I'd say the Lusitania was the pretext that started the ball rolling.
Not that our government was neutral, but the people decidedly were. I think the germans realized our government was trying to pull us into the war, hence the zimmerman telegram.
"Those attacking Lincoln are sadly uninformed and their notions are completely foolish to think he trampled the constitution."
Really? You don't think that a president who imprisoned upwards of 30,000 people in the NORTH, journalists, war protesters etc violated the constitution?
What about putting out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
What about placing a federal judge under military house arrest?
Well Lincoln did all those things. Don't tell me he didn't shred the constitution.
I agree that slavery is evil. I am also glad it is gone. However it was not the primary cause for the war. The primary cause IMO was the tarriffs which the federal government enacted. These were the same tarriffs which almost caused some southern states to seceed a few years earlier when Jackson was president.
I think the South badly mishandled the whole thing. Knowing the outcome, I wish they had never tried to seceed since that act and their subsequent loss enabled a great increase in the centralization of power.
And Fort SUMTER was in South Carolina, a state which seceeded from the union, and wished to take its territory back from a government with which it was no longer affiliated.
I would like to remind YOU that Lincoln imprisoned NORTHERN journalists who were critical of the war, and tried to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested!!.
Dont believe the BS about the Emacipation proclamation either. It only "freed" slaves in states which were "in rebellion" thus Maryland a slave state in the Union was unaffected.
Because if you argue that the Southern States could not voluntarily seceed and institute a new government, then likewise the American Revolution was just as illegal.
Thus according to your argument we should still be part of Great Britain, OR might makes right, and everything else is just a bunch of feel good bullshit.
Our system is based upon the assumption that Government is by the CONSENT of the governed. When they revoke that consent they revoke the government, and are thus free to establish a new one.
I am stuck between the Libertarians and the Constitution Party. I like alot of the Lib ideas, but I think they are too extreme in some ways. I.E. abolish everything on day 1 in office.
However I also have a problem with the Consitution party's Christian stance. IMO political endorsement of religion is not what this country is about.
Since both parties are small government and strict constitutionalists, I wish they would work together.
Oil,coal,hydrogen and nuclear are all out.... So here is the solution, PEOPLE!!
Take the third world population and have them run in People Wheels(tm) just like hamster wheels, to generate electricity! After they have run themselves to death we can recycle them as feed for the next generation of people wheels.....
"Um... why would the US intervene when not in its interests? Yes, the US takes action when it wants to and doesn't when it doesn't want to. Are you confused by that?"
I'm not confused by that at all. However, if we are going to play by those rules then drop the hypocritical "freedom", or "humanitarian" BS and tell the truth. We intervene when we think it will be advantageous to the Empire. I'd rather the government was honest about it. Of course it'd be a bit harder to sell to the American people that way.....
"Just like we had no obligation to the rest of the world in both world wars. we went in not because we were obligated, but because it was the right thing to do."
We entered WW I because the Germans sank the Lusitania. Even though they published a full page ad in American Newspapers warning people sailing to Britain that any ship carrying war goods was subject to sinking, (which the Lusitania was), when it was sunk with americans onboard we got sucked into the war.
We entered WW II because of Pearl Harbor.
Before BOTH incidents the majority of people here in the US were Isolationalist. Doing the "right" thing, had nothing to do with our entrance into either war.
"and if we were in iraq for the oil, we sure as hell wouldn't be paying opec's prices for it."
I'd suggest you read Wolfowitz's papers for the Project for a New American Century to understand why we invaded Iraq. Iraq not only has the 2nd largest oil reserves, but being centrally located in the middle east it is the perfect place to have permanent military bases.
Keep in mind this was written in the 1990's long before 9/11 and the whole preemptive strike/WMD tale.
"You assume that I haven't been serving in the Air Force for the past few years after 9/11"
Glad to see you are willing to stand up for what you believe in. The way our country is running around the world playing global cop, I'm sure your services will be needed. As for me, I will stand up for what I believe in. I will protest what I believe are immoral and unconstitutional laws.
"And yes, I am appalled at the general lack of intervention... and in many cases the reasons for the intervention at the highest levels. But that doesn't mean I support not intervening at all."
