I wonder if this is a process that psychiatrists navigate more easily than surgeons?
Yes, it probably is. I think the majority of people who go into psychiatry recognize that they have failings. In many cases, this seems to have been what led them to the field in the first place. It certainly isn't money or prestige:)
I hope that the answer is time. I've known a great number of docs who are 50+. I've known a slightly smaller number 35-. But that middle area, where the change might occur, I don't have much experience with. The little I have is not encouraging. But I'll wait and see.
I've wasted a pair of wires in the cabinet to this dead line. Why do they need to provision one pair of copper when the DSL signal is carried over a different pair?
Local phone service is cheap residentially, but, being a business, Verizon asks us to bend over just a little further for the line.
Personally, I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for, but I wouldn't expect you'll save much money in the long run.
You do understand that 'long run' is actually a technical term, and not merely a figure of speech? First, I will save money, in both the long and short terms. Second, who gives a shit how much money is saved? I would have saved money, isn't that enough? What has Verizon done to earn that extra little bit of money? Two things: jack and shit. So why should they get it? Isn't that money better in my pocket, and perhaps spreading around the company? No, that $4 per month isn't much, but if I find a hundred or a thousand similar things where the company is paying $4 too much per month, we're talking about raises for some underpaid people.
Which, coincidentally, is right when the government decided to start regulating the telcos, with the break up of the Bells and the first requirements for telcos to make their infrastructure available to competitors.
So more regulation is the solution?
It's when THE telco was found guilty of abusing monopoly power, and the federal government decided to remedy the situation. My understanding is that competition was only allowed/required in long distance services. There was no local dialtone competition until 1996.
This isn't more regulation. It's saying 'knock off the bullshit'. Again, this is an industry given a monopoly in the interest of the public. That interest being universal telephone coverage. They could have kept it if they hadn't abused it. They abused it.
Lack of Scientific Background and Hubris
on
Complications
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I work in the medical industry, and my father has been a family practitioner for over 30 years. I have no doubt I've met and interacted with more doctors than the average person, and probably more than the average resident. With that disclaimer out of the way...
In my experience, there are two rather large things wrong with physicians that could be improved. Both of these would have a positive effect on outcomes. Neither are discussed much. It sounds like neither of these are touched on in the book.
First is a lack of scientific background. Now, I don't mean that some doc didn't have a BS in biology or whatever. They don't think like scientists. Far too often, physicians build up a mental table of symptoms. When a new patient presents with a condition, the table is consulted. This works fine in general, but falls apart miserably in corner cases. To solve those corner cases, some deductive (and inductive:) reasoning is called for. It is staggering the number of physicians who lack these skills. In some ways, newly minted MD's are better in this respect. They haven't had the time to develop a catalog, so they are reasoning through EVERYTHING. Sure, it makes them slower, but everything will be reasoned through. Docs with 5, 10, 20 years of experience have built a corpus of knowledge that they refuse to look beyond.
But all is not well with new docs. All physicians suffer from hubris. No kidding that this is one of the seven deadly sins. Most doctors are convinced of their own godhood. Check out Alec Baldwin's character in "Malice". Yes, it is a caricature. But there is also a grain of truth in his portrayal. For most doctors, questioning a diagnosis or treatment plan is a surefire way to piss them off. Being correct when they are wrong will drive them to either apoplepsy or catatonia. Is this something they come out of med school with? I think so. Older physicians seem to be better in this regard. There are two possible explanations that immediately come to mind. First is that they have experience to show their human failings. The other explanation is the makeup of the teachers and instructors in most universities today. Thirty years ago, they were staffed by former physicians, those who had had private practices, large patient caseloads, etc. Today, like much of academia, they are staffed by professional instructors. If you can't see the problem with this, I can't help you.
What's the solution? I really have no idea. Once the hubris disappears or is mitigated, it should be possible to learn the thought processes necessary to do good medicine. But how do you convince someone that they have too much pride? This is a real world problem for me, as my practice has several new doctors. They have potential. They can be great. But can they get past their own thoughts of superiority to recognize their weaknesses in certain areas?
