Once again provide facts not your ridiculous assertions. Remand or bail issues are determined by the court based upon the charged offense. This has been SOP and part of the judicial system for a long time. There are limits on how long you can be held without a formal indictment of charges being presented against the accused. Any first year law student knows this and would leverage it to get their client released. Prosecutors or law enforcement officials can petition the court for additional time to file an indictment but this is also part of the legal system that has been around for a long time and is open to the defendants legal representatives to challenge the request before the court.
Name one constitutional freedom you have lost. The terrorists have been legitimized and rely mostly on the "Progressive" and "Elitist" political ideologues who shift all of the blame onto the victim instead of the actual perpetrators. Their comments on a terrorist attack basically boil down to something like "Oh it's terrible some people died BUT they (victim) deserved it". It's the "BUT" that provides legitimacy to the terrorists.
People spare no vitriol when describing US faults and give the perpetrators of terrorist acts a free pass by their silence and lack of focus on both the perpetrators and the victims.
The protests in the US rarely satisfy the demands of the protesters because most of the protests are too broad.
The "Occupy" protests today are not really focused on any specific issue and offer no specific ways to accomplish their goals. About the only thing the "Occupy" movement has been focusing on is protesting the right to protest which tends to obscure the actual issues they are protesting against.
If you want to protest the actions of the corporate world you won't get very far by going after entire industries as a group. Pick a corporation, collect all publicly available information on the corporation that is by law open to stock holders. Analyze this information to identify specifics on the P/L, executive salaries, hiring practices, on-going or previous lawsuits against the corporation, and any thing else that can be used in the protests. Identify the corporation board members and top executives and protest against them by name. Top level executives and board members do not like the spotlight pointed in their direction. They especially do not like being followed around and constantly trying to dodge ambush interviews with cameras rolling. Identify any associated lobby groups that work on behalf of the corporation. Identify specific government officials and politicians who are associated in any way with these lobby groups. Collecting detailed information to back up your protests will give you a better chance of achieving the goals of the protest. As soon as one corporation has been addressed then pick another from the same industry and do the same thing all over again. If any of these protests are successful the other corporations in the industry might implement the requested changes voluntarily instead of being subjected to this level of scrutiny. Government officials and politicians will also have to explain their relationships with any lobby groups. This is public information since to lobby the US government requires the lobby to register and politicians are required to disclose any contacts they have with lobbyist. Just going after Big Oil, Wall Street, or Banking industries as a group rarely succeed in changing the industry behavior. The more personal the protest gets the faster you will see results. Wholesale condemnation of large industries or even entire political parties are usually loud but ultimately ineffective most of the time.
The National Guard was called into New Orleans to help organize rescues, provide food and shelter, and prevent looting and rioting that occur at times of great destruction and uncertainty. The National Guard should have been standing ready to immediately intervene but the Governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans utterly failed in their duties. The hurricane was not a surprise. There was plenty of warning allowing time to prepare. The city of New Orleans had access to over 300 school buses that could have been used to evacuate the areas where the worst flooding was expected but instead they just left the buses to the flood waters. A large number of New Orleans police officers and emergency workers went AWOL after the storm to concentrate on their own families and there were a lot of firings after the crisis was resolved. The state Governor is the only one with the authority to approve any military deployments in their states and the governor waited until 2 days after the storm to even call up the national guard. She also had the power to contact the national government for additional military resources and she did not do that either. At the time Bush did not have the authority to unilaterally order military assets deployed without the governor's official request and approval.
Balancing a capitalistic economy is difficult because there are so many variables involved and most knee jerk attempts to make drastic changes usually end up causing even worse problems. If you look at history you will see that the US economy like the economies of other countries are cyclical in nature. The US system is far from perfect but it does have its advantages. You could strip the wealth from the top 1% and redistribute it to the other 99% and all you would do is make everyone equally poor. How much support are the productive members of society required to provide to the non-productive members? Communism has always failed because it removes the incentives for contributing to the well being of the society. When a person who sweeps floors makes the same amount of money as a software engineer why would someone spend the time and money learning computer programming? Some would do it because they truly like software programming regardless of pay but the majority would not.
When it comes to things like health care there are already the Medicare and Medicaid programs to help support those who are uninsured or cannot afford medical treatment. It is also illegal for any public hospital ER to refuse treatment to people who have no insurance or money. I've seen emergency rooms filled with people who have a cold and need to be treated and the ER must offer them treatment. I have been developing software for 26+ years and have did a lot of work in the insurance and medical billing industry and hospitals write off huge amounts of money because of this requirement. Some hospitals sell this debt to 3rd parties for collection and but even they end up writing off huge sums of money after trying to collect. Even if your credit rating gets dinged by not paying a hospital or doctor it does not cause the same amount of damage that defaulting on a credit card or car payment would do. In some states non-payment of medical bills can not even be reported to the credit agencies. People who do not live in the US and even some that do tend to ignore things like this. Reading an European news source leaves some people with the impression that sick and injured people are being denied help and thrown out on the street and that is a distorted view of reality.
What civil liberties have been lost? Freedom of Speech? Freedom to assemble (not compile)? Freedom of the Press? Right to a jury trial? Keep in mind that freedom of speech has never been absolute but there have certainly not been any new restrictions added to this right. And the right to assemble also has limits when those assembled start denying others the right away or use of public parks and access to public services. To remove all control in this area leads to anarchy which is usually not the most effective way of bringing justice and social change to those demanding it.
