do you have any examples? I know they probably had a reason for the comma, but they are human and were engaging in politics. This is a committee document. It is not beyond reason that it is fallible, which is why it's modifiable.
so any examples of that usage of "well regulated" would be welcome.
The very rich are energy sources, in a way. How their energy "plume" is spread is very much like the first and second law... it will go to where it is most "effective".
But they are a strange energy source, that doesn't deplete itself (making money with money). so you got me, the analogy falls apart there. In fact, the only way to deplete that energy source is by the very rich's own collossal stupidity, or violence... or the energy (money) itself getting deprived of its power (inflation). I guess you'd call leglislation violence as well.
But then, the fate of the ultra rich is pretty much beyond any particular countries' actions at this point... they can just move. no?
that's a separate issue. workers vs ultra rich, that is. The fact is though, the difference between ultra rich lifestyle vs average lifestyle in the US is much like average lifestyle in the US vs. average lifestyle for a person elsewhere in the world. So whatever dichotomy you want to use to illuminate that disparity, can be used to illustrate the difference here too. What you're saying is that there should be no worldwide middle class so the comparitively ultra rich in the US "can continue to accumulate wealth and power".
I'm sorry. We're not that special. We had a few good ideas a couple hundred years ago, we've had some good success since then, and that doesn't mean we are given a god-granted right to reign supreme over the rest of humanity until the end of time.
Nor will China.
It's not a question of "need" anyway. It's an inevitability. Why do we NEED to fight an inevitability? To oppose those darn chinese? How about the Russians? No wait, I forgot, it's the terrorists this week. Russia comes back next week.
No, the ACLU is NOT saying that a personal right to firearms does not exist. They are saying it is not clear to what extent the 2nd amendment protects personal gun ownership. That is VERY different. They are not campaigning AGAINST gun rights. They just are not taking my side in that debate.
It is not clear! YOU think it's clear, obviously. But a reasonable person can quite easily look at this, and say it's not CLEAR. What is "well-regulated"? How can it be "well-regulated", and yet not allow us to "infringe" the right? Why even mention a militia, if you are only saying that all people can own whatever weapons they want to own at all times? Why mention the regulation at all, if you don't intend any form of regulation over weapon posession?
I think it is romanticizing to think that because they wrote some words, and had some conflict, that somehow that means that everything they wrote AND IGNORED from a leglislative, executive, or judicial point of view for more than ONE HUNDRED YEARS for women/blacks suddenly is "unambiguous". Obviously these very intelligent men found it ambiguous enough to ignore themselves, at least not to address with conviction, as a whole. Sure, political expedience may have tempered their hand... but if that was ok for that long, why is it suddenly not ok in the case of firearms, presuming your point is completely unassailable?
If you actually want a just and fair world, america will NEED to roll back in terms of consumption and power eventually. We certainly can't raise the world to our standard. The other option... eventually... is our slide to some middle level.
But with ANY globalization.. corporate- or citizen-based... eventually we'll be at fairly level playing fields; neither markets nor citizens will allow for a massive differential indefinitely. That playing field must be at a level lower than the "american field" is right now. Heat goes to cold, high pressure goes to low, and money will follow poverty. Any high-energy state will blend with low energy states.
It's just a question of when, and how fast the transition will occur.
Right. Your content isn't available anywhere else on the internet? None of it?
If my browser doesn't work with a website, that's it. I don't go there. And I'm well aware I could download a second, or even a third browser here on my desktop. But, I have never needed that one site's particular content so bad that I felt I needed to jump through the hoops. I've considered it a couple of times, but I just figure if they can't be bothered to "unlock the door" for me, they don't need my eyeballs. If they don't, great. But if my attention is valuable to them, then let me pay attention, easily!
There are levels of importance to information. I can get all the information I NEED to know on universally working websites. For everything else, it's optional.
It says "well regulated militia", with a poorly placed comma. If you see NO AMBIGUITY there, you are an idealogue, it isn't even good english! That could mean a lot of things. What it meant then is one thing. What it means now is open to some interpetation. So, since it's so unambiguous, what the fuck is "well regulated"?? If they passed a law TODAY saying that, you and I would probably join hands in pointing out how it means NOTHING CONCRETE. That's a mealy mouth phrase. Well regulated by their standards, our standards, the president's standards,
So, I disagree that it's clear, and I'm pro-gun. I don't think your point B applies, because I don't want to "win the debate", I just want some of you rigid idealogues to loosen up and realize the world is about more than just you, and that there is, in fact, room for reasonable people to disagree.
