and intellectual talents are beaten down in the name of conformity. And unless people are given outlets for their anger, given ways to express their frustration via free speech, this pent-up feelings could well explode as it did in Colorado in April 1999.
In the end, though, I think this person's act of defiance is a very bright silver lining. If a popular student at Mira Costa can see the idiocy and harm the system causes and actually speak out about it in this small, symbolic way, then there is hope for the schools and teenagers across the country.