Heh. The kicker is that the work visas really aren't the problem--they take a small bite out of the tech sector, to be sure, but they're molehills compared to other things influencing our economic situation.
The biggest problem is that we are, as individuals, as corporations, and as a nation, living well beyond our means. We've managed to come as far as we have by coasting on the American Mystique, but that is beginning to falter. We're losing some of that dreamy sheen that has been so adored the world over for so many years. People are looking at America for the first time in quite a while and saying, "how can they keep this up?" The Euro is up 45% against the dollar from four years ago. A few months ago, Treasury had to scramble to find buyers, as the foreign investors suddenly dried up. All around the world, people are beginning to ask themselves, "What, specifically, is so great about America that I should keep investing there?" Ask yourself that--why should the foreign investor give money to us instead of to the E.U., India, China, or any of a number of other developed and developing nations? What do we do when we can no longer simply borrow as much money as we need?
While I'm not convinced it will happen, I can easily see a point in the not-too-distant future where the world simply stops investing in the United States. We take out waaay more than we put back in, our deficit is approaching 5% of our GDP, and we're showing absolutely no signs of changing our fiscal policy anytime soon (as evidenced by the re-election of Bush, the recent boost to our borrowing cap, etc.) I fear that, at some point, the Rest Of The World is going to look at us and say, "this is no longer the best investment we can make."
...the fact that he is a geek does not change the nature of his job, which is to research, write, and post news articles to Slashdot. Claiming that he's not a journalist because he's a geek is like claiming my buddy down in DC is not a programmer because he's a poli-sci junkie working for a pollster.
Cliff is a journalist, plain and simple. He does not get a free pass on basic journalistic skills simply because he happens to be a geek.
Oh, but I tried that, too. I tried that a number of times, no less. I had people who write for a living helping me and editing my materials. I had HR directors and executives giving me tips, recommendations, and tricks. I read the guides. I tried resumes with no cover letters, minimalist resumes, visually striking resumes, classic resumes--you name it, I tried it. In the end, I came to understand that my difficulties were rooted in the fact that I was looking for a tech job in a region that had a hard-hit tech sector and double-digit unemployment.
There are more rules of thumb out there than I have digits. Half of them contradict the other half. Still, I tried 'em, to no avail. Ultimately, I landed a job 2,500 miles away through a personal contact and managed to get my feet under me again. Tricks and tips are nice and nifty, but they can't beat the power of personal networks, a healthy economy, and good old-fashioned luck of the moment.
"Only" two grammatical errors in roughly seventy words is a pretty rough job for a news article. Note, too, that the "It's" after Indiana wouldn't be capitalized had Cliff simply mistyped a period instead of comma.
Tough love can help at times, but there's no way to effectively describe what happens to your psyche after you've been unemployed for a few weeks. You genuinely begin to believe that because you haven't found employment yet, you're just literally not good enough to find work.
What do you say to the well-qualified job hunter who has sent out 100 carefully written resumes and cover letters over a period of eight months with nothing more than two telephone interviews to show for it? "Quit being a baby!"?
...Y'know, if he were a code monkey, it wouldn't bother me in the least--but he is a journalist, first and foremost. I'd offer similar treatment to a poli-sci junkie who wrote sloppy code for a living. If you're going to do a job, you'd better be able to do that job well.
What would help is if Slashdot were to hire a few classically-trained editors. They don't need to be a geeks, just people who can do a good job of proofreading, fact-checking, and editing articles. Let the 'geek' editors be what they really are--reporters--who submit their stories to the 'journalist' editors for revision and final approval. Y'know, run this news organization as if it were actually a news organization.
Do you enjoy the fact that the media face of the geek world is run by people who routinely post front-page, three-sentence summaries with glaring errors? Do you like perpetuating the stereotype of geeks as lazy, sloppy and disinterested?
...best of all, if your superiors decide that you're not really cut out for a tech position after all, they've got all sorts of exciting opportunities to offer you to these days!
While its one thing to claim that the lack of H1Bs is killing your business because Americans don't want to move to Fort Wayne, Indiana. It's quite another to say that you can't find a job in Silicon Valley. What's needed is an overall view of how tech jobs are doing across the country. What areas are in desperate need of technical skills and what areas are suffering from a shortage of jobs?