Most of our intervention has to do with US corporate interests. This is why a policy of GOVERNMENTAL intervention is a bad idea, because it WILL be abused.
I will not blindly put my trust in government. Nor will I stay silent. I love the ideals this country was founded upon, and am disgusted with what I see as the perversion of those ideals into the National Corporate Security State of today.
Our federal government is there to defend our borders, not to station troops around the world.
"We have national ID cards in country X and I never ever felt they were a threat to my freedom at all. I'm 35 and so far I think I needed that card about 5 times. Other then those 5 times it is just a card that sits in your wallet and doesn't bother me in the slightest bit. I really don't see what freedom has to do with that."
I'm sure there were alot of Jews who said the same thing when Hitler came to power......
"If you don't like that idea, I'm sure you could move to Rwanda and be perfectly happy without all the responsibilities of being a US Citizen."
I not only have a right, but an OBLIGATION as an American Citizen to question the actions of my government.
"I'm not saying that we do it perfectly... there's plenty of intervention that i think we could stay out of and not be the worse for it, and at the same time I know there are plenty of circumstances that the US could intervene that it doesn't"
That is just it, the USA intervenes ONLY when it is in its interests, i.e. OIL, or geopolitical games.
"If you can live with the ridicule and guilt of your nation NOT doing something that was considered so "wrong" to the rest of the world when you COULD HAVE... fine, I can't"
Hmmmm.... Why haven't you volunteered to go fight for "freedom" in Rawanda, or Darfur yet? Oh that's right you are perfectly happy to say "we" have a duty to fix the world, as long as YOU don't have to risk your life for it. I just love people who talk about how we need to fix the world, as long as the potential cost is someone else.
Frankly we do not have a responsibility to any other nation or people. We have no obligation to send our soldiers to die for someone else, nor do we have an obligation to spend our taxes upon them.
That said I have no problem if you or any other private citizen voluntarily donantes your money, or volunteers to fight for the cause of freedom in another country.
As for Patriotism I offer this quote:
Theodore Roosevelt: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)
I don't give a shit if the guy in the seat next to me claims to be bobo the dog-faced boy. What I do care about is that he does not have a weapon, and cannot get into the fricking cockpit. A National ID does not stop that from happening.
It will also not stop another Timothy McVeigh, who as far as I understand was never busted for anything prior.
What it will do is create more red tape, and the perception that government is doing SOMETHING so it must be making us safer. It will probably INCREASE terrorism as well. Why?
Because as the government continues to push more draconian laws, they will begin to piss "patriots" here in this country off. It may very well create a positive feedback loop.
I value what little privacy I have remaining, and I should not have to carry a piece of plastic just to fricking travel.....
If we were serious about stopping terrorism, we would stop playing world policeman. The arrogance of my fellow countrymen just amazes me sometimes. It's as though americans believe we have a god given right to intervene around the world if we don't like a certain government, etc.
The question is not whether private industry can run it better than public, (which it usually can IMO) but whether or not government has the moral right to spend taxpayer money on such an item.
If they were to fund this using a volunteer group, I'd say that was fine. Otherwise yes I think it is immoral.
It is especially immoral if the City is already running a budget deficit. I look to City government for items such as police protection, NOT internet access, and if they have to borrow money to do it then their priorities are just plain whacked out.
The CPI formula has been "recalculated" a number of times. Usually to make the figures reflect a rosier picture for those in power.
I only put the basic idea in the post. I figured it was just a starting point.
Regarding the current price of housing, we are talking a difference of 31 years, so even a modest underestimation in inflation each year over the past 31 years, compounded, would lead to a great difference in price. I would say that some of the difference is due to appreciation, however I think much more is due to the understated inflation rate.
Finally, even assuming the CPI is correct, I think it is reprehensible that we take a 4% loss of value per year for granted. It pretty much assures that you lose money if you attempt to save.
Your post hits the primary problem our nation has, inflation.
It is so sad that people in this country do not realize they are being ripped off. Under our current economic system, inflation screws the poor and middle classes. It is essentially a RECURRING tax on savings.
For example : try putting in the 7.00 per hour wage from 1974, then compare it to today.
