That's completely irrelevant. State borders are nothing like international borders.
You're apparently completely ignorant of both European and US history if you fail to see the close analogy between US federalism and what's happening in the EU.
Yet you keep claiming to be the "land of the free",
So do you: "For we are young and free".
And whether we are free has nothing to do with what happens to you when you cross an international border.
you have the audacity to call yourselves "leaders of the free world"
That's just an observation: the US is the only nation that is big and powerful enough to get any kind of coordinated action going in the world at all. It's not an honorific and not a title. And it's only a role power-mad politicians like Obama want; Americans generally hate military action abroad and would prefer a more isolationist policy.
you criticise other governments for perceived abuses,
So what? Our criticism of other governments pales in comparison to the anti-American abuse heaped upon us by Europeans for two centuries. We don't care, and neither should you. It's politics and propaganda. As I was saying, the vast majority of Americans don't give a f*ck about your country, what you say about us, or how you live.
and you try to force your system of values on other nations, without any sense of irony.
You're confusing utility with idealism. European powers used to think that oppressing and exploiting colonies was the best way for them to thrive, the US figured out that free market economies with some democracy is usually in our interest (but sometimes we settle for friendly dictatorship). We do what's best for us, nothing else. And unlike our European predecessors, we found that an economic carrot (if you want to trade with us, you need to do ___) usually works better than the military approach. But don't confuse our rational economic self-interest with benevolence or a mission to democratize the world. As I was saying, we generally don't give a f*ck about your country, what you say, or how you live, as long as you don't threaten us and trade with us.
I know it isn't fashionable to say this, but he was actually the head of the socialist party. Yeah, yeah, his didn't do the whole union pension thing, but the socialists still put him up there. So your point really is that socialists are idiots.
No, that's wrong. Germany had both a socialist and a communist party, and Hitler was never a member, let alone their leader. Hitler was part of a party that initially self-identified as "socialist", but actually espoused fascist ideologies from the beginning. Fascism and socialism are related in that both want strong government control over the economy, but they are otherwise quite different. And the fact remains that socialists and communists strongly opposed Hitler in Germany, while Christian conservatives voted for him in parliament. You can still even read their speeches and follow their reasoning.
As for fascism being conservative, only if by conservative you mean wanting no individual liberty and all effort being to support the state. It's funny that I don't see conservatives in the US being in that vein
American conservatives stand for family values, Christian values, tradition, a common national purpose, and strong defense, just like the Christian conservatives who voted for Hitler in the 1930's. And American conservatives have no qualms about intervening in the economy when it provides things they don't like, or fails to provide things they do like.
No, if there is a block in the US that wants everyone to pitch in to make the state stronger, it is certainly the left. It seems the only individual liberties they insist on are legal drugs and indiscriminate sex.
True, the left aims for its own brand of totalitarianism, and modern progressivism has fascist tendencies as well. But there aren't two opposing philosophies involved here, but multiple ones. The only political philosophy that espouses liberty is classical liberalism (also known as libertarianism now): it seeks to maximize both personal and economic liberties. Conservatives, progressives, and fascists all seek to restrict either personal liberties or economic liberties or both.
America sees itself as an exceptionally free county. This exposes that as a lie
America still is an exceptionally free country. Being an exceptionally free country doesn't mean that non-citizens can come and go as they please.
Other countries use America's policies as an excuse for their own policies.
Quite the opposite: people like Obama use other countries' repressive policies to introduce similar policies in the US. Whether it's domestic surveillance, public transit subsidies, or health care reform, US progressives keep saying "people in Europe do it that way, we need to do it too", and Europeans cheer them on.
Therefore, facism is more like progressivism than it is like conservatism.
Historically, it was clearly the right that supported fascists, while the left strongly opposed it (and wanted to replace it with their own kind of totalitarianism). That's just a fact.
Today, fascism "isn't more like" one or the other. Modern US progressivism indeed has fascist tendencies, but so does modern US conservatism, which also advocates strong government involvement in the economy (just a different kind of involvement) and government imposed morality and social order and norms.
And the really worrisome thing is that, given that both the US left and right are showing these tendencies, there is less and less of a voice for individual liberties and free markets.
If you want to criticise others, take the moral high ground, be seen as a human rights leader, and call yourself the land of the free, you need to do more than talk
I think it's a pretty safe bet that most Americans don't give a f*ck what you people think of us or what you do in the privacy of your own country.
Slashdot is a US site with a large US audience.
Glad you realize it, because many of your fellow foreign readers seem to not understand this.
And a US audience needs to understand first of all that many of these supposedly horrible American failures are, in fact, commonplace in the world, and many of them simply should have low priority for our politicians.
Change starts at home.
If you want to be outraged about something, as an Australian, may I make the suggestion that worry about your own marvelous detention facilities on Nauru and other places first?
