I was similar. I wanted to be an archaeologist when I was little, I read everything about dinosaurs, evolution, Egypt, and Rome.
Then I moved to Texas, where the first day of school I met a kid who believed in God, thought evolution was a hoax, and that the Earth was 6000 years old.
I didn't know what to tell him... the only thing I could come up with was something like "...but... what about all the bones...?"
Oh, there's nothing special about NASCAR, I was just trying to pick some other mind numbing activity, and watching people drive in a circle for several hours seemed like a good choice.
In my mind, I must say that Football or Basketball are probably a little better than NASCAR for teenagers. At least with those, teens could join a team and play the game themselves. Physical activity is good for the body and mind, and there's all sorts of good lessons to be learned from being on a team. It won't turn teens into geniuses, but at least it will keep them healthy and involved with their school.
I know you're talking about drug use, but I can't help thinking that you could be making the same argument for outlawing Fox News, reality television, or NASCAR.
simply the fact that smoking pot isn't exactly famous for leading to intellectually-stimulating activities....
I think that's the key here. Smoking pot tends to lead to activities which will result in you having a lower IQ. If you spend your formative years watching Adult Swim and eating funyuns all day, you're probably going to have a pretty low IQ.
I'd venture to say a study would find that frequent use of NASCAR in your teens correlates with a lower IQ as well.
The only measure I can think of that would show the US declining over the past 70 years is relative to other countries such as Germany or China.
Lets set aside that it isn't a fair comparison since much of that growth is due to the fact that they started from nothing, while the US had the largest industrial base in the world 70 years ago.
You do realize that basically every other successful country in the world is MORE Socialist than the USA, right? So if the US is becoming less successful relative to the rest of the world, wouldn't the solution logically be more Socialism, rather than less?
The United States over the last 6-7 decades has moved quite a ways toward more Socialist policies, and when you chart our economy (and I have done so), it has been on a downward slide he entire time.
By what measure has the US economy been on a downward slide over the past 70 years?
The US dominated the world over the past 70 years. Unquestionably. We paid to rebuild Europe, built the most powerful military the world has ever seen, went to the moon, became the largest economy on the planet, created the microprocessor, the Internet, and countless other achievements. The 20th century was, almost unequivocally, the American century.
How can you possibly say that the US has been on a downward slide since the Great Depression? It is quite literally exactly the opposite of that.
Really, doens't strike you as strange the idea that the Anarchists of Spain would apply Communism instead of Anarchisms?
You clearly don't know your history. Communism and Anarchism originated in the same movement. They resulted from a rift in the Socialist movement after the Paris Commune.
Hitler applied National-Socialims. Stalin and Mao applied Communism.
Hitler applied fascism, which he learned from the Italians and Mussolini. Fascism is a form of authoritarian government which seeks to promote unity and central authority by appealing to Nationalism. Calling it National Socialism was very much a misnomer, and was more of a trick than anything else to give people the idea that it was a government for the people.
Saying the Nazi party was Socialist is like saying the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is Democratic. It's not. It's just a name used to fool people who don't know enough about ideology or history. People like you.
Stalin and Mao were also not Communist - they were dictators practicing a brutal authoritarian form of government.
I don't know where you learned your history, but you need to do some reading. Don't let others tell you what to think - do some investigation.
Then again, I think you're just trolling me. I have a hard time believing that anyone can actually think that Hitler was a Socialist.
I'll agree that Socialism seems to be easier to abuse, because it is often co-opted by those who see it as a means to assuming absolute control.
On the other hand, why can't we merge Democracy and Socialism, and try to achieve something greater than either of the two alone? There's no need to deal in absolutes. I see no reason why we can't have a social safety net which cares, educates, and helps the poor succeed, while at the same time keeping power decentralized, out of the grips of a single entity.
The point is to level the playing field. The wealthy clearly have many advantages. Nobody can deny that is far easier to succeed if you come from a family of means.
