With respect, our right to exercise our constitutional rights to free speech and assembly trump the shopper's right to get to the Disney Store on 5th Avenue unimpeded, especially when it's one afternoon out of a 365-day year and doubly especially when it's to protest a war that everyone can freely acknowledge now is a disaster in terms of lives, money, and global influence.
Am I a hyper-sensitive asshole for saying so? Well, lemme see, the government now spies on us without warrants or oversight of any kind. They've voided our bedrock right to habeus corpus, which means they can arrest you for anything and hold you indefinitely just on their say-so. The list goes on. If, in light of those things, A) You are also not a 'hyper-sensitive asshole,' then good god! what would it take to make you one?, and B) My ancestors and countrymen have been fighting like bloody hell since 1655 to make sure we have those rights and I'll proudly own the label of 'hypersensitive asshole' rather than be a sheep that wants to go shopping.
Crowd control should be about de-escalating the chance for conflict. If you start burning people with microwaves, you radically and abruptly increase the chance for a peaceful protest to turn into a bloody lynching.
During the protest against the invasion of Iraq in New York, just trying to deny all the intersections to protesters with sawhorses and mounted police caused surging to begin in the crowd, and the NYPD came within a hair's breadth of inciting a riot that would have burned out Midtown Manhattan and killed a lot of people.
And if any police department or government agency in the United States gets the bright idea to employ this kind of means here against people exercising their constitutional rights, they should think very carefully and deeply and consider that I and many of my patriotic countrymen are very jealous of our rights and also possess automatic weapons. How far do you want to push us, Mr. Man?
Good lord, just how many new games do they think the average gamer buys? At $50 a pop that's $1500. I have that much disposable income, but I'd certainly not blow it on paying top dollar for games. I'm sure I don't have more than 20 games total for my PS2, and all but 2 of those I fished out of the bargain bin.
I am so happy I own no Sony stock, and even more optimistic about having bought Nintendo stock.
Playing cowboys and indians can lead to heightened states of arousal too. So can contact sports. In fact, football's many times more likely to weaken your aggression inhibitors than playing Quake. Never mind that sport of kings, invading Third World nations for fun and profit.
So if they want to ban things, why not start at the end of my list and work their way backward? Betcha that does a heck of a lot more to lower the general level of aggression than preventing me from owning my 'hood in GTA ever will. Far more children and psyches have been damaged by the real violence they experience in their homes and watch on the TV, violence set in motion by these very same protectors of morality, than have ever been or ever will be by a mere silly videogame.
I tried to get it from Canada, and they require a prescription. So I'm wondering where the software developer in the article got it.
I for one would love to get more hours out of my day. I tried polyphasic sleep but never could get the uninterrupted 1/2 hr in the middle of the day to nap.
Peter Jackson has amply demonstrated that his skills match up to Tolkien's complexity. There were others who tried LOTR and the Hobbit before, and made a mess of it. So if Peter Jackson is not involved with the Hobbit or a LOTR prequel, then Newline should save its money because I'm just not interested.
by buying Nintendo stock. I figure anyone who wanted a souped-up PS2 already bought a 360. Those lining up to buy the PS3 would line up to buy socks if they were hyped enough.
Non-gamers and gamers alike are using words like "revolutionary" and "fun" to describe the Wii in every review I've read.
Personally, I already have a PS2, and don't need a PS3 plus. I'd rather have something totally different.
I'm rooting for the EU to crack the back of this beast. It's high time that multi-national corporations learn that they are not above the law. Arthur Andersen doesn't seem to have been enough of an example, because corporate officers and billionaires in this world still play like they think they're masters of the universe.
I am an ardent populist and progressive (in the T.R. sense of the word) who's worked at a lot of big corporations in New York. I have to say that looking from the inside and having access to the other side of the table, corporations are not quite the monolith that popular wisdom believes. Every brand, product, and campaign I've ever seen they live in constant fear of angry consumers suing them.
Sure, a $5 million judgement might not mean much to a company the size of GE on the whole, but if your brand or departmental budget is $4 million/yr you better believe the bean counters will be pissed if your fuck-up costs the company more than your budget. It's true that GE will continue, but you the brand manager almost certainly will not. So it's the individual interest that drives corporate behavior in reality.
Not to mention that most people who work in big corporations are reasonably honest people. Everyone tends to think that evil unscrupulous people rise to the top, but they very largely don't because that is the sort of behavior that winds up getting the corporation sued. The people who rise to the top are clever politicians, but that's another discussion.
In sum, you and we the consumers have so much more power than we think. And even just writing an angry letter does make a difference, because I guarantee you it will get read.
