2 looks like it might happen soon; simpletons invest in gold as an inflation hedge
Interesting, what do you see as an inflation hedge?
3- Petrodollars become petroeuros
Staving this off is IMO the reason we replaced saddam, and will invade Iran shortly. (see my other post)
1- China floats yuan
China has already stated they will diversify from dollar holdings. If the neocons are crazy enough to start something with Iran I think china will retaliate by dumping dollars.
Personally, I think the collapse of the dollar would be the most likely scenario that would bring about major change in the US in the next 10 years.
And fending off this collapse is the real reason we replaced saddam and will IMO start a war with Iran. It's not just about oil, but about oil being defined SOLELY in terms of the dollar
Do some reading on both classical liberalism and classical conservatism.
Originally liberalism meant ensuring the individual had as much freedom as possible. This includes the respionsibilty for your choices both good and bad. Modern liberalism seeks to minimize the individuals choice, and to replace it with what the "educated elites" in government decide are the proper choices.
E.G. firearm ownership and self-defense bad, involuntary redistribution of wealth (social security) good.
Modern conservatism does this in a similar way for different issues. E.G. abortion bad, state militarism good, christianity good, non-christianity bad. Both have been corrupted from their original meanings into slightly different branches of authoritarianism.
"Classical liberalism focuses on concepts of individual autonomy and private property, and argues that the sole legitimate function of government is to defend these."
"Modern liberalism tends to deviate from this definition of the term "liberal" in that it espouses the use of the power of government to achieve a variety of desirable goals, ranging from social justice to economic equality."
The first is Liberal as in Liberty oriented. The second is Authoritarian.
Yeah, they should use gold. Because it has intrinsic value, right?
Sarcasm I assume?
Gold has intrinsic value for one reason only imo. Scarcity. True it does have value in electronics, jewelry etc. However the difference is that gold cannot be printed (e.g. created out of nothing), thus there is a stable amount, as opposed to fiat money.
The value of a dollar has lost roughly 80% of its value since 1971 when nixon abrogated the breton woods agreement (left the gold standard). So yeah, I'd say having a gold backed currency is a good thing, in that it restrains government created inflation, or as it should be more properly called : a recurring tax upon savings.
It's happened with coins, for instance. While certain coins one contained large amounts of copper, they now are made mostly of zinc with a thin coating of copper.
yes, but that is due to our government's inflationary policies. E.G. printing more money than they take in. It is in fact the inverse of increased scarcity.
Thank you for that link. As long-time miscegenators, my spouse and I have been living in common-law as fully married: a ceremony, rings, only joint accounts and ownership of all the stuff, two children, etc. We felt that given how our union was viewed even only a few decades ago, and still is to some, neither church nor state had any right in our relationship, so we excluded as much temporal power from our home as we could. The ceremony had us jumping a broom, a tradition in both olde europe and some parts of africa as well as among the church-denied slaves of the South. Most don't realize we're common-law, including some family members (we 'eloped'), since they think wearing the ring means we accept some higher authority's approval. Amazing how that works.
I'm in roughly the same boat, except we did get married, not common law. If we had to do it over again I think common law would have been the way to go. Coming up on 10 years BTW. I must say its interesting to see how much the culture here in the US has loosened up . My wife is half chinese, so yeah her parents went through a bit (chinese man american woman). My friends include a black american muslim married to a puerto rican catholic, and a same-sex couple (I really feel for them in this regard) I find it offensive that they have lived together almost as long as we have been married, but have no recognition of the fact.
It is kind of amusing, we are all about as "politically incorrect" as people can be, but still get along rather well. The wierdest thing is I have no problem when my black friend calls me blue-eyed devil, but he does get under my skin when he talks about what "my cousin" GW BUSH is up to. It is also strange to have a bona fide CHINESE REDNECK brother in law. (Truck, gun rack, country music, etc)
Please. You reference a USA law in 1877 and tell us this is the universal rationale / legal basis for marriage. I don't believe you. Can you back up your argument with earlier references? In the USA 1877 might represent a long time ago but for a lot us in other cultures that's recent history. Roman literature talks of marriages ("matrimonium" - legal between Roman citizens and some non-citizen Latins). Ancient Egypt had marriages ("shep en shemet"). I think you're trolling. Of course I'd welcome you correcting me by referencing older legal documents that 1877, e.g. older than the Roman Lex Canuleia (445 B.C.).
Okay, let me expound a little bit. What I should have said was that in this country Licenses were an outgrowth of interracial marriage. Perhaps it is because of our past (i.e. a country of immigrants) and the emphasis we placed on race. I cannot speak about marriage in other cultures, but at least here in the usa I believe the marriage license has a clearly defined lineage going back to racial discriminiation.
