still leaving them with a military equal to any possible coalition of forces
We have no desire to be 'equal' or have a 'fair fight' with any potential enemy or group thereof. We want to be able to thouroughly and utterly crush any potential enemy while losing as few of our guys as possible. We have the resources to set things up this way, so we do.
Our military isn't for the freakin school playground, where you might be concerned about fair contests.
Our military is for War. It exists to kill our enemies and break their things. Why would we want the enemy to have an equal shot at doing the same damage to us?
And don't forget that europe got it's security for free from the US during the entire cold war. We placed troops all over europe because we were sick of having to jump into european problems and clean them up- the world wars, for example. Putting our troops in Europe meant that anyone who wanted a war in Europe would have to kill Americans. And We have been a fearsome force since WW2, so such a thing was never done.
Unfortunately, as often charity goes, it has come back to bite us in the ass. Much of Europe, unaccustomed to putting their own lives and militaries on the line to secure their freedom, have come to think that peace is the natural way of things, and they didn't spend 50 years hiding behind uncle sam while he kept the soviet bear at bay.
Society, at any level, is secured by the credible threat of violence. For that threat of violence to be credible, it must be fear-inspiring, and used on those who step out of line. The United States Military fits the bill. You should be thankful for it.
While exodus 20:13 does indeed say "Thou shalt not kill"
you also have in Genisis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
and "he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death" in Leveticus 24:17
these two verses, and several others, seem to contradict your thesis of The commandment isn't "Thou shalt not kill -- unless there's injustice thou mustest rectify", it's just "Thou shalt not kill".
Perhaps it would be clearer if 'murder' and 'kill' where used more precisely- kill; to cause death, and murder, to unjustly cause death- but they aren't, so you've got to look around the bible a little more than just in exodus.
Moreover, Jesus did not give us the ten commandments, moses did, significantly before Jesus was around. Jesus did give us the beatitudes, but none of them deal directly with the causing of death, though there's probably more in Matthew that I'm not gonna dig up now.
Now, we could go back and forth with Bible quotes, or we could remember the following maxim: The devil can quote scripture for his purpose
The utility of the bible depends wholy on the maturity of the reader. It is not a crude cudgel to be swung around to prove your point.
Money quotes: The individualists recognize that the most effective actions are those taken by individuals, or by short-term voluntary groups of individuals, to address specific needs and concerns. (Where the needs are either long-term or constant, of course, that's a different issue, which I'll explore in a moment.)...
Individualists also feel that, in general, people can be trusted to do the right thing. Yes, to use but one example, some people (about half of one percent of a society's population) will always resort to crime rather than work to improve their lot in life -- and that constant 0.5% requires a standing police force to address the issue. But even then, the percentage of police officers to the total population need not be that great, if that's all they're charged with.
To the individualists, who generally trust others, the commission of a crime is not just an offense against society, it's also a betrayal of the common trust -- which is why, for instance, the individualists are in favor of a few laws, but that those few be sternly enforced....
The concept of individualism, it should be noted, finds its greatest expression in areas outside the city. The further away one sits from one's neighbors, the greater the need (and desire) for self-reliance....
Just as individualism seems to flourish most in the country, or even in the outer suburban areas, it's no surprise that collectivism flourishes most in urban areas -- where there is collective housing, where private property is tiny in size, and where it's easy to fall prey to gangs of predators (which form more easily because of the close proximity of other predators).
Finally, the feeling of insecurity is cemented by the constant feeling of helplessness -- of being confronted by forces much larger than the individual. Hence the bogeymen of "capitalists, landlords, and militarists" (as described by James Cannon above), or "the rich" (as espoused by Democrats) and the constant reinforcement of "us vs. them", are all tools used by the collectivists to maintain their "class warfare".
Now, just so you all know, the author (&myself) are members of the VWRC.
Living in mostly rural areas, I have found that I need very little from the local, state, or federal government to live my life. Maybe some roads, perhaps schools if they're any good, emergency services, parks, national defense and maybe one or two other things.
I don't need any government holding my hand or wiping my ass, and charity is best left to churches and private organizations.
Consider the veteran's group that recently ran those TV ads flat-out accuse Kerry of lying about his service in Nam.
Yes, please do consider this vet group, because one of their charges has been shown to be true.
The chain noise you hear is Kerry's people furiously trying to backpedal from his many blatant statements concerning this fact.
Fact: Kerry claimed several times to have been in cambodia on christmas delivering a CIA agent, even having a hat that he claimed was given to him.
Fact: The claim is complete, and utter, bullshit. Follow the link i sent you and search for 'christmas in cambodia' and kerry for more.
Much of the press is trying to stonewall it, but as you've seen, the dam is starting to crack.
Here's a short version of Kerry in Vietnam: He spent four months and a couple weeks in vietnam. In that time, he was awarded three purple hearts, for injuries that never cost him a day of service. Using a little-known rule, he applied for transfer out after the third purple heart, and was the only swift boat crewmember who did so the entire war.
Shortly after leaving the Navy, he starts accusing the soldiers & sailors in vietnam of all variety of war crimes in the Winter soldier 'investigation'
In 1979, he first claimed to have spent christmas of 1968 illegally in cambodia. This claim was repeated in 1986, and in 2003 even adds the now-infamous magic hat to the story. It was probably repeated a few times in between.
Now the Kerry campaign is claiming that this memory that was 'seared, seared in me' (Kerry) was mistaken, and he was near cambodia.
