I'm not sure how they really expect to do this if they're going to go direct to DVD. It seems to me that if they were interested in funding new episodes, they'd want to show them on their station, collect the ratings numbers and ad revenue, and THEN release them on DVD some time later. Wouldn't that end up making them more money, or at least give them a better shot of making a profit?
I do hope they create more episodes though. I loved Futurama. I worry, though, if they can get all the same cast and talent back.
VNC seriously sucks next to Remote Desktop. Seriously. I worked in a shop where both were available, and the painting problems and lag and quirks of VNC were maddening, while Remote Desktop was just like sitting there at the actual machine. Fast updates, no weird quirks,... it just worked.
I hated VNC with a passion. Maybe it's better these days, but a couple of years ago, it couldn't hold a candle to Remote Desktop as far as I could tell.
A friend of mine used NetFlix instead... very low risk that way. NetFlix is great for that kind of stuff. She ended up watching every single episode of Angle, Buffy, and FireFly after I nudged her to try them out on her NetFlix subscription. She'd only ever done movies before, never really considered TV series. She got totally hooked. She went through all seven seasons of Buffy, all five of Angel, and the half-season of FireFly in just about a year.
Don't forget the advertising revenue made during the first run of the show on FOX. It's not like they received NO money for airing the program. They probably already had a profit right there. The DVD sales are almost pure gravy.
Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew edited Star Wars. The film was a near disaster, and Lucas brought them in to re-edit and 'fix' it. And they did an awesome job. But don't give Lucas the credit for being a great film editor. His first cuts sucked.
Besides, whose god are we talking about here? There are about 30,000 different gods in active worship by people in this world today, with many people worshiping no god at all. Should they ALL be held to the standards of your god, I wonder?
There's a reason there's a concept of 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' in this country. Because it's a good thing.
You are free to believe what you want. But you are not free to encode your arbitrary religious belief or dogma into secular law.
I'm sorry, but that's just unrealistic. People talk at work. People socialize. People keep pictures of loved ones on their desks. They mention where they went last night. Married people wear wedding bands.
The idea that a "double standard" for gays is OK is just ignorant and bigoted. That it's okay for straight people to not have to constantly filter and censore every word that comes out of their mouths so as not to potentially offend anyone around them who might be an anti-gay bigot is just ridiculous. Let me tell you from personal experience, that "the closet" is NOT a pleasant place to be in, and being in one does indeed affect things like productivity at work. Not having to be continually "scared" that you will be "found out" or that you might let "something slip" is liberating in a way you probably can't even imagine, since you obviously take it for granted.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, is simply unfair and unrealistic. If you truly don't care about your coworkers sexual orientation, then why would it bother you if he or she had a picture of their partner on their desk, or mentioned that the two of them were going to San Francisco on vacation together, or anything else? And why is any of this incompatible with actually liking their job and focusing on the task at hand?
We're all human beings, not machines. Do you never socialize with people you work with? Do you never let out any even remote detail about your life outside of work to anyone at work? Can you even imagine working in an environment where you are constantly worried that if anyone knew anything about your home life, you'd lose that raise or promotion, or worse, be fired?
You do know that Microsoft has Ralph Reed, former leader of the Christian Coalition, on a $20,000/month retainer, right?
And it was one specific man, Microsoft's General Counsel Brad Smith, that met with the preacher, and who also implemented the change in policy of support form 'pro' to 'neutral'.
I think if Microsoft really wanted to make a statment on this issue, they'd fire Brad Smith, and sever their ties to Ralph Reed. Period. But I don't think either of those things will happen any time soon, do you?
I prefer to think of it like this: Intolerance of intolerance is no vice. Or flipping it: Intolerance should not be tolerated.
It's not contradictory or inconsistent. It's rational and intelligent.
Your friend was an idiot for saying what she said the way she said it (well, mostly uninformed), and I certainly won't defend it. But at the same time, I don't think that any specific minority group's civil rights should ever be put to a public vote. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is there specifically to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I believe all these anti-gay laws that are being passed right now are fundamentally unconstitutional and do not pass the "equal protection" clauses or full faith and values clauses. And to put it in to perspective, all the same ranting and raving and arguments against gay marriage are the exact same ignorant and bigoted rationales put for against the legalization of interracial marriage. And at the time the courts legalized interracial marraige, popular opinion was over 90% against making it legal.
There's a reason we have (and should protect and cherish) an independent judiciary. Civil rights almost never get expanded by popular vote. The mob always seems to want to make itself "more equal" than anyone else. This is why mob rule is almost never good. We are a nation of laws, and laws should protect and apply to everyone equally.
I believe everyone has a fundamental right to vote, but that doesn't make me squeemish about the fact that so many voters are ignorant bigots who are so easily and willingly manipulated by hate into trying to deny to others what they themselves take for granted. And at the same time, some things I feel are just beyond popular vote, and that includes the right to freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.
I *do* feel there is a thread of evil in the current GOP leadership, the way they are all too willing and even eager to use fearmongering and gay bashing to prey on the fears and stereotypes and prejudices of the masses in order to amass power and push through their agenda under the cover of spin and deception. This same thread of evil, intolerance, and bigotry ran through the Democratic party back in the 50's, so it's not party specific, it's just currently residing in the current GOP leadership (i.e. the pendulum swings and shall some day swing back, I'm sure).
A bill to prevent gay and bisexual adoptive and foster parents has been recently passed by the Texas house. This law includes a provision for anyone who says they aren't gay or bisexual to have their backgrounds investigated to determine if they're telling the truth. I kid you not.
The chances of this passing into actual state law are currently pretty good.