Please. You can create a contract spelling out who owns what (it would be equivalent to your argument). Indeed you could do this for a spouse, business partner, child etc.
The REAL reason for marriage licenses goes back to Miscegenation e.g. racial mixing.
Frankly I have always found it offensive that the state thinks it can force you to get permission and pay them in order to marry someone.
Again, let me re-iterate that I think the US is too involved in everyday proceedings in foreign countries. However, the versailles treaty doesn't mean it's ok for Hitler to create a holocaust, and a coup d'etat in 53 doesn't mean it's OK for Iran to create nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Just because we helped Kuwait send back an attack from a dictator, or made agreements with the Saudi Arabian government for military base placements doesn't mean its OK to kill 3000 innocent people.
You are missing my point. It is not that the holocaust is happened, nor that 911 happened. My point is they do not happen in a vaccum. There are reasons WHY they happen. In order to stop terrorism, you must take a look at the root causes.
Now, is it likely that arabs IN GENERAL see our troop presence in the region as imperialism? I would say yes. This is the same reaction we would have if china had troops either here or in mexico. Am I excusing the violence? No. I am saying you need to look at the reasons behind the violence in order to stop it.
Israel's stated policy is not to destroy Iran or Palestine. Israel has been making an effort at peace, which is more than I can say for Palestine or Iran. Israel has had nukes for how long, and how many times have they nuked Palestine or Iran or any other country? Zero times. Iran has UN sanctions against it forbidding it from pursuing nuclear activity for very good reason. In addition, the UN is overwhelmingly pro-Muslim and anti-Israel, just based on its membership alone.
First off, israel has long claimed palestine. The only reason they have backed off, is the continuing violence which made it politically unpalatable to continued posession. Don't think terrorism doesn't work either. The founders of Israel knew full well it can.
Now, I think Israel has a right to exist, but they do not have the right to stop the palestinians from having a state either. In regards to nuclear weapons, if previous use is the determining factor, then why should we have them? Especially when Cheney has put plans in place to NUKE IRAN if we have another terrorist attack in the US. (Regardless of whether or not it is their fault!)
My point is that we slap sanctions on India and pakistan for having nukes and being non-signatories to the proliferation agreement, but do not do so for israel. It is a double standard, and thus arabs will see this and believe we are not a neutral party.
Second, under the non-proliferation agreement, Iran is FULLY within it's rights to enrich uranium for nuclear power.
Now do they have a clandestine weapons program? Probably IMO. If I were leading Iran, I would indeed do so. The reason is simple, Iraq- no nukes, attacked and invaded. North Korea - nukes, no attack nor invasion.
Will they use them once they get them? Probably not. The real use of a nuke is solely its deterrant value. Two good examples are the USA vs USSR and India vs Pakistan.
Most people say yes, and the police can legally search with permission. You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant. This happens on a daily basis
meanwhile back in the real world...
say no and the cop WILL detain you while he calls in backup, drug dogs etc. because saying no means you MUST be doing something wrong.
And this is coming from me as a libertarian who agrees we should not be so entrenched overseas... but there are places where our nose does belong. Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?
first, we helped create the situation in 39 with the punative versailles treaty. If the west had not destroyed gernmany's economy hitler probably would not have come to power.
Second regarding Iran. The first big case of blowback. The CIA supported a coup against the first democratically elected government in iran in 1953.
I think their public policy stems from that, our support of the shah, and our unquestioning support of israel. isn't it interesting that israel has nuclear weapons, but isn't brought up to the security council for it?
But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying? Because that was the main reason Osama was supposedly pissed at us. Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back, and then Osama said he was mad because Iraqi children died then and in the aftermath. Did he blame Saddam? A little, but mostly us.
Nope I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying you reap what you sow. The freaking CIA helped create Osama.
Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back
So yeah, there is no rhyme or reason to terrorism. There is no cause and effect relationship between our foreign policy and terrorism. Our government is lilly white, and bears no blame for its actions. Am I excusing the terrorists? No. I am saying there is only ONE way to win, leave them alone to govern their own affairs. We taught the british that in 1776, the french learned it in algeria and indochina, (we got the same lesson in indochina but it didn't stick)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nowhere within the delegated powers does it say the president can violate the 4th amendment. There is zippo, zero, nada authority to do so.
If we go with your rationalization, we are in a war with no clear enemy, no clear objective, no clear ending. This means we are effectively in a perpetual war. It also means that every president is effectively above the law until the war ends. As much as I detest Hilary Clinton, I hope to god she becomes president just to watch all the neo-cons squirm as she abuses the powers they have given bush.
Even if we assume that this :
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" is his justification, guess what?
Congress HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to give the president the power to suspend the 4th amendment.