Nothing of Kerry's statements about being in or near Cambodia have made any sense from a geographical, tactical, or eye witness point of view. He even screws up the timeline with regards to president Nixon making statements about our people in Cambodia before Nixon was even president.
The entire tale he's always been telling about Cambodia has always been weird, and a little too reminiscent of Apocolypse Now. Perhaps Kerry's seared memory came from watching the movie too many times.
One of the swiftvet's charges is provably true. This makes the others worth at least a serious review.
And, and to the responders who have said GOP groups have been funding the ad- no shit, do you expect George Soros and moveon.org to pay for it?
What the swiftvets are doing could hardly be considered illegal, and unethical would be a faaaarr stretch. Kerry slandered them in the seventies. He's pretending to have their support now, and claims his pitiful four months in vietnam 30 years ago qualify him for president, while glossing over his decades in the senate. Kerry basically asked for this. Now he's got it.
I for one am a proponent of the California "you must use a headset for your cell phone when driving" law just for reasons such as this article pointed out. Tests have shown that using headsets, especially in-ear style ones direct more cellular radio waves directly into your brain
Do you want the state to wipe your ass for you, too, or legislate you can only wipe side to side?
Here's a hint, buddy: the dickheads in the legislature aren't any smarter than you. The only talent they holding is acquiring and holding public office.
The less they screw with your life, the better.
Oh, yeah, I like my headset too, mostly because I can keep my hands free. The reduced incidence of brain cancer thing would be an added bonus, but the position of your cell phone while you use it is something you can figure out yourself without state help.
America is hated for its arrogance and its selfishness... if America and the West want to be loved...
I'm an American, and although I hardly support everything my government does, I don't see the point in 'being loved.'
Really, what fucking good would that do us? Are we in some kind of international popularity contest?
We should obviously keep on good terms with nations that share our values (ie, nations that are true allies and are of genuine use to us, and we to them), but for those who don't, why should we give a rat's ass if they like us or not?
France, for example, doesn't share our values at all, and make a point of supporting the opposite of whatever America's position is, just to try to take us down a notch. No principals except to oppose America. None.
Why should we give a fuck what they think?
Iran's mullah's think we're the great Satan and we should all die or submit to allah. Why the fuck would we ever think we could get those guys to love us? Why would we want to?
I could go on, but I'll just quote Machiavelli: ('fear' can also be read as 'respect')
Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you successed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by nobility or greatness of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserved you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women.
You think I'm evil, I think you're misguided. What are you, a college-grown liberal? Do you really think your professors, few of which have ever had to survive outside of academia, really know what's going on?
I find it funny that someone else's need would determine my obligations, in the absence of any formal contract. Same goes for drug companies.
You seem to have take the international joke of 'healthcare as a human right' a little too seriously.
See, most rights we have here in the United States list things you can't do to someone. You can't kill someone. You can't take their stuff. You can't keep them from expressing their opinion on any matter. You can't dictate who they worship. You can't search their homes or imprison them without due process. You can't quarter soldiers in their homes. You can't make them incriminate themselves. You can't deny themselves the most effective way to defend themselves or the state against threats.
What do all those have in common? They all basically say 'leave people the hell alone' To put it another way, you have the right to swing your arm wildly, but that right ends at the tip of my nose.
So why is healthcare as a right different and incompatible with natural rights?
Because in order to fulfill the 'right', action is demanded of someone else- doctors, researchers, whatever. Thus violating their basic right to be left the hell alone.
Now, there's certainly ways to publically fund health care and not call it a right. I'm no big fan of those either. But there's no logical way healthcare could ever be a 'right', and someone's inaction about somebody else's problem a half a world away is NOT murder.
Callous? Maybe. Murder? Not by any dictionary I can find.
Someone's need does not dictate what I am obligated to do. End of story.
If you disagree, I really, really need $100 bucks. Use western union to wire it to charlie's bait shop in Methuen, MA. It's for baby formula for my neighbor's child.
Glorious and wise? hardly. better than any realistic alternative? Definately.
And I'm saving plenty of money to make sure I'm not a burden to society or anyone else when I'm no longer able to work. If I can't afford whatever treatment I want, I'll have to go without.
Too bad the notion of personal responsibility is lost on you.
...no one whould write an operating system from scratch if they weren't assured of making a fortune. Or, for that matter, a novel.
And, by the same logic, nobody ever makes food or thinks up new foods because you can't patent or copyright them.
Those are all things, that given enough time, one person can do. Accomplishing any of those, in fact, could probably be done by someone as a hobby over the course of a year.
The notion does not apply at all to the tremendous amount of resources required to develop medicine.
As to the motivations of various researchers, and how you don't want hacks who are in it just for the money- no matter how noble your intentions are, you still need the resources of a large corporation to carry out medicine development- and while you're choosing between a few companies or even a university or government lab, wouldn't it be nice to do your life's work while getting paid hansomely and working with state of the art equipment?
Just because someone does it for the love of helping people or for the pleasure of tinkering with the genes and chemicals doesn't mean they won't respond to the incentives put in front of them.
Now, back to the resources required to develop medicine:
1. Basic research- identify a health problem, isolate the mechanism of the illness. 2. Initial development- develop some sort of therapy for the problem- some conconction of chemicals, or a gene spliced aomeba, or whatever.
3. Animal trials- I had a roommate who's father ran a company that supplied lab mice and other similar creatures. Did you know that for a specific drug development project, this company custom made mice with the defect that was meant to be treated? They sold them for $100,000 a piece to the company working on the project, and couldn't raise them fast enough.
