How about being supportive instead of antagonistic?
Be honest with yourself: have you spent more time watching television or being politically active?
This is also a criticism I aim at myself, but the first step is to be honest about the situation. Americans are politically lazy, and we have the government we deserve. I don't think there has been a massive nationwide protest here since the 70s, with the possible exception of the anti-war protests before the invasion of Iraq.
The people who run the show aren't going to give it up because we're complaining about them on the internet. It's not difficult to convince yourself to hang on to millions of dollars and unchecked power when there is no real penalty from the populace.
Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice -- the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall, at the same time, be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British government so tempestuous. The struggles for [profit] are the true source of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the nation, distracting its councils, hurrying it sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.
And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers. And these, too, will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation, for their vanquished competitors, of the same spirit, and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.
This is really the central issue. There are few American values outside of money any longer, and this moral hazard is in the process of destroying the country.
In this case, we have a whistleblower providing evidence that
1) The American government is spying on American citizens without obtaining any warrants, unless you count secret court orders that have no judicial oversight*
2) This program is even kept as a secret from other parts of the government
3) Parts of the government have been lying to congress about what the spying program is about, who they have collected information on, and how they go about collecting it
*(This is a hugely important point. One of the favorite tricks of a totalitarian regime is to legitimize anti-democratic activity by simply making it legal. But if the constitution says we are free from unreasonable searches and seizures, a secret law passed by a secret court shouldn't hold sway. The only difference between our government and despotism is that they get more than one person to declare the government's will, pass it around in secret to co-conspirators who share the same backwards worldview, and then pretend that the theater they just acted for has some legitimacy.
The stark reality is that our government is corrupt and therefore does whatever it wants. As Nixon famously stated: When the President does it, it's not illegal. Then the question has to be asked: if that's the case, what is the difference between a President and a King?)
In essence, there is a part of our government that has approved its own spying program in a process that the public has no chance of knowing about.
So, why aren't we hearing about this in the media? Why are we instead hearing about his girlfriend, or his personal life? Because American media is no longer tasked with seeking the truth. Their primary concern is profit, and covering the birth of a British child is a lot more profitable than hiring skilled journalists to do journalism. Additionally, the Executive routinely threatens to cut off access to their staff for any news organizations that step out of line. For organizations like the Guardian, that risk is minimized, since they don't depend on empty stories to fill the vacuum of the 24 hour news cycle. For someone like CNN or Fox, the only thing that matters is the ratings, and that's best achieved by cheap, exasperated, stupid television. They can fill the airtime with "breaking news" about celebrities, or cat videos, or whatever pretend journalism is the cheapest to produce, but they feel like they need access so they can continue presenting the strained theater of left versus right. Every headline screams out: "Obama 'slams' GOP Leadership" or "Boehner threatens retaliation for 'nuclear option.'"
Boehner and his counterparts are barely able to communicate with regular voters, but that's because they have no idea what it's like to be a regular voter. They probably don't know what a loaf of bread costs, because they have servants and assistants who do that sort of thing for them. Half of congress is made up of millionaire lawyers, and the result of that is a bunch of outrageously overwrought laws that have nothing to do with helping anyone but their rich friends. Even now while they are discussing what tax breaks to keep, they have demanded that the proposal be kept a secret for fifty years. The reason is because if the truth were known, you could go down the line and see the leashes traveling from the election year donors to the politicians they have bought and paid for. Which would be great to know during the next election, but again, you don't matter. You don't exist, as far as they are concerned.
Back to the media... taking on the US government is expensive, and not only are the producers (who couldn't give two shits about our rights) not invested in the truth, but there's also probably an army of lawyers worried about getting entangled in expensive
They are defending the government's right to do whatever the government wants and keep it a secret.
When this happens in other countries, we call it for what it is: totalitarianism.
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary."
Instead of dealing with that fact, these cowards would rather pretend there isn't a problem.
I have been chuckling at this comment for a solid five. Thanks.
Let's just recap:
The United States, which drove Native Americans out of every corner of the United States; imported and enslaved millions of Africans; invaded, conquered, and prevented the nations of Haiti, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and dozens of other nations from running their own affairs, and kept Native Americans and African Americans as second class citizens from it's inception to the current day, and only ended that second class status partially beginning in the 1960s, and still prevents Native people from running their own affairs in their supposedly soverign reservations doesn't have any of those same qualities?
If there's an ideal prototype for pro-American ignorance, you're it.
Top cost estimated cost for to the home in Australia: $3500 per residence (more spread out, should be lower than this). 30 year Municipal AAA bond rate: 4.35% Cost per household per month: $17.42
If the Fed loaned counties money at the same rate they charge banks: 0.75% Cost per household per month: $10.86
That doesn't take into account the economic benefits, or the idea that you just charge Comcast or AT&T a base rate of $10-15 per month to use the government fiber. The math isn't hard. The problem is that our nation is a failed state.