The only way either Congress or Bush can do so is to amend the constitution to allow it. Regarding your last point : "I want the President taking the necessary step of surveiling our active stated enemies in order to have a shot at preventing the nutcases from taking another 9/11-esque shot at me and mine. I don't see how it can be any other way, given the state of the world."
Simple, stop poking our nose in other countries business. I bet you that Americans would react violently if the chinese had replaced our government with a new one (after they supervised the elections). Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because our government is playing empire in someone elses land.
If this were purely a requirement of the airlines then yes it would be fine. However the id requirement is a mandate from the government. I.E. they will not allow an airline to fly without id checks. As for your other argument, yes i would say man has a natural right to use a vehicle. Man inherently invents things. These products of his intellect and the uses they can be put to are a natural function of being human.
Frankly, a license to drive is imo pointless. it's real function is merely to prove you are who you say you are. If it was solely for driving, the state could easily keep a record of whether person X passed their test, and if taken to court could look it up.
Its true function is an article of state control. True it has been a rather benign article, we are however living in a time where that is changing. (REAL ID act)
Actually the question is "What federal law guarantees you the right to travel by other than your own means, that is, your own feet?"
The simple answer is none, because it is a NATURAL RIGHT. E.G. people are born with the right to travel freely and should not need permission to do so. This is one of those rights which clearly should fall under the 9th and 10th amendments. Remember the constitution DOES NOT grant rights. It merely lists a few of them that the framers thought were important, and which might not be self-evident.
Sadly it seems many of these rights are not self evident to the asshats in all three branches, and to many modern americans.
Pragmatically, the Southern States couldn't be bothered with retrofitting their slaves with cattle or freemen laborers since that would dip into their profits. Instead, they'd rather go to War.
I'd have to disagree. The book I mentioned above goes back into the federal revenue receipts. The south was clearly paying close to 90 percent of federal revenue. This was going on for at least 30-40 years prior to 1861. The reason for this was the south being an agrarian society exported its products overseas and usually took payment in the form of manufactured goods, (which where subject to federal taxation). The north had become industrialized, and typically did not export its manufactured goods to europe, (thus very little federal taxation). The republican party came to power on the issue of protectionism for northern industry. Thus its support for increasing the excise tax.
The book is interesting in that it has a number of political cartoons of the time. It's clear the worry was all the federal revenue from the south that was going to leave. The other big issue for the north was a southern nation with excise taxes placed upon northern goods. If the CSA was established, both goods from europe AND the USA would be placed on an equal footing in regards to excise taxes.
The war not about slavery. Indeed, Lincoln tried to make clear in his first innuagural address that he did not have the power nor the inclination to outlaw slavery. It only became an issue as the war progressed and the north started having a hard time. They needed a moral issue IMO to justify the horrifying losses.
I have little doubt they would subscribe to the 'living document' theory, were they alive today.
I have little doubt they would decry the living document theory. The founders put in place a mechanism, e.g. the amendment process to allow the constitution to change as needed. That is the ONLY part which makes it a living document. They would not IMO support reinterpreting amendments due to the changing nature of the times. Doing so makes a mockery of the consitution.
Example the second amendment. If you read the federalist papers and other documents it is clear that the intent was to protect the citizens right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Not hunting, defense against tyranny. To interpret it any other way is disingenuous.(search for "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall" in the link above to see what I mean.)
If however any citizen believes that this is no longer necessary, they have the option of working to amend the constitution to change it. Why is this not done? Because its alot easier to say oh its a "living document" that we can reinterpret rather than amending it. It is law for the lazy, power hungry, and inept.
When in the Course of Human Events : Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams. It will make you question a number of beliefs you grew up with about the civil war. His argument is the war was really about federal revenue. Some interesting facts:
Charles Dickens (yes the famous author) wrote that the war was about taxation. The south was paying roughly 90% of the federal govt revenue, and most federal expendatures were in the north. The republicans came to power with a party plank of doubling the import tariff. (effectively doubling the taxes on the south). The tariff was increased shortly after the first republican congress met (from 20% to something silly like 50%).
As for Lincoln:
He 1. suspended habeus corpus, 2 arrested NOTHERN JOURNALISTS against the war 3 Shut down northern newspapers who did not support the war 4 arrested northern citizens who supported a peaceful solution 5 had FEDERAL JUDGES arrested for challenging his stance on habeus corpus 6 signed an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the US supreme court
FWIW I was not born or raised in the south. For a long time I held the view that lincoln was the best president. I now believe he was the worst.
Also just because someone says "it's against the law" doesn't make it against the law. Right now as the President has said it is within the law - they research these things. Of course it is up to the courts to decide if it is or isn't. So wait for the hearing.
Just because the president says it is legal does NOT make it legal.
