What you mean "we", white man? My ability to prepare cheesecake has gotten me laid more times than my ability to analyze a free body diagram.
I totally agree that the article header is pretty offensive, though. I've been a cook longer than I've been an engineer, and I wouldn't trust an engineer that can't follow a simple recipe.
So you're saying that there are no "liberals" that are open minded? And the majority of "conservatives" that are closed minded are religious, and therefore somehow don't count?
I'm not at all sure WHAT you're trying to argue. Me, I think any sort of generalizations based on how "liberals" and "conservatives" think is sufficiently broad as to be completely useless. The one-axis model of politics is a very poor model of how people think.
Don't be ridiculous...we tolerate illegal behaviour by corporations all the time. And when we DO finally catch the people actually responsible for defrauding stockholders, we wave a ruler at them and tell them very sternly not to do that any more.
Hard time for white collar crimes. Financial responsibility for cleaning up the messes you create. Rule of law for everyone, not just the people who can't afford to buy legislators.
So corporations should be free to do whatever they want, and shit where I eat, just because they should be free to pursue a profit?
I don't trust GE to monitor and spot-clean. As you point out, GE is not the only entity responsible for the pollution. I do indeed think that everybody who makes a profit at all points in that chain is responsible to clean up their own damn mess.
I'm not talking about eliminating limited liability entirely. I'm talking about removing the person-hood of a corporation, and forcing its stockholders to take responsibility for the actions of their financial construct, both good and bad.
Would I prefer Bill Gates personally owned Microsoft? Yes. Then putting him in jail might force him to follow the law.
The stockholders themselves are of course free to bring whatever cases before whatever courts they want. But they should not be permitted to hide behind the corporation's rapacious need for more profit to keep their own hands clean.
Let me put a finer point on it. If there are PCBs in the Hudson, I believe the GE stockholders are personally responsible to clean them up.
I would like to destroy the American political parties' total ownership of the election process. Having only two voices is not a sufficiently good model of the American populace.
I am working my way through Scalia's dissent, and he certainly makes some very good points.
However, I do not agree that advertising==speech, and should not be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny.
If we had a populace that actually had access to the political process, rather than a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, I would be more persuaded by Scalia's argument.
Corporations are not people, and have no rights. The fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with me on this topic does not dissuade my opinion.
The thing that gets me about "Bowling" is the more subtle hypocrisy.
Moore argued:
1) America is a culture of fear. 2) The culture of fear is bad.
Then he goes on to propagate his own fear of guns, using precisely the same tactics he decries when the major media outlets use them. He uses his status as a media icon to bully K-mart (Wal Mart? Don't remember...some huge retailer) to stop selling ammunition, and pretends like that's some sort of huge victory.
Not only is he "just as bad" as the propagandists he's arguing against, he is INDISTINGUISHABLE from those propagandists.
These advertising campaigns only serve to a) enrich the networks and b) price a bid for political office beyond what a Real American can afford.
Ideally, I'd a) abolish political parties, b) forbid any corporation from paying money to any candidate (although people who work for that corp can certainly contribute to whichever candidate they may feel best represents them with after-tax dollars) c) make political advertising a civic duty of the networks. Have the candidates (or the people who want to air their political speech) pay the production cost of their ad, and have the airtime donated.
(there would need to be some sort of mechanism in place to keep the cranks from monopolizing the forum, but that should be a soluble problem)
Anyhow, I agree with you on civil disobedience, and I don't think that McCain-Feingold is a good law by any metric. But I do believe that campaign financing is seriously uffed up, and needs an overhaul.
My favourite part of the McCain-Feingold bill is the one that specifically exempts McCain's constituency. (That is, the native americans he's gotten casinos for) Your tax dollars at work, my friends.
Speech is a power commanded by just about every citizen.
Speaking into the homes of just about every citizen requires a LOT of money, and having a lot of money is not a power commanded by just about every citizen. Therefore, that power should indeed be held to a higher standard of fairness and restraint, most particularly when we're talking about influencing people's votes.
Slashdot Mirror
What you mean "we", white man? My ability to prepare cheesecake has gotten me laid more times than my ability to analyze a free body diagram.
I totally agree that the article header is pretty offensive, though. I've been a cook longer than I've been an engineer, and I wouldn't trust an engineer that can't follow a simple recipe.
Agreed. I have both a penis, and a really impressive repertoire of culinary mojo.
I wouldn't trust an engineer that can't come up with a decent batch of chocolate chip cookies that did not start life in a plastic tube.
Any self-respecting engineer would be comfortable using either system.
So you're saying that there are no "liberals" that are open minded? And the majority of "conservatives" that are closed minded are religious, and therefore somehow don't count?
I'm not at all sure WHAT you're trying to argue. Me, I think any sort of generalizations based on how "liberals" and "conservatives" think is sufficiently broad as to be completely useless. The one-axis model of politics is a very poor model of how people think.
