The true 1984 will come, when all your health records will be known to the Federal Government so that it can monitor both the health care you are getting and whether you are complying with the mandate to carry health insurance.
It sure is "Orwellian" and it is true... Republicans may have skirted some laws (although no more than Democrat Roosevelt did, when arresting thousands of Americans of Japanese, German, or Italian origin) in their "war on terror", but to establish a true Big Brother, a nation needs an Illiberal in office...
Well, they have to be, because you're basically threading a steam bomb throughout your entire house. I'll stick with forced air thank you.
Forced air will dry you into a raisin. It is December — do you notice, how dry your lips are in the morning?
You need humidifiers to fight that effect... No, hot water — pumped through fixtures made of cast iron, or something, that's even slower to warm up and cool down — is the best heating solution... It could be expensive, but it is the most comfortable of what's commonly available today.
The oft-used copper and/or aluminum fixtures are bad, because the temperature will be fluctuating widely between the times, the heat is turned on by your thermostat and the times, when it is off. Our bodies are more sensitive to changes in temperatures, than to the temperatures themselves. Also, a quickly-heating material ends up losing heat mostly through convection (heating up air, that rises to the ceiling), than through radiation, which warms you directly (via infra-red).
Stainless steel is better in that regard than copper/aluminum, but not as good as cast iron, heavy and "unattractive" as those things might be...
(k) use the service in any fashion for the transmission or dissemination of images containing child pornography or in a manner that is obscene, sexually explicit, cruel or racist in nature or which espouses, promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism
By a mere visit to a porn site — or whatever site is deemed to be "inciting bigotry" — the site's material gets "transmitted" from the site to your computer. Ergo, you can not even visit such sites... E-mailing someone a picture of your butt or a note, that you hate green-skinned Martians, is also against the policy...
Here is the transcript of my "Live Chat" with a Verizon support person — "Drew" gets clearly confused and, to avoid the tough questions above even his manager's pay-grade tries to redirect me to a "local Verizon business office":
We are routing you to a chat representative. Thank you for contacting Verizon. Your average wait time is 52 seconds.
You are now chatting with 'Drew'
Drew: Hello. Thank you for visiting our Verizon chat service. How can I help you set up your new service and save with a Verizon bundle?
Mike: Hi! I have a question about the FiOS Acceptable Use Policy:
Mike: Does it mean, that even VISITING pornographic or racist web-sites is against the policy?
Mike: Because, if I visit such a site, there will be a "transmission" of their material -- from the site to my computer...
Drew: Please give me few moments.
Drew: There are some sites , which are not authorized by Verizon and our technician will come at your location to guide you.
Mike: So, you are confirming, that merely VISITING certain -- pornographic or political -- sites is against the policy?
Drew: Just visiting is not against the policy.
Mike: So, what did you mean, "some sites , which are not authorized by Verizon"? What does it mean: "not authorized"? Does it mean, I can not visit them?
Mike: Drew, are you there?
Drew: Some sites are restricted by govt and you will not be able to visit.
Mike: Well, of course, if the Government restricts them, I will not visit them. But that's the question of Law, not AUP...
Mike: So, you assure me, that simply VISITING any site -- even if pornographic or racist -- that's not already banned by the Government, will NOT be a violation of Verizon's Acceptable Use Policy?
Drew: Only visisting such sites is not restricted and you can just visit.
Mike: Will Verizon update the Policy's text? As currently worded, ANY transmission of such material seems against the policy -- even if it is simply in the course of a visit to the site...
Mike: Also, can I use the service to E-MAIL someone a racist (or ranchy) material? That's also "transmission"?..:-(
Drew: Transmission may be against the law and for further information , I will suggest you to call the local office.
Drew: Would you like me to provide you a number to call local Verizon business office?
Mike: I'm not asking about the Law. I'm asking about Verizon's policy... Is the policy set by the LOCAL business offices?
Drew: Yes, it is set by Verizon company. Which is following government rules and regulations.
Mike: You represent Verizon company. Why would the LOCAL office be able to answer a question, that you can not?
Drew: I understand your concern. As we are in sales department we do not have information on it. That's the reason, I am giving you the number to call.
Drew: You can talk with our marketing department overthere and they will guide about it.