So I suppose you cede the point, as you can not offer anything else in counterpoint of the facts in my previous post where I did exactly what you asked. Which, by the way, was insightful because I actually learned we were kinder than I would have thought in the 19th and early 20th century
I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States," General Jacob H. Smith said.
Since it was a popular belief among the Americans serving in the Philippines that native males were born with bolos in their hands, Major Littleton "Tony" Waller asked "I would like to know the limit of age to respect, sir?."
"Ten years," General Jacob H. Smith said.
"Persons of ten years and older are those designated as being capable of bearing arms?"
"Yes."
General Jacob H. Smith confirmed his instructions a second time.
Says the anonymous coward defending Microsoft over DRM and openness...
I do have to say that I was wrong... I had no idea Microsoft reversed their policies on everything they announced at E3. I haven't owned anything since the Dreamcast, so the console nonsense doesn't matter either way. I did think it was hilarious that those idiots tried to get away with it, though. Additionally, Donn Mattrick's whiney, foot stomping press release is priceless. Imagine how many meetings and buzzwords evaporated just because some executives forgot that they still had to sell their device to people and care about their opinion.
"But, our synergy and best of breed digital lifestyle metrics! Nooooooooooo!"
This is the sort of entitlist mentality that shows how out of touch some people in this community are. An announcement like this is great thing for geeks, tinkerers and developers, but the posts that are already rolling in on this story show that people here are more concerned with playing devil's advocate, conspiracy theories, fanboyism and anti-everything than they are with technology.
There's no conspiracy theory. Microsoft thinks that for the privilege of owning one of their devices, they are entitled to access to all of my data, and they are free to forward it to the NSA in exchange for cash (which is happening right now). As a plus, I am not allowed to disconnect the device from the internet, turn off the camera, or buy/sell used games, lend them to a friend, or any of the other very common practices most gamers have with their existing consoles.
Placing one of these Orwell's Nightmare devices in your living room is lunacy.
Oh, thank you, sir! For the privilege of accessing the hardware I have paid you money for, I am forever grateful! Next I should like to beg to turn off the camera feeding directly to the American authorities. Is such a dream possible?
Your faithful servants, Those Who Haven't Heard About the PS4
"Prior to [1941], the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc. Fear of others in society was something that started to be brought forward in the [1970s and 1980s]"
Here's a few quotes from another comment of mine:
"We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. While we regard the welfare of these people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion."
-- Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
"Whether we like it or not, we most go on slaughtering the natives in English fashion, and taking what muddy glory lies in wholesale killing til they have learned to respect our arms. The more difficult task of getting them to respect our intentions will follow. The struggle must continue until the misguided creatures there shall have eyes bathed in enough blood to cause their vision to be cleared, but that those whom they are now holding as enemies have no purpose toward them expect to consecrate to liberty and to open for them a way to happiness."
-- Salt Lake City Tribune
"The peaceful conquest of Mexico was a perfectly legitimate form of expansion. We could fill all of the tropical countries with consular agents, men trained to stand for good order and to work for American interests, for less than it costs to subdue a single tropical island."
-- David Starr Jordan, The Control Of the Tropics, 1890
"Finally, it should be the earnest wish and paramount aim of the military administration to win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines by assuring them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of free peoples, and by proving to them that the mission of the United States is one of Benevolent Assimilation substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule."
-- President William McKinley, December 21, 1898
"..it was inevitable, and in the highest degree desirable for the good of humanity at large, that the American people should ultimately crowd out the Mexicans from their sparsely populated northern provinces."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
"When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands perhaps also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I donâ(TM)t know how it was, but it came:
(1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany -- our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business, and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died."
-- President McKinley
"The Philippines are ours forever.... And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trus
I understand. It's a common character flaw in people. It's part of the reason it is called "the me generation"
I want to address this first, because it is a prime example of why it's so frustrating to argue with people who refuse to do any basic reading. This is an excerpt from Tom Wolfe, who coined the phrase "Me Generation" back in the 70s, and is in fact from the essay entitled "The Me Generation":
The husband and wife who sacrifice their own ambitions and their material assets in order to provide a better future for their children . . . the soldier who risks his life, or perhaps consciously sacrifices it, in battle . . . the man who devotes his life to some struggle for his people that cannot possibly be won in his lifetime . . . people (or most of them) who buy life insurance or leave wills . . . and, for that matter, most women upon becoming pregnant for the first time . . . are people who conceive of themselves, however unconsciously, as part of a great biological stream. Just as something of their ancestors lives on in them, so will something of them live on in their children . . . or in their people, their race, their community -- for childless people, too, conduct their lives and try to arrange their postmortem affairs with concern for how the great stream is going to flow on. Most people, historically, have not lived their lives as if thinking, I have only one life to live. Instead they have lived as if they are living their ancestors lives and their offsprings lives and perhaps their neighbors' lives as well. They have seen themselves as inseparable from the great tide of chromosomes of which they are created and which they pass on.