Is this reverse bundling? Instead of giving you something for 'free', they force you to buy one, unrelated thing, to get another thing. This folks, is a load of shit. I hope that the California PUC drops the hammer on SBC. I'm in Maryland, and my business had to buy a $12/month (okay, it was actually $20, since it's a 'business' line) line just to get DSL. Of course, I couldn't get DSL, since asshole Verizon and stupid business decisions from Northpoint killed off competitive DSL in the area.
If the Baby Bells hadn't had piss poor (or no) service since 1982, if they hadn't done almost everything in their power to alienate customers as much as AT&T before them, if they hadn't been collecting monopoly rents for 20 years, perhaps there would be no market for CLEC's. But there are.
This is very similar to the thinking in RIAA member companies. Let's treat the customer like garbage, let's increase the charge for this 'service', and then let's dig in our heels and bring out big legislative guns to keep things that way.
Not sure what revision they are up to, but the Soyo Dragon series has a full complement of slots in addition to a couple of integrated peripherals. I can nearly saturate a 10 Base T network with the onboard LAN. The sound easily disappears when you want another card.
Don't waste time with the Google News link. This story is an AP story, and the Google News link, at this time (1:45 AM EDT) contains only about 100 links to various papers' copy of the AP article. As a matter of fact, the only unique link is the one to this slashdot article.
Once again, those in power are above the law. When/if these devices make it onto actual guns, people will go to PA, NY (?) or other states to get guns. The price of a pre-smart gun will drastically go up on the black market. Normal slobs will be inconvenienced. Tony Soprano will still be packing.
Dear God. Give geeks big bucks during the dotcom boom. Give them hottie girlfriends like Stevie Case. Make scads of money showing how 'cool' geeks are.
And yet someone still makes a Monty Python joke to fuck it all up.
"You must bring us... A usable desktop for linux!"
Therefore, whilst your point is sound it does not appear to be a defence of this proposal.
That's really my whole point in a nutshell. I disagree with it, but not for the reason stated by so many:)
Have you seen 'The Great Escape'? Wonderful scene where the three American POW's celebrate the 4th amidst ~200 British POW's. Not sure why the US doesn't allow dual citizenship. It's not as if you could run for president, even if you became a US citizen.
John C. Dvorak has been a professional troll in the computer industry for 20 years. Rarely have his predictions come true. Rarely has his 'advice' been useful. This is the same drivel he churned out at MacUser for years. Please pay this man no mind; he certainly has none.
Of course, if, as an employer, you want someone well trained at brown-nosing and playing political games, then by all means choose someone with an extensive acedemic background. You won't be let down.
That would explain most of the MBA's you run across. And doctors for that matter.
(I am an MBA who works with doctors, so odds are I know more than you about this subject. 'You' indicating mindless moderators.)
That's just a myth they tell at NEA meetings. Kinda like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Seriously, the best professors in college or higher that I have had have almost always been people burnt out on 'the real world', changing the phrase to "those who can do, those who can't, teach, those who teach well usetacould" (That last word is a real word. Just ask Jeff Foxworthy)
If New Zealand wants a domain, it can be newzealand.org or newzealand.net or newzealand.nz Unless the government of new zealand is a for profit entity. It was registered in 1996. The article doesn't mention, but did the gov't attempt to purchase it from the current owner?
Isn't this the result 'we' wanted from the nissan.com case? newzealand.com was there first, has disclaimers, and isn't competing with the more well known New Zealand (IOW, newzealand.com isn't trying to become the government).
Nice rant. Too bad almost none of it ties in with my original post or the followups. Nowhere did I say that people outside the US have no human rights. Nowhere did you state a human right that would be violated by the proposed surveillance. Sure, you mentioned deportation, jailing, etc. without trial. No problem with you there. I agree with you. I truly think Ashcroft is perhaps the most dangerous man in the United States today. But did I anywhere mention any of those things in the post to which you are replying? No. I was discussing the topic at hand: surveillance.