But then, you don't appear interested in being reasonable, so I guess the whole point is moot.
The carrot is : you get a job, with benefits, pay, awards, social standing, and inordinate power over your fellow man. Also the ability to do great good, if that happens to be something that interests you.
The stick is: you lose that job and go to jail should you abuse that power.
Should police start going around rewarding me for not speeding, not stealing, and not selling drugs? A 'stick and carrot" approach is most likely the most effective way to keep me from doing those things, right? I think that sounds pretty ridiculous. I want them to focus on catching the people that ARE doing wrong, not waste their time and resources rewarding people who are simply doing what they are supposed to be doing.
This is real life.. you don't get a gold star just for showing up.
You might be right, but it certainly calls into question the intent and scope of the founding father's idea of what they were granting when they wrote the amendments. Since they themselves violated the very amendments they wrote, I think an opposing view to yours would get at least a small amount of credence... enough to render the issue ambiguous, CERTAINLY, which is the only point of the original ACLU statement I was commenting on really. The logic of intentionally authoring a document that runs counter to how you and all of your peers live your own lives, and then not enforcing any of the tenents you "sneakily" put in even though you don't follow them yourselfs... well, let's just say I would accuse you of romanticizing the founders rather than accepting your view, and I would see any redefinition of the word "people" since those times (where women and blacks were literally property) as entirely beyond the majority of the founders.
now personally I don't really care that much about what the founders thought. but i do object to attributing this kind of superhuman foresight and posthumously awarding these unlying noble ideals to them which they did nothing to earn.
I wouldn't necessarily call you crazy and I wrestle with the idea myself.
But regardless of how much I may or may not agree with your interpetation of this, I do doubt that the founding fathers... sitting from their technological vantage point, with the speed of technological progress at their time (which is to say, slow)... had any idea where weaponry would go, or what the consequences of a world with nuclear armed businessmen are.
I'm not sure what those consequences are either, and I'm not convinced they are all bad, and I"m also not conviced that our societal contracts with each other can stop it anyway... I tend to think it's inevitable that massive power will fall to the individual, eventually, whether we want it to or not.
But, again.. regardless.. the ACLU is simply not picking a side in this obviously virulent debate. What consistutes "free speech" is a hell of a lot clearer than what a "well regulated militia" means in 2007. and it's certainly clearer than what the founding fathers forsaw here, where we are now, and whether we should even care what the founding fathers thought. Even if we figure that out, the next debate will simply be about amending the constitution to fit what people think is important, instead of simply being about WHAT THE CURRENT AMENDMENT SAYS. You see?
But until the debate is NOT about WHAT THE CURRENT AMENDMENT EVEN SAYS... I don't fault the ACLU for staying out of that battle. If they took a side, then their stance on all the rest of their work is then put at jeopardy. But there is legitimate room for disagreement on this wording, and if you cannot even agree to that... no matter how strongly you favor one interpetation of that wording... then you are simply an idealogue.
But, from the founding father's standpoint, that is not clear. The founding fathers didn't allow women or blacks equal rights, but they still said "people", right?
So their usage of the word is, at best, imprecise.
But it's obviously not absolute. So it's just a question of where you draw the line, which is what they indicate. I mean really... put YOUR feelings on the matter aside for just one second. There is massive controversy over this one issue. It's obvious that the founding fathers did not envision us having personal nuclear warheads. So the entire question is where is the line... when there IS NO LINE that is unambiguous in the amendment, but any reasonable person knows it is there.
Since it IS ambiguous, that leaves it open for people with all kind of thoughts, feelings, and rationalizations to come at it with defendable, and exclusive claims.
You can argue with their interpetation and that's fine, but you cannot argue that it is not ambiguous; that's just a ridiculous statement. If it were not ambiguous, this debate would be about what constitutional amendment we should adopt next, not what this particular one says.
Funny, I thought their job was to act responsibly in difficult situations?
I will, and have, thanked officers personally for doing good work, because I appreciate it. But it's pretty ridiculous to even insinuate that an organization with a serious focus should waste its time and resources thanking people for doing their jobs.
