The only problem being that the MPAA isn't suing people who actually break the DMCA by watching DVDs "illegally", they are suing the people who enable others to do so. Last time I checked, their wasn't a sweet church lady writing DeCSS. Same goes with this case obviously. They learned from the Parks incident and know that they will score more points by indirectly attacking fair use rights than by directly assaulting them and causing a public scandal.
The difference, again in my view, being that zoning/regulations/taxes are not basic human rights while speech is. Everyone is free to speak out against zoning, regulations, and taxes, but not to not submit to them. The US government should not be allowed to make law that limits non-destructive speech unless they amend the first amendment, but they do (DMCA as a most recent example). And again, art can only be disgusting if you view it and are disgusted by it. Read the article I linked to and you'll see that many found it provocative rather than purely destructive. Perhaps the fact that something that disgusting gets that much attention IS part of the artistic message of the performance.
So you're saying that if you aren't smart, you don't get to vote? What if I say that anyone who would stoop to actually spending time watching Jay Walking shouldn't vote? Sorry, you don't get to vote. Perhaps we should go back to closed caucous primaries.
That's a very good point. Obviously the Holocause/WWII are sore spots for Germany (obviously) and France (blasted French pride). I would, however, say that the institutionalized censorship in the US (FCC regulations) combined with the seemingly wanton attacks against artistic expression (Guiliani, congressional threat to end arts funding because of content, etc) in the US are more severe than the actions of those two embarassed nations on a single point.
And you're absoultely right about the dillema. I would claim that you have no obligation to watch the cow falling from the helicopter. Many also have the same dismay for simply consuming cows as dropping them from helicopters (indeed, judging by stories like the Seattle meat processing one, the helicopter drop was probably more humane). If you read the article about the cow, you'll find that many who viewed the event saw definite artistic merit. Clearly, the artist did. Free speech, in art, science, politics, etc, should not be restrained by popular thought. If that were the case, there would be no hard feelings against the Inquisition for essentially condeming Gallileo to death. Now if free speech causes direct, unavoidable harm to others (threats, the fire rule, etc) that is a different story. Unless you happen to be hit by the falling cow, splattered by its blood upon impact, or held with your eyes pried open "Clockwork Orange" style, I'd like to think that the artist has the right to the performance. I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on all of this, but that's just my opinion. As far as claiming "not in my town" regarding cow dropping, vampire hookers, or whatever, I'd like to think that the rights of an individual trump those of a municipality. Just like the rights of an individual should be greater than those of a corporation - but unfortunately, in the United States, aren't.
Well, according to my knowledge most of the innovation in just about every field happens in US.
*Cough*Stem-cell research and cryptography*Cough* - not to mention that innovation by a multi-national corporation that fields its talent from around the world can hardly be claimed domestic.
You simply asked how the US can be seen as lacking in human rights compared to Europe. Our declaration of independence said we all had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property). Well, the death penalty certainly disbars the first. Europe is certainly far ahead as far as freedom of speech, and thus, liberty. Note that you don't have to watch Vampire Hookers or the headless cow being dropped from above, just because you disagree with assembly doesn't mean the first amendment goes away. I doubt San Fransicans wanted protests at Berkeley in the 60s, but that didn't stop them.
Next time? This is a one time shot. A rule that causes a majority of people just reaching voting age to miss their first election is a rediculous rule. I did look into it ahead of time. One week ahead of time in fact. I was even planning on recruiting others to go vote as well. Why should I even have the opportunity of making that mistake? Name a single reason for the voluntary voter registration system. No, combatting fraud doesn't count as it can be done just as easily with a mandantory registration system, or by using technology (such as in this article) to better check the votes. The days of ballot box stuffing are more or less over (obviously, fraud still exists in getting people to the polls such as with the 'we'll buy you cigarrettes if you vote for bush' deal in wisconsin - and to be fair, democrats shuttling old folks from retirement homes as well). The fact is that the registration system serves only to be a barrier to voting. Somehow, I doubt that it is in the interest of the constitution, human rights, et al to inhibit people from voting. Read any government textbook and you'll find that the main reason cited for the low voter turnout in the US is the difficult registration process. I even found it a nuisance and I absolutely want to vote in every election/referendum/whatever possible. Imagine how much it effects the outcome. At the least, all states should be mandated to offer same-day registration along with voting. Many forward thinking states have this in place already, but in conservative areas like mine (kansas), there is pressure against this - for the obvious reason that it would undoubtedly lead to having a more liberal median voter. Futhermore, requiring registration keeps out independent voters and further entrenches the two-party system. This is why democrats stand by and are hesitant to protest.