Now are you getting the idea this is a little beyond staying up late coding for a new operating system?
4. So the animal trials were more or less successful, but you have to work on some side effects, some delivery mechanisms, that sort of thing.
5. Multiple phases of human trials. This is where you track down willing human test subjects and see if the drug works on them with no or acceptable side effects. Finding and compensating test subjects, using control groups, paying even more researchers to run it all- large process here.
6. Now that you've already spent at least $100 million, you submit it for FDA approval. And if it doesn't meet some capriciously high standard of safety, the drug company can't sell it at all. Never mind individuals deciding what they want to risk to solve a particular health problem, because the FDA has removed that choice.
Chances are that each drug that makes it to market has to support a number of drugs that you never even heard about, so that drives the cost up several fold right there.
Are you still with me here? Making medicine in the modern world isn't amature hour. Making an OS just because you feel like it, or a novel, can be.
Now as to your logical steps- wich are insulting and show you have nothing more than a superficial, anti-business understanding of the nature of things...
1. The more resource intensive an endevour is, the more likely it will need the resources of a large company, which is by definition interested in profit. 2. The more talented and creative people still respond to incentives given to them and the ability to do their work with the best equipment and resources available. Which are usually found at a profit seeking company. 3. I have no idea where you came up with this. Reading too many Slashdot MS stories lately? 4. It takes what it takes to run their business. I don't say that the system is perfect, no one has proposed a realistic alternative here. 5. Do you think general advances in science and technology come out of nowhere?!?!?! They come out of pharmecut
I put life over profit, no matter what, as any sane individual would.
Such a decision is easy to make if you're in a situation where the choice is between completing a lucrative sale to someone, or giving the hiemlich manuveur to another person who is choking next to you.
When we get into the larger matter of researching drugs and distributing them to market, the decision is not so easy.
Charging an arm and a leg for something that can save lives is perfectly justifiable, because if the companies that developed and made the drugs couldn't charge an arm and a leg to not only recoup the hundreds of millions spent in research, but profit on top of it, the drugs wouldn't exist at all.
Because no one would create them to begin with. So your choice, as adapted to our current situation, would be to save only those who could afford the drugs, or to save no one at all.
Why would a company spend all that money- in basic theory, in chemical or treatment development, in animal trials (and the animals are often custom made to create problems the drugs are supposed to cure, so they ARE expensive. We're talking $100,000 a mouse for dozens created intentionally with a specific genetic structure. Not cheap.), in refining the chemistry further, then in a few phases in human trials, and if they can actually take it to market- a rare occurence- a marketing campaign on top of it. Television ads, whining and dining doctors, etc.
Again, the cost of the failed drugs must be recouped by the occasional succesful drug. This is why charging an arm and a leg for something that can save lives is not only excusable, but acceptable. It's not pretty, but it's the way it works.
So, you ask, why not just publically fund a giant research lab to do this work? Well, it's all about resource allocation and accountability.
The dynamic allocation of resources by dozens of corporations is bound to be more efficient at solving problems than a Congressional budget line item that gets it's money with little accountability, because they only have to answer to a congressional committee for a few hours every year or two. Those companies that act unwisely die off, or are purchased by better companies.
In contrast, a large government research bureaucracy could waste money unaccountably for years before anyone even noticed. The legislators have a trillion dollar enterprise- the US government- to look over. Several billion a year squandered at one department- this happens all the time now, and it won't be any different for a huge federal research lab.
Profit, self-interest, greed, bragging rights; these all drive drug companies to develop new drugs. If they screw up too much though, they're dead.
On the other hand, politics will dictate development in a government lab. If they screw up, they keep getting money, because the government takes it by force, and it's already got way too much to keep track of. Already NIH research dollars are mispent, by what I would imagine would be your standard.
From what I recall, AIDS and Breast Cancer kill about the same number of people a year. Breast cancer, however, gets about 10 times the public money AIDS research does. That's government resource allocation for you. And you're proposing to enlarge and empower it.
I do not claim the system is perfect. I do claim, however, that it is better than a completely state funded medical research endevour with no patent rights to worry about.
The effective NIH subsidies could be argued as compensation for the FDA raising the standard for permissible medicines to ridiculously high levels, or the roll of the dice when it comes to litigation down the road when a drug may be considered to be imperfect.
I would personally like to see the standards for new medicines lowered by the FDA, and you and your doctor can decide if a particular medicine's side effects are worth it's benefits, and at the same time, a little more sanity return to our courtrooms. I'm talking about allowing personal decisions as to what risk is acceptable, and then people taking responsibility for those risks they chose should things go sour. This would bring more drugs all the way to market, so each successful drug would only have to support a dozen drugs that failed in trial, rather than two dozen (those numbers are wild-assed guesses.)
Doing those two things, we could easily eliminate NIH grants and the market would continue to develop drugs. Even better if the US wasn't the only market were companies could charge what they want, so we wouldn't have to support all the research with our dollars (both in NIH-spent taxes and drug purchases) while socialized medicine countries barely let drug companies charge the marginal cost.
Maybe we could even eliminate NIH subsidies now. Not really sure.
Now, in general, wether or not an industry is the most profitable in existance- this doesn't matter to me. I say good for them. Some industry has to be, and I'm not one to run around tearing down giants just because they're giants.
Could the system use a good deal of reform? Absolutely. Is a capitilist driven system superior to a state run system? Most definately.
Take a good look at the pharmecutical industry and the cost of drugs in the third world, and you will be convinced that patents do kill people. Doctors Without Borders has a good case on this, search them on the web.