Hrm. Being that I am gay, an athiest, a liberal, and have a higher than average IQ... I must be one of the most hated people on Slashdot.org! Even worse, my current job has me working in C# in an all MS/.Net environment.
Maybe if they had sacked General Counsel Brad Smith, the man responsible for MicroSoft going back on their word and retracting support for a bill that should have been a no-brainer to support, I might feel this was real.
If they severed ties to Ralph Reed, I might feel this was real.
But what I'm left with is this: they've simply gone back to their old stand... a stand they made for a long time, but from which they flinched during the one major time it actually MATTERED. I have no confidence that they won't do so again the next time their support actually matters. This email comes off as sounding good, but feeling quite empty and hollow.
It shouldn't have taken two weeks of "soul-searching" on this issue. From a logical, moral, ethical, and good business standpoint, the correct position to take is simply obvious: support equal rights for all your employees (actual, potential, future, and former). It is simply not an issue to worry about offending bigots with your support for human rights for all. Ballmer wouldn't be pondering how to appear to not offend KKK members in his employ by reversing support for legislation that made it illegal to discriminate based on race, would he? No. He wouldn't give it a moment's thought. So why did it take two weeks to get this? Hell, why did the event happen at all?
I'm not satisified that the people and events that lead up to this bone-headed decision have been disciplined and/or removed, so that it cannot happen again.
Like I said, this just strikes me as too little, too late.
If government is taking 50% of your income you are only half free.
That's a blind assertion and I would completely refute it.
If I were to pay zero taxes, I would be a prisoner in my own home... no police, no fire, no public roads, no public education... there would be roving bands of thugs and gangs trying to take whatever I had, with absolutely no justice to worry about.
Libertarianism, carried to its logical conclusion, is just as insane and unworkable a 'utopian ideal' as any other ism, such as communism. It's not something that can possibly work in the "real world", because it utterly rails to take into account human nature and human flaws.
We need a justice system, a transportaiton system, and education system, the rule of laws, and the enforcement of said laws. Without all of these things, the quality of life would be miserable for most, and the standard of living would be horrible for most.
Taxes should be as low as possible BUT NO LOWER. The idea that Democrats want to tell you what to do with your money, but Republicans don't, is simply complete B.S. The only difference is WHAT they want to tell you to do with your money. Democrats, when they squander tax dollars, at least do so in the persuit of knowledge (research), and in helping others (which indirectly helps each and every one of us). When the Republicans squander your tax dollars, it just goes to line the pockets of rich CEOs and the Military Industrial complex, to murdering people abroad for their resources and obedience, and basically just "getting lost" (I think the latest tally is that 9.8 BILLION is just missing and unaccounted for in Iraq... that's tax-payer money). Additionally, Republicans want to burden your children and their children with the stuff they're squandering money on right now... WITH INTEREST.
I don't support getting rid of all taxes as I am not an anarchist. But I believe they are too high.
Another unsupported and unsupportable cliam. Our taxes are among the lowest in the first world of industrialized nations. Our standards of education and standards of living are rapidly sinking because of that, and this is seriously affecting our future ability to remain a strong nation, leading the world in research and in progress and in economic might.
Given current spending levels, taxes are obviously way too low. The Republicans have signaled no real interest in making MEANINGFUL cuts in their spending (sure, they want to cut the token fraction of a percent that goes to the national endowment for the arts, but they want to fully fund programs that have been proven to be unworkable, like the missle defense shield (over $100 billion sunk into that since Dubbya took office) as well as 'faith-based' initiatives and abstinence training).
I'll say it again: Democrats, during the 8 years of Clinton, managed to CUT per-capita Federal spending for the first time in a generation or two. In addition, they had a sensible tax policy that resulted in a surplus for the first time in recent memory. This surplus could have done much good paying down the national debt, and cutting taxes in a *responsible* way. But no, the GOP decided to squander all of that by sharply reducing taxes for the wealtiest 2%, while giving little more than a token cut to everyone else, all while SHARPLY increasing spending... including on those entitlement programs they allegedly dislike so.
When I look at taxes, I look at "return on investment". And that is simply higher under Democrats than under Republicans. I know that doesn't jibe with GOP propaganda, but it is the reality when you sit down and look at the numbers.
A lack of economic freedom always means less efficient markets which means poorer citizens.
I'm just as concerned about a lack of REAL freedom, as it has economic impact too. Civil rights and equal opportunity and the rule of law are all important issues. For everyone. Republicans tend to ha
All I am trying to say is that liberals DO want to ban things. The only difference, it seems, is that you support banning things that liberals want to ban, for whatever reason (greater good, etc.), and you do not support banning the things that (some) conservatives want to ban.
No, that's not the only difference. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.
It's like saying someone wanting to ban murder is on the same level as someone wanting to ban reading books written by Shakespear. They're not even comparable things.
In one case, you're protecting the rights of individuals (i.e. stating that the rights of the murderer do not superceed the rights of the murderee... similar to the old saw "Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose").... while in the other case you're restricting the rights of a specific class of people (i.e. those that like and want to read Shakespear).
The conservative position is a desire to ban whatever they don't like, even if it is irrelevant to society or the greater good or to someone of a different religion. If they don't like it, they have no problem banning it for everyone. If they like it, they'll scream like a stuck-pig if anyone else tried to ban it. It's a hypocritical stance.
