While, your post sounds reasonable and well thought out, I don't agree with the one major assumptions. We are not changing the world by minuscule amounts, we are drastically changing it. All previous mass extinction events happened before we evolved into our current form. The current mass extinction event is caused by us. A word with a wonderfully diverse ecosystem sounds much more interesting to live in than a world with humans, cockroaches, farm animals, corn, and soy beans. Yes, my limited biodiversity list is an exaggeration, but it isn't that far off from the truth.
Actually, Belize is amazing and safe. I went there for a three week honeymoon. My wife & I toured almost the entire country. The rain forest and scuba diving were amazing -- I'm hoping all the recent tourism money has been used to helped preserve those areas. All the people were extremely nice and helpful. We also visited Orange Walk for a couple of hours. That was the one place which felt a little sketchy.
Excluding my dengue fever experience, that vacation stands out as the best of my life. We were there during the election cycle, so we heard a lot about the two parties: UDP and PUP.
Don't generalize about all cyclists. I agree there is a problem, but I just want to ride with my group (or solo) and _not_ get killed. None of us think we own the road, but we do believe we have a right to ride on roads. On shoulders we'll ride side by side. On roads with no shoulders, most of us are smart enough to ride single file. Generally, we'll yell out "Car back" to let anyone who isn't riding single file know that they need to move over.
I follow the rules of the road and yell at cyclists who don't. Of course, I used to also yell at drivers who would risk my life, but now I just try to calmly explain what they did to risk my life -- if I can catch up with them. After all, it is only my life they are risking.
The anecdote above really bothers me as well. They should have paid their tickets, since they violated the law.
So you're assuming every Palestinian is a radical. Stereotype much? People are people. Almost all people just want to live a peaceful life and see their children grow up and have a chance at a better life than the previous generation.
D) Actually, there are, but it has less to do with eating it and more to do w/ the terms of use imposed by companies like Monsanto/ADM. Primary, you can't use any of the seed from your own field to plant in the following year. You always have to buy the seeds again. Then say you are a farmer who has a field next to another farmer who uses genetically modified crops that, somehow, cross pollinate with your crops. If Monsanto tests your crops and finds their genetic markers, you are screwed. I won't even go into the problems with our monoculture of food production.
I consider myself a tree hugger and, yes, in a sense, the companies should be responsible for the cost of their products on society. Do I think PC manufacturers need to be involved in the recycling of their electronic gadgets? No. Do I believe they need to pay to cover the disposal cost of those goods? Absolutely. Granted that cost will be passed on to the consumer, but that is what needs to happen.
Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags? GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars?
It is not BS, it is being a responsible citizen. In the case of McDonalds, they could provide a simple means for people to separate out their recyclable stuff from the non-recyclables -- trash bins and recycle bins in the stores. They could also offer a 5cent discount if you bring your own bag or cup. Can't offer much input on cars, but it I assume much of the car's metals are already recycled and put into new cars/products.
The goal is not to punish the companies/producers. The goal is to provide an incentive to improve environmental practices.
The kind of freedom I am into is freedom for the individual. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does no unwanted harm to others.
It is a great ideal!
So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.
So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.
This assumes perfect knowledge. Unfortunately, there are people who take advantage of the system and we, the people, do not have anyway to find out about their shenanigans unless there is someone looking out for our interests. I would argue, the most efficient way to take care of this is via government oversight. I'm not saying it will work, but it seems like the best way to go.
You are making a lot of assumptions on the time people invest in researching a company before buying their products or using their services. I'd say most users of a company's products/services base it solely on price.
So everyone is free to do what he or she wants. Free to marry and engage in consensual relationships, free to do drugs, free to have sex, free to do whatever as long as it does no harm.