The drugs protected by patents wouldn't even exist to save anyone if the pharmaceutical companies didn't think they could profit from developing them.
Do you think that brilliant research doctors and investors decide to develop drugs because they'll get a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts?
Do you think that a geneticist is going to work his tail off to develop some vaccine to save some people in sub-saharan africa, who can't pay for it, or work for a profitible company that will reward him so he can live comfortably and maybe even send his kids to college?
I certainly appluad companies that decide to play nice and sell drugs cheap to third world countries. I hold no ill will against those who do not. Either way, nothing would get developed without the profit motive, and no one, rich or poor, would benefit from the non-existent drugs.
And if you're going to bring up 'public funding', at least show me an instance where a government lab in the same field as dozens of private companies has managed to hold even a candle to private enterprise. I'm not saying such an example doesn't exist, but they will be few and far between.
Like i said, we can argue all day about how the limitations placed on the feds by the constitution are ignored.
Moreover, enforcing the 14th amendment as it applies to schools is a far cry from the feds running the schools, or having any direct or indirect responsibility for their day to day operation.
Constitutional issues aside, serious federal involvement in local education would require a massive, mostly wasteful beuracracy. Just look at the Dept. of Education. It's such a waste of taxpayer money that even they admit they are useless.
That's a non sequitir if there ever was one. Go read the constitution as it places very specific limits on what the federal government can and cannot do.
We can argue all day about how they're ignored, but the limitations on the feds are in the US constitution, they're strict, and they aren't permitted at all to have a say in local education.
Hey, can you tell me where in the constitution the federal government is permitted to get involved in K-12 education? Or for that matter, permitted to get involved in providing broadband for people out of a profitable area, just because 10 Mb/s gives geeks hard-ons?
On the other hand, I'm damn sure international affairs, military or diplomatic, are one of the powers given to the federal government.
eventually lead to the development of a revolutionary technology
From the article:
Rose-Hulman engineering students designed and constructed a one-person vehicle that is powered by a highly modified single cylinder 3.5 horsepower Briggs & Stratton engine. The vehicle is eight feet long, 26 inches wide and weighed approximately 80 pounds. It has two wheels that provide steering in the front and a single drive wheel in the middle of the back. The main structure of the vehicle is provided by a honeycomb carbon-fiber panel which rests approximately a half inch above the pavement.
Looks more like evolutionary more than revolutionary. Although I would have loved to participate in this contest when I was a mech engineering student, on the surface this hardly looks ground breaking. The reduce fuel consumption in typical ways: reducing rolling friction, reduce drag, reduce weight. These things can only be reduced so much in a sellable, practical vehicle. Doubtful what they did to the engine was miraculous.
Just engineering students messin around. Likely nothing they can even patent.
It's known as an appeal to emotion. The less actual content by which the "argument" can be grasped and pinned down, the more powerful it is
On a side note, the left's fascination with emotion is destructive- as if good intentions was enough to make up for horrible results of various policies- as if 'think of the children!' was really a legitimate basis for laws- I could go on, but I'll spare you.
In addition, a powerful argument is one that proves it's point without resorting to mystification and betting on an emotional reaction from the target. A 'powerful' emotional argument all by itself is a waste of time and an object for the Oprah Winfrey show alone.
Should you be able to combine legitimate, solid argument points with a good emotional appeal, then you will have a strong position indeed.
I like to know what I am talking about instead regurgitating what someone told me was right.
Thus my previosly asked question:
Do you disagree that the above linked list accurately describes the scenes mentioned, even if you disagree with the link's response to them?
Which you didn't really answer at all. I'm aware I may get bogus information from time to time, and certainly I travel far more heavily in right wing web circles.
There isn't enough time in the day, at least that I'm interested in spending, to double and triple fact check everything. And I'm certainly not going to give Moore one dime, so I will go by other people's opinions that seem credible to me.
There is no vast right wing conspiracy telling me what I can, and cannot watch, and I never listen to limbaugh, and have never heard of the other two.
It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of time and credibility- what I determine to be credible. You must also choose who you believe frequently, unless you have no job, don't need to sleep, and don't have any friends or family.
Regardless of all that, if you wish me to reinvestigate the issue, answer my question: does davekopel (someone I never read before that article) accurately describe scenes in Moore's movie?
I'm making assertations. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise, or be quiet. You won't persuade me of anything by simply asking open-ended questions. Do you fancy yourself a psychologist or something?
Isn't it possible that culture has other functions than to contribute to people outside of them?
Certainly. And quite frankly, I wouldn't give a shit if these cultures in question didn't so often breed fanatics intent on killing us. Since they have our attention, I'm advocating their cultures change, in our self interest.
Our 'right' to do so comes from the fact that A. They've attacked us. B. We can.
I simply hope we have the national will to carry it out, and that if we cannot effect the change of cultures intent on killing us so that they're no longer interested in doing so, we can make them respect our power enough to leave us alone.
Slashdot Mirror
still leaving them with a military equal to any possible coalition of forces
We have no desire to be 'equal' or have a 'fair fight' with any potential enemy or group thereof. We want to be able to thouroughly and utterly crush any potential enemy while losing as few of our guys as possible. We have the resources to set things up this way, so we do.
Our military isn't for the freakin school playground, where you might be concerned about fair contests.
Our military is for War. It exists to kill our enemies and break their things. Why would we want the enemy to have an equal shot at doing the same damage to us?
