It's probably been said in here, but if you don't have a strong motivation toward a particular language, choose what's easiest. Whatever you choose will be useful.
Because learning a new language is difficult, it's usually overlooked how much they differ in complexity and difficulty. My ranking, complex to simple: Russian (miserable) German Spanish, French Japanese Chinese
Drawback with Chinese is that the sounds and vocabulary are completely foreign. Japanese has imported a fair amount of English, which helps. And Spanish and French each have a lot of hooks for English speakers. (German too, but I find it more opaque.)
Chinese or Japanese are both good choices, but I'd go with Spanish. It's the de-facto second language of the US, and really the first language of this hemisphere. It opens your home up in new ways.
Actually, I think that if anything 'saves the adventure game', it'll be the DS where it's already started. The sort of games we're talking about just don't feel right on a big TV, but in a handheld they FIT. They feel more like a living novel, and are paced well for that sort of interaction. I think developers recognize this, and we're starting to see the results. We could equally comment on the dearth of FPSs on the DS. It's not for a lack of horsepower, really, it's just a poor fit. I don't see the Wii's remote changing the living room dynamic such that adventure games take off there. I'd love to play MYST on the DS though...
I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
The current judgment calls for very limited restriction of Microsoft's actions, actions which are the subject of the suit and which have been found to be in violation of US anti-trust law by a federal district court and a federal appeals court.
Those actions have severely hindered competition in the computer software industry. Any settlement must aggressively address the reestablishment of competition in this important and crippled industry.
The keys to software competition are the API's and file formats used by Windows operating systems and productivity software. Without access to those sources of Microsoft's monopoly, other companies cannot effectively compete.
A settlement which restores competition to computer software will be concerned primarily with:
* enforcing equal and open access to the W32 APIs and Microsoft Office file formats (standardization, publishing, and documentation)
* and the right of competitors to sell compatible operating system and productivity products based on those APIs and file formats.
A secondary concern with the PFJ is language which addresses competing "commercial" vendors. The fear of many is that this language fails to protect not-for-profit software projects from anti-competitive behavior. As not-for-profit computing has been equally harmed by Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, the PFS must explicitly grant not-for-profits equal remedy and protection.
Finally, it is appropriate that the company be punished for its illegal activity with fines. Fines should be set as a reasonable percentage of Microsoft profit for the period since the company violated its prior consent decree with the court to the present.
I think you have the wrong idea about what politicians do. They're not technicians, working out the optimum solutions to problems. They're negotiators (or they're supposed to be), trying to keep parties with often diametrically opposed interests working together and reaching compromises.
Some expertise in whatever issue is at hand certainly helps, but their main skill is usally people. Hence, you don't usually find a lot of techies in politics.
I'll explain my argument better, since I'm not interested in your representation of it. I don't believe that markets exist a priori. Even the most primitive, personal markets rely on social 'guarantees'. As markets grow, the players come to rely on laws to enforce standards which make impersonal trade possible. Those standards can be good or bad and are indeed corruptable. My assertion is that bad standards are still more enabling than no standards at all. This can be observed on the internet where parties have that choice, and time and again prefer imperfect standards to none all.
Please remember this: When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
This kind of fantasy land in which buying and selling take place absent the context of laws and institutions is pure ideological myopia.
(Russia post Perestroika is a perfect examlpe of this. Suddenly 'free' markets, but without any laws and institutions to support it -- no, the old regime was not "in the way", please, it was on the floor -- and BOOM, the economy didn't take off, it fell through the floor.)
Ok, I bit. I think my point is relevant to the entire uninformative post.
Survival, social life, and entertainment
on
The Hacker Ethic
·
· Score: 1
Reminds me of a line from 'State and Main':
Guy: So, I guess you have to make your own fun around here?
Gal: Everyone makes their own fun. If you don't make it yourself, it's entertainment.
Lots of weird arguments here. The one point I may agree with is that a large government may not always be required to protect rights. (Let's start by cutting the military by 75%.) The hazard of course is that many corporations are larger in resources than many states. It's fairly easy for a corp to punish a state that behaves in ways it doesn't like. Hence the protection of 'big-government'.
Show me one place where a corporation has violated an individual's rights except through action of government and in which a small government could not protect the individual every bit as well as a large one, and I'll go away happy.
Firestone tires.
A complicated example, I agree. But you can riff this example in tens of thousands of cases of fraud, negligence, environmental 'externalization of costs', and foul play. In an earlier time, this included hired violence. To a degree this still goes on in the third world, with multinational corporations involved.