The liberal position is a desire to maximize each individuals rights... something that applies equally to all concerned. For example, most liberals champion the idea that gays should be able to enjoy the same legal protections as straights in a relationship (things such as rights of immigration, the right to not be compelled by the state to testify against their spouse, inheritence rights, rights of medical decision-making, etc). Even if they're not gay. Even if they know nobody gay. Just because they're not gay, doesn't mean they're okay with restricting the rights of gay people
Conservatives, however, have no problem with restricting the rights of gay people, when they're not gay. They'll use the Bible for justification, pointing to Leviticus as rationalization for treating gays as "lesser citizens" with fewer rights. Even though Leviticus contains all sorts of other "rules" against things like divorce, eating shellfish, or being with women who are on their period... these same conservatives, so eager to use Leviticus to bash gays would scream like stuck pigs if you tried to legislate anything ELSE in that book of the bible. Never mind that a great many people in this country simply aren't Christian, and shouldn't be compelled to observe Christian dogma by having that dogma encoded into secular law.
Conservatives seem very comfortable with dividing people into 'good' and 'bad' and making separate sets of rules and rights for each group. Liberals are highly uncomfortable with such a notion, prefering instead to enforce all laws equally for every citizen, even if that makes them uncomfortable.
I think my "simplistic" explaination does stand up pretty well, actually. In fact, you've offered nothing that really refutes it that I've seen. Show me an example of a "liberal position" that conservatives oppose that limits the rights of a particular group of individuals, and I'll show you ten examples of the contrary. My statment is not an "absolute" (we liberals tend to shy away from absolutes), but is a definite trend.
When liberals want to 'ban' things, it's usually because of constitutional considerations, consideration for the rights of all citzens, and usually limited to the "public sphere" (do what you want in private as long as it harms no others).
When conservatives want to 'ban' things, it's usually due to religious or dogmatic considerations, usually singles out one arbitrary group of citizens for punishment, and usually applies EVERYWHERE, even in the privacy of ones own home (see things like 'sodomy laws', which conservatives are working hard to re-enstate after the Supreme Court struck down the concept).
Come to think of it, maybe the distinction has more
You mention many social topics, but as I said, I really don't care about social topics. I think a good economy is the most important thing.
The whole first half of my post to you was about economic topics. Not social topics.
And economic topics aren't the end-all/be-all. There's the "minor" issue of freedom and democracy. Our economy does best with a diverse and empowered citizenry, where every citizen is free. Corporate "kings" exploiting citizen "serfs" will cause profits to skyrocket in the short term, but eventually the serfs will have no money to buy what the corporations are selling, and the economy will tank.
Don't miss the forest for the trees here, or get caught up in short-term, bottom-line thinking. That's just begging to get everyone into a 'race to the bottom'.
But clearly liberals are even more invasive and fascist than Bush when it comes to economics.
Clearly? Hardly. I could argue quite the opposite. When it comes to regulating corporations, YES, and that's a good thing. But when it comes to economics? That's a resounding NO.
Kerry wanted roll back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts that have done little or nothing to stimulate the economy while simultaneously throwing us into massive deficit spending. Bush hasn't actually CUT anyone's taxes, he's just stopped collecting them... and by raising spending the way he has, he's actually increased our ultimate tax burden down the road (long term thinking again, please keep up) especially given the interest being charged.
Thats Democrats telling the individual how their money should be spent.
No, that's Democrats wanting to be fiscally responsible and making sure that everyone pays for the common and greater good that our society offers its citizens, rather than asking the unborn grandchildren to foot the bill. If you think the Republican actions are even remotely libertarian, you need to look again.
Between the FDA and medicare our health system is more than 50% nationalized and for that reason, the health care costs have sky rocketed.
That isn't exactly the reason health care costs have skyrocketed, but that's a very large topic for another day. Watch some network news some day and count the number of ads for prescription-only medications and ask yourself how those things are funded, especially since they're not targeting an audience that can actually buy the product. There are many reasons that health care costs have skyrocketed, and I think you'll find the Republicans every bit as culpable here if you bother to look into it.
And by the way anyone who thinks that all Republicans are fundamentalist christians is about as dumb and out of touch as anyone who thinks that all Democrats are communists.
Nobody said or implied that, but the fact of the matter is, the religious right is controlling the agenda of the current GOP, and there's just no denying that. The press is on, using gay-bashing to stir up support, following with assults on all sorts of other issues, from the teaching of evolution to the banning of abortion, to enforce right-wing conservative Christian dogma on every citizen. You see virtually every major, powerful Republican utilizing the coded language of the religious right, weilding Christianity like a weapon. If that doesn't scare you, as a libertarian, it damn well should.
I think if you compare both the Clinton and the Dubbya Presidencies based on purely economic grounds (your main issue of interest), you'll find that the SUBSTANCE of the matter is that Clinton was far better and more responsibile, economically, than Dubbya has been.
Part of this is primarily due to the fact that the Presidency and the Congress were controlled by opposing parties, so they were able to check and balance the more extreme factions of each side. This just isn't happening right now, and the GOP is literally drunk with power and is working hard to squelch any debate or dissent, and to broker no compr
See, the things you're mentioning aren't the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges.
The liberal position is to weigh the pros and cons of *everyone's* rights, not just the majorities.
1. This is a civil rights issue... an attempt to balance out unreasonable prejudices so that individuals are treated equally. This isn't even remotely the same as banning a book you don't like, or banning a word you don't want to hear, etc.
2. Kids can pray in schools any time they want, in any way they want, as long as they do it themselves. What is banned is an officially lead prayer by public school officials. Public schools are paid for by everyone, including people who are not of the majority religion. Some public schools even have a minority of students who are christian (the midwest school where my mother teaches, for example... it's about 40% Christian, and the rest are a hodge podge of others, from muslim to hindu to shinto to secular humanist). Kids can also pray all they want, lead in prayer by their teachers, in PRIVATE schools. Again, this is an issue of fairness, and of constitutional separation of church and state. Protecting the rights of the minorty from the tyranny of the majority.