That would be the job of the police department itself, to recognize its own employees that do exemplary work, and reward them, not the ACLU's job, right? The ACLU's job is to make sure they do not abuse the additional power (and thus, additional responsibility) that has been accorded to them by the people they have power over.
I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.
I'm pro-gun and pro-ACLU, just to name my own bias.
You don't know that. You might be right, you might be wrong, but you're speaking with certainty, with answers to these people's problems.. so very sure you are!.. with nothing to base your certainty on except arrogance and a very narrow perspective.
What if their goals are not the same as yours?
What if their capabilities are not what YOU expect them to be, looking in from the outside? You don't know them. You don't know what it's like to be them. You might think you do, but you do not. Something as "small" as some depression from being sexually abused (which is NOT unusual) could make the difference between a person looking at a situation and thinking "it might work, worth a shot" to "no way, don't waste the time and get your hopes up". That's just one example. There are millions of permutations. I know several people that were never, ever, ever told good things about themselves growing up. Are they supposed to suddenly realize that they really are ok? That maybe they are good enough to do something worthwhile? Chances are they don't even understand themselves how their perspective is fucked from the get go. They don't know anything else.
That is why we are to "judge not", or "walk a mile in a man's shoes"... because you don't get it, plain and simple, unless you do. People don't generally CHOOSE to feel like shit and have nothing work for them, at least, not conciously. If they are apparently choosing that, then there is a reason. Either something is going on you are not aware of, don't understand, or maybe, just maybe, the person in question doesn't want to live the life you think they should live.
Hell, what does "make something of themselves" even mean? Working 40 hours a week at any job that will allow them to buy stuff they don't need? Amassing wealth for the sake of their next generation? Saving up enough cash that nothing short of a gigantic catastrophe could render them... without cash? That's all well and good, but if you have to work your whole life to achieve security... what are you securing?
You may have good answers to those questions, for you, in your life. But they are valid questions with more than one valid answer.
I'm working the same path you are, and you're right.
That said, you made a very dangerous comment. "If I can do it, you have no excuses".
You have no idea what it's like being anyone but you. You can point at some particular behaviours and say "hey, those behaviours aren't serving you", but expecting everyone else to be like you, and to suffer when they are not, is a dangerous manifestation of a particularly subtle arrogance... that, in fact, they would be better off if they were like you.
They might be financially better off, but perhaps not better off from any other metric they value.
Your personality may make it easier for you to focus on something heavily and sacrifice where others would not. How many workaholics are simply using work as a drug to escape other areas of their life they do not like? Does that make them a role model to aspire to?
I'm not saying that you are conciously insinuating any of this. I am simply saying, be very careful of that attitude. You cannot judge others by your own internal standards, because your own internal standards were developed by you, in the life you lead, and simply do not apply with objective reliability to anyone but you.
Focus on particular behaviours. It is a fact that if someone spends $100 a week eating out instead of $25 eating in, that's a poor financial choice. Unless, the time spent shopping and cooking could have instead generated more than $75 in revenue. throw in whatever qualitative comparison or subjective comparison on top of that, that pleases you (if I eat in, I eat organic and healthy. Eating out, greasy and bad. determine health value..). But never, ever make the mistake that other people should be like you. If we all were, after all... well, you know your own shortcomings better than I. isn't it better that the world has variety? perhaps that variety means that we need people who make poor financial decisions... because they may also have some other strength we collectively or individually benefit from. I don't know. But, neither do you.
It does maximize profit at all cost, that's why "too many people can't understand that". but you're diverging into two tracts.
First, you are correct that CURRENT regulatory setups cause harm. They need to be removed. We agree utterly. Though, if supply and demand are the only factors, then the small percentage of americans now farming may very well be priced out of the farming market and may enter other fields. As long as all other countries in the world can meet our food and energy needs, that's not a problem.. we get cheaper food/energy, our farmers presumably go into other fields (um, no pun intended) and make more money than farmers do.
But what happens if someone decides to cut us off? If we don't have active farms, that could be quite some time before we have our own agriculture ramped back up to feed ourselves.