Somehow you have interpreted your own assumption to what the "me" generation stands for, and it's exactly the oppose of what you thought it was, because you haven't read a goddamned thing. You are just imitating the disembodied head of your favorite fake journalist on television. (They didn't read it either.)
But let's move on to the other things you have read nothing about. Perhaps I'll write an essay entitled, "The 'I can't fucking read' Generation." It's not very catchy, but I'll work on that.
If this were a workable business plan don't you think this would be how it is done today?
Taking care of the disabled and the needy and the sick and the old has no profit motive. Defending a nation with a trained army is supposed to have no profit motive. Helping a neighbor move, or a friend clean their apartment because they're too ill to do it themselves has no profit motive. Believe it or not, there are things in this world that are worth having that are more important than money. I know it may shock you to imagine such a thing, but please try. You might surprise yourself.
Why are there no consumer level fiber companies that provide this service? Why hasn't someone said, "hey guys, I'll build all your fiber to the home for you, you pay me a percentage of each customer..."? Because it costs money and it isn't a universal need so there is no guarantee that everyone will get fibered just in case someday...? You want to treat it like a utility where someone has to have the capability even if they don't want it. Where the government will say "we're putting fiber in and you're paying for it even if you never use it or you can't occupy that house."
Corporations don't want a shared broadband infrastructure because corporations hate competition and fair pricing. The proof is in the legal pudding:
[The] forces against municipal broadband are at it again. TDS Telecom has sued Monticello, Minnesota (pop. 8000) to stop the town from deploying its own fiber network, which the town wants to open to ISPs. TDS claims it is trying to save the residents of Monticello from wasting taxpayer money (how thoughtful),
In the future, dial it back down a bit, because no one who can read is as stupid as the persona you have created, unless you're writing from the Westboro Baptist Church.
So then yes, you do think that free internet to your parent's basement is something everyone else should pay for. The MMORPG bit was irrelevant -- watching movies, surfing porn, whatever. The part about "free" is the important bit. You don't want the internet to be "a toll road", you want it free.
No, I want the fiber to by built and managed by one entity in as many places as possible. When someone moves into a home, they can choose to turn it one from a collection of private ISPs, just like the good old days over dialup.
Wait. So it's ok for the internet to be a toll road for some people, just as long as you get yours for "zero cost"? It isn't "zero cost" to everyone else, though.
To those who can't afford it, just like food, medicine, water, electricity, the use of roads, the protection of the military, the protection of the fire and police departments, and a basic public education. Stop pretending that you don't understand this simple concept.
You really don't have to be insulting to have an adult conversation, you know.
Stating the facts isn't an insult. Don't get upset if you don't understand something if you haven't taken the time to read anything about it.
It started when North Korea invaded South Korea at the behest of Stalin.
Citation?
North Vietnam had made the decision to attempt to conquer the South well before Kennedy's action.
And is that before or after we decided to prop up what was left of French colonialism in the 50s? It's a bit like saying, "The Union had made the decision to conquer the Confederacy well before Bull Run." If the UK had invaded and supported the confederacy which would have otherwise fallen, which government would you consider to be more legitimate?
The article does not claim what you say it does. The US was not involved in the coups that occurred in Brazil and Chile, for instance.
Washington D.C., 31 March 2004 - "I think we ought to take every step that we can, be prepared to do everything that we need to do," President Johnson instructed his aides regarding preparations for a coup in Brazil on March 31, 1964. On the 40th anniversary of the military putsch, the National Security Archive today posted recently declassified documents on U.S. policy deliberations and operations leading up to the overthrow of the Goulart government on April 1, 1964. The documents reveal new details on U.S. readiness to back the coup forces.
The Archive's posting includes a declassified audio tape of Lyndon Johnson being briefed by phone at his Texas ranch, as the Brazilian military mobilized against Goulart. "I'd put everybody that had any imagination or ingenuityâ¦[CIA Director John] McConeâ¦[Secretary of Defense Robert] McNamara" on making sure the coup went forward, Johnson is heard to instruct undersecretary of State George Ball. "We just can't take this one," the tape records LBJ's opinion. "I'd get right on top of it and stick my neck out a little."
Among the documents are Top Secret cables sent by U.S. Ambassador Lincoln Gordon who forcefully pressed Washington for direct involvement in supporting coup plotters led by Army Chief of Staff General Humberto Castello Branco. "If our influence is to be brought to bear to help avert a major disaster here-which might make Brazil the China of the 1960s-this is where both I and all my senior advisors believe our support should be placed," Gordon wrote to high State Department, White House and CIA officials on March 27, 1964.