3. Again, protecting the powerless from the powerful, the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and the civil rights of everyone.
Liberals believe in the concept of 'the greater good', and Conservatives don't. Liberals believe in protecting the weak, the innocent, the poor, and the powerless from exploitation from the powerful and the wealthy.
None of the issues you raised is an apples-to-apples comparisson. In fact, your points, especially the prayer in school one, reinforces my point. The liberal position is to avoid stamping ONE religion as the ONE TRUE religion, and to allow each student to persue their own private beliefs as they choose, rather than have them imposed by a teacher or by law. See?
The smoking ban is the closest I've seen posted here, but that doesn't break down cleanly Democrat/Republican or even liberal/conservative.
Another issue you could raise would be seat belt laws, but even that doesn't break down cleanly into liberal/conservative very well at all.
In short, you've offered up no solid backing data for your hypothesis, while I've offered many examples that back mine. I'm not brainwashed here, and I don't really have an *ideology* per se... I always try to accomodate reality and hard data over what I THINK should be right, whereas 'ideology' implies that you stick with the concept, regardless of reality or facts.
I believe that your 1. and 2. are specifically unconstitutional, in fact, and thus not a 'liberal' thing at all, but a constitutional thing. Conservatives are just as likely to back those things, as long as they're not racist or theocratic.
Maybe you can come up with some other examples, but I'm still standing by my original statement here.
No, Rush is not 'pure entertainment'. I wish he were. What he IS, is a very effective tool for the right-wing media machine. He's exceedingly good at spinning and distorting facts and spewing half-truths and even out-right lies, in the form of very catchy, memorable rants and talking points and sound-bites. The right and the Republicans frequently go to him with specific agendas and talking points for him to disseminate. He is a tool that is used expertly by Karl Rove and company to help control the debate, color the issues, and discredit the opposition.
The vast majority of his listeners take everything he says as gospel.
I've listened to him enough to know he's a blow-hard who very rarely has a command of the actual facts, and even when he does report something close to the truth, it's typically so distored and slanted and biased as to be nearly unrecognizable.
I know too many people who get all their political opinions from Rush and FOX News. They cannot debate you, explain their beliefs, or even rationally discuss the issues, but they are ADAMANT in their political opinions, precisely because Rush is so adamant about them. I think Rush and the talking heads like him completly poison political discourse in this country, turning every issue into a black and white rant, throwing ideology over reality in terms of importance.
The right-wing's grip on the media, and their efficiency at repeating their talking points over and over and over until they take on the air of "obvious truth" is what got the right-wing fringe into power, and it's precisely what is keeping them there. They're masters at it. You should not trivialize their efforts or accomplishments by dismissing it as 'pure entertainment'. It's much, much more. It's a very well planned and effective strategy.
According to the CATO institute (a libertarian organization):
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either. Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent [...]
I fail to see how the Republicans -- the conservative party in this country -- are in any way economically libertarian. In fact, it's the Democrats -- the liberals -- who presided over the only shrinking of government size and power that we've seen in generations (under Clinton). It is only under Clinton that actual per-capita Federal spending DECLINED. It has skyrocketed under Dubbya.
Liberals, in particular, want to protect the common man from the wealthy and powerful (i.e. balance the power between workers and massive corporations, for example).
Conservatives, at least in this country, want the common man to be nothing but fodder, a cheap resource for use by corporations so that the corporations (and their CEOs and board members) can increase their already vast wealth.
Yes, the liberals are more concerned with civil rights. Conservatives don't give a damn about civil rights... they want two sets of rules, one for them, and one for everyone else. This is demonstrated nowhere more clearly than in their defense of Tom DeLay, one of the most corrupt individuals in congress (and that's saying something!). Never mind their constant hypocrisy, defending Republicans who do exactly what they screamed about Democrats doing just two terms ago. Republicans find the constitution and the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances to be annoying barriers to them increasing their power and wealth. Liberals and Democrats see them as essential to our very liberty and life.
There is a very, very distinct separation between the parties and the ideological halves in this country, but it's not always what each TELLS you it is. Look at the actions and ignore the words. The Republicans are not conservatives by any measure... they're radicals, and they're taking us dangerously close to a theocratic oligarchy and/or feudal economy.
It is precisely the Real Deal of Teddy, the New Deal of FDR, and the Great Society of LBJ that made this country the economic power-house it is, with the high standards of living it has. It is precisely those programs that made consumers safe, and swelled the middle-class to serve as the primary engine of our economy. Under Bush, the middle class is shrinking for the first time in many decades... and with his reckless spending combined with his reckless cutting of taxes for the wealthy, he'll ride this country to economic ruin. Never mind all the social ruin.
In short, what you said USED to be true, but it hasn't been true since Reagan. The parties are shifting, and it's now the Democrats (typified by people like Howard Dean, DNC Chairman) who are "Socially libertarian, Fiscally conservative), and the Republicans who are, well, fiscally irresponsible and socially "theocratic fascists".
Slashdot Mirror
Yet more proof that the true enemy of 'better' is 'good enough'.
Here's hoping that Berman's contract is not only allowed to expire, but he's forbidden from ever touching anything "Trek" again. Same goes for Braga.
A lunar distance = about 384 kilometers
I hope you meant 384 thousand kilometers? Otherwise, that moon is a little too close to me for comfort...