And don't forget that europe got it's security for free from the US during the entire cold war. We placed troops all over europe because we were sick of having to jump into european problems and clean them up- the world wars, for example. Putting our troops in Europe meant that anyone who wanted a war in Europe would have to kill Americans. And We have been a fearsome force since WW2, so such a thing was never done.
Unfortunately, as often charity goes, it has come back to bite us in the ass. Much of Europe, unaccustomed to putting their own lives and militaries on the line to secure their freedom, have come to think that peace is the natural way of things, and they didn't spend 50 years hiding behind uncle sam while he kept the soviet bear at bay.
Society, at any level, is secured by the credible threat of violence. For that threat of violence to be credible, it must be fear-inspiring, and used on those who step out of line. The United States Military fits the bill. You should be thankful for it.
While exodus 20:13 does indeed say "Thou shalt not kill"
you also have in Genisis 9:6:
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
and "he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death" in Leveticus 24:17
these two verses, and several others, seem to contradict your thesis of The commandment isn't "Thou shalt not kill -- unless there's injustice thou mustest rectify", it's just "Thou shalt not kill".
Perhaps it would be clearer if 'murder' and 'kill' where used more precisely- kill; to cause death, and murder, to unjustly cause death- but they aren't, so you've got to look around the bible a little more than just in exodus.
Moreover, Jesus did not give us the ten commandments, moses did, significantly before Jesus was around. Jesus did give us the beatitudes, but none of them deal directly with the causing of death, though there's probably more in Matthew that I'm not gonna dig up now.
Now, we could go back and forth with Bible quotes, or we could remember the following maxim: The devil can quote scripture for his purpose
The utility of the bible depends wholy on the maturity of the reader. It is not a crude cudgel to be swung around to prove your point.
Money quotes:
The individualists recognize that the most effective actions are those taken by individuals, or by short-term voluntary groups of individuals, to address specific needs and concerns. (Where the needs are either long-term or constant, of course, that's a different issue, which I'll explore in a moment.)
Individualists also feel that, in general, people can be trusted to do the right thing. Yes, to use but one example, some people (about half of one percent of a society's population) will always resort to crime rather than work to improve their lot in life -- and that constant 0.5% requires a standing police force to address the issue. But even then, the percentage of police officers to the total population need not be that great, if that's all they're charged with.
To the individualists, who generally trust others, the commission of a crime is not just an offense against society, it's also a betrayal of the common trust -- which is why, for instance, the individualists are in favor of a few laws, but that those few be sternly enforced....
The concept of individualism, it should be noted, finds its greatest expression in areas outside the city. The further away one sits from one's neighbors, the greater the need (and desire) for self-reliance.
Just as individualism seems to flourish most in the country, or even in the outer suburban areas, it's no surprise that collectivism flourishes most in urban areas -- where there is collective housing, where private property is tiny in size, and where it's easy to fall prey to gangs of predators (which form more easily because of the close proximity of other predators).
Finally, the feeling of insecurity is cemented by the constant feeling of helplessness -- of being confronted by forces much larger than the individual. Hence the bogeymen of "capitalists, landlords, and militarists" (as described by James Cannon above), or "the rich" (as espoused by Democrats) and the constant reinforcement of "us vs. them", are all tools used by the collectivists to maintain their "class warfare".
Now, just so you all know, the author (&myself) are members of the VWRC.
Living in mostly rural areas, I have found that I need very little from the local, state, or federal government to live my life. Maybe some roads, perhaps schools if they're any good, emergency services, parks, national defense and maybe one or two other things.
I don't need any government holding my hand or wiping my ass, and charity is best left to churches and private organizations.
No one is stopping stem cell research. Just no federal funds can be used for it.
If it's the fucking miracle you folks think it is, then there should be plenty of private research by those who seek to profit from it.
Actually, it turns out that several GOP groups funded them.
who the hell did you expect to fund them? The DNC? Greenpeace? ANSWER?
Consider the veteran's group that recently ran those TV ads flat-out accuse Kerry of lying about his service in Nam.
Yes, please do consider this vet group, because one of their charges has been shown to be true.
The chain noise you hear is Kerry's people furiously trying to backpedal from his many blatant statements concerning this fact.
Fact: Kerry claimed several times to have been in cambodia on christmas delivering a CIA agent, even having a hat that he claimed was given to him.
Fact: The claim is complete, and utter, bullshit. Follow the link i sent you and search for 'christmas in cambodia' and kerry for more.
Much of the press is trying to stonewall it, but as you've seen, the dam is starting to crack.
Here's a short version of Kerry in Vietnam: He spent four months and a couple weeks in vietnam. In that time, he was awarded three purple hearts, for injuries that never cost him a day of service. Using a little-known rule, he applied for transfer out after the third purple heart, and was the only swift boat crewmember who did so the entire war.
Shortly after leaving the Navy, he starts accusing the soldiers & sailors in vietnam of all variety of war crimes in the Winter soldier 'investigation'
In 1979, he first claimed to have spent christmas of 1968 illegally in cambodia. This claim was repeated in 1986, and in 2003 even adds the now-infamous magic hat to the story. It was probably repeated a few times in between.
Now the Kerry campaign is claiming that this memory that was 'seared, seared in me' (Kerry) was mistaken, and he was near cambodia.
Nothing of Kerry's statements about being in or near Cambodia have made any sense from a geographical, tactical, or eye witness point of view. He even screws up the timeline with regards to president Nixon making statements about our people in Cambodia before Nixon was even president.
The entire tale he's always been telling about Cambodia has always been weird, and a little too reminiscent of Apocolypse Now. Perhaps Kerry's seared memory came from watching the movie too many times.
