To be fair, within 24 hours of the tsunami, the U.S. military had delivered two desalinization plants to the coast of Banda Aceh province in Indonesia, and had commenced a major airlift operation to bring supplies via helicopter to the otherwise-inaccesible areas of the worst-hit region.
I was not aware of this. Thanks for the info. This seems like a really good use of our military, given the logistical capabilities.
And that was just in the first 24 hours after the disaster, before the President and Congress even had a chance to study the problem thoroughly.
And that is probably why the military was able to do provide the relief.
My beef isn't really with the military, it's with policy, and how our money is spent.
The points that you've made merely prove that you do not understand the difference between the American government and the American people. Both of your links indicate that the people in the US gave a lot of money to help others. I think the GP was referring to the US government, not the people. The US government spends a lot more on war than the citizens can even dream of donating to help others.
It seems also that the GP was merely pointing out the (obvious) fact that, in the US, everything seems to be about war. IMHO, this is one way in which PsyOps is used against the American people to brainwash them in to believing that we are in a never-ending state of war (against Eurasia, this week). Being constantly at war against $PROBLEM|$ENEMY is a way to "help" the poor, ignorant people realize the necessity for the erosion of civil (and human) rights.
I do, however, agree with (what I assume) is your statement that mentally challenged people should not be insulted in such a way.
In the long term, if you keep buying overpriced stuff just because of the country that makes it, you end up losing a lot of money. That is more short-sighted.
I didn't say anything about overpriced stuff (although I agree with you that buying overpriced stuff is not too bright). I simply said that a lot of people don't really look at the value they get for their money. I am willing to pay a little more for something that will last a lot longer.
However, as to the rest of your post, it's worth noting that a few (ten?) years ago, Wal-Mart tried a "Buy American" campaign--they put the US made goods on the shelves next to the lower priced Chinese crap, and had signs marking which was which. It was a disaster--the Chinese stuff outsold the American stuff by a significant margin.
I don't remember that. I guess it's a real statement about US society that people have become so short-sighted, that they only look at short-term cost rather than long-term value.
However, elitist snobs would have that freedom curtailed--"shut down Wal-Mart, only WE know what is best for the average consumer!" Ironic. They're so afraid of a tax-paying, publicly traded entity, and don't mind using the all-crushing power of the government to kill it if possible.
However, elitist snobs would have that freedom curtailed--"we are Wal-Mart, only WE know what is best for the average consumer!" Ironic. They're so afraid of a tax-paying public, and don't mind using the all-crushing power of the government to kill it if possible.
I remember when Wal-mart was just starting their expansion. There was Sam Walton on TV saying that the chain only buys US manufactured goods, and tries to sell them for the lowest prices. There was a lot of hype about how "American" it was to shop there, and how they and their customers are helping the US economy.
Then Sam died. With him went his vision, as well as the ethics of the company.
If Wal-mart should be paying for medical insurance, then make a law stating that unskilled-labour businesses like wal-mart should pay for medical insurance Otherwise they won't.
I can't speak for the situation in the Marines, but in the Army (specifically infantry), the majority of the enlisted personnel, including NCOs were from poor backgrounds, either urban or rural. They usually had limited education, which qualified them only for infantry when they took the ASVAB test.
Therefore, based on my experience (and yes - I was 11B, 3/187 Inf.), a lot of the front-line troops are "unwanted" poor people, who's only opportunity to survive -- and maybe go to college -- is the military. YMMV, of course.
If you are in the Washington, DC area, the Arlington Cinema and Drafthouse (Flash warning) seems somewhat similar to the place you describe, except they usually show more recent films. They do have the "midnight madness" thing though, which can be quite fun.
I have friends in the military. I now have family too (my nephew just went to the Middle East). I condemn them for their actions and their commitment, because I disagree completely with performing any job that I know is immoral. ... My family and friends who have enlisted have come back indoctrinated and fully believing they are saving us from terrorists and communists and criminals and dictators. They're lost when it comes to morals and freedom. I can't support that.