The president does not have carte blanche to surveil people. The 4th clearly states a warrant must be issued. The Fisa law clearly states the government can surveil and then get a warrant up to 72 hours later.
Don't give me the jive that its too slow. The Fisa court was set up to allow the govt easy access to a warrant any fricking time of day. The only viable reason for this power grab is they are surveilling people is cases which would not meet even FISA's extermely loose probable cause criteria.
Of course its against the law. The real question is whether or not representatives and judges will put their oaths to preserve protect and defend the constitution above partisan party politics. I'd bet they will find some kind of tortured justification to say its legal. Both judges and congresscritters know that if they want to rise in the ranks they need to support an ever more powerful central government.
And just where do you get these 'facts'? According to the Congressional Budget Office and Census Bureau, inflation adjusted wages have risen (1973-2003) for all income deciles; even the lowest 10%. When you look at overall income the picture only gets better. The bottom quintile of US workers in 2003 was making 28% more (in inflation adjusted purchasing parity) than they did in 1967
PLEASE! with the amount of contortions they have gone through to rework the CPI so an acceptable figure results any kind of comparison is suspect. I love the fact that they no longer include food and energy in the CPI.
the facts don't lie. Since 1970, wages for the bottom half have significantly declined. Both dems and GOP have been in control in those years.
It's true that neither party really gives a crap about the working poor. They try to buy votes with federal money. If either party really cared about the poor you would hear them talk about the evils of inflation.
When the country was on the gold standard the value of a dollar stayed fairly consistent, allowing people to SAVE money and still have the same value for it years down the road. Compare that to the situation today with institutionalized inflation:
If we assume 2.5% percent inflation, 100.00 loses half its value in 29 years. at 3.5% its 21 years, at 5% its 15, and at 7% its 11 years. So why is inflation and its effect never mentioned? I would estimate that inflation is running somewhere around 7% BTW. As the baby boomers retire, this situation will become dire. The powers that be have spent so much future wealth buying votes that noone has the political will necessary to do what needs to be done.
That last presidential election was a case in point for how far out of whack we are. Both Kerry and Bush presented "budgets" which had roughly 440 billion dollar deficits. Neither said anything about a balanced budget. Its gotten so bad that when the republicans "cut" the budget what they are really doing is just decreasing the amount increase of federal spending. E.G. "instead of increasing spending by 5% we'll only increase it by 2.5%"
To me, the funniest part is when people like greenspan lament the low or negative personal savings rate of the country. If you were to put money in a savings account, you would end up losing purchasing power after the effects of inflation are calculated in.
Obviously, I still think Bush is a decent guy doing his best as best as he knows how. So obviously, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I probably wouldn't have done as much for Clinton, since I didn't really like him.
This is the problem IMO. You are willing to have two standards of ethics, one for "your" guy annd another for the "other" guy. Regardless of who the president is there should be a consistent standard of ethics.
I think it is legitimate for the president and congress to both question the limits placed upon them by the constitution. That is what checks and balances are for.
I do however find it unacceptable for an elected offical to call the constitution which he took an oath to protect, a GD piece of paper. It is especially hypocritical considering these same people support an amendment to stop flag burning.
If clinton deserved impeachment for perjury,(and he did) then Bush deserves impeachment for abrogating his oath of office. His statement was much more damaging to the Republic IMO than some yahoo burning the flag on a street corner. Frankly I think not only he, but any elected or appointed official in that room who did not immediately demand that he retract the statment and apologize, abrogated their oath of office as well.
One thing I forgot to add to the parent post is talk to the managers of each department independently BEFORE you present it to the whole team. Show each department what it costs them for an outage. Essentially divide and conquer.
Good points, but in manufacturing many companies don't consider investments and returns -- they look at input costs based solely on labor and material and output costs based on market demand and production efficiencies.
Well, if they are not sold by the costs of downtime, the next step is to challenge them to do it. E.G. "If you do not see the benefits, try having your workers go without their computers for a day."
Usually if you approach the managment one on one beforehand, you can get what you need.
I'd have to disagree with you, the core purpose of IS is improving ROI. If connectivity does not help the bottom line, it is indeed pointless.
To make your point, I'd find out what it would cost the company if the computers were down for one hour, two hours, etc. Compare those costs versus the costs for your requested help. Present that information to management.
For any new prjoects, I'd compare the estimated time/cost savings. If you can put it in dollar terms you have a chance of approval.
Slashdot Mirror
2 looks like it might happen soon; simpletons invest in gold as an inflation hedge
Interesting, what do you see as an inflation hedge?
3- Petrodollars become petroeuros
Staving this off is IMO the reason we replaced saddam, and will invade Iran
shortly. (see my other post)
1- China floats yuan
China has already stated they will diversify from dollar holdings. If the neocons are crazy enough to start something with Iran I think china will retaliate by dumping dollars.
