Why is it impossible? Yes, there will be interpretation and reevaluation. If you do not have a foundation to start then anything can be interpreted through linguistic gymnastics. If the meaning has changed such that the effect of law will change then the law must be changed by the legislature and not the courts.
The courts should be the experts in historical jurisprudence understanding the law and not linguistic experts to change the law. Do you really not see the difference?
No, it doesn't. It is clear from historical context and the meaning at the time the 2nd amendment was written that it was an individual right from the very drafting of the Constitution and the framers intended it as such. The Heller opinion understood "the" right that had existed before the writing of the constitution just like the 1st and "the" right to peaceably assemble and speak. It is written clearly as an individual "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Does the 4th reference a collective right or an individual right? These are rights that exist to the individual without the constitution.
All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed...
On the other hand, the minority opinion referenced past city fire laws, unused revisions of the 2nd amendment, and tried to imply an intent to the text from those references. All the while ignoring historical documents explicitly stating the intent, purpose, and meaning to craft an interpretation they wanted. It created a byzantine labyrinth of jurisprudence that no laymen can follow, ripe for lawyers to abuse and for the courts to change the law without legislative oversight.
You are saying that two different courts had two different opinions and because of this I should abandon the text and meaning as it was understood at the time it was signed into law. This is the problem with having courts decide the meaning of the law effectively changing the force of law without changing the text of the law. There are no bounds or limits to the interpretive power of lawyers.
I would like to think we basically agree save a few details. Absolutely, meaning of words change and if the law has any meaning then the proper way to handle that change is to change the text of the law to accommodate the new meaning. The law should be interpreted as it was written in that context.
A good example is capital punishment and "cruel and unusual" punishment. I don't think any court could hold that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it was practiced at the time of the constitution. If enough states had outlawed the practice (a lot has) then updating the law to say "btw it's cruel to kill people" isn't an issue.
However, if you change the meaning of the law through judicial fiat then there is no bounds to the law. Is holding people in cages against their will, despite what laws they broke, cruel and unusual? It's up to a random judge to decide and not the people. It explicitly removes that issue from the legislative ability of the people to decide their own laws.
If the line moves without changing the text what is the point of law? The law becomes moot when you can interpret any action without changing the text of the law because there is no substance to the law that would constrain the government in applying the law.
The entire purpose of a democratic system is to allow the people an opportunity to change the law instead of hoping the government wants what they want. If the government can selectively choose which law to enforce and how to interpret the law then it will lead to abuse, corruption, and tyranny.
We all have to come from a similar position in understanding the law and the law should be simple enough that the average person can understand it. Creating a byzantine labyrinth of meaning only understood by lawyers is not a recipe for a healthy government representing the people.
It will be overturned and a waste of everyone's time and money.
Is it just me or are there a record number of injunctions than before? It is getting a little bit ridiculous that a few un-elected judges can stop obvious legal actions with questionable standing for the sake of grandstanding and #resist. Maybe not but there have been quite a few injunctions that had no business or standing to be filed.
Eh? I live in a very heavily armed and very safe place. In fact, it is safer than the average European country. What is sick about wanting to preserve and protect what makes my home unique from most cultures and countries in the world throughout history?
First world countries with stricter gun control laws then us universally have homicide rates 4-5 times less than ours
Apples and oranges. Correlation is not causation. Even 4-5 times more of remarkably rare is still rare. Other first world countries are also much more homogeneous. The largest contributor to the higher homicide rate in the US are black males. Comparing similar demographics to similar backgrounds yields similar homicide rates. Homicide rates in states that have laxer gun laws are low as compared to states/cities with stronger gun laws. You cannot use prevalence of guns (or the associated laws) as a predictor of higher rates of homicide anywhere because it doesn't match. Defensive gun use in the US dwarf the number used illicitly.
in this case limiting the tool does seem to do an awful lot of good.
Then why is London becoming more violent than NYC? What is the logical conclusion of banning guns? Banning knives? Even this isn't as straight forward as you make it seem because there are other factors that can predict violence better than the prevalence of a tool. A tool does not address any of the reasons why that tool was used.