I'd say there exists a dire need for geeks with basic writing skills in and around Ann Arbor, MI.
Seriously, man, this paragraph wouldn't even earn a passing mark in a seventh-grade writing class. You write articles for a living--get it together!
French speakers are far more likely to live in France than the average person.
Of course, to draw any sort of conclusion from this would violate the holy and immutable Law of Correlation Is Not Causation; therefore, it's best to just blithely dismiss any and all hypotheses one might draw from this knowledge.
It's just as likely that the real reason for the link is the opposite of what they suppose: that persons who have the genetic defects and/or environmental factors in their lives which lead to a higher rate of glaucoma are more likely to be computer users....
...do you say this because you have access to research that refutes their theories? Or do you say this because you don't like their conclusion, and are thus inclined to dismiss their work with the Cudgel of Correlation Is Not Causation?
It is not "just as likely" that computer workers are, as a group, genetically different from other workers. That there may be "environmental factors" doesn't really make any difference to their conclusion: for some reason, computer workers exhibit a much higher rate of visual problems. Yours is a plausible scenario, but do give the researchers some credit. Grant them the fact that they're eminently more qualified to examine this particular issue than you are, and that it's worth taking their findings seriously, even in light of the fact that their findings aren't carved in stone. Hell, the researchers themselves would likely be among the first to emphasize that their findings are not fact. This is one of the founding tenets of scientific research, for crying out loud.
Simply because John Q. Citizen can fire off a plausible alternative after five seconds' thought does not mean that his theory is "just as likely" to be the case as the result of a published research project.
Heck, I agree with everything you said, and I stand by my original assertion. I didn't say that weblogs are digging up stories that the mainstream press aren't--though they do on occasion. Rather, I find great value in the fact that I can read the comments and thoughts of a wide range of informed weblogs. Facts alone are of limited use; the ability to read a wide range of opinions and interpretations regarding those facts is wonderfully useful. This is where the greatest value in the weblog sphere lies: interpretataion and discourse. To say that journalism stops at fact-reporting strikes me as overly restrictive.
I have to defend this Cmdr Taco here, I think CBS may have asked this guy to write a story, that they didn't want a journo currently working for them to write...
...a fair enough concern; even though you express some doubt, you could be right.
That said, it's still wholly irresponsible to put such a misleading headline up. The appropriate thing to you do in such a situation is voice said suspicion, not simply state suspicions as fact.
Engberg's piece is vicious, petty, simplistic and insulting. There's a great deal of value in to be found in weblog journalism.
At the same time, Taco, the fact that you and other Slashdot editors so horribly mangle summaries and headlines alike does nothing but lend creedence to Engberg's mindset. This article is an opinion piece. That means that the opinion expressed therein does not reflect the opinions of CBS, Major League Baseball, or Sane People. The headline should read "Engberg Sees No Journalism in Blogs".
Quit giving blowhards like Engberg such easy fodder. Show some interest in getting it right, not making it hot, dammit!
It's the suggestion that groping and purse snatching ought to be taken in stride that bothers me. You don't really have to go too far back to find a time when nobody would be surprised if you got shot or stabbed in the act of groping someone or stealing their property. Some might say it's because we're more civilized now, and so we don't do that sort of thing, but I'd say we're just morally loose. Maybe I'm just anachronistic.
Gah, when did I ever say you should take such a thing in stride? Call the freakin' police, have him kicked out of the bar, get his name and sue the pants off him--hell, punch him in the face, if you want a more visceral response.
But to advocate the use of a deadly weapon in order to stop a comparatively tame crime is simply irresponsible. I don't buy the "people will stop when you point a gun at them" line. If a person is stupid or drunk enough to grope your wife in public, what makes you think that they won't simply lunge at you when you pull a gun? Will you take the time to aim at his foot, then?