Personally, I think the collapse of the dollar would be the most likely scenario that would bring about major change in the US in the next 10 years.
And fending off this collapse is the real reason we replaced saddam and will IMO start a war with Iran. It's not just about oil, but about oil being defined SOLELY in terms of the dollar
The dollar is on its last legs IMO.
Do some reading on both classical liberalism and classical conservatism.
Originally liberalism meant ensuring the individual had as much freedom as possible. This includes the respionsibilty for your choices both good and bad. Modern liberalism seeks to minimize the individuals choice, and to replace it with what the "educated elites" in government decide are the proper choices.
E.G. firearm ownership and self-defense bad, involuntary redistribution of wealth (social security) good.
Modern conservatism does this in a similar way for different issues. E.G. abortion bad, state militarism good, christianity good, non-christianity bad. Both have been corrupted from their original meanings into slightly different branches of authoritarianism.
Original definition of Liberal.
"Classical liberalism focuses on concepts of individual autonomy and private property, and argues that the sole legitimate function of government is to defend these."
"Modern liberalism tends to deviate from this definition of the term "liberal" in that it espouses the use of the power of government to achieve a variety of desirable goals, ranging from social justice to economic equality."
The first is Liberal as in Liberty oriented. The second is Authoritarian.
Yeah, they should use gold. Because it has intrinsic value, right?
Sarcasm I assume?
Gold has intrinsic value for one reason only imo. Scarcity. True it does have value in electronics, jewelry etc. However the difference is that gold cannot be printed (e.g. created out of nothing), thus there is a stable amount, as opposed to fiat money.
The value of a dollar has lost roughly 80% of its value since 1971 when nixon abrogated the breton woods agreement (left the gold standard). So yeah, I'd say having a gold backed currency is a good thing, in that it restrains government created inflation, or as it should be more properly called : a recurring tax upon savings.
It's happened with coins, for instance. While certain coins one contained large amounts of copper, they now are made mostly of zinc with a thin coating of copper.
yes, but that is due to our government's inflationary policies. E.G. printing more money than they take in. It is in fact the inverse of increased scarcity.
Thank you for that link. As long-time miscegenators, my spouse and I have been living in common-law as fully married: a ceremony, rings, only joint accounts and ownership of all the stuff, two children, etc. We felt that given how our union was viewed even only a few decades ago, and still is to some, neither church nor state had any right in our relationship, so we excluded as much temporal power from our home as we could. The ceremony had us jumping a broom, a tradition in both olde europe and some parts of africa as well as among the church-denied slaves of the South. Most don't realize we're common-law, including some family members (we 'eloped'), since they think wearing the ring means we accept some higher authority's approval. Amazing how that works.
I'm in roughly the same boat, except we did get married, not common law. If we had to do it over again I think common law would have been the way to go. Coming up on 10 years BTW. I must say its interesting to see how much the culture here in the US has loosened up . My wife is half chinese, so yeah her parents went through a bit (chinese man american woman). My friends include a black american muslim married to a puerto rican catholic, and a same-sex couple (I really feel for them in this regard) I find it offensive that they have lived together almost as long as we have been married, but have no recognition of the fact.
It is kind of amusing, we are all about as "politically incorrect" as people can be, but still get along rather well. The wierdest thing is I have no problem when my black friend calls me blue-eyed devil, but he does get under my skin when he talks about what "my cousin" GW BUSH is up to. It is also strange to have a bona fide CHINESE REDNECK brother in law. (Truck, gun rack, country music, etc)
Please. You reference a USA law in 1877 and tell us this is the universal rationale / legal basis for marriage. I don't believe you. Can you back up your argument with earlier references? In the USA 1877 might represent a long time ago but for a lot us in other cultures that's recent history. Roman literature talks of marriages ("matrimonium" - legal between Roman citizens and some non-citizen Latins). Ancient Egypt had marriages ("shep en shemet"). I think you're trolling. Of course I'd welcome you correcting me by referencing older legal documents that 1877, e.g. older than the Roman Lex Canuleia (445 B.C.).
Okay, let me expound a little bit. What I should have said was that in this country Licenses were an outgrowth of interracial marriage. Perhaps it is because of our past (i.e. a country of immigrants) and the emphasis we placed on race. I cannot speak about marriage in other cultures, but at least here in the usa
I believe the marriage license has a clearly defined lineage going back to racial discriminiation.
Please. You can create a contract spelling out who owns what (it would be equivalent to your argument). Indeed you could do this for a spouse, business partner, child etc.
The REAL reason for marriage licenses goes back to Miscegenation e.g. racial
mixing.
Frankly I have always found it offensive that the state thinks it can force you to get permission and pay them in order to marry someone.