I should just end things there, as nothing of what you wrote is on point. Most of it is incorrect. But there are a few things I can't let drop.
You seem obsessed with the hatred and "slagging" of Americans abroad, with no trace of irony.
And this irony should stem from what? It would appear from your writing that you prefer to insult and denigrate rather then enlighten and educate.
Maybe they hate us, or people who think like you (no such thing as human rights, only American internal rights),
Again, you read this between some lines that I most assuredly did not write. What human rights are being abridged by surveilling foreigners in their country? Name one country that doesn't spy on another.
because you are so obsessed with all these "people not in the U.S." who think they have any say in what we do, especially to their own peoples.
A better example of obsession would be your lengthy, off-topic rant. Just to let me clarify: globalism and the US march across the globe is bad, but the US should consider the wishes and desires of other countries in making their own laws and policies? That's what it seems like you are inferring here.
Did you know that in recent months in California, we've taken in hundreds more unpeople into uncustody who duly registered at the request of the Bush admin? They've been unpeopled. They have no rights.
Yes. I'm quite aware of this. What does this have to do with internet surveillance?
Bush and Ashcroft have long shown over the years their contempt for the judicial system of the U.S.
It seems your major issue is Bush II and Ashcroft. No problems with you there. I most definately did not vote for the former, and urged my senators to vote against confirmation of the latter. But by ignoring US leaders of the past 50 years, it is you who have missed out on why other nations are so pissed off at the US. The planned attacks on the WTC did not start the day of GWB's inauguration. The animosity does not stem solely from actions of the Republicans.
And since I've wasted a few minutes of my life responding to your diatribe, I may as well go through the rest of it:
1. Sign a death warrant for anyone in the world *he* decides should die -- even a U.S. citizen.
This is a bad thing. No problem with you there. How you inferred that I would agree with this is beyond me. But there's also the small matter of enforcing the death sentence.
2. Imprison in secret any foreigner *he* decides is a security risk. Their is no notification to kin. No lawyers. No judges. No trial. The uncitizen can be held indefinitely at the pleasure of Bush, or of course appointed deputies.
Another bad thing. Doesn't explain the attack on US embassies abroad or WTC. Just another of your anti-Bush points that anyone with a third grade education and news coverage beyond Entertainment Tonight already knows.
3. Declare war on any foreign nation he decides coddles terrorists, on the basis of evidence that he does not need to reveal.
Unless I was asleep, the War Powers Act still prevents our engagement on foreign soil for longer than 30 days without the authorization of Congress.
4. Confiscate whatever assets on foreign soil he desires, if it is a spoil of war.
So unlike the way that mankind has waged war for tens of thousands of years.
5. (Bush Sr.) He can invade any nation he desires, for whatever reason, and kidnap the head of state. Civilians can be killed in the thousands as a byblow.
Noriega in Panama? That's the only head of state I know picked up by him. And if thousands were killed in the process, I'd like a link to information on that. I honestly had no idea there were that many people killed. If it's another leader, I'd like to know. Education, not denigration.
6. This year: he openly celebrated an attempted coup against an elected government in Venezuela. One of his spokesman made a crack: sometimes a democratically elected government is not necessarily valid. And apparently we are funding a strike in Venezuela right now. The demand of the strikers? The government step down. This is in the face of the fact that our government employees have been stripped of the right to strike in our country!
What elected governments are okay to speak for/against? It's okay for foreign leaders to desire a removal of Bush from office, but not the other way around? Why the special rules for the US?
Is this always the way you attempt to convince others? Make absurd assumptions about their beliefs, mock their values, and deny their intelligence? Your childish behaviour is strangely similar to that of Rush Limbaugh and other's of his ilk. Your absolute inability to discuss a subject rationally and civilly is perhaps why the opinions that you hold are ignored and shoved aside. When your parents start letting you sit at the grown-ups table for holidays, perhaps you will have gained the necessary level of maturity to partake in polite discussion. Until then, I think your pot-smoking, hacky sack playing dirty hippy friends are waiting for you outside.