What's life like one week after the event? You've shot another man; you've gone through the police report (and, if you're lucky, you haven't been charged with voluntary manslaughter;) you've been informed that because your bullet severed his femoral artery just above the knee, the asshole groper died of blood loss while in the emergency room; you've taken the week off work to sit through interviews and meetings with police and lawyers; you've seen the guy's wife and kid in tears at the courthouse; your own wife shakes uncontrollably every time she recalls the moment that stream of arterial blood gushed against her legs; you're anxiously awaiting the blood test results of the dead asshole, as your wife cut her already-blood-soaked leg when she fell onto a shard of glass; she has no appetite, has lost fifteen pounds, and hasn't looked you in the face once since you pulled the trigger; and you get to relive the moment you killed another human being every night while you sleep. All because you shot some drunken asshole who was groping your wife. Is it worth that?
Talk to some people who have killed other people--old soldiers, cops, drivers who have been in fatal car accidents and the like. So long as you're anything short of sociopathic, the act of killing another human being tends to leave some pretty serious scars on the ol' psyche. That sort of thing'll haunt you, even if you're doing it from the comfort of a fighter cockpit. A single pull of the trigger can last your entire lifetime.
How many people would keep going if you pointed a gun at them? Not many. The rest are exceptionally stupid and I don't see anything wrong with stopping them. If they live, which they probably will, they probably won't do it again.
Dude, people have a practically limitless capacity for stupidity. Even perfectly normal, well-adjusted, rational people can and will do exceptionally stupid things under the right (or wrong) conditions. What's more, you put the pressure on someone by pulling a deadly weapon and you're likely going to trigger the "fight or flight" instinct. Note that "flight" is only half of that old addage--what options are you left with when your target's instincts scream, "FIGHT!!"?
Besides that, though, stopping someone in the commision of a criminal act IS a different circumstance than having caught them afterward. Nobody would complain if you pointed a gun at someone who was trying to steal your purse, and most people would stop. But what is that threat worth if it's not legal to shoot them if they continue?
I'd bet a fair number of people would complain if you shot a purse snatcher. Yes, it's a crime, but not all punishments fit all crimes. Death from a bullet in the back for snatching a purse, while it may satisfy your own sense of justice, would be looked upon by a large segment of society as a heinous and criminal act in and of itself. There's a reason cops don't shoot at pickpo
According to Burney, the Duke vehicle set itself apart when it rolled to the foot of a metallic wall, reared up on its hind wheels, and used a "tornado in a cup" to hug the wall and start its ascent...
..."It's a tornado in a cup, but no ordinary tornado," Janet said. "Two vortexes swirl simultaneously, one in a spiral and the other in a toroidal path, like a donut. The forces generated hold the vehicle to the wall and yet allow free movement because the cup never touches the surface."
...either that, or we need a robust enough research community so that we can discover the next "nuclear power" source before our Uranium is depleted, so to speak. There are already tons of promising leads.
Frankly, if it ever came down to necessity, we'd figure something out real fast. It took us less than a decade to get to the moon, after all...
The obvious political hurdles are (a) the left opposes nuclear energy, (b) the right opposes federalizing energy
Crimony--what color is the sky, black or white?
...y'know, one of these days, we'll be able to have meaningful political discussion again. Until then, it'd be really swell if we could minimize trivializing such a complex and nebulous issue as energy policy.
...would you be shocked to find significant numbers of liberals who embrace nuclear energy? Would you be stunned to discover a large cache of conservatives who support a federalized network of nuclear power plants?
Things like purse-snatchings and drunken groping are generally considered misdemeanors. They're more serious than infractions--speeding tickets and the like--but they're not as serious as felonies. Society has deemed that there are certain punishments that are fitting for this kind of crime, and said punishments are meted out by the courts.
Claiming "self-defense" in the case of a guy groping your wife is a bit of a stretch. He's being offensive and obnoxious, and should be arrested and punished, but is he threatening your life?
You say you'd probably shoot him in the foot--unless he were being really obnoxious. Here's the core problem with carrying a gun--you, the individual and victim, become the sole arbiter and interpreter of the law; what's more, you're given the ability to kill--a sentence that's really, really tough to reconsider once it's been carried out. If you feel that you can justifiably shoot a man in the chest for being a real grade-A asshole and grabbing your wife's crotch, why not extend the law to allow such obnoxious crotch-grabbers at trial to face the death penalty for their crime? Is it more appropriate or understandable for an individual to shoot and kill a person in the heat of the moment? Is it cruel or unjust for a court to impose such a stiff penalty on petty crimes?
