The Greenberg article appears to be over on the nytimes, so i don't know what he really said.
Generally, though, I'd have to say that Reagan and Bush the Greater were conservative, in a similar vein to even Bush the Lesser.
The smaller government mantra is really just a ruse. The foundations of conservativism as it relates to politics is protecting the existing wealth/power structure. The talk about taxes, spending and so forth, is all about that.
What does differentiate Bush the Lesser, though, and this is what I refer to as the 60's aspect... Is the Bleeding Heart language. I've never seen a Republican president use so many cliches of this sort. Like his attack that critics of his Iraq policy just don't want brown people to vote. I guess this is the Compassionate side of conservatism. Historically conservatism would say "Fuck 'em". But this Bleeding Heart language, is intended to sell to the 60's generation. Not necessarily the children of the 60's, but their children who have heard the sayings, but don't necessarily know the context or meaning.
The thing about GW Bush, is that he isn't really liberal or conservative in the classic sense. He's basically taken the worst aspects from all ideologies and blended them together, or something like that. But you can't really blame him. His attitudes serve a generation of weirdness. Things that have come to be since the 1960s, combined with old-school attitudes, combined with mere confusion.
Call it post-industrial or something. But it's like PETA meets Archie Bunker. It's very Bleeding Heart in so many ways, but yet not. It rails against something, and then promotes policies that undermine it. So it results in a very strange culture of defeatist victimhood. Like a kid who wears lead boots to play basketball and then complains when he loses.
A couple of examples. If you listen to right-wing preachers, they complain endlessly about Hollywood, right? Well what's Hollywood really about? Simple, giving the consumers what they want. So they're lambasting consumerism from hollywood, but then on the otherside they are defending consumerism from say Wal-Mart. Hell, many of these preachers are nothing more than con artists, flying their church plane to their condo in florida, and then on sunday railing about narcissism and consumer excess.
or right-wingers promote their absitinence only education, and it turns out the kids who get that training are more likely to have sex. In fact, they're more likely to have what they'd probably call "deviant sex", because the kids are more confused than anything. I knew a girl like this back say 10 years ago. Was just adament she was not going to have sex before marriage. Didn't stop her from performing BJ's though.
It's not new. Consider Prohibition. Promoted by the Temperance movement to reduce alcohol consumption, but instead it increased alcohol consumption. or the war on drugs.
I never understood where people get this bullshit from.
The effect of air temperature has a greater impact on fuel economy than ethanol. The effect of hard stops and rabbit starts has a greater impact on fuel economy than ethanol. And by greater, I mean like 10x or more.
Ethanol has 90% of the energy by volume as gasoline. At a 10% mix, how on earth can you claim you are losing 30% of your energy output?
Certainly the split off of IRL from CART was sad, as I think it's brought down the overall excitement of the Indy 500. Although the last couple of years it has gotten better.
As far as oval versus street. The big problem with street racing, is that while it's ok on tv because of multiple cameras... if you go to the race it's pretty boring. Every minute or two they come by and you see the positions are different, or a car is missing and you wonder what happened.
They both require skill, just of a different sort.
A lot of the comments here presume that the intent of copyright was to provide people the incentive to be creative. Copyright is nothing of the sort. Copyright was intended as a means to prevent monopolies on publication and distribution. Look it up.
Ok, let's see. I got my Constitution here, and it says in Article I, Section 7...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Hmm, it does not appear to agree with what you are saying. What do you make of this?
Isn't the entire quote, something more like this...?
It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".
How can I debunk your debunking, when you can't even be bothered to read the article?
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the news, but nobody in Congress has any interest in listening to what Bush is promoting, and certainly not what Gonzales is selling.
I'm just surprised Gonzales choose copyright to try to change the subject. I'd have thought he'd be promoting a bill to protect children from porn, or something like that. Maybe he's afraid of pulling a Mark Foley?
My experience... the EPA fuel economy standards have historically been measured in a weird way.