How so ? Give me any examples of that (human rights). It is a serious question.
The death penalty. Easy enough.
I could also go into better standards on freedom of speech, assembly, etc. As an example, look at the Guerrila Drive-In event in Minneapolis. This has been a successful event for two years and this year, because a movie entitled "Vampire Hookers" was to be shown, the city stepped in claiming a lack of proper permits, etc, when the organizers had made sure to get the proper paperwork completed just as in the two years prior. Now, in Berlin, some guy just dropped a headless cow from a helicopter. Another guy is displaying dead bodies that have been sealed in plastic and set dancing around a float in the love parade. Would these acts of speech be allowed in America?
I could go into the various social reforms - better education, universal health care, public transportation, environmental protection (actually living up to the Kyoto treaty), etc. And, more on topic, isn't voting one of the most basic rights in a democracy? America's high barriers to voting (registration is enough of a hassel) compared to mandantory registration in many European nations would be a good example there.
Of course, I haven't even touched on the human rights violations of American corporations, but since these are largely aimed at non-Americans, I'll leave them for another discussion. The fact that businesses, thanks to the 14th amendment, have the exact same rights as individuals, is proof enough that the United States has some problems with its human rights policies. For further review, I would direct you to Amnesty International's page on US human rights violations, but it seems to be down at the moment.
So you're saying it's a good thing that those currently in power are attempting (and succeeding) at permanently entrenching the two current parties by refusing to expand suffrage and through other means (refusing to end soft money, etc). By institutionalizing the current campaign funding system, the government is ensuring that no third party candidate without a tremendous bankroll will stand a chance (ie: not Perot, Nader, or someone funded by Perot - Buchanan). Not that I'd personally want Buchanan to stand a chance (did you ever HEAR the meatball commercial?), but he should still have a right to. It seems like McCain is positioning himself to run as an independent, but if he fails expect it to be the last serious attempt for a long time - that is until people realize that their government is run by those who make their oil, bombs, and drugs.
And here's a serious example of how our voting system hurts America. I had just turned 18, and wanted to vote for a fellow high school senior for city council. About a week before the election, I looked and found that I had to register TWO WEEKS before the election to vote. That's rediculous. I hadn't even been given any information regarding voter registration despite the fact that I payed state property and income taxes. This is quite simply the disenfranchisement of the youth vote. I live in a borderline conservative area (usually votes republican, but last election voted in a democratic rep because the republican was essentially a nazi:) - it's easy to see why the board of elections would refrain from allowing easy registration given the fact that conservatives tend to register and vote on their own at FAR higher levels than liberals. At the least, the voting board should have, say, set up a table at lunch for registration or announced opportunities for registration the same way they announce that I must sign up for the Selective Service. As it was, I had to do all the research myself, download the form, mail it in (using my own stamp), wait for the card, and only then was I allowed to vote. Now, forcing someone to get to the polls or vote absently is one thing, but having this rediculous barrier to mere registration is assinine. Registration should be automatic if you pay taxes. Maybe you can request a card if you want, but I should be able to show up to my polling place and vote.
I have to respectfully disagree with that assertion. Yes, the barrier to entry in suffrage has shaped the United States greatly. I would, however, argue that we are worse off for it. There is absolutely no reason for having voter registration as a barrier. At the least we should have same-day registration. Look at European nations with mandantory voter registration (and sometimes, penalties for not voting - though not at all serious ones). They have a far better human rights record than the US in addition to a host of other social reforms. In the US, it is undeniable fact that conservatives tend to vote more often than liberals (yeah, I'm tagging people, sorry). With a decreased barrier to entry, this would change. Of course, those currently in power don't want it to change - Democratics and Republicans are perfectly happy with the near 50/50 split they have amongst the voting public. If everyone came out and voted, maybe Michael Moore would be right and Nader would have won:)
Though at first it seems that there are no grounds for this because Adobe just provided the FBI with evidence, you have to remember that Adobe provided its evidence claiming it to be true with the penalty of perjury. By backing down, they are more or less admiting that they provided false evidence. Yeah, I'm skipping a lot of logical steps in that conclusion and Adobe could still say they just chose not to pursue a costly civil penalty or something to that effect but the fact remains that they still provided sworn testimony to the government. The government should keep Dimitry's cell warm once he gets freed so that Mr. Adobe will have a nice place to sleep.
