Someone else: Again, no. If I seize your assets, I can do with them as I wish, including selling them. If I freeze your assets, I can't sell them, but I prevent you from selling them.
You: I.e., you've effectively deprived me of them.
Uh, no. You still have them and you will regain control of those assets of them if/when the issue is settled. I'm sorry, but I hate idiots like you who truly insist on mangling the English language for political reasons. Seizing != freezing and this executive order is not overturning the fifth amendment. Sheesh.
Come on, guys. There are plenty of reasons to hate Bush without having to lie and mangle the truth to justify your hatred.
always try to buy a Laptop that uses components that are supported by Linux, you can't buy a incompatible Laptop and then complain that Linux isn't working,
Problem is that most new laptops you buy aren't going to be supported because they just came out.
The thing is if something sucks on Windows/MacOS you can't use it, but if it sucks on Linux you can work around it. So even though Linux support for Bluetooth was neither better nor worse, it allowed me to do an easy shell script to get it working.
On Windows, Bluetooth just worked. And while it's great that you could get something working that didn't, probably 99% of the population can't or won't. I'm sure I'm technical enough that I could get everything in Linux working eventually. But I use a computer to get work done, not play with the OS. That is true whether I use Linux or Windows. And I find far more things work in Windows than in Linux which lets me get my work done faster so that I can go out for a bike ride or something else that's far more fun than sitting in front of a computer.
I dunno. I personally like Microsoft Office better and it definitely loads faster (yes, I know, it cheats). But when I started writing a book back in 2004, I was actually forced to move to Open Office because Microsoft Word was unable to handle the 200+ page manuscript with dozens of embedded pictures and graphics. It would just eventually crash. No, my machine was stable. But there was something (pure size? I don't know) that would cause Word to crash when I was working on my manuscript. So I decided to try Open Office because, at that point, I had nothing to lose. I finished the entire manuscript in Open Office without a single crash and the book was published in 2005.
So my experience isn't that Open Office has worse quality. In my experience, it was THE one of the two that actually worked. But having said that, I still would prefer to work in Microsoft Office if I had the choice and Microsoft Office didn't crash on me.
By the way, off-topic, is there yet a good way in either Open Office or Microsoft Office to cut a manuscript down so that each chapter is an independent document, but when you generate a final product that the chapters are all strung together, in order, and page numbering, indexes, and tables of contents are actually accurate over all the component files? I soon have to put together a new edition of my book and, this time, I'd really like to be able to make each chapter a single 20-30 page file rather than having to have a massive 300+ page document that is the entirety of my book.
Why? Because someone couldn't make open source work for them?
Indeed. I used Linux on my laptop for 2-3 years until I eventually had so many problems that when I bought a new laptop, I left Windows on it. I enjoyed being a rebel, of sorts, for the 2-3 years I was using open source software, but when I got a new laptop and everything just friggin' worked, I just didn't bother to load Linux on it and get back to all the problems of trying to make things work.
I find that Linux is AWESOME for use on a server, and I use it for that. It might even be pretty good for a desktop. But for a laptop? I gave up. I use my laptop to get work done and make money, not spend the afternoon dicking around trying to make something work that should just works.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but right now it's what allows me to get my work done as efficiently as possible without requiring me to spend time making it work. Mac would probably also work if it wasn't for the fact that most of the programs I use aren't available on Mac and, after Linux, I'm just not really all that keen on buying a Mac and then trying to get hardware-specific applications running on some kind of Mac VM.
One more point, you don't need to reach back to Bill Clinton for examples of politicians that are affected by the polls: Bush and his administration carefully monitor the polls - since they know that the better they are doing in the polls the more leverage they've got.
There's a big difference monitoring the polls to determine how much leverage you have than monitoring polls and basing your decisions on them. We elect our president and lawmakers to make decisions for us. That's how our republic works. If our politicians are just going to vote based on what the polls say, why even have the politicians to start with? We can just cede decision-making to the organizations that conduct the polls.
This is ridiculous. A $3.8 billion expansion and they can't afford to clean up the mess that they're creating?
In theory, yes. In practice, every regulatory agency agreed that there isn't room on the 1400-acre site to increase the size of the water treatment plant. Personally, I'd say that that'd be a good reason to deny them what they want to do unless they relocate to a site that does have room to treat the waste properly. But if we operate on the premise that this is an expansion of this site, the waste water issue isn't exactly an issue of money--it's an issue of physical space.
This will certainly wreck the fishing, tourism, and health for millions of people.
I'm not trying to defend the practice of polluting lakes, but I'd like to point out that this particular refinery was apparently already polluting the lake and it hasn't wrecked your fishing, tourism, and health. I'm surprised they got permission to pollute more, but at the same time, please, let's not exaggerate. The pollution will apparently still meet federal guidelines. If that's not strict enough, start hounding your representative/senators to spend more of their "environmental time" worrying about real environmental issues such as this rather than wasting time on CO2/global warming.
Valid question. And, admittedly, I don't have time right now to go find links for the things I've read over the last decade. So feel free to write me off as "opinions."
But generally speaking--and one that comes to mind immediately--we had satellite and radiosonde records that matched and didn't show global warming. Then they came up with an explanation of why the satellite record was wrong because it wasn't compensating for orbital decay, or some such. So then the satellites supposedly showed global warming. I never did hear how that was then reconciled with the radiosonde record, though. I also find it's hard to find (i.e., I have NOT found them, yet) some nice, pure temperature data from ground stations, radiosondes, and satellites that anyone can just look at and analyze. If anyone has links to that uninterpreted data, it'd be most useful. Lacking that, we're left reading IPCC reports that interpret what the data says, but don't provide raw data.
Then we have the now classic "localized cooling as a part of global warming." So when they were beating the global warming drums and we supposedly experience the hottest summer ever, but it's followed by a friggin' cold winter that makes people think twice about the reality of global warming, they come back with "that's localized cooling which is an aspect of global warming."
Same goes for droughts and floods. If we witness either, they're both supposedly evidence of global warming. Everything is supposedly evidence of global warming. In a scientific environment where everything is supposedly proof of global warming, how can it ever be questioned? The level of group-think is absolutely astounding and, no, scientists are not exempt from unintentional group-think.