"Because that's called genocide"
You need to check your dictionary. When you use words like genocide in describing only US actions you are obscuring the true horror of what real genocide really is. Has the US military killed civilians? Yes. Have they specifically targeted civilians? No. The militant groups operating today target civilians on purpose and the US gets condemned for responding. The terrorist organizations gain legitimacy every time they kill civilians and everyone blames the US instead of the actual perpetrators. People will say "of course it's bad they killed civilians, BUT" It is the "BUT" that legitimizes their actions. If the US military was committing genocide they would not bother with the expense of advanced ordnance to provide high levels of accuracy they could just use a large amount of dumb bombs to level entire areas. Israel is also always accused of genocide but the people they are supposedly killing have increased their population 40% over the past 40 years. Fit that little fact into your definition of genocide. Germany adopted genocide in WW2 but it wasn't the number of people killed it was the way did it. German engineers, scientists, and logistic specialists were some of the best in the world at the time. Some engineer, architect, and logistic specialist sat down and actually used their skills to design structures and processes to kill as many as people as possible in the most efficient way possible. Germany sent 6 million to the gas chambers but Russia sent over 20 million people to gulags to die without putting the same level of thought into the process. And that's why you hardly ever hear about people condemning the USSR practices in WW2. As a thought experiment how many Jews would be left alive in Israel if the Arabs ever succeeded in their attacks? In the 73 war Israel surrounded close to 8000 Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai and could have easily killed them all instead of supplying them with food and water while the Egyptian and Israeli governments were negotiating. If the situation had been reversed how many Jews would have walked out that desert alive?
War is killing people and blowing up shit. International borders have been drawn and redrawn several times as the result of armed conflict. Basic human nature today is no different than it was thousands of years ago. We tend to judge human development and advancement by our technology instead of judging ourselves by our basic behaviors, tendencies, and actions.
Income disparity was much more pronounced earlier in American history. The "Robber Baron" era is a good place to start. Every type of political ideology on the planet has those at the top and those at the bottom. China is supposed to be a communist Peoples Republic so how did they produce so many billionaires? That blowhard in Venezuela preaches power to the people but how come his family wealth has greatly expanded since he has been in power? Before politics he was a military officer and his family was not wealthy. Now his extended family practically owns large swaths of land while living in mansions and driving around in luxury cars? Even the old USSR system had it's share of millionaires and billionaires. So you can't blame capitalism as the sole source of creating income disparity.
"suffering repercussions of the hatred " Fighting the US presence was and is still the only thing the various religious and militant groups have ever agreed upon. The only other thing they agree on is their hatred of Israel.
The US leaves Iraq and a civil war breaks out the next day and the different groups get back to killing one another. The same thing will happen in Afghanistan upon the US exit. When do we start holding the Iraqis and Afghan's responsible for their own actions? The US is nothing but a target that the countries leaders can use to shift the blame for all their problems. The US exit would remove that target. The US took out the leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan and attempted to provide some of level of protection so the average citizens could reform their government without fear of being killed. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have wasted that opportunity so the US should admit that it is a lost cause and leave to let them destroy each other in peace. NATO took out Libyan leadership and now the "freedom fighters" are fighting one another instead of trying to re-build their country. Germany and Japan were provided with the assistance to rebuild their countries and reform their governments after WW2 and they did not waste that on fighting the occupying powers that had defeated them. Granted both countries were pounded but there were still a lot of weapons available to groups who wanted to keep fighting but they didn't.
"but you might find that with all the resentment of your nation you've stirred up, that you're not one of those places left standing" And exactly what country has that capability? I was against the second Iraq war and the Afghanistan war from the beginning. However, if the US does deploy it's military I beleive they should not hold back and destroy everything that gets in the way leaving no doubt about who won or lost. If the US is not willing to do that why bother with it in the first place?
I beleive that the genome project is potentially one of the most dangerous on-going projects. Cracking the mysteries of the genome could help prevent diseases and other physical defects by manipulating the genes. This would also create the opportunity to start tailoring genes for specific characteristics in the zygote or embryo in attempts to create a better human. If this technology ever surfaced I seriously doubt that everyone could afford or even have access to the procedure leaving one segment of society as is while creating a relatively wealthy segment with superior attributes. Hitler tried creating a "master race" by breeding but if we master the genome how long would it take for a "master race" to emerge? But saying all that I don't beleive they should stop working on the project but we should at least acknowledge upfront how this knowledge could be misused.
"Politicians aren't afraid of dead soldiers in Iraq, or dead Navy Seals in Afghanistan and Somalia, are they?
These losses can be classified by the politicians as righteous sacrifices in maintaining national security. That has always been the party line regardless of the party in charge at the time.
"But people still bungee jump, climb mountains, do extreme motocross and snowboarding/skateboarding, drag racing 200mph in a quarter mile, etc."
And I am one of those who actually does participate in motocross and will probably end up glowing in the dark from all the CT/MRI/X-rays I have been subjected to because of my "hobby". But the total number of people that participate in these type of activities is minuscule when compared against the total population. In other words there are always exceptions to any broad statement but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the statement.
I really don't believe going to the moon is worth the cost unless they plan on creating a permanent underground facility that can be expanded in the future if it turns out to be of any use, A low grav environment that doesn't keep the occupants in constant zero G could be a good place to setup new research facilities for advanced manufacturing techniques or testing human survivability in a totally closed environment. Manned exploration to Mars is out of the question until we find out how to protect the human body from the radiation levels the crew would be subjected to during the voyage not to mention that any Mars bound vehicle would most likely need to be assembled and fueled in orbit.