One common myth is that corporations pour millions and millions into a candidate's campaign coffers. But they don't and can't. FEC regulations limit donations from one individual or organization to a given candidate or elected official to $2500 in a calendar year. Neither can they give $2500 each to 100 employees on the understanding that they'll give the money to that candidate individually. If they get caught with a scheme like that, or even encouraging their employees to donate to the candidate, they will be in hot water and so will the candidate.
That also goes for what the FEC calls "in-kind" donations, what is popularly called "soft" money. That is considered to be the same as giving them hard cash.
What corporations can and do do is say to candidate X, "We sure love what you stand for, and are sorry we can't give you more. But do you have colleagues who believe as you do whom we could also support?" Then candidate X gets to cherry pick his/her supporters who are also in or seeking office, and the corporation gets to spread its money broadly.
Nevertheless, the level of maximum contribution to a given candidate is low enough that we private citizens might conceivably match it. If you can go beyond that and do what the corporations do, you will get decent access to the candidate on par with what they have. I've seen it, especially on the local level. Doctors, Dentists, and lawyers, usually.
The truth is that corporations really have more influence than John Q. Public because they maintain a relationship with officials and John doesn't bother. But he could.
I agree with this--B5 was a ground-breaking series that made the Battlestar Galacticas of our time possible.
One thing I'd add that made the series great was that it showed that space was messy, and that there's almost no such thing as total victory because the group or person that lost this time will be back with a vengeance next time, or that the person who's your deadly enemy can turn into your chum tomorrow or vice versa. In a word, it was political, and that made it feel real and interesting.
Just like Battlestar Galactica, it entertained and also made you think. Just like great science fiction should.
I've been railing against the RIAA for years. In the meantime my GF did something constructive instead, became a complete iPod/podcasting geek and discovered podsafe music ahref=http://music.podshow.com/rel=url2html-10098h ttp://music.podshow.com/>.
If I were a small bar owner, that's what I'd do--play tracks from that. If I were an aspiring musician and this option was being taken by small bar owners, I'd beg them to put my stuff on their playlist.
Re:READ THIS (if you thought parent was insightful
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 1
It is interesting that you prove Walt and Mearsheimer's point, that anyone who criticizes Israel is libeled and slandered as an anti-Semite, as you have done.
If you will revisit my original post, I pointed out that AIPAC comprises hawkish Jews and evangelical Christians. I also pointed out that AIPAC does not represent all Jewish opinion in Israel nor America. Therefore a criticism of AIPAC can only reasonably be called a criticism of AIPAC, and not a blanket statement about any ethnic group or religion.
You are therefore over-using the term anti-Semite to mean "anyone you disagree with." If you keep doing that, the word will lose its power and real anti-Semitism that advocates the destruction of Israel or killing of Jews, both loathesome goals, will not be addressed. As a final etymological note, Arabs are also a Semitic people, so calling them "Islamic fanatics" is itself anti-Semitism.
Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's great, but Dershowitz is a member of AIPAC and begins his reply by tarring Walt and Mearsheimer with the anti-Semite brush by comparing them to David Duke. It is a petty and simplistic, even histrionic response to a measured and thoughtful piece. It does rather prove Walt's and Mearsheimer's point, though, that AIPAC does not discuss. It slanders, libels, defames, intimidates, and silences anyone who dares try to have an intelligent, reasonable, and respectful discussion that differs with AIPAC's world view.
Frankly, as it is written Dershowitz's piece does not rate equal footing with Walt and Mearsheimer's. Nor do I deem it my duty to present AIPAC's case, since theirs is the only case that ever gets heard in this country.
However, it was kind of you to put the link up for those who are interested.
Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The evidence weighs pretty heavily against claims of moral superiority. Even the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon disproves the assertion that "Israel has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it." Lebanon did not declare war on Israel. And as awful as it is, the two soldiers taken by Hezbollah is not an unusual occurrence nor something that is only practiced upon Israel by its enemies; For example, in the 80's Mossad commandos assassinated top members of the PLO in Tunis. Incidentally, we might note that Tunisia did not respond by declaring war on Israel.
Lastly on the score of moral superiority, the demonization of Palestinians as being terrorists is rather ironic, given that Hagannah and other zionists used terrorism to convince the British to leave Palestine. There is a lot of evidence to support the statement that Israel itself was founded through terrorism.
Israel's tactics and behavior are as bloody and brutal as its opponents'. Neither are they supported by a great many Israelis. Recently a number of Israeli officers refused deployment to the occupied territories, and they were dubbed 'refuseniks.' There are many American Jews who also oppose the occupation. So there is no monolithic Israeli or Jewish opinion on the matter; it is a lot more nuanced and complex than Americans are led to believe. And Americans are not aware of that fact because intelligent discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actively suppressed and spun by AIPAC and a score of other allied organizations.
