and leave all these unconstitutional organizations while you are at it.
I would guess that membership in such organizations falls under the Constitutional authorization to make treaties.
Withdraw from all the countries where we are not bound by treaty to be, and renegotiate the treaties binding our forces to those remaining nations as soon as possible. We can trade with anyone and everyone, but we don't need to wave guns in their faces while we do it. It is time the US stopped being a world paramilitary (no longer just police) force, and started being a world citizen again.
I've come to the sad conclusion that it never has been about being the world's police: it's just imperialism. Assert our might, so we can continue or (relatively) luxurious lifestyle for a few more decades.
so your saying that they shouldnt seek diplomatic means to end the conflict? that is what the UN is all about right?
Unfortunately, "the mid-east peace process" became a joke decades ago. A game for the leaders of the various groups, but not a peace process.
The last few times I've heard that a US President wants to "restart the mid-east peace process", I just laughed. You can predict photo-ops at Camp David, with people who hate each other shaking hands. But you can also predict that nothing is going to come of it.
The United Nations, however, is NOT such an organization. Membership does not recognize that you are moral or democratic, or anything else. It recognizes that certain entities must be dealt with as the government of a certain area/people because the only other way to deal with that area/people is to have a war with said "government" that would be able to muster a fair number of those people to come out and fight you.
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to realize that if you are going to run a country there are times you've just got to hold your nose and deal with dogs. If you try to force righteousness on everyone in the world you're going to do more harm than most of those dogs will ever do.
Oh, and you'll also fail. So keep your ideals, but don't let them blind you to reality.
Yes, if you deny their ethnic existence it's easier to deny their human rights.
Actually they lived under a UK "mandate" after the UK took the region from the Ottomans during WWI. The mandate region was divided into TransJordan and Palestine. They're called "Palestinians" because their ancestors of a few generations back lived in "Palestine". "Race" isn't any more relevant there than it is anywhere else in the world. (I'm an "American", but that's not my "race".)
But here's the tragedy: half the population of Eastern Europe was refugees in 1945, but everyone was settled down *somewhere* decades ago. Yet many Palestinians have been living in refugee camps since 1948. Why?
FWIW, as of a few years ago some Israelis liked the idea of a two-state solution. If they pretend the Palestinians are part of the same country, they've got the issue of why the Palestinians don't get to vote, which they simply can't allow (for obvious reasons).
So Israeli citizens face a choice: two states, or one state with apartheid. And lots of Israelis have consciences.
It's ugly business, and "Palestine" is hardly the only place this happens. The USA has a nasty sweep-it-under-the-rug problem called "Native Americans". Most of us manage not to think about it.
Because according to a large number of American Christians (the fundamentalist ones), if we allow the Palestinians to have their own country, this somehow equates to not giving Israel our full support no matter how much they abuse the Palestinians, and this will bring about the rise of The Beast, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, etc.
Except that said nutters *want* the rise of Teh Beast, to get the show started.
They "like" Israel because of the role they think it will play in their end-times myth, and Israel "likes" them because they provide political support for Israel in the USA. I.e., Israel and the fundies are using each other.
how much proof do we need that they do not care about our needs or wants or even justice??
Uh... heard of that Occupy Wall Street thingy that all the politicians and talking heads are so busy dismissing, and the police are so busy beating up?
Why do costs continue to skyrocket? Because the colleges know that effectively any student anywhere can get loans to pay for the cost of college.
Sounds plausible, but is it true?
What's going to happen if loans end, fewer people go to college, and the colleges lose the economy of scale?
What's going to happen to our society when the "educated class" shrinks dramatically?
What's already happening to our society, with students and employers demanding universities to operate as trade schools?
What's going to happen to our society when the mainstay of pure research is reduced to a nub?
Also, part of the skyrocketing costs can be attributed to the fact that many state legislatures don't like funding higher education. They kind of like keeping one around as a status symbol, but they're increasingly shifting the economic burden to the students. (We used to cheerfully subsidize education with tax dollars, because we used to take pride in an educated society, and believed it would be a better society. Now all that matters is money.)