Society has become too risk adverse to do anything as innovative and risky as the first moon landings. The minute something goes wrong everyone immediately starts arguing about whose fault it was instead of acknowledging the entire venture is risky so don't be too surprised if a couple of things blow up. The rocket disasters in the early space program did not shelve the project until endless analyses could be conducted to guarantee 100% future success. The astronauts who participate in the space program certainly understand and are willing to take the risk and as long as that is the case we should continue pushing outwards. Thousands of years ago people blindly set off to sail the oceans when they thought the world was flat but they went anyway and eventually new discoveries were made, Early scientific minds were willing to chance being charged as religious heretics in order to study and eventually publish information about the solar system and basic physics models. We can't depend on any politicians to say or support any risky venture because they are afraid of being blamed for any failures. The only way the US will get back to the moon is if China (or any other country) starts working in that direction. Then the politicians might be willing to fund and promote a risky project in the sacred cause of national security.
The US, as a country, doesn't have friends it has interests just like every other country on the planet. People complain about US meddling and then turn right around and complain about the US not getting involved in some cluster fuck of one type or another in some shit hole on the other side of the world. The US is stuck in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum" and I would prefer the "don't" option. Hopefully the US will start disengaging militarily from any conflict threaten does not directly harm US interests. It would save a hell of a lot of money. If Iran wants a nuke let them and just remind them of the consequences of using the weapon. Cease any involvement in the revolutions in the middle east, South Asia, and North Africa. Just wait until the dust settles and deal with whoever is still standing.
Most of the advanced military technology in use today is first generation which usually means more expensive. If a particular technology proves useful and reliable the manufacturing process can be made more efficient to lower the cost. A great deal of the expense when creating new technology is building the tools necessary to actually move the technology from the drafting table and computer modeling to the real world. Once those tools and plants are in place it can also lower the costs. PCs were relatively expensive when they first hit the market but the introduction of commodity hardware and better manufacturing processes played a factor in bringing the costs down. Just building the chip manufacturing plants was expensive and while they are constantly being updated they are not building from scratch every time a new chip design comes out. Cell phones used to be $1000+ when they first hit the market but now we have cheap throw away phones and even the newest cell phones are either free or very cheap depending on your service plan. Most of the defense budget cuts are in the operational areas such as reducing the number of troops. Leaving Iraq and hopefully Afghanistan will save a lot of money. I doubt there will ever come a time when the government won't fund a promising new military technology because of the budget. It is private companies that develop new technologies and pitch their ideas to the military. If the technology is worthwhile and the US refuses to fund the development there are other countries in the world who might. Projects such as the rail gun (EM based weaponry), EMP generators to take out electronic infrastructure without doing any physical damage, integrated drone networks (Constellation program), and the X-37B program used for providing orbital capabilities are just a few examples of ongoing technology development that won't suffer from budget cuts. And don't forget about those programs under development that are not in the public domain. Even the military can keep a secret occasionally. Funding new military technology development can also lead to releasing the technology for non-military uses and a lot of the defense contractors count on this to generate future revenue.
Have any examples to back up your claim or do you determine fact from fiction by counting the number of websites you find that agree with your predetermined viewpoint? It is becoming more difficult by the day to find any facts on the great information super highway. Biased blogs, discussion sites, editorials, and opinions can be found to "prove" anything. The vast majority of discussion sites are nothing but echo chambers where people can congratulate one another on how perceptive and forward thinking they are. If you read something you don't agree with it is easy to locate sources that do support your arguments. In the end the truth disappears. I used to think religious manipulation would provide the emotional framework to set off WW3 but now I think the Internet and the ease of disseminating information used to manipulate the masses will be more efficient.
You are correct. We are protected on Earth by the planets magnetic fields and atmosphere. The amount of radiation every bio-organism on the planet is subjected too has played an important role in evolution on the planet. Too much radiation or smaller amounts of radiation could have nudged evolution to the extent where humans may never have evolved in it's current form.
One thing that I have wandered about is why people think that human evolution has stopped. If there are humans still alive in a couple of million years would the species have the same physical traits that exist today? The environmental conditions the human species originally evolved from is constantly being changed by both natural and man made activity.
On the moon we could lessen our exposure to radiation by building underground but for Mars we would need a way to protect people during the voyage before we could start building underground habitats on that planet. I believe someone will eventually make a break through in understanding how to nullify and manipulate radiation levels when necessary. So far we have just tapped the most obvious uses of the electromagnetic spectrum we use in our communication devices and computers but there is still a great deal we do not understand. Even our knowledge of nuclear processes is weak when it comes to practical applications. We can produce fission for bombs and power plants but we cannot harness fusion based processes in the real world. Does anyone else think that the guys who built and deployed the first nuclear bomb were 100% confident that the nuclear reaction would not start a chain reaction in the atmosphere? Doing the math is one thing but actually detonating a nuclear weapon was something altogether different and risky.
Facebook is a "walled garden"? What planet are you living on. Facebook is used to interact and share information with other users. As soon as 1 individual gets access to your data it can be distributed anywhere. People share information on Facebook for the specific purpose of making sure as many people as possible will see their information. The user can use privacy settings to manage access to their data but the majority crave the largest audience possible.
The X-37B program is currently an unmanned orbital shuttle that is much more dependable and capable than the old shuttle program. The old shuttle and the ISS are just R&D platforms that occassionally perform jobs like satelite repair but for the most part it was a gigantic and very expensive science project. A manned X-37B version has also been in the works for a few years. The X-37B program itself has actually carried out orbital missions under the control of the US Air Force command.
When exactly did they NOT have quality control problems in their rocket programs? Back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's the chances of anyone even hearing about a problem was nil. Since they have opened their program for international use the problems can not be kept under the radar so to speak. And the bad part is that China bought the majority of their rocket tech from Russia to get their program going and China is not really known for quality. Hopefully they can improve their quality a little with the tech they stolen from the US over the years. You can't help but admire the Chinese approach to technology advancements. Why spend billions on R&D when you can just steal it from those who actually produce the tecchnology first.