Finally, you sound like a reasonable person, so I ask you to take a look at this map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and reconsider your assertion that Israel does not try to take its neighbors land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement. I would further add a quote from David BenGurion, one of the fathers of Israel, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine." So, it has been an express policy from the outset for zionists to take their neighbors land.
I would note that when Serbs expelled Bosnian muslims from their land in Yugoslavia, it was called "ethnic cleansing." When the Turks expelled Armenians from their land, it was called a "genocide." So Israel's expelling 700,000 Palestinians from their land and colonizing the occupied territories looks quite similar.
Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 2
It is impeccably researched and supported. Many of their sources are from Israeli researchers.
AIPAC is not just Jews. It also includes evangelical Christians who support Israel for eschatological reasons. That is, they believe that it will hasten Armageddon and the Rapture. AIPAC also does not comprise all Jews and does not represent their opinions in toto. Many Jews both here in America and in Israel oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Therefore it is not an accurate statement to say that Jews are to blame for Iraq, and at no time did I say that. Given the weight of evidence, it does appear to be an accurate statement that pro-Israel hawks, both Jews and Christians, are to blame for Iraq. And that's the statement I made.
You may call me a conspiracy nut. That is your right. It is a counter-productive and incorrect thing to call me, but you can. Walt and Mearsheimer, however, are about as unimpeachable in their credentials, work, and reputation as anyone can be, and you cannot call them conspiracy nuts. Though you apparently did not read their paper that I linked to before, I do recommend it to you.
Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 1
Re:Probably not the only one. Bolton?
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If they try to ram anything through the Senate in the 6 weeks they have left, we'll filibuster it. Maybe if we get really lucky they'll pull that "nuclear option" bullshit now and erase the option of filibuster just in time for us to take over the majority. That will make bringing Bush to justice all the speedier.
Slashdot Mirror
With respect, our right to exercise our constitutional rights to free speech and assembly trump the shopper's right to get to the Disney Store on 5th Avenue unimpeded, especially when it's one afternoon out of a 365-day year and doubly especially when it's to protest a war that everyone can freely acknowledge now is a disaster in terms of lives, money, and global influence.
Am I a hyper-sensitive asshole for saying so? Well, lemme see, the government now spies on us without warrants or oversight of any kind. They've voided our bedrock right to habeus corpus, which means they can arrest you for anything and hold you indefinitely just on their say-so. The list goes on. If, in light of those things, A) You are also not a 'hyper-sensitive asshole,' then good god! what would it take to make you one?, and B) My ancestors and countrymen have been fighting like bloody hell since 1655 to make sure we have those rights and I'll proudly own the label of 'hypersensitive asshole' rather than be a sheep that wants to go shopping.
Crowd control should be about de-escalating the chance for conflict. If you start burning people with microwaves, you radically and abruptly increase the chance for a peaceful protest to turn into a bloody lynching.
During the protest against the invasion of Iraq in New York, just trying to deny all the intersections to protesters with sawhorses and mounted police caused surging to begin in the crowd, and the NYPD came within a hair's breadth of inciting a riot that would have burned out Midtown Manhattan and killed a lot of people.
And if any police department or government agency in the United States gets the bright idea to employ this kind of means here against people exercising their constitutional rights, they should think very carefully and deeply and consider that I and many of my patriotic countrymen are very jealous of our rights and also possess automatic weapons. How far do you want to push us, Mr. Man?
Check it out:
http://www.freelancersunion.org/
They started this in New York for people in just your situation.
Good lord, just how many new games do they think the average gamer buys? At $50 a pop that's $1500. I have that much disposable income, but I'd certainly not blow it on paying top dollar for games. I'm sure I don't have more than 20 games total for my PS2, and all but 2 of those I fished out of the bargain bin.
I am so happy I own no Sony stock, and even more optimistic about having bought Nintendo stock.
Playing cowboys and indians can lead to heightened states of arousal too. So can contact sports. In fact, football's many times more likely to weaken your aggression inhibitors than playing Quake. Never mind that sport of kings, invading Third World nations for fun and profit.
So if they want to ban things, why not start at the end of my list and work their way backward? Betcha that does a heck of a lot more to lower the general level of aggression than preventing me from owning my 'hood in GTA ever will. Far more children and psyches have been damaged by the real violence they experience in their homes and watch on the TV, violence set in motion by these very same protectors of morality, than have ever been or ever will be by a mere silly videogame.
Where do you get Modafinil? It seems like it's prescription-only.