If you want to look at it from a selfish point of view, the "haves" have a vested interest in keeping the "have-nots" happy, healthy, and looking forward to a future in which they can succeed and prosper. That's the only thing that has kept the American populace so content; that belief that they too can succeed if they try. We should promote that spirit, and help foster a society in which the base level of all people is kept reasonably high. A healthy, educated populace leads to greater productivity and prosperity for all.
There's no need, and it is generally a bad idea, to get rid of personal property and ownership. In fact, that's one of the core ideas of modern Socialism: by enabling people, and giving them partial ownership, we ensure they want the overall enterprise to succeed. It's not about giving welfare checks to lazy alcoholics as the right would have you believe. It's about promoting the general good, ensuring people have a viable path to prosperity, and a belief that when society - and business - succeed, that they too will be privy to the spoils.
Both Stain and Mao *applied* the Communist doctrine and in doing so they sent tens of millions to their graves.
No they didn't. They applied their own doctrines that were practically completely unrelated to Communism.
You could just as easily say Hitler was applying Democratic policies. He was, after all, appointed Chancellor by a democratically elected President.
See how crazy that sounds? That's exactly how crazy you sound when you say Mao or Stalin were actually applying Communist principles. They weren't. They were dictators.
The only governments that have come close to being Communist were the 1872 Paris Commune and the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish civil war.
Sorry, but you are wrong. The more we have deviated from free-market capitalism, the worse off we have been. This has been a steady, and undeniable trend. Read your history.
I've read my history, and I deny it. Pure free-market capitalism results in un-constrained pollution, market bubble-crashes (see Great Depression), and massive disparities in wealth.
The US was the "greatest economy in the entire world" because they bombed the rest of the world into oblivion, while having their own industrial base protected by two oceans.
What? How does a homogeneous population make any difference? Are you saying white people are better workers or less prone to corruption?
Also, have you ever been to England, France or Germany? The populations aren't even close to "homogeneous".
combined with cultural values
So all we have to do in order to have universal healthcare is to change our cultural values? Probably true.
they spend virtually nothing on defense thanks to the Pax Americana.
Or maybe they spend nothing on defense because they realize nobody wants to fight them. They also don't spend "nothing" on defense. Great Britain and France have quite substantial military budgets. They spend "nothing" in comparison to the USA, not because their budgets are small, but because the "Defense" budget of the USA is absolutely enormous.
Further yet, a Socialist government is vastly more easily corrupted than a roughly democratic form, in which the politicians are at least theoretically answerable to The People.
Why are the politicians any less "answerable to The People" in a Socialist Democracy? I don't see why Socialism and Democracy are competing ideals. They can very happily coexist. See: most of Europe.
I take issue with that Harvard article blaming Communism for the atrocities of Stalin and Mao.
Do we condemn Democracy for the extermination of the Native Americans, slavery, apartheid, the atrocities committed by the British in India and China, and so on?
No, we don't. We blame the people who committed the actions.
Condemning Communism because of the actions of Stalin or Mao is simply ignorant.
WASHINGTON — In October 1985, the influential Soviet weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (Literary Gazette) published an article alleging that the U.S. government had engineered the AIDS virus during biological warfare research. The story further claimed that the virus was being spread throughout the world by U.S. servicemen who had been used as guinea pigs for the experiments.
That's "capitalist propaganda"?
So you're saying that the US government intentionally released the HIV virus into the wild? That's quite an assertion.
Do you have any proof of this claim? Because if you do, you could bring to light the most depraved act since the Holocaust.
Oh, what's that? You don't? The "capitalist propaganda" is just an article writing about some disinformation spread by the Soviets? Too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the fundies are a growing majority in America.
Majority? Not yet. Vocal minority? Sure.
Whatever you do, don't tell them about other galaxies, their heads might explode.
Then I moved to Texas, where the first day of school I met a kid who believed in God, thought evolution was a hoax, and that the Earth was 6000 years old.
I didn't know what to tell him... the only thing I could come up with was something like "...but... what about all the bones...?"