These freedoms do sound reasonable, but how do you quantify harm? Fine, take LSD. But then what happens if you end up schizophrenic? I would say you are now doing me harm because, we the people, as taxpayers, have to pay for your medical care. (I do _believe_ we have an obligation to assist)
There are good things and bad things with "big government" and regulation. You can't just assume "big government" == bad.
don't forget that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was in an interview. Seems like anyone vying for a position one heartbeat away from the presidency should at least know the doctrine which has put us in debt up to our eyeballs and led to a needless war.
Maybe I'm asking too much when I hope for leaders who at least come off as being smart and competent.
Please get your facts straight because they are off base.
Voter fraud is a real concern because the integrity of the election process has a lot of knock-on effects in people's trust in government - as evidenced by the reaction of virtually every Democrat in the country to George W Bush in 2000. It didn't make you think that the government was corrupt?
Of course it did. However, this has nothing to do with individuals committing voter fraud. As at least one academic study concluded (I don't have the link), voter suppression is a far greater concern and actually has an impact on the results of elections.
And PS: US Attorney is a political appointee and patronage spot. Do you get upset when the former president's chief of staff loses his job? I don't care much for what Bush did in the Presidency, but I can't see how that wasn't entirely within his power.
While a US Attorney is appointed by the executive branch, until this administration's firing, the position of US Attorney was _NOT_ considered political. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy for details of the controversy. I'm sure there are better links on this as well. In general, the Justice Department under this administration went from being apolitical to being highly politicized. There was also a recent report on this and the hiring process being politicized at all levels... very damaging to the both President and the appointed leaders of the Justice Department. I guess I should say, it should have been very damaging to the President and his administration. And by that, I mean it should have led to more than just the firing of Alberto Gonzales.
When Obama said "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness," it told me that Obama either doesn't understand how our economy works or he is just another tax and spend politician. That kind of change will hurt our economy.
I'm really hoping he is willing to raise the capital gains tax because this country's coffers needs it. Here is my view of the parties:
What the say:
Republicans - Are for smaller government and lower taxes.
Democrats - Are for a socially responsible government with progressive taxes.
What they do:
Republicans - Grow the government at an alarming rate, cut taxes (mainly for the rich), and run huge budget deficits in the hope that voodoo economics will work. Bush Sr. gave it that name around 1979/1980. Reduce civil liberties.
Democrats - Grow the government at an alarming rate, raise taxes (mainly for the rich), start fixing the budget deficits inflicted on this country by Republican administrations. Reduce civil liberties.
While the Democrats have their issues, they have historically been better for most income levels in American. It is only slightly worse for the very highest income levels... and even their income levels grew during Democratic leadership. I don't have the article handy, but the results are clear. It was a NY Time editorial from about a month ago.
There are actual principles of which the effect is a government smaller than the one now. For example, the only proper, justifiable role for the government is to support and uphold individual rights. A government that restricted itself to that would be much smaller than the one now. Saying I am "for small government" is just a shorthand reference to this principle.
No way is your last sentence true in the general case. Most people, i.e. taxpayers, say they want smaller government because they want lower taxes. I doubt there is much thought given to that statement... including any of the associated ramifications (basic research funding, medical research funding, etc...). This is a complex issue and you can't make an assumption like that. Generally, I think taxpayers want lower taxes for personal reasons, i.e. to keep more money for themselves.
I'd like to increase taxes and have a government which respects and protects individual rights. The former is needed because of the US's financial situation. The latter isn't a priority for either party. At least the ACLU is fighting for our rights.
I'd love to hear either candidate say they will raise taxes so we can have a strong country for future generations. At least Mondale told the truth back in 1984 -- of course, being truthful didn't help him the election.
Now, can we also ask them who is really responsible for the current bank crisis (whether profit hungry execs, slimy people luring people into bad mortgages, people flipping houses and then wanting a bailout when burned, government policy...)?
What about the moral hazard dilemma caused by the bail out of Long Term Capital Management? That failure was strikingly similar to today's financial melt down: Lots of derivatives and leveraging. Looks like no one learned their lesson from a decade ago... and why should they? The government will bail them out. At least Lehman Brothers wasn't bailed out.