I'm not sure how they really expect to do this if they're going to go direct to DVD. It seems to me that if they were interested in funding new episodes, they'd want to show them on their station, collect the ratings numbers and ad revenue, and THEN release them on DVD some time later. Wouldn't that end up making them more money, or at least give them a better shot of making a profit?
I do hope they create more episodes though. I loved Futurama. I worry, though, if they can get all the same cast and talent back.
I think you meant:
"...It's as if a million Slashdot readers all screamed out in orgasm at a single moment and then...went to sleep."
VNC seriously sucks next to Remote Desktop. Seriously. I worked in a shop where both were available, and the painting problems and lag and quirks of VNC were maddening, while Remote Desktop was just like sitting there at the actual machine. Fast updates, no weird quirks, ... it just worked.
I hated VNC with a passion. Maybe it's better these days, but a couple of years ago, it couldn't hold a candle to Remote Desktop as far as I could tell.
A friend of mine used NetFlix instead... very low risk that way. NetFlix is great for that kind of stuff. She ended up watching every single episode of Angle, Buffy, and FireFly after I nudged her to try them out on her NetFlix subscription. She'd only ever done movies before, never really considered TV series. She got totally hooked. She went through all seven seasons of Buffy, all five of Angel, and the half-season of FireFly in just about a year.
I'm just curious... is the movie in its final form right now? Or will it be tweaked a bit here and there prior to its official September release?
They change things? Like what? And to what end? Are they arbitrary changes, or something that actually serves a purpose?
I'd love to see the show picked up by HBO, Showtime, or even Sci-Fi (say, once BattleStar Galactica runs its course and the movie trilogy is done).
Don't forget the advertising revenue made during the first run of the show on FOX. It's not like they received NO money for airing the program. They probably already had a profit right there. The DVD sales are almost pure gravy.
Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew edited Star Wars. The film was a near disaster, and Lucas brought them in to re-edit and 'fix' it. And they did an awesome job. But don't give Lucas the credit for being a great film editor. His first cuts sucked.
So is eating shellfish
So is divorce
So is wearing clothes of two different fibers
So is disrespecting your parents
Besides, whose god are we talking about here? There are about 30,000 different gods in active worship by people in this world today, with many people worshiping no god at all. Should they ALL be held to the standards of your god, I wonder?
There's a reason there's a concept of 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' in this country. Because it's a good thing.
You are free to believe what you want. But you are not free to encode your arbitrary religious belief or dogma into secular law.
I'm sorry, but that's just unrealistic. People talk at work. People socialize. People keep pictures of loved ones on their desks. They mention where they went last night. Married people wear wedding bands.
The idea that a "double standard" for gays is OK is just ignorant and bigoted. That it's okay for straight people to not have to constantly filter and censore every word that comes out of their mouths so as not to potentially offend anyone around them who might be an anti-gay bigot is just ridiculous. Let me tell you from personal experience, that "the closet" is NOT a pleasant place to be in, and being in one does indeed affect things like productivity at work. Not having to be continually "scared" that you will be "found out" or that you might let "something slip" is liberating in a way you probably can't even imagine, since you obviously take it for granted.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, is simply unfair and unrealistic. If you truly don't care about your coworkers sexual orientation, then why would it bother you if he or she had a picture of their partner on their desk, or mentioned that the two of them were going to San Francisco on vacation together, or anything else? And why is any of this incompatible with actually liking their job and focusing on the task at hand?
We're all human beings, not machines. Do you never socialize with people you work with? Do you never let out any even remote detail about your life outside of work to anyone at work? Can you even imagine working in an environment where you are constantly worried that if anyone knew anything about your home life, you'd lose that raise or promotion, or worse, be fired?
You do know that Microsoft has Ralph Reed, former leader of the Christian Coalition, on a $20,000/month retainer, right?
And it was one specific man, Microsoft's General Counsel Brad Smith, that met with the preacher, and who also implemented the change in policy of support form 'pro' to 'neutral'.
I think if Microsoft really wanted to make a statment on this issue, they'd fire Brad Smith, and sever their ties to Ralph Reed. Period. But I don't think either of those things will happen any time soon, do you?
I prefer to think of it like this: Intolerance of intolerance is no vice. Or flipping it: Intolerance should not be tolerated.
It's not contradictory or inconsistent. It's rational and intelligent.
Your friend was an idiot for saying what she said the way she said it (well, mostly uninformed), and I certainly won't defend it. But at the same time, I don't think that any specific minority group's civil rights should ever be put to a public vote. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is there specifically to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I believe all these anti-gay laws that are being passed right now are fundamentally unconstitutional and do not pass the "equal protection" clauses or full faith and values clauses. And to put it in to perspective, all the same ranting and raving and arguments against gay marriage are the exact same ignorant and bigoted rationales put for against the legalization of interracial marriage. And at the time the courts legalized interracial marraige, popular opinion was over 90% against making it legal.
There's a reason we have (and should protect and cherish) an independent judiciary. Civil rights almost never get expanded by popular vote. The mob always seems to want to make itself "more equal" than anyone else. This is why mob rule is almost never good. We are a nation of laws, and laws should protect and apply to everyone equally.
I believe everyone has a fundamental right to vote, but that doesn't make me squeemish about the fact that so many voters are ignorant bigots who are so easily and willingly manipulated by hate into trying to deny to others what they themselves take for granted. And at the same time, some things I feel are just beyond popular vote, and that includes the right to freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.
I *do* feel there is a thread of evil in the current GOP leadership, the way they are all too willing and even eager to use fearmongering and gay bashing to prey on the fears and stereotypes and prejudices of the masses in order to amass power and push through their agenda under the cover of spin and deception. This same thread of evil, intolerance, and bigotry ran through the Democratic party back in the 50's, so it's not party specific, it's just currently residing in the current GOP leadership (i.e. the pendulum swings and shall some day swing back, I'm sure).