Here's a better question: why would anyone bother to do that [Alter their browser's UserAgent setting -mi]?
Dunno about you... I usually have my Konqueror's setting to something like No one here but us, squirrels - 3.0 VMS 19-bit. If a particular site breaks from that, I make an exception for them (and try to avoid them, for it annoys me, when sites have browser-specific rules/content.)
Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX; I think you will find that the "open source community" is completely rational for not working on it. Your complaint is like a person wanting to know why turkeys don't do volunteer work to spread the thanksgiving message. However, there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port. The reason it's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators aren't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.
This reminds me of an insightful observation, I saw in a Slashdot signature years ago: BSD developers do it, because they love Unix. Linux ones do it, because they hate Microsoft.
Don't get married — nor pick anything less important either — out of dislike for something (or someone) else to spite them.
bullshit... LOLWUT... fuck off... jackass is a jackass...
Dear, you need to work on your vocabulary, before you can expect to be taken seriously. As things stand, most of these lovely, highly original, and sharp-witted expressions apply to yourself only... Good bye.
You're actually trying to use Andy [sic] Coulter as a legitimate news citation? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAA!
No, Ann Coulter is an opinion-writer, not a news-source — just as Camille Paglia, whom I quoted earlier without any objections from you. Both ladies do make interesting observations at times, and bring to the fore some facts, that aren't that well publicized.
I didn't ask you for news citations, and I didn't dispute the fact, that America's Public Schools education is declining — in fact, this was my whole point against rewarding failure at the Department of Education, which we didn't even have until 1979, and the education was better before then.
What I asked you, was citations of the States not learning from each other's mistakes...
Big bad guhv'nmint iz takin' our monieezzz! Dey shoodn't taxez mine, just the lib'rals dat i h8tez!
Is it your contention, that only people with bad grammar dislike being taxed? Name-calling is not going to get you too many points, darling...
But let's be honest; how many can you say to yourself have actually followed this path? So far few, if any, local state education boards have implemented this "learn from others' mistakes" ideology
Citation needed.
State governments are more than free to NOT TAKE Federal money. No one forces the cash down states' throats. But guess what? If you want to feed at the Federal trough, you play by their rules.
Yes, this is the simple-minded explanation, that satisfies, uhm, simple minds... What's wrong with it, is that the government does not have its own money (that you affectionately refer to as "trough") — it all comes from taxes, that the States' residents pay. So, it taxes us first, and then tells us, we can only get the services, that the taxes were meant for, if we follow some extra rules "voluntarily".
This same idea is now played with in the Obamacare projects: giving the States a "right" to "opt-out" of parts of the programs is a sham — the States will only be allowed to out-out of receiving services, not from paying for them. Pay attention...
managers now don't care about long term investment and planning. they're required by stakeholders to maximize quarterly profit, and nothing else. not turning every penny on direct quarter gain is ground for ceo termination. how in hell this system is supposed to promote long term goals?
B.S. and anti-Capitalism fear-mongering... A CEO is about as responsible to the shareholders, as the mayor is to the townfolk. So a mayor is not any less likely to take silly steps to boost short-term ratings. At least, with corporations it is possible to fire one and hire another (unless the government, in its wisdom, has granted one corporation a local monopoly).
you can't have three differently owned road to go to work, each with their own access
ticket and fees. that would never work, because infrastructure is that: you need to build up for long term goals and efficiency.
Actually, yes, you can — more often than not. With today's highway grid, there are often multiple routes between two points sufficiently far away from each other. For example, driving from New York to Boston, one can take route 95, or route 15, that goes parallel to it. You can then take 91 north to the (toll) I-90 (a.k.a. MassPike), or stay on the "free" I-95. Or you could take I-84, I-80, and I-90 combo. There is no reason not to privatize these competing roads — for crying out loud, Tokyo has competing subway lines!
Face it, performance of people in charge of publicly-owned infrastructure is measured in how much the spend. If they don't spend all their budget this year, next year it will be decreased. If they go over, it means, they "weren't given enough to do their jobs". The incentives are all backwards, which leads to monumental waste even when everyone is personally honest. Corporations, on the other hand, are in it to earn money. Left unchecked — such as in case of a government-granted monopoly — they'll suck rocks. Forced to compete, they'll deliver better services at lower costs. This is basic Capitalism and it works on anything...