So why condemn your family and friends, then. After all, they have been indoctrinated. It's not their fault. A better use of your mental resources in this regard would be to help them see that they have been indoctrinated/brainwashed, and help them get over it. I speak from experience here, as I was in the Army infantry for four years. Brainwashed, convinced that I was defending the people of this country, and determined to keep those evil commies from gaining any ground.
Imagine how pissed I was (and still am) when I found out that I was nothing more than a brainwashed corporate mercenary.
Give your friends and family a break and help them, rather than condemn them. Please.
Here's a clue..they are NOT listening to you or I calling anyone inside the U.S.A.. They ARE listening in on foreign terrorists in foreign countries, FROM a foreign country, or by satellite. The only way this becomes "domestic" is if, say, UBL calls YOU or YOU call HIM.
How do you really know this for sure? Because Bush said so? Because the NSA said so? Because some pundit on tv said so?
These people have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted; they consistently lie to the American people. The administration usually does the exact opposite of what they say they're going to do. Personally, I find it impossible to believe anything they say. I do not trust this government; they lost that trust a long time ago and have done nothing to regain it.
IMHO, this is still something that is worthy of "getting worked up" over. The taxpayers in the US are paying to be spied on. We are funding our own oppression. This is unacceptable.
What we should all do is to put our tax dollars in escrow instead of the federal government, and only authorize the release of funds when issues such as this are resolved to the satisfaction of the people. Then, we should each choose to which departments our tax dollars go, and how the money will be used.
It's a shame my mod points expired before I read this post; it is one of the better thought-out posts I've read in a long time. Most posts I read (and post myself) complaining about the system here in the US are merely griping and complaining.
I applaud you for making the point that we can change things, and providing a good starting point:
The control of the system is illusory. It is only real when we believe that it is real. We only obey because we don't realize that more than 1/2 of all murders go unsolved, and most crimes are far, far lower.
It may be that the cases where the EFF loses are publicized more than the cases the EFF wins.
While they may sometimes pick the wrong battle, they also pick many that they can win. Besides, the goal of the EFF isn't only to choose issues that they can win, but to take on issues that affect people's privacy (regardless of the chances of winning). I would rather they continue doing what they're doing (which makes more people aware of the issues even if the EFF loses), than burying their heads in the sand because they might lose.
The more people who know about these issues, the better chance we have of electing officials that are cognizant of people's privacy.
That is very interesting; I wish it had been posted as an "Ask Slashdot" (even though it's not a tech thing. I think I'll do the same thing with my friends and family in the 2008 elections.
As for asking this of supporters of Kerry or Bush, I think that had people responded, they would probably have named the same issues, and that it would have been likely that both candidates had the same opinions on those issues. In other words, I could not really find any difference between Bush and Kerry, except that Kerry could pronounce the word, "nuclear."
Funny that in the time it took me to type this, your post was modded flamebait. Oh well, I have karma to burn, too.:)
There is another angle to consider when thinking about heated debates within the general public. It keeps the people distracted. When somebody is so incredibly angry over some issue (pick any), they are not thinking logically, they are not receptive to new information, and they can not really pay attention to the other stuff that's going on.
In the US, we have all kinds of issues and debates being trolled to us by the media (abortion, immigration, gun laws, drug laws, think of the children, etc.) that we get distracted by all of this. This leaves very few people to actually keep an eye on the politicians, the lobbyists, and the corporations. While we heatedly debate the finer points of abortion, those in power are free to redirect the resources of the country to their friends and themselves. This includes both dems and reps. It is not partisan or political. Maybe they don't all do it, but the temptation is there.
Ok. We have had different experience. You are correct in that I had chosen to work at some very shortsighted companies. I finally learned to research companies before agreeing to work there, and am now at a MUCH better place (and, this is also a publicy traded company).
So I now know that there are some decent companies out there, too.
Reflecting on this statement you made "No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter." I realized that you're right. The first time reading it, I missed the word successful. Most of my former employers are not really successful anymore.
Thank you for an interesting and reasoned response.
All of the really big ones where I've worked (not my current employer) have been severely mismanaged. One of those is a major media company. Consider it hogwash it you may, but that has not been my experience. YMMV.
Isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins, according to religious people? If so, then the RIAA tactics are greedy AND evil.
