I wish people would quit using the word "insolvent" in relation to the federal debt. The United States government can print as many dollars as it wants or needs. While there are significant downsides to the U.S. printing it's way out of debt, it can be done. Thus, the U.S. is by definition not insolvent. If the United States defaults on its debt, it's because the government (or the people running the government) choose to do so.
Nothing but a direct transfer of several billion dollars (preliminary estimate, subject to increase without notice) from the American public to the pockets of several large defense contractors can save the global oil industry!
Even under Bush and Obama, it's quite clear that the term is used to refer to *prisoners* and their appropriate treatment. Which, again, is emphatically not blowing them and everyone nearby up with missiles. And then their kids, and everyone near them.
And your reasoning is even more messed up than that - you seem to be arguing that random attacks into foreign countries, with no declaration of war, that target large areas and kill multiple potentially innocent civilians is fine, as long as, along with the any potential civilian casualties you also kill someone who recruits and provides support to your enemy?
Sounds to me that by your logic the 9/11 attacks were justified!?! Are you insane?
Because politicians are so stupid that the only way to get them to learn anything is to hit them with the giant stick called "losing power". If the Democrats don't do what you want, and you vote for them anyway, you're just reinforcing bad behavior. If you keep voting, every damn election, for a party that says one thing and then does another, in the hopes that somehow it'll be different this time, you're insane or foolish. If the Republicans lose an election because, hey, 5% of their base voted for Johnson, then maybe, just maybe, they'll actually listen (a little) to what he has to say next time around. It's better than voting for the lizards because you don't want the wrong lizard to get in.
The Oneida after the Revolutionary War, the Tuscarora after the War of 1812, the Cossaks after WWII, the Hukbalahaps after WWII, the ARVN after Vietnam, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shia and Kurds after the Gulf War, the Sunni after the Iraq war, and probably many more.
It's a wonder anyone's still dumb enough to play on Uncle Sam's team. Does anyone doubt what's going to happen to the Afghan government and military after the United States finally leaves?
Article Three, Section Three "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
The government's drone strikes seem to lack the whole "Testimony of two Witnesses". And last I checked, Congress hadn't gotten around to explicitly creating a special federal death penalty of "Blown to Flinders by a Hellfire missile". And blowing up minors because their parent was 'treasonous' seems an awful lot like "Corruption of Blood" to me.
Pity that the Founders didn't include capital punishment for Public Servants who knowingly and egregiously violated their Oath of Office.
The problem isn't the ideological overlap, it's the huge voids that just aren't mentioned. Both parties are statists addicted to the current system with no interest in changing anything. All the elections do is change which troughs get a little more or a little less slop. The vast majority of "issues" the parties differ on are simply distracting shinies, meant to keep their constituencies in line. For example, the Bush administration, with full control of Congress, did not significantly change abortion availability, despite it being a favorite Republican talking point. Likewise, Obama did nothing to meaningfully address global warming, a major 'left-wing' talking point.
I'm aware that politics is the art of compromise, and that some things cannot be accomplished because such is the nature of the beast. However, there are many perspectives with significant support among the public which the existing Democratic-Republican party will not even discuss:
-meaningful election reform, either structurally (for example, national term limits or eliminating the first past the post voting system) or financially (publicly funded elections, transparent political donations)
-structural problems inherent in a government designed for 13 small, mosty rural states two centuries ago trying to run a continent-spanning country of 300+ million
-the complete lack of Protestants (who are the country's largest single religious group) on the Supreme Court
-foreign policy that does not focus on interfering in the internal affairs of other countries
-having a military that is not designed around worldwide force projection
-the erosion of civil liberties
-returning to a civilian (instead of a mercenary) military
-acknowledging the complete and utter failure of the War on Some Drugs
-public health insurance, something virtually every other first world country possesses
-real reductions in spending, not reductions in the rate of increase
-ending cost plus defense contracts
-the advantages and disadvantages of the Federal Reserve
-allowing the states to keep more tax revenue
-the utterly corrupt revolving door lobbying system
-lack of enforcement of existing law, from the IRS ignoring candidate advocacy by non-profits, to the whitewashing of rampant fraud in the mortgage industry
-that the War on Terror might not a be good idea
-directly addressing climate change (no, saying the word 'green' a lot doesn't count, Obama)
-the truly wretched governments of some of America's 'allies' (Saudi Arabia, for example)
-that much of America's 'foreign aid' is actually welfare for defense and other industries
Wanting to get paid for your work is not greedy. Charging many multiples of a product's 'fair market value' by leveraging legislative or other control channels you possess (aka. rent extraction), or preventing people from legally-mandated fair access to content they have bought and paid for, is both greedy and wicked.