No. It's instant. Trump is a good example. Every Democrat loved him and his money until he dared run as a Republican. He even joked about it at the Al Smith charity dinner. Re watching that clip, TBH, I don't know if he is trying to joke or if he was being honest to people he knew personally and laced with a few obvious laughs.
I was not defending Bush. I was decrying the media in their portrayal of Republican politicians. If you can't tell the difference then you are beyond reproach.
Al Gore saying Bush was using digital brown shirts is definitely not a Hitler reference. The guardian rumoring about Bush's grandfather helped Hitler rise to power is totally not trying to poison the well. -.- Seriously?
Let's pretend I am wrong. Does that undermine my point? Does that change how the media has portrayed nearly every single Republican that could threaten anything from the Democratic party? Can you name a single Republican that is portrayed favorably in the media that isn't a RINO (doesn't promote/defend Democrat positions) or who doesn't attack another Republican? Particularly when they are threatening Democrat power. I would love to see how many you can list in the last 20 years.
I wonder, could conservatives find someone, anyone, among the ~400M Americans, that is able to uphold their values without being a loud mouth egotistical maniac troll?
Are you serious? Let's see the last few how the media portrayed them. Romney was a sexist. McCain was a racist. Bush was Hitler that stole the election.
There is not a single Republican that the Left would not think as some kind of *ist. Every single one this century has been labeled evil by some ism or ist. Go figure that eventually the loud mouth egotistical maniac troll is thrown in like a hand grenade. I don't think any decent Republican can run the way the media operates and treats them. Even Paul Ryan was demeaned as some evil hater of immoral isms by left media. The most tame Republicans are not safe from the medias slander.
I really do dislike this kind of sanctimonious "why can't republicans put forward people I like" garbage. The only good republican is a non-threatening one. One that doesn't run for office. Any time one tries for office they instantly become evil.
The foundation of a stupid society is a profound statement by a man you don't like and think is unprofound? Okay.
We don't have reliable news-media and it wasn't better before Trump. Do you think Republicans just started hating the media because Trump?
Insisting that everyone individually figure out what's real or what's not is straight from the populist cookbook interested in keeping people effectively believing in nothing.
This makes zero sense and fundamentally undermines the point of democracy and free speech. What is the alternative? If you can't trust fellow citizens to make up their own mind and figure out what is real or isn't then how the hell do you trust them to vote? By your standard, anything democratic or civically responsible is part of a populist cookbook. Who doesn't employ populist recipes in any kind of democracy if no one can't rely on themselves for reality?
So, Twitter can control who can have an account to view official government communication? It wasn't about reading his twitter as much as it was to replying to his tweets (you can read his tweets without an account and the lawsuit was specifically for being banned and unable to reply). Does that mean I have grounds to sue if my account is shadow-banned? Or if I am banned because "bot like" behavior*?
Are you comfortable with the idea that Twitter can control the means of official government communication without any oversight or protection of citizens? I don't think any company or cabal of companies should have that power.
* happened to a family member who wasn't active. They created a Twitter account. Followed a few accounts and made a Tweet. A few weeks of inactivity they tried to logon but the account was banned with that justification.
He's pointing out that others are wanting to put in place regulations on free speech,
But those others are not wanting to put regulations in place. Ted Cruz and his short questionnaire with Zuckerberg emphasizes where the GOP is going with this law. Wyden is playing politics with that language to act like the good guy when he is being a hypocrite. "I am a defender of free speech those 'others' are the ones attacking free speech! BTW, we need to change the law to limit speech in these cases that I overlooked.".
Cruz is emphasizing a simple point made clear in the law. Either FB is a neutral public forum hosting the speech of others or they are a publisher distributing their opinion that happen to allow others to comment. In one case, they are liable to the content on their platform. In the other case, they have first amendment protections and can censor and do whatever they want with their platform. You cannot have it both ways. FB has had it both ways and they should not.
And yet on/. your post demonstrates the hypocrisy. "n*gger, cracker, and f*ggot". They are all targeting things people can't change yet only one doesn't have an asterisks.
Hate speech is clearly ambiguous and inconsistent.