If the problem was that national dept A, did not ensure that state depts b through z or whatever acted responsibly, what leads you to believe the state departments will act any more responsibly if the national one controlling everything and its corresponding laws go bye-bye?
If/when a State's department screws up, only that State is affected, and the others learn, how not to do things. When the Federal department screws up, we are all affected and — having little to compare with — may not even know, how much better (or worse) the things could be.
More importantly, most of the modern "national" Departments violate the Constitution — if not in letter, then in spirit — by usurping the powers not explicitly enumerated as Federal by the document. Lip-service to that is still paid by Congress — the Federal attempts to regulate the maximum speed nationally, for example, are hidden behind "federal highway money": States don't have to set certain speed limits, but will not get federal funds, unless they cap the speeds...
I don't understand the modern Left's obsession with the all-knowing and benevolent Central government. What happened to "stick it to the man", etc? I'm not alone in my puzzlement, BTW:
... somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills.
zomg! argh! violate the constitution. Dude, chill the localized rhetoric out.
Giving the Federal DoE the power to trump local governments would violate the Constitution by giving the Federal Government a right, that it is not explicitly given to it by the document. All such powers belong to the States — and the people. That this is happening in other areas is not an excuse.
You say that without the DoE, it might get better. Considering the Kansas precedence, it is also obvious that it *might not*... or better yet, that the situation will degrade.
Actually, no, the Kansas precedent shows the exact opposite — it will not get any worse, because DoE currently has no control over local boards anyway. It might or it might not get better, but it will not degrade and we'll save a ton money spent on Washington bureaucrats. Just this year — despite the dire crisis, we rewarded failure at the DoE with about $100 bln dollars. It was trumpeted as "Money for Education" (think of the children!), but it was, in fact, "Money for the Department of Education"...
There are three scenarios where the Kansas fuckapocalipse wouldn't have taken place
You focus so much on Kansas' decision to teach, that Humanity has other explanations for nature's diversity, but you miss the bigger picture — Kansas' SAT-scores are quite a bit higher, than national average, while New York's are way lower. And New York spends the most per pupil of all States of the Union. And they have a lot of pupils, so one would think, they enjoy the economy of scale...
Something tells me, the Federally-guided education practices are closer to New York's — and, in particular, you would want them to be, even if you aren't happy with the results.
by replacing it with something more effective, run by educated men of science determined to bring US scholastic averages to same levels as in other developed countries, and with the teeth to force local school districts to implement said curriculums.
Oh, boy, you have a long way to go, before you realize, that "educated men of science" are just as prone to petty politicking, championing their own pet projects, and justifying their political agenda by "science" (climate cough research cough) etc. as the local dunces...
At least, if a State's board screws up, only that State's education is affected. If the Federal DoE screws up (or, deliberately sets some aspect of education onto a wrong track), the entire Union is screwed up. Seriously, what happened to the Celebrate Diversity slogan?
and with the teeth to force local school districts to implement said curriculums.
What we need is a publicly owned infrastructure and privately run services.
Yes, because we enjoy spending, on average, 40 hours a year waiting in traffic on our public highways — residents of large cities are lucky to have double that... Can't wait to have more of the same kind of "service" in other kinds of government-run infrastructure!
If, indeed, it is your opinion, that the federal Department of Education ought to trump the local school boards ("raping the Constitution" in the process), then it is not currently working anyway. May as well get rid of this giant bureaucracy — formed in 1979 it failed to improve the levels of education — things will not get any worse and might get better.
Pinochet does qualify. I set the qualifications, not you.
Not quite. Your original description of the dictator, that the US would, supposedly, install instead of the poor benevolent Socialists read: "a brutal military dictator who will slaughter your people for generations to come."
Now, "slaughter" is an inflammatory term, which you used for its rhetorical impact, not precision. And I caught you there, because the term does have a definition: the savage and excessive killing of many people. Perhaps, in your ignorance, you really did think, the entire 60000 victims of "Operation Condor" were on Pinochet's conscience, but, in fact, the most that it was possible to accuse him of was about 3000 total.