The public does not make nice distinctions between "oh, the restrictions on this IP here are pretty reasonable while those on that IP over there are just crazy". To the vast majority of people, IP and copyright are fungible concepts that do not vary from one product or author to another. Most readers had a very good idea of what was fair (checking out a book from a library, lending it to a friend, selling it to a used bookstore) and what wasn't (printing copies of books and selling them for personal profit, stealing ideas or entire texts without attribution). Those institutions that dominated the IP regime in the United States for decades (the MPAA and the RIAA, among others) decided that they were going to play hardball and lock things down so hard that people should consider themselves fortunate to be allowed to read their own books or listen to their own music. They lost. And then they doubled-down and lost again, and again and again. Now that they've finally screwed themselves (and the basic idea of Intellectual Property among a whole generation) to the point where they can see their own deaths approaching, NOW they're suddenly crying, "Omg! Won't someone think of the poor IP creators?". (The IP creators who the corporations screw over every chance they get.)
Too bad. They blew it. Do I feel bad for those talented folks who are going to find it difficult or impossible to make a living on their work? Do I mourn the creations that might have been but now never will be? Absolutely. But the bloated corporate monstrosities that killed the very of idea of decent copyright? They can burn, and when they run up to me begging, I may laugh, but I certainly won't put the fire out, not even if it gives me a chance to piss on them.
I'll just leave your false equivalence between digital and physical goods to lie there and rot, as it deserves.
that this will be almost as effective as the War On Drugs. At least for getting the FBI more funding and more power to ignore/violate/destroy civil liberties.
Ballmer continued to speak, explaining how he felt almost bad for Apple's losses after the Zune drove the iPod from the portable music player market. He then announced that Windows Vista had reached a new record of 92% market share, before taking a call on his Windows Phone and zipping off on his Segway.
We've known that incoming (and outgoing - the Yarkovsky effect) radiation can alter an asteroid's trajectory for ages. But such a solution needs to be implemented far in advance of any pending impact. At present, we don't know the trajectory of potential impactors, like 9942 Apophis, to sufficient precision to make a deflection strategy like this useful. While it's true the odds are exceedingly small, accidentally putting an asteroid into a dangerous orbit would be disastrous. Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart proposed putting a tracking beacon on Apophis in order to further refine its orbit, which would allow us to use such gentle deflection strategies as the one outlined in the article. NASA turned him down. Fortunately, the Russians are currently planning a mission to Apophis; so maybe it will end up getting deflected via a generous application of paint.
The Iranian theocracy might already have been overthrown if a certain U.S. President hadn't put Iran on his Axis of Evil and repeatedly threatened them. Nothing makes people support a government they don't really approve than an outside threat to their nation.
Could you (or anyone) please provide some actual reasons beyond "Omg! Nukes!" why a potentially nuclear Iran is so horribly unacceptable? India has been nuclear armed since 1974, Isreal since (about) 1979, Pakistan since at least 1998, and North Korea since 2006 (maybe). South Africa was nuclear armed in the 1980s. Japan is probably a month away from a nuclear-tipped ICBM if they ever decide they want one. All of these countries have current or historical aggressive or unstable governments. Yet for some reason Iran having a nuclear capability is world-ending? I don't buy it.
Two to three generations isn't that long in historical terms. It's still within living memory. I can definitely see how an Iranian might see their history of the last 60 years as a never-ending series of assaults on Iranian freedom by the U.S.
It seems to me that it's much easier to change your local government's mind about something, at least provided that some of your neighbors feel the same way, than it is to actually change then national government. The local government is smaller, closer, has a lower 'barrier to entry' when it comes to talking to people, and, if push comes to shove, its officials still live locally, which means that they sometimes have to deal with the real consequences of their actions, be that polluted water, crime rates, or irate picketers outside their home.
It's true that Obama has gotten a lot of free passes from the press. But the Republicans have their own legions of mindless partisans. How many Republicans, after Obama's election, were suddenly shocked, shocked at the wasteful government spending and relentless attacks on our civil liberties... that had been going on under Bush for years. Both major parties are awful, and focusing on one to the exclusion of anything else will always give the 'other side' a free pass. That's the whole point of the system - no real change, ever, just "omg, we can't let THEM win" repeated for decade after decade.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish people would quit using the word "insolvent" in relation to the federal debt. The United States government can print as many dollars as it wants or needs. While there are significant downsides to the U.S. printing it's way out of debt, it can be done. Thus, the U.S. is by definition not insolvent. If the United States defaults on its debt, it's because the government (or the people running the government) choose to do so.