No problem. I'm not as worldly as many folks, but I've been to Canada a few times. And even there, the ugly Americanism disgusts me. I can certainly understand why we aren't the most popular country in the world. I also don't agree with attacking Iraq (unless there is some hard proof of wrongdoings on their part) or this plan for surveillance. But I don't think that the original poster's logic for disagreeing with it was particularly strong.
I don't deny any of the scenarios that you say could be a consequence. None at all. But those scenarios are the same for you or me. You being a foreign national has nothing to do with it.
I'm not in favor of this proposal in any form. Far from it. But complaining about how it removes rights of foreigners is a bit absurd.
Your scenarios all hinge on being mistakenly suspected of some nefarious action. In that respect, it differs little from someone who is mistakenly tried for murder. He will be bankrupted in an attempt to clear his name. That's a problem with an adversarial legal system vs. one wherein truth is the ultimate goal.
Where this proposal differs is that you won't have to be tried. You just need a question mark placed on your 'papers' to be put in the shitter. But, again, you are someone living in the US (at this time, I would have to ask why you haven't gotten US citizenship. It's not in any way relevant to the discussion, I'm just curious. Feel free to ignore it:) Someone living outside the US is not in the same situation. While it wasn't clear in the post to which you are replying, it was obvious from the parent of that post that the person was/is outside the United States. Which brings me to ask my question again:
How does the US tracking/spying/whatever of a UK (just to pick a country) citizen living in the UK limit my ability to partake in a representative democracy? Answer: it doesn't. If you can answer that, I applaud you. In various forms, this would be the fourth time I've asked. Two responses were silly name calling events. Yours is so far the best, but I think it still misses the core of my problem with the original poster.
(BTW, using the same techniques to silence MY speech DOES hurt me. My vote is no longer as effective, and I cannot attempt to sway my fellow citizens.)
Not sure how that's a slant. Sheetrock is much easier to work with than plaster and lathe (?). Without it, could there have been such a massive housing boom post WW-II? Now, what business relevance does the theory of relativity have? Today, that is.
Are you purposefully ignorant, or does your inability to read just come naturally? A non-citizen, outside the borders of the US does not have any US rights. Period. End of discussion. Let's assume you are from the UK. Let's further assume you live there. Do I, an American, living in the United States, have any rights in that country? Didn't think so. Further, even if the poster were in the US, there are certain rights s/he wouldn't have. The right to vote being a prime example.
Does the poster have the 'right' not to be spied upon? I don't know. Is there a UN decree or a treaty in place concerning this?
You are really a scum
No. I'm really capable of reading and breaking down an argument.
Did you even read my comment or the parent? Seriously. The parent poster is not in the United States. The parent poster is not a US citizen. People who are not citizens and not in the US do not have US rights. I'm a US citizen in the US. I do not have rights bestowed to British, German, Kenyan, or Japanese citizens.
Why is it that non-Americans are better informed and educated about the US than its own natives?
Why is it that non-Americans seek any opportunity to slag on Americans? Go back and read the post. The person is not in the United States. One of the poster's specific complaints is the potential inability to receive a visa. So please, explain how her rights have been abrogated. Explain how this lessens my ability as a US citizen, living in the US, to participate in my form of government.
I believe there was a plea bargain or some other arrangement to get the prosecutor to drop charges. This throws his 5th amendment rights into a bit of a quagmire, depending on how the plea was setup. At the very least, if he refused to testify, they could likely reinstate the charges against him personally.
Not entirely true. On the mail server at work, horny slut is always, always, ALWAYS spam. I don't provide email addresses for the employees to get off.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this is a process that psychiatrists navigate more easily than surgeons?
Yes, it probably is. I think the majority of people who go into psychiatry recognize that they have failings. In many cases, this seems to have been what led them to the field in the first place. It certainly isn't money or prestige:)
I hope that the answer is time. I've known a great number of docs who are 50+. I've known a slightly smaller number 35-. But that middle area, where the change might occur, I don't have much experience with. The little I have is not encouraging. But I'll wait and see.