The CIA, as recounted in the Church Committee report, was involved in various plots designed to remove Allende and then let the Chileans vote in a new election where he would not be a candidate: It tried to buy off the Chilean Congress to prevent his appointment, worked to sway public opinion against him to prevent his election, and financed protests designed to bring the country to a stand-still and make him resign. The CIA, acting with the approval of the 40 Committee -- the body charged with overseeing covert actions abroad -- devised what in effect was a constitutional coup. The most expeditious way to prevent Allende from assuming office was somehow to convince the Chilean congress to confirm Jorge Alessandri as the winner of the election. Once elected by the congress, Alessandria party to the plot through intermediaries -- was prepared to resign his presidency within a matter of days
You can't have halfway decent government when the idiot majority is enfranchised
So you prefer a government where the majority is disenfranchised? Like North Korea, or more like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Bahrain?
and when female emancipation and the destruction of patriarchal marriage means that men no longer have any incentive to invest in the future.
You can't get laid because you're a misogynist. Your defective sociapathy doesn't have much to do with the government, or with women having the choice to ignore your dumb, bigoted ass -- they're just reminded of how thankful they are to live in a relatively free country when you are around. I recommend a personality and a little bit of self introspection. It will get you further than those bizarre talking points.
By the way, how is the weather back in the 15th Century? A bit cooler, I'll bet.
Here's how ignorant you are on the subject of economics:
It doesn't take a four paragraph dissertation to realize that if the government creates a natural monopoly (land access rights), then you won't have competition.
"A monopoly describes a situation where a majority of sales in a market are undertaken by a single firm. A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single firm." (WikiPedia)
If you don't understand the words, I cannot help you understand anything else. Governments do not create natural monopolies. Natural monopolies exist because of certain market conditions.
21.13 Mexico 18.72 Greece 09.86 Poland 09.73 Chile 05.46 Turkey 05.42 United States 04.85 Luxembourg 04.62 Israel 04.39 Spain 04.33 Slovenia 04.08 Czech Republic 03.88 Ireland 03.82 Germany 03.82 Switzerland 03.73 Hungary 03.56 Iceland 03.29 Canada 03.27 Italy 03.24 Austria 03.21 Finland 02.92 Australia 02.77 New Zealand 02.69 Estonia 02.51 Belgium 02.05 Norway 01.84 Netherlands 01.69 Slovak Republic 01.67 Denmark 01.60 United Kingdom 01.58 Sweden 01.45 France 01.41 Japan 01.38 Portugal 00.33 Korea
Socialized or heavily regulated solutions beat our system hands down, and absolutely crush private attempts on maximum speeds (look at the data for yourself, I'm done baby sitting you.) It appears that you are flat wrong on this subject, if data and research are acceptable forms of information.
Also, there is nothing prevent competition in the delivery and quality of internet access over government owned fiber. As I have demonstrated, there is in fact more competition when the negative effects of privatization are removed from rent-seeking infrastructure, which you already know because you use the socialized road system that has a good deal to do with America's success in the modern world, and a good deal to do with how far we are behind more advanced infrastructure programs that have already starting hurting us today.
(And yes, sticking to the facts instead of my own wish thinking has served my quite well over the years. You should try it.)
You think that your neighbors should pay for the 100Mb network line into your parent's basement so you can play MMORPG all day for free? Why yes, I expect you do
No, I think if it's apparent that the internet is a utility, like electricity and water, it makes sense for the government to invest in spreading that utility to keep the national workforce competitive and educated. It works out well because running a line to one house, and not to the ten others right next to it costs more in the long run if you have to continually go back for installs. So if the pipe, so to speak, is there and ready to be turned on, it's a win-win for everybody: private providers have a vast amount of potential customers, customers have more choice for competition, and those who can't afford the internet can apply for a free government version at practically zero cost to everyone else.
This is very basic economics. You should spend the time to look into it.
Wait... first you're all like "Privatization is good!" Then you're all like "Privatization is evil!" Well man, which is it? And for that matter, why is it that modern society does it that way? Well, I'm sure it's just more libertarian nonsense to ask such questions.
You appear to exist in a self-created world of false dichotomies.
For infrastructure that most everyone depends on, privatization is often bad. For trinkets that don't matter, privatization doesn't matter because the trinkets don't matter. That's because it's less likely that the private corporations will affect third parties when they attempt to find ways to externalize costs and compete unfairly.
If you understand how insurance works, this is not a hard concept to grasp, but it appears you'll hold on to your ideology regardless of what is true. Enjoy it.
I seriously doubt that. Would I get a rebate? That's the only way it could cost less than zero. But it will cost everyone else. That's why you think it is so cheap. Other people subsidize your network habits. You're welcome.
So, you believe all roads should be toll roads, and it would be cheaper for everyone? Provide one example that exists outside of your imagination.
In fact, I am a libertarian socialist. I believe that needs should be regulated and the costs socialized -- food, education, healthcare, etc. At the same time, I would not prevent any private entity from forming a school or deploying an internet service without any government help. In Germany they still have a system of private insurance and hospitals, and as long as those entities aren't abusing public goods to provide their own services, good on them.