According to the report (linked in this article, too lazy to go back and get the link), the worm only changes to the default page from IIS to the "Chinese" page for 10 hours. Also, the page might be balanced across several servers, which could explain why your friend had different results. MS could also have some sort of caching on their server that will return the same data to the same user if they reload or something to that effect as well.
There's a FPS programmed in Java being demoed by Sun at Quakecon in a few days. I guess they are having some form of tournament to win a Cobalt Cube or something to that effect. Of course, this is funded by Sun so it isn't really showing that Java will be excepted as a client-side language, but it'll be interesting to see what people think of the demo.
Well, as an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, I could go talk to him. I should probably get my certificate framed to get more credibility though. Wait, that's like a 15 hour drive from Kansas City... fuck it - I'm going to get thai food this afternoon. Can't go chat with some Russian fellow.
Ars Technica did a very in depth piece not too long ago. They compared various mp3 encoders here. This might be what you are thinking of as it's from March 2000, but perhaps not.
Personally, I find myself buying a lot more CDs after Napster. I've found bands like Tortoise, The Beta Band, and Kings of Convenience that I didn't know about, listened to a few songs, and bought their CD. Like you, I was pretty jaded against modern music (still am, for the most part), but file sharing programs helped change that.
Actually, if you look I think you'll have difficulty locating an Alec Baldwin vehicle (or any Baldwin for that matter) up to high bar set by Armegeddon, Outbreak, and MI:2. Oh wait, I seem to have forgotten Bio-Dome starring Stephan Baldwin.
Conversely, here in Kansas City, AT&T's dial-up service had a month or two period with a horrible connection record. Speed, busy signals, etc. They promised to upgrade the system, but people quit before they could. Now, it is probably the fastest ISP in the area (always full connection speed, 200ms latency consistently, 6kb/s downstream often). Odds are that this has quite a bit to do with everyone quiting before they upgraded the network. Luckily we were too lazy to get our ISP changed, so now we reap the benefits of an underused system.
OK, now you bring up "natural law" - the work of John Locke. Have you ever heard of the Social Contract? Essentially the basis for the constitution? Essentially, it says that we are all born into a contract with our neighbors and that should we break the contract, we are expelled from the neighborhood. Should a majority of those under the contract disagree with it, there is a revolution. Now, in the United States, our contract obviously is the constitution and the laws made with its authority. You are free to disagree with the laws (such as funding for the NEA), but if you choose to break the laws, welcome to our federally funded prison. Feel free to contact your representative or round up a majority of Americans and start an anti-NEA revolution, but good luck. Most people, oddly enough, have a respect for art and realize its crucial role in society.
For instance, would you give me money to put up a painting that depicts you in a beastial act? - You mean like me growling? I doubt I'd pay for it, but you might be able to put it in an NEA sponsored gallery.
In your post, you drew your political dividing line between "constitutionalists" and "socialists." Therefore, I can only assume that any social reform that goes against the original constitution (universal sufferage, emancipation, income tax, etc). I was just challenging your view on amending the constitution... that and the pedestal on which you hold the founding fathers. Why would the framers, if somehow transported to the future, agree with abolition? They almost all owned a number of slaves. This, despite the fact that slave ownership was almost an entirely innefficient practice that led to a loss in productivity/profitability. They almost universally agreed with the institution - thus the 3/5 compromise.
The greatest way to beat an opponent is to allow them to do it to themselves. And what's this all about? I'm not your opponent. I try to have a discussion on the merits of socialist economic reform and it is automatically a battle? You paradoxically assert the infallibility of the founding fathers and then claim that the 16th amendment is some marxist reform that must be erased from the constitution. I really don't understand what you mean by "un-American," but I think deriding the amending process, the core of the constitution, is about as un-American as one can get. Government will evolve, and it will evolve to help a majority of the people. At least two-thirds of the states had to ratify the 16th amendment, and you are saying that it's creeping socialism? I suppose we should just let other, more progressive countries, evolve their government systems and at the same time reinstitute our 200+ year old constitution and live by it. I like America, but it isn't perfect. I seriously doubt that if left unchecked, corporate America will make it any better. I'd certainly rather elected officials decide what to do with my money than CEOs elected by executive boards. The American government needs to evolve - as all other first world governments have. For me, I think the improvements seen in western European nations more than justify a 30% income tax. Plus, you have to realize that many of the nations went through a massive rebuilding process following World War II and are already light-years beyond America. In transportation, education, health care, etc their governments have succeeded. Not to mention that should I lose the job that pays the 30% income tax (admitedly, there is a higher unemployment rate in all western European nations than in the US), I won't be left to rot in the street as in America.