$7.00 per hour in 1974 would be roughly equivalent to making $27.00 per hour today.
But it gets worse. Any money you try to save, is also worth less over time. The interest you earn on a bank account needs to make at least the level of inflation just to stay the same in terms of purchasing power.
It seems people are just plain clueless about how they are being royally screwed by the governments economic policies.
That is the flaw in your argument. There is no good way to centralize power. Government is a necessary EVIL. The best you can accomplish is limiting its power to the least possible amount which allows civil society to function.
If the majority of power is diffuse there are no major "pressure points" for someone to bribe, cajole or threaten.
"So one can choose to centralize in a good way, or one can watch centralization occur and be left out of any power." You left out the other option, REJECT centralization. Frankly it is a mistake in my opinion to insist upon uniformity and centralization.
Centralization whether justified by "good" intentions, or achieved through nefarious acts reinforces itself, and attracts more power, which in turn attracts those people who wish to gain power. These are exactly the type of people who are inclined to abuse power for their own purposes.
Sheeple are Sheeple regardless of which side of the Ocean you are on. Eventually IMO we will have one world government.
I find it both sad and amazing that groups like the greens (which I believe have SOME valid points) rail about the corruption and power of corporations, yet their solution is to give more power to government. If you start with the premise that people are corruptable and power corrupts, how can you then endorse as a solution a greater concentration of power?
The end result is those with power will make deals between themselves to keep the power they have or to gain more.
Ahhh the benefits of centralizing power. Now Microsoft only has to buy off a few flunkies in the EU as opposed to each former European country. Much better for business.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say the Lusitania was the pretext that started the ball rolling.
Not that our government was neutral, but the people decidedly were. I think the germans realized our government was trying to pull us into the war, hence the zimmerman telegram.
The section has already been abused.
When a lawyer is charged with committing a crime by speaking to the media we have a problem....
I'm not saying I agree with her, but come on!
"Those attacking Lincoln are sadly uninformed and their notions are completely foolish to think he trampled the constitution."
Really? You don't think that a president who imprisoned upwards of 30,000 people in the NORTH,
journalists, war protesters etc violated the constitution?
What about putting out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
What about placing a federal judge under military house arrest?
Well Lincoln did all those things. Don't tell me he didn't shred the constitution.
I agree that slavery is evil. I am also glad it is gone. However it was not the primary cause for the war. The primary cause IMO was the tarriffs which the federal government enacted. These were the same tarriffs which almost caused some southern states to seceed a few years earlier when Jackson was president.
I think the South badly mishandled the whole thing. Knowing the outcome, I wish they had never tried to seceed since that act and their subsequent loss enabled a great increase in the centralization of power.
I'd say quote it as "GroundPounder" and leave it at that.
What do you believe about the consent of the governed?
If a state were to decide to seceed today,
do they have the right to do so?
The king made the argument that our ancestors gave up their rights (and thus ours) in perpituity.
Either government rests upon the citizens consent or it is tyranny IMO.
Mod the parent up man!
And Fort SUMTER was in South Carolina, a state which seceeded from the union, and wished to take its territory back from a government with which it was no longer affiliated.
.
I would like to remind YOU that Lincoln imprisoned NORTHERN journalists who were critical of the war, and tried to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested!!
Dont believe the BS about the Emacipation proclamation either. It only "freed" slaves in states which were "in rebellion" thus Maryland a slave state in the Union was unaffected.
Because if you argue that the Southern States could not voluntarily seceed and institute a new government, then likewise the American Revolution was just as illegal.
Thus according to your argument we should still be part of Great Britain, OR might makes right,
and everything else is just a bunch of feel good bullshit.
Our system is based upon the assumption that Government is by the CONSENT of the governed.
When they revoke that consent they revoke the government, and are thus free to establish a new one.
Please visit my new franchise restaurant,
The Splurge and Purge!
The only all you can eat and eat buffet!
I am stuck between the Libertarians and the Constitution Party. I like alot of the Lib ideas,
but I think they are too extreme in some ways.
I.E. abolish everything on day 1 in office.