So some of the regulations may be there simply to make sure we STILL HAVE FARMERS. Where in a free market, we very well might not have farmers, if our people decide not to work for the wages that other people in other countries are willing to work for. But FOOD and ENERGY are pretty important things.. maybe, just maybe, we want to make sure that the market doesn't leave us exposed to that kind of a risk! So again, some regulation might be a good idea. Even.. shudder.. some subsidies. Maybe not as many as we have now... but some? Maybe?
track two is this market not maximizing profits at all costs. I can see your arguement here, but given the limitation of possible automation, I don't see that a boom in agriculture is necessarily going to "trickle down" to all those poor farmhands in the real world. As long as they stay around subsistence level, I suppose. But mowing large swatches of grass and fermenting it can't be particularly labor intensive, can it? Anyway... maybe I'm wrong there, sure. But I don't have religious faith in the market to "figure it out" to the benefit of man. Of a few men, perhaps. But not man.
Of course, government isn't necessarily better in its current incarnation. more democracy would probably be helpful. so I don't have religious faith in the government either.. but I am saying that we should be thinking more about how to create fair structures, rather than just assuming that justice and equitability is the inevitable result of a free market, when it can't possibly be. At least.. not unless the people organize.. and when they do.. well, that looks an awful lot like government to me...
So you used to think the same thing, and then you forgot how to do math?
Realistically, you spent a lot of money you didn't have to spend to get a very comparable value. If that car loses, say, $5k over two years, then you could have saved $5k buying a two year old car. That's $5k you'd have in your pocket right now that you threw out the window buying a brand new car instead of a slightly used car.
Warrantees are never worth it, unless you are very unlikely.
AAA is cheap. Dirt cheap.
A car failure on a fairly new car is fairly rare. If you're that worried about it, then do your regularly scheduled maintenance, NOT at the dealer. You'll see it costs half as much as they would charge you, rendering that great deal warrantee moot. Shit, you could RENT a car if you really needed to, many times.
Finally, as others have said, if you have to take out a loan to buy the car, you shouldn't be buying the car. You buy something you can afford, and then save money toward your NEXT car, which you buy outright, slightly used, and save yourself thousands and thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, I learned this lesson late, and I'm paying for a car I had to get in a rush when another car died, and I had not prepared ahead of time. But I'll drive this one until it's paid off (bought used, of course), and then I'll drive it until I have enough saved up to get another one OR longer...
As Mr. Dave Ramsey says, driving a brand new car is like throwing a hundred dollar bill out the window once a week on your way to work. Maybe the "convenience" and the "peace of mind" are worth thousands of dollars to you, and that's fine.. that's completely valid. If I had more money than I could spend on stuff I really care about, I too would buy a brand new car and smile.
But don't pretend it's a fiscally defensible decision.
understood that there are improvements to be made and could reduce the influence of the upward pressure on prices. But the fact of the matter is, energy is a huge demand. bringing food-producing land into the energy market has some serious ramifications. The big ones being that supply and demand, WITHOUT REGULATION, would result in farmers choosing what to grow based on payback, and that will rise to some higher amount because of upward pressure from the energy sector. There is a limited supply of arable land. Increase demand for its usage has to raise prices, eventually at least, yes?
"The Market" doesn't care about feeding anyone... unless they can pay enough to make it worth feeding them. If some wealthy nation needs more energy and is willing to pay more than the impoverished can pay for food.. or more than wealthy donors would pay for food... then food does not get grown.
I don't see a way around that without regulation, do you? The market maximizes profit without regard for human cost. So how can "the market" fix that conundrum?
Sorry, I thought I smelled an ideologue... of course there are ridiculous subsidies that cripple progress. I was reacting to a perceived blanket statement that regulation is always bad.. which is not what you said. Yes, the backward subsidies need to go away. In some cases, some subsidies may still be needed to prevent a demand for energy further increasing problems with food shortage and starvation.
Sorry for the jerking knee.... I need to have a doctor check that out one of these days;)
Ok, so people with money get food and energy, and people without get neither?
Is that seriously what you are proposing? I get it, this is a back door attempt to address energy AND overpopulation, right?
That's the inevitable result of "letting the market decide" though. I suppose, if you were a pramatist, you'd shrug and say something about survival of the fittest. But that assumes that the people facing starvation just decide to roll over and die without a fight.
Or are there some "counterproductive subsidies" you think might, actually, end up being necessary?
Slashdot Mirror
interesting observation... thanks, I think it's helpful to me.
do you have any examples? I know they probably had a reason for the comma, but they are human and were engaging in politics. This is a committee document. It is not beyond reason that it is fallible, which is why it's modifiable.
so any examples of that usage of "well regulated" would be welcome.
You're right, there is more to it.