One of the swiftvet's charges is provably true. This makes the others worth at least a serious review.
And, and to the responders who have said GOP groups have been funding the ad- no shit, do you expect George Soros and moveon.org to pay for it?
What the swiftvets are doing could hardly be considered illegal, and unethical would be a faaaarr stretch. Kerry slandered them in the seventies. He's pretending to have their support now, and claims his pitiful four months in vietnam 30 years ago qualify him for president, while glossing over his decades in the senate. Kerry basically asked for this. Now he's got it.
First thing I thought of was the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
A gunslinger shoots a bunch of holes in the side of a barn. Then he paints a bullseye on the side of the barn around the bullet holes.
Don't know if it really applies here.
I for one am a proponent of the California "you must use a headset for your cell phone when driving" law just for reasons such as this article pointed out. Tests have shown that using headsets, especially in-ear style ones direct more cellular radio waves directly into your brain
Do you want the state to wipe your ass for you, too, or legislate you can only wipe side to side?
Here's a hint, buddy: the dickheads in the legislature aren't any smarter than you. The only talent they holding is acquiring and holding public office.
The less they screw with your life, the better.
Oh, yeah, I like my headset too, mostly because I can keep my hands free. The reduced incidence of brain cancer thing would be an added bonus, but the position of your cell phone while you use it is something you can figure out yourself without state help.
America is hated for its arrogance and its selfishness... if America and the West want to be loved...
I'm an American, and although I hardly support everything my government does, I don't see the point in 'being loved.'
Really, what fucking good would that do us? Are we in some kind of international popularity contest?
We should obviously keep on good terms with nations that share our values (ie, nations that are true allies and are of genuine use to us, and we to them), but for those who don't, why should we give a rat's ass if they like us or not?
France, for example, doesn't share our values at all, and make a point of supporting the opposite of whatever America's position is, just to try to take us down a notch. No principals except to oppose America. None.
Why should we give a fuck what they think?
Iran's mullah's think we're the great Satan and we should all die or submit to allah. Why the fuck would we ever think we could get those guys to love us? Why would we want to?
I could go on, but I'll just quote Machiavelli:
('fear' can also be read as 'respect')
Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you successed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by nobility or greatness of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserved you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women.
You think I'm evil, I think you're misguided. What are you, a college-grown liberal? Do you really think your professors, few of which have ever had to survive outside of academia, really know what's going on?
I find it funny that someone else's need would determine my obligations, in the absence of any formal contract. Same goes for drug companies.
You seem to have take the international joke of 'healthcare as a human right' a little too seriously.
See, most rights we have here in the United States list things you can't do to someone. You can't kill someone. You can't take their stuff. You can't keep them from expressing their opinion on any matter. You can't dictate who they worship. You can't search their homes or imprison them without due process. You can't quarter soldiers in their homes. You can't make them incriminate themselves. You can't deny themselves the most effective way to defend themselves or the state against threats.
What do all those have in common? They all basically say 'leave people the hell alone' To put it another way, you have the right to swing your arm wildly, but that right ends at the tip of my nose.
So why is healthcare as a right different and incompatible with natural rights?
Because in order to fulfill the 'right', action is demanded of someone else- doctors, researchers, whatever. Thus violating their basic right to be left the hell alone.
Now, there's certainly ways to publically fund health care and not call it a right. I'm no big fan of those either. But there's no logical way healthcare could ever be a 'right', and someone's inaction about somebody else's problem a half a world away is NOT murder.
Callous? Maybe. Murder? Not by any dictionary I can find.
Someone's need does not dictate what I am obligated to do. End of story.
If you disagree, I really, really need $100 bucks. Use western union to wire it to charlie's bait shop in Methuen, MA. It's for baby formula for my neighbor's child.
Glorious and wise? hardly. better than any realistic alternative? Definately.
And I'm saving plenty of money to make sure I'm not a burden to society or anyone else when I'm no longer able to work. If I can't afford whatever treatment I want, I'll have to go without.
Too bad the notion of personal responsibility is lost on you.
You seem to be missing the scope of the matter.
...no one whould write an operating system from scratch if they weren't assured of making a fortune. Or, for that matter, a novel.
And, by the same logic, nobody ever makes food or thinks up new foods because you can't patent or copyright them.
Those are all things, that given enough time, one person can do. Accomplishing any of those, in fact, could probably be done by someone as a hobby over the course of a year.
The notion does not apply at all to the tremendous amount of resources required to develop medicine.
As to the motivations of various researchers, and how you don't want hacks who are in it just for the money- no matter how noble your intentions are, you still need the resources of a large corporation to carry out medicine development- and while you're choosing between a few companies or even a university or government lab, wouldn't it be nice to do your life's work while getting paid hansomely and working with state of the art equipment?
Just because someone does it for the love of helping people or for the pleasure of tinkering with the genes and chemicals doesn't mean they won't respond to the incentives put in front of them.
Now, back to the resources required to develop medicine:
1. Basic research- identify a health problem, isolate the mechanism of the illness.
2. Initial development- develop some sort of therapy for the problem- some conconction of chemicals, or a gene spliced aomeba, or whatever.
3. Animal trials- I had a roommate who's father ran a company that supplied lab mice and other similar creatures. Did you know that for a specific drug development project, this company custom made mice with the defect that was meant to be treated? They sold them for $100,000 a piece to the company working on the project, and couldn't raise them fast enough.
Now are you getting the idea this is a little beyond staying up late coding for a new operating system?