Interestingly, my father was Republican when he was younger but Bush has driven him left and he definitely doesn't link Bush. Militantly so. He called me a couple of days ago to say he had rented "An Inconvenient Truth." I was getting ready to hear him say that he thought Al Gore was right. Nope. He has a PhD in oceanography and electrical engineering and, now retired, spends a lot of his time reading scientific journals. His comment was, "Someone is making money here. It's ok to investigate climate change, but to suggest that the science on the matter is conclusive is absurd." Which has been exactly my position for years.
When climate scientists find data that does not support global warming, they keep analyzing and compensating for it until it shows global warming. Basically they operate off of the premise that there is global warming and then adjust data that doesn't support it until it does.
There's so much B.S. being spewed in the whole climate change nonsense. Those that haven't bought into the mind-numbing propaganda and group-think can see it for what it is: A classic case of "the sky is falling." Literally. And, no, I'm not in denial. I can just see it for what it is.
Now, go ahead and mod me down and start calling me a Bush lackee, a neocon, that I'm in denial, that I'm stupid. Whatever makes you feel better. If that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable with your own position, have at it.
I had a Tmobile phone for awhile. That was essentially a temporary phone when I was first moving back to the U.S. During that time I had enough of an opportunity to realize the coverage sucked. So I switched to Cingular (now AT&T I guess) and have had *awesome* reception and coverage ever since. I think the only place I've ever noticed not having coverage was in some vineyard foothills of Northern California, but I'll bet TMobile didn't have coverage there either. I also haven't had a problem with Cingular customer service. I've had to wait on hold a few times when I wanted to make changes to the service, but they were polite and got the job done once they answered.
I've personally had no complaints with Cingular's service or support. YMMV.
You are right in saying there is no instant messaging client but you can easily work around this by having AIM forward your text messages to your iPhone via SMS.
IMing via SMS? Yeah, THAT sounds cheap. Not!:)
Seriously, I'll stick with my Treo that does everything I need my phone to do and can do everything that the iPod can do. Yes, your UI is different. If that's important to you, enjoy the Apple lock-in. Personally, I prefer my solid Palm-based Treo for which thousands of add-on applications exist. And if I want one that doesn't exist, I can (and have) written my own. But I can listen to MP3s, play movies, take pictures, edit/view Word and Excel documents, view PDFs (I have a library of PDF references on my SD card in my Treo), browse the web, send and receive email, download files from the web to a file system... and it works, and has for years.
I'm glad Apple fans are excited by their new phone, but I really don't see what all the hype is about. Apple has a phone. Big deal.
I'm not sure that is entirely the case; at least round these parts (UK) doubts about, or outright opposition to, invading Afghanistan was already pretty strong )although it increased by orders of magnitude when it came to Iraq).
I can't speak firsthand for the perception in the UK since I wasn't there, but I was in Mexico at the time and while people might not have been itching for the fight, there really wasn't much opposition to the U.S. response everyone knew was coming. From what I saw on the news (U.S. media as well as Mexican and other sources), I don't recall much opposition much of anywhere in the world. YMMV.
Whilst we have direct those quotes from Osama bin Laden I don't think it was only the presence of US military in the Gulf--I also think it had a lot to do with the meddling of the CIA in the region's politics and perhaps the general sense that America wanted to take control of the region for its oil. The latter perception might arguably be false but there is little this administration has done to assuage those perceptions--quite the opposite in many ways.
I think those perceptions are basically a result of pop culture and general cynicism and a victim culture where they want to think that all their problems are because of Israel and/or the U.S. It's easier for them to hold that belief and swing their fists wildly at external forces than buckling down and, perhaps, engaging in the domestic revolutions that would really make a change for them.
Much like the silly conspiracy theories that are popular in the U.S., you can't counter such beliefs with facts. They believe what they believe and you really can't do anything about it. Granted, the Iraq War hasn't helped dispel those beliefs, but I don't think the absence of the Iraq War would have either. The perceptions are irrational and paranoid to start with, and I personally don't think there's anything we can do to defuse those perceptions. Just like there's no fact, science, or logic that will convince some 9/11 conspiracy believers that the theories are bunk. They've got it in their head and they've formed their whole world view around that and it just won't change. I think that's pretty much the way it is with the Arab world and their attitude towards Israel/U.S.
Me: Nothing we've done in the Middle East warranted a brutal attack against civilian targets and we cannot base our foreign policy on barbaric intimidation.
You: That, of course, goes without any argument from me!
I'm glad we can agree on that. Despite our differences of opinion, you are one of the more cool-headed and rational people I've had the pleasure of disagreeing with on some topics. Thanks, it's refreshing to be able to have an intelligent discussion with someone that disagrees with me.
This isn't anwhere near as evil as collecting user's browsing data or cooperating with Chinese censorship. They are offering companies a PR service. I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda? That's all Moore's 'documentaries' are really, even when he makes good points (which isn't all that often).
Amen! I certainly see nothing wrong with Google looking to exploit the obvious interest of those targeted negatively in propaganda to present their side of the story. I saw the Slashdot headline and was blown away because I thought it was going to be reported that Google was actually manipulating or censoring healthcare-related searches to help minimize damage to the industry. But if they're just offering publicity... uhm, so what? That's their business model!!
I haven't seen Sicko and really don't have much interest in doing so. Even if Sicko has half as many errors as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit did, it's still a sick piece of propaganda. And people pay money to see it. I'm sure Moore would like to thank the choir he preaches to for making him a multi-millionaire.
Characterizing the isolationist approach as "stay the heck out" is temptingly simple (although strictly, non-interventionism [wikipedia.org] is more the preferred policy of American constitutionalists over isolationism [wikipedia.org]).
Fair enough.
Can anyone really say that Iraq or Afghanistan posed an imminent threat to America in a sense that justified the invasive actions taken?
Attacks on the sovereignty of a country cannot go unanswered for the same reason one should not cower from a bully but confront him. Most people in the world agree that the attack on Afghanistan was justified and pretty much the entire world supported our response at the time. Once we had defeated the Taliban, it would have been easy to just leave, but I think remaining there was and is the more humanitarian and stabilizing option, and far more productive for Afghanistan.