Is Jones at fault for an armed guy going to the pizza parlor? Is the media at fault for a guy assaulting a catholic priest for recent events? Is the Sanders and the media at fault for the guy shooting up Republicans at a baseball field?
If Jones broke the law where is the police report? Where is the prosecution, the trial, the conviction? Is he guilty of a crime or is he guilty of saying stupid shit? There is a civil lawsuit pending but I have yet to see any criminal charges. Innocent until proven guilty and there is not a single criminal charge. The mob should not decide when someone can use their rights or not.
I don't care if they are jokes or lies I care if they break the law and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that beyond empty rhetoric like yours.
The media isn't responsible for a guy assaulting a priest just as Jones isn't responsible for an armed nut. It doesn't matter if what Jones said was true, parody, lies, jokes or insulting. What matters is that he has the right to say it.
Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.
Wider doesn't mean less efficient. It just means that there are certain functions that require enough specialization to be organized separately. While the army studies battlefield tactics and logistics the Marines write the book on amphibious operations.
I honestly think we are at the critical moment you speak of or at least very close to. I don't think the military should wait for critical mass before a organization shift because that is being reactive and not proactive. The military should be proactive in recognizing organizational deficiencies and overlap. That way expertise can be consolidated in a competitive environment not protected by broad and overarching missions of a branch whose scope is so wide organizational problems develop inertia.
You have had some good comments. Am rather disappointed with/. comments on this topic. It seems like it would be great for discussion to breakdown and understand what a separate branch dedicated to mastering the access to space and space technology would be. It's actually kind of exciting in a way because it is a signal of our time. Space is so normal to the government that it is being seriously considered to be treated as equals to the flight.
I like the think of the military as the frontier normalizers. They are not the explorers but they create the first in-roads, infrastructure and capability to make a frontier accessible* to more development. If anything, budgets are easier to acquire for the military which makes science and development of revolutionary technology a little easier to justify (internet anyone). Space garbage can be a crippling problem and we have seem glacial movement toward management and clean up. It seems that any branch dedicated to space would be very concerned about this and could more easily secure funding to spearhead those initiatives. That's exciting to me.
The mission of the Air Force doesn't seem to be a good place for these kinds of initiatives and strategies. It seems like all too often any kind of project for space would be sidelined by an F-35 like project because they do not run parallel to the primary mission and expertise of the Air Force.
* Reminds me of the saying. Lieutenants study tactics. Colonels study strategy. Generals study logistics. For space, those aspects are so drastically different than the Air Force that it seems foolish to consider them in the same branch.
"resisted those calls" - Because the costs were prohibitive and so urgency was low. As costs drop, the reliance of satellites in the economy and military grow. Why would you want a growing part of the economy not be defended?
Those treaties didn't stop China from shooting down a satellite. Those treaties do not stop Russia from hacking satellites. Just like psychological and cyber-technological not every dimension of war requires a soldier with a gun or a missile with a warhead.
The point is to consolidate expertise so that not every branch has to supply overlapping capability. At the same time enable that consolidated expertise to develop strategies to ensure lethality and capability amidst growing competition. The Army doesn't provide boats or planes, why should they provide satellites? Why should the Air force? Should the budget of any space capability be second thought to primary mission of the Air force? How many projects that would expand our capability and lethality be deprived because those funds were diverted to something like the F-35?
"But Trump's narcissism" If all you can see is "but Trump" then it says more about you. This is inevitable. Your criticisms are juvenile.
Yes. It is quickly becoming a first amendment issue because if they censor then it means they are publishing their opinion and that means they are liable for any illegal activity on their site. If they are a public neutral forum then they are not liable.
Even if this wasn't a first amendment issue the entire culture surrounding censorship in SV is disturbing considering how much they can influence our elections because they are the de facto town square of public discourse online. In some instances they have been ruled by the courts to be de jure town squares (hello trump twitter feed). Is it any coincidence that they start banning outright a lot of people and opinions they don't like before an election? FB blames themselves in part for electing Trump and we can't have that now can we. #bluewave is real. #walkaway, what's that?