However I also have a problem with the Consitution party's Christian stance. IMO political endorsement of religion is not what this country is about.
Since both parties are small government and strict constitutionalists, I wish they would work together.
Oil,coal,hydrogen and nuclear are all out.... So here is the solution, PEOPLE!!
Take the third world population and have them run in People Wheels(tm) just like hamster wheels, to generate electricity! After they have run themselves to death we can recycle them as feed for the next generation of people wheels.....
Yes, its sarcasm, get over it.
"Um... why would the US intervene when not in its interests? Yes, the US takes action when it wants to and doesn't when it doesn't want to. Are you confused by that?"
I'm not confused by that at all. However, if we are going to play by those rules then drop the hypocritical "freedom", or "humanitarian"
BS and tell the truth. We intervene when we think it will be advantageous to the Empire. I'd rather the government was honest about it. Of course it'd be a bit harder to sell to the American people that way.....
"Just like we had no obligation to the rest of the world in both world wars. we went in not because we were obligated, but because it was the right thing to do."
We entered WW I because the Germans sank the Lusitania. Even though they published a full page ad in American Newspapers warning people sailing to Britain that any ship carrying war goods was subject to sinking, (which the Lusitania was), when it was sunk with americans onboard we got sucked into the war.
We entered WW II because of Pearl Harbor.
Before BOTH incidents the majority of people here in the US were Isolationalist. Doing the "right" thing, had nothing to do with our entrance into either war.
"and if we were in iraq for the oil, we sure as hell wouldn't be paying opec's prices for it."
I'd suggest you read Wolfowitz's papers for the Project for a New American Century to understand why we invaded Iraq. Iraq not only has the 2nd largest oil reserves, but being centrally located in the middle east it is the perfect place to have permanent military bases.
Keep in mind this was written in the 1990's long before 9/11 and the whole preemptive strike/WMD
tale.
"You assume that I haven't been serving in the Air Force for the past few years after 9/11"
Glad to see you are willing to stand up for what you believe in. The way our country is running around the world playing global cop, I'm sure your services will be needed. As for me, I will stand up for what I believe in. I will protest what I believe are immoral and unconstitutional laws.
"And yes, I am appalled at the general lack of intervention... and in many cases the reasons for the intervention at the highest levels. But that doesn't mean I support not intervening at all."
Most of our intervention has to do with US corporate interests. This is why a policy of GOVERNMENTAL intervention is a bad idea, because it WILL be abused.
I will not blindly put my trust in government. Nor will I stay silent. I love the ideals this country was founded upon, and am disgusted with
what I see as the perversion of those ideals into the National Corporate Security State of today.
Our federal government is there to defend our borders, not to station troops around the world.
"We have national ID cards in country X and I never ever felt they were a threat to my freedom at all. I'm 35 and so far I think I needed that card about 5 times. Other then those 5 times it is just a card that sits in your wallet and doesn't bother me in the slightest bit. I really don't see what freedom has to do with that."
I'm sure there were alot of Jews who said the same thing when Hitler came to power......
"If you don't like that idea, I'm sure you could move to Rwanda and be perfectly happy without all the responsibilities of being a US Citizen."
:
I not only have a right, but an OBLIGATION as an American Citizen to question the actions of my government.
"I'm not saying that we do it perfectly... there's plenty of intervention that i think we could stay out of and not be the worse for it, and at the same time I know there are plenty of circumstances that the US could intervene that it doesn't"
That is just it, the USA intervenes ONLY when it is in its interests, i.e. OIL, or geopolitical games.
"If you can live with the ridicule and guilt of your nation NOT doing something that was considered so "wrong" to the rest of the world when you COULD HAVE... fine, I can't"
Hmmmm.... Why haven't you volunteered to go fight for "freedom" in Rawanda, or Darfur yet? Oh that's right you are perfectly happy to say "we" have a duty to fix the world, as long as YOU don't have to risk your life for it. I just love people who talk about how we need to fix the world, as long as the potential cost is someone else.
Frankly we do not have a responsibility to any other nation or people. We have no obligation to send our soldiers to die for someone else, nor do we have an obligation to spend our taxes upon them.