Again, let me re-iterate that I think the US is too involved in everyday proceedings in foreign countries. However, the versailles treaty doesn't mean it's ok for Hitler to create a holocaust, and a coup d'etat in 53 doesn't mean it's OK for Iran to create nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Just because we helped Kuwait send back an attack from a dictator, or made agreements with the Saudi Arabian government for military base placements doesn't mean its OK to kill 3000 innocent people.
You are missing my point. It is not that the holocaust is happened, nor that 911 happened. My point is they do not happen in a vaccum. There are reasons WHY they happen. In order to stop terrorism, you must take a look at the root causes.
Now, is it likely that arabs IN GENERAL see our troop presence in the region as imperialism? I would say yes. This is the same reaction we would have if china had troops either here or in mexico. Am I excusing the violence? No. I am saying you need to look at the reasons behind the violence in order to stop it.
Israel's stated policy is not to destroy Iran or Palestine. Israel has been making an effort at peace, which is more than I can say for Palestine or Iran. Israel has had nukes for how long, and how many times have they nuked Palestine or Iran or any other country? Zero times. Iran has UN sanctions against it forbidding it from pursuing nuclear activity for very good reason. In addition, the UN is overwhelmingly pro-Muslim and anti-Israel, just based on its membership alone.
First off, israel has long claimed palestine. The only reason they have backed off, is the continuing violence which made it politically unpalatable to continued posession. Don't think terrorism doesn't work either. The founders of Israel knew full well it can.
Now, I think Israel has a right to exist, but they do not have the right to stop the palestinians from having a state either. In regards to nuclear weapons, if previous use is the determining factor, then why should we have them? Especially when Cheney has put plans in place to NUKE IRAN if we have another terrorist attack in the US. (Regardless of whether or not it is their fault!)
My point is that we slap sanctions on India and pakistan for having nukes and being non-signatories to the proliferation agreement, but do not do so for israel. It is a double standard, and thus arabs will see this and believe we are not a neutral party.
Second, under the non-proliferation agreement, Iran is FULLY within it's rights to enrich uranium for nuclear power.
Now do they have a clandestine weapons program? Probably IMO. If I were leading Iran, I would indeed do so. The reason is simple, Iraq- no nukes, attacked and invaded. North Korea - nukes, no attack nor invasion.
Will they use them once they get them? Probably not. The real use of a nuke is solely its deterrant value. Two good examples are the USA vs USSR and India vs Pakistan.
Most people say yes, and the police can legally search with permission.
You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant. This happens on a daily basis
meanwhile back in the real world...
say no and the cop WILL detain you while he calls in backup, drug dogs etc.
because saying no means you MUST be doing something wrong.
We tried that. 1939. Didn't turn out so well.
And this is coming from me as a libertarian who agrees we should not be so entrenched overseas... but there are places where our nose does belong. Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?
first, we helped create the situation in 39 with the punative versailles treaty. If the west had not destroyed
gernmany's economy hitler probably would not have come to power.
Second regarding Iran. The first big case of blowback. The CIA supported a coup against
the first democratically elected government in iran in 1953.
I think their public policy stems from that, our support of the shah, and our unquestioning support of israel.
isn't it interesting that israel has nuclear weapons, but isn't brought up to the security council for it?
But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying? Because that was the main reason Osama was supposedly pissed at us. Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back, and then Osama said he was mad because Iraqi children died then and in the aftermath. Did he blame Saddam? A little, but mostly us.
Nope I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying you reap what you sow.
The freaking CIA helped create Osama.
Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back
Yeah, after this guy went to see him while he was gassing people with our knowledge, and after the reagan administration gave iraq the bio weapon starter kits and after our ambassador told saddam we had no interest defending kuwait
So yeah, there is no rhyme or reason to terrorism. There is no cause and effect relationship between our foreign policy and terrorism. Our government is lilly white, and bears no blame for its actions. Am I excusing the terrorists? No. I am saying there is only ONE way to win, leave them alone to govern their own affairs. We taught the british that in 1776, the french learned it in algeria and indochina, (we got the same lesson in indochina but it didn't stick)
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nowhere within the delegated powers does it say the president can violate
the 4th amendment. There is zippo, zero, nada authority to do so.
If we go with your rationalization, we are in a war with no clear enemy, no clear objective, no clear ending. This means we are effectively in a perpetual war. It also means that every president is effectively above the law until the war ends. As much as I detest Hilary Clinton, I hope to god she becomes president just to watch all the neo-cons squirm as she abuses the powers they have given bush.
Even if we assume that this :
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" is his justification, guess what?
Congress HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to give the president the power to suspend the 4th amendment.
The only way either Congress or Bush can do so is to amend the constitution to allow it.