So, except for the ones that aren't open minded, they're open minded?
Wow. Your rhetorical skills are really...interesting.
Don't be ridiculous...we tolerate illegal behaviour by corporations all the time. And when we DO finally catch the people actually responsible for defrauding stockholders, we wave a ruler at them and tell them very sternly not to do that any more.
Hard time for white collar crimes. Financial responsibility for cleaning up the messes you create. Rule of law for everyone, not just the people who can't afford to buy legislators.
What, and conservatives are more open minded?
"us vs. them" is counterproductive. It's also hideously inaccurate.
So corporations should be free to do whatever they want, and shit where I eat, just because they should be free to pursue a profit?
I don't trust GE to monitor and spot-clean. As you point out, GE is not the only entity responsible for the pollution. I do indeed think that everybody who makes a profit at all points in that chain is responsible to clean up their own damn mess.
I'm not talking about eliminating limited liability entirely. I'm talking about removing the person-hood of a corporation, and forcing its stockholders to take responsibility for the actions of their financial construct, both good and bad.
Would I prefer Bill Gates personally owned Microsoft? Yes. Then putting him in jail might force him to follow the law.
The stockholders themselves are of course free to bring whatever cases before whatever courts they want. But they should not be permitted to hide behind the corporation's rapacious need for more profit to keep their own hands clean.
Let me put a finer point on it. If there are PCBs in the Hudson, I believe the GE stockholders are personally responsible to clean them up.
Limited liability has gone way, way, way too far.
I should have been more clear.
I would like to destroy the American political parties' total ownership of the election process. Having only two voices is not a sufficiently good model of the American populace.
I (me this one) love Graffiti. My speed and accuracy are FAR higher than with anything that's operated by my thumbs.
It's why I don't have a Treo, and I can't figure out the appeal of the Blackberry.
They have gotten rid of the second-most-odious text input method (a thumb keyboard) and gone straight to the most odious.
Agreed on all points.
Yay boobies.
I am working my way through Scalia's dissent, and he certainly makes some very good points.
However, I do not agree that advertising==speech, and should not be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny.
If we had a populace that actually had access to the political process, rather than a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, I would be more persuaded by Scalia's argument.
Corporations are not people, and have no rights. The fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with me on this topic does not dissuade my opinion.
The thing that gets me about "Bowling" is the more subtle hypocrisy.
Moore argued:
1) America is a culture of fear.
2) The culture of fear is bad.
Then he goes on to propagate his own fear of guns, using precisely the same tactics he decries when the major media outlets use them. He uses his status as a media icon to bully K-mart (Wal Mart? Don't remember...some huge retailer) to stop selling ammunition, and pretends like that's some sort of huge victory.
Not only is he "just as bad" as the propagandists he's arguing against, he is INDISTINGUISHABLE from those propagandists.
A partial truth can indeed be deceptive.
Uh, if it's a dream sequence, maybe it doesn't belong in a FUCKING DOCUMENTARY.
Gosh, I wonder if that's because all the Star Trek baddies are foils for social commentary of present-day Earth!?
What a staggering notion. It's almost like it was a piece of fiction, written by human beings!
These advertising campaigns only serve to a) enrich the networks and b) price a bid for political office beyond what a Real American can afford.
Ideally, I'd a) abolish political parties, b) forbid any corporation from paying money to any candidate (although people who work for that corp can certainly contribute to whichever candidate they may feel best represents them with after-tax dollars) c) make political advertising a civic duty of the networks. Have the candidates (or the people who want to air their political speech) pay the production cost of their ad, and have the airtime donated.
(there would need to be some sort of mechanism in place to keep the cranks from monopolizing the forum, but that should be a soluble problem)
Anyhow, I agree with you on civil disobedience, and I don't think that McCain-Feingold is a good law by any metric. But I do believe that campaign financing is seriously uffed up, and needs an overhaul.
My favourite part of the McCain-Feingold bill is the one that specifically exempts McCain's constituency. (That is, the native americans he's gotten casinos for) Your tax dollars at work, my friends.
See where that's gotten us? Think it might be time to do things a little differently?
I think it would be much better to stop pretending like advertising is a political forum.
Speech is a power commanded by just about every citizen.
Speaking into the homes of just about every citizen requires a LOT of money, and having a lot of money is not a power commanded by just about every citizen. Therefore, that power should indeed be held to a higher standard of fairness and restraint, most particularly when we're talking about influencing people's votes.
Repeat after me.
Money is not speech.
Advertising is money.
Right, because an "Us vs. Them" mentality is really the right place to start a political discussion.
I guess I'm just naive.
Get back to me when the compact fluorescents a) turn on instantly b) don't flicker, and c) emit something other than a sickly purplish bluish glow.
Glad you like 'em. I do not.