I've wasted a pair of wires in the cabinet to this dead line. Why do they need to provision one pair of copper when the DSL signal is carried over a different pair?
Local phone service is cheap residentially, but, being a business, Verizon asks us to bend over just a little further for the line.
Personally, I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for, but I wouldn't expect you'll save much money in the long run.
You do understand that 'long run' is actually a technical term, and not merely a figure of speech? First, I will save money, in both the long and short terms. Second, who gives a shit how much money is saved? I would have saved money, isn't that enough? What has Verizon done to earn that extra little bit of money? Two things: jack and shit. So why should they get it? Isn't that money better in my pocket, and perhaps spreading around the company? No, that $4 per month isn't much, but if I find a hundred or a thousand similar things where the company is paying $4 too much per month, we're talking about raises for some underpaid people.
Which, coincidentally, is right when the government decided to start regulating the telcos, with the break up of the Bells and the first requirements for telcos to make their infrastructure available to competitors.
So more regulation is the solution?
It's when THE telco was found guilty of abusing monopoly power, and the federal government decided to remedy the situation. My understanding is that competition was only allowed/required in long distance services. There was no local dialtone competition until 1996.
This isn't more regulation. It's saying 'knock off the bullshit'. Again, this is an industry given a monopoly in the interest of the public. That interest being universal telephone coverage. They could have kept it if they hadn't abused it. They abused it.
I work in the medical industry, and my father has been a family practitioner for over 30 years. I have no doubt I've met and interacted with more doctors than the average person, and probably more than the average resident. With that disclaimer out of the way...
In my experience, there are two rather large things wrong with physicians that could be improved. Both of these would have a positive effect on outcomes. Neither are discussed much. It sounds like neither of these are touched on in the book.
First is a lack of scientific background. Now, I don't mean that some doc didn't have a BS in biology or whatever. They don't think like scientists. Far too often, physicians build up a mental table of symptoms. When a new patient presents with a condition, the table is consulted. This works fine in general, but falls apart miserably in corner cases. To solve those corner cases, some deductive (and inductive:) reasoning is called for. It is staggering the number of physicians who lack these skills. In some ways, newly minted MD's are better in this respect. They haven't had the time to develop a catalog, so they are reasoning through EVERYTHING. Sure, it makes them slower, but everything will be reasoned through. Docs with 5, 10, 20 years of experience have built a corpus of knowledge that they refuse to look beyond.
But all is not well with new docs. All physicians suffer from hubris. No kidding that this is one of the seven deadly sins. Most doctors are convinced of their own godhood. Check out Alec Baldwin's character in "Malice". Yes, it is a caricature. But there is also a grain of truth in his portrayal. For most doctors, questioning a diagnosis or treatment plan is a surefire way to piss them off. Being correct when they are wrong will drive them to either apoplepsy or catatonia. Is this something they come out of med school with? I think so. Older physicians seem to be better in this regard. There are two possible explanations that immediately come to mind. First is that they have experience to show their human failings. The other explanation is the makeup of the teachers and instructors in most universities today. Thirty years ago, they were staffed by former physicians, those who had had private practices, large patient caseloads, etc. Today, like much of academia, they are staffed by professional instructors. If you can't see the problem with this, I can't help you.
What's the solution? I really have no idea. Once the hubris disappears or is mitigated, it should be possible to learn the thought processes necessary to do good medicine. But how do you convince someone that they have too much pride? This is a real world problem for me, as my practice has several new doctors. They have potential. They can be great. But can they get past their own thoughts of superiority to recognize their weaknesses in certain areas?
Is this reverse bundling? Instead of giving you something for 'free', they force you to buy one, unrelated thing, to get another thing. This folks, is a load of shit. I hope that the California PUC drops the hammer on SBC. I'm in Maryland, and my business had to buy a $12/month (okay, it was actually $20, since it's a 'business' line) line just to get DSL. Of course, I couldn't get DSL, since asshole Verizon and stupid business decisions from Northpoint killed off competitive DSL in the area.