Liberty is one thing, of course, more common and more subtle are the ways in which corporations superceed democracy/positive-freedom. By democracy, I mean the power of people to collectively make decisions about how they will live. Corporations, due to their wealth, reach, and effective power, now have an _easier_ time (the case is far from absolute) making those decisions than we do. Health care, for example.
Competing 'rights' have to be balanced. The author apparently feels that individual rights should come before those of commercial entities. The government (legislature, courts, executive) arbitrates those conflicts. It's not as one-dimensional as you suggest.
Sad to see this. I think many of the comments here are digging too hard for reasons, though. It comes down to this, I think: if Corel was in sound financial shape, they'd keep the Linux division going, and probably have good success down the road. They're not. They need financial help wherever they can find it, and so a deal that cuts costs, infuses $5 million, and retains a 20% interest looks reasonable, particularly to shareholders.
About their Linux work so far... the Corel Linux disto is good for newbies: Debian 'plus', with a simple install. That's the right idea, imho.
The Corel Linux apps are ok and have the potential to be a real income source if mainstream offices can be led off the fence and migrated to Linux. Given another couple years, and some active, intelligent marketing, that could still happen. (Corel didn't have either, unfortunately.) LGP may have made a shrewd investment.
With Helixcode, Code Weavers, and Gnumatic also part of the LGP, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. Could be an improvement...
Who's giving lastminute instructions to Democrat voters as they go into the polling places?
Almost always, no one at all.
But most of all, who's counting the votes?
Paid election workers with volunteer observers.
If they cared about supporting the Green Party, why wouldn't they just vote for it rather than professing to be supporting Nader (in efforts to get 5%)
They don't claim to support it. They are entering a coalition in order to win votes for their candidate in states where they need it.
wouldn't it seem important to get more Gore votes wherever possible to fight Bush?
You blur the line far too much between Democratic Party operatives and people who vote Democrat. Most Dem voters are voting lesser of two evils, and while too timid to vote 3rd party, nevertheless can be trusted. You're trying a bit too hard not to look naive if you think the typical Dem voter is into battlefield power politics and furthuring the Party at all costs. (I'm registered Green. I don't think Dem voters are registering to swap in order to have one over us.)
I'm suprised so few people have framed the voteswap idea as a *coalition*. That's what it seems to me: a coalition, born out of pragmatism and necessity, between the voters of two very different parties. Amazingly, this is happening at the grassroots level, not coordinated by party heads.
Coalitions are what democratic politics are all about, wherever they occur on the political map. Coalitions are about keeping one's agenda and still working with others pragmatically. This is a Very Good Thing!
[I can't help pointing out that the Democrats could quietly endorse this coalition at the local level and use their resources (phone banks, etc.) to make this truly effective and win those swing states. But without going into detail, I suspect that when it comes down to it, the Democratic Party prefers to take its chances on this race rather than set a precedent. That's reckless. The Greens, meanwhile, have no reason not to welcome a coalition.]
Huh? Don't we build roads we do like and not those we don't like? Don't we bomb counries we don't like and not those we do? Don't we criminalize things we don't like and not those we do? What counry are you living in?
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
A good question, but also an inescapable question no matter who's tax policy you're talking about. No matter how you choose to tax (even if you choose not to whatsoever) you are engaging in 'social engineering'. Services will or won't be provided and someone will pay for them, and the way this happens will favor some picture of society. Burying your head in the sand about this won't change it. Better to be very open that there is a politics behind however we tax and try to be as honest as possible about that politics.
FWIW, I'd still recommend the 1994 book "America: who really pays the taxes?" by reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele. Unsurprising conclusion: the middle-middle class. (These days I'd hazzard the $30 to $55k range.)
I understand the distinction you're making, but the press _has_ been (mis)quoting in most cases. These are well documented in the Daily Howler pages. Or to take a different sort of example --
THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Then there was Mr. Gore reminiscing about plowing the fields of Tennessee as a young boy, when in reality he grew up in a luxurious downtown Washington hotel and attended exclusive private schools during his father's tenure in the Senate.
This plainly implies that the facts are that he had not worked the farm, when in fact, he had. (Meanwhile, it does have the rhetorical advantage of deniability -- "We never said...")
During their debate, Lazio said that Buffalo's economay "turned the corner". Clinton and some newspapers in upper New York pillored him for claiming that Buffalo's economy was doing great.