If it is reasonable to grant you the means and license to kill somebody for gross intrusions of your personal space, would it not also be reasonable to grant the courts the right to put such offenders to death? Or is there a difference?
I understand having passion for your beliefs, but now it is time to join together!!!
...y'know, we'd love to, but it's a bit of a trick to get in the door if you're not a core Republican. Oh, and you need to have The Bush Pledge memorized, too...
Wisecracks aside, though--GWB has made it amply clear over the past four years that he has no desire to represent, let alone consider, views that do not mesh with his own. How can I throw my support a guy who doesn't even care about my core principles?
Our president, at root, doesn't give a rat's ass about what I and millions of other Americans think. He won't even extend the courtesy of pretending to care. He is, at best, glibly dismissive of the tenets we truly believe in. How the hell can we be expected to abide by this?
The one--one--silver lining in this election is that W may become America's John Major. That's pretty small comfort.
We lost Daschle in a dirty fight. That hurts.
DeMint and Coburn are now U.S. Senators. These guys are so conservative they make Ralph Reed blush. Segregation is old and busted; homophobia and codification of evangelical values is the new hotness. Sigh.
The Republicans hold a comfortable majority in both houses of Congress. Bush can reasonably claim a mandate, having won over 50% of the popular vote. Rhenquist is on his way out; I'll be surprised if he's the only one in the next four years.
The world, that place that so few Americans truly apreciate the value of, will not reward us for re-electing Bush. Up 'till now, they've been giving us the benefit of the doubt. No longer.
Our current leadership is united, forceful, and visionary. They do not care much for the tenets of "separation of church and state" and "protection against the tyrrany of the majority". They have little beyond contempt for opposing viewpoints. They hold little stock in the value of science, save when it advances their own policy decisions.
I'm spent. When one's silver-lining scenario relies on Bush driving the country into a brick wall at the bottom of a punji pit, there's not much to be happy about.
Do you think that that barfight would have broken out at all if nearly every person in the bar had a handgun? Even a person who's 'seeing red' has an instinct for self preservation.
Fewer fights, yes, but that's the trouble with human beings--we're irrational creatures, and when we get worked up, we do things that don't make sense and go against all reason. Hell, when does a barfight ever make sense? When does assault make sense?
Ubiquitous firearms might cause a drop in incidence rates, but would likely cause an intensification of severity. If some drunken asshole starts feeling up your wife, which is more desirable--a situation where you go home with a few bruises and a police report, or a situation where you (and six other bystanders) threaten homicide on the spot? Does a drunken asshole deserve to be shot to death for groping someone's wife? Does a purse snatcher deserve to be shot to death? Does a boorish mother who rear-ends another car deserve to be shot to death?
if nearly every person in Manhattan had a gun, anyone acually pulling a gun out would be a rather stupid individual, and would likely be shot very quickly with a minimum of colateral damage.
You have what I can only describe as staggering confidence in the marksmanship of the average American. Consider that we can't even drive our cars without killing some 40,000 people every year--and that's something most of us practice every single day. You think we're all gonna be good shots?
The lousy thing about people is that we're good, decent rational individuals most of the time. Every now and then, though, we go and do something truly stupid and irrational. I really, really don't like the idea of granting average Americans the 24/7 option of killing another person at a distance in under a second. We're poorly suited for that kind of irreversible judgement.
Phillip, I don't deny that yours is a good article, but in roughly the past half-year you've had 14 articles accepted, every single one of which has plugged Engadget. Of these fourteen articles, the closest you've come to identifying yourself as part of Engadget is the use of "we" in three of these articles. Other times, you've written stuff like "the folks over at Engadget", which infers that you have nothing to do with Engadget. Usually, though, you make no indication one way or another of your relationship with Engadget, which is just generally misleading.
Can you see how some of us suspect you of trolling for hits?
C'mon. This know-how is easily found with ten seconds and access to Google--hell, just submit a query using article title word for word and you'll get a decent result. This information has been around for ages, and there's nothing particularly timely or new about it now.
This story is simply yet another plug for the folks over at Engadget.com, submitted by Mr. Torrone himself. (Hint: he's with Engadget.) They're trolling for hits, plain and simple.