There is a disconnect between the Bill of Rights and the rights that pre-exist the US Constitution. The right to speak is not something comes from the government. That means that if any monopolistic platform of public discourse stifles that right then it is in effect to the individual as if the government shut it down. It is clear from recent events that social media companies are colluding to shut down speech they don't like before an election. This is dangerous. Anyone that doesn't see the danger of allowing a small cabal of companies able to ban, shut down, and influence political discourse to such a degree is a damned fool.
Is Facebook and social media a public neutral forum or are they a publisher of their opinion?
Either they are exercising their right to speak or enabling others their right. In one case they are responsible for the content on their site and the other they are not. FB wants it both ways which is not acceptable. Recent events with social media has demonstrated monopolistic collusion and too many damned fools and useful idiots are willing to promote and defend a culture of censorship and authoritarians. Anyone else notice that/. did not headline any of the articles about social media banning Alex Jones and many others?
Twitter was in part ruled as a public forum for Trumps tweets. If we are to believe that FB and social media can have huge impacts on our election to the point that Russia can buy a few ads to change the results then it is obvious that FB are public forums for political discourse. No entity should be given such disproportionate power over our elections.
Social media has crossed the Rubicon by colluding and using their monopolistic positions to stifle the rights of citizens along partisan lines. Is anyone else concerned about these recent events on social media right before an election?
Sure, Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean but they cannot be both a platform (neutral public forum) and a publisher at the same time. They are either responsible for all the content on their site or not. They are either expressing their political speech or they are enabling others to speak. Facebook wants it both ways and the censorship culture and normalization has enabled Facebook and other social media sites to abuse the rights of others and use their position to negatively impact the political discourse.
What is even more worrying is that the culture of censorship is growing. There must be some irony that the left is defending giant international companies to trample over the rights of individuals because of some misguided attempt to sanitize the internet.
I think I remember reading about some articles talking about a way to clean up the space garbage was a laser satellite to slow down debris so it could de-orbit. But the problem was that it was be illegal under current international law. Interesting stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it impossible? Yes, there will be interpretation and reevaluation. If you do not have a foundation to start then anything can be interpreted through linguistic gymnastics. If the meaning has changed such that the effect of law will change then the law must be changed by the legislature and not the courts.
The courts should be the experts in historical jurisprudence understanding the law and not linguistic experts to change the law. Do you really not see the difference?
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Linguistic gymnastics will never be abused by lawyers.
I am assuming you meant Heller vs DC in 2008.
you must utterly reject Heller
No, it doesn't. It is clear from historical context and the meaning at the time the 2nd amendment was written that it was an individual right from the very drafting of the Constitution and the framers intended it as such. The Heller opinion understood "the" right that had existed before the writing of the constitution just like the 1st and "the" right to peaceably assemble and speak. It is written clearly as an individual "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Does the 4th reference a collective right or an individual right? These are rights that exist to the individual without the constitution.
All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ...
On the other hand, the minority opinion referenced past city fire laws, unused revisions of the 2nd amendment, and tried to imply an intent to the text from those references. All the while ignoring historical documents explicitly stating the intent, purpose, and meaning to craft an interpretation they wanted. It created a byzantine labyrinth of jurisprudence that no laymen can follow, ripe for lawyers to abuse and for the courts to change the law without legislative oversight.
You are saying that two different courts had two different opinions and because of this I should abandon the text and meaning as it was understood at the time it was signed into law. This is the problem with having courts decide the meaning of the law effectively changing the force of law without changing the text of the law. There are no bounds or limits to the interpretive power of lawyers.
I would like to think we basically agree save a few details. Absolutely, meaning of words change and if the law has any meaning then the proper way to handle that change is to change the text of the law to accommodate the new meaning. The law should be interpreted as it was written in that context.
A good example is capital punishment and "cruel and unusual" punishment. I don't think any court could hold that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it was practiced at the time of the constitution. If enough states had outlawed the practice (a lot has) then updating the law to say "btw it's cruel to kill people" isn't an issue.
However, if you change the meaning of the law through judicial fiat then there is no bounds to the law. Is holding people in cages against their will, despite what laws they broke, cruel and unusual? It's up to a random judge to decide and not the people. It explicitly removes that issue from the legislative ability of the people to decide their own laws.