4. So the animal trials were more or less successful, but you have to work on some side effects, some delivery mechanisms, that sort of thing.
5. Multiple phases of human trials. This is where you track down willing human test subjects and see if the drug works on them with no or acceptable side effects. Finding and compensating test subjects, using control groups, paying even more researchers to run it all- large process here.
6. Now that you've already spent at least $100 million, you submit it for FDA approval. And if it doesn't meet some capriciously high standard of safety, the drug company can't sell it at all. Never mind individuals deciding what they want to risk to solve a particular health problem, because the FDA has removed that choice.
Chances are that each drug that makes it to market has to support a number of drugs that you never even heard about, so that drives the cost up several fold right there.
Are you still with me here? Making medicine in the modern world isn't amature hour. Making an OS just because you feel like it, or a novel, can be.
Now as to your logical steps- wich are insulting and show you have nothing more than a superficial, anti-business understanding of the nature of things...
1. The more resource intensive an endevour is, the more likely it will need the resources of a large company, which is by definition interested in profit.
2. The more talented and creative people still respond to incentives given to them and the ability to do their work with the best equipment and resources available. Which are usually found at a profit seeking company.
3. I have no idea where you came up with this. Reading too many Slashdot MS stories lately?
4. It takes what it takes to run their business. I don't say that the system is perfect, no one has proposed a realistic alternative here.
5. Do you think general advances in science and technology come out of nowhere?!?!?! They come out of pharmecut
I put life over profit, no matter what, as any sane individual would.
Such a decision is easy to make if you're in a situation where the choice is between completing a lucrative sale to someone, or giving the hiemlich manuveur to another person who is choking next to you.
When we get into the larger matter of researching drugs and distributing them to market, the decision is not so easy.
Charging an arm and a leg for something that can save lives is perfectly justifiable, because if the companies that developed and made the drugs couldn't charge an arm and a leg to not only recoup the hundreds of millions spent in research, but profit on top of it, the drugs wouldn't exist at all.
Because no one would create them to begin with. So your choice, as adapted to our current situation, would be to save only those who could afford the drugs, or to save no one at all.
Why would a company spend all that money- in basic theory, in chemical or treatment development, in animal trials (and the animals are often custom made to create problems the drugs are supposed to cure, so they ARE expensive. We're talking $100,000 a mouse for dozens created intentionally with a specific genetic structure. Not cheap.), in refining the chemistry further, then in a few phases in human trials, and if they can actually take it to market- a rare occurence- a marketing campaign on top of it. Television ads, whining and dining doctors, etc.
Again, the cost of the failed drugs must be recouped by the occasional succesful drug. This is why charging an arm and a leg for something that can save lives is not only excusable, but acceptable. It's not pretty, but it's the way it works.
So, you ask, why not just publically fund a giant research lab to do this work? Well, it's all about resource allocation and accountability.
The dynamic allocation of resources by dozens of corporations is bound to be more efficient at solving problems than a Congressional budget line item that gets it's money with little accountability, because they only have to answer to a congressional committee for a few hours every year or two. Those companies that act unwisely die off, or are purchased by better companies.
In contrast, a large government research bureaucracy could waste money unaccountably for years before anyone even noticed. The legislators have a trillion dollar enterprise- the US government- to look over. Several billion a year squandered at one department- this happens all the time now, and it won't be any different for a huge federal research lab.
Profit, self-interest, greed, bragging rights; these all drive drug companies to develop new drugs. If they screw up too much though, they're dead.
On the other hand, politics will dictate development in a government lab. If they screw up, they keep getting money, because the government takes it by force, and it's already got way too much to keep track of. Already NIH research dollars are mispent, by what I would imagine would be your standard.
From what I recall, AIDS and Breast Cancer kill about the same number of people a year. Breast cancer, however, gets about 10 times the public money AIDS research does. That's government resource allocation for you. And you're proposing to enlarge and empower it.
I do not claim the system is perfect. I do claim, however, that it is better than a completely state funded medical research endevour with no patent rights to worry about.
The effective NIH subsidies could be argued as compensation for the FDA raising the standard for permissible medicines to ridiculously high levels, or the roll of the dice when it comes to litigation down the road when a drug may be considered to be imperfect.
I would personally like to see the standards for new medicines lowered by the FDA, and you and your doctor can decide if a particular medicine's side effects are worth it's benefits, and at the same time, a little more sanity return to our courtrooms. I'm talking about allowing personal decisions as to what risk is acceptable, and then people taking responsibility for those risks they chose should things go sour. This would bring more drugs all the way to market, so each successful drug would only have to support a dozen drugs that failed in trial, rather than two dozen (those numbers are wild-assed guesses.)
Doing those two things, we could easily eliminate NIH grants and the market would continue to develop drugs. Even better if the US wasn't the only market were companies could charge what they want, so we wouldn't have to support all the research with our dollars (both in NIH-spent taxes and drug purchases) while socialized medicine countries barely let drug companies charge the marginal cost.
Maybe we could even eliminate NIH subsidies now. Not really sure.
Now, in general, wether or not an industry is the most profitable in existance- this doesn't matter to me. I say good for them. Some industry has to be, and I'm not one to run around tearing down giants just because they're giants.
Could the system use a good deal of reform? Absolutely. Is a capitilist driven system superior to a state run system? Most definately.
Take a good look at the pharmecutical industry and the cost of drugs in the third world, and you will be convinced that patents do kill people. Doctors Without Borders has a good case on this, search them on the web.