Regarding your last point :
"I want the President taking the necessary step of surveiling our active stated enemies in order to have a shot at preventing the nutcases from taking another 9/11-esque shot at me and mine. I don't see how it can be any other way, given the state of the world."
Simple, stop poking our nose in other countries business. I bet you that Americans would react violently if the chinese had replaced our government with a new one (after they supervised the elections). Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because our government is playing empire in someone elses land.
If this were purely a requirement of the airlines then yes it would be fine. However the id requirement is a mandate from the government. I.E. they will not allow an airline to fly without id checks. As for your other argument, yes i would say man has a natural right to use a vehicle. Man inherently invents things. These products of his intellect and the uses they can be put to are a natural function of being human.
Frankly, a license to drive is imo pointless. it's real function is merely to prove you are who you say you are. If it was solely for driving, the state could easily keep a record of whether person X passed their test,
and if taken to court could look it up.
Its true function is an article of state control. True it has been a rather benign article, we are however
living in a time where that is changing. (REAL ID act)
Actually the question is "What federal law guarantees you the right to travel by other than your own means, that is, your own feet?"
The simple answer is none, because it is a NATURAL RIGHT. E.G. people are born with the right to travel freely and should not need permission to do so. This is one of those rights which clearly should fall under the 9th and 10th amendments. Remember the constitution DOES NOT grant rights. It merely lists a few of them that the framers thought were important, and which might not be self-evident.
Sadly it seems many of these rights are not self evident to the asshats in all three branches, and to many modern americans.
Pragmatically, the Southern States couldn't be bothered with retrofitting their slaves with cattle or freemen laborers since that would dip into their profits. Instead, they'd rather go to War.
I'd have to disagree. The book I mentioned above goes back into the federal revenue receipts. The south was clearly paying close to 90 percent of federal revenue. This was going on for at least 30-40 years prior to 1861. The reason for this was the south being an agrarian society exported its products overseas and usually took payment in the form of manufactured goods, (which where subject to federal taxation). The north had become industrialized, and typically did not export its manufactured goods to europe, (thus very little federal taxation). The republican party came to power on the issue of protectionism for northern industry. Thus its support for increasing the excise tax.
The book is interesting in that it has a number of political cartoons of the time. It's clear the worry was all the federal revenue from the south that was going to leave. The other big issue for the north was a southern nation with excise taxes placed upon northern goods. If the CSA was established, both goods from europe AND the USA would be placed on an equal footing in regards to excise taxes.
The war not about slavery. Indeed, Lincoln tried to make clear in his first innuagural address that he did not have the power nor the inclination to outlaw slavery. It only became an issue as the war progressed and the north started having a hard time. They needed a moral issue IMO to justify the horrifying losses.
I have little doubt they would subscribe to the 'living document' theory, were they alive today.
I have little doubt they would decry the living document theory. The founders put in place a mechanism, e.g. the amendment process to allow the constitution to change as needed. That is the ONLY part which makes it a living document. They would not IMO support reinterpreting amendments due to the changing nature of the times. Doing so makes a mockery of the consitution.
Example the second amendment. If you read the federalist papers and other documents it is clear that the intent was to protect the citizens right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Not hunting, defense against tyranny. To interpret it any other way is disingenuous.(search for "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall" in the link above to see what I mean.)
If however any citizen believes that this is no longer necessary, they have the option of working to amend the constitution to change it. Why is this not done? Because its alot easier to say oh its a "living document" that we can reinterpret rather than amending it. It is law for the lazy, power hungry, and inept.
I highly recommend
o l=163
When in the Course of Human Events : Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams. It will make you question a number of beliefs you grew up with about the civil war. His argument is the war was really about federal revenue. Some interesting facts:
Charles Dickens (yes the famous author) wrote that the war was about taxation. The south was paying roughly 90% of the federal govt revenue, and most federal expendatures were in the north. The republicans came to power with a party plank of doubling the import tariff. (effectively doubling the taxes on the south). The tariff was increased shortly after the first republican congress met (from 20% to something silly like 50%).
As for Lincoln:
He
1. suspended habeus corpus,
2 arrested NOTHERN JOURNALISTS against the war
3 Shut down northern newspapers who did not support the war
4 arrested northern citizens who supported a peaceful solution
5 had FEDERAL JUDGES arrested for challenging his stance on habeus corpus
6 signed an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the US supreme court
FWIW I was not born or raised in the south. For a long time I held the view that lincoln was the best president. I now believe he was the worst.
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?contr
Also just because someone says "it's against the law" doesn't make it against the law. Right now as the President has said it is within the law - they research these things. Of course it is up to the courts to decide if it is or isn't. So wait for the hearing.
Just because the president says it is legal does NOT make it legal.