Nothing but a direct transfer of several billion dollars (preliminary estimate, subject to increase without notice) from the American public to the pockets of several large defense contractors can save the global oil industry!
"Enemy combatant".... I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you should check the Wikipedia page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
Even under Bush and Obama, it's quite clear that the term is used to refer to *prisoners* and their appropriate treatment. Which, again, is emphatically not blowing them and everyone nearby up with missiles. And then their kids, and everyone near them.
And your reasoning is even more messed up than that - you seem to be arguing that random attacks into foreign countries, with no declaration of war, that target large areas and kill multiple potentially innocent civilians is fine, as long as, along with the any potential civilian casualties you also kill someone who recruits and provides support to your enemy?
Sounds to me that by your logic the 9/11 attacks were justified!?! Are you insane?
Because politicians are so stupid that the only way to get them to learn anything is to hit them with the giant stick called "losing power". If the Democrats don't do what you want, and you vote for them anyway, you're just reinforcing bad behavior. If you keep voting, every damn election, for a party that says one thing and then does another, in the hopes that somehow it'll be different this time, you're insane or foolish. If the Republicans lose an election because, hey, 5% of their base voted for Johnson, then maybe, just maybe, they'll actually listen (a little) to what he has to say next time around. It's better than voting for the lizards because you don't want the wrong lizard to get in.
The Oneida after the Revolutionary War,
the Tuscarora after the War of 1812,
the Cossaks after WWII,
the Hukbalahaps after WWII,
the ARVN after Vietnam,
the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan,
the Shia and Kurds after the Gulf War,
the Sunni after the Iraq war,
and probably many more.
It's a wonder anyone's still dumb enough to play on Uncle Sam's team. Does anyone doubt what's going to happen to the Afghan government and military after the United States finally leaves?
Article Three, Section Three
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
The government's drone strikes seem to lack the whole "Testimony of two Witnesses". And last I checked, Congress hadn't gotten around to explicitly creating a special federal death penalty of "Blown to Flinders by a Hellfire missile". And blowing up minors because their parent was 'treasonous' seems an awful lot like "Corruption of Blood" to me.
Pity that the Founders didn't include capital punishment for Public Servants who knowingly and egregiously violated their Oath of Office.
Right. And that's why the Greens were blamed for Gore's loss, and why the Republicans worked so hard this year to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot.
The problem isn't the ideological overlap, it's the huge voids that just aren't mentioned. Both parties are statists addicted to the current system with no interest in changing anything. All the elections do is change which troughs get a little more or a little less slop. The vast majority of "issues" the parties differ on are simply distracting shinies, meant to keep their constituencies in line. For example, the Bush administration, with full control of Congress, did not significantly change abortion availability, despite it being a favorite Republican talking point. Likewise, Obama did nothing to meaningfully address global warming, a major 'left-wing' talking point.
I'm aware that politics is the art of compromise, and that some things cannot be accomplished because such is the nature of the beast. However, there are many perspectives with significant support among the public which the existing Democratic-Republican party will not even discuss:
-meaningful election reform, either structurally (for example, national term limits or eliminating the first past the post voting system) or financially (publicly funded elections, transparent political donations)
-structural problems inherent in a government designed for 13 small, mosty rural states two centuries ago trying to run a continent-spanning country of 300+ million
-the complete lack of Protestants (who are the country's largest single religious group) on the Supreme Court
-foreign policy that does not focus on interfering in the internal affairs of other countries
-having a military that is not designed around worldwide force projection
-the erosion of civil liberties
-returning to a civilian (instead of a mercenary) military
-acknowledging the complete and utter failure of the War on Some Drugs
-public health insurance, something virtually every other first world country possesses
-real reductions in spending, not reductions in the rate of increase
-ending cost plus defense contracts
-the advantages and disadvantages of the Federal Reserve
-allowing the states to keep more tax revenue
-the utterly corrupt revolving door lobbying system
-lack of enforcement of existing law, from the IRS ignoring candidate advocacy by non-profits, to the whitewashing of rampant fraud in the mortgage industry
-that the War on Terror might not a be good idea
-directly addressing climate change (no, saying the word 'green' a lot doesn't count, Obama)
-the truly wretched governments of some of America's 'allies' (Saudi Arabia, for example)
-that much of America's 'foreign aid' is actually welfare for defense and other industries
This U.S. citizen would be happy with even a real two-party system, instead of the one-party pretending to be two we have now.
No, they are not exempt. But above and beyond innumerable loopholes, the government has simply declined to even try to enforce existing regulations.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_CHURCH_POLITICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummer of Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005
Wanting to get paid for your work is not greedy. Charging many multiples of a product's 'fair market value' by leveraging legislative or other control channels you possess (aka. rent extraction), or preventing people from legally-mandated fair access to content they have bought and paid for, is both greedy and wicked.