As for Iraq, much has been said about the reasons for going in. I suspect that after 9/11, Bush said, "Ok, we need to clean things up. Who else poses a potential threat?" Iraq had demonstrated billigerence towards the U.S. and its neighbors and had been taking pot-shots at the U.N. authorized no-fly zone for a decade. Was it an imminent threat? It doesn't look like it was now, but at the time everyone (even France and Russia) thought there were WMDs there somewhere--the only question was how to deal with that. We had a disagreement on the solution, not a disagreement over whether or not there was a problem. After 9/11 and the fact that Iraq had a history of being hostile towards its neighbors and was in an area where any WMDs it produced could quite easily get into the hands of terrorists, I personally don't think Iraq was the wrong decision at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and armchair quarterbacks second-guessing complicated decisions based on four more years of information really isn't all that compelling.
There is a strong case, in my opinion (and many others) for arguing that the terrorist threat against America actually spawned from its interventionist policies in times past. Perhaps a different approach would have been better this time?
That's a popular belief, and not without merit, but I think it's kind of weak. The underlying problem is that Israel exists, we support Israel, and we support the Saudi regime (who also invited us to support it). Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, our military presence in the Middle East was not that significant. Our presence after the first Gulf war was a direct consequence of Saddam's invasion and an implementation of U.N. resolutions and ongoing defense of Kuwait. Nothing we've done in the Middle East warranted a brutal attack against civilian targets and we cannot base our foreign policy on barbaric intimidation.
Me: None of which is centrally administered.
You: The will of the heads of international banks certainly is central administration. Gaining a majority vote in the Senate or the House requires some structure of central administration. The League of Nations (or whatever they chose to call it after WW-I) is another example of central administration.
Ok, I fumbled on the words: These organizations and groups are not centrally administered by the same central power. Those diverse organizations often have directly conflicting goals and interests while other times their goals are in alignment and their actions are mutually beneficial. So what?
That was not the case pre WW-II. While the US refused to actively take a side against the Third Reich (until the US came up with a 9/11 style excuse with Pearl Harbor)...
So now you've revealed that you think that: 1) Evil capitalistic warmongers really control human history and everything we see before our eyes is just smoke and mirrors to keep us from realizing that. 2) Hundreds of thousands of historians, textbook publishers, and teachers have colluded with *someone* to brainwash school children rather than teaching the truth. 3) You've now suggested that you believe 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were "excuses" to get involved in a war. Please tell us, do you think the corresponding American administrations were complicit in those two "excuses?" 4) Regardless, it now appears that you believe neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 were apparently reason enough to respond.
That's the beauty thing about conspiracy theorists: The more you keep them talking, the more they undermine their own credibility with their own rhetoric.
Additionally, the most significant factor which kept the US military from becoming explicitly involved against the Third Reich were the interests of American businesses and banks and the influence which they held over the politicians of the time.
Uh huh, if you say so. That's why when Japan attacked us, we also engaged Germany and opened a two-front war which only made both fronts more difficult to win. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If what you were saying were true, American business would have convinced either the American or German governments to not engage the other even if Japan attacked the U.S. so as to preserve their interests. But, as has now been demonstrated by logic, they were unable to do so which means they didn't actually control world events or the American or Germant governments, they just exerted some amount of influence to a certain point. Which further supports my position that there are many differing interests that are sometimes in alignment and sometimes not--which goes in direct opposition to your belief in evil warmongering capitalists that not only dictate world events and the actions of entire governments, but are also able to rewrite history and make sure it is taught to our children.
I'm sorry, your conspiracy theory belief system does not stand up to factual scrutiny OR logic.
A conflict of interest is not "isolationism" but your head is so deep in the sand that you'll never figure it out because the thought that men powerful in both politics and business would have their own interests contrary to (and exploitative of) the common working citizen is, for you, taboo conspiracy theory.
You are again so far into conspiracy-think that you aren't even paying attention to what I'm saying. I've never said that anyone has the interests of the common working citizen in mind. That's another topic far removed from what I've been debating: Whether or not we should militarily intervene in the "domestic affairs" of other countries. I've consistently taken the position that it is not unreasonable to do so. How you've gone off into a tangent about the "working citizen" is something only you can understand. Please try to keep your eye on the ball here and stay on-topic.
Me: And it's only relevant if you think that the same people that make the business decisions also decide when and where the U.S. intervenes militarily.
You: It's called lobbying, special interest, and managing fiscal resources, dumbshit.
None of which is centrally administered. So, again, my point stands. U.S. military isolationism can be dangerous and even though we sometimes intervene and lives are lost, on balance there is convincing evidence that even more lives are lost if we militiarly isolate ourselves from foreign affairs and only get involved when things have exploded to such a point that we have no choice but to pay attention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, even if the ounce of prevention causes a small fever.
Me: If that's what you believe, that qualifies as "conspiracy theory" and "evil overlord puppet masters."
You: Call it whatever you like. It's in the news everday. Congressional hearings of, insider trading of, investigation of, campaign finance reform.
None of those things are the same as believing that U.S. business interests dictate American foreign policy and choose when we intervene and when we do not. Nor is it the same as suggesting that U.S. history books in schools are nothing more than propaganda created by what would have to be some central authority for the stupid "sheeple" which implies a conspiracy even far more massive than the economic/political/military conspiracy that you have been suggesting thus far. In short, the "evidence" you are offering does not support your conclusion. Are there problems in our government and system? Absolutely. Do they prove what you're suggesting? Nope.
Me: But the fact remains that the U.S. public was opposed to military intervention in the "European war" and we did isolate ourselves from that conflict until we were attacked.
You: The US public does not control the monetary finances which made the Third Reich a reality, nor did they control the foreign policy, nor was the government truthfully in an isolationist mode, nor were American business remaining neutral in the world conflict, nor did the government or the military particularly care what the average US workingman had to say about the war in Europe.
You are so deep into your conspiracy-think that you can't even see straight.
1. I didn't say the U.S. public controls the finances of others.
2. I didn't say the U.S. public controls foreign policy, though politicians want to get elected and re-elected so, yes, the public does have some pull on the foreign policy decisions of politicians.
3. I didn't say the U.S. government was in "isolationist mode," but it was from a military perspective. Our military was not meaningfully engaged prior to Pearl Harbor. And, therein, lies the problem with staying out of foreign militariy affairs. Eventually the problems get bigger and we get sucked in anyway, and at a far higher price.
4. And, yes, the government (specifically the president) did care about what the average American had to say about the war. That's why we weren't a part of it so long. Again, see #2--politicians do want to get re-elected so the public does have some pull. Only completely irrational cynics believe otherwise. As an individual we may not have any meaningful say in decisions made by our politicians, but as a group we most certainly do.