They are called boomsticks. I saw a historical documentary about their invention when Lord Arthur found the Hero A. Williams.
If the line moves without changing the text what is the point of law? The law becomes moot when you can interpret any action without changing the text of the law because there is no substance to the law that would constrain the government in applying the law.
The entire purpose of a democratic system is to allow the people an opportunity to change the law instead of hoping the government wants what they want. If the government can selectively choose which law to enforce and how to interpret the law then it will lead to abuse, corruption, and tyranny.
We all have to come from a similar position in understanding the law and the law should be simple enough that the average person can understand it. Creating a byzantine labyrinth of meaning only understood by lawyers is not a recipe for a healthy government representing the people.
It will be overturned and a waste of everyone's time and money.
Is it just me or are there a record number of injunctions than before? It is getting a little bit ridiculous that a few un-elected judges can stop obvious legal actions with questionable standing for the sake of grandstanding and #resist. Maybe not but there have been quite a few injunctions that had no business or standing to be filed.
Safer than most of Europe... Ok. Good luck banning knives.
Gun culture is sick culture.
Eh? I live in a very heavily armed and very safe place. In fact, it is safer than the average European country. What is sick about wanting to preserve and protect what makes my home unique from most cultures and countries in the world throughout history?
First world countries with stricter gun control laws then us universally have homicide rates 4-5 times less than ours
Apples and oranges. Correlation is not causation. Even 4-5 times more of remarkably rare is still rare. Other first world countries are also much more homogeneous. The largest contributor to the higher homicide rate in the US are black males. Comparing similar demographics to similar backgrounds yields similar homicide rates. Homicide rates in states that have laxer gun laws are low as compared to states/cities with stronger gun laws. You cannot use prevalence of guns (or the associated laws) as a predictor of higher rates of homicide anywhere because it doesn't match. Defensive gun use in the US dwarf the number used illicitly.
in this case limiting the tool does seem to do an awful lot of good.
Then why is London becoming more violent than NYC? What is the logical conclusion of banning guns? Banning knives? Even this isn't as straight forward as you make it seem because there are other factors that can predict violence better than the prevalence of a tool. A tool does not address any of the reasons why that tool was used.
No. It's instant. Trump is a good example. Every Democrat loved him and his money until he dared run as a Republican. He even joked about it at the Al Smith charity dinner. Re watching that clip, TBH, I don't know if he is trying to joke or if he was being honest to people he knew personally and laced with a few obvious laughs.
I was not defending Bush. I was decrying the media in their portrayal of Republican politicians. If you can't tell the difference then you are beyond reproach.
Al Gore saying Bush was using digital brown shirts is definitely not a Hitler reference. The guardian rumoring about Bush's grandfather helped Hitler rise to power is totally not trying to poison the well. -.- Seriously?
Let's pretend I am wrong. Does that undermine my point? Does that change how the media has portrayed nearly every single Republican that could threaten anything from the Democratic party? Can you name a single Republican that is portrayed favorably in the media that isn't a RINO (doesn't promote/defend Democrat positions) or who doesn't attack another Republican? Particularly when they are threatening Democrat power. I would love to see how many you can list in the last 20 years.
I wonder, could conservatives find someone, anyone, among the ~400M Americans, that is able to uphold their values without being a loud mouth egotistical maniac troll?
Are you serious? Let's see the last few how the media portrayed them. Romney was a sexist. McCain was a racist. Bush was Hitler that stole the election.
There is not a single Republican that the Left would not think as some kind of *ist. Every single one this century has been labeled evil by some ism or ist. Go figure that eventually the loud mouth egotistical maniac troll is thrown in like a hand grenade. I don't think any decent Republican can run the way the media operates and treats them. Even Paul Ryan was demeaned as some evil hater of immoral isms by left media. The most tame Republicans are not safe from the medias slander.
I really do dislike this kind of sanctimonious "why can't republicans put forward people I like" garbage. The only good republican is a non-threatening one. One that doesn't run for office. Any time one tries for office they instantly become evil.
The foundation of a stupid society is a profound statement by a man you don't like and think is unprofound? Okay.
We don't have reliable news-media and it wasn't better before Trump. Do you think Republicans just started hating the media because Trump?