Even if all of them were innocent (their killing thus "excessive") and killed "savagely", their total number would not qualify for "generations", in any reasonable reading of the word — for example, the 9/11 hijackers killed about the same number of people (all innocent, actually), but nobody would say, they killed "for generations". This alone disqualifies Pinochet — his general benevolence, the remarkable achievements of his country under his rule, and his voluntary stepping down are just "gravy on top".
My advice to you for next time:
Temper your rhetoric...
Catch-up on facts, such as:
Socialist countries in history,
victims of dictators per creed
Figure out your love-hate relationship with your country: one you call "a nation of brutal, arrogant, power hungry thugs," but claim to love anyway.
Nobody deserves to be slaughtered for their ideology. If they actually do something wrong, they deserve a trial.
Really? A trial? Not according to your hero:
send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. Che Guevara
The fact that you defend a mass murderer makes you
All I was and continue saying, is that Pinochet does not qualify for "slaughterer of generations". That is, admittedly, a subjective standard, so let's make it more objective: to qualify, the US-installed dictator has to be more murderous, than Castro/Guevara, whom you admire.
Either name one like that (and you don't deny, that Pinochet does not qualify), or admit, that the US has not, in fact, ever installed a dictator like that.
Augusto Pinochet, a brutal monster who, as I said, slaughtered his people for generations to come
"Operation Condor" was not purely Chilean — read your own link. Throwing a number like 60K without any proof is not convincing, and even if they were 60000, most of them wouldn't have been Chileans simply because it was a far smaller country, than the other participants of the operation (Brazil alone had more people, than all the others combined, and Argentina had roughly twice the population of Chile.)
Nope, Augusto Pinochet has "slaughtered" under 3200 people — most of them Marxists, who deserved a rather terrible fate simply for dabbling in the most murderous ideology known so far. They do not qualify for "generations" at all... Indeed, Chile's population continued to grow smoothly throughout the 20th century...
Even if Allende remained merely a naive kind of Socialist, far more of his countrymen would've died simply from the inevitable economic failures. And if he turned into (or were succeeded by) something like Castro or Che Guevara, then things would've been even worse. If you begrudge Pinochet the 3000 dead Marxists, what am I to make of your admiration for Che (which you don't deny), who is responsible for thousands of executions (in a smaller country) — and even killed several dozens personally?
Pinochet is a famous bogey man of Illiberals like yourself, but the facts are against you. As far as dictators go, Pinochet was rather benevolent. He helped his country avoid the hell of Socialism (which, having experienced it on myself, I wouldn't wish upon many), and stepped down on his own, leaving his country in a very good shape. Whatever role the US played in these events, Chileans have to thank us for it.
Pinochet was no slaughterer, and your example is thus rejected (again). I must note smugly, that, indeed, no suitable examples exist — the US, in its Cold War fights with the USSR, had more scruples, than our foe. Maybe, it was simply because our cause was just...
I've handed you your ass over and over again in this debate
Don't kid yourself. Your "arguments" are only good to rally those, who already agree with you. They aren't convincing at all... (And stop thinking about my ass. Thank you.)
You believe that it is okay to depose democratically elected leaders in other countries if they happen to be socialist?
That's a change of subject on your part... All I want to point out is that — despite several requests — no citation of the US installing a dictator, who then slaughtered his subjects for generations was ever put forward.
You are downright evil.
Oh, right. An ad-hominem... Not surprising at all — all symptoms are in place.
Sounds like Mozilla is securing Firefox; I imagine the average Slashdotter would approve of Microsoft doing to the same to IE. I don' t think this is related to anti-competitive behaviour
The browser, it has long been declared (and accepted) is a platform. Imagine Microsoft blocking "unapproved" software on the platform it controls — Windows... In the name of security...
No, the only real defense for Mozilla here is that, unlike Microsoft, they aren't a monopoly... Only one of the responders pointed this out...
Sorry, but I find it unbelievable for a person to love a country, which he characterizes as a nation of brutal, arrogant, power hungry thugs. There are no ifs-and-buts about this... Either you admit to an earlier gross exaggeration, or — after a moment of honest clarity earlier — you are now (again) being insincere about your true convictions to avoid an outright dismissal as a "fringe".