Has nothing to do with the discussion above. Your assertion that the US government was in an isolationist state prior to WW-II, and that the world was saved by sudden miraculous intervention of the US gov't, is so naive as to be suggestive of an ass-fisting troll or naivete of monumental proportions.
Funny, I'd call your constant ad hominem attacks to be even more convincing proof of exactly that which you accuse me of.
What part of a corporate conglomerate with special interest lobbyists is a conspiracy theory? They exist everywhere in the US! What part of international banking decisions qualifies as evil overlord puppet masters? The world economy has been based on it since the 1300s!
Let me try to explain here. We were having a discussion about the intervention of the U.S. military in foreign affairs. You then started bringing up all of this other stuff as if that was somehow relevant to the topic of the decision to use U.S. military force in foreign affairs. And it's only relevant if you think that the same people that make the business decisions also decide when and where the U.S. intervenes militarily. If that's what you believe, that qualifies as "conspiracy theory" and "evil overlord puppet masters."
If your position is that international business interests (and not just U.S. business interests) are powerful, sure, no argument there. If your position is that business has an influence on the government, sure, that's obvious. But I was citing WWII as an example of what happens when the U.S. behaves in a militarily isolationist mode and you came back that we weren't isolationist because we had business dealings with Europe and Germany. That was never in dispute. But the fact remains that the U.S. public was opposed to military intervention in the "European war" and we did isolate ourselves from that conflict until we were attacked. Perhaps if we had intervened earlier, far fewer lives would have been lost on all sides. THAT is my point. Intervention has its merits even when people die as a result because it's possible that fewer people die than if we ignore the problem and let it fester.
Me: you think "my" version of history is so simple that a preschooler can understand it
You: Yes. That's why they teach it in the public schools.
My case is proven. That's conspiracy theory. The reason why they teach it in school is because it is fact. Is there spin? Always. But if you think that the hundreds of pages of history books that it takes to narrate the last century of history is "simple" compared to your narrative that can be stated in the single sentence "Evil warmongering capitalists control everything," I'm sorry, I think that is silly.
You're such a naive fuckwit, or a complete ass-fisting troll, that only in a nation as tolerant of idiocy as the USA could your level of stupidity be allowed to persist..... Studies have indicated that the reading and comprehension level of most US college graduates is still around eighth grade. You're obviously deep in that group.
You do realize that your argument has been reduced to ad hominem attacks and insults and that does not particularly add a lot of credibilit to your position, right? And you mock my academic skills? Whatever.:)
What's it like living in a fantasy world simplified so that a preschooler can understand it?
I don't know, but I look forward to you informing me about that.:) Seriously, back in the early 90's I believed in a lot of conspiracy theories and some of those "overlords of the universe puppet masters" that you are eluding to. It gave me the sense that I really understand all the weird things going on. I was somehow on the "inside" track and I thought I could see the ulterior motives of everyone. Then I grew up.
Really, you think "my" version of history is so simple that a preschooler can understand it? Please! World politics is complicated, chaotic and confusing and a constant game of "best guessing" given contradicting--and sometimes wrong--information that, even on a good day, often doesn't make sense. To suggest that that reality is "simple" and your nice little simplified package of evil warmongering capitalists is actually the "complicated" truth is folly. You have to realize that you're the one engaging in mindless simplicity in an attempt to understand world events that are apparently beyond your ability or willingness to critically analyze. Believe me, I've been exactly where you are now and, like you, it made perfect sense to me at the time. I hope that you, too, grow out of it. I think it's a perfectly natural phase in growing up and trying to understand the world. It's only dangerous if you stay in that phase too long.
I have found a more practical solution: Guessing.
How does the simulation take into account the behavior and effect of a few odious, but influential people, say, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden?
By that same token, couldn't the same be said for all these new-fangled global warming simulations that take into account more and more knowledge and supposedly tell us that we're 90%+ definitely contributing to global warming, and we're toast, etc.? For some reason we're supposed to believe those simulations but not to believe this simulation?
Personally, I agree with you. I think trying to predict the human response of 6 billion people is not going to work too well and I don't place much trust in it. I also don't place much trust in the global warming models.
Having said that, I think they could do a lot better if they treated each country as a node rather than all 6 billion people. What they're ultimately interested in is the overall geopolitical and economic response, and that can probably be adequately modeled by having a node for each country and perhaps thousands of properties for each country. There's no way a computer can predict the behavior of each person and there's no way we can collect the parameters that "define" the behavior of each person. But establishing those parameters on a country-by-country basis would probably do the trick.
I'll ignore your condescending swipe at my knowledge of history and get right to the point...
The US banking industry, the manufacturing industry, the trade industry, the chemical industry, the investment industry, and on... HARDLY stayed the heck out of the business of Europe at the time of WW-II.
We're not talking about business decisions. We're talking about the decision to use U.S. military force in external conflicts. If you're suggesting that U.S. business shouldn't look outside the U.S. borders, that's absurd on its face. If you're suggesting that U.S. business interests prior to WWII intentionally built Germany up in the hope that there'd be a big war to profit from, I also find that kind of "dark overloads of the universe controlling the development of human history as puppet masters" also absurd on its face. That kind of conspiracy nonsense is best left to the likes of Art Bell on Coast to Coast, ok?
If you'd like to have a rational discussion on the relative merits of U.S. military intervention in foreign affairs, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. But if this is going to be "my dark conspiracy theories have more merit than your government-controlled history books" then, thanks, I'll opt out of that debate. I've gone back and forth with conspiracy types far too many times to believe anything useful will become of such a conversation.
No, actually I'm not the only person on the planet that believes that. That's just what you've been told by the brain-dead media and broken-record Democrats. That said, I'm not sure that going into Iraq was a good idea--but I do know that, generally speaking, we cannot adopt a "stay out of everyone's affairs" policy. We may get it wrong sometimes, but it's preferable to get a few "small" wars wrong (and, yes, Iraq qualifies as a "small" war when you compare it to most others) than waiting for everything to hit the fan in a very destructive major war that would kill far more people.
or maybe you american's should learn your lesson and stay they fuck out of other peoples domestic affairs?
Yeah, because that worked so well in WWII.