Polygraphs are not admissable in court. If you get arrested you can refuse the test outright and you have nothing to lose since just passing a polygraph won't prove your innocence. People who willing post their life stories on the internet should not complain when that information is seen by others.
OK I see no reason why anyone would object to someone filming a security checkpoint. Unless of course they are studying the procedures and layout to determine if there are any weaknesses to exploit. Personally I would love to see the TSA closed down and we might as well get rid of all the pesky metal detectors at airports since they are such a nuisance. A few wandering rent-a-cops strolling the concourse should cover it. After all risk is a part of life. Then when the planes start blowing up we can hear all the people bitching and moaning about the lack of security precautions and want to know why someone did not do anything to prevent such acts and of course we shouldn't forget about any lawsuits filed because someone objects to their familiy member coming down in pieces somewhere along the projected flight path. Just like Freedom of Speech has exceptions so does trying to film an installation security systems and operational patterns. But I can be flexible and will support the right to film any damn thing you want regardless of any potential risks but don't ask me to give a shit when the next airplane or office building gets blown up. All of the current security hassles in place were demanded by the public and all the public needs to do to get rid of these precautions is bitch and moan as loud as they did to get them put in place the first time around with the full understanding that the next time something blows up because of a lack of security they are getting exactly what the wanted and if they want to blame someone they can blame the fuckers who actually committed the act.
"At best you will have your camera/computer stolen, at worst you will end up in jail."
This is BS. Outside of the case where police confiscated someones camera phone at a shooting scene and even and the fact that this happened was detailed in multiple sources. Anecdotal evidence does not support your assertion. Are there any people imprisoned in the US because of information they have published except for those few cases that fall under in the classified information like Manning? And make no mistake he broke military laws after he voluntarily gave his oath to satisfy the military restrictions on the release of certain types of information. And before you say it this is about freedom of press not freedom to violate copyright law or instances where the person disclosing the information voluntarily signed a confidentially agreement. And in these instances I have never heard of any offenders being sentenced to jail.
"Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules"
These countries are waging war on their own civilian populations. People protesting their governments should realize that in every country the civilian population greatly outnumbers the military. Large numbers of people need to be willing to sacrifice many of their people to obtain their stated goals. You can be damn sure the US will not deploy anymore human ground based resources to deal with these internal conflicts. There is not a single politician of any party how would support such an action. I did not support either the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars because it was a total waste of time and money from the beginning. Both Iraq and Afghanistan wasted their opportunities to form a better government without fear of prosecution. The US military accomplished it's goals, which was to neutralize the current leadership and help protect the citizens from reprisals while the citizens tried to take control and implement their changes. Unlike Japan and Germany who decided to re-build their countries with help from foreigners instead of killing allied forces every step of the way. The investments in these countries offered a good return on investment. In Iraq and Afghanistan the radicals and terrorist organizations are so busy searching the sky for Hellfire missiles they probably need a chiropractor to get their neck muscles unwound.
If Iran is stupid enough to actually engage US warships in the gulf there would be no US ground force invasion. All the damage would be inflicted by air based attacks with jets, bombers, Cruise missiles, and limited spec ops missions. In most instances the destruction would happen without Iran even seeing their attackers.It would also be foolish to provoke Israeli military. The Arabs learned this lesson in 47, 67, and 73 and I doubt they would enjoy another lesson meted out by Israel. The militarises in the mid-east countries are weak and do not have the slightest idea of how to plan and execute the strategic and tactical maneuvers needed to overcome Isreal or any other country. Add the fact that Israel's military technology is at the same level of the US they are doubly fucked.
And finally I do not believe the west, especially the US, should be held to higher standards. A real standard only emerges when everyone is judged using the same criteria. The majority of countries you listed use killing and imprisoning thier own citizens as their standard.
The good news is that as long as these countries are busy killing one another there isn't not much time or resources to engage in any international mischief.
War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched. War is killing people and blowing shit up. Now herding POW's or any other undesirables into a pen to execute and bury in mass graves is a war crime. Firing on people in a war where the belligerents hide amongst the women and children for protection is far game depending on the circumstances. The US military could have totally destroyed any city in Iraq without endangering and ground troops just like the allies did in WW2 too many allied and non-allied countries. That strategy produced a definite end to that war with no ambiguity as to who won. The Geneva convention allows for the summary execution of combatants captured on the battlefiled who are not in uniform or lack any other insignia. Goes back to WW2 for after spies. The heilopter attack in question fired at people who were armed and journalists carrying long camera lenses that can be mistaken as a RPG launcher. The moron who actually brought childeren into this situation deserves the lions share of responsibility for the injuries the child recevied. And US medivaced the child for aid after the attack. If it had been an American child injured we would have probably seen footage of then dead childs body being mutilated and hung from a bridge for all to see.
Anti-gun legislation will never happen. We have reached the point of no return of accepting anymore limits on firearm ownership. To enact such a thing would require the government to try and disarm those who are currently very well armed. Also the US is still ranked the number 1 manufacturer in the world and there has been a slow but steady increase in over the past 4 years of foreign countries moving their manufacturing jobs back to the US. Being in the software development industry for over 26 years I have also noted that a lot of companies, both big and small, are reducing their dependence on off-shore resources. The vast majority of the good developers from foreign countries have already relocated to the US leaving behind only the resources that prove the point that you get what you pay for. Governments and economies, both domestic and international, have always fluctuated up and down in cycles for various reasons. And every time people have predicted the end of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again provide facts not your ridiculous assertions.