For city driving, they record fuel usage of a car running at 35 mph on a 70 degree day with no wind, and no need to stop.
for highway driving, they record fuel usage of a car running at 55 mph on a 70 degree day with no wind, and no need to stop.
Once you add stop lights and weather into the mix, it's not so good. But regardless, the key is that since every car was measured in the same way they were still an accurate way to compare one car with another.
So what if the hybrids get reduces, so will every other car. And 48 mpg is still better than 30, or the 17 mpg most cars get in city traffic.
I don't think you are ignorant, I think you simply don't want to understand.
You really aren't any different from those you complain about. You exhibit intolerance towards others, and then whine about how they display intolerance towards you. As such, you reinforce the problem and your own sense of victimhood.
In the mean time, I'll pray for you.
As you've already established, you have no faith in God so what would be the point?
While it is indeed the employer that sends in the check every month to the unemployment fund, the money being sent was taken (one way or another) from your benefits, as a cost of hiring you. Same with Social Security [sic], Medicare, and prepaid^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhealth insurance.
This is only true, if your paycheck would increase if none of these were mandatory, necessary or otherwise required.
What do you think the chances of that happening are?
I think we can all agree the likelihood of that is slim to none.
So, because I value YOUR freedom of speech so much that I think it includes YOUR right to violate MY religion...
Your religion?
When you look at the world, and all the abuses which have been committed in the name of religion, it is always people such as yourself. Those who have little faith, who define themselves not by the word of God, but by the word of God's critics. Who are afraid that the critics might be right, such that they lash out and try to punish them.
I don't see any basis whereby you can claim it is your religion, considering how little faith you have.
Considering the cross thing happened, god I don't know, it's so long ago I can't remember. But almost daily I have to listen to asshats whining about it. Not to mention the whole Global War on Christmas thing....
Yeah, think about it. That only stopped being the case say 30 years ago. But the TV had been around for another 40 or so before that.
Now let's look at the personal computer. It's about 30 years old. In that time, things have changed dramatically. Our first systems, getting a computer to work with your new printer involved typing in ESCAPE code sequences into a config file in WordStar.
Things change, and usually for the better. That's the only thing that is guaranteed.
I'm not sure why that pompous ass get's paid to spew forth conventional wisdom that is usually wrong.
The mistake made was the 2004 primary season, a lot of states moved up their primaries so they were bunched together in February. The idea, espoused by the DNC party chair, was to have a candidate chosen by March so they'd have a longer time campaigning.
The result, with the assistance of the MSM, and the boring fact that candidates started campaigning a year before the primaries, was that by the time Iowa and New Hampshire occured everybody was bored to death and just wanted it over. The shortcutting of the primaries in February made this easy to accomplish, and so it was done.
So now this year, every state in the Union wants to be part of that "choice", and they think the only way they can become part of that choice is by moving up their primary as well.
Broder's solution, a typical convoluted one, involves rotating primary schedules, blah blah blah. That is, we continue to have everything happen early, and we have the long drawn out boring summer. It's just different states will decide each time.
But that's not the problem.
The problem is that the nominee is known prior to the convention. That's the actual problem. It causes the summer to be boring, but more importantly it means that the Convention is not covered in any detail by the media. The downside of that, is that the party does not get much of an opportunity to get their full message out in an unadulterated fashion. Which means the voters are more reliant than ever on the idiot pundit class.
It's really simple to solve. Go back to the pre-1972 way of things. Back when the parties choose decent candidates in smoke filled rooms, rather than letting the people decide so all we get is a panderer. Back when the nomination wasn't known until after the 15th ballot at the Convention.
Hell, choosing the Pope got more media coverage then the last political convention.
Slashdot Mirror
He's against abortion, gays, all the usual stuff.
Not much of a Libertarian at all.
In it's simplest form... just keeping a history of changes, it really isn't that bad.
where it becomes complicated is when you start talking about branching, merging, or trying to deal with dependencies across projects, etc.
But if done well, version control helps more than hurts.