Personally, I don't care if a problem is domestic or international--if it has even a medium probability of escalating to something we're going to have to clean up later, I want to take action sooner rather than later. Like that CIA movie that came out not too long ago, "You guys start big wars," "No, we make sure the wars are small." Very much so. Yes, the loss of life in Iraq is unfortunate on both sides, but I find it preferable than "staying the f*ck out" and waiting to see if Saddam was able to kill hundreds of thousands or millions more people--his own or of other countries. He already demonstrated he was happy to attack three of his regional neighbors.
Seriously, the isolationist and "stay the heck out" approach is temptingly simple. But the world is not that simple and it's not a viable option. Especially with the tensions in the Middle East that will exist as long as Israel exists, and Israel does have a legal right to exist. There are evil and dangerous powers in this world, far more evil and dangerous than Bush or the U.S. So if we have to occasionally do something like we did in Iraq and are unpopular for it, fine. I still think it (intervention in general) is necessary. Not attractive, not popular, but necessary and the lesser of two evils.
I don't know. 10 years ago I actually thought about a similar system, but trying to model the world economy and I was thinking of doing essentially that: Have independent "simulations" simulating each person. I quickly realized that with the amount of computing power I had it would be impossible to simulate billions of people, so I considered a scaled-down possibility. My main interest was trying to simulate different economic systems, tax rates, etc. It would've been an awesome and interesting endeavor but, ultimately, I had real work I had to do and never really did anything but think about. However, it certainly makes sense that organizations with more resources and computing power would attempt to implement such a massive simulation. Must be a cool project to work on.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your message was arrogant and condescending, and it was. And it was unnecessary. If accident rates support banning cell phones while driving, let's discuss the merits of banning it on those merits. Whether or not the rest of the world does or whether or not that makes them "civilized" is, quite frankly, not an issue to a thinking person.
Personally, I'm not in favor of banning them. I believe strongly in personal responsibility and that the government should not try to ban everything that poses a potential risk. Next would be to ban radios, CD players, MP3 players, and fast food. I realize that by tacitly accepting those activities while driving means that everyone (myself included) is slightly more at risk. I'm ok with that. Fact remains is that I most probably will not be hurt or killed because of it. Sure, I might, but getting hurt/killed is just part of the risk of living.
And, as far as seatbelt laws go, only New Hampshire doesn't have a seatbelt law on the books. Personally, I always have worn a seatbelt but I'm 100% opposed to it being mandated by law. New Hampshire's slogan is both ironic in this context and true: "Live free or die!"
What I think is really ironic is that New Hampshire is the only state without a seatbelt law, but there are 3 other states that do have seatbelt laws but do not require helmets on motorcycles. I also am opposed to helmet laws (though I'd always wear one), but I think it's amazing that there are three states that require seatbelts but don't require helmets.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no. You still have them and you will regain control of those assets of them if/when the issue is settled. I'm sorry, but I hate idiots like you who truly insist on mangling the English language for political reasons. Seizing != freezing and this executive order is not overturning the fifth amendment. Sheesh.
Come on, guys. There are plenty of reasons to hate Bush without having to lie and mangle the truth to justify your hatred.
Problem is that most new laptops you buy aren't going to be supported because they just came out.
On Windows, Bluetooth just worked. And while it's great that you could get something working that didn't, probably 99% of the population can't or won't. I'm sure I'm technical enough that I could get everything in Linux working eventually. But I use a computer to get work done, not play with the OS. That is true whether I use Linux or Windows. And I find far more things work in Windows than in Linux which lets me get my work done faster so that I can go out for a bike ride or something else that's far more fun than sitting in front of a computer.
I dunno. I personally like Microsoft Office better and it definitely loads faster (yes, I know, it cheats). But when I started writing a book back in 2004, I was actually forced to move to Open Office because Microsoft Word was unable to handle the 200+ page manuscript with dozens of embedded pictures and graphics. It would just eventually crash. No, my machine was stable. But there was something (pure size? I don't know) that would cause Word to crash when I was working on my manuscript. So I decided to try Open Office because, at that point, I had nothing to lose. I finished the entire manuscript in Open Office without a single crash and the book was published in 2005.
So my experience isn't that Open Office has worse quality. In my experience, it was THE one of the two that actually worked. But having said that, I still would prefer to work in Microsoft Office if I had the choice and Microsoft Office didn't crash on me.
By the way, off-topic, is there yet a good way in either Open Office or Microsoft Office to cut a manuscript down so that each chapter is an independent document, but when you generate a final product that the chapters are all strung together, in order, and page numbering, indexes, and tables of contents are actually accurate over all the component files? I soon have to put together a new edition of my book and, this time, I'd really like to be able to make each chapter a single 20-30 page file rather than having to have a massive 300+ page document that is the entirety of my book.
Indeed. I used Linux on my laptop for 2-3 years until I eventually had so many problems that when I bought a new laptop, I left Windows on it. I enjoyed being a rebel, of sorts, for the 2-3 years I was using open source software, but when I got a new laptop and everything just friggin' worked, I just didn't bother to load Linux on it and get back to all the problems of trying to make things work.
I find that Linux is AWESOME for use on a server, and I use it for that. It might even be pretty good for a desktop. But for a laptop? I gave up. I use my laptop to get work done and make money, not spend the afternoon dicking around trying to make something work that should just works.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but right now it's what allows me to get my work done as efficiently as possible without requiring me to spend time making it work. Mac would probably also work if it wasn't for the fact that most of the programs I use aren't available on Mac and, after Linux, I'm just not really all that keen on buying a Mac and then trying to get hardware-specific applications running on some kind of Mac VM.
There's a big difference monitoring the polls to determine how much leverage you have than monitoring polls and basing your decisions on them. We elect our president and lawmakers to make decisions for us. That's how our republic works. If our politicians are just going to vote based on what the polls say, why even have the politicians to start with? We can just cede decision-making to the organizations that conduct the polls.
In theory, yes. In practice, every regulatory agency agreed that there isn't room on the 1400-acre site to increase the size of the water treatment plant. Personally, I'd say that that'd be a good reason to deny them what they want to do unless they relocate to a site that does have room to treat the waste properly. But if we operate on the premise that this is an expansion of this site, the waste water issue isn't exactly an issue of money--it's an issue of physical space.
I'm not trying to defend the practice of polluting lakes, but I'd like to point out that this particular refinery was apparently already polluting the lake and it hasn't wrecked your fishing, tourism, and health. I'm surprised they got permission to pollute more, but at the same time, please, let's not exaggerate. The pollution will apparently still meet federal guidelines. If that's not strict enough, start hounding your representative/senators to spend more of their "environmental time" worrying about real environmental issues such as this rather than wasting time on CO2/global warming.