The drugs protected by patents wouldn't even exist to save anyone if the pharmaceutical companies didn't think they could profit from developing them.
Do you think that brilliant research doctors and investors decide to develop drugs because they'll get a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts?
Do you think that a geneticist is going to work his tail off to develop some vaccine to save some people in sub-saharan africa, who can't pay for it, or work for a profitible company that will reward him so he can live comfortably and maybe even send his kids to college?
I certainly appluad companies that decide to play nice and sell drugs cheap to third world countries. I hold no ill will against those who do not. Either way, nothing would get developed without the profit motive, and no one, rich or poor, would benefit from the non-existent drugs.
And if you're going to bring up 'public funding', at least show me an instance where a government lab in the same field as dozens of private companies has managed to hold even a candle to private enterprise. I'm not saying such an example doesn't exist, but they will be few and far between.
As a side note, state and local governments do not try to tell other countries how to behave. They do, however, educate our children.
Something tells me you're unfamiliar with the way things work in the US.
Like i said, we can argue all day about how the limitations placed on the feds by the constitution are ignored.
Moreover, enforcing the 14th amendment as it applies to schools is a far cry from the feds running the schools, or having any direct or indirect responsibility for their day to day operation.
Constitutional issues aside, serious federal involvement in local education would require a massive, mostly wasteful beuracracy. Just look at the Dept. of Education. It's such a waste of taxpayer money that even they admit they are useless.
That's a non sequitir if there ever was one. Go read the constitution as it places very specific limits on what the federal government can and cannot do.
We can argue all day about how they're ignored, but the limitations on the feds are in the US constitution, they're strict, and they aren't permitted at all to have a say in local education.
Hey, can you tell me where in the constitution the federal government is permitted to get involved in K-12 education? Or for that matter, permitted to get involved in providing broadband for people out of a profitable area, just because 10 Mb/s gives geeks hard-ons?
On the other hand, I'm damn sure international affairs, military or diplomatic, are one of the powers given to the federal government.
eventually lead to the development of a revolutionary technology
From the article:
Rose-Hulman engineering students designed and constructed a one-person vehicle that is powered by a highly modified single cylinder 3.5 horsepower Briggs & Stratton engine. The vehicle is eight feet long, 26 inches wide and weighed approximately 80 pounds. It has two wheels that provide steering in the front and a single drive wheel in the middle of the back. The main structure of the vehicle is provided by a honeycomb carbon-fiber panel which rests approximately a half inch above the pavement.
Looks more like evolutionary more than revolutionary. Although I would have loved to participate in this contest when I was a mech engineering student, on the surface this hardly looks ground breaking. The reduce fuel consumption in typical ways: reducing rolling friction, reduce drag, reduce weight. These things can only be reduced so much in a sellable, practical vehicle. Doubtful what they did to the engine was miraculous.
Just engineering students messin around. Likely nothing they can even patent.
Thank you.
That answered my question, and I may look into it more yet.
It's known as an appeal to emotion. The less actual content by which the "argument" can be grasped and pinned down, the more powerful it is
On a side note, the left's fascination with emotion is destructive- as if good intentions was enough to make up for horrible results of various policies- as if 'think of the children!' was really a legitimate basis for laws- I could go on, but I'll spare you.
In addition, a powerful argument is one that proves it's point without resorting to mystification and betting on an emotional reaction from the target. A 'powerful' emotional argument all by itself is a waste of time and an object for the Oprah Winfrey show alone.
Should you be able to combine legitimate, solid argument points with a good emotional appeal, then you will have a strong position indeed.
But you haven't done such a thing.
I like to know what I am talking about instead regurgitating what someone told me was right.
Thus my previosly asked question:
Do you disagree that the above linked list accurately describes the scenes mentioned, even if you disagree with the link's response to them?
Which you didn't really answer at all. I'm aware I may get bogus information from time to time, and certainly I travel far more heavily in right wing web circles.
There isn't enough time in the day, at least that I'm interested in spending, to double and triple fact check everything. And I'm certainly not going to give Moore one dime, so I will go by other people's opinions that seem credible to me.
There is no vast right wing conspiracy telling me what I can, and cannot watch, and I never listen to limbaugh, and have never heard of the other two.
It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of time and credibility- what I determine to be credible. You must also choose who you believe frequently, unless you have no job, don't need to sleep, and don't have any friends or family.
Regardless of all that, if you wish me to reinvestigate the issue, answer my question: does davekopel (someone I never read before that article) accurately describe scenes in Moore's movie?
It's known as an appeal to emotion
Doesn't work all that well on this engineer. To me your questions were akin to having me make your argument for you. Not gonna happen.
A. Al Qaeda
B. Al Qaeda and groups/governments that are demonstrably allied with or deliberately assisting them
I'm fine up until there, too. Though C needs a great deal of scrutiny.
I'm making assertations. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise, or be quiet. You won't persuade me of anything by simply asking open-ended questions. Do you fancy yourself a psychologist or something?
Isn't it possible that culture has other functions than to contribute to people outside of them?
Certainly. And quite frankly, I wouldn't give a shit if these cultures in question didn't so often breed fanatics intent on killing us. Since they have our attention, I'm advocating their cultures change, in our self interest.
Our 'right' to do so comes from the fact that
A. They've attacked us.
B. We can.
I simply hope we have the national will to carry it out, and that if we cannot effect the change of cultures intent on killing us so that they're no longer interested in doing so, we can make them respect our power enough to leave us alone.
Self preservation, really. simple concept.