To simplify things: I think the problem can be traced back to the Fed's low interest rate policy. Low interest rates (i.e. cheap money) essentially mean the US was flooding the economy/world with dollars. This leads to a debasing of the US currency, i.e. a declining value of the dollar. The short-term side-effect was a massive increase in the amount of money available for investment. Since the stock market was week in the early part of this decade, it went into housing. I.e., speculation just like the Internet bubble. The problem is that this bubble has serious affects on more than just people's 401k. Inflation is caused by a weak dollar. Luckily for the US, the dollar is still a reserve currency, so many countries were buying US bonds, supporting Mae and Mac, etc., and kept the US afloat. Unfortunately for other countries, they now have inflation, in part caused by investing heavily in the US dollar (bonds), and heavily loses on their US investments.
It is time for us to live within our means, governments and individuals alike. I'll stop my rant now. Funny how everything is interconnected.
It's not whether or not the iPod has the best UI or the best hardware. What Apple did, and still seems to be the only one doing well, is to make the music the focus. It is the simplicity of use (purchasing, downloading, and playing) that makes the iPod.
Other players didn't focus on the music. They focused on the hardware... that is why they failed.
Of course, the thing that people tend to overlook is that the planet is capable of surviving quite a bit of trauma. We may not survive, but the planet will do fine. That's the thing that so many environmental skeptics fail to grasp, the human race will break before the planet does. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "environmental skeptics," but my concern is that we will take most existing species down with us. We already are eliminating habitat and species (or animal stocks) at an alarming rate for short term gains. It would be great if we treated our role on this planet as stewardship. Instead we continue to be short-term binge users. And yes, given time, I do believe the earth's ecosystem can recover.
I don't want to drift much more off topic, but I do realize that the reality of life on this planet is far more complex and nuanced than my "short-term binge users" comment.
Slashdot Mirror
They are barred from the debates in this "awesome" two party system.
While, your post sounds reasonable and well thought out, I don't agree with the one major assumptions. We are not changing the world by minuscule amounts, we are drastically changing it. All previous mass extinction events happened before we evolved into our current form. The current mass extinction event is caused by us. A word with a wonderfully diverse ecosystem sounds much more interesting to live in than a world with humans, cockroaches, farm animals, corn, and soy beans. Yes, my limited biodiversity list is an exaggeration, but it isn't that far off from the truth.
Actually, Belize is amazing and safe. I went there for a three week honeymoon. My wife & I toured almost the entire country. The rain forest and scuba diving were amazing -- I'm hoping all the recent tourism money has been used to helped preserve those areas. All the people were extremely nice and helpful. We also visited Orange Walk for a couple of hours. That was the one place which felt a little sketchy.
Excluding my dengue fever experience, that vacation stands out as the best of my life. We were there during the election cycle, so we heard a lot about the two parties: UDP and PUP.
Honeycrisp apples are awesome
Don't generalize about all cyclists. I agree there is a problem, but I just want to ride with my group (or solo) and _not_ get killed. None of us think we own the road, but we do believe we have a right to ride on roads. On shoulders we'll ride side by side. On roads with no shoulders, most of us are smart enough to ride single file. Generally, we'll yell out "Car back" to let anyone who isn't riding single file know that they need to move over.
I follow the rules of the road and yell at cyclists who don't. Of course, I used to also yell at drivers who would risk my life, but now I just try to calmly explain what they did to risk my life -- if I can catch up with them. After all, it is only my life they are risking.
The anecdote above really bothers me as well. They should have paid their tickets, since they violated the law.
Mod parent up.
So you're assuming every Palestinian is a radical. Stereotype much? People are people. Almost all people just want to live a peaceful life and see their children grow up and have a chance at a better life than the previous generation.
mod parent up.