Remand or bail issues are determined by the court based upon the charged offense. This has been SOP and part of the judicial system for a long time. There are limits on how long you can be held without a formal indictment of charges being presented against the accused. Any first year law student knows this and would leverage it to get their client released. Prosecutors or law enforcement officials can petition the court for additional time to file an indictment but this is also part of the legal system that has been around for a long time and is open to the defendants legal representatives to challenge the request before the court.
Please provide facts not your opinions.or judgements.
Name one constitutional freedom you have lost. The terrorists have been legitimized and rely mostly on the "Progressive" and "Elitist" political ideologues who shift all of the blame onto the victim instead of the actual perpetrators. Their comments on a terrorist attack basically boil down to something like "Oh it's terrible some people died BUT they (victim) deserved it". It's the "BUT" that provides legitimacy to the terrorists.
People spare no vitriol when describing US faults and give the perpetrators of terrorist acts a free pass by their silence and lack of focus on both the perpetrators and the victims.
The protests in the US rarely satisfy the demands of the protesters because most of the protests are too broad.
The "Occupy" protests today are not really focused on any specific issue and offer no specific ways to accomplish their goals. About the only thing the "Occupy" movement has been focusing on is protesting the right to protest which tends to obscure the actual issues they are protesting against.
If you want to protest the actions of the corporate world you won't get very far by going after entire industries as a group. Pick a corporation, collect all publicly available information on the corporation that is by law open to stock holders. Analyze this information to identify specifics on the P/L, executive salaries, hiring practices, on-going or previous lawsuits against the corporation, and any thing else that can be used in the protests. Identify the corporation board members and top executives and protest against them by name. Top level executives and board members do not like the spotlight pointed in their direction. They especially do not like being followed around and constantly trying to dodge ambush interviews with cameras rolling. Identify any associated lobby groups that work on behalf of the corporation. Identify specific government officials and politicians who are associated in any way with these lobby groups. Collecting detailed information to back up your protests will give you a better chance of achieving the goals of the protest. As soon as one corporation has been addressed then pick another from the same industry and do the same thing all over again. If any of these protests are successful the other corporations in the industry might implement the requested changes voluntarily instead of being subjected to this level of scrutiny. Government officials and politicians will also have to explain their relationships with any lobby groups. This is public information since to lobby the US government requires the lobby to register and politicians are required to disclose any contacts they have with lobbyist. Just going after Big Oil, Wall Street, or Banking industries as a group rarely succeed in changing the industry behavior. The more personal the protest gets the faster you will see results. Wholesale condemnation of large industries or even entire political parties are usually loud but ultimately ineffective most of the time.
The National Guard was called into New Orleans to help organize rescues, provide food and shelter, and prevent looting and rioting that occur at times of great destruction and uncertainty. The National Guard should have been standing ready to immediately intervene but the Governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans utterly failed in their duties. The hurricane was not a surprise. There was plenty of warning allowing time to prepare. The city of New Orleans had access to over 300 school buses that could have been used to evacuate the areas where the worst flooding was expected but instead they just left the buses to the flood waters. A large number of New Orleans police officers and emergency workers went AWOL after the storm to concentrate on their own families and there were a lot of firings after the crisis was resolved. The state Governor is the only one with the authority to approve any military deployments in their states and the governor waited until 2 days after the storm to even call up the national guard. She also had the power to contact the national government for additional military resources and she did not do that either. At the time Bush did not have the authority to unilaterally order military assets deployed without the governor's official request and approval.
Balancing a capitalistic economy is difficult because there are so many variables involved and most knee jerk attempts to make drastic changes usually end up causing even worse problems. If you look at history you will see that the US economy like the economies of other countries are cyclical in nature. The US system is far from perfect but it does have its advantages. You could strip the wealth from the top 1% and redistribute it to the other 99% and all you would do is make everyone equally poor. How much support are the productive members of society required to provide to the non-productive members? Communism has always failed because it removes the incentives for contributing to the well being of the society. When a person who sweeps floors makes the same amount of money as a software engineer why would someone spend the time and money learning computer programming? Some would do it because they truly like software programming regardless of pay but the majority would not.
When it comes to things like health care there are already the Medicare and Medicaid programs to help support those who are uninsured or cannot afford medical treatment. It is also illegal for any public hospital ER to refuse treatment to people who have no insurance or money. I've seen emergency rooms filled with people who have a cold and need to be treated and the ER must offer them treatment. I have been developing software for 26+ years and have did a lot of work in the insurance and medical billing industry and hospitals write off huge amounts of money because of this requirement. Some hospitals sell this debt to 3rd parties for collection and but even they end up writing off huge sums of money after trying to collect. Even if your credit rating gets dinged by not paying a hospital or doctor it does not cause the same amount of damage that defaulting on a credit card or car payment would do. In some states non-payment of medical bills can not even be reported to the credit agencies. People who do not live in the US and even some that do tend to ignore things like this. Reading an European news source leaves some people with the impression that sick and injured people are being denied help and thrown out on the street and that is a distorted view of reality.
"a massive erosion of civil liberties"
What civil liberties have been lost? Freedom of Speech? Freedom to assemble (not compile)? Freedom of the Press? Right to a jury trial? Keep in mind that freedom of speech has never been absolute but there have certainly not been any new restrictions added to this right. And the right to assemble also has limits when those assembled start denying others the right away or use of public parks and access to public services. To remove all control in this area leads to anarchy which is usually not the most effective way of bringing justice and social change to those demanding it.