Indeed, I remember travelling through the "Iron Curtain" in my youth with no thought that anything like this might occur to me.
Then you were lucky, because this sort of thing happened regularly.
Perhaps the people commenting on the US border situation are Europeans, who are used to crossing the borders between the various European countries, where nothing like this happens.
Nothing like this happens between the American states either, and hasn't for more than two centuries. Imagine that.
In that way the differences between socialism/fascism/communism are distinctions without a difference to the common man.
The distinctions are very important because that's what the common man is tricked with into voting for the different parties. Socialism roughly says that many businesses should be state run and make profit for the state. Fascism roughly says that businesses should be privately run but under strong direction from the state. In that light, what the strong regulatory regimes of some recent presidents amount to is not the socialism they have been accused of, but fascism.
The end result for individuals unfortunate enough to be under either political/social ideologies' power is nearly identical.
At their heart, socialism, capitalism, and fascism are really primarily economic choices, rather than political ideologies. Any of them might be compatible with democracy in principle. In practice, however, only capitalism seems to be able to co-exist with democratic government, while socialism and fascism always deteriorate into horrific dictatorships. The reason is simple: anything other than capitalism puts economic power in the hands of politicians, and they are going to use economic power to advance their political interests. You may fear the power of the 500 or so billionaires in the US, but they are only interested in making money; concentrating the same power in the hands of the president's economic team is a recipe for totalitarianism.
"Fascism" is a conservative ideology and strongly supposed to socialism. Hitler had the support of conservative and Christian parties, and was opposed by the socialists and communists, and Hitler threw socialists and communists into concentration camps. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of the German parliamentary record and voting.
Fascists view themselves as a "third way" alternative to socialism and capitalism, namely an economic system in which companies operate privately (and for private profits) but under strong government control and direction. Sadly, there are increasingly anti-capitalist and pro-fascist tendencies in US politics, in particular among self-proclaimed progressives. Some of their anti-corporate and anti-bank statements could be straight from European 1930's fascist speeches.
If your local school stinks and you send your child there, Benedikt explains, 'I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.
But you can't, because by their very nature, public schools are a lowest-common-denominator compromise, subject to political whims, fads, and union interests. Any kind of change is going to take longer than for your kids to graduate.
And people can't even agree on what "better" means? Does that mean taking a critical view of climate change? Does it mean teaching that religion is inherently good, or being critical of religion? Does that mean turning kids into little capitalists, little socialists, little Christians, or little anarchists? And why is it even good that all kids be educated to think the same way and believe the same things?
The public school system is to schools what public toilets are to your bathroom: a choice of last resort. And we should treat them as such and roll the public school system back so that people can vote with their feet and money for the schools they actually want.
There is nothing innovative in FaceTime and similar systems that I can see. Handing off video chats to direct connections is an obvious engineering solution; nobody should get a patent on it. Many of the software patents are written by academics with no understanding of engineering or what is actually going on in the real world.
If you have to go by train to small towns, then nyou are right. But that was not the point: you claimed car would ALWAYS be FASTER and ALWAYS be cheaper. Which is wrong.
You can selectively quote out of this thread up the wazoo, but my position was quite clear in this thread: the German railway system is good for people like you who live in city centers, it's lousy transportation for much of the country who end up subsidizing your convenience. And that would be even worse in the US where very few people live within walking distance of the few high speed rail stations that are being planned.
Coming back to the american situation: I'm pretty sure it would be a profitable endeauver to have such a railway connection (SF - LA).
If it were profitable, it wouldn't require $50-100 billion in initial government spending, plus endless further subsidies. The California high speed rail is likely going to cost every Californian of the order of $1000. That's a huge waste of money for something that a few percent of the population on the SF-LA corridor actually ever are going to use. It is beyond stupid.
Bottom line it is YOU who wants to convince me as a reader and your fellow americans that the "good old american" way is the best.
I don't want to convince you of anything; you can't convince a German that anything is wrong in your country. You're indoctrinated from birth to believe certain things and it is hopeless to change your views.
I just point out to my fellow Americans that when they say that we should have a railway system like Europe, I know they wouldn't like it. They wouldn't like the uncomfortable seats, the crowded cars, the hours of delays, the inability to plan their arrival time, the high cost, the ever changing schedules, and the endless waits on drafty platforms in the middle of nowhere. And they wouldn't like paying the higher taxes that are needed to pay for it either. I know that because I have actually used the German system and it sucks.
I gave you the prices and travel times for typical routes for train and car. That disproved your point that the car is faster and/or cheaper and the other point that a train is more expensive and/or slower.
You keep comparing apples and oranges. What matters isn't how fast a train can get you from station to station, but what matters when you have to leave your house to make it to your appointment in time with high probability, and that adds many hours to every long distance trip. Similar considerations apply to prices. And all these would be far worse in the US, where there isn't even the rail support network for such a high speed line. And you keep denying the subsidies that are clearly going to German rail.