I can understand that in the surrent system (at least in the US), it is a company's duty to maximize shareholder value, but the current system also makes it impossible to look beyond the next quarter. Companies can not be concerned by the long-term value that is created when they don't screw their customer base. Suing and screwing seems to be the "new paradigm" (for you management types) in business.
Well, based on the results of that poll, there are still more people who are willing to pay for music (44% for Standard ISO CD -vs- 33% for Pay?). And this is among geeks. I wonder what the percentage would be among the non-geek populace, where there are fewer people aware of file sharing? It seems likely that that percentage would be higher.
I still call BS when the RIAA and others claim that p2p hurts record sales. I think that most of the stuff that is produced and sold nowadays in the mainstream is just not very good (IMHO). On the local classic rock station in my area, even, the majority of the callers making requests sound like they are quite young.
Agreed. While it is important to know whether or not this was put in intentionally (IMHO, not intentional), I think what's more important is the fact that it exists, and what can be done to reduce the exposure to this flaw. Educating users is a good start. Maybe more of the mainstream media could cover stories such as this, and include instructions on how to patch / update for those who don't know.
If they also requested the ip addresses of the people making the searches, on the other hand, that would be a clear invasion of privacy and probably illegal under US law.
FTA:
Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
The IP addresses could very well be included in this information.
I get the impression they want to find out how easy it is to stumble across porn when you're not looking for it. Probably particularly when safesearch is enabled.
That's not the impression that I got FTA. Poring through a massive database of search logs would be much more difficult, time-consuming and inaccurate than simply writing a script to query Google with ramdon words and logging any results that lead to porn.
It seems to me that they want to do some data mining, maybe to identify terrorists (or dissenters), and they could just be using the "what about the children" thing in their attempt to gain access.
If Google is to remain un-evil, maybe it's time for a solar flare to wipe out the records (until the backups can be restored after this is all over).
Slashdot Mirror
My beef isn't really with the military, it's with policy, and how our money is spent.
It seems also that the GP was merely pointing out the (obvious) fact that, in the US, everything seems to be about war. IMHO, this is one way in which PsyOps is used against the American people to brainwash them in to believing that we are in a never-ending state of war (against Eurasia, this week). Being constantly at war against $PROBLEM|$ENEMY is a way to "help" the poor, ignorant people realize the necessity for the erosion of civil (and human) rights.
I do, however, agree with (what I assume) is your statement that mentally challenged people should not be insulted in such a way.
Bummer.
However, elitist snobs would have that freedom curtailed--"we are Wal-Mart, only WE know what is best for the average consumer!" Ironic. They're so afraid of a tax-paying public, and don't mind using the all-crushing power of the government to kill it if possible.
There... fixed it for you.
I remember when Wal-mart was just starting their expansion. There was Sam Walton on TV saying that the chain only buys US manufactured goods, and tries to sell them for the lowest prices. There was a lot of hype about how "American" it was to shop there, and how they and their customers are helping the US economy.
Then Sam died. With him went his vision, as well as the ethics of the company.
He must be rolling over in his grave.
This is what the state of Maryland did.
It seems that they realized that it was the only way to make Wal-Mart give their employees health coverage.
What a beauty!
Therefore, based on my experience (and yes - I was 11B, 3/187 Inf.), a lot of the front-line troops are "unwanted" poor people, who's only opportunity to survive -- and maybe go to college -- is the military. YMMV, of course.
If you are in the Washington, DC area, the Arlington Cinema and Drafthouse (Flash warning) seems somewhat similar to the place you describe, except they usually show more recent films. They do have the "midnight madness" thing though, which can be quite fun.
...
My family and friends who have enlisted have come back indoctrinated and fully believing they are saving us from terrorists and communists and criminals and dictators. They're lost when it comes to morals and freedom. I can't support that.
So why condemn your family and friends, then. After all, they have been indoctrinated. It's not their fault. A better use of your mental resources in this regard would be to help them see that they have been indoctrinated/brainwashed, and help them get over it. I speak from experience here, as I was in the Army infantry for four years. Brainwashed, convinced that I was defending the people of this country, and determined to keep those evil commies from gaining any ground.