At least grant us the courtesy of a disclosure statement if you're gonna let 'em plug their site under the guise of news.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem is that we are, as individuals, as corporations, and as a nation, living well beyond our means. We've managed to come as far as we have by coasting on the American Mystique, but that is beginning to falter. We're losing some of that dreamy sheen that has been so adored the world over for so many years. People are looking at America for the first time in quite a while and saying, "how can they keep this up?" The Euro is up 45% against the dollar from four years ago. A few months ago, Treasury had to scramble to find buyers, as the foreign investors suddenly dried up. All around the world, people are beginning to ask themselves, "What, specifically, is so great about America that I should keep investing there?" Ask yourself that--why should the foreign investor give money to us instead of to the E.U., India, China, or any of a number of other developed and developing nations? What do we do when we can no longer simply borrow as much money as we need?
While I'm not convinced it will happen, I can easily see a point in the not-too-distant future where the world simply stops investing in the United States. We take out waaay more than we put back in, our deficit is approaching 5% of our GDP, and we're showing absolutely no signs of changing our fiscal policy anytime soon (as evidenced by the re-election of Bush, the recent boost to our borrowing cap, etc.) I fear that, at some point, the Rest Of The World is going to look at us and say, "this is no longer the best investment we can make."
Cliff is a journalist, plain and simple. He does not get a free pass on basic journalistic skills simply because he happens to be a geek.
There are more rules of thumb out there than I have digits. Half of them contradict the other half. Still, I tried 'em, to no avail. Ultimately, I landed a job 2,500 miles away through a personal contact and managed to get my feet under me again. Tricks and tips are nice and nifty, but they can't beat the power of personal networks, a healthy economy, and good old-fashioned luck of the moment.
"Only" two grammatical errors in roughly seventy words is a pretty rough job for a news article. Note, too, that the "It's" after Indiana wouldn't be capitalized had Cliff simply mistyped a period instead of comma.
What do you say to the well-qualified job hunter who has sent out 100 carefully written resumes and cover letters over a period of eight months with nothing more than two telephone interviews to show for it? "Quit being a baby!"?
What would help is if Slashdot were to hire a few classically-trained editors. They don't need to be a geeks, just people who can do a good job of proofreading, fact-checking, and editing articles. Let the 'geek' editors be what they really are--reporters--who submit their stories to the 'journalist' editors for revision and final approval. Y'know, run this news organization as if it were actually a news organization.
Do you enjoy the fact that the media face of the geek world is run by people who routinely post front-page, three-sentence summaries with glaring errors? Do you like perpetuating the stereotype of geeks as lazy, sloppy and disinterested?
While its one thing to claim that the lack of H1Bs is killing your business because Americans don't want to move to Fort Wayne, Indiana.
I can see how you might think this is a complete sentence, but on the other hand.
...best of all, if your superiors decide that you're not really cut out for a tech position after all, they've got all sorts of exciting opportunities to offer you to these days!
I'd say there exists a dire need for geeks with basic writing skills in and around Ann Arbor, MI.
Seriously, man, this paragraph wouldn't even earn a passing mark in a seventh-grade writing class. You write articles for a living--get it together!
Of course, to draw any sort of conclusion from this would violate the holy and immutable Law of Correlation Is Not Causation; therefore, it's best to just blithely dismiss any and all hypotheses one might draw from this knowledge.
*sigh*
It is not "just as likely" that computer workers are, as a group, genetically different from other workers. That there may be "environmental factors" doesn't really make any difference to their conclusion: for some reason, computer workers exhibit a much higher rate of visual problems. Yours is a plausible scenario, but do give the researchers some credit. Grant them the fact that they're eminently more qualified to examine this particular issue than you are, and that it's worth taking their findings seriously, even in light of the fact that their findings aren't carved in stone. Hell, the researchers themselves would likely be among the first to emphasize that their findings are not fact. This is one of the founding tenets of scientific research, for crying out loud.
Simply because John Q. Citizen can fire off a plausible alternative after five seconds' thought does not mean that his theory is "just as likely" to be the case as the result of a published research project.