A bill to prevent gay and bisexual adoptive and foster parents has been recently passed by the Texas house. This law includes a provision for anyone who says they aren't gay or bisexual to have their backgrounds investigated to determine if they're telling the truth. I kid you not.
The chances of this passing into actual state law are currently pretty good.
Hrm. Being that I am gay, an athiest, a liberal, and have a higher than average IQ ... I must be one of the most hated people on Slashdot.org! Even worse, my current job has me working in C# in an all MS/.Net environment.
Should I run for cover?
As far as I'm concerned it's too little too late.
Maybe if they had sacked General Counsel Brad Smith, the man responsible for MicroSoft going back on their word and retracting support for a bill that should have been a no-brainer to support, I might feel this was real.
If they severed ties to Ralph Reed, I might feel this was real.
But what I'm left with is this: they've simply gone back to their old stand... a stand they made for a long time, but from which they flinched during the one major time it actually MATTERED. I have no confidence that they won't do so again the next time their support actually matters. This email comes off as sounding good, but feeling quite empty and hollow.
It shouldn't have taken two weeks of "soul-searching" on this issue. From a logical, moral, ethical, and good business standpoint, the correct position to take is simply obvious: support equal rights for all your employees (actual, potential, future, and former). It is simply not an issue to worry about offending bigots with your support for human rights for all. Ballmer wouldn't be pondering how to appear to not offend KKK members in his employ by reversing support for legislation that made it illegal to discriminate based on race, would he? No. He wouldn't give it a moment's thought. So why did it take two weeks to get this? Hell, why did the event happen at all?
I'm not satisified that the people and events that lead up to this bone-headed decision have been disciplined and/or removed, so that it cannot happen again.
Like I said, this just strikes me as too little, too late.
If government is taking 50% of your income you are only half free.
... there would be roving bands of thugs and gangs trying to take whatever I had, with absolutely no justice to worry about.
... WITH INTEREST.
That's a blind assertion and I would completely refute it.
If I were to pay zero taxes, I would be a prisoner in my own home... no police, no fire, no public roads, no public education
Libertarianism, carried to its logical conclusion, is just as insane and unworkable a 'utopian ideal' as any other ism, such as communism. It's not something that can possibly work in the "real world", because it utterly rails to take into account human nature and human flaws.
We need a justice system, a transportaiton system, and education system, the rule of laws, and the enforcement of said laws. Without all of these things, the quality of life would be miserable for most, and the standard of living would be horrible for most.
Taxes should be as low as possible BUT NO LOWER. The idea that Democrats want to tell you what to do with your money, but Republicans don't, is simply complete B.S. The only difference is WHAT they want to tell you to do with your money. Democrats, when they squander tax dollars, at least do so in the persuit of knowledge (research), and in helping others (which indirectly helps each and every one of us). When the Republicans squander your tax dollars, it just goes to line the pockets of rich CEOs and the Military Industrial complex, to murdering people abroad for their resources and obedience, and basically just "getting lost" (I think the latest tally is that 9.8 BILLION is just missing and unaccounted for in Iraq... that's tax-payer money). Additionally, Republicans want to burden your children and their children with the stuff they're squandering money on right now
I don't support getting rid of all taxes as I am not an anarchist. But I believe they are too high.
Another unsupported and unsupportable cliam. Our taxes are among the lowest in the first world of industrialized nations. Our standards of education and standards of living are rapidly sinking because of that, and this is seriously affecting our future ability to remain a strong nation, leading the world in research and in progress and in economic might.
Given current spending levels, taxes are obviously way too low. The Republicans have signaled no real interest in making MEANINGFUL cuts in their spending (sure, they want to cut the token fraction of a percent that goes to the national endowment for the arts, but they want to fully fund programs that have been proven to be unworkable, like the missle defense shield (over $100 billion sunk into that since Dubbya took office) as well as 'faith-based' initiatives and abstinence training).
I'll say it again: Democrats, during the 8 years of Clinton, managed to CUT per-capita Federal spending for the first time in a generation or two. In addition, they had a sensible tax policy that resulted in a surplus for the first time in recent memory. This surplus could have done much good paying down the national debt, and cutting taxes in a *responsible* way. But no, the GOP decided to squander all of that by sharply reducing taxes for the wealtiest 2%, while giving little more than a token cut to everyone else, all while SHARPLY increasing spending... including on those entitlement programs they allegedly dislike so.
When I look at taxes, I look at "return on investment". And that is simply higher under Democrats than under Republicans. I know that doesn't jibe with GOP propaganda, but it is the reality when you sit down and look at the numbers.
A lack of economic freedom always means less efficient markets which means poorer citizens.
I'm just as concerned about a lack of REAL freedom, as it has economic impact too. Civil rights and equal opportunity and the rule of law are all important issues. For everyone. Republicans tend to ha
All I am trying to say is that liberals DO want to ban things. The only difference, it seems, is that you support banning things that liberals want to ban, for whatever reason (greater good, etc.), and you do not support banning the things that (some) conservatives want to ban.
... similar to the old saw "Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose").... while in the other case you're restricting the rights of a specific class of people (i.e. those that like and want to read Shakespear).
... these same conservatives, so eager to use Leviticus to bash gays would scream like stuck pigs if you tried to legislate anything ELSE in that book of the bible. Never mind that a great many people in this country simply aren't Christian, and shouldn't be compelled to observe Christian dogma by having that dogma encoded into secular law.
No, that's not the only difference. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.