Ok, but did the press of NY City and State promote the DNC (or whoever's) characterization of Lazio/Buffalo with false evidence? Is this an isolated incident, or part of a general pattern of press lies about Mr. Lazio? I'm trying to play by your rules, and hold them both up to equal standards.
Many of the 'fabrications' that Mr. Agre complains about can be considered paraphrases instead of direct quotes. "Took the inititive in the creation of the internet" is not that far off from "invented the internet".
I'm afraid you leave me unconvinced. It's not the case that Gore was paraphrased and that was that. It was reported that Gore literally said things he did not AND that he lied. That is a serious claim in this context and to back it up with inaccurate 'evidence' is itself lying. Wouldn't you agree?
The only difference is it is happening to Gore instead of a republican.
You're welcome to doubt me, but this would bother me if were happening to a Republican as well. I have no allegance to the Democratic party. Are there examples of this happening to Republicans? That would be significant.
I didn't follow every link to verify his claims. However, I did notice that he was selective in his examples. For example, his narrative of his sister's death.
Mr. Agre focused on those who doubt whether he was present during her death.
But this is not an example of people who doubt his word, but of people accusing him in print of lying outright, when in fact he hadn't and this was easy to confirm. I don't think that makes this a selective example, but rather a further piece of evidence contributing to a picture of pathology.
However, most of the articles I have read that cited that speech didn't question whether he was present. They pointed out his statement about being opposed to big tobacco ever since that day. Then they point to his pro-tobacco votes after his sister's death.
That's a reasonable criticism of Gore's record. But the fact that some criticism is legitimate doesn't make the printed falsifications any less illegitimate.
As others have pointed out, the sad but true fact is that the press tends to sterotype candidates.
And as I hope is clear, this rarely reaches the point of fabricating considerable numbers of untrue examples (not characterizations, but reported 'facts': "Gore said...") to back up the stereotype. That is something very differnet.
Number one. Perhaps, but is there anything in the article that is unfair or untrue? Care to do more than name-call? What's not true about the article specifically? Why does the bona-fide appearance of anything liberal provoke hostility and howling?
Number two. Agre's discussed this in some other articles. It's a tough case to make for this being new, agreed, but perhaps new watersheds are being crossed... We've had a decade or so of intense work in PR houses and think tanks to develop rhetorical patterns which are very difficult to respond to. Continuing the Gore example -- if you were him, how would you resopnd to this? To demonstrably false accusations, continuously repeated from all corners of the press. It's pretty weird, really. Put yourself in his shoes, and then ask if you feel safe in this environment yourself. I'm not whining -- I think we need to talk about these. (Agre, I think is better at the task than many of us.)
Plug: Agre's Red Rock Eater News usually focuses on computing & society issues. Highly recommended.
Agreed. Much as I like most of Brin's analysis (here and elsewhere), I really thought his dismissal of Nader was off the mark. The point of his candidacy isn't to win (seriously, you think GE, Viacom, and other media owners don't care what that would mean for them?), the point is to fight against the atrophy of democracy and political choice in this country -- by supporting alternatives, by forcing important issues into the debate (trying, in any case), by opening up the electoral process. People who say that's a bad thing make me nervous.
I think Gore would be one of the better presidents we've seen in a long while, but I don't think that democracy is a big part of his agenda. Prudent management, yes. Democracy, no. So I support Nader, because I think democracy is that important.
Money can be spent in ways which improve the general productivity of a society (which defines the upper limit of its wealth) or it can be spent in ways which do not.
True, the 'partying son' invests some and spends some in ways which have a multiplier effect. But in this hypothetical, the money spent does not contribute to greater productivity. Money spent by the hypothetical foundation does.
For example, give $10,000 to a rich person. It pays part of the cost of a yacht. Sure, people are employed to build the yacht, but the yacht doesn't increase the nation's productivity. Give $10,000 to a working person. They buy a reliable car which gets them to work everyday and also to shopping and other activities. That increases productivity, on top of employing people to build the car. Lesson? Money multiplies better at the bottom than at the top. Very important!
Colombia receives the second highest amount of U.S. foreign aid. (The recently passed Colombia Plan package was $1 billion.) The governemnt of Colombia is considered by Amnesty Internation, amongst others, to be responsible for 75% of the violence in that country. Deaths number in the tens of thousands, refugees number in the hundreds of thousands. Do you favor continuing financial and military support to the government of Colombia?