Heck, I agree with everything you said, and I stand by my original assertion. I didn't say that weblogs are digging up stories that the mainstream press aren't--though they do on occasion. Rather, I find great value in the fact that I can read the comments and thoughts of a wide range of informed weblogs. Facts alone are of limited use; the ability to read a wide range of opinions and interpretations regarding those facts is wonderfully useful. This is where the greatest value in the weblog sphere lies: interpretataion and discourse. To say that journalism stops at fact-reporting strikes me as overly restrictive.
That said, it's still wholly irresponsible to put such a misleading headline up. The appropriate thing to you do in such a situation is voice said suspicion, not simply state suspicions as fact.
At the same time, Taco, the fact that you and other Slashdot editors so horribly mangle summaries and headlines alike does nothing but lend creedence to Engberg's mindset. This article is an opinion piece. That means that the opinion expressed therein does not reflect the opinions of CBS, Major League Baseball, or Sane People. The headline should read "Engberg Sees No Journalism in Blogs".
Quit giving blowhards like Engberg such easy fodder. Show some interest in getting it right, not making it hot, dammit!
Gah, when did I ever say you should take such a thing in stride? Call the freakin' police, have him kicked out of the bar, get his name and sue the pants off him--hell, punch him in the face, if you want a more visceral response.
But to advocate the use of a deadly weapon in order to stop a comparatively tame crime is simply irresponsible. I don't buy the "people will stop when you point a gun at them" line. If a person is stupid or drunk enough to grope your wife in public, what makes you think that they won't simply lunge at you when you pull a gun? Will you take the time to aim at his foot, then?
What's life like one week after the event? You've shot another man; you've gone through the police report (and, if you're lucky, you haven't been charged with voluntary manslaughter;) you've been informed that because your bullet severed his femoral artery just above the knee, the asshole groper died of blood loss while in the emergency room; you've taken the week off work to sit through interviews and meetings with police and lawyers; you've seen the guy's wife and kid in tears at the courthouse; your own wife shakes uncontrollably every time she recalls the moment that stream of arterial blood gushed against her legs; you're anxiously awaiting the blood test results of the dead asshole, as your wife cut her already-blood-soaked leg when she fell onto a shard of glass; she has no appetite, has lost fifteen pounds, and hasn't looked you in the face once since you pulled the trigger; and you get to relive the moment you killed another human being every night while you sleep. All because you shot some drunken asshole who was groping your wife. Is it worth that?
Talk to some people who have killed other people--old soldiers, cops, drivers who have been in fatal car accidents and the like. So long as you're anything short of sociopathic, the act of killing another human being tends to leave some pretty serious scars on the ol' psyche. That sort of thing'll haunt you, even if you're doing it from the comfort of a fighter cockpit. A single pull of the trigger can last your entire lifetime.
How many people would keep going if you pointed a gun at them? Not many. The rest are exceptionally stupid and I don't see anything wrong with stopping them. If they live, which they probably will, they probably won't do it again.
Dude, people have a practically limitless capacity for stupidity. Even perfectly normal, well-adjusted, rational people can and will do exceptionally stupid things under the right (or wrong) conditions. What's more, you put the pressure on someone by pulling a deadly weapon and you're likely going to trigger the "fight or flight" instinct. Note that "flight" is only half of that old addage--what options are you left with when your target's instincts scream, "FIGHT!!"?
Besides that, though, stopping someone in the commision of a criminal act IS a different circumstance than having caught them afterward. Nobody would complain if you pointed a gun at someone who was trying to steal your purse, and most people would stop. But what is that threat worth if it's not legal to shoot them if they continue?
I'd bet a fair number of people would complain if you shot a purse snatcher. Yes, it's a crime, but not all punishments fit all crimes. Death from a bullet in the back for snatching a purse, while it may satisfy your own sense of justice, would be looked upon by a large segment of society as a heinous and criminal act in and of itself. There's a reason cops don't shoot at pickpo
According to Burney, the Duke vehicle set itself apart when it rolled to the foot of a metallic wall, reared up on its hind wheels, and used a "tornado in a cup" to hug the wall and start its ascent...
Huh. Duke really does suck!
Frankly, if it ever came down to necessity, we'd figure something out real fast. It took us less than a decade to get to the moon, after all...