The founding fathers also thought that women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that slaves should count as three-fifths of a person in the census. Too bad those dirty socialists had to come along and change the constitution. By the way, by your logic, the entirety of our current form of government is allowed by the original constitution because, guess what, the founding fathers did believe that the role of government would expand and allowed for this by providing the amendment process. Imagine that! They not only were fallible, but they knew it and planned for it.
The US is still a democracy. It's not a pure democracy, but it's hardly communist or even socialist. Hell, name one nationally socialized institution. Education, transportation, civil services, utilities, etc are all controlled mostly by states. The FAA is the only major federal regulatory body that controls an entire industry and even that has been deregulated quite a bit lately. If you want to see socialism, go check out most of Europe and come back here to report your findings on how evil the US is. Be sure to see how many things simply work better in Europe because they are partly or wholly socialized - medicine, education, transportation. Be sure to look at the skyline of your favorite European city and then compare it to that of the city you arrive at on the way back to see the obvious difference in pollution.
Way to bust out the McCarthyism with all that "anti-American" bullshit too. You are truly a model American - wishing that the homeless rot in the street and our scientists stay anchored to the ground. If science isn't publically funded, then all advances will be hoarded by private corporations. Free-market capitalism could be an excellent system without a pesky thing called greed. I'll agree that some of NASA's projects (namely the Moon landing) were probably of little scientific value. To say that their more recent work lends no benefit to the taxpayer, however, is ludicrous. Knowledge of the universe benefits the entire human race. Besides, once Libertarians take control of America and fuck it up beyond recognition, we'll need to know where to move to.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem being that the MPAA isn't suing people who actually break the DMCA by watching DVDs "illegally", they are suing the people who enable others to do so. Last time I checked, their wasn't a sweet church lady writing DeCSS. Same goes with this case obviously. They learned from the Parks incident and know that they will score more points by indirectly attacking fair use rights than by directly assaulting them and causing a public scandal.
Or if US academics were in China and then got arrested under a bad Chinese law... oh wait - that happened.
The difference, again in my view, being that zoning/regulations/taxes are not basic human rights while speech is. Everyone is free to speak out against zoning, regulations, and taxes, but not to not submit to them. The US government should not be allowed to make law that limits non-destructive speech unless they amend the first amendment, but they do (DMCA as a most recent example). And again, art can only be disgusting if you view it and are disgusted by it. Read the article I linked to and you'll see that many found it provocative rather than purely destructive. Perhaps the fact that something that disgusting gets that much attention IS part of the artistic message of the performance.
So you're saying that if you aren't smart, you don't get to vote? What if I say that anyone who would stoop to actually spending time watching Jay Walking shouldn't vote? Sorry, you don't get to vote. Perhaps we should go back to closed caucous primaries.
That's a very good point. Obviously the Holocause/WWII are sore spots for Germany (obviously) and France (blasted French pride). I would, however, say that the institutionalized censorship in the US (FCC regulations) combined with the seemingly wanton attacks against artistic expression (Guiliani, congressional threat to end arts funding because of content, etc) in the US are more severe than the actions of those two embarassed nations on a single point.
And you're absoultely right about the dillema. I would claim that you have no obligation to watch the cow falling from the helicopter. Many also have the same dismay for simply consuming cows as dropping them from helicopters (indeed, judging by stories like the Seattle meat processing one, the helicopter drop was probably more humane). If you read the article about the cow, you'll find that many who viewed the event saw definite artistic merit. Clearly, the artist did. Free speech, in art, science, politics, etc, should not be restrained by popular thought. If that were the case, there would be no hard feelings against the Inquisition for essentially condeming Gallileo to death. Now if free speech causes direct, unavoidable harm to others (threats, the fire rule, etc) that is a different story. Unless you happen to be hit by the falling cow, splattered by its blood upon impact, or held with your eyes pried open "Clockwork Orange" style, I'd like to think that the artist has the right to the performance. I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on all of this, but that's just my opinion. As far as claiming "not in my town" regarding cow dropping, vampire hookers, or whatever, I'd like to think that the rights of an individual trump those of a municipality. Just like the rights of an individual should be greater than those of a corporation - but unfortunately, in the United States, aren't.