Valid question. And, admittedly, I don't have time right now to go find links for the things I've read over the last decade. So feel free to write me off as "opinions."
But generally speaking--and one that comes to mind immediately--we had satellite and radiosonde records that matched and didn't show global warming. Then they came up with an explanation of why the satellite record was wrong because it wasn't compensating for orbital decay, or some such. So then the satellites supposedly showed global warming. I never did hear how that was then reconciled with the radiosonde record, though. I also find it's hard to find (i.e., I have NOT found them, yet) some nice, pure temperature data from ground stations, radiosondes, and satellites that anyone can just look at and analyze. If anyone has links to that uninterpreted data, it'd be most useful. Lacking that, we're left reading IPCC reports that interpret what the data says, but don't provide raw data.
Then we have the now classic "localized cooling as a part of global warming." So when they were beating the global warming drums and we supposedly experience the hottest summer ever, but it's followed by a friggin' cold winter that makes people think twice about the reality of global warming, they come back with "that's localized cooling which is an aspect of global warming."
Same goes for droughts and floods. If we witness either, they're both supposedly evidence of global warming. Everything is supposedly evidence of global warming. In a scientific environment where everything is supposedly proof of global warming, how can it ever be questioned? The level of group-think is absolutely astounding and, no, scientists are not exempt from unintentional group-think.
Interestingly, my father was Republican when he was younger but Bush has driven him left and he definitely doesn't link Bush. Militantly so. He called me a couple of days ago to say he had rented "An Inconvenient Truth." I was getting ready to hear him say that he thought Al Gore was right. Nope. He has a PhD in oceanography and electrical engineering and, now retired, spends a lot of his time reading scientific journals. His comment was, "Someone is making money here. It's ok to investigate climate change, but to suggest that the science on the matter is conclusive is absurd." Which has been exactly my position for years.
When climate scientists find data that does not support global warming, they keep analyzing and compensating for it until it shows global warming. Basically they operate off of the premise that there is global warming and then adjust data that doesn't support it until it does.
There's so much B.S. being spewed in the whole climate change nonsense. Those that haven't bought into the mind-numbing propaganda and group-think can see it for what it is: A classic case of "the sky is falling." Literally. And, no, I'm not in denial. I can just see it for what it is.
Now, go ahead and mod me down and start calling me a Bush lackee, a neocon, that I'm in denial, that I'm stupid. Whatever makes you feel better. If that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable with your own position, have at it.
I had a Tmobile phone for awhile. That was essentially a temporary phone when I was first moving back to the U.S. During that time I had enough of an opportunity to realize the coverage sucked. So I switched to Cingular (now AT&T I guess) and have had *awesome* reception and coverage ever since. I think the only place I've ever noticed not having coverage was in some vineyard foothills of Northern California, but I'll bet TMobile didn't have coverage there either. I also haven't had a problem with Cingular customer service. I've had to wait on hold a few times when I wanted to make changes to the service, but they were polite and got the job done once they answered.
I've personally had no complaints with Cingular's service or support. YMMV.
IMing via SMS? Yeah, THAT sounds cheap. Not! :)
Seriously, I'll stick with my Treo that does everything I need my phone to do and can do everything that the iPod can do. Yes, your UI is different. If that's important to you, enjoy the Apple lock-in. Personally, I prefer my solid Palm-based Treo for which thousands of add-on applications exist. And if I want one that doesn't exist, I can (and have) written my own. But I can listen to MP3s, play movies, take pictures, edit/view Word and Excel documents, view PDFs (I have a library of PDF references on my SD card in my Treo), browse the web, send and receive email, download files from the web to a file system... and it works, and has for years.
I'm glad Apple fans are excited by their new phone, but I really don't see what all the hype is about. Apple has a phone. Big deal.
I can't speak firsthand for the perception in the UK since I wasn't there, but I was in Mexico at the time and while people might not have been itching for the fight, there really wasn't much opposition to the U.S. response everyone knew was coming. From what I saw on the news (U.S. media as well as Mexican and other sources), I don't recall much opposition much of anywhere in the world. YMMV.
I think those perceptions are basically a result of pop culture and general cynicism and a victim culture where they want to think that all their problems are because of Israel and/or the U.S. It's easier for them to hold that belief and swing their fists wildly at external forces than buckling down and, perhaps, engaging in the domestic revolutions that would really make a change for them.
Much like the silly conspiracy theories that are popular in the U.S., you can't counter such beliefs with facts. They believe what they believe and you really can't do anything about it. Granted, the Iraq War hasn't helped dispel those beliefs, but I don't think the absence of the Iraq War would have either. The perceptions are irrational and paranoid to start with, and I personally don't think there's anything we can do to defuse those perceptions. Just like there's no fact, science, or logic that will convince some 9/11 conspiracy believers that the theories are bunk. They've got it in their head and they've formed their whole world view around that and it just won't change. I think that's pretty much the way it is with the Arab world and their attitude towards Israel/U.S.
I'm glad we can agree on that. Despite our differences of opinion, you are one of the more cool-headed and rational people I've had the pleasure of disagreeing with on some topics. Thanks, it's refreshing to be able to have an intelligent discussion with someone that disagrees with me.
Amen! I certainly see nothing wrong with Google looking to exploit the obvious interest of those targeted negatively in propaganda to present their side of the story. I saw the Slashdot headline and was blown away because I thought it was going to be reported that Google was actually manipulating or censoring healthcare-related searches to help minimize damage to the industry. But if they're just offering publicity... uhm, so what? That's their business model!!
I haven't seen Sicko and really don't have much interest in doing so. Even if Sicko has half as many errors as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit did, it's still a sick piece of propaganda. And people pay money to see it. I'm sure Moore would like to thank the choir he preaches to for making him a multi-millionaire.
Fair enough.
Attacks on the sovereignty of a country cannot go unanswered for the same reason one should not cower from a bully but confront him. Most people in the world agree that the attack on Afghanistan was justified and pretty much the entire world supported our response at the time. Once we had defeated the Taliban, it would have been easy to just leave, but I think remaining there was and is the more humanitarian and stabilizing option, and far more productive for Afghanistan.