It's like saying someone wanting to ban murder is on the same level as someone wanting to ban reading books written by Shakespear. They're not even comparable things.
In one case, you're protecting the rights of individuals (i.e. stating that the rights of the murderer do not superceed the rights of the murderee
The conservative position is a desire to ban whatever they don't like, even if it is irrelevant to society or the greater good or to someone of a different religion. If they don't like it, they have no problem banning it for everyone. If they like it, they'll scream like a stuck-pig if anyone else tried to ban it. It's a hypocritical stance.
The liberal position is a desire to maximize each individuals rights... something that applies equally to all concerned. For example, most liberals champion the idea that gays should be able to enjoy the same legal protections as straights in a relationship (things such as rights of immigration, the right to not be compelled by the state to testify against their spouse, inheritence rights, rights of medical decision-making, etc). Even if they're not gay. Even if they know nobody gay. Just because they're not gay, doesn't mean they're okay with restricting the rights of gay people
Conservatives, however, have no problem with restricting the rights of gay people, when they're not gay. They'll use the Bible for justification, pointing to Leviticus as rationalization for treating gays as "lesser citizens" with fewer rights. Even though Leviticus contains all sorts of other "rules" against things like divorce, eating shellfish, or being with women who are on their period
Conservatives seem very comfortable with dividing people into 'good' and 'bad' and making separate sets of rules and rights for each group. Liberals are highly uncomfortable with such a notion, prefering instead to enforce all laws equally for every citizen, even if that makes them uncomfortable.
I think my "simplistic" explaination does stand up pretty well, actually. In fact, you've offered nothing that really refutes it that I've seen. Show me an example of a "liberal position" that conservatives oppose that limits the rights of a particular group of individuals, and I'll show you ten examples of the contrary. My statment is not an "absolute" (we liberals tend to shy away from absolutes), but is a definite trend.
When liberals want to 'ban' things, it's usually because of constitutional considerations, consideration for the rights of all citzens, and usually limited to the "public sphere" (do what you want in private as long as it harms no others).
When conservatives want to 'ban' things, it's usually due to religious or dogmatic considerations, usually singles out one arbitrary group of citizens for punishment, and usually applies EVERYWHERE, even in the privacy of ones own home (see things like 'sodomy laws', which conservatives are working hard to re-enstate after the Supreme Court struck down the concept).
Come to think of it, maybe the distinction has more
You mention many social topics, but as I said, I really don't care about social topics. I think a good economy is the most important thing.
The whole first half of my post to you was about economic topics. Not social topics.
And economic topics aren't the end-all/be-all. There's the "minor" issue of freedom and democracy. Our economy does best with a diverse and empowered citizenry, where every citizen is free. Corporate "kings" exploiting citizen "serfs" will cause profits to skyrocket in the short term, but eventually the serfs will have no money to buy what the corporations are selling, and the economy will tank.
Don't miss the forest for the trees here, or get caught up in short-term, bottom-line thinking. That's just begging to get everyone into a 'race to the bottom'.
But clearly liberals are even more invasive and fascist than Bush when it comes to economics.
Clearly? Hardly. I could argue quite the opposite. When it comes to regulating corporations, YES, and that's a good thing. But when it comes to economics? That's a resounding NO.
Kerry wanted roll back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts that have done little or nothing to stimulate the economy while simultaneously throwing us into massive deficit spending. Bush hasn't actually CUT anyone's taxes, he's just stopped collecting them... and by raising spending the way he has, he's actually increased our ultimate tax burden down the road (long term thinking again, please keep up) especially given the interest being charged.
Thats Democrats telling the individual how their money should be spent.
No, that's Democrats wanting to be fiscally responsible and making sure that everyone pays for the common and greater good that our society offers its citizens, rather than asking the unborn grandchildren to foot the bill. If you think the Republican actions are even remotely libertarian, you need to look again.
Between the FDA and medicare our health system is more than 50% nationalized and for that reason, the health care costs have sky rocketed.
That isn't exactly the reason health care costs have skyrocketed, but that's a very large topic for another day. Watch some network news some day and count the number of ads for prescription-only medications and ask yourself how those things are funded, especially since they're not targeting an audience that can actually buy the product. There are many reasons that health care costs have skyrocketed, and I think you'll find the Republicans every bit as culpable here if you bother to look into it.
And by the way anyone who thinks that all Republicans are fundamentalist christians is about as dumb and out of touch as anyone who thinks that all Democrats are communists.
Nobody said or implied that, but the fact of the matter is, the religious right is controlling the agenda of the current GOP, and there's just no denying that. The press is on, using gay-bashing to stir up support, following with assults on all sorts of other issues, from the teaching of evolution to the banning of abortion, to enforce right-wing conservative Christian dogma on every citizen. You see virtually every major, powerful Republican utilizing the coded language of the religious right, weilding Christianity like a weapon. If that doesn't scare you, as a libertarian, it damn well should.
I think if you compare both the Clinton and the Dubbya Presidencies based on purely economic grounds (your main issue of interest), you'll find that the SUBSTANCE of the matter is that Clinton was far better and more responsibile, economically, than Dubbya has been.
Part of this is primarily due to the fact that the Presidency and the Congress were controlled by opposing parties, so they were able to check and balance the more extreme factions of each side. This just isn't happening right now, and the GOP is literally drunk with power and is working hard to squelch any debate or dissent, and to broker no compr
See, the things you're mentioning aren't the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges.
... it's about 40% Christian, and the rest are a hodge podge of others, from muslim to hindu to shinto to secular humanist). Kids can also pray all they want, lead in prayer by their teachers, in PRIVATE schools. Again, this is an issue of fairness, and of constitutional separation of church and state. Protecting the rights of the minorty from the tyranny of the majority.