The bottom line is if a common mistake leads to huge unforeseen social costs, or if something is a basic need in a given society, it should be looked after by the most transparent government that is possible.
So, take an MP3 player: once you have satisfied the regulation that it won't blow up or steal customer data, who cares anything else about it? Worse case scenario you are out a couple hundred bucks and you have a crappy player. Ditto for the nanny state crap -- sure, if there is public healthcare and the guy won't stop doing meth, sentence him to rehab. If you're just lazy and unhealthy, that's a difficult problem to deal with, but making soda illegal probably has nothing to do with it.
With healthcare, roads, and things that are vital, they are just too important to leave in private hands. Accidents happen. People die, get sick, go crazy, or get hooked on heroin, and so on. That's just normal human behavior. The choice at that point is either to have some solid and basic resources for those individuals to get back on their feet and continue contributing to society, including job training and basic housing, or to throw them away in prisons or by bankrupting them and destroying their financial life.
The irony is that throwing people away, at least the way we do it in America, is more expensive than just helping. We pay 3x what Germany does for healthcare, fail to cover 50 million people, and have worse health outcomes across the board. It's insane.
I guess I should direct my hate at Objectivists, not libertarians who believe in limited socialism. Ayn Rand had a few genuine criticisms that were valid, but I'm not sure she understood the basic concepts of human nature or how insurance works.
Again, so what? It's a relatively large military for the present time with a bit of real estate. The English empire in the mid to late 19th century was bigger, for example, with their occupation of India/Pakistan, Southern Africa, and Australia as well as a number of strategically valuable ports and islands.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what torture is not, according to the United States government.
How about being supportive instead of antagonistic?
Be honest with yourself: have you spent more time watching television or being politically active?
This is also a criticism I aim at myself, but the first step is to be honest about the situation. Americans are politically lazy, and we have the government we deserve. I don't think there has been a massive nationwide protest here since the 70s, with the possible exception of the anti-war protests before the invasion of Iraq.
The people who run the show aren't going to give it up because we're complaining about them on the internet. It's not difficult to convince yourself to hang on to millions of dollars and unchecked power when there is no real penalty from the populace.
Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice -- the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall, at the same time, be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British government so tempestuous. The struggles for [profit] are the true source of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the nation, distracting its councils, hurrying it sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.
And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers. And these, too, will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation, for their vanquished competitors, of the same spirit, and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1787
This is really the central issue. There are few American values outside of money any longer, and this moral hazard is in the process of destroying the country.
In this case, we have a whistleblower providing evidence that
1) The American government is spying on American citizens without obtaining any warrants, unless you count secret court orders that have no judicial oversight*
2) This program is even kept as a secret from other parts of the government
3) Parts of the government have been lying to congress about what the spying program is about, who they have collected information on, and how they go about collecting it
*(This is a hugely important point. One of the favorite tricks of a totalitarian regime is to legitimize anti-democratic activity by simply making it legal. But if the constitution says we are free from unreasonable searches and seizures, a secret law passed by a secret court shouldn't hold sway. The only difference between our government and despotism is that they get more than one person to declare the government's will, pass it around in secret to co-conspirators who share the same backwards worldview, and then pretend that the theater they just acted for has some legitimacy.
The stark reality is that our government is corrupt and therefore does whatever it wants. As Nixon famously stated: When the President does it, it's not illegal. Then the question has to be asked: if that's the case, what is the difference between a President and a King?)
In essence, there is a part of our government that has approved its own spying program in a process that the public has no chance of knowing about.
So, why aren't we hearing about this in the media? Why are we instead hearing about his girlfriend, or his personal life? Because American media is no longer tasked with seeking the truth. Their primary concern is profit, and covering the birth of a British child is a lot more profitable than hiring skilled journalists to do journalism. Additionally, the Executive routinely threatens to cut off access to their staff for any news organizations that step out of line. For organizations like the Guardian, that risk is minimized, since they don't depend on empty stories to fill the vacuum of the 24 hour news cycle. For someone like CNN or Fox, the only thing that matters is the ratings, and that's best achieved by cheap, exasperated, stupid television. They can fill the airtime with "breaking news" about celebrities, or cat videos, or whatever pretend journalism is the cheapest to produce, but they feel like they need access so they can continue presenting the strained theater of left versus right. Every headline screams out: "Obama 'slams' GOP Leadership" or "Boehner threatens retaliation for 'nuclear option.'"
Boehner and his counterparts are barely able to communicate with regular voters, but that's because they have no idea what it's like to be a regular voter. They probably don't know what a loaf of bread costs, because they have servants and assistants who do that sort of thing for them. Half of congress is made up of millionaire lawyers, and the result of that is a bunch of outrageously overwrought laws that have nothing to do with helping anyone but their rich friends. Even now while they are discussing what tax breaks to keep, they have demanded that the proposal be kept a secret for fifty years . The reason is because if the truth were known, you could go down the line and see the leashes traveling from the election year donors to the politicians they have bought and paid for. Which would be great to know during the next election, but again, you don't matter. You don't exist, as far as they are concerned.