I tried to get it from Canada, and they require a prescription. So I'm wondering where the software developer in the article got it.
I for one would love to get more hours out of my day. I tried polyphasic sleep but never could get the uninterrupted 1/2 hr in the middle of the day to nap.
Peter Jackson has amply demonstrated that his skills match up to Tolkien's complexity. There were others who tried LOTR and the Hobbit before, and made a mess of it. So if Peter Jackson is not involved with the Hobbit or a LOTR prequel, then Newline should save its money because I'm just not interested.
In China a traffic sign is a soldier with an automatic weapon pointed at you. Works pretty well. Until he goes on a tea break. Then chaos ensues.
by buying Nintendo stock. I figure anyone who wanted a souped-up PS2 already bought a 360. Those lining up to buy the PS3 would line up to buy socks if they were hyped enough.
Non-gamers and gamers alike are using words like "revolutionary" and "fun" to describe the Wii in every review I've read.
Personally, I already have a PS2, and don't need a PS3 plus. I'd rather have something totally different.
Now listen up, Fi-del, you and your Cubans will NEVER take down GooTube as long as one drop of blood flows through our red, white, and blue veins!
Stick THAT in your cigar and smoke it.
I'm rooting for the EU to crack the back of this beast. It's high time that multi-national corporations learn that they are not above the law. Arthur Andersen doesn't seem to have been enough of an example, because corporate officers and billionaires in this world still play like they think they're masters of the universe.
I am an ardent populist and progressive (in the T.R. sense of the word) who's worked at a lot of big corporations in New York. I have to say that looking from the inside and having access to the other side of the table, corporations are not quite the monolith that popular wisdom believes. Every brand, product, and campaign I've ever seen they live in constant fear of angry consumers suing them.
Sure, a $5 million judgement might not mean much to a company the size of GE on the whole, but if your brand or departmental budget is $4 million/yr you better believe the bean counters will be pissed if your fuck-up costs the company more than your budget. It's true that GE will continue, but you the brand manager almost certainly will not. So it's the individual interest that drives corporate behavior in reality.
Not to mention that most people who work in big corporations are reasonably honest people. Everyone tends to think that evil unscrupulous people rise to the top, but they very largely don't because that is the sort of behavior that winds up getting the corporation sued. The people who rise to the top are clever politicians, but that's another discussion.
In sum, you and we the consumers have so much more power than we think. And even just writing an angry letter does make a difference, because I guarantee you it will get read.
One common myth is that corporations pour millions and millions into a candidate's campaign coffers. But they don't and can't. FEC regulations limit donations from one individual or organization to a given candidate or elected official to $2500 in a calendar year. Neither can they give $2500 each to 100 employees on the understanding that they'll give the money to that candidate individually. If they get caught with a scheme like that, or even encouraging their employees to donate to the candidate, they will be in hot water and so will the candidate.
That also goes for what the FEC calls "in-kind" donations, what is popularly called "soft" money. That is considered to be the same as giving them hard cash.
What corporations can and do do is say to candidate X, "We sure love what you stand for, and are sorry we can't give you more. But do you have colleagues who believe as you do whom we could also support?" Then candidate X gets to cherry pick his/her supporters who are also in or seeking office, and the corporation gets to spread its money broadly.
Nevertheless, the level of maximum contribution to a given candidate is low enough that we private citizens might conceivably match it. If you can go beyond that and do what the corporations do, you will get decent access to the candidate on par with what they have. I've seen it, especially on the local level. Doctors, Dentists, and lawyers, usually.
The truth is that corporations really have more influence than John Q. Public because they maintain a relationship with officials and John doesn't bother. But he could.
I agree with this--B5 was a ground-breaking series that made the Battlestar Galacticas of our time possible.
One thing I'd add that made the series great was that it showed that space was messy, and that there's almost no such thing as total victory because the group or person that lost this time will be back with a vengeance next time, or that the person who's your deadly enemy can turn into your chum tomorrow or vice versa. In a word, it was political, and that made it feel real and interesting.
Just like Battlestar Galactica, it entertained and also made you think. Just like great science fiction should.
Dammit, /.! I was eating lunch!
Does this mean they've finally found a use for Nevada?
My god, do you realize how much ethanol we can produce by harvesting all the corn? Brilliant!
I've been railing against the RIAA for years. In the meantime my GF did something constructive instead, became a complete iPod/podcasting geek and discovered podsafe music ahref=http://music.podshow.com/rel=url2html-10098h ttp://music.podshow.com/>.
If I were a small bar owner, that's what I'd do--play tracks from that. If I were an aspiring musician and this option was being taken by small bar owners, I'd beg them to put my stuff on their playlist.