Insisting that everyone individually figure out what's real or what's not is straight from the populist cookbook interested in keeping people effectively believing in nothing.
This makes zero sense and fundamentally undermines the point of democracy and free speech. What is the alternative? If you can't trust fellow citizens to make up their own mind and figure out what is real or isn't then how the hell do you trust them to vote? By your standard, anything democratic or civically responsible is part of a populist cookbook. Who doesn't employ populist recipes in any kind of democracy if no one can't rely on themselves for reality?
So, Twitter can control who can have an account to view official government communication? It wasn't about reading his twitter as much as it was to replying to his tweets (you can read his tweets without an account and the lawsuit was specifically for being banned and unable to reply). Does that mean I have grounds to sue if my account is shadow-banned? Or if I am banned because "bot like" behavior*?
Are you comfortable with the idea that Twitter can control the means of official government communication without any oversight or protection of citizens? I don't think any company or cabal of companies should have that power.
* happened to a family member who wasn't active. They created a Twitter account. Followed a few accounts and made a Tweet. A few weeks of inactivity they tried to logon but the account was banned with that justification.
He's pointing out that others are wanting to put in place regulations on free speech,
But those others are not wanting to put regulations in place. Ted Cruz and his short questionnaire with Zuckerberg emphasizes where the GOP is going with this law. Wyden is playing politics with that language to act like the good guy when he is being a hypocrite. "I am a defender of free speech those 'others' are the ones attacking free speech! BTW, we need to change the law to limit speech in these cases that I overlooked.".
Cruz is emphasizing a simple point made clear in the law. Either FB is a neutral public forum hosting the speech of others or they are a publisher distributing their opinion that happen to allow others to comment. In one case, they are liable to the content on their platform. In the other case, they have first amendment protections and can censor and do whatever they want with their platform. You cannot have it both ways. FB has had it both ways and they should not.
And yet on /. your post demonstrates the hypocrisy.
"n*gger, cracker, and f*ggot". They are all targeting things people can't change yet only one doesn't have an asterisks.
Hate speech is clearly ambiguous and inconsistent.
Is Jones at fault for an armed guy going to the pizza parlor?
Is the media at fault for a guy assaulting a catholic priest for recent events?
Is the Sanders and the media at fault for the guy shooting up Republicans at a baseball field?
If Jones broke the law where is the police report? Where is the prosecution, the trial, the conviction? Is he guilty of a crime or is he guilty of saying stupid shit? There is a civil lawsuit pending but I have yet to see any criminal charges. Innocent until proven guilty and there is not a single criminal charge. The mob should not decide when someone can use their rights or not.
I don't care if they are jokes or lies I care if they break the law and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that beyond empty rhetoric like yours.
The media isn't responsible for a guy assaulting a priest just as Jones isn't responsible for an armed nut. It doesn't matter if what Jones said was true, parody, lies, jokes or insulting. What matters is that he has the right to say it.
Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.
Wider doesn't mean less efficient. It just means that there are certain functions that require enough specialization to be organized separately. While the army studies battlefield tactics and logistics the Marines write the book on amphibious operations.
I honestly think we are at the critical moment you speak of or at least very close to. I don't think the military should wait for critical mass before a organization shift because that is being reactive and not proactive. The military should be proactive in recognizing organizational deficiencies and overlap. That way expertise can be consolidated in a competitive environment not protected by broad and overarching missions of a branch whose scope is so wide organizational problems develop inertia.
You have had some good comments. Am rather disappointed with /. comments on this topic. It seems like it would be great for discussion to breakdown and understand what a separate branch dedicated to mastering the access to space and space technology would be. It's actually kind of exciting in a way because it is a signal of our time. Space is so normal to the government that it is being seriously considered to be treated as equals to the flight.
I like the think of the military as the frontier normalizers. They are not the explorers but they create the first in-roads, infrastructure and capability to make a frontier accessible* to more development. If anything, budgets are easier to acquire for the military which makes science and development of revolutionary technology a little easier to justify (internet anyone). Space garbage can be a crippling problem and we have seem glacial movement toward management and clean up. It seems that any branch dedicated to space would be very concerned about this and could more easily secure funding to spearhead those initiatives. That's exciting to me.