"Because that's called genocide"
You need to check your dictionary. When you use words like genocide in describing only US actions you are obscuring the true horror of what real genocide really is. Has the US military killed civilians? Yes. Have they specifically targeted civilians? No. The militant groups operating today target civilians on purpose and the US gets condemned for responding. The terrorist organizations gain legitimacy every time they kill civilians and everyone blames the US instead of the actual perpetrators. People will say "of course it's bad they killed civilians, BUT" It is the "BUT" that legitimizes their actions. If the US military was committing genocide they would not bother with the expense of advanced ordnance to provide high levels of accuracy they could just use a large amount of dumb bombs to level entire areas. Israel is also always accused of genocide but the people they are supposedly killing have increased their population 40% over the past 40 years. Fit that little fact into your definition of genocide. Germany adopted genocide in WW2 but it wasn't the number of people killed it was the way did it. German engineers, scientists, and logistic specialists were some of the best in the world at the time. Some engineer, architect, and logistic specialist sat down and actually used their skills to design structures and processes to kill as many as people as possible in the most efficient way possible. Germany sent 6 million to the gas chambers but Russia sent over 20 million people to gulags to die without putting the same level of thought into the process. And that's why you hardly ever hear about people condemning the USSR practices in WW2. As a thought experiment how many Jews would be left alive in Israel if the Arabs ever succeeded in their attacks? In the 73 war Israel surrounded close to 8000 Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai and could have easily killed them all instead of supplying them with food and water while the Egyptian and Israeli governments were negotiating. If the situation had been reversed how many Jews would have walked out that desert alive?
War is killing people and blowing up shit. International borders have been drawn and redrawn several times as the result of armed conflict. Basic human nature today is no different than it was thousands of years ago. We tend to judge human development and advancement by our technology instead of judging ourselves by our basic behaviors, tendencies, and actions.
Income disparity was much more pronounced earlier in American history. The "Robber Baron" era is a good place to start. Every type of political ideology on the planet has those at the top and those at the bottom. China is supposed to be a communist Peoples Republic so how did they produce so many billionaires? That blowhard in Venezuela preaches power to the people but how come his family wealth has greatly expanded since he has been in power? Before politics he was a military officer and his family was not wealthy. Now his extended family practically owns large swaths of land while living in mansions and driving around in luxury cars? Even the old USSR system had it's share of millionaires and billionaires. So you can't blame capitalism as the sole source of creating income disparity.
"suffering repercussions of the hatred " Fighting the US presence was and is still the only thing the various religious and militant groups have ever agreed upon. The only other thing they agree on is their hatred of Israel.
The US leaves Iraq and a civil war breaks out the next day and the different groups get back to killing one another. The same thing will happen in Afghanistan upon the US exit. When do we start holding the Iraqis and Afghan's responsible for their own actions? The US is nothing but a target that the countries leaders can use to shift the blame for all their problems. The US exit would remove that target. The US took out the leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan and attempted to provide some of level of protection so the average citizens could reform their government without fear of being killed. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have wasted that opportunity so the US should admit that it is a lost cause and leave to let them destroy each other in peace. NATO took out Libyan leadership and now the "freedom fighters" are fighting one another instead of trying to re-build their country. Germany and Japan were provided with the assistance to rebuild their countries and reform their governments after WW2 and they did not waste that on fighting the occupying powers that had defeated them. Granted both countries were pounded but there were still a lot of weapons available to groups who wanted to keep fighting but they didn't.
"but you might find that with all the resentment of your nation you've stirred up, that you're not one of those places left standing"
And exactly what country has that capability? I was against the second Iraq war and the Afghanistan war from the beginning. However, if the US does deploy it's military I beleive they should not hold back and destroy everything that gets in the way leaving no doubt about who won or lost. If the US is not willing to do that why bother with it in the first place?
I beleive that the genome project is potentially one of the most dangerous on-going projects. Cracking the mysteries of the genome could help prevent diseases and other physical defects by manipulating the genes. This would also create the opportunity to start tailoring genes for specific characteristics in the zygote or embryo in attempts to create a better human. If this technology ever surfaced I seriously doubt that everyone could afford or even have access to the procedure leaving one segment of society as is while creating a relatively wealthy segment with superior attributes. Hitler tried creating a "master race" by breeding but if we master the genome how long would it take for a "master race" to emerge? But saying all that I don't beleive they should stop working on the project but we should at least acknowledge upfront how this knowledge could be misused.
"Politicians aren't afraid of dead soldiers in Iraq, or dead Navy Seals in Afghanistan and Somalia, are they?
These losses can be classified by the politicians as righteous sacrifices in maintaining national security. That has always been the party line regardless of the party in charge at the time.
"But people still bungee jump, climb mountains, do extreme motocross and snowboarding/skateboarding, drag racing 200mph in a quarter mile, etc."
And I am one of those who actually does participate in motocross and will probably end up glowing in the dark from all the CT/MRI/X-rays I have been subjected to because of my "hobby". But the total number of people that participate in these type of activities is minuscule when compared against the total population. In other words there are always exceptions to any broad statement but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the statement.
I really don't believe going to the moon is worth the cost unless they plan on creating a permanent underground facility that can be expanded in the future if it turns out to be of any use, A low grav environment that doesn't keep the occupants in constant zero G could be a good place to setup new research facilities for advanced manufacturing techniques or testing human survivability in a totally closed environment. Manned exploration to Mars is out of the question until we find out how to protect the human body from the radiation levels the crew would be subjected to during the voyage not to mention that any Mars bound vehicle would most likely need to be assembled and fueled in orbit.