If the Baby Bells hadn't had piss poor (or no) service since 1982, if they hadn't done almost everything in their power to alienate customers as much as AT&T before them, if they hadn't been collecting monopoly rents for 20 years, perhaps there would be no market for CLEC's. But there are.
This is very similar to the thinking in RIAA member companies. Let's treat the customer like garbage, let's increase the charge for this 'service', and then let's dig in our heels and bring out big legislative guns to keep things that way.
Not sure what revision they are up to, but the Soyo Dragon series has a full complement of slots in addition to a couple of integrated peripherals. I can nearly saturate a 10 Base T network with the onboard LAN. The sound easily disappears when you want another card.
Don't waste time with the Google News link. This story is an AP story, and the Google News link, at this time (1:45 AM EDT) contains only about 100 links to various papers' copy of the AP article. As a matter of fact, the only unique link is the one to this slashdot article.
Once again, those in power are above the law. When/if these devices make it onto actual guns, people will go to PA, NY (?) or other states to get guns. The price of a pre-smart gun will drastically go up on the black market. Normal slobs will be inconvenienced. Tony Soprano will still be packing.
Dear God. Give geeks big bucks during the dotcom boom. Give them hottie girlfriends like Stevie Case. Make scads of money showing how 'cool' geeks are.
And yet someone still makes a Monty Python joke to fuck it all up.
"You must bring us... A usable desktop for linux!"
Therefore, whilst your point is sound it does not appear to be a defence of this proposal.
That's really my whole point in a nutshell. I disagree with it, but not for the reason stated by so many:)
Have you seen 'The Great Escape'? Wonderful scene where the three American POW's celebrate the 4th amidst ~200 British POW's. Not sure why the US doesn't allow dual citizenship. It's not as if you could run for president, even if you became a US citizen.
On the "Us Vs Them" front, the RIAA/MPAA want to monopolize the American source of Culture.
How long until some European or some domestic snob comes along and says something to the effect of 'USians [sic] have no culture'?
How long does my younger brother have to wait for the cartoon?
There is a kids version on Saturday mornings on NBC. I think it is called "Operation Junkyard".
John C. Dvorak has been a professional troll in the computer industry for 20 years. Rarely have his predictions come true. Rarely has his 'advice' been useful. This is the same drivel he churned out at MacUser for years. Please pay this man no mind; he certainly has none.
Wow. I remember when PageMaker (by Aldus at the time?) was pissing everyone off, so they left for Quark.
Of course, if, as an employer, you want someone well trained at brown-nosing and playing political games, then by all means choose someone with an extensive acedemic background. You won't be let down.
That would explain most of the MBA's you run across. And doctors for that matter.
(I am an MBA who works with doctors, so odds are I know more than you about this subject. 'You' indicating mindless moderators.)
What about those who can teach?
That's just a myth they tell at NEA meetings. Kinda like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Seriously, the best professors in college or higher that I have had have almost always been people burnt out on 'the real world', changing the phrase to "those who can do, those who can't, teach, those who teach well usetacould" (That last word is a real word. Just ask Jeff Foxworthy)
If New Zealand wants a domain, it can be newzealand.org or newzealand.net or newzealand.nz Unless the government of new zealand is a for profit entity. It was registered in 1996. The article doesn't mention, but did the gov't attempt to purchase it from the current owner?
Isn't this the result 'we' wanted from the nissan.com case? newzealand.com was there first, has disclaimers, and isn't competing with the more well known New Zealand (IOW, newzealand.com isn't trying to become the government).
Nice rant. Too bad almost none of it ties in with my original post or the followups. Nowhere did I say that people outside the US have no human rights. Nowhere did you state a human right that would be violated by the proposed surveillance. Sure, you mentioned deportation, jailing, etc. without trial. No problem with you there. I agree with you. I truly think Ashcroft is perhaps the most dangerous man in the United States today. But did I anywhere mention any of those things in the post to which you are replying? No. I was discussing the topic at hand: surveillance.