Crimony--what color is the sky, black or white?
Claiming "self-defense" in the case of a guy groping your wife is a bit of a stretch. He's being offensive and obnoxious, and should be arrested and punished, but is he threatening your life?
You say you'd probably shoot him in the foot--unless he were being really obnoxious. Here's the core problem with carrying a gun--you, the individual and victim, become the sole arbiter and interpreter of the law; what's more, you're given the ability to kill--a sentence that's really, really tough to reconsider once it's been carried out. If you feel that you can justifiably shoot a man in the chest for being a real grade-A asshole and grabbing your wife's crotch, why not extend the law to allow such obnoxious crotch-grabbers at trial to face the death penalty for their crime? Is it more appropriate or understandable for an individual to shoot and kill a person in the heat of the moment? Is it cruel or unjust for a court to impose such a stiff penalty on petty crimes?
If it is reasonable to grant you the means and license to kill somebody for gross intrusions of your personal space, would it not also be reasonable to grant the courts the right to put such offenders to death? Or is there a difference?
Wisecracks aside, though--GWB has made it amply clear over the past four years that he has no desire to represent, let alone consider, views that do not mesh with his own. How can I throw my support a guy who doesn't even care about my core principles?
Our president, at root, doesn't give a rat's ass about what I and millions of other Americans think. He won't even extend the courtesy of pretending to care. He is, at best, glibly dismissive of the tenets we truly believe in. How the hell can we be expected to abide by this?
On this point: do you believe the capital punishment should be a sentencing option in misdemeanor cases in general? Why or why not?
We lost Daschle in a dirty fight. That hurts.
DeMint and Coburn are now U.S. Senators. These guys are so conservative they make Ralph Reed blush. Segregation is old and busted; homophobia and codification of evangelical values is the new hotness. Sigh.
The Republicans hold a comfortable majority in both houses of Congress. Bush can reasonably claim a mandate, having won over 50% of the popular vote. Rhenquist is on his way out; I'll be surprised if he's the only one in the next four years.
The world, that place that so few Americans truly apreciate the value of, will not reward us for re-electing Bush. Up 'till now, they've been giving us the benefit of the doubt. No longer.
Our current leadership is united, forceful, and visionary. They do not care much for the tenets of "separation of church and state" and "protection against the tyrrany of the majority". They have little beyond contempt for opposing viewpoints. They hold little stock in the value of science, save when it advances their own policy decisions.
I'm spent. When one's silver-lining scenario relies on Bush driving the country into a brick wall at the bottom of a punji pit, there's not much to be happy about.
I ache too much to fear for us just yet.
Fewer fights, yes, but that's the trouble with human beings--we're irrational creatures, and when we get worked up, we do things that don't make sense and go against all reason. Hell, when does a barfight ever make sense? When does assault make sense?
Ubiquitous firearms might cause a drop in incidence rates, but would likely cause an intensification of severity. If some drunken asshole starts feeling up your wife, which is more desirable--a situation where you go home with a few bruises and a police report, or a situation where you (and six other bystanders) threaten homicide on the spot? Does a drunken asshole deserve to be shot to death for groping someone's wife? Does a purse snatcher deserve to be shot to death? Does a boorish mother who rear-ends another car deserve to be shot to death?
if nearly every person in Manhattan had a gun, anyone acually pulling a gun out would be a rather stupid individual, and would likely be shot very quickly with a minimum of colateral damage.
You have what I can only describe as staggering confidence in the marksmanship of the average American. Consider that we can't even drive our cars without killing some 40,000 people every year--and that's something most of us practice every single day. You think we're all gonna be good shots?
The lousy thing about people is that we're good, decent rational individuals most of the time. Every now and then, though, we go and do something truly stupid and irrational. I really, really don't like the idea of granting average Americans the 24/7 option of killing another person at a distance in under a second. We're poorly suited for that kind of irreversible judgement.
Can you see how some of us suspect you of trolling for hits?
This story is simply yet another plug for the folks over at Engadget.com, submitted by Mr. Torrone himself. (Hint: he's with Engadget.) They're trolling for hits, plain and simple.
At least grant us the courtesy of a disclosure statement if you're gonna let 'em plug their site under the guise of news.