Society has become too risk adverse to do anything as innovative and risky as the first moon landings. The minute something goes wrong everyone immediately starts arguing about whose fault it was instead of acknowledging the entire venture is risky so don't be too surprised if a couple of things blow up. The rocket disasters in the early space program did not shelve the project until endless analyses could be conducted to guarantee 100% future success. The astronauts who participate in the space program certainly understand and are willing to take the risk and as long as that is the case we should continue pushing outwards. Thousands of years ago people blindly set off to sail the oceans when they thought the world was flat but they went anyway and eventually new discoveries were made, Early scientific minds were willing to chance being charged as religious heretics in order to study and eventually publish information about the solar system and basic physics models. We can't depend on any politicians to say or support any risky venture because they are afraid of being blamed for any failures. The only way the US will get back to the moon is if China (or any other country) starts working in that direction. Then the politicians might be willing to fund and promote a risky project in the sacred cause of national security.
The US, as a country, doesn't have friends it has interests just like every other country on the planet. People complain about US meddling and then turn right around and complain about the US not getting involved in some cluster fuck of one type or another in some shit hole on the other side of the world. The US is stuck in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum" and I would prefer the "don't" option. Hopefully the US will start disengaging militarily from any conflict threaten does not directly harm US interests. It would save a hell of a lot of money. If Iran wants a nuke let them and just remind them of the consequences of using the weapon. Cease any involvement in the revolutions in the middle east, South Asia, and North Africa. Just wait until the dust settles and deal with whoever is still standing.
I do include
but it seems to only work sporadically.
Most of the advanced military technology in use today is first generation which usually means more expensive. If a particular technology proves useful and reliable the manufacturing process can be made more efficient to lower the cost. A great deal of the expense when creating new technology is building the tools necessary to actually move the technology from the drafting table and computer modeling to the real world. Once those tools and plants are in place it can also lower the costs. PCs were relatively expensive when they first hit the market but the introduction of commodity hardware and better manufacturing processes played a factor in bringing the costs down. Just building the chip manufacturing plants was expensive and while they are constantly being updated they are not building from scratch every time a new chip design comes out. Cell phones used to be $1000+ when they first hit the market but now we have cheap throw away phones and even the newest cell phones are either free or very cheap depending on your service plan. Most of the defense budget cuts are in the operational areas such as reducing the number of troops. Leaving Iraq and hopefully Afghanistan will save a lot of money. I doubt there will ever come a time when the government won't fund a promising new military technology because of the budget. It is private companies that develop new technologies and pitch their ideas to the military. If the technology is worthwhile and the US refuses to fund the development there are other countries in the world who might. Projects such as the rail gun (EM based weaponry), EMP generators to take out electronic infrastructure without doing any physical damage, integrated drone networks (Constellation program), and the X-37B program used for providing orbital capabilities are just a few examples of ongoing technology development that won't suffer from budget cuts. And don't forget about those programs under development that are not in the public domain. Even the military can keep a secret occasionally. Funding new military technology development can also lead to releasing the technology for non-military uses and a lot of the defense contractors count on this to generate future revenue.
Have any examples to back up your claim or do you determine fact from fiction by counting the number of websites you find that agree with your predetermined viewpoint? It is becoming more difficult by the day to find any facts on the great information super highway. Biased blogs, discussion sites, editorials, and opinions can be found to "prove" anything. The vast majority of discussion sites are nothing but echo chambers where people can congratulate one another on how perceptive and forward thinking they are. If you read something you don't agree with it is easy to locate sources that do support your arguments. In the end the truth disappears. I used to think religious manipulation would provide the emotional framework to set off WW3 but now I think the Internet and the ease of disseminating information used to manipulate the masses will be more efficient.
You are correct. We are protected on Earth by the planets magnetic fields and atmosphere. The amount of radiation every bio-organism on the planet is subjected too has played an important role in evolution on the planet. Too much radiation or smaller amounts of radiation could have nudged evolution to the extent where humans may never have evolved in it's current form. One thing that I have wandered about is why people think that human evolution has stopped. If there are humans still alive in a couple of million years would the species have the same physical traits that exist today? The environmental conditions the human species originally evolved from is constantly being changed by both natural and man made activity. On the moon we could lessen our exposure to radiation by building underground but for Mars we would need a way to protect people during the voyage before we could start building underground habitats on that planet. I believe someone will eventually make a break through in understanding how to nullify and manipulate radiation levels when necessary. So far we have just tapped the most obvious uses of the electromagnetic spectrum we use in our communication devices and computers but there is still a great deal we do not understand. Even our knowledge of nuclear processes is weak when it comes to practical applications. We can produce fission for bombs and power plants but we cannot harness fusion based processes in the real world. Does anyone else think that the guys who built and deployed the first nuclear bomb were 100% confident that the nuclear reaction would not start a chain reaction in the atmosphere? Doing the math is one thing but actually detonating a nuclear weapon was something altogether different and risky.
Facebook is a "walled garden"? What planet are you living on. Facebook is used to interact and share information with other users. As soon as 1 individual gets access to your data it can be distributed anywhere. People share information on Facebook for the specific purpose of making sure as many people as possible will see their information. The user can use privacy settings to manage access to their data but the majority crave the largest audience possible.
The X-37B program is currently an unmanned orbital shuttle that is much more dependable and capable than the old shuttle program. The old shuttle and the ISS are just R&D platforms that occassionally perform jobs like satelite repair but for the most part it was a gigantic and very expensive science project. A manned X-37B version has also been in the works for a few years. The X-37B program itself has actually carried out orbital missions under the control of the US Air Force command.
When exactly did they NOT have quality control problems in their rocket programs? Back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's the chances of anyone even hearing about a problem was nil. Since they have opened their program for international use the problems can not be kept under the radar so to speak. And the bad part is that China bought the majority of their rocket tech from Russia to get their program going and China is not really known for quality. Hopefully they can improve their quality a little with the tech they stolen from the US over the years. You can't help but admire the Chinese approach to technology advancements. Why spend billions on R&D when you can just steal it from those who actually produce the tecchnology first.