Well, according to my knowledge most of the innovation in just about every field happens in US.
*Cough*Stem-cell research and cryptography*Cough* - not to mention that innovation by a multi-national corporation that fields its talent from around the world can hardly be claimed domestic.
You simply asked how the US can be seen as lacking in human rights compared to Europe. Our declaration of independence said we all had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property). Well, the death penalty certainly disbars the first. Europe is certainly far ahead as far as freedom of speech, and thus, liberty. Note that you don't have to watch Vampire Hookers or the headless cow being dropped from above, just because you disagree with assembly doesn't mean the first amendment goes away. I doubt San Fransicans wanted protests at Berkeley in the 60s, but that didn't stop them.
Next time? This is a one time shot. A rule that causes a majority of people just reaching voting age to miss their first election is a rediculous rule. I did look into it ahead of time. One week ahead of time in fact. I was even planning on recruiting others to go vote as well. Why should I even have the opportunity of making that mistake? Name a single reason for the voluntary voter registration system. No, combatting fraud doesn't count as it can be done just as easily with a mandantory registration system, or by using technology (such as in this article) to better check the votes. The days of ballot box stuffing are more or less over (obviously, fraud still exists in getting people to the polls such as with the 'we'll buy you cigarrettes if you vote for bush' deal in wisconsin - and to be fair, democrats shuttling old folks from retirement homes as well). The fact is that the registration system serves only to be a barrier to voting. Somehow, I doubt that it is in the interest of the constitution, human rights, et al to inhibit people from voting. Read any government textbook and you'll find that the main reason cited for the low voter turnout in the US is the difficult registration process. I even found it a nuisance and I absolutely want to vote in every election/referendum/whatever possible. Imagine how much it effects the outcome. At the least, all states should be mandated to offer same-day registration along with voting. Many forward thinking states have this in place already, but in conservative areas like mine (kansas), there is pressure against this - for the obvious reason that it would undoubtedly lead to having a more liberal median voter. Futhermore, requiring registration keeps out independent voters and further entrenches the two-party system. This is why democrats stand by and are hesitant to protest.
How so ? Give me any examples of that (human rights). It is a serious question.
The death penalty. Easy enough.
I could also go into better standards on freedom of speech, assembly, etc. As an example, look at the Guerrila Drive-In event in Minneapolis. This has been a successful event for two years and this year, because a movie entitled "Vampire Hookers" was to be shown, the city stepped in claiming a lack of proper permits, etc, when the organizers had made sure to get the proper paperwork completed just as in the two years prior. Now, in Berlin, some guy just dropped a headless cow from a helicopter. Another guy is displaying dead bodies that have been sealed in plastic and set dancing around a float in the love parade. Would these acts of speech be allowed in America?
I could go into the various social reforms - better education, universal health care, public transportation, environmental protection (actually living up to the Kyoto treaty), etc. And, more on topic, isn't voting one of the most basic rights in a democracy? America's high barriers to voting (registration is enough of a hassel) compared to mandantory registration in many European nations would be a good example there.
Of course, I haven't even touched on the human rights violations of American corporations, but since these are largely aimed at non-Americans, I'll leave them for another discussion. The fact that businesses, thanks to the 14th amendment, have the exact same rights as individuals, is proof enough that the United States has some problems with its human rights policies. For further review, I would direct you to Amnesty International's page on US human rights violations, but it seems to be down at the moment.
So you're saying it's a good thing that those currently in power are attempting (and succeeding) at permanently entrenching the two current parties by refusing to expand suffrage and through other means (refusing to end soft money, etc). By institutionalizing the current campaign funding system, the government is ensuring that no third party candidate without a tremendous bankroll will stand a chance (ie: not Perot, Nader, or someone funded by Perot - Buchanan). Not that I'd personally want Buchanan to stand a chance (did you ever HEAR the meatball commercial?), but he should still have a right to. It seems like McCain is positioning himself to run as an independent, but if he fails expect it to be the last serious attempt for a long time - that is until people realize that their government is run by those who make their oil, bombs, and drugs.