Your version seems to be the love of an abused spouse who will defend their abusive mate whatever the cost.
So, you think, I was abused by America... What do you know about me, that I don't? Or is it your opinion, that everyone is being abused by this country — and some, like yourself, recognize it, while others still don't?
Read up on what the CIA did to Chile and Allende. How we supported Saddam Hussein. How we supported Suharto. How we stuck our fingers into dozens of Central and South American countries democratically elected governments. Remember Iran Contra? Remember Ferdinand Markos? Manuel Noriega? Alfredo Stroessner? Remember how invaded the Dominican Republic because they elected a socialist? No, of course you don't.
I may be too young to remember it, but I do applaud those past efforts of America to stop the inevitable tyranny and misery of Socialism in its tracks, wherever it tried to rear its ugly head or raise it bloody flag. Even he failed to properly follow through, Kennedy's words express this sentiment best:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." John Fitzgerald Kennedy
That said, to bring you back to the original contention, I'm yet to see an acceptable example, where the US installed a military dictator, who'd slaughter his countrymen for generations. It simply has not happened, and the two nominations presented so far — Hussein and Pinochet — don't qualify for different reasons. Although Hussein was, indeed, a bloody slaughterer, we didn't install him. And Pinochet — even if we did install him — was not a slaughterer at all, but a blessing for his country, which became South America's top economy under his rule; moreover, considering, that he stepped down on his own, he was hardly even a dictator (except in an Ancient Roman sense of the word)...
As already mentioned, I have no doubt, you quite an admiration for Che Guevara and own clothing with his famous portrait — and yet he was part of a still existing dictatorship far worse, than anything America helped create. Talk about abusive mates!
The ones you mention had tyrannies. Not socialism, not communism: tyranny.
Well, well... Is not it convenient, when you can reclassify things at your whim... I guess, you liked the freedom-fighter Mugabe until he turned into a dictator too... And Chavez may already have lost your favor by becoming a tyrant — or, maybe, not yet... No, I'm not going to allow you to weasel away from this. The countries I listed all had nationalized (state-owned) means of production and capital, which, by very definition, means, they were/are Socialist.
Face it... Capitalism has brought hitherto unknown riches and comforts even to the least successful of its participants. Socialism, at best, allows countries to survive economically (although those still leave some parts of the economy private), but unable to even defend themselves. There simply aren't enough rapists and murderers in the CIA, to explain Socialism's mediocrity and outright failures...
prevent developers from sneaking add-ons into the program
Not that I disapprove of this particular decision, but imagining the Slashdot's reaction to Microsoft implementing a thus-describable feature makes my head spin...
Slashdot Mirror
The true 1984 will come, when all your health records will be known to the Federal Government so that it can monitor both the health care you are getting and whether you are complying with the mandate to carry health insurance.
It sure is "Orwellian" and it is true... Republicans may have skirted some laws (although no more than Democrat Roosevelt did, when arresting thousands of Americans of Japanese, German, or Italian origin) in their "war on terror", but to establish a true Big Brother, a nation needs an Illiberal in office...
Forced air will dry you into a raisin. It is December — do you notice, how dry your lips are in the morning?
You need humidifiers to fight that effect... No, hot water — pumped through fixtures made of cast iron, or something, that's even slower to warm up and cool down — is the best heating solution... It could be expensive, but it is the most comfortable of what's commonly available today.
The oft-used copper and/or aluminum fixtures are bad, because the temperature will be fluctuating widely between the times, the heat is turned on by your thermostat and the times, when it is off. Our bodies are more sensitive to changes in temperatures, than to the temperatures themselves. Also, a quickly-heating material ends up losing heat mostly through convection (heating up air, that rises to the ceiling), than through radiation, which warms you directly (via infra-red).
Stainless steel is better in that regard than copper/aluminum, but not as good as cast iron, heavy and "unattractive" as those things might be...
Part 2., item (k):
By a mere visit to a porn site — or whatever site is deemed to be "inciting bigotry" — the site's material gets "transmitted" from the site to your computer. Ergo, you can not even visit such sites... E-mailing someone a picture of your butt or a note, that you hate green-skinned Martians, is also against the policy...