Also, the recent economic meltdown has caused a lot of state legislatures to reduce funding, sometimes dramatically, and universities are either scaling down (reduced opportunity) or passing the cost difference on to the students (increased price)... or both.
Nice regurgitation of the Republican talking points.
But how does it apply to university professors? How do you want to see their productivity increase? How are their unions preventing it? How does state funding of higher education lead to mediocrity?
For that matter, how do those talking points *really* apply to grade school teachers? Do you have any idea how many hours they work, how much crap they have to put up with, how little they get paid, and how little thanks they get for taking the job?
...you refer to selection as evolution. Selection is well understood, and pretty much everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the most outspoken evolutionist will agree on the fact that when a species is faced with an unavoidable situation in which most of them will be killed off, only those that exhibit traits allowing them to survive will persist to pass on their genes
And everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the least fundamental creationist will continue to deny reality long after anyone who isn't a member of their cult accepts it.
If fish can do it, then it should be no problem for humans. You left wing environmentalists lose again. We Conservatives can pollute and know there is nothing wrong with it. Again, more evidence promoting the Conservative lifestyle.
Also, what with global warming and all that (GWAAT), we'll be running around nekkid all the time, and do even more breeding than we did back in the sixties.
You think the robber barons responsible for the pollution eat anything fished out of the Hudson? Fat chance. If the toxins do work their way up the food chain, it'll be the peasant class that suffers for it.
Yes, but our Overlords will suffer when we perish and aren't around for them to exploit anymore.
We should eat these fish just to spite them. Quick, before they outlaw it!
I picked that up from a PBS special about the "blade runner" sifakas. Nature or NOVA or such. There was a mention of a species of black parrots, and I thought it was cool. Every pirate should have one!
Yeah, the magic of American politics is that control is usually split between two parties, so partisans can almost always credit their own party for stuff they like and blame the other party for stuff they don't. The only time self-delusion becomes a challenge is when your party controls everything and you're not happy with the outcome, or the other party controls everything and you are happy with the outcome.
But even in those relatively rare circumstances, all you have to do is decide to argue that another issue is more important, so you can go back to aligning your happiness or unhappiness with your partisan views.
This is called "a bubble." It's a situation of unsustainable growth and prosperity. It's like buying lots of things on credit and thinking you're well off. In reality, someone will come along to collect and then you will realize you were never well off.
Actually you *were* better off - before the collectors came around and broke your fingers and kneecaps.
That's why keeping the US Dollar as the unit of international exchange is so important.
By some accounts, the biggest threat to the US economy is that international drug and/or arms trade will switch from the dollar to the euro as the international medium of exchange.
The claims that we had erased the federal debt and had gone on to a surplus were based on long-range projections that were totally inaccurate, and had never been realized.
Possibly because the long-range projections didn't include 2+ unbudgeted wars, a near doubling of the regular defense budget, a huge expansion of medicare without any new revenues specified to fund it, big "temporary" tax cuts for billionaires, a huge loss of tax revenues due to the economic meltdown, etc.
It doesn't take a genius economist to figure out why the US debt is going up-up-up. You've just got to learn to ignore what politicians say and watch what they do.
Slashdot Mirror
and leave all these unconstitutional organizations while you are at it.
I would guess that membership in such organizations falls under the Constitutional authorization to make treaties.
Withdraw from all the countries where we are not bound by treaty to be, and renegotiate the treaties binding our forces to those remaining nations as soon as possible. We can trade with anyone and everyone, but we don't need to wave guns in their faces while we do it. It is time the US stopped being a world paramilitary (no longer just police) force, and started being a world citizen again.
I've come to the sad conclusion that it never has been about being the world's police: it's just imperialism. Assert our might, so we can continue or (relatively) luxurious lifestyle for a few more decades.
so your saying that they shouldnt seek diplomatic means to end the conflict? that is what the UN is all about right?
Unfortunately, "the mid-east peace process" became a joke decades ago. A game for the leaders of the various groups, but not a peace process.
The last few times I've heard that a US President wants to "restart the mid-east peace process", I just laughed. You can predict photo-ops at Camp David, with people who hate each other shaking hands. But you can also predict that nothing is going to come of it.