Follow up: Our military actions in Iraq and decade long sanctions have resulted in the death of over 2 million Iraqi civilians. Do you agree with the actions and policies our government has engaged in toward Iraq, and would you change our position there any if elected president?
Please moderate this up (#471). These are the basic facts about the debates. The mathematical chance of winning should be a requisite for participating in the debates. Nader (and others?) meets this standard.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably been said in here, but if you don't have a strong motivation toward a particular language, choose what's easiest. Whatever you choose will be useful.
Because learning a new language is difficult, it's usually overlooked how much they differ in complexity and difficulty. My ranking, complex to simple:
Russian (miserable)
German
Spanish, French
Japanese
Chinese
Drawback with Chinese is that the sounds and vocabulary are completely foreign. Japanese has imported a fair amount of English, which helps. And Spanish and French each have a lot of hooks for English speakers. (German too, but I find it more opaque.)
Chinese or Japanese are both good choices, but I'd go with Spanish. It's the de-facto second language of the US, and really the first language of this hemisphere. It opens your home up in new ways.
Actually, I think that if anything 'saves the adventure game', it'll be the DS where it's already started. The sort of games we're talking about just don't feel right on a big TV, but in a handheld they FIT. They feel more like a living novel, and are paced well for that sort of interaction. I think developers recognize this, and we're starting to see the results. We could equally comment on the dearth of FPSs on the DS. It's not for a lack of horsepower, really, it's just a poor fit. I don't see the Wii's remote changing the living room dynamic such that adventure games take off there. I'd love to play MYST on the DS though...
I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
The current judgment calls for very limited restriction of Microsoft's actions, actions which are the subject of the suit and which have been found to be in violation of US anti-trust law by a federal district court and a federal appeals court.
Those actions have severely hindered competition in the computer software industry. Any settlement must aggressively address the reestablishment of competition in this important and crippled industry.
The keys to software competition are the API's and file formats used by Windows operating systems and productivity software. Without access to those sources of Microsoft's monopoly, other companies cannot effectively compete.
A settlement which restores competition to computer software will be concerned primarily with:
* enforcing equal and open access to the W32 APIs and Microsoft Office file formats (standardization, publishing, and documentation)
* and the right of competitors to sell compatible operating system and productivity products based on those APIs and file formats.
A secondary concern with the PFJ is language which addresses competing "commercial" vendors. The fear of many is that this language fails to protect not-for-profit software projects from anti-competitive behavior. As not-for-profit computing has been equally harmed by Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, the PFS must explicitly grant not-for-profits equal remedy and protection.
Finally, it is appropriate that the company be punished for its illegal activity with fines. Fines should be set as a reasonable percentage of Microsoft profit for the period since the company violated its prior consent decree with the court to the present.
Thank you for considering my concerns,
x
I think you have the wrong idea about what politicians do. They're not technicians, working out the optimum solutions to problems. They're negotiators (or they're supposed to be), trying to keep parties with often diametrically opposed interests working together and reaching compromises.
Some expertise in whatever issue is at hand certainly helps, but their main skill is usally people. Hence, you don't usually find a lot of techies in politics.
I'll explain my argument better, since I'm not interested in your representation of it. I don't believe that markets exist a priori. Even the most primitive, personal markets rely on social 'guarantees'. As markets grow, the players come to rely on laws to enforce standards which make impersonal trade possible. Those standards can be good or bad and are indeed corruptable. My assertion is that bad standards are still more enabling than no standards at all. This can be observed on the internet where parties have that choice, and time and again prefer imperfect standards to none all.
Anyway, I'll bite (briefly).
Please remember this: When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
This kind of fantasy land in which buying and selling take place absent the context of laws and institutions is pure ideological myopia.
(Russia post Perestroika is a perfect examlpe of this. Suddenly 'free' markets, but without any laws and institutions to support it -- no, the old regime was not "in the way", please, it was on the floor -- and BOOM, the economy didn't take off, it fell through the floor.)
Ok, I bit. I think my point is relevant to the entire uninformative post.
Reminds me of a line from 'State and Main':
Guy: So, I guess you have to make your own fun around here?
Gal: Everyone makes their own fun. If you don't make it yourself, it's entertainment.
Lots of weird arguments here. The one point I may agree with is that a large government may not always be required to protect rights. (Let's start by cutting the military by 75%.) The hazard of course is that many corporations are larger in resources than many states. It's fairly easy for a corp to punish a state that behaves in ways it doesn't like. Hence the protection of 'big-government'.