The Greenberg article appears to be over on the nytimes, so i don't know what he really said.
Generally, though, I'd have to say that Reagan and Bush the Greater were conservative, in a similar vein to even Bush the Lesser.
The smaller government mantra is really just a ruse. The foundations of conservativism as it relates to politics is protecting the existing wealth/power structure. The talk about taxes, spending and so forth, is all about that.
What does differentiate Bush the Lesser, though, and this is what I refer to as the 60's aspect... Is the Bleeding Heart language. I've never seen a Republican president use so many cliches of this sort. Like his attack that critics of his Iraq policy just don't want brown people to vote. I guess this is the Compassionate side of conservatism. Historically conservatism would say "Fuck 'em". But this Bleeding Heart language, is intended to sell to the 60's generation. Not necessarily the children of the 60's, but their children who have heard the sayings, but don't necessarily know the context or meaning.
Bush is a product of our times.
to...
You'll NEVER work in this town again!
The thing about GW Bush, is that he isn't really liberal or conservative in the classic sense. He's basically taken the worst aspects from all ideologies and blended them together, or something like that. But you can't really blame him. His attitudes serve a generation of weirdness. Things that have come to be since the 1960s, combined with old-school attitudes, combined with mere confusion.
Call it post-industrial or something. But it's like PETA meets Archie Bunker. It's very Bleeding Heart in so many ways, but yet not. It rails against something, and then promotes policies that undermine it. So it results in a very strange culture of defeatist victimhood. Like a kid who wears lead boots to play basketball and then complains when he loses.
A couple of examples. If you listen to right-wing preachers, they complain endlessly about Hollywood, right? Well what's Hollywood really about? Simple, giving the consumers what they want. So they're lambasting consumerism from hollywood, but then on the otherside they are defending consumerism from say Wal-Mart. Hell, many of these preachers are nothing more than con artists, flying their church plane to their condo in florida, and then on sunday railing about narcissism and consumer excess.
or right-wingers promote their absitinence only education, and it turns out the kids who get that training are more likely to have sex. In fact, they're more likely to have what they'd probably call "deviant sex", because the kids are more confused than anything. I knew a girl like this back say 10 years ago. Was just adament she was not going to have sex before marriage. Didn't stop her from performing BJ's though.
It's not new. Consider Prohibition. Promoted by the Temperance movement to reduce alcohol consumption, but instead it increased alcohol consumption. or the war on drugs.
Or the war on terrorism.
I never understood where people get this bullshit from.
The effect of air temperature has a greater impact on fuel economy than ethanol. The effect of hard stops and rabbit starts has a greater impact on fuel economy than ethanol. And by greater, I mean like 10x or more.
Ethanol has 90% of the energy by volume as gasoline. At a 10% mix, how on earth can you claim you are losing 30% of your energy output?
Certainly the split off of IRL from CART was sad, as I think it's brought down the overall excitement of the Indy 500. Although the last couple of years it has gotten better.
As far as oval versus street. The big problem with street racing, is that while it's ok on tv because of multiple cameras... if you go to the race it's pretty boring. Every minute or two they come by and you see the positions are different, or a car is missing and you wonder what happened.
They both require skill, just of a different sort.
Or one of the other sites which are part of the OSDN empire.
/. would gladly have pimped the story for ya!
/. game.
Then
That'll teach you. Next time, learn how to play the
Rednecks? Indianapolis 500? Rednecks?
Do you understand the difference between Indy 500 and Nascar? Most of the people I know, such as myself, who watch the Indy 500 are engineers.
Ok, let's see. I got my Constitution here, and it says in Article I, Section 7...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;
Hmm, it does not appear to agree with what you are saying. What do you make of this?
Your explanation of theory and practice sounds suspiciously like the arrogance of Marx followers.
How can I debunk your debunking, when you can't even be bothered to read the article?
Randall, old Buddy!
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the news, but nobody in Congress has any interest in listening to what Bush is promoting, and certainly not what Gonzales is selling.