As for Iraq, much has been said about the reasons for going in. I suspect that after 9/11, Bush said, "Ok, we need to clean things up. Who else poses a potential threat?" Iraq had demonstrated billigerence towards the U.S. and its neighbors and had been taking pot-shots at the U.N. authorized no-fly zone for a decade. Was it an imminent threat? It doesn't look like it was now, but at the time everyone (even France and Russia) thought there were WMDs there somewhere--the only question was how to deal with that. We had a disagreement on the solution, not a disagreement over whether or not there was a problem. After 9/11 and the fact that Iraq had a history of being hostile towards its neighbors and was in an area where any WMDs it produced could quite easily get into the hands of terrorists, I personally don't think Iraq was the wrong decision at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and armchair quarterbacks second-guessing complicated decisions based on four more years of information really isn't all that compelling.
That's a popular belief, and not without merit, but I think it's kind of weak. The underlying problem is that Israel exists, we support Israel, and we support the Saudi regime (who also invited us to support it). Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, our military presence in the Middle East was not that significant. Our presence after the first Gulf war was a direct consequence of Saddam's invasion and an implementation of U.N. resolutions and ongoing defense of Kuwait. Nothing we've done in the Middle East warranted a brutal attack against civilian targets and we cannot base our foreign policy on barbaric intimidation.
Ok, I fumbled on the words: These organizations and groups are not centrally administered by the same central power. Those diverse organizations often have directly conflicting goals and interests while other times their goals are in alignment and their actions are mutually beneficial. So what?
So now you've revealed that you think that: 1) Evil capitalistic warmongers really control human history and everything we see before our eyes is just smoke and mirrors to keep us from realizing that. 2) Hundreds of thousands of historians, textbook publishers, and teachers have colluded with *someone* to brainwash school children rather than teaching the truth. 3) You've now suggested that you believe 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were "excuses" to get involved in a war. Please tell us, do you think the corresponding American administrations were complicit in those two "excuses?" 4) Regardless, it now appears that you believe neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 were apparently reason enough to respond.
That's the beauty thing about conspiracy theorists: The more you keep them talking, the more they undermine their own credibility with their own rhetoric.
Uh huh, if you say so. That's why when Japan attacked us, we also engaged Germany and opened a two-front war which only made both fronts more difficult to win. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If what you were saying were true, American business would have convinced either the American or German governments to not engage the other even if Japan attacked the U.S. so as to preserve their interests. But, as has now been demonstrated by logic, they were unable to do so which means they didn't actually control world events or the American or Germant governments, they just exerted some amount of influence to a certain point. Which further supports my position that there are many differing interests that are sometimes in alignment and sometimes not--which goes in direct opposition to your belief in evil warmongering capitalists that not only dictate world events and the actions of entire governments, but are also able to rewrite history and make sure it is taught to our children.
I'm sorry, your conspiracy theory belief system does not stand up to factual scrutiny OR logic.
You are again so far into conspiracy-think that you aren't even paying attention to what I'm saying. I've never said that anyone has the interests of the common working citizen in mind. That's another topic far removed from what I've been debating: Whether or not we should militarily intervene in the "domestic affairs" of other countries. I've consistently taken the position that it is not unreasonable to do so. How you've gone off into a tangent about the "working citizen" is something only you can understand. Please try to keep your eye on the ball here and stay on-topic.
None of which is centrally administered. So, again, my point stands. U.S. military isolationism can be dangerous and even though we sometimes intervene and lives are lost, on balance there is convincing evidence that even more lives are lost if we militiarly isolate ourselves from foreign affairs and only get involved when things have exploded to such a point that we have no choice but to pay attention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, even if the ounce of prevention causes a small fever.
None of those things are the same as believing that U.S. business interests dictate American foreign policy and choose when we intervene and when we do not. Nor is it the same as suggesting that U.S. history books in schools are nothing more than propaganda created by what would have to be some central authority for the stupid "sheeple" which implies a conspiracy even far more massive than the economic/political/military conspiracy that you have been suggesting thus far. In short, the "evidence" you are offering does not support your conclusion. Are there problems in our government and system? Absolutely. Do they prove what you're suggesting? Nope.
You are so deep into your conspiracy-think that you can't even see straight.
1. I didn't say the U.S. public controls the finances of others.
2. I didn't say the U.S. public controls foreign policy, though politicians want to get elected and re-elected so, yes, the public does have some pull on the foreign policy decisions of politicians.
3. I didn't say the U.S. government was in "isolationist mode," but it was from a military perspective. Our military was not meaningfully engaged prior to Pearl Harbor. And, therein, lies the problem with staying out of foreign militariy affairs. Eventually the problems get bigger and we get sucked in anyway, and at a far higher price.
4. And, yes, the government (specifically the president) did care about what the average American had to say about the war. That's why we weren't a part of it so long. Again, see #2--politicians do want to get re-elected so the public does have some pull. Only completely irrational cynics believe otherwise. As an individual we may not have any meaningful say in decisions made by our politicians, but as a group we most certainly do.
Funny, I'd call your constant ad hominem attacks to be even more convincing proof of exactly that which you accuse me of.
Anyway, I have always been talking about mil
Let me try to explain here. We were having a discussion about the intervention of the U.S. military in foreign affairs. You then started bringing up all of this other stuff as if that was somehow relevant to the topic of the decision to use U.S. military force in foreign affairs. And it's only relevant if you think that the same people that make the business decisions also decide when and where the U.S. intervenes militarily. If that's what you believe, that qualifies as "conspiracy theory" and "evil overlord puppet masters."
If your position is that international business interests (and not just U.S. business interests) are powerful, sure, no argument there. If your position is that business has an influence on the government, sure, that's obvious. But I was citing WWII as an example of what happens when the U.S. behaves in a militarily isolationist mode and you came back that we weren't isolationist because we had business dealings with Europe and Germany. That was never in dispute. But the fact remains that the U.S. public was opposed to military intervention in the "European war" and we did isolate ourselves from that conflict until we were attacked. Perhaps if we had intervened earlier, far fewer lives would have been lost on all sides. THAT is my point. Intervention has its merits even when people die as a result because it's possible that fewer people die than if we ignore the problem and let it fester.
My case is proven. That's conspiracy theory. The reason why they teach it in school is because it is fact. Is there spin? Always. But if you think that the hundreds of pages of history books that it takes to narrate the last century of history is "simple" compared to your narrative that can be stated in the single sentence "Evil warmongering capitalists control everything," I'm sorry, I think that is silly.