The very rich are energy sources, in a way. How their energy "plume" is spread is very much like the first and second law... it will go to where it is most "effective".
But they are a strange energy source, that doesn't deplete itself (making money with money). so you got me, the analogy falls apart there. In fact, the only way to deplete that energy source is by the very rich's own collossal stupidity, or violence... or the energy (money) itself getting deprived of its power (inflation). I guess you'd call leglislation violence as well.
But then, the fate of the ultra rich is pretty much beyond any particular countries' actions at this point... they can just move. no?
that's a separate issue. workers vs ultra rich, that is. The fact is though, the difference between ultra rich lifestyle vs average lifestyle in the US is much like average lifestyle in the US vs. average lifestyle for a person elsewhere in the world. So whatever dichotomy you want to use to illuminate that disparity, can be used to illustrate the difference here too. What you're saying is that there should be no worldwide middle class so the comparitively ultra rich in the US "can continue to accumulate wealth and power".
I'm sorry. We're not that special. We had a few good ideas a couple hundred years ago, we've had some good success since then, and that doesn't mean we are given a god-granted right to reign supreme over the rest of humanity until the end of time.
Nor will China.
It's not a question of "need" anyway. It's an inevitability. Why do we NEED to fight an inevitability? To oppose those darn chinese? How about the Russians? No wait, I forgot, it's the terrorists this week. Russia comes back next week.
No, the ACLU is NOT saying that a personal right to firearms does not exist. They are saying it is not clear to what extent the 2nd amendment protects personal gun ownership. That is VERY different. They are not campaigning AGAINST gun rights. They just are not taking my side in that debate.
It is not clear! YOU think it's clear, obviously. But a reasonable person can quite easily look at this, and say it's not CLEAR. What is "well-regulated"? How can it be "well-regulated", and yet not allow us to "infringe" the right? Why even mention a militia, if you are only saying that all people can own whatever weapons they want to own at all times? Why mention the regulation at all, if you don't intend any form of regulation over weapon posession?
I think it is romanticizing to think that because they wrote some words, and had some conflict, that somehow that means that everything they wrote AND IGNORED from a leglislative, executive, or judicial point of view for more than ONE HUNDRED YEARS for women/blacks suddenly is "unambiguous". Obviously these very intelligent men found it ambiguous enough to ignore themselves, at least not to address with conviction, as a whole. Sure, political expedience may have tempered their hand... but if that was ok for that long, why is it suddenly not ok in the case of firearms, presuming your point is completely unassailable?
If it WASN'T ok, then you are romanticizing.
Why?
If you actually want a just and fair world, america will NEED to roll back in terms of consumption and power eventually. We certainly can't raise the world to our standard. The other option... eventually... is our slide to some middle level.
But with ANY globalization.. corporate- or citizen-based... eventually we'll be at fairly level playing fields; neither markets nor citizens will allow for a massive differential indefinitely. That playing field must be at a level lower than the "american field" is right now. Heat goes to cold, high pressure goes to low, and money will follow poverty. Any high-energy state will blend with low energy states.
It's just a question of when, and how fast the transition will occur.
Right. Your content isn't available anywhere else on the internet? None of it?
If my browser doesn't work with a website, that's it. I don't go there. And I'm well aware I could download a second, or even a third browser here on my desktop. But, I have never needed that one site's particular content so bad that I felt I needed to jump through the hoops. I've considered it a couple of times, but I just figure if they can't be bothered to "unlock the door" for me, they don't need my eyeballs. If they don't, great. But if my attention is valuable to them, then let me pay attention, easily!
There are levels of importance to information. I can get all the information I NEED to know on universally working websites. For everything else, it's optional.
"probably would have been" , means it's ambiguous. So you do see the ambiguity. You're guessing. That's ambiguous. See how easy that is?
It says "well regulated militia", with a poorly placed comma. If you see NO AMBIGUITY there, you are an idealogue, it isn't even good english! That could mean a lot of things. What it meant then is one thing. What it means now is open to some interpetation. So, since it's so unambiguous, what the fuck is "well regulated"?? If they passed a law TODAY saying that, you and I would probably join hands in pointing out how it means NOTHING CONCRETE. That's a mealy mouth phrase. Well regulated by their standards, our standards, the president's standards,
So, I disagree that it's clear, and I'm pro-gun. I don't think your point B applies, because I don't want to "win the debate", I just want some of you rigid idealogues to loosen up and realize the world is about more than just you, and that there is, in fact, room for reasonable people to disagree.