Here is the transcript of my "Live Chat" with a Verizon support person — "Drew" gets clearly confused and, to avoid the tough questions above even his manager's pay-grade tries to redirect me to a "local Verizon business office":
Dunno about you... I usually have my Konqueror's setting to something like No one here but us, squirrels - 3.0 VMS 19-bit. If a particular site breaks from that, I make an exception for them (and try to avoid them, for it annoys me, when sites have browser-specific rules/content.)
This reminds me of an insightful observation, I saw in a Slashdot signature years ago: BSD developers do it, because they love Unix. Linux ones do it, because they hate Microsoft.
Don't get married — nor pick anything less important either — out of dislike for something (or someone) else to spite them.
Dear, you need to work on your vocabulary, before you can expect to be taken seriously. As things stand, most of these lovely, highly original, and sharp-witted expressions apply to yourself only... Good bye.
No, Ann Coulter is an opinion-writer, not a news-source — just as Camille Paglia, whom I quoted earlier without any objections from you. Both ladies do make interesting observations at times, and bring to the fore some facts, that aren't that well publicized.
I didn't ask you for news citations, and I didn't dispute the fact, that America's Public Schools education is declining — in fact, this was my whole point against rewarding failure at the Department of Education, which we didn't even have until 1979, and the education was better before then.
What I asked you, was citations of the States not learning from each other's mistakes...
Is it your contention, that only people with bad grammar dislike being taxed? Name-calling is not going to get you too many points, darling...
Citation needed.
Yes, this is the simple-minded explanation, that satisfies, uhm, simple minds... What's wrong with it, is that the government does not have its own money (that you affectionately refer to as "trough") — it all comes from taxes, that the States' residents pay. So, it taxes us first, and then tells us, we can only get the services, that the taxes were meant for, if we follow some extra rules "voluntarily".
This same idea is now played with in the Obamacare projects: giving the States a "right" to "opt-out" of parts of the programs is a sham — the States will only be allowed to out-out of receiving services, not from paying for them. Pay attention...
B.S. and anti-Capitalism fear-mongering... A CEO is about as responsible to the shareholders, as the mayor is to the townfolk. So a mayor is not any less likely to take silly steps to boost short-term ratings. At least, with corporations it is possible to fire one and hire another (unless the government, in its wisdom, has granted one corporation a local monopoly).
Actually, yes, you can — more often than not. With today's highway grid, there are often multiple routes between two points sufficiently far away from each other. For example, driving from New York to Boston, one can take route 95, or route 15, that goes parallel to it. You can then take 91 north to the (toll) I-90 (a.k.a. MassPike), or stay on the "free" I-95. Or you could take I-84, I-80, and I-90 combo. There is no reason not to privatize these competing roads — for crying out loud, Tokyo has competing subway lines!
Face it, performance of people in charge of publicly-owned infrastructure is measured in how much the spend. If they don't spend all their budget this year, next year it will be decreased. If they go over, it means, they "weren't given enough to do their jobs". The incentives are all backwards, which leads to monumental waste even when everyone is personally honest. Corporations, on the other hand, are in it to earn money. Left unchecked — such as in case of a government-granted monopoly — they'll suck rocks. Forced to compete, they'll deliver better services at lower costs. This is basic Capitalism and it works on anything...
If/when a State's department screws up, only that State is affected, and the others learn, how not to do things. When the Federal department screws up, we are all affected and — having little to compare with — may not even know, how much better (or worse) the things could be.
More importantly, most of the modern "national" Departments violate the Constitution — if not in letter, then in spirit — by usurping the powers not explicitly enumerated as Federal by the document. Lip-service to that is still paid by Congress — the Federal attempts to regulate the maximum speed nationally, for example, are hidden behind "federal highway money": States don't have to set certain speed limits, but will not get federal funds, unless they cap the speeds...
I don't understand the modern Left's obsession with the all-knowing and benevolent Central government. What happened to "stick it to the man", etc? I'm not alone in my puzzlement, BTW:
Giving the Federal DoE the power to trump local governments would violate the Constitution by giving the Federal Government a right, that it is not explicitly given to it by the document. All such powers belong to the States — and the people. That this is happening in other areas is not an excuse.