:) - it's easy to see why the board of elections would refrain from allowing easy registration given the fact that conservatives tend to register and vote on their own at FAR higher levels than liberals. At the least, the voting board should have, say, set up a table at lunch for registration or announced opportunities for registration the same way they announce that I must sign up for the Selective Service. As it was, I had to do all the research myself, download the form, mail it in (using my own stamp), wait for the card, and only then was I allowed to vote. Now, forcing someone to get to the polls or vote absently is one thing, but having this rediculous barrier to mere registration is assinine. Registration should be automatic if you pay taxes. Maybe you can request a card if you want, but I should be able to show up to my polling place and vote.
As for Nader having no stance, check this out.
And here's a serious example of how our voting system hurts America. I had just turned 18, and wanted to vote for a fellow high school senior for city council. About a week before the election, I looked and found that I had to register TWO WEEKS before the election to vote. That's rediculous. I hadn't even been given any information regarding voter registration despite the fact that I payed state property and income taxes. This is quite simply the disenfranchisement of the youth vote. I live in a borderline conservative area (usually votes republican, but last election voted in a democratic rep because the republican was essentially a nazi
I have to respectfully disagree with that assertion. Yes, the barrier to entry in suffrage has shaped the United States greatly. I would, however, argue that we are worse off for it. There is absolutely no reason for having voter registration as a barrier. At the least we should have same-day registration. Look at European nations with mandantory voter registration (and sometimes, penalties for not voting - though not at all serious ones). They have a far better human rights record than the US in addition to a host of other social reforms. In the US, it is undeniable fact that conservatives tend to vote more often than liberals (yeah, I'm tagging people, sorry). With a decreased barrier to entry, this would change. Of course, those currently in power don't want it to change - Democratics and Republicans are perfectly happy with the near 50/50 split they have amongst the voting public. If everyone came out and voted, maybe Michael Moore would be right and Nader would have won :)
Though at first it seems that there are no grounds for this because Adobe just provided the FBI with evidence, you have to remember that Adobe provided its evidence claiming it to be true with the penalty of perjury. By backing down, they are more or less admiting that they provided false evidence. Yeah, I'm skipping a lot of logical steps in that conclusion and Adobe could still say they just chose not to pursue a costly civil penalty or something to that effect but the fact remains that they still provided sworn testimony to the government. The government should keep Dimitry's cell warm once he gets freed so that Mr. Adobe will have a nice place to sleep.
According to the report (linked in this article, too lazy to go back and get the link), the worm only changes to the default page from IIS to the "Chinese" page for 10 hours. Also, the page might be balanced across several servers, which could explain why your friend had different results. MS could also have some sort of caching on their server that will return the same data to the same user if they reload or something to that effect as well.
I was gonna call bullshit, but then I saw this. Bah... still could be a pretty good effort at starting an internet-urban-legend.
There's a FPS programmed in Java being demoed by Sun at Quakecon in a few days. I guess they are having some form of tournament to win a Cobalt Cube or something to that effect. Of course, this is funded by Sun so it isn't really showing that Java will be excepted as a client-side language, but it'll be interesting to see what people think of the demo.
Well, as an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, I could go talk to him. I should probably get my certificate framed to get more credibility though. Wait, that's like a 15 hour drive from Kansas City... fuck it - I'm going to get thai food this afternoon. Can't go chat with some Russian fellow.
The proper definition of irony is the polar opposite of Alanis Morrisette's definition, who, coincidentally, is Canadian.
Well, there were some questions about the maple syrup driven hydraulics used in the arm.
Ars Technica did a very in depth piece not too long ago. They compared various mp3 encoders here. This might be what you are thinking of as it's from March 2000, but perhaps not.
Personally, I find myself buying a lot more CDs after Napster. I've found bands like Tortoise, The Beta Band, and Kings of Convenience that I didn't know about, listened to a few songs, and bought their CD. Like you, I was pretty jaded against modern music (still am, for the most part), but file sharing programs helped change that.
Actually, if you look I think you'll have difficulty locating an Alec Baldwin vehicle (or any Baldwin for that matter) up to high bar set by Armegeddon, Outbreak, and MI:2. Oh wait, I seem to have forgotten Bio-Dome starring Stephan Baldwin.
Conversely, here in Kansas City, AT&T's dial-up service had a month or two period with a horrible connection record. Speed, busy signals, etc. They promised to upgrade the system, but people quit before they could. Now, it is probably the fastest ISP in the area (always full connection speed, 200ms latency consistently, 6kb/s downstream often). Odds are that this has quite a bit to do with everyone quiting before they upgraded the network. Luckily we were too lazy to get our ISP changed, so now we reap the benefits of an underused system.