... I always try to accomodate reality and hard data over what I THINK should be right, whereas 'ideology' implies that you stick with the concept, regardless of reality or facts.
The liberal position is to weigh the pros and cons of *everyone's* rights, not just the majorities.
1. This is a civil rights issue... an attempt to balance out unreasonable prejudices so that individuals are treated equally. This isn't even remotely the same as banning a book you don't like, or banning a word you don't want to hear, etc.
2. Kids can pray in schools any time they want, in any way they want, as long as they do it themselves. What is banned is an officially lead prayer by public school officials. Public schools are paid for by everyone, including people who are not of the majority religion. Some public schools even have a minority of students who are christian (the midwest school where my mother teaches, for example
3. Again, protecting the powerless from the powerful, the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and the civil rights of everyone.
Liberals believe in the concept of 'the greater good', and Conservatives don't. Liberals believe in protecting the weak, the innocent, the poor, and the powerless from exploitation from the powerful and the wealthy.
None of the issues you raised is an apples-to-apples comparisson. In fact, your points, especially the prayer in school one, reinforces my point. The liberal position is to avoid stamping ONE religion as the ONE TRUE religion, and to allow each student to persue their own private beliefs as they choose, rather than have them imposed by a teacher or by law. See?
The smoking ban is the closest I've seen posted here, but that doesn't break down cleanly Democrat/Republican or even liberal/conservative.
Another issue you could raise would be seat belt laws, but even that doesn't break down cleanly into liberal/conservative very well at all.
In short, you've offered up no solid backing data for your hypothesis, while I've offered many examples that back mine. I'm not brainwashed here, and I don't really have an *ideology* per se
I believe that your 1. and 2. are specifically unconstitutional, in fact, and thus not a 'liberal' thing at all, but a constitutional thing. Conservatives are just as likely to back those things, as long as they're not racist or theocratic.
Maybe you can come up with some other examples, but I'm still standing by my original statement here.
No, Rush is not 'pure entertainment'. I wish he were. What he IS, is a very effective tool for the right-wing media machine. He's exceedingly good at spinning and distorting facts and spewing half-truths and even out-right lies, in the form of very catchy, memorable rants and talking points and sound-bites. The right and the Republicans frequently go to him with specific agendas and talking points for him to disseminate. He is a tool that is used expertly by Karl Rove and company to help control the debate, color the issues, and discredit the opposition.
The vast majority of his listeners take everything he says as gospel.
I've listened to him enough to know he's a blow-hard who very rarely has a command of the actual facts, and even when he does report something close to the truth, it's typically so distored and slanted and biased as to be nearly unrecognizable.
I know too many people who get all their political opinions from Rush and FOX News. They cannot debate you, explain their beliefs, or even rationally discuss the issues, but they are ADAMANT in their political opinions, precisely because Rush is so adamant about them. I think Rush and the talking heads like him completly poison political discourse in this country, turning every issue into a black and white rant, throwing ideology over reality in terms of importance.
The right-wing's grip on the media, and their efficiency at repeating their talking points over and over and over until they take on the air of "obvious truth" is what got the right-wing fringe into power, and it's precisely what is keeping them there. They're masters at it. You should not trivialize their efforts or accomplishments by dismissing it as 'pure entertainment'. It's much, much more. It's a very well planned and effective strategy.
According to the CATO institute (a libertarian organization):
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent [...]
I fail to see how the Republicans -- the conservative party in this country -- are in any way economically libertarian. In fact, it's the Democrats -- the liberals -- who presided over the only shrinking of government size and power that we've seen in generations (under Clinton). It is only under Clinton that actual per-capita Federal spending DECLINED. It has skyrocketed under Dubbya.
Liberals, in particular, want to protect the common man from the wealthy and powerful (i.e. balance the power between workers and massive corporations, for example).
Conservatives, at least in this country, want the common man to be nothing but fodder, a cheap resource for use by corporations so that the corporations (and their CEOs and board members) can increase their already vast wealth.
Yes, the liberals are more concerned with civil rights. Conservatives don't give a damn about civil rights... they want two sets of rules, one for them, and one for everyone else. This is demonstrated nowhere more clearly than in their defense of Tom DeLay, one of the most corrupt individuals in congress (and that's saying something!). Never mind their constant hypocrisy, defending Republicans who do exactly what they screamed about Democrats doing just two terms ago. Republicans find the constitution and the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances to be annoying barriers to them increasing their power and wealth. Liberals and Democrats see them as essential to our very liberty and life.
There is a very, very distinct separation between the parties and the ideological halves in this country, but it's not always what each TELLS you it is. Look at the actions and ignore the words. The Republicans are not conservatives by any measure... they're radicals, and they're taking us dangerously close to a theocratic oligarchy and/or feudal economy.
It is precisely the Real Deal of Teddy, the New Deal of FDR, and the Great Society of LBJ that made this country the economic power-house it is, with the high standards of living it has. It is precisely those programs that made consumers safe, and swelled the middle-class to serve as the primary engine of our economy. Under Bush, the middle class is shrinking for the first time in many decades... and with his reckless spending combined with his reckless cutting of taxes for the wealthy, he'll ride this country to economic ruin. Never mind all the social ruin.
In short, what you said USED to be true, but it hasn't been true since Reagan. The parties are shifting, and it's now the Democrats (typified by people like Howard Dean, DNC Chairman) who are "Socially libertarian, Fiscally conservative), and the Republicans who are, well, fiscally irresponsible and socially "theocratic fascists".