I've taken literally hundreds of high speed rail trips in Germany; I don't want a system like that in the US. Even if it were efficient (which it is not), I wouldn't want the other changes that go along with it: the housing density, real estate prices, political power structure, etc. Even if it resulted in lower carbon emissions or cheaper and faster transportation (which it clearly does not), I still wouldn't want it because those are only some of many factors to consider.
You are nevertheless free to do so. If your advice makes sense it is even very welcome.
But we don't believe that there is a single right way of doing things. Feel free to make whatever choices you like in Germany. Use horse-and-buggy if you like, we'll come and admire the quaintness of it all as tourists, without ever complaining or telling you to do it differently.
I'm arguing with _you_, especially as half of your statements are "wrong"
No, you are arguing with me because you are German and the one thing Germans generally hate beyond all others is non-conformity, at the individual, group, and nation level. The German cultural norm is to believe that there is one right way of doing things and if others do it differently, they must be made to see the errors of their ways. You feel threatened if other people make different choices from you and so you attack them and rationalize your choices.
I have no idea what the right transportation system for the US is. But I'm quite sure that I don't want the US to turn in any way into anything like Germany or Europe, so we need to make different choices.
1871 was the year when the german empire was founded. Was hat that to do with rail way systems? Nothing of course. But you believe otherwise...
Gosh, what could the founding of a single unified Germany have to do with creating a nationwide railway system? Whatever reason would railway historians have to pick that date to start talking about the creation of the modern German railway system? You'll obviously never figure it out.
Well, I disproved you three times wrong
Proof? Are you kidding?
and now you start insulting me?
I told you to butt out of US policy decisions because it's none of your business. I don't see Americans giving Germans advice about Stuttgart 21 or the failing Berlin airport. Don't you have your own problems to worry about instead of giving Americans transportation advice?
Socializing via Facebook is probably a lot faster and more efficient than socializing in the numerous ways that past graduate students used. So I'm not sure that this actually achieves what aims to achieve.
I stand by what I wrote, not your misquoting of it. I gave you examples, I'm sorry if you can't follow them. You also keep wrongly claiming that the system isn't subsidized; it is, extensively, on all routes.
If you can't figure out why 1871 is a key date in the expansion of the German railway system or what governmental powers at the time were, your understanding of German history is even poorer than that of the average German. The fact remains that eminent domain and takings, necessary for building a railroad network, are much harder in the US today than they were in imperial and Nazi Germany.
Ultimately, I'd thank you to butt out of discussions about US policies. Americans in general don't care how you people live, eat, travel, f*ck, or do any of the other things you do, and we'd thank you to return the favor. But you're obviously an adherent of the belief "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen." Sorry, I don't want my country to be like yours; if I liked your country, I'd still be living there.
Lord Blair: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Blair, was to carry Secrets. THAT is why I am your lord.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Lord Blair: Off with his head.
It may not be canonical, but it's the way these things usually go.
And by "terrorism" he means anything that strikes terror in the hearts of an entrenched, arrogant, lazy, overpaid, and incompetent political power structure, like free elections, free press, limited government, and low taxes.
Technology gets more power efficient. Something as computationally powerful as your Galaxy Ace these days uses a lot less power and generates less heat.
Slashdot Mirror
By this I mean "as soon as Hitler controlled the party", not the nebulous origins of the DAP.
You're apparently completely ignorant of both European and US history if you fail to see the close analogy between US federalism and what's happening in the EU.
So do you: "For we are young and free".
And whether we are free has nothing to do with what happens to you when you cross an international border.
That's just an observation: the US is the only nation that is big and powerful enough to get any kind of coordinated action going in the world at all. It's not an honorific and not a title. And it's only a role power-mad politicians like Obama want; Americans generally hate military action abroad and would prefer a more isolationist policy.
So what? Our criticism of other governments pales in comparison to the anti-American abuse heaped upon us by Europeans for two centuries. We don't care, and neither should you. It's politics and propaganda. As I was saying, the vast majority of Americans don't give a f*ck about your country, what you say about us, or how you live.
You're confusing utility with idealism. European powers used to think that oppressing and exploiting colonies was the best way for them to thrive, the US figured out that free market economies with some democracy is usually in our interest (but sometimes we settle for friendly dictatorship). We do what's best for us, nothing else. And unlike our European predecessors, we found that an economic carrot (if you want to trade with us, you need to do ___) usually works better than the military approach. But don't confuse our rational economic self-interest with benevolence or a mission to democratize the world. As I was saying, we generally don't give a f*ck about your country, what you say, or how you live, as long as you don't threaten us and trade with us.