Actually, no, the Kansas precedent shows the exact opposite — it will not get any worse, because DoE currently has no control over local boards anyway. It might or it might not get better, but it will not degrade and we'll save a ton money spent on Washington bureaucrats. Just this year — despite the dire crisis, we rewarded failure at the DoE with about $100 bln dollars. It was trumpeted as "Money for Education" (think of the children!), but it was, in fact, "Money for the Department of Education"...
You focus so much on Kansas' decision to teach, that Humanity has other explanations for nature's diversity, but you miss the bigger picture — Kansas' SAT-scores are quite a bit higher, than national average, while New York's are way lower. And New York spends the most per pupil of all States of the Union. And they have a lot of pupils, so one would think, they enjoy the economy of scale...
Something tells me, the Federally-guided education practices are closer to New York's — and, in particular, you would want them to be, even if you aren't happy with the results.
Oh, boy, you have a long way to go, before you realize, that "educated men of science" are just as prone to petty politicking, championing their own pet projects, and justifying their political agenda by "science" (climate cough research cough) etc. as the local dunces...
At least, if a State's board screws up, only that State's education is affected. If the Federal DoE screws up (or, deliberately sets some aspect of education onto a wrong track), the entire Union is screwed up. Seriously, what happened to the Celebrate Diversity slogan?
Unconstitutional...
Yes, because we enjoy spending, on average, 40 hours a year waiting in traffic on our public highways — residents of large cities are lucky to have double that... Can't wait to have more of the same kind of "service" in other kinds of government-run infrastructure!
And? Did DoE's existence prevent that? Nope — they had nothing to do with it.
If, indeed, it is your opinion, that the federal Department of Education ought to trump the local school boards ("raping the Constitution" in the process), then it is not currently working anyway. May as well get rid of this giant bureaucracy — formed in 1979 it failed to improve the levels of education — things will not get any worse and might get better.
Not quite. Your original description of the dictator, that the US would, supposedly, install instead of the poor benevolent Socialists read: "a brutal military dictator who will slaughter your people for generations to come."
Now, "slaughter" is an inflammatory term, which you used for its rhetorical impact, not precision. And I caught you there, because the term does have a definition: the savage and excessive killing of many people. Perhaps, in your ignorance, you really did think, the entire 60000 victims of "Operation Condor" were on Pinochet's conscience, but, in fact, the most that it was possible to accuse him of was about 3000 total.
Even if all of them were innocent (their killing thus "excessive") and killed "savagely", their total number would not qualify for "generations", in any reasonable reading of the word — for example, the 9/11 hijackers killed about the same number of people (all innocent, actually), but nobody would say, they killed "for generations". This alone disqualifies Pinochet — his general benevolence, the remarkable achievements of his country under his rule, and his voluntary stepping down are just "gravy on top".
My advice to you for next time:
I'm tired of this thread.
Really? A trial? Not according to your hero:
All I was and continue saying, is that Pinochet does not qualify for "slaughterer of generations". That is, admittedly, a subjective standard, so let's make it more objective: to qualify, the US-installed dictator has to be more murderous, than Castro/Guevara, whom you admire.
Either name one like that (and you don't deny, that Pinochet does not qualify), or admit, that the US has not, in fact, ever installed a dictator like that.
How much of this stuff do the Iranians need to protect their nuclear facilities against the bunker-busting ordnance?
Those "toys" can go through many feet of reinforced concrete — maybe, that material will now go the way of the CRT-monitors?..
This is my favorite part! Thanks.
"Operation Condor" was not purely Chilean — read your own link. Throwing a number like 60K without any proof is not convincing, and even if they were 60000, most of them wouldn't have been Chileans simply because it was a far smaller country, than the other participants of the operation (Brazil alone had more people, than all the others combined, and Argentina had roughly twice the population of Chile.)
Nope, Augusto Pinochet has "slaughtered" under 3200 people — most of them Marxists, who deserved a rather terrible fate simply for dabbling in the most murderous ideology known so far. They do not qualify for "generations" at all... Indeed, Chile's population continued to grow smoothly throughout the 20th century...