I should just end things there, as nothing of what you wrote is on point. Most of it is incorrect. But there are a few things I can't let drop.
You seem obsessed with the hatred and "slagging" of Americans abroad, with no trace of irony.
And this irony should stem from what? It would appear from your writing that you prefer to insult and denigrate rather then enlighten and educate.
Maybe they hate us, or people who think like you (no such thing as human rights, only American internal rights),
Again, you read this between some lines that I most assuredly did not write. What human rights are being abridged by surveilling foreigners in their country? Name one country that doesn't spy on another.
because you are so obsessed with all these "people not in the U.S." who think they have any say in what we do, especially to their own peoples.
A better example of obsession would be your lengthy, off-topic rant. Just to let me clarify: globalism and the US march across the globe is bad, but the US should consider the wishes and desires of other countries in making their own laws and policies? That's what it seems like you are inferring here.
Did you know that in recent months in California, we've taken in hundreds more unpeople into uncustody who duly registered at the request of the Bush admin? They've been unpeopled. They have no rights.
Yes. I'm quite aware of this. What does this have to do with internet surveillance?
Bush and Ashcroft have long shown over the years their contempt for the judicial system of the U.S.
It seems your major issue is Bush II and Ashcroft. No problems with you there. I most definately did not vote for the former, and urged my senators to vote against confirmation of the latter. But by ignoring US leaders of the past 50 years, it is you who have missed out on why other nations are so pissed off at the US. The planned attacks on the WTC did not start the day of GWB's inauguration. The animosity does not stem solely from actions of the Republicans.
And since I've wasted a few minutes of my life responding to your diatribe, I may as well go through the rest of it:
1. Sign a death warrant for anyone in the world *he* decides should die -- even a U.S. citizen.
This is a bad thing. No problem with you there. How you inferred that I would agree with this is beyond me. But there's also the small matter of enforcing the death sentence.
2. Imprison in secret any foreigner *he* decides is a security risk. Their is no notification to kin. No lawyers. No judges. No trial. The uncitizen can be held indefinitely at the pleasure of Bush, or of course appointed deputies.
Another bad thing. Doesn't explain the attack on US embassies abroad or WTC. Just another of your anti-Bush points that anyone with a third grade education and news coverage beyond Entertainment Tonight already knows.
3. Declare war on any foreign nation he decides coddles terrorists, on the basis of evidence that he does not need to reveal.
Unless I was asleep, the War Powers Act still prevents our engagement on foreign soil for longer than 30 days without the authorization of Congress.
4. Confiscate whatever assets on foreign soil he desires, if it is a spoil of war.
So unlike the way that mankind has waged war for tens of thousands of years.
5. (Bush Sr.) He can invade any nation he desires, for whatever reason, and kidnap the head of state. Civilians can be killed in the thousands as a byblow.
Noriega in Panama? That's the only head of state I know picked up by him. And if thousands were killed in the process, I'd like a link to information on that. I honestly had no idea there were that many people killed. If it's another leader, I'd like to know. Education, not denigration.
6. This year: he openly celebrated an attempted coup against an elected government in Venezuela. One of his spokesman made a crack: sometimes a democratically elected government is not necessarily valid. And apparently we are funding a strike in Venezuela right now. The demand of the strikers? The government step down. This is in the face of the fact that our government employees have been stripped of the right to strike in our country!
What elected governments are okay to speak for/against? It's okay for foreign leaders to desire a removal of Bush from office, but not the other way around? Why the special rules for the US?
Is this always the way you attempt to convince others? Make absurd assumptions about their beliefs, mock their values, and deny their intelligence? Your childish behaviour is strangely similar to that of Rush Limbaugh and other's of his ilk. Your absolute inability to discuss a subject rationally and civilly is perhaps why the opinions that you hold are ignored and shoved aside. When your parents start letting you sit at the grown-ups table for holidays, perhaps you will have gained the necessary level of maturity to partake in polite discussion. Until then, I think your pot-smoking, hacky sack playing dirty hippy friends are waiting for you outside.