The president does not have carte blanche to surveil people. The 4th clearly states a warrant must be issued. The Fisa law clearly states the government can surveil and then get a warrant up to 72 hours later.
Don't give me the jive that its too slow. The Fisa court was set up to allow the govt easy access to a warrant any fricking time of day. The only viable reason for this power grab is they are surveilling people is cases which would not meet even FISA's extermely loose probable cause criteria.
Of course its against the law. The real question is whether or not representatives and judges will put their oaths to preserve protect and defend the constitution above partisan party politics. I'd bet they will find some kind of tortured justification to say its legal. Both judges and congresscritters know that if they want to rise in the ranks they need to support an ever more powerful central government.
And just where do you get these 'facts'? According to the Congressional Budget Office and Census Bureau, inflation adjusted wages have risen (1973-2003) for all income deciles; even the lowest 10%. When you look at overall income the picture only gets better. The bottom quintile of US workers in 2003 was making 28% more (in inflation adjusted purchasing parity) than they did in 1967
PLEASE! with the amount of contortions they have gone through to rework
the CPI so an acceptable figure results any kind of comparison is suspect.
I love the fact that they no longer include food and energy in the CPI.
the facts don't lie. Since 1970, wages for the bottom half have significantly declined. Both dems and GOP have been in control in those years.
It's true that neither party really gives a crap about the working poor. They try to buy votes with federal money. If either party really cared about the poor you would hear them talk about the evils of inflation.
When the country was on the gold standard the value of a dollar stayed fairly consistent, allowing people to SAVE money and still have the same value for it years down the road. Compare that to the situation today with institutionalized inflation:
If we assume 2.5% percent inflation, 100.00 loses half its value in 29 years. at 3.5% its 21 years, at 5% its 15, and at 7% its 11 years. So why is inflation and its effect never mentioned? I would estimate that inflation is running somewhere around 7% BTW. As the baby boomers retire, this situation will become dire. The powers that be have spent so much future wealth buying votes that noone has the political will necessary to do what needs to be done.
That last presidential election was a case in point for how far out of whack we are. Both Kerry and Bush presented "budgets" which had roughly 440 billion dollar deficits. Neither said anything about a balanced budget. Its gotten so bad that when the republicans "cut" the budget what they are really doing is just decreasing the amount increase of federal spending. E.G. "instead of increasing spending by 5% we'll only increase it by 2.5%"
To me, the funniest part is when people like greenspan lament the low or negative personal savings rate of the country. If you were to put money in a savings account, you would end up losing purchasing power after the effects of inflation are calculated in.
Ah, it is not "mandated".
You just cant go on ANY federal property (courts parks etc)
nor can you travel via interstate commerce (planes trains and buses)
That said there is nothing stopping a state from saying "FU".
Of course they "might" lose all their other federal funding should
they do so....
Screw security, I'll take liberty every time.
We've all got to die sometime, I'd prefer to live a short
and free life versus a long and opressed one.
Obviously, I still think Bush is a decent guy doing his best as best as he knows how. So obviously, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I probably wouldn't have done as much for Clinton, since I didn't really like him.
This is the problem IMO. You are willing to have two standards of ethics, one for "your" guy annd another for the "other" guy. Regardless of who the president is there should be a consistent standard of ethics.
I think it is legitimate for the president and congress to both question the limits placed upon them by the constitution. That is what checks and balances are for.
I do however find it unacceptable for an elected offical to call the constitution which he took an oath to protect, a GD piece of paper. It is especially hypocritical considering these same people support an amendment to stop flag burning.
If clinton deserved impeachment for perjury,(and he did) then Bush deserves impeachment for abrogating his oath of office. His statement was much more damaging to the Republic IMO than some yahoo burning the flag on a street corner. Frankly I think not only he, but any elected or appointed official in that room who did not immediately demand that he retract the statment and apologize, abrogated their oath of office as well.
One thing I forgot to add to the parent post is talk to the managers of each department independently BEFORE you present it to the whole team. Show each department what it costs them for an outage. Essentially divide and conquer.
Good points, but in manufacturing many companies don't consider investments and returns -- they look at input costs based solely on labor and material and output costs based on market demand and production efficiencies.
Well, if they are not sold by the costs of downtime, the next step is to challenge them to do it. E.G. "If you do not see the benefits, try having your workers go without their computers for a day."
Usually if you approach the managment one on one beforehand, you can get what you need.
I'd have to disagree with you, the core purpose of IS is improving ROI.
If connectivity does not help the bottom line, it is indeed pointless.
To make your point, I'd find out what it would cost the company if the
computers were down for one hour, two hours, etc. Compare those costs
versus the costs for your requested help. Present that information to management.
For any new prjoects, I'd compare the estimated time/cost savings.
If you can put it in dollar terms you have a chance of approval.