Even if Allende remained merely a naive kind of Socialist, far more of his countrymen would've died simply from the inevitable economic failures. And if he turned into (or were succeeded by) something like Castro or Che Guevara, then things would've been even worse. If you begrudge Pinochet the 3000 dead Marxists, what am I to make of your admiration for Che (which you don't deny), who is responsible for thousands of executions (in a smaller country) — and even killed several dozens personally?
Pinochet is a famous bogey man of Illiberals like yourself, but the facts are against you. As far as dictators go, Pinochet was rather benevolent. He helped his country avoid the hell of Socialism (which, having experienced it on myself, I wouldn't wish upon many), and stepped down on his own, leaving his country in a very good shape. Whatever role the US played in these events, Chileans have to thank us for it.
Pinochet was no slaughterer, and your example is thus rejected (again). I must note smugly, that, indeed, no suitable examples exist — the US, in its Cold War fights with the USSR, had more scruples, than our foe. Maybe, it was simply because our cause was just...
Don't kid yourself. Your "arguments" are only good to rally those, who already agree with you. They aren't convincing at all... (And stop thinking about my ass. Thank you.)
My persona — with its flaws, etc. is a subject distinct from the topic. Let's not get distracted.
No, actually, you haven't. Don't make a big list — name just one "military dictator, who slaughtered his subjects for generations to come."
If only it were possible for a person to tell the difference, oh flaming philosopher!..
Citation needed
Most interesting... Why is it treason — even if true? And if it is treason, why is it Cheney's treason?..
That's a change of subject on your part... All I want to point out is that — despite several requests — no citation of the US installing a dictator, who then slaughtered his subjects for generations was ever put forward.
Oh, right. An ad-hominem... Not surprising at all — all symptoms are in place.
The browser, it has long been declared (and accepted) is a platform. Imagine Microsoft blocking "unapproved" software on the platform it controls — Windows... In the name of security...
No, the only real defense for Mozilla here is that, unlike Microsoft, they aren't a monopoly... Only one of the responders pointed this out...
Sorry, but I find it unbelievable for a person to love a country, which he characterizes as a nation of brutal, arrogant, power hungry thugs. There are no ifs-and-buts about this... Either you admit to an earlier gross exaggeration, or — after a moment of honest clarity earlier — you are now (again) being insincere about your true convictions to avoid an outright dismissal as a "fringe".
So, you think, I was abused by America... What do you know about me, that I don't? Or is it your opinion, that everyone is being abused by this country — and some, like yourself, recognize it, while others still don't?
I may be too young to remember it, but I do applaud those past efforts of America to stop the inevitable tyranny and misery of Socialism in its tracks, wherever it tried to rear its ugly head or raise it bloody flag. Even he failed to properly follow through, Kennedy's words express this sentiment best:
That said, to bring you back to the original contention, I'm yet to see an acceptable example, where the US installed a military dictator, who'd slaughter his countrymen for generations. It simply has not happened, and the two nominations presented so far — Hussein and Pinochet — don't qualify for different reasons. Although Hussein was, indeed, a bloody slaughterer, we didn't install him. And Pinochet — even if we did install him — was not a slaughterer at all, but a blessing for his country, which became South America's top economy under his rule; moreover, considering, that he stepped down on his own, he was hardly even a dictator (except in an Ancient Roman sense of the word)...
As already mentioned, I have no doubt, you quite an admiration for Che Guevara and own clothing with his famous portrait — and yet he was part of a still existing dictatorship far worse, than anything America helped create. Talk about abusive mates!
Well, well... Is not it convenient, when you can reclassify things at your whim... I guess, you liked the freedom-fighter Mugabe until he turned into a dictator too... And Chavez may already have lost your favor by becoming a tyrant — or, maybe, not yet... No, I'm not going to allow you to weasel away from this. The countries I listed all had nationalized (state-owned) means of production and capital, which, by very definition, means, they were/are Socialist.
Face it... Capitalism has brought hitherto unknown riches and comforts even to the least successful of its participants. Socialism, at best, allows countries to survive economically (although those still leave some parts of the economy private), but unable to even defend themselves. There simply aren't enough rapists and murderers in the CIA, to explain Socialism's mediocrity and outright failures...
Not that I disapprove of this particular decision, but imagining the Slashdot's reaction to Microsoft implementing a thus-describable feature makes my head spin...