D) Actually, there are, but it has less to do with eating it and more to do w/ the terms of use imposed by companies like Monsanto/ADM. Primary, you can't use any of the seed from your own field to plant in the following year. You always have to buy the seeds again. Then say you are a farmer who has a field next to another farmer who uses genetically modified crops that, somehow, cross pollinate with your crops. If Monsanto tests your crops and finds their genetic markers, you are screwed. I won't even go into the problems with our monoculture of food production.
I consider myself a tree hugger and, yes, in a sense, the companies should be responsible for the cost of their products on society. Do I think PC manufacturers need to be involved in the recycling of their electronic gadgets? No. Do I believe they need to pay to cover the disposal cost of those goods? Absolutely. Granted that cost will be passed on to the consumer, but that is what needs to happen.
Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags? GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars?
It is not BS, it is being a responsible citizen. In the case of McDonalds, they could provide a simple means for people to separate out their recyclable stuff from the non-recyclables -- trash bins and recycle bins in the stores. They could also offer a 5cent discount if you bring your own bag or cup. Can't offer much input on cars, but it I assume much of the car's metals are already recycled and put into new cars/products.
The goal is not to punish the companies/producers. The goal is to provide an incentive to improve environmental practices.
You start out by _not_ referring to people of the opposite sex as meat. Once you get out of that grade-school mentality you might have more luck.
Actually, lots of other animals go through menopause. Even guppies!
http://www.livescience.com/animals/051229_fish_menopause.html
This is an IP argument - who owns the rights to the images.
While I agree with you, we need to make sure we phrase the arguments correctly. IP is a misnomer. It's not property. It is a copyright issue.
I enjoyed your post... your naivety is so sweet :)
The kind of freedom I am into is freedom for the individual. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does no unwanted harm to others.
It is a great ideal!
So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.
So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.
This assumes perfect knowledge. Unfortunately, there are people who take advantage of the system and we, the people, do not have anyway to find out about their shenanigans unless there is someone looking out for our interests. I would argue, the most efficient way to take care of this is via government oversight. I'm not saying it will work, but it seems like the best way to go.
You are making a lot of assumptions on the time people invest in researching a company before buying their products or using their services. I'd say most users of a company's products/services base it solely on price.
So everyone is free to do what he or she wants. Free to marry and engage in consensual relationships, free to do drugs, free to have sex, free to do whatever as long as it does no harm.
These freedoms do sound reasonable, but how do you quantify harm? Fine, take LSD. But then what happens if you end up schizophrenic? I would say you are now doing me harm because, we the people, as taxpayers, have to pay for your medical care. (I do _believe_ we have an obligation to assist)
There are good things and bad things with "big government" and regulation. You can't just assume "big government" == bad.
how is the parent a troll? It sounds spot on.
that's generally not on broadcast television
yes, it's one dollar a year.
don't forget that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was in an interview. Seems like anyone vying for a position one heartbeat away from the presidency should at least know the doctrine which has put us in debt up to our eyeballs and led to a needless war.
Maybe I'm asking too much when I hope for leaders who at least come off as being smart and competent.
Please get your facts straight because they are off base.
Voter fraud is a real concern because the integrity of the election process has a lot of knock-on effects in people's trust in government - as evidenced by the reaction of virtually every Democrat in the country to George W Bush in 2000. It didn't make you think that the government was corrupt?
Of course it did. However, this has nothing to do with individuals committing voter fraud. As at least one academic study concluded (I don't have the link), voter suppression is a far greater concern and actually has an impact on the results of elections.
And PS: US Attorney is a political appointee and patronage spot. Do you get upset when the former president's chief of staff loses his job? I don't care much for what Bush did in the Presidency, but I can't see how that wasn't entirely within his power.
While a US Attorney is appointed by the executive branch, until this administration's firing, the position of US Attorney was _NOT_ considered political. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy for details of the controversy. I'm sure there are better links on this as well. In general, the Justice Department under this administration went from being apolitical to being highly politicized. There was also a recent report on this and the hiring process being politicized at all levels... very damaging to the both President and the appointed leaders of the Justice Department. I guess I should say, it should have been very damaging to the President and his administration. And by that, I mean it should have led to more than just the firing of Alberto Gonzales.