Back to the media... taking on the US government is expensive, and not only are the producers (who couldn't give two shits about our rights) not invested in the truth, but there's also probably an army of lawyers worried about getting entangled in expensive
Why is what they did wrong?
They are defending the government's right to do whatever the government wants and keep it a secret.
When this happens in other countries, we call it for what it is: totalitarianism.
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary."
Instead of dealing with that fact, these cowards would rather pretend there isn't a problem.
"The US did some of those things, yes"
So the US did behave like an empire... why did you waste my time trying to deny it?
I have been chuckling at this comment for a solid five. Thanks.
Let's just recap:
The United States, which drove Native Americans out of every corner of the United States; imported and enslaved millions of Africans; invaded, conquered, and prevented the nations of Haiti, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and dozens of other nations from running their own affairs, and kept Native Americans and African Americans as second class citizens from it's inception to the current day, and only ended that second class status partially beginning in the 1960s, and still prevents Native people from running their own affairs in their supposedly soverign reservations doesn't have any of those same qualities?
If there's an ideal prototype for pro-American ignorance, you're it.
Top cost estimated cost for to the home in Australia: $3500 per residence (more spread out, should be lower than this).
30 year Municipal AAA bond rate: 4.35%
Cost per household per month: $17.42
If the Fed loaned counties money at the same rate they charge banks: 0.75%
Cost per household per month: $10.86
That doesn't take into account the economic benefits, or the idea that you just charge Comcast or AT&T a base rate of $10-15 per month to use the government fiber. The math isn't hard. The problem is that our nation is a failed state.
Give me your definition of imperialism and an example.
So I suppose you cede the point, as you can not offer anything else in counterpoint of the facts in my previous post where I did exactly what you asked. Which, by the way, was insightful because I actually learned we were kinder than I would have thought in the 19th and early 20th century
You are one pathetic motherfucker.
dont be such a submissive corporate fuckpig
Says the anonymous coward defending Microsoft over DRM and openness...
I do have to say that I was wrong... I had no idea Microsoft reversed their policies on everything they announced at E3. I haven't owned anything since the Dreamcast, so the console nonsense doesn't matter either way. I did think it was hilarious that those idiots tried to get away with it, though. Additionally, Donn Mattrick's whiney, foot stomping press release is priceless. Imagine how many meetings and buzzwords evaporated just because some executives forgot that they still had to sell their device to people and care about their opinion.
"But, our synergy and best of breed digital lifestyle metrics! Nooooooooooo!"
This is the sort of entitlist mentality that shows how out of touch some people in this community are. An announcement like this is great thing for geeks, tinkerers and developers, but the posts that are already rolling in on this story show that people here are more concerned with playing devil's advocate, conspiracy theories, fanboyism and anti-everything than they are with technology.
There's no conspiracy theory. Microsoft thinks that for the privilege of owning one of their devices, they are entitled to access to all of my data, and they are free to forward it to the NSA in exchange for cash (which is happening right now). As a plus, I am not allowed to disconnect the device from the internet, turn off the camera, or buy/sell used games, lend them to a friend, or any of the other very common practices most gamers have with their existing consoles.
Placing one of these Orwell's Nightmare devices in your living room is lunacy.
Oh, thank you, sir! For the privilege of accessing the hardware I have paid you money for, I am forever grateful! Next I should like to beg to turn off the camera feeding directly to the American authorities. Is such a dream possible?
Your faithful servants,
Those Who Haven't Heard About the PS4
Here is your original claim:
"Prior to [1941], the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc. Fear of others in society was something that started to be brought forward in the [1970s and 1980s]"
Here's a few quotes from another comment of mine:
"We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. While we regard the welfare of these people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion."
-- Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
"Whether we like it or not, we most go on slaughtering the natives in English fashion, and taking what muddy glory lies in wholesale killing til they have learned to respect our arms. The more difficult task of getting them to respect our intentions will follow. The struggle must continue until the misguided creatures there shall have eyes bathed in enough blood to cause their vision to be cleared, but that those whom they are now holding as enemies have no purpose toward them expect to consecrate to liberty and to open for them a way to happiness."
-- Salt Lake City Tribune
"The peaceful conquest of Mexico was a perfectly legitimate form of expansion. We could fill all of the tropical countries with consular agents, men trained to stand for good order and to work for American interests, for less than it costs to subdue a single tropical island."
-- David Starr Jordan, The Control Of the Tropics, 1890
"Finally, it should be the earnest wish and paramount aim of the military administration to win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines by assuring them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of free peoples, and by proving to them that the mission of the United States is one of Benevolent Assimilation substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule."
-- President William McKinley, December 21, 1898
"..it was inevitable, and in the highest degree desirable for the good of humanity at large, that the American people should ultimately crowd out the Mexicans from their sparsely populated northern provinces."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
"When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands perhaps also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I donâ(TM)t know how it was, but it came:
(1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable;
(2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany -- our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business, and discreditable;
(3) that we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and
(4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died."