In my mind, I must say that Football or Basketball are probably a little better than NASCAR for teenagers. At least with those, teens could join a team and play the game themselves. Physical activity is good for the body and mind, and there's all sorts of good lessons to be learned from being on a team. It won't turn teens into geniuses, but at least it will keep them healthy and involved with their school.
I know you're talking about drug use, but I can't help thinking that you could be making the same argument for outlawing Fox News, reality television, or NASCAR.
even animals don't tolerate anarchy in their packs or herds.
Animals don't allow a classless authority-free society? That seems rather intolerant of them.
He stated that murdering people with your car is a private matter. That's a red flag.
For one reason or another, the pot smoking community seems to get all defensive and denies all allegations backed by science
They get defensive because results like this can be used as a reason for keeping pot illegal.
If pot wasn't illegal, the pot smoking community probably wouldn't care about studies like this. They'd probably be too stoned to care.
I don't know, smoking sugar doesn't seem like such a good idea.
simply the fact that smoking pot isn't exactly famous for leading to intellectually-stimulating activities....
I think that's the key here. Smoking pot tends to lead to activities which will result in you having a lower IQ. If you spend your formative years watching Adult Swim and eating funyuns all day, you're probably going to have a pretty low IQ.
I'd venture to say a study would find that frequent use of NASCAR in your teens correlates with a lower IQ as well.
Lets set aside that it isn't a fair comparison since much of that growth is due to the fact that they started from nothing, while the US had the largest industrial base in the world 70 years ago.
You do realize that basically every other successful country in the world is MORE Socialist than the USA, right? So if the US is becoming less successful relative to the rest of the world, wouldn't the solution logically be more Socialism, rather than less?
The United States over the last 6-7 decades has moved quite a ways toward more Socialist policies, and when you chart our economy (and I have done so), it has been on a downward slide he entire time.
By what measure has the US economy been on a downward slide over the past 70 years?
The US dominated the world over the past 70 years. Unquestionably. We paid to rebuild Europe, built the most powerful military the world has ever seen, went to the moon, became the largest economy on the planet, created the microprocessor, the Internet, and countless other achievements. The 20th century was, almost unequivocally, the American century.
How can you possibly say that the US has been on a downward slide since the Great Depression? It is quite literally exactly the opposite of that.
Because for the power of the state to increase, the power of the people must decrease.
That's a false dichotomy. The power of the state and the power of the people can be one and the same. Isn't that the whole idea behind Democracy?
Really, doens't strike you as strange the idea that the Anarchists of Spain would apply Communism instead of Anarchisms?
You clearly don't know your history. Communism and Anarchism originated in the same movement. They resulted from a rift in the Socialist movement after the Paris Commune.
Hitler applied National-Socialims. Stalin and Mao applied Communism.
Hitler applied fascism, which he learned from the Italians and Mussolini. Fascism is a form of authoritarian government which seeks to promote unity and central authority by appealing to Nationalism. Calling it National Socialism was very much a misnomer, and was more of a trick than anything else to give people the idea that it was a government for the people.
Saying the Nazi party was Socialist is like saying the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is Democratic. It's not. It's just a name used to fool people who don't know enough about ideology or history. People like you.
Stalin and Mao were also not Communist - they were dictators practicing a brutal authoritarian form of government.
I don't know where you learned your history, but you need to do some reading. Don't let others tell you what to think - do some investigation.
Then again, I think you're just trolling me. I have a hard time believing that anyone can actually think that Hitler was a Socialist.
On the other hand, why can't we merge Democracy and Socialism, and try to achieve something greater than either of the two alone? There's no need to deal in absolutes. I see no reason why we can't have a social safety net which cares, educates, and helps the poor succeed, while at the same time keeping power decentralized, out of the grips of a single entity.
The point is to level the playing field. The wealthy clearly have many advantages. Nobody can deny that is far easier to succeed if you come from a family of means.
If you want to look at it from a selfish point of view, the "haves" have a vested interest in keeping the "have-nots" happy, healthy, and looking forward to a future in which they can succeed and prosper. That's the only thing that has kept the American populace so content; that belief that they too can succeed if they try. We should promote that spirit, and help foster a society in which the base level of all people is kept reasonably high. A healthy, educated populace leads to greater productivity and prosperity for all.