That said I have no problem if you or any other private citizen voluntarily donantes your money, or volunteers to fight for the cause of freedom in another country.
As for Patriotism I offer this quote
Theodore Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)
I don't give a shit if the guy in the seat next to me claims to be bobo the dog-faced boy. What I do care about is that he does not have a weapon, and cannot get into the fricking cockpit. A National ID does not stop that from happening.
It will also not stop another Timothy McVeigh, who as far as I understand was never busted for anything prior.
What it will do is create more red tape, and the perception that government is doing SOMETHING so it must be making us safer. It will probably INCREASE terrorism as well. Why?
Because as the government continues to push more draconian laws, they will begin to piss "patriots" here in this country off. It may very well create a positive feedback loop.
I value what little privacy I have remaining, and I should not have to carry a piece of plastic just to fricking travel.....
If we were serious about stopping terrorism, we would stop playing world policeman. The arrogance of my fellow countrymen just amazes me sometimes. It's as though americans believe we have a god given right to intervene around the world if we don't like a certain government, etc.
The Republic is Dead. Long Live the Empire...
If you can prove that god exists.....
The question is not whether private industry can run it better than public, (which it usually can IMO)
but whether or not government has the moral right to spend taxpayer money on such an item.
If they were to fund this using a volunteer group, I'd say that was fine. Otherwise yes I think it is immoral.
It is especially immoral if the City is already running a budget deficit. I look to City government for items such as police protection,
NOT internet access, and if they have to borrow money to do it then their priorities are just plain whacked out.
The CPI formula has been "recalculated" a number of times. Usually to make the figures reflect a rosier picture for those in power.
1 21500pv.html
I only put the basic idea in the post. I figured it was just a starting point.
Regarding the current price of housing, we are talking a difference of 31 years, so even a modest underestimation in inflation each year over the past 31 years, compounded, would lead to a great difference in price. I would say that some of the difference is due to appreciation, however I think much more is due to the understated inflation rate.
Finally, even assuming the CPI is correct, I think it is reprehensible that we take a 4% loss of value per year for granted. It pretty much assures that you lose money if you attempt to save.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_00/blanchard
Your post hits the primary problem our nation has, inflation.
It is so sad that people in this country do not realize they are being ripped off. Under our current economic system, inflation screws the poor and middle classes. It is essentially a RECURRING tax on savings.
For example : try putting in the 7.00 per hour wage from 1974, then compare it to today.
$7.00 per hour in 1974 would be roughly equivalent to making $27.00 per hour today.
But it gets worse. Any money you try to save, is also worth less over time. The interest you earn on a bank account needs to make at least the level of inflation just to stay the same in terms of purchasing power.
It seems people are just plain clueless about how they are being royally screwed by the governments economic policies.
"So one can choose to centralize in a good way"
That is the flaw in your argument. There is no good way to centralize power. Government is a necessary EVIL. The best you can accomplish is limiting its power to the least possible amount which allows civil society to function.
If the majority of power is diffuse there are no major "pressure points" for someone to bribe, cajole or threaten.
"So one can choose to centralize in a good way, or one can watch centralization occur and be left out of any power." You left out the other option, REJECT centralization. Frankly it is a mistake in my opinion to insist upon uniformity and centralization.
Centralization whether justified by "good" intentions, or achieved through nefarious acts
reinforces itself, and attracts more power, which in turn attracts those people who wish to
gain power. These are exactly the type of people who are inclined to abuse power for their own purposes.
"Hoho, Mandelson never learns."
"who is actually now in his third senior political incarnation"
As exemplified in your own post I'd say the guy has learned quite well.
Sheeple are Sheeple regardless of which side of the Ocean you are on. Eventually IMO we will have one world government.
I find it both sad and amazing that groups like the greens (which I believe have SOME valid points) rail about the corruption and power of corporations, yet their solution is to give more power to government. If you start with the premise that people are corruptable and power corrupts, how can you then endorse as a solution a greater concentration of power?
The end result is those with power will make deals between themselves to keep the power they have or to gain more.
Ahhh the benefits of centralizing power. Now Microsoft only has to buy off a few flunkies in the EU as opposed to each former European country. Much better for business.