It is interesting that you prove Walt and Mearsheimer's point, that anyone who criticizes Israel is libeled and slandered as an anti-Semite, as you have done.
If you will revisit my original post, I pointed out that AIPAC comprises hawkish Jews and evangelical Christians. I also pointed out that AIPAC does not represent all Jewish opinion in Israel nor America. Therefore a criticism of AIPAC can only reasonably be called a criticism of AIPAC, and not a blanket statement about any ethnic group or religion.
You are therefore over-using the term anti-Semite to mean "anyone you disagree with." If you keep doing that, the word will lose its power and real anti-Semitism that advocates the destruction of Israel or killing of Jews, both loathesome goals, will not be addressed. As a final etymological note, Arabs are also a Semitic people, so calling them "Islamic fanatics" is itself anti-Semitism.
That's great, but Dershowitz is a member of AIPAC and begins his reply by tarring Walt and Mearsheimer with the anti-Semite brush by comparing them to David Duke. It is a petty and simplistic, even histrionic response to a measured and thoughtful piece. It does rather prove Walt's and Mearsheimer's point, though, that AIPAC does not discuss. It slanders, libels, defames, intimidates, and silences anyone who dares try to have an intelligent, reasonable, and respectful discussion that differs with AIPAC's world view.
Frankly, as it is written Dershowitz's piece does not rate equal footing with Walt and Mearsheimer's. Nor do I deem it my duty to present AIPAC's case, since theirs is the only case that ever gets heard in this country.
However, it was kind of you to put the link up for those who are interested.
The evidence weighs pretty heavily against claims of moral superiority. Even the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon disproves the assertion that "Israel has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it." Lebanon did not declare war on Israel. And as awful as it is, the two soldiers taken by Hezbollah is not an unusual occurrence nor something that is only practiced upon Israel by its enemies; For example, in the 80's Mossad commandos assassinated top members of the PLO in Tunis. Incidentally, we might note that Tunisia did not respond by declaring war on Israel.
Lastly on the score of moral superiority, the demonization of Palestinians as being terrorists is rather ironic, given that Hagannah and other zionists used terrorism to convince the British to leave Palestine. There is a lot of evidence to support the statement that Israel itself was founded through terrorism.
Israel's tactics and behavior are as bloody and brutal as its opponents'. Neither are they supported by a great many Israelis. Recently a number of Israeli officers refused deployment to the occupied territories, and they were dubbed 'refuseniks.' There are many American Jews who also oppose the occupation. So there is no monolithic Israeli or Jewish opinion on the matter; it is a lot more nuanced and complex than Americans are led to believe. And Americans are not aware of that fact because intelligent discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actively suppressed and spun by AIPAC and a score of other allied organizations.
Finally, you sound like a reasonable person, so I ask you to take a look at this map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and reconsider your assertion that Israel does not try to take its neighbors land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement. I would further add a quote from David BenGurion, one of the fathers of Israel, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."
So, it has been an express policy from the outset for zionists to take their neighbors land.
I would note that when Serbs expelled Bosnian muslims from their land in Yugoslavia, it was called "ethnic cleansing." When the Turks expelled Armenians from their land, it was called a "genocide." So Israel's expelling 700,000 Palestinians from their land and colonizing the occupied territories looks quite similar.
This is not my thesis, it is Mearsheimer's and Walt's: ahref=http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper .nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdfrel=ur l2html-13241http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/ wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf >
It is impeccably researched and supported. Many of their sources are from Israeli researchers.
AIPAC is not just Jews. It also includes evangelical Christians who support Israel for eschatological reasons. That is, they believe that it will hasten Armageddon and the Rapture. AIPAC also does not comprise all Jews and does not represent their opinions in toto. Many Jews both here in America and in Israel oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Therefore it is not an accurate statement to say that Jews are to blame for Iraq, and at no time did I say that. Given the weight of evidence, it does appear to be an accurate statement that pro-Israel hawks, both Jews and Christians, are to blame for Iraq. And that's the statement I made.
You may call me a conspiracy nut. That is your right. It is a counter-productive and incorrect thing to call me, but you can. Walt and Mearsheimer, however, are about as unimpeachable in their credentials, work, and reputation as anyone can be, and you cannot call them conspiracy nuts. Though you apparently did not read their paper that I linked to before, I do recommend it to you.
Sorry, typo killed the link: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/r wp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
If they try to ram anything through the Senate in the 6 weeks they have left, we'll filibuster it. Maybe if we get really lucky they'll pull that "nuclear option" bullshit now and erase the option of filibuster just in time for us to take over the majority. That will make bringing Bush to justice all the speedier.