Firestone tires.
A complicated example, I agree. But you can riff this example in tens of thousands of cases of fraud, negligence, environmental 'externalization of costs', and foul play. In an earlier time, this included hired violence. To a degree this still goes on in the third world, with multinational corporations involved.
Liberty is one thing, of course, more common and more subtle are the ways in which corporations superceed democracy/positive-freedom. By democracy, I mean the power of people to collectively make decisions about how they will live. Corporations, due to their wealth, reach, and effective power, now have an _easier_ time (the case is far from absolute) making those decisions than we do. Health care, for example.
Competing 'rights' have to be balanced. The author apparently feels that individual rights should come before those of commercial entities. The government (legislature, courts, executive) arbitrates those conflicts. It's not as one-dimensional as you suggest.
Sad to see this. I think many of the comments here are digging too hard for reasons, though. It comes down to this, I think: if Corel was in sound financial shape, they'd keep the Linux division going, and probably have good success down the road. They're not. They need financial help wherever they can find it, and so a deal that cuts costs, infuses $5 million, and retains a 20% interest looks reasonable, particularly to shareholders.
About their Linux work so far... the Corel Linux disto is good for newbies: Debian 'plus', with a simple install. That's the right idea, imho.
The Corel Linux apps are ok and have the potential to be a real income source if mainstream offices can be led off the fence and migrated to Linux. Given another couple years, and some active, intelligent marketing, that could still happen. (Corel didn't have either, unfortunately.) LGP may have made a shrewd investment.
With Helixcode, Code Weavers, and Gnumatic also part of the LGP, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. Could be an improvement...
Almost always, no one at all.
But most of all, who's counting the votes?
Paid election workers with volunteer observers.
If they cared about supporting the Green Party, why wouldn't they just vote for it rather than professing to be supporting Nader (in efforts to get 5%)
They don't claim to support it. They are entering a coalition in order to win votes for their candidate in states where they need it.
wouldn't it seem important to get more Gore votes wherever possible to fight Bush?
Not under the electoral college system, no.
You're dumb.
You blur the line far too much between Democratic Party operatives and people who vote Democrat. Most Dem voters are voting lesser of two evils, and while too timid to vote 3rd party, nevertheless can be trusted. You're trying a bit too hard not to look naive if you think the typical Dem voter is into battlefield power politics and furthuring the Party at all costs. (I'm registered Green. I don't think Dem voters are registering to swap in order to have one over us.)
I'm suprised so few people have framed the voteswap idea as a *coalition*. That's what it seems to me: a coalition, born out of pragmatism and necessity, between the voters of two very different parties. Amazingly, this is happening at the grassroots level, not coordinated by party heads.
Coalitions are what democratic politics are all about, wherever they occur on the political map. Coalitions are about keeping one's agenda and still working with others pragmatically. This is a Very Good Thing!
[I can't help pointing out that the Democrats could quietly endorse this coalition at the local level and use their resources (phone banks, etc.) to make this truly effective and win those swing states. But without going into detail, I suspect that when it comes down to it, the Democratic Party prefers to take its chances on this race rather than set a precedent. That's reckless. The Greens, meanwhile, have no reason not to welcome a coalition.]
Huh? Don't we build roads we do like and not those we don't like? Don't we bomb counries we don't like and not those we do? Don't we criminalize things we don't like and not those we do? What counry are you living in?
A good question, but also an inescapable question no matter who's tax policy you're talking about. No matter how you choose to tax (even if you choose not to whatsoever) you are engaging in 'social engineering'. Services will or won't be provided and someone will pay for them, and the way this happens will favor some picture of society. Burying your head in the sand about this won't change it. Better to be very open that there is a politics behind however we tax and try to be as honest as possible about that politics.
FWIW, I'd still recommend the 1994 book "America: who really pays the taxes?" by reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele. Unsurprising conclusion: the middle-middle class. (These days I'd hazzard the $30 to $55k range.)
I understand the distinction you're making, but the press _has_ been (mis)quoting in most cases. These are well documented in the Daily Howler pages. Or to take a different sort of example --
This plainly implies that the facts are that he had not worked the farm, when in fact, he had. (Meanwhile, it does have the rhetorical advantage of deniability -- "We never said...")During their debate, Lazio said that Buffalo's economay "turned the corner". Clinton and some newspapers in upper New York pillored him for claiming that Buffalo's economy was doing great.