I'm just surprised Gonzales choose copyright to try to change the subject. I'd have thought he'd be promoting a bill to protect children from porn, or something like that. Maybe he's afraid of pulling a Mark Foley?
You must be new to the internet.
Most e-commerce sites already store your billing information with your account. That's what he is saying.
On my case, I just had to unplug the power cord inside the case which went to the annoying blue lights which lit up the room.
So you're saying that your rule is true always?
It's not dependent upon any external variables which you have no control over?
My experience... the EPA fuel economy standards have historically been measured in a weird way.
For city driving, they record fuel usage of a car running at 35 mph on a 70 degree day with no wind, and no need to stop.
for highway driving, they record fuel usage of a car running at 55 mph on a 70 degree day with no wind, and no need to stop.
Once you add stop lights and weather into the mix, it's not so good. But regardless, the key is that since every car was measured in the same way they were still an accurate way to compare one car with another.
So what if the hybrids get reduces, so will every other car. And 48 mpg is still better than 30, or the 17 mpg most cars get in city traffic.
Dream on
I mean, that's what these guys want... right... to disseminate the Truth that the evil Western decadent nations are refusing to let be known.
Or something like that. Whatever.
You really aren't any different from those you complain about. You exhibit intolerance towards others, and then whine about how they display intolerance towards you. As such, you reinforce the problem and your own sense of victimhood.
As you've already established, you have no faith in God so what would be the point?
This is only true, if your paycheck would increase if none of these were mandatory, necessary or otherwise required.
What do you think the chances of that happening are?
I think we can all agree the likelihood of that is slim to none.
Your religion?
When you look at the world, and all the abuses which have been committed in the name of religion, it is always people such as yourself. Those who have little faith, who define themselves not by the word of God, but by the word of God's critics. Who are afraid that the critics might be right, such that they lash out and try to punish them.
I don't see any basis whereby you can claim it is your religion, considering how little faith you have.
Considering the cross thing happened, god I don't know, it's so long ago I can't remember. But almost daily I have to listen to asshats whining about it. Not to mention the whole Global War on Christmas thing....
I'd say your point is most simple.
you like to whine
Yeah, think about it. That only stopped being the case say 30 years ago. But the TV had been around for another 40 or so before that.
Now let's look at the personal computer. It's about 30 years old. In that time, things have changed dramatically. Our first systems, getting a computer to work with your new printer involved typing in ESCAPE code sequences into a config file in WordStar.
Things change, and usually for the better. That's the only thing that is guaranteed.
I'm not sure why that pompous ass get's paid to spew forth conventional wisdom that is usually wrong.
The mistake made was the 2004 primary season, a lot of states moved up their primaries so they were bunched together in February. The idea, espoused by the DNC party chair, was to have a candidate chosen by March so they'd have a longer time campaigning.
The result, with the assistance of the MSM, and the boring fact that candidates started campaigning a year before the primaries, was that by the time Iowa and New Hampshire occured everybody was bored to death and just wanted it over. The shortcutting of the primaries in February made this easy to accomplish, and so it was done.
So now this year, every state in the Union wants to be part of that "choice", and they think the only way they can become part of that choice is by moving up their primary as well.
Broder's solution, a typical convoluted one, involves rotating primary schedules, blah blah blah. That is, we continue to have everything happen early, and we have the long drawn out boring summer. It's just different states will decide each time.
But that's not the problem.
The problem is that the nominee is known prior to the convention. That's the actual problem. It causes the summer to be boring, but more importantly it means that the Convention is not covered in any detail by the media. The downside of that, is that the party does not get much of an opportunity to get their full message out in an unadulterated fashion. Which means the voters are more reliant than ever on the idiot pundit class.
It's really simple to solve. Go back to the pre-1972 way of things. Back when the parties choose decent candidates in smoke filled rooms, rather than letting the people decide so all we get is a panderer. Back when the nomination wasn't known until after the 15th ballot at the Convention.
Hell, choosing the Pope got more media coverage then the last political convention.