-- President McKinley
"The Philippines are ours forever.... And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trus
I understand. It's a common character flaw in people. It's part of the reason it is called "the me generation"
I want to address this first, because it is a prime example of why it's so frustrating to argue with people who refuse to do any basic reading. This is an excerpt from Tom Wolfe, who coined the phrase "Me Generation" back in the 70s, and is in fact from the essay entitled "The Me Generation":
Somehow you have interpreted your own assumption to what the "me" generation stands for, and it's exactly the oppose of what you thought it was, because you haven't read a goddamned thing. You are just imitating the disembodied head of your favorite fake journalist on television. (They didn't read it either.)
But let's move on to the other things you have read nothing about. Perhaps I'll write an essay entitled, "The 'I can't fucking read' Generation." It's not very catchy, but I'll work on that.
If this were a workable business plan don't you think this would be how it is done today?
Taking care of the disabled and the needy and the sick and the old has no profit motive. Defending a nation with a trained army is supposed to have no profit motive. Helping a neighbor move, or a friend clean their apartment because they're too ill to do it themselves has no profit motive. Believe it or not, there are things in this world that are worth having that are more important than money. I know it may shock you to imagine such a thing, but please try. You might surprise yourself.
Why are there no consumer level fiber companies that provide this service? Why hasn't someone said, "hey guys, I'll build all your fiber to the home for you, you pay me a percentage of each customer..."? Because it costs money and it isn't a universal need so there is no guarantee that everyone will get fibered just in case someday ...? You want to treat it like a utility where someone has to have the capability even if they don't want it. Where the government will say "we're putting fiber in and you're paying for it even if you never use it or you can't occupy that house."
Corporations don't want a shared broadband infrastructure because corporations hate competition and fair pricing. The proof is in the legal pudding:
Ahh, I get it. I forgot not to feed the trolls.
In the future, dial it back down a bit, because no one who can read is as stupid as the persona you have created, unless you're writing from the Westboro Baptist Church.
So then yes, you do think that free internet to your parent's basement is something everyone else should pay for. The MMORPG bit was irrelevant -- watching movies, surfing porn, whatever. The part about "free" is the important bit. You don't want the internet to be "a toll road", you want it free.
No, I want the fiber to by built and managed by one entity in as many places as possible. When someone moves into a home, they can choose to turn it one from a collection of private ISPs, just like the good old days over dialup.
Wait. So it's ok for the internet to be a toll road for some people, just as long as you get yours for "zero cost"? It isn't "zero cost" to everyone else, though.
To those who can't afford it, just like food, medicine, water, electricity, the use of roads, the protection of the military, the protection of the fire and police departments, and a basic public education. Stop pretending that you don't understand this simple concept.
You really don't have to be insulting to have an adult conversation, you know.
Stating the facts isn't an insult. Don't get upset if you don't understand something if you haven't taken the time to read anything about it.
It started when North Korea invaded South Korea at the behest of Stalin.
Citation?
North Vietnam had made the decision to attempt to conquer the South well before Kennedy's action.
And is that before or after we decided to prop up what was left of French colonialism in the 50s? It's a bit like saying, "The Union had made the decision to conquer the Confederacy well before Bull Run." If the UK had invaded and supported the confederacy which would have otherwise fallen, which government would you consider to be more legitimate?
The article does not claim what you say it does. The US was not involved in the coups that occurred in Brazil and Chile, for instance.
You can't have halfway decent government when the idiot majority is enfranchised
So you prefer a government where the majority is disenfranchised? Like North Korea, or more like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Bahrain?
and when female emancipation and the destruction of patriarchal marriage means that men no longer have any incentive to invest in the future.
You can't get laid because you're a misogynist. Your defective sociapathy doesn't have much to do with the government, or with women having the choice to ignore your dumb, bigoted ass -- they're just reminded of how thankful they are to live in a relatively free country when you are around. I recommend a personality and a little bit of self introspection. It will get you further than those bizarre talking points.
By the way, how is the weather back in the 15th Century? A bit cooler, I'll bet.
Here's how ignorant you are on the subject of economics:
It doesn't take a four paragraph dissertation to realize that if the government creates a natural monopoly (land access rights), then you won't have competition.
"A monopoly describes a situation where a majority of sales in a market are undertaken by a single firm. A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single firm." (WikiPedia)
If you don't understand the words, I cannot help you understand anything else. Governments do not create natural monopolies. Natural monopolies exist because of certain market conditions.