The United Nations, however, is NOT such an organization. Membership does not recognize that you are moral or democratic, or anything else. It recognizes that certain entities must be dealt with as the government of a certain area/people because the only other way to deal with that area/people is to have a war with said "government" that would be able to muster a fair number of those people to come out and fight you.
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to realize that if you are going to run a country there are times you've just got to hold your nose and deal with dogs. If you try to force righteousness on everyone in the world you're going to do more harm than most of those dogs will ever do.
Oh, and you'll also fail. So keep your ideals, but don't let them blind you to reality.
WTF? And you're comparing that to violence by "radical Jews?"
Oh no, look out, they're building a house! Those terrorists!
FYI, colonizing occupied territory is a war crime.
And Israel isn't an immaculate martyr when it comes to violence.
The problem - there, and in many other places around the world - is that there are parties on both sides who don't *want* peace.
And as a useful tip: "Palestinian" isn't a race.
Yes, if you deny their ethnic existence it's easier to deny their human rights.
Actually they lived under a UK "mandate" after the UK took the region from the Ottomans during WWI. The mandate region was divided into TransJordan and Palestine. They're called "Palestinians" because their ancestors of a few generations back lived in "Palestine". "Race" isn't any more relevant there than it is anywhere else in the world. (I'm an "American", but that's not my "race".)
But here's the tragedy: half the population of Eastern Europe was refugees in 1945, but everyone was settled down *somewhere* decades ago. Yet many Palestinians have been living in refugee camps since 1948. Why?
FWIW, as of a few years ago some Israelis liked the idea of a two-state solution. If they pretend the Palestinians are part of the same country, they've got the issue of why the Palestinians don't get to vote, which they simply can't allow (for obvious reasons).
So Israeli citizens face a choice: two states, or one state with apartheid. And lots of Israelis have consciences.
It's ugly business, and "Palestine" is hardly the only place this happens. The USA has a nasty sweep-it-under-the-rug problem called "Native Americans". Most of us manage not to think about it.
Because according to a large number of American Christians (the fundamentalist ones), if we allow the Palestinians to have their own country, this somehow equates to not giving Israel our full support no matter how much they abuse the Palestinians, and this will bring about the rise of The Beast, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, etc.
Except that said nutters *want* the rise of Teh Beast, to get the show started.
They "like" Israel because of the role they think it will play in their end-times myth, and Israel "likes" them because they provide political support for Israel in the USA. I.e., Israel and the fundies are using each other.
childhood was an alienating experience, pigeon-holed as a nerd
If you were a *real* nerd, you wouldn't have cared.
so, when is the revolution, guys?
how much proof do we need that they do not care about our needs or wants or even justice??
Uh... heard of that Occupy Wall Street thingy that all the politicians and talking heads are so busy dismissing, and the police are so busy beating up?
I just cannot stand to have another thumper in executive power again. the amount of damage they do is seen for decades, later.
But it sure is fun watching the current crop of wannabes trying to out-kook each other.
In a zero to 100 scale, with nicotine being at the very top, cannabis is rated 21 - well below caffeine, alcohol, or valium.
I'm scared to ask, but where does chocolate fit in?
Why do costs continue to skyrocket? Because the colleges know that effectively any student anywhere can get loans to pay for the cost of college.
Sounds plausible, but is it true?
What's going to happen if loans end, fewer people go to college, and the colleges lose the economy of scale?
What's going to happen to our society when the "educated class" shrinks dramatically?
What's already happening to our society, with students and employers demanding universities to operate as trade schools?
What's going to happen to our society when the mainstay of pure research is reduced to a nub?
Also, part of the skyrocketing costs can be attributed to the fact that many state legislatures don't like funding higher education. They kind of like keeping one around as a status symbol, but they're increasingly shifting the economic burden to the students. (We used to cheerfully subsidize education with tax dollars, because we used to take pride in an educated society, and believed it would be a better society. Now all that matters is money.)
Also, the recent economic meltdown has caused a lot of state legislatures to reduce funding, sometimes dramatically, and universities are either scaling down (reduced opportunity) or passing the cost difference on to the students (increased price)... or both.