When Obama said "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness," it told me that Obama either doesn't understand how our economy works or he is just another tax and spend politician. That kind of change will hurt our economy.
I'm really hoping he is willing to raise the capital gains tax because this country's coffers needs it. Here is my view of the parties:
What the say:
Republicans - Are for smaller government and lower taxes.
Democrats - Are for a socially responsible government with progressive taxes.
What they do:
Republicans - Grow the government at an alarming rate, cut taxes (mainly for the rich), and run huge budget deficits in the hope that voodoo economics will work. Bush Sr. gave it that name around 1979/1980. Reduce civil liberties.
Democrats - Grow the government at an alarming rate, raise taxes (mainly for the rich), start fixing the budget deficits inflicted on this country by Republican administrations. Reduce civil liberties.
While the Democrats have their issues, they have historically been better for most income levels in American. It is only slightly worse for the very highest income levels... and even their income levels grew during Democratic leadership. I don't have the article handy, but the results are clear. It was a NY Time editorial from about a month ago.
There are actual principles of which the effect is a government smaller than the one now. For example, the only proper, justifiable role for the government is to support and uphold individual rights. A government that restricted itself to that would be much smaller than the one now. Saying I am "for small government" is just a shorthand reference to this principle.
No way is your last sentence true in the general case. Most people, i.e. taxpayers, say they want smaller government because they want lower taxes. I doubt there is much thought given to that statement... including any of the associated ramifications (basic research funding, medical research funding, etc...). This is a complex issue and you can't make an assumption like that. Generally, I think taxpayers want lower taxes for personal reasons, i.e. to keep more money for themselves.
I'd like to increase taxes and have a government which respects and protects individual rights. The former is needed because of the US's financial situation. The latter isn't a priority for either party. At least the ACLU is fighting for our rights.
I'd love to hear either candidate say they will raise taxes so we can have a strong country for future generations. At least Mondale told the truth back in 1984 -- of course, being truthful didn't help him the election.
Now, can we also ask them who is really responsible for the current bank crisis (whether profit hungry execs, slimy people luring people into bad mortgages, people flipping houses and then wanting a bailout when burned, government policy...)?
What about the moral hazard dilemma caused by the bail out of Long Term Capital Management? That failure was strikingly similar to today's financial melt down: Lots of derivatives and leveraging. Looks like no one learned their lesson from a decade ago... and why should they? The government will bail them out. At least Lehman Brothers wasn't bailed out.
To simplify things:
I think the problem can be traced back to the Fed's low interest rate policy. Low interest rates (i.e. cheap money) essentially mean the US was flooding the economy/world with dollars. This leads to a debasing of the US currency, i.e. a declining value of the dollar. The short-term side-effect was a massive increase in the amount of money available for investment. Since the stock market was week in the early part of this decade, it went into housing. I.e., speculation just like the Internet bubble. The problem is that this bubble has serious affects on more than just people's 401k. Inflation is caused by a weak dollar. Luckily for the US, the dollar is still a reserve currency, so many countries were buying US bonds, supporting Mae and Mac, etc., and kept the US afloat. Unfortunately for other countries, they now have inflation, in part caused by investing heavily in the US dollar (bonds), and heavily loses on their US investments.
It is time for us to live within our means, governments and individuals alike. I'll stop my rant now. Funny how everything is interconnected.
It's not whether or not the iPod has the best UI or the best hardware. What Apple did, and still seems to be the only one doing well, is to make the music the focus. It is the simplicity of use (purchasing, downloading, and playing) that makes the iPod.
Other players didn't focus on the music. They focused on the hardware... that is why they failed.
I don't want to drift much more off topic, but I do realize that the reality of life on this planet is far more complex and nuanced than my "short-term binge users" comment.
If it really bothers you, then e-mail your representative. It might do some good.
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=346
The link is also supplied in the article.