But let's look at the result of the choices in reacting to the reality of natural monopolies, in this case, broadband access costs by PPP per median mbits/sec:
21.13 Mexico
18.72 Greece
09.86 Poland
09.73 Chile
05.46 Turkey
05.42 United States
04.85 Luxembourg
04.62 Israel
04.39 Spain
04.33 Slovenia
04.08 Czech Republic
03.88 Ireland
03.82 Germany
03.82 Switzerland
03.73 Hungary
03.56 Iceland
03.29 Canada
03.27 Italy
03.24 Austria
03.21 Finland
02.92 Australia
02.77 New Zealand
02.69 Estonia
02.51 Belgium
02.05 Norway
01.84 Netherlands
01.69 Slovak Republic
01.67 Denmark
01.60 United Kingdom
01.58 Sweden
01.45 France
01.41 Japan
01.38 Portugal
00.33 Korea
Socialized or heavily regulated solutions beat our system hands down, and absolutely crush private attempts on maximum speeds (look at the data for yourself, I'm done baby sitting you.) It appears that you are flat wrong on this subject, if data and research are acceptable forms of information.
Also, there is nothing prevent competition in the delivery and quality of internet access over government owned fiber. As I have demonstrated, there is in fact more competition when the negative effects of privatization are removed from rent-seeking infrastructure, which you already know because you use the socialized road system that has a good deal to do with America's success in the modern world, and a good deal to do with how far we are behind more advanced infrastructure programs that have already starting hurting us today.
(And yes, sticking to the facts instead of my own wish thinking has served my quite well over the years. You should try it.)
You think that your neighbors should pay for the 100Mb network line into your parent's basement so you can play MMORPG all day for free? Why yes, I expect you do
No, I think if it's apparent that the internet is a utility, like electricity and water, it makes sense for the government to invest in spreading that utility to keep the national workforce competitive and educated. It works out well because running a line to one house, and not to the ten others right next to it costs more in the long run if you have to continually go back for installs. So if the pipe, so to speak, is there and ready to be turned on, it's a win-win for everybody: private providers have a vast amount of potential customers, customers have more choice for competition, and those who can't afford the internet can apply for a free government version at practically zero cost to everyone else.
This is very basic economics. You should spend the time to look into it.
Wait... first you're all like "Privatization is good!" Then you're all like "Privatization is evil!" Well man, which is it? And for that matter, why is it that modern society does it that way? Well, I'm sure it's just more libertarian nonsense to ask such questions.
You appear to exist in a self-created world of false dichotomies.
For infrastructure that most everyone depends on, privatization is often bad. For trinkets that don't matter, privatization doesn't matter because the trinkets don't matter. That's because it's less likely that the private corporations will affect third parties when they attempt to find ways to externalize costs and compete unfairly.
If you understand how insurance works, this is not a hard concept to grasp, but it appears you'll hold on to your ideology regardless of what is true. Enjoy it.
I seriously doubt that. Would I get a rebate? That's the only way it could cost less than zero. But it will cost everyone else. That's why you think it is so cheap. Other people subsidize your network habits. You're welcome.
So, you believe all roads should be toll roads, and it would be cheaper for everyone? Provide one example that exists outside of your imagination.
In fact, I am a libertarian socialist. I believe that needs should be regulated and the costs socialized -- food, education, healthcare, etc. At the same time, I would not prevent any private entity from forming a school or deploying an internet service without any government help. In Germany they still have a system of private insurance and hospitals, and as long as those entities aren't abusing public goods to provide their own services, good on them.
The bottom line is if a common mistake leads to huge unforeseen social costs, or if something is a basic need in a given society, it should be looked after by the most transparent government that is possible.
So, take an MP3 player: once you have satisfied the regulation that it won't blow up or steal customer data, who cares anything else about it? Worse case scenario you are out a couple hundred bucks and you have a crappy player. Ditto for the nanny state crap -- sure, if there is public healthcare and the guy won't stop doing meth, sentence him to rehab. If you're just lazy and unhealthy, that's a difficult problem to deal with, but making soda illegal probably has nothing to do with it.
With healthcare, roads, and things that are vital, they are just too important to leave in private hands. Accidents happen. People die, get sick, go crazy, or get hooked on heroin, and so on. That's just normal human behavior. The choice at that point is either to have some solid and basic resources for those individuals to get back on their feet and continue contributing to society, including job training and basic housing, or to throw them away in prisons or by bankrupting them and destroying their financial life.
The irony is that throwing people away, at least the way we do it in America, is more expensive than just helping. We pay 3x what Germany does for healthcare, fail to cover 50 million people, and have worse health outcomes across the board. It's insane.
I guess I should direct my hate at Objectivists, not libertarians who believe in limited socialism. Ayn Rand had a few genuine criticisms that were valid, but I'm not sure she understood the basic concepts of human nature or how insurance works.
Again, so what? It's a relatively large military for the present time with a bit of real estate. The English empire in the mid to late 19th century was bigger, for example, with their occupation of India/Pakistan, Southern Africa, and Australia as well as a number of strategically valuable ports and islands.
They are both empires. That's precisely my point.
Also, it's 2013, Slashdot. A news site for nerds can't implement UTF? Get off your asses.