There's no need, and it is generally a bad idea, to get rid of personal property and ownership. In fact, that's one of the core ideas of modern Socialism: by enabling people, and giving them partial ownership, we ensure they want the overall enterprise to succeed. It's not about giving welfare checks to lazy alcoholics as the right would have you believe. It's about promoting the general good, ensuring people have a viable path to prosperity, and a belief that when society - and business - succeed, that they too will be privy to the spoils.
There are a ton of off-the-wall opinion ed columns published in all newspapers, doesn't mean anything.
It does when your media is controlled by the state, as was the case in the USSR.
Anyways, that article reads as an opinion piece AGAINST propaganda. Specifically, against disinformation concerning the origin and spread of HIV.
I'm terribly sorry to have to inform you of this, but that money just won't kill a million people nearly as rapidly as a bomb.
That depends. If I buy a bomb with that money, then it will kill people as rapidly as a bomb.
Now if I buy TWO bombs... well..
Both Stain and Mao *applied* the Communist doctrine and in doing so they sent tens of millions to their graves.
No they didn't. They applied their own doctrines that were practically completely unrelated to Communism.
You could just as easily say Hitler was applying Democratic policies. He was, after all, appointed Chancellor by a democratically elected President.
See how crazy that sounds? That's exactly how crazy you sound when you say Mao or Stalin were actually applying Communist principles. They weren't. They were dictators.
The only governments that have come close to being Communist were the 1872 Paris Commune and the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish civil war.
Sorry, but you are wrong. The more we have deviated from free-market capitalism, the worse off we have been. This has been a steady, and undeniable trend. Read your history.
I've read my history, and I deny it. Pure free-market capitalism results in un-constrained pollution, market bubble-crashes (see Great Depression), and massive disparities in wealth.
The US was the "greatest economy in the entire world" because they bombed the rest of the world into oblivion, while having their own industrial base protected by two oceans.
I love how you see Socialism as some great evil. What exactly about Socialism do you find so terrible?
Homogeneity of population
What? How does a homogeneous population make any difference? Are you saying white people are better workers or less prone to corruption?
Also, have you ever been to England, France or Germany? The populations aren't even close to "homogeneous".
combined with cultural values
So all we have to do in order to have universal healthcare is to change our cultural values? Probably true.
they spend virtually nothing on defense thanks to the Pax Americana.
Or maybe they spend nothing on defense because they realize nobody wants to fight them. They also don't spend "nothing" on defense. Great Britain and France have quite substantial military budgets. They spend "nothing" in comparison to the USA, not because their budgets are small, but because the "Defense" budget of the USA is absolutely enormous.
Further yet, a Socialist government is vastly more easily corrupted than a roughly democratic form, in which the politicians are at least theoretically answerable to The People.
Why are the politicians any less "answerable to The People" in a Socialist Democracy? I don't see why Socialism and Democracy are competing ideals. They can very happily coexist. See: most of Europe.
Do we condemn Democracy for the extermination of the Native Americans, slavery, apartheid, the atrocities committed by the British in India and China, and so on?
No, we don't. We blame the people who committed the actions.
Condemning Communism because of the actions of Stalin or Mao is simply ignorant.
WASHINGTON — In October 1985, the influential Soviet weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (Literary Gazette) published an article alleging that the U.S. government had engineered the AIDS virus during biological warfare research. The story further claimed that the virus was being spread throughout the world by U.S. servicemen who had been used as guinea pigs for the experiments.
That's "capitalist propaganda"?
So you're saying that the US government intentionally released the HIV virus into the wild? That's quite an assertion.
Do you have any proof of this claim? Because if you do, you could bring to light the most depraved act since the Holocaust.
Oh, what's that? You don't? The "capitalist propaganda" is just an article writing about some disinformation spread by the Soviets? Too bad.
Woosh!