OK, now you bring up "natural law" - the work of John Locke. Have you ever heard of the Social Contract? Essentially the basis for the constitution? Essentially, it says that we are all born into a contract with our neighbors and that should we break the contract, we are expelled from the neighborhood. Should a majority of those under the contract disagree with it, there is a revolution. Now, in the United States, our contract obviously is the constitution and the laws made with its authority. You are free to disagree with the laws (such as funding for the NEA), but if you choose to break the laws, welcome to our federally funded prison. Feel free to contact your representative or round up a majority of Americans and start an anti-NEA revolution, but good luck. Most people, oddly enough, have a respect for art and realize its crucial role in society.
For instance, would you give me money to put up a painting that depicts you in a beastial act? - You mean like me growling? I doubt I'd pay for it, but you might be able to put it in an NEA sponsored gallery.
In your post, you drew your political dividing line between "constitutionalists" and "socialists." Therefore, I can only assume that any social reform that goes against the original constitution (universal sufferage, emancipation, income tax, etc). I was just challenging your view on amending the constitution... that and the pedestal on which you hold the founding fathers. Why would the framers, if somehow transported to the future, agree with abolition? They almost all owned a number of slaves. This, despite the fact that slave ownership was almost an entirely innefficient practice that led to a loss in productivity/profitability. They almost universally agreed with the institution - thus the 3/5 compromise.
The greatest way to beat an opponent is to allow them to do it to themselves.
And what's this all about? I'm not your opponent. I try to have a discussion on the merits of socialist economic reform and it is automatically a battle? You paradoxically assert the infallibility of the founding fathers and then claim that the 16th amendment is some marxist reform that must be erased from the constitution. I really don't understand what you mean by "un-American," but I think deriding the amending process, the core of the constitution, is about as un-American as one can get. Government will evolve, and it will evolve to help a majority of the people. At least two-thirds of the states had to ratify the 16th amendment, and you are saying that it's creeping socialism? I suppose we should just let other, more progressive countries, evolve their government systems and at the same time reinstitute our 200+ year old constitution and live by it. I like America, but it isn't perfect. I seriously doubt that if left unchecked, corporate America will make it any better. I'd certainly rather elected officials decide what to do with my money than CEOs elected by executive boards. The American government needs to evolve - as all other first world governments have. For me, I think the improvements seen in western European nations more than justify a 30% income tax. Plus, you have to realize that many of the nations went through a massive rebuilding process following World War II and are already light-years beyond America. In transportation, education, health care, etc their governments have succeeded. Not to mention that should I lose the job that pays the 30% income tax (admitedly, there is a higher unemployment rate in all western European nations than in the US), I won't be left to rot in the street as in America.
Could be a troll, but oddly enough it's still the majority attitude in America. Just look at the popularity of the Fox News Channel.
The founding fathers also thought that women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that slaves should count as three-fifths of a person in the census. Too bad those dirty socialists had to come along and change the constitution. By the way, by your logic, the entirety of our current form of government is allowed by the original constitution because, guess what, the founding fathers did believe that the role of government would expand and allowed for this by providing the amendment process. Imagine that! They not only were fallible, but they knew it and planned for it.
The US is still a democracy. It's not a pure democracy, but it's hardly communist or even socialist. Hell, name one nationally socialized institution. Education, transportation, civil services, utilities, etc are all controlled mostly by states. The FAA is the only major federal regulatory body that controls an entire industry and even that has been deregulated quite a bit lately. If you want to see socialism, go check out most of Europe and come back here to report your findings on how evil the US is. Be sure to see how many things simply work better in Europe because they are partly or wholly socialized - medicine, education, transportation. Be sure to look at the skyline of your favorite European city and then compare it to that of the city you arrive at on the way back to see the obvious difference in pollution.
Way to bust out the McCarthyism with all that "anti-American" bullshit too. You are truly a model American - wishing that the homeless rot in the street and our scientists stay anchored to the ground. If science isn't publically funded, then all advances will be hoarded by private corporations. Free-market capitalism could be an excellent system without a pesky thing called greed. I'll agree that some of NASA's projects (namely the Moon landing) were probably of little scientific value. To say that their more recent work lends no benefit to the taxpayer, however, is ludicrous. Knowledge of the universe benefits the entire human race. Besides, once Libertarians take control of America and fuck it up beyond recognition, we'll need to know where to move to.