Polygraphs are not admissable in court. If you get arrested you can refuse the test outright and you have nothing to lose since just passing a polygraph won't prove your innocence. People who willing post their life stories on the internet should not complain when that information is seen by others.
OK I see no reason why anyone would object to someone filming a security checkpoint. Unless of course they are studying the procedures and layout to determine if there are any weaknesses to exploit. Personally I would love to see the TSA closed down and we might as well get rid of all the pesky metal detectors at airports since they are such a nuisance. A few wandering rent-a-cops strolling the concourse should cover it. After all risk is a part of life. Then when the planes start blowing up we can hear all the people bitching and moaning about the lack of security precautions and want to know why someone did not do anything to prevent such acts and of course we shouldn't forget about any lawsuits filed because someone objects to their familiy member coming down in pieces somewhere along the projected flight path. Just like Freedom of Speech has exceptions so does trying to film an installation security systems and operational patterns. But I can be flexible and will support the right to film any damn thing you want regardless of any potential risks but don't ask me to give a shit when the next airplane or office building gets blown up. All of the current security hassles in place were demanded by the public and all the public needs to do to get rid of these precautions is bitch and moan as loud as they did to get them put in place the first time around with the full understanding that the next time something blows up because of a lack of security they are getting exactly what the wanted and if they want to blame someone they can blame the fuckers who actually committed the act.
"At best you will have your camera/computer stolen, at worst you will end up in jail." This is BS. Outside of the case where police confiscated someones camera phone at a shooting scene and even and the fact that this happened was detailed in multiple sources. Anecdotal evidence does not support your assertion. Are there any people imprisoned in the US because of information they have published except for those few cases that fall under in the classified information like Manning? And make no mistake he broke military laws after he voluntarily gave his oath to satisfy the military restrictions on the release of certain types of information. And before you say it this is about freedom of press not freedom to violate copyright law or instances where the person disclosing the information voluntarily signed a confidentially agreement. And in these instances I have never heard of any offenders being sentenced to jail.
Passing a law is meaningless if you can not disarm those already armed.
"Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules" These countries are waging war on their own civilian populations. People protesting their governments should realize that in every country the civilian population greatly outnumbers the military. Large numbers of people need to be willing to sacrifice many of their people to obtain their stated goals. You can be damn sure the US will not deploy anymore human ground based resources to deal with these internal conflicts. There is not a single politician of any party how would support such an action. I did not support either the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars because it was a total waste of time and money from the beginning. Both Iraq and Afghanistan wasted their opportunities to form a better government without fear of prosecution. The US military accomplished it's goals, which was to neutralize the current leadership and help protect the citizens from reprisals while the citizens tried to take control and implement their changes. Unlike Japan and Germany who decided to re-build their countries with help from foreigners instead of killing allied forces every step of the way. The investments in these countries offered a good return on investment. In Iraq and Afghanistan the radicals and terrorist organizations are so busy searching the sky for Hellfire missiles they probably need a chiropractor to get their neck muscles unwound. If Iran is stupid enough to actually engage US warships in the gulf there would be no US ground force invasion. All the damage would be inflicted by air based attacks with jets, bombers, Cruise missiles, and limited spec ops missions. In most instances the destruction would happen without Iran even seeing their attackers.It would also be foolish to provoke Israeli military. The Arabs learned this lesson in 47, 67, and 73 and I doubt they would enjoy another lesson meted out by Israel. The militarises in the mid-east countries are weak and do not have the slightest idea of how to plan and execute the strategic and tactical maneuvers needed to overcome Isreal or any other country. Add the fact that Israel's military technology is at the same level of the US they are doubly fucked. And finally I do not believe the west, especially the US, should be held to higher standards. A real standard only emerges when everyone is judged using the same criteria. The majority of countries you listed use killing and imprisoning thier own citizens as their standard. The good news is that as long as these countries are busy killing one another there isn't not much time or resources to engage in any international mischief.
War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched. War is killing people and blowing shit up. Now herding POW's or any other undesirables into a pen to execute and bury in mass graves is a war crime. Firing on people in a war where the belligerents hide amongst the women and children for protection is far game depending on the circumstances. The US military could have totally destroyed any city in Iraq without endangering and ground troops just like the allies did in WW2 too many allied and non-allied countries. That strategy produced a definite end to that war with no ambiguity as to who won. The Geneva convention allows for the summary execution of combatants captured on the battlefiled who are not in uniform or lack any other insignia. Goes back to WW2 for after spies. The heilopter attack in question fired at people who were armed and journalists carrying long camera lenses that can be mistaken as a RPG launcher. The moron who actually brought childeren into this situation deserves the lions share of responsibility for the injuries the child recevied. And US medivaced the child for aid after the attack. If it had been an American child injured we would have probably seen footage of then dead childs body being mutilated and hung from a bridge for all to see.
Anti-gun legislation will never happen. We have reached the point of no return of accepting anymore limits on firearm ownership. To enact such a thing would require the government to try and disarm those who are currently very well armed. Also the US is still ranked the number 1 manufacturer in the world and there has been a slow but steady increase in over the past 4 years of foreign countries moving their manufacturing jobs back to the US. Being in the software development industry for over 26 years I have also noted that a lot of companies, both big and small, are reducing their dependence on off-shore resources. The vast majority of the good developers from foreign countries have already relocated to the US leaving behind only the resources that prove the point that you get what you pay for. Governments and economies, both domestic and international, have always fluctuated up and down in cycles for various reasons. And every time people have predicted the end of the world.