Imagine how pissed I was (and still am) when I found out that I was nothing more than a brainwashed corporate mercenary.
Give your friends and family a break and help them, rather than condemn them. Please.
As for the rest of your post: agreed!
How do you really know this for sure? Because Bush said so? Because the NSA said so? Because some pundit on tv said so?
These people have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted; they consistently lie to the American people. The administration usually does the exact opposite of what they say they're going to do. Personally, I find it impossible to believe anything they say. I do not trust this government; they lost that trust a long time ago and have done nothing to regain it.
s/their/taxpayer/
IMHO, this is still something that is worthy of "getting worked up" over. The taxpayers in the US are paying to be spied on. We are funding our own oppression. This is unacceptable.
What we should all do is to put our tax dollars in escrow instead of the federal government, and only authorize the release of funds when issues such as this are resolved to the satisfaction of the people. Then, we should each choose to which departments our tax dollars go, and how the money will be used.
I applaud you for making the point that we can change things, and providing a good starting point:
While they may sometimes pick the wrong battle, they also pick many that they can win. Besides, the goal of the EFF isn't only to choose issues that they can win, but to take on issues that affect people's privacy (regardless of the chances of winning). I would rather they continue doing what they're doing (which makes more people aware of the issues even if the EFF loses), than burying their heads in the sand because they might lose.
The more people who know about these issues, the better chance we have of electing officials that are cognizant of people's privacy.
As for asking this of supporters of Kerry or Bush, I think that had people responded, they would probably have named the same issues, and that it would have been likely that both candidates had the same opinions on those issues. In other words, I could not really find any difference between Bush and Kerry, except that Kerry could pronounce the word, "nuclear."
Funny that in the time it took me to type this, your post was modded flamebait. Oh well, I have karma to burn, too. :)
In the US, we have all kinds of issues and debates being trolled to us by the media (abortion, immigration, gun laws, drug laws, think of the children, etc.) that we get distracted by all of this. This leaves very few people to actually keep an eye on the politicians, the lobbyists, and the corporations. While we heatedly debate the finer points of abortion, those in power are free to redirect the resources of the country to their friends and themselves. This includes both dems and reps. It is not partisan or political. Maybe they don't all do it, but the temptation is there.
Instead of:
"Cell phones cause brain tumors," they could look into "Brain tumors cause cell phones."
Maybe people who already have a tumor in the side of their head are naturally attracted to using that side to hold their phone.
So I now know that there are some decent companies out there, too.
Reflecting on this statement you made "No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter." I realized that you're right. The first time reading it, I missed the word successful. Most of my former employers are not really successful anymore.
Thank you for an interesting and reasoned response.
All of the really big ones where I've worked (not my current employer) have been severely mismanaged. One of those is a major media company. Consider it hogwash it you may, but that has not been my experience. YMMV.
I can understand that in the surrent system (at least in the US), it is a company's duty to maximize shareholder value, but the current system also makes it impossible to look beyond the next quarter. Companies can not be concerned by the long-term value that is created when they don't screw their customer base. Suing and screwing seems to be the "new paradigm" (for you management types) in business.
Sad.
I still call BS when the RIAA and others claim that p2p hurts record sales. I think that most of the stuff that is produced and sold nowadays in the mainstream is just not very good (IMHO). On the local classic rock station in my area, even, the majority of the callers making requests sound like they are quite young.
Agreed. While it is important to know whether or not this was put in intentionally (IMHO, not intentional), I think what's more important is the fact that it exists, and what can be done to reduce the exposure to this flaw. Educating users is a good start. Maybe more of the mainstream media could cover stories such as this, and include instructions on how to patch / update for those who don't know.
FTA:
The IP addresses could very well be included in this information.
That's not the impression that I got FTA. Poring through a massive database of search logs would be much more difficult, time-consuming and inaccurate than simply writing a script to query Google with ramdon words and logging any results that lead to porn.
It seems to me that they want to do some data mining, maybe to identify terrorists (or dissenters), and they could just be using the "what about the children" thing in their attempt to gain access.
If Google is to remain un-evil, maybe it's time for a solar flare to wipe out the records (until the backups can be restored after this is all over).