You do realize that your argument has been reduced to ad hominem attacks and insults and that does not particularly add a lot of credibilit to your position, right? And you mock my academic skills? Whatever. :)
I don't know, but I look forward to you informing me about that. :) Seriously, back in the early 90's I believed in a lot of conspiracy theories and some of those "overlords of the universe puppet masters" that you are eluding to. It gave me the sense that I really understand all the weird things going on. I was somehow on the "inside" track and I thought I could see the ulterior motives of everyone. Then I grew up.
Really, you think "my" version of history is so simple that a preschooler can understand it? Please! World politics is complicated, chaotic and confusing and a constant game of "best guessing" given contradicting--and sometimes wrong--information that, even on a good day, often doesn't make sense. To suggest that that reality is "simple" and your nice little simplified package of evil warmongering capitalists is actually the "complicated" truth is folly. You have to realize that you're the one engaging in mindless simplicity in an attempt to understand world events that are apparently beyond your ability or willingness to critically analyze. Believe me, I've been exactly where you are now and, like you, it made perfect sense to me at the time. I hope that you, too, grow out of it. I think it's a perfectly natural phase in growing up and trying to understand the world. It's only dangerous if you stay in that phase too long.
By that same token, couldn't the same be said for all these new-fangled global warming simulations that take into account more and more knowledge and supposedly tell us that we're 90%+ definitely contributing to global warming, and we're toast, etc.? For some reason we're supposed to believe those simulations but not to believe this simulation?
Personally, I agree with you. I think trying to predict the human response of 6 billion people is not going to work too well and I don't place much trust in it. I also don't place much trust in the global warming models.
Having said that, I think they could do a lot better if they treated each country as a node rather than all 6 billion people. What they're ultimately interested in is the overall geopolitical and economic response, and that can probably be adequately modeled by having a node for each country and perhaps thousands of properties for each country. There's no way a computer can predict the behavior of each person and there's no way we can collect the parameters that "define" the behavior of each person. But establishing those parameters on a country-by-country basis would probably do the trick.
I'll ignore your condescending swipe at my knowledge of history and get right to the point...
We're not talking about business decisions. We're talking about the decision to use U.S. military force in external conflicts. If you're suggesting that U.S. business shouldn't look outside the U.S. borders, that's absurd on its face. If you're suggesting that U.S. business interests prior to WWII intentionally built Germany up in the hope that there'd be a big war to profit from, I also find that kind of "dark overloads of the universe controlling the development of human history as puppet masters" also absurd on its face. That kind of conspiracy nonsense is best left to the likes of Art Bell on Coast to Coast, ok?
If you'd like to have a rational discussion on the relative merits of U.S. military intervention in foreign affairs, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. But if this is going to be "my dark conspiracy theories have more merit than your government-controlled history books" then, thanks, I'll opt out of that debate. I've gone back and forth with conspiracy types far too many times to believe anything useful will become of such a conversation.
No, actually I'm not the only person on the planet that believes that. That's just what you've been told by the brain-dead media and broken-record Democrats. That said, I'm not sure that going into Iraq was a good idea--but I do know that, generally speaking, we cannot adopt a "stay out of everyone's affairs" policy. We may get it wrong sometimes, but it's preferable to get a few "small" wars wrong (and, yes, Iraq qualifies as a "small" war when you compare it to most others) than waiting for everything to hit the fan in a very destructive major war that would kill far more people.
or maybe you american's should learn your lesson and stay they fuck out of other peoples domestic affairs?
Yeah, because that worked so well in WWII.
Personally, I don't care if a problem is domestic or international--if it has even a medium probability of escalating to something we're going to have to clean up later, I want to take action sooner rather than later. Like that CIA movie that came out not too long ago, "You guys start big wars," "No, we make sure the wars are small." Very much so. Yes, the loss of life in Iraq is unfortunate on both sides, but I find it preferable than "staying the f*ck out" and waiting to see if Saddam was able to kill hundreds of thousands or millions more people--his own or of other countries. He already demonstrated he was happy to attack three of his regional neighbors.
Seriously, the isolationist and "stay the heck out" approach is temptingly simple. But the world is not that simple and it's not a viable option. Especially with the tensions in the Middle East that will exist as long as Israel exists, and Israel does have a legal right to exist. There are evil and dangerous powers in this world, far more evil and dangerous than Bush or the U.S. So if we have to occasionally do something like we did in Iraq and are unpopular for it, fine. I still think it (intervention in general) is necessary. Not attractive, not popular, but necessary and the lesser of two evils.
I don't know. 10 years ago I actually thought about a similar system, but trying to model the world economy and I was thinking of doing essentially that: Have independent "simulations" simulating each person. I quickly realized that with the amount of computing power I had it would be impossible to simulate billions of people, so I considered a scaled-down possibility. My main interest was trying to simulate different economic systems, tax rates, etc. It would've been an awesome and interesting endeavor but, ultimately, I had real work I had to do and never really did anything but think about. However, it certainly makes sense that organizations with more resources and computing power would attempt to implement such a massive simulation. Must be a cool project to work on.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your message was arrogant and condescending, and it was. And it was unnecessary. If accident rates support banning cell phones while driving, let's discuss the merits of banning it on those merits. Whether or not the rest of the world does or whether or not that makes them "civilized" is, quite frankly, not an issue to a thinking person.
Personally, I'm not in favor of banning them. I believe strongly in personal responsibility and that the government should not try to ban everything that poses a potential risk. Next would be to ban radios, CD players, MP3 players, and fast food. I realize that by tacitly accepting those activities while driving means that everyone (myself included) is slightly more at risk. I'm ok with that. Fact remains is that I most probably will not be hurt or killed because of it. Sure, I might, but getting hurt/killed is just part of the risk of living.
And, as far as seatbelt laws go, only New Hampshire doesn't have a seatbelt law on the books. Personally, I always have worn a seatbelt but I'm 100% opposed to it being mandated by law. New Hampshire's slogan is both ironic in this context and true: "Live free or die!"
What I think is really ironic is that New Hampshire is the only state without a seatbelt law, but there are 3 other states that do have seatbelt laws but do not require helmets on motorcycles. I also am opposed to helmet laws (though I'd always wear one), but I think it's amazing that there are three states that require seatbelts but don't require helmets.
Mod parent "+1, Typical Arrogant European-Thinking-They're-Better-than-Americans Response."