The public does not make nice distinctions between "oh, the restrictions on this IP here are pretty reasonable while those on that IP over there are just crazy". To the vast majority of people, IP and copyright are fungible concepts that do not vary from one product or author to another. Most readers had a very good idea of what was fair (checking out a book from a library, lending it to a friend, selling it to a used bookstore) and what wasn't (printing copies of books and selling them for personal profit, stealing ideas or entire texts without attribution). Those institutions that dominated the IP regime in the United States for decades (the MPAA and the RIAA, among others) decided that they were going to play hardball and lock things down so hard that people should consider themselves fortunate to be allowed to read their own books or listen to their own music. They lost. And then they doubled-down and lost again, and again and again. Now that they've finally screwed themselves (and the basic idea of Intellectual Property among a whole generation) to the point where they can see their own deaths approaching, NOW they're suddenly crying, "Omg! Won't someone think of the poor IP creators?". (The IP creators who the corporations screw over every chance they get.)
Too bad. They blew it. Do I feel bad for those talented folks who are going to find it difficult or impossible to make a living on their work? Do I mourn the creations that might have been but now never will be? Absolutely. But the bloated corporate monstrosities that killed the very of idea of decent copyright? They can burn, and when they run up to me begging, I may laugh, but I certainly won't put the fire out, not even if it gives me a chance to piss on them.
I'll just leave your false equivalence between digital and physical goods to lie there and rot, as it deserves.
What about a weakly-godlike entity?
Or this one by Issac Asimov:
http://asimov.info/the-endochronic-properties-of-resublimated-thiotimoline
Heck, replace it with "American-style capitalism".
that this will be almost as effective as the War On Drugs. At least for getting the FBI more funding and more power to ignore/violate/destroy civil liberties.
Ballmer continued to speak, explaining how he felt almost bad for Apple's losses after the Zune drove the iPod from the portable music player market. He then announced that Windows Vista had reached a new record of 92% market share, before taking a call on his Windows Phone and zipping off on his Segway.
More like Poe's Law in action, I expect. :-)
We've known that incoming (and outgoing - the Yarkovsky effect) radiation can alter an asteroid's trajectory for ages. But such a solution needs to be implemented far in advance of any pending impact. At present, we don't know the trajectory of potential impactors, like 9942 Apophis, to sufficient precision to make a deflection strategy like this useful. While it's true the odds are exceedingly small, accidentally putting an asteroid into a dangerous orbit would be disastrous. Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart proposed putting a tracking beacon on Apophis in order to further refine its orbit, which would allow us to use such gentle deflection strategies as the one outlined in the article. NASA turned him down. Fortunately, the Russians are currently planning a mission to Apophis; so maybe it will end up getting deflected via a generous application of paint.
The Iranian theocracy might already have been overthrown if a certain U.S. President hadn't put Iran on his Axis of Evil and repeatedly threatened them. Nothing makes people support a government they don't really approve than an outside threat to their nation.
Could you (or anyone) please provide some actual reasons beyond "Omg! Nukes!" why a potentially nuclear Iran is so horribly unacceptable? India has been nuclear armed since 1974, Isreal since (about) 1979, Pakistan since at least 1998, and North Korea since 2006 (maybe). South Africa was nuclear armed in the 1980s. Japan is probably a month away from a nuclear-tipped ICBM if they ever decide they want one. All of these countries have current or historical aggressive or unstable governments. Yet for some reason Iran having a nuclear capability is world-ending? I don't buy it.
Here's one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
Two to three generations isn't that long in historical terms. It's still within living memory. I can definitely see how an Iranian might see their history of the last 60 years as a never-ending series of assaults on Iranian freedom by the U.S.
It seems to me that it's much easier to change your local government's mind about something, at least provided that some of your neighbors feel the same way, than it is to actually change then national government. The local government is smaller, closer, has a lower 'barrier to entry' when it comes to talking to people, and, if push comes to shove, its officials still live locally, which means that they sometimes have to deal with the real consequences of their actions, be that polluted water, crime rates, or irate picketers outside their home.
It's true that Obama has gotten a lot of free passes from the press. But the Republicans have their own legions of mindless partisans. How many Republicans, after Obama's election, were suddenly shocked, shocked at the wasteful government spending and relentless attacks on our civil liberties... that had been going on under Bush for years. Both major parties are awful, and focusing on one to the exclusion of anything else will always give the 'other side' a free pass. That's the whole point of the system - no real change, ever, just "omg, we can't let THEM win" repeated for decade after decade.