Ok, but did the press of NY City and State promote the DNC (or whoever's) characterization of Lazio/Buffalo with false evidence? Is this an isolated incident, or part of a general pattern of press lies about Mr. Lazio? I'm trying to play by your rules, and hold them both up to equal standards.
I'm afraid you leave me unconvinced. It's not the case that Gore was paraphrased and that was that. It was reported that Gore literally said things he did not AND that he lied. That is a serious claim in this context and to back it up with inaccurate 'evidence' is itself lying. Wouldn't you agree?
The only difference is it is happening to Gore instead of a republican.
You're welcome to doubt me, but this would bother me if were happening to a Republican as well. I have no allegance to the Democratic party. Are there examples of this happening to Republicans? That would be significant.
I wanted to rephrase that: "people 'reporting' as fact that what he said was untrue, when in fact, it was true"
Mr. Agre focused on those who doubt whether he was present during her death.
But this is not an example of people who doubt his word, but of people accusing him in print of lying outright, when in fact he hadn't and this was easy to confirm. I don't think that makes this a selective example, but rather a further piece of evidence contributing to a picture of pathology.
However, most of the articles I have read that cited that speech didn't question whether he was present. They pointed out his statement about being opposed to big tobacco ever since that day. Then they point to his pro-tobacco votes after his sister's death.
That's a reasonable criticism of Gore's record. But the fact that some criticism is legitimate doesn't make the printed falsifications any less illegitimate.
As others have pointed out, the sad but true fact is that the press tends to sterotype candidates.
And as I hope is clear, this rarely reaches the point of fabricating considerable numbers of untrue examples (not characterizations, but reported 'facts': "Gore said...") to back up the stereotype. That is something very differnet.
1) This is liberal.
2) Character assasination is not new.
Number one. Perhaps, but is there anything in the article that is unfair or untrue? Care to do more than name-call? What's not true about the article specifically? Why does the bona-fide appearance of anything liberal provoke hostility and howling?
Number two. Agre's discussed this in some other articles. It's a tough case to make for this being new, agreed, but perhaps new watersheds are being crossed... We've had a decade or so of intense work in PR houses and think tanks to develop rhetorical patterns which are very difficult to respond to. Continuing the Gore example -- if you were him, how would you resopnd to this? To demonstrably false accusations, continuously repeated from all corners of the press. It's pretty weird, really. Put yourself in his shoes, and then ask if you feel safe in this environment yourself. I'm not whining -- I think we need to talk about these. (Agre, I think is better at the task than many of us.)
Plug: Agre's Red Rock Eater News usually focuses on computing & society issues. Highly recommended.
Agreed. Much as I like most of Brin's analysis (here and elsewhere), I really thought his dismissal of Nader was off the mark. The point of his candidacy isn't to win (seriously, you think GE, Viacom, and other media owners don't care what that would mean for them?), the point is to fight against the atrophy of democracy and political choice in this country -- by supporting alternatives, by forcing important issues into the debate (trying, in any case), by opening up the electoral process. People who say that's a bad thing make me nervous.
I think Gore would be one of the better presidents we've seen in a long while, but I don't think that democracy is a big part of his agenda. Prudent management, yes. Democracy, no. So I support Nader, because I think democracy is that important.
True, the 'partying son' invests some and spends some in ways which have a multiplier effect. But in this hypothetical, the money spent does not contribute to greater productivity. Money spent by the hypothetical foundation does.
For example, give $10,000 to a rich person. It pays part of the cost of a yacht. Sure, people are employed to build the yacht, but the yacht doesn't increase the nation's productivity. Give $10,000 to a working person. They buy a reliable car which gets them to work everyday and also to shopping and other activities. That increases productivity, on top of employing people to build the car. Lesson? Money multiplies better at the bottom than at the top. Very important!
Colombia receives the second highest amount of U.S. foreign aid. (The recently passed Colombia Plan package was $1 billion.) The governemnt of Colombia is considered by Amnesty Internation, amongst others, to be responsible for 75% of the violence in that country. Deaths number in the tens of thousands, refugees number in the hundreds of thousands. Do you favor continuing financial and military support to the government of Colombia?
Follow up: Our military actions in Iraq and decade long sanctions have resulted in the death of over 2 million Iraqi civilians. Do you agree with the actions and policies our government has engaged in toward Iraq, and would you change our position there any if elected president?
Please moderate this up (#471). These are the basic facts about the debates. The mathematical chance of winning should be a requisite for participating in the debates. Nader (and others?) meets this standard.