But then, you don't appear interested in being reasonable, so I guess the whole point is moot.
The carrot is : you get a job, with benefits, pay, awards, social standing, and inordinate power over your fellow man. Also the ability to do great good, if that happens to be something that interests you.
The stick is: you lose that job and go to jail should you abuse that power.
Should police start going around rewarding me for not speeding, not stealing, and not selling drugs? A 'stick and carrot" approach is most likely the most effective way to keep me from doing those things, right? I think that sounds pretty ridiculous. I want them to focus on catching the people that ARE doing wrong, not waste their time and resources rewarding people who are simply doing what they are supposed to be doing.
This is real life.. you don't get a gold star just for showing up.
You might be right, but it certainly calls into question the intent and scope of the founding father's idea of what they were granting when they wrote the amendments. Since they themselves violated the very amendments they wrote, I think an opposing view to yours would get at least a small amount of credence... enough to render the issue ambiguous, CERTAINLY, which is the only point of the original ACLU statement I was commenting on really. The logic of intentionally authoring a document that runs counter to how you and all of your peers live your own lives, and then not enforcing any of the tenents you "sneakily" put in even though you don't follow them yourselfs... well, let's just say I would accuse you of romanticizing the founders rather than accepting your view, and I would see any redefinition of the word "people" since those times (where women and blacks were literally property) as entirely beyond the majority of the founders.
now personally I don't really care that much about what the founders thought. but i do object to attributing this kind of superhuman foresight and posthumously awarding these unlying noble ideals to them which they did nothing to earn.
I wouldn't necessarily call you crazy and I wrestle with the idea myself.
But regardless of how much I may or may not agree with your interpetation of this, I do doubt that the founding fathers... sitting from their technological vantage point, with the speed of technological progress at their time (which is to say, slow)... had any idea where weaponry would go, or what the consequences of a world with nuclear armed businessmen are.
I'm not sure what those consequences are either, and I'm not convinced they are all bad, and I"m also not conviced that our societal contracts with each other can stop it anyway... I tend to think it's inevitable that massive power will fall to the individual, eventually, whether we want it to or not.
But, again.. regardless.. the ACLU is simply not picking a side in this obviously virulent debate. What consistutes "free speech" is a hell of a lot clearer than what a "well regulated militia" means in 2007. and it's certainly clearer than what the founding fathers forsaw here, where we are now, and whether we should even care what the founding fathers thought. Even if we figure that out, the next debate will simply be about amending the constitution to fit what people think is important, instead of simply being about WHAT THE CURRENT AMENDMENT SAYS. You see?
But until the debate is NOT about WHAT THE CURRENT AMENDMENT EVEN SAYS... I don't fault the ACLU for staying out of that battle. If they took a side, then their stance on all the rest of their work is then put at jeopardy. But there is legitimate room for disagreement on this wording, and if you cannot even agree to that... no matter how strongly you favor one interpetation of that wording... then you are simply an idealogue.
from YOUR vantage point, sure.
But, from the founding father's standpoint, that is not clear. The founding fathers didn't allow women or blacks equal rights, but they still said "people", right?
So their usage of the word is, at best, imprecise.
But it's obviously not absolute. So it's just a question of where you draw the line, which is what they indicate. I mean really... put YOUR feelings on the matter aside for just one second. There is massive controversy over this one issue. It's obvious that the founding fathers did not envision us having personal nuclear warheads. So the entire question is where is the line... when there IS NO LINE that is unambiguous in the amendment, but any reasonable person knows it is there.
Since it IS ambiguous, that leaves it open for people with all kind of thoughts, feelings, and rationalizations to come at it with defendable, and exclusive claims.
You can argue with their interpetation and that's fine, but you cannot argue that it is not ambiguous; that's just a ridiculous statement. If it were not ambiguous, this debate would be about what constitutional amendment we should adopt next, not what this particular one says.
Funny, I thought their job was to act responsibly in difficult situations?
I will, and have, thanked officers personally for doing good work, because I appreciate it. But it's pretty ridiculous to even insinuate that an organization with a serious focus should waste its time and resources thanking people for doing their jobs.