Sorry for insult though
No problem. I'm not as worldly as many folks, but I've been to Canada a few times. And even there, the ugly Americanism disgusts me. I can certainly understand why we aren't the most popular country in the world. I also don't agree with attacking Iraq (unless there is some hard proof of wrongdoings on their part) or this plan for surveillance. But I don't think that the original poster's logic for disagreeing with it was particularly strong.
Unix
You probably don't need our advice.
Just for that, I'm gonna go buy a show.
I don't deny any of the scenarios that you say could be a consequence. None at all. But those scenarios are the same for you or me. You being a foreign national has nothing to do with it.
I'm not in favor of this proposal in any form. Far from it. But complaining about how it removes rights of foreigners is a bit absurd.
Your scenarios all hinge on being mistakenly suspected of some nefarious action. In that respect, it differs little from someone who is mistakenly tried for murder. He will be bankrupted in an attempt to clear his name. That's a problem with an adversarial legal system vs. one wherein truth is the ultimate goal.
Where this proposal differs is that you won't have to be tried. You just need a question mark placed on your 'papers' to be put in the shitter. But, again, you are someone living in the US (at this time, I would have to ask why you haven't gotten US citizenship. It's not in any way relevant to the discussion, I'm just curious. Feel free to ignore it:) Someone living outside the US is not in the same situation. While it wasn't clear in the post to which you are replying, it was obvious from the parent of that post that the person was/is outside the United States. Which brings me to ask my question again:
How does the US tracking/spying/whatever of a UK (just to pick a country) citizen living in the UK limit my ability to partake in a representative democracy? Answer: it doesn't. If you can answer that, I applaud you. In various forms, this would be the fourth time I've asked. Two responses were silly name calling events. Yours is so far the best, but I think it still misses the core of my problem with the original poster.
(BTW, using the same techniques to silence MY speech DOES hurt me. My vote is no longer as effective, and I cannot attempt to sway my fellow citizens.)
Not sure how that's a slant. Sheetrock is much easier to work with than plaster and lathe (?). Without it, could there have been such a massive housing boom post WW-II? Now, what business relevance does the theory of relativity have? Today, that is.
Are you purposefully ignorant, or does your inability to read just come naturally? A non-citizen, outside the borders of the US does not have any US rights. Period. End of discussion. Let's assume you are from the UK. Let's further assume you live there. Do I, an American, living in the United States, have any rights in that country? Didn't think so. Further, even if the poster were in the US, there are certain rights s/he wouldn't have. The right to vote being a prime example.
Does the poster have the 'right' not to be spied upon? I don't know. Is there a UN decree or a treaty in place concerning this?
You are really a scum
No. I'm really capable of reading and breaking down an argument.
Did you even read my comment or the parent? Seriously. The parent poster is not in the United States. The parent poster is not a US citizen. People who are not citizens and not in the US do not have US rights. I'm a US citizen in the US. I do not have rights bestowed to British, German, Kenyan, or Japanese citizens.
Why is it that non-Americans are better informed and educated about the US than its own natives?
Why is it that non-Americans seek any opportunity to slag on Americans? Go back and read the post. The person is not in the United States. One of the poster's specific complaints is the potential inability to receive a visa. So please, explain how her rights have been abrogated. Explain how this lessens my ability as a US citizen, living in the US, to participate in my form of government.
I believe there was a plea bargain or some other arrangement to get the prosecutor to drop charges. This throws his 5th amendment rights into a bit of a quagmire, depending on how the plea was setup. At the very least, if he refused to testify, they could likely reinstate the charges against him personally.
Not entirely true. On the mail server at work, horny slut is always, always, ALWAYS spam. I don't provide email addresses for the employees to get off.
For ISP's... Probably a different situation.