The mission of the Air Force doesn't seem to be a good place for these kinds of initiatives and strategies. It seems like all too often any kind of project for space would be sidelined by an F-35 like project because they do not run parallel to the primary mission and expertise of the Air Force.
* Reminds me of the saying. Lieutenants study tactics. Colonels study strategy. Generals study logistics. For space, those aspects are so drastically different than the Air Force that it seems foolish to consider them in the same branch.
"resisted those calls"
- Because the costs were prohibitive and so urgency was low. As costs drop, the reliance of satellites in the economy and military grow. Why would you want a growing part of the economy not be defended?
Those treaties didn't stop China from shooting down a satellite. Those treaties do not stop Russia from hacking satellites. Just like psychological and cyber-technological not every dimension of war requires a soldier with a gun or a missile with a warhead.
The point is to consolidate expertise so that not every branch has to supply overlapping capability. At the same time enable that consolidated expertise to develop strategies to ensure lethality and capability amidst growing competition. The Army doesn't provide boats or planes, why should they provide satellites? Why should the Air force? Should the budget of any space capability be second thought to primary mission of the Air force? How many projects that would expand our capability and lethality be deprived because those funds were diverted to something like the F-35?
"But Trump's narcissism"
If all you can see is "but Trump" then it says more about you. This is inevitable. Your criticisms are juvenile.
Yes. It is quickly becoming a first amendment issue because if they censor then it means they are publishing their opinion and that means they are liable for any illegal activity on their site. If they are a public neutral forum then they are not liable.
Even if this wasn't a first amendment issue the entire culture surrounding censorship in SV is disturbing considering how much they can influence our elections because they are the de facto town square of public discourse online. In some instances they have been ruled by the courts to be de jure town squares (hello trump twitter feed). Is it any coincidence that they start banning outright a lot of people and opinions they don't like before an election? FB blames themselves in part for electing Trump and we can't have that now can we. #bluewave is real. #walkaway, what's that?
There is a disconnect between the Bill of Rights and the rights that pre-exist the US Constitution. The right to speak is not something comes from the government. That means that if any monopolistic platform of public discourse stifles that right then it is in effect to the individual as if the government shut it down. It is clear from recent events that social media companies are colluding to shut down speech they don't like before an election. This is dangerous. Anyone that doesn't see the danger of allowing a small cabal of companies able to ban, shut down, and influence political discourse to such a degree is a damned fool.
Is Facebook and social media a public neutral forum or are they a publisher of their opinion?
Either they are exercising their right to speak or enabling others their right. In one case they are responsible for the content on their site and the other they are not. FB wants it both ways which is not acceptable. Recent events with social media has demonstrated monopolistic collusion and too many damned fools and useful idiots are willing to promote and defend a culture of censorship and authoritarians. Anyone else notice that /. did not headline any of the articles about social media banning Alex Jones and many others?
Twitter was in part ruled as a public forum for Trumps tweets. If we are to believe that FB and social media can have huge impacts on our election to the point that Russia can buy a few ads to change the results then it is obvious that FB are public forums for political discourse. No entity should be given such disproportionate power over our elections.
Social media has crossed the Rubicon by colluding and using their monopolistic positions to stifle the rights of citizens along partisan lines. Is anyone else concerned about these recent events on social media right before an election?
Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean and hospitable
I think Zuckerbergs testimony on Capital Hill is relevant particularly with Cruz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sure, Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean but they cannot be both a platform (neutral public forum) and a publisher at the same time. They are either responsible for all the content on their site or not. They are either expressing their political speech or they are enabling others to speak. Facebook wants it both ways and the censorship culture and normalization has enabled Facebook and other social media sites to abuse the rights of others and use their position to negatively impact the political discourse.
What is even more worrying is that the culture of censorship is growing. There must be some irony that the left is defending giant international companies to trample over the rights of individuals because of some misguided attempt to sanitize the internet.
I think I remember reading about some articles talking about a way to clean up the space garbage was a laser satellite to slow down debris so it could de-orbit. But the problem was that it was be illegal under current international law. Interesting stuff.