People don't understand that "compassionate conservatism" is an actual ideology, not just a catchphrase, and its content is the insertion of religion into American social policy. The article linked above is by Joan Didion and from the New York Review of Books - perhaps the best general interest periodical in America, IMO.
I disagree. The agenda of the WTO is to promote unfettered Capitalism. In general, that is also the agenda of the US, but the latter could change. Big problem. The US is the one national government powerful enough to fetter Capitalism at this point. And it is still democratic in some formal sense. Therefore, the US government is a short-term ally, but a long-term threat, to world Capitalism.
I agree with you about redundant questions, but not about leading ones. If you believe, as your argument about "pandering" suggests, that politicians are frequently less than candid, then the best questions to ask are ones that throw down a gauntlet. The whole idea of debate, after all, is that conflict clarifies thought. The conflict should be civil, but questions that put forth a strong position force a candidate to accept or attack that position, or else to obviously dissemble.
Open-ended questions give the candidate the opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say anyway. You will notice a lot of those in the regular debates, and a lot of vapidity in the answers. If you just want to hear what the candidates would like to tell you, why bother with a debate? Just read the platform.
It is true that being very polemical in your questions can lead to it being you who are debating the candidates, rather than the candidates debating each other. But in this format, the candidates won't be directly debating anyway. Even if you just want to think of this as a conventional interview, rather than a debate, those are generally more informative when difficult questions are asked. And pointed questions are often the most difficult (save sometimes for irrelevant personal questions, which I assume none of us advocate).
Over the past few years we have seen many violations of privacy by corporations utilizing hidden "functionality" and similar subterfuges. For example, Real Media has covertly traced the network activity of users, and Microsoft has planted information about users in files they create, unbeknownst to them. We have yet to see serious penalties even discussed for these things.
If, however, an individual performs similar espionage on a corporation - planting a computer program that covertly tracks network activity, for example - it is considered a violation of the rather severe "cracking" laws and can lead to imprisonment and permanent exile from the Internet.
Equal protection under the law would seem to imply that individuals should have at least the same rights to:
knowledge and control of what their computers do
knowledge and control of what is done with their data
knowledge and control of how and why their activities are monitored
as coporations do.
Will you support the application of cracker law to corporate privacy violations, giving individuals the same right to control their computers and keep their information private as corporations have now?
The World Trade Organization can order the United States and its other members to change their laws. It can inflict penalties if they fail to do so. Hence, the WTO now has a significant role in deciding how US law is determined - what we might call US "meta-law". But this, of course, is largely what the US Constitution addresses, and modifications to Constitutional procedures require Constitutional amendment, not simple treaties. Do you think US membership in the WTO is therefore Constitutional? Do you support the end of this membership?
Slashdot Mirror
People don't understand that "compassionate conservatism" is an actual ideology, not just a catchphrase, and its content is the insertion of religion into American social policy. The article linked above is by Joan Didion and from the New York Review of Books - perhaps the best general interest periodical in America, IMO.
I disagree. The agenda of the WTO is to promote unfettered Capitalism. In general, that is also the agenda of the US, but the latter could change. Big problem. The US is the one national government powerful enough to fetter Capitalism at this point. And it is still democratic in some formal sense. Therefore, the US government is a short-term ally, but a long-term threat, to world Capitalism.
Open-ended questions give the candidate the opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say anyway. You will notice a lot of those in the regular debates, and a lot of vapidity in the answers. If you just want to hear what the candidates would like to tell you, why bother with a debate? Just read the platform.
It is true that being very polemical in your questions can lead to it being you who are debating the candidates, rather than the candidates debating each other. But in this format, the candidates won't be directly debating anyway. Even if you just want to think of this as a conventional interview, rather than a debate, those are generally more informative when difficult questions are asked. And pointed questions are often the most difficult (save sometimes for irrelevant personal questions, which I assume none of us advocate).
If, however, an individual performs similar espionage on a corporation - planting a computer program that covertly tracks network activity, for example - it is considered a violation of the rather severe "cracking" laws and can lead to imprisonment and permanent exile from the Internet.
Equal protection under the law would seem to imply that individuals should have at least the same rights to:
- knowledge and control of what their computers do
- knowledge and control of what is done with their data
- knowledge and control of how and why their activities are monitored
as coporations do.Will you support the application of cracker law to corporate privacy violations, giving individuals the same right to control their computers and keep their information private as corporations have now?
The World Trade Organization can order the United States and its other members to change their laws. It can inflict penalties if they fail to do so. Hence, the WTO now has a significant role in deciding how US law is determined - what we might call US "meta-law". But this, of course, is largely what the US Constitution addresses, and modifications to Constitutional procedures require Constitutional amendment, not simple treaties. Do you think US membership in the WTO is therefore Constitutional? Do you support the end of this membership?