That would be the job of the police department itself, to recognize its own employees that do exemplary work, and reward them, not the ACLU's job, right? The ACLU's job is to make sure they do not abuse the additional power (and thus, additional responsibility) that has been accorded to them by the people they have power over.
Why guess?
Here's what the ACLU says about it.
I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.
I'm pro-gun and pro-ACLU, just to name my own bias.
Apparently they are doing a great job. What if DHS is just a giant honeypot to keep hackers busy?
You don't know that. You might be right, you might be wrong, but you're speaking with certainty, with answers to these people's problems.. so very sure you are!.. with nothing to base your certainty on except arrogance and a very narrow perspective.
What if their goals are not the same as yours?
What if their capabilities are not what YOU expect them to be, looking in from the outside? You don't know them. You don't know what it's like to be them. You might think you do, but you do not. Something as "small" as some depression from being sexually abused (which is NOT unusual) could make the difference between a person looking at a situation and thinking "it might work, worth a shot" to "no way, don't waste the time and get your hopes up". That's just one example. There are millions of permutations. I know several people that were never, ever, ever told good things about themselves growing up. Are they supposed to suddenly realize that they really are ok? That maybe they are good enough to do something worthwhile? Chances are they don't even understand themselves how their perspective is fucked from the get go. They don't know anything else.
That is why we are to "judge not", or "walk a mile in a man's shoes"... because you don't get it, plain and simple, unless you do. People don't generally CHOOSE to feel like shit and have nothing work for them, at least, not conciously. If they are apparently choosing that, then there is a reason. Either something is going on you are not aware of, don't understand, or maybe, just maybe, the person in question doesn't want to live the life you think they should live.
Hell, what does "make something of themselves" even mean? Working 40 hours a week at any job that will allow them to buy stuff they don't need? Amassing wealth for the sake of their next generation? Saving up enough cash that nothing short of a gigantic catastrophe could render them... without cash? That's all well and good, but if you have to work your whole life to achieve security... what are you securing?
You may have good answers to those questions, for you, in your life. But they are valid questions with more than one valid answer.
I'm working the same path you are, and you're right.
;)
That said, you made a very dangerous comment. "If I can do it, you have no excuses".
You have no idea what it's like being anyone but you. You can point at some particular behaviours and say "hey, those behaviours aren't serving you", but expecting everyone else to be like you, and to suffer when they are not, is a dangerous manifestation of a particularly subtle arrogance... that, in fact, they would be better off if they were like you.
They might be financially better off, but perhaps not better off from any other metric they value.
Your personality may make it easier for you to focus on something heavily and sacrifice where others would not. How many workaholics are simply using work as a drug to escape other areas of their life they do not like? Does that make them a role model to aspire to?
I'm not saying that you are conciously insinuating any of this. I am simply saying, be very careful of that attitude. You cannot judge others by your own internal standards, because your own internal standards were developed by you, in the life you lead, and simply do not apply with objective reliability to anyone but you.
Focus on particular behaviours. It is a fact that if someone spends $100 a week eating out instead of $25 eating in, that's a poor financial choice. Unless, the time spent shopping and cooking could have instead generated more than $75 in revenue. throw in whatever qualitative comparison or subjective comparison on top of that, that pleases you (if I eat in, I eat organic and healthy. Eating out, greasy and bad. determine health value..). But never, ever make the mistake that other people should be like you. If we all were, after all... well, you know your own shortcomings better than I. isn't it better that the world has variety? perhaps that variety means that we need people who make poor financial decisions... because they may also have some other strength we collectively or individually benefit from. I don't know. But, neither do you.
careful careful
well, you don't have to be "very" unlucky for insurance to pay off, just slightly less lucky than average. But, that's a fair point, touche ;)
It does maximize profit at all cost, that's why "too many people can't understand that". but you're diverging into two tracts.
First, you are correct that CURRENT regulatory setups cause harm. They need to be removed. We agree utterly. Though, if supply and demand are the only factors, then the small percentage of americans now farming may very well be priced out of the farming market and may enter other fields. As long as all other countries in the world can meet our food and energy needs, that's not a problem.. we get cheaper food/energy, our farmers presumably go into other fields (um, no pun intended) and make more money than farmers do.
But what happens if someone decides to cut us off? If we don't have active farms, that could be quite some time before we have our own agriculture ramped back up to feed ourselves.