Nice regurgitation of the Republican talking points.
But how does it apply to university professors? How do you want to see their productivity increase? How are their unions preventing it? How does state funding of higher education lead to mediocrity?
For that matter, how do those talking points *really* apply to grade school teachers? Do you have any idea how many hours they work, how much crap they have to put up with, how little they get paid, and how little thanks they get for taking the job?
...you refer to selection as evolution. Selection is well understood, and pretty much everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the most outspoken evolutionist will agree on the fact that when a species is faced with an unavoidable situation in which most of them will be killed off, only those that exhibit traits allowing them to survive will persist to pass on their genes
And everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the least fundamental creationist will continue to deny reality long after anyone who isn't a member of their cult accepts it.
Fish Evolve Immunity To Toxic Sludge
If fish can do it, then it should be no problem for humans. You left wing environmentalists lose again. We Conservatives can pollute and know there is nothing wrong with it. Again, more evidence promoting the Conservative lifestyle.
But Hippies screw around a lot more, so we'll be the ones that evolve the immunity first.
Also, what with global warming and all that (GWAAT), we'll be running around nekkid all the time, and do even more breeding than we did back in the sixties.
You think the robber barons responsible for the pollution eat anything fished out of the Hudson? Fat chance. If the toxins do work their way up the food chain, it'll be the peasant class that suffers for it.
Yes, but our Overlords will suffer when we perish and aren't around for them to exploit anymore.
We should eat these fish just to spite them. Quick, before they outlaw it!
Sounds like humanity's just desserts for polluting the food web in the first place.
You eat fish for dessert?
By the way, love your handle.
I picked that up from a PBS special about the "blade runner" sifakas. Nature or NOVA or such. There was a mention of a species of black parrots, and I thought it was cool. Every pirate should have one!
"Reagan's voodoo economics" is a libel. If Democrats hadn't blocked critical portions of Reagan's plan, we'd be much better off today.
Better off, as in "the rich would own everything, rather than just almost everything"?
Remember spending bills originate in the House
Yeah, the magic of American politics is that control is usually split between two parties, so partisans can almost always credit their own party for stuff they like and blame the other party for stuff they don't. The only time self-delusion becomes a challenge is when your party controls everything and you're not happy with the outcome, or the other party controls everything and you are happy with the outcome.
But even in those relatively rare circumstances, all you have to do is decide to argue that another issue is more important, so you can go back to aligning your happiness or unhappiness with your partisan views.
I thought the promise of Republican politics was smaller government and less taxes
You need to learn to distinguish between politicians' advertisements and what they're actually selling.
I know the difference, and I don't vote based on what they promise, but there's rarely a "good" choice out there who has any chance of winning.
I always vote on the least bad one. We could improve the average, if everyone would do that.
Who knows, maybe candidates with good values and principles would start running, if we signaled that we're willing to elect them.
This is called "a bubble." It's a situation of unsustainable growth and prosperity. It's like buying lots of things on credit and thinking you're well off. In reality, someone will come along to collect and then you will realize you were never well off.
Actually you *were* better off - before the collectors came around and broke your fingers and kneecaps.
That's why keeping the US Dollar as the unit of international exchange is so important.
By some accounts, the biggest threat to the US economy is that international drug and/or arms trade will switch from the dollar to the euro as the international medium of exchange.
The claims that we had erased the federal debt and had gone on to a surplus were based on long-range projections that were totally inaccurate, and had never been realized.
Possibly because the long-range projections didn't include 2+ unbudgeted wars, a near doubling of the regular defense budget, a huge expansion of medicare without any new revenues specified to fund it, big "temporary" tax cuts for billionaires, a huge loss of tax revenues due to the economic meltdown, etc.
It doesn't take a genius economist to figure out why the US debt is going up-up-up. You've just got to learn to ignore what politicians say and watch what they do.
I thought the promise of Republican politics was smaller government and less taxes
You need to learn to distinguish between politicians' advertisements and what they're actually selling.
Really, this is going to happen in Bologna... Isn't that a bit ironic?
Maybe he's capturing energy from all the FTL neutrinos whizzing through the neighborhood.