So some of the regulations may be there simply to make sure we STILL HAVE FARMERS. Where in a free market, we very well might not have farmers, if our people decide not to work for the wages that other people in other countries are willing to work for. But FOOD and ENERGY are pretty important things.. maybe, just maybe, we want to make sure that the market doesn't leave us exposed to that kind of a risk! So again, some regulation might be a good idea. Even.. shudder.. some subsidies. Maybe not as many as we have now... but some? Maybe?
track two is this market not maximizing profits at all costs. I can see your arguement here, but given the limitation of possible automation, I don't see that a boom in agriculture is necessarily going to "trickle down" to all those poor farmhands in the real world. As long as they stay around subsistence level, I suppose. But mowing large swatches of grass and fermenting it can't be particularly labor intensive, can it? Anyway... maybe I'm wrong there, sure. But I don't have religious faith in the market to "figure it out" to the benefit of man. Of a few men, perhaps. But not man.
Of course, government isn't necessarily better in its current incarnation. more democracy would probably be helpful. so I don't have religious faith in the government either.. but I am saying that we should be thinking more about how to create fair structures, rather than just assuming that justice and equitability is the inevitable result of a free market, when it can't possibly be. At least.. not unless the people organize.. and when they do.. well, that looks an awful lot like government to me...
So you used to think the same thing, and then you forgot how to do math?
Realistically, you spent a lot of money you didn't have to spend to get a very comparable value. If that car loses, say, $5k over two years, then you could have saved $5k buying a two year old car. That's $5k you'd have in your pocket right now that you threw out the window buying a brand new car instead of a slightly used car.
Warrantees are never worth it, unless you are very unlikely.
AAA is cheap. Dirt cheap.
A car failure on a fairly new car is fairly rare. If you're that worried about it, then do your regularly scheduled maintenance, NOT at the dealer. You'll see it costs half as much as they would charge you, rendering that great deal warrantee moot. Shit, you could RENT a car if you really needed to, many times.
Finally, as others have said, if you have to take out a loan to buy the car, you shouldn't be buying the car. You buy something you can afford, and then save money toward your NEXT car, which you buy outright, slightly used, and save yourself thousands and thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, I learned this lesson late, and I'm paying for a car I had to get in a rush when another car died, and I had not prepared ahead of time. But I'll drive this one until it's paid off (bought used, of course), and then I'll drive it until I have enough saved up to get another one OR longer...
As Mr. Dave Ramsey says, driving a brand new car is like throwing a hundred dollar bill out the window once a week on your way to work. Maybe the "convenience" and the "peace of mind" are worth thousands of dollars to you, and that's fine.. that's completely valid. If I had more money than I could spend on stuff I really care about, I too would buy a brand new car and smile.
But don't pretend it's a fiscally defensible decision.
understood that there are improvements to be made and could reduce the influence of the upward pressure on prices. But the fact of the matter is, energy is a huge demand. bringing food-producing land into the energy market has some serious ramifications. The big ones being that supply and demand, WITHOUT REGULATION, would result in farmers choosing what to grow based on payback, and that will rise to some higher amount because of upward pressure from the energy sector. There is a limited supply of arable land. Increase demand for its usage has to raise prices, eventually at least, yes?
"The Market" doesn't care about feeding anyone... unless they can pay enough to make it worth feeding them. If some wealthy nation needs more energy and is willing to pay more than the impoverished can pay for food.. or more than wealthy donors would pay for food... then food does not get grown.
I don't see a way around that without regulation, do you? The market maximizes profit without regard for human cost. So how can "the market" fix that conundrum?
Sorry, I thought I smelled an ideologue... of course there are ridiculous subsidies that cripple progress. I was reacting to a perceived blanket statement that regulation is always bad.. which is not what you said. Yes, the backward subsidies need to go away. In some cases, some subsidies may still be needed to prevent a demand for energy further increasing problems with food shortage and starvation.
;)
Sorry for the jerking knee.... I need to have a doctor check that out one of these days
Let the market decide?
Ok, so people with money get food and energy, and people without get neither?
Is that seriously what you are proposing? I get it, this is a back door attempt to address energy AND overpopulation, right?
That's the inevitable result of "letting the market decide" though. I suppose, if you were a pramatist, you'd shrug and say something about survival of the fittest. But that assumes that the people facing starvation just decide to roll over and die without a fight.
Or are there some "counterproductive subsidies" you think might, actually, end up being necessary?