No, that's wrong. Germany had both a socialist and a communist party, and Hitler was never a member, let alone their leader. Hitler was part of a party that initially self-identified as "socialist", but actually espoused fascist ideologies from the beginning. Fascism and socialism are related in that both want strong government control over the economy, but they are otherwise quite different. And the fact remains that socialists and communists strongly opposed Hitler in Germany, while Christian conservatives voted for him in parliament. You can still even read their speeches and follow their reasoning.
American conservatives stand for family values, Christian values, tradition, a common national purpose, and strong defense, just like the Christian conservatives who voted for Hitler in the 1930's. And American conservatives have no qualms about intervening in the economy when it provides things they don't like, or fails to provide things they do like.
True, the left aims for its own brand of totalitarianism, and modern progressivism has fascist tendencies as well. But there aren't two opposing philosophies involved here, but multiple ones. The only political philosophy that espouses liberty is classical liberalism (also known as libertarianism now): it seeks to maximize both personal and economic liberties. Conservatives, progressives, and fascists all seek to restrict either personal liberties or economic liberties or both.
America still is an exceptionally free country. Being an exceptionally free country doesn't mean that non-citizens can come and go as they please.
Quite the opposite: people like Obama use other countries' repressive policies to introduce similar policies in the US. Whether it's domestic surveillance, public transit subsidies, or health care reform, US progressives keep saying "people in Europe do it that way, we need to do it too", and Europeans cheer them on.
Historically, it was clearly the right that supported fascists, while the left strongly opposed it (and wanted to replace it with their own kind of totalitarianism). That's just a fact.
Today, fascism "isn't more like" one or the other. Modern US progressivism indeed has fascist tendencies, but so does modern US conservatism, which also advocates strong government involvement in the economy (just a different kind of involvement) and government imposed morality and social order and norms.
And the really worrisome thing is that, given that both the US left and right are showing these tendencies, there is less and less of a voice for individual liberties and free markets.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that most Americans don't give a f*ck what you people think of us or what you do in the privacy of your own country.
Glad you realize it, because many of your fellow foreign readers seem to not understand this.
And a US audience needs to understand first of all that many of these supposedly horrible American failures are, in fact, commonplace in the world, and many of them simply should have low priority for our politicians.
If you want to be outraged about something, as an Australian, may I make the suggestion that worry about your own marvelous detention facilities on Nauru and other places first?
Then you were lucky, because this sort of thing happened regularly.
Nothing like this happens between the American states either, and hasn't for more than two centuries. Imagine that.
Fascism = private ownership + government economic direction
Socialism = public ownership + government economic direction
Capitalism = private ownership + no government intervention in markets
The distinctions are very important because that's what the common man is tricked with into voting for the different parties. Socialism roughly says that many businesses should be state run and make profit for the state. Fascism roughly says that businesses should be privately run but under strong direction from the state. In that light, what the strong regulatory regimes of some recent presidents amount to is not the socialism they have been accused of, but fascism.
At their heart, socialism, capitalism, and fascism are really primarily economic choices, rather than political ideologies. Any of them might be compatible with democracy in principle. In practice, however, only capitalism seems to be able to co-exist with democratic government, while socialism and fascism always deteriorate into horrific dictatorships. The reason is simple: anything other than capitalism puts economic power in the hands of politicians, and they are going to use economic power to advance their political interests. You may fear the power of the 500 or so billionaires in the US, but they are only interested in making money; concentrating the same power in the hands of the president's economic team is a recipe for totalitarianism.
"Fascism" is a conservative ideology and strongly supposed to socialism. Hitler had the support of conservative and Christian parties, and was opposed by the socialists and communists, and Hitler threw socialists and communists into concentration camps. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of the German parliamentary record and voting.
Fascists view themselves as a "third way" alternative to socialism and capitalism, namely an economic system in which companies operate privately (and for private profits) but under strong government control and direction. Sadly, there are increasingly anti-capitalist and pro-fascist tendencies in US politics, in particular among self-proclaimed progressives. Some of their anti-corporate and anti-bank statements could be straight from European 1930's fascist speeches.
But you can't, because by their very nature, public schools are a lowest-common-denominator compromise, subject to political whims, fads, and union interests. Any kind of change is going to take longer than for your kids to graduate.
And people can't even agree on what "better" means? Does that mean taking a critical view of climate change? Does it mean teaching that religion is inherently good, or being critical of religion? Does that mean turning kids into little capitalists, little socialists, little Christians, or little anarchists? And why is it even good that all kids be educated to think the same way and believe the same things?
The public school system is to schools what public toilets are to your bathroom: a choice of last resort. And we should treat them as such and roll the public school system back so that people can vote with their feet and money for the schools they actually want.
Yes, it's bad that this is happening at US borders. But it's happening everywhere else too, so why this obsession with the US?
There is nothing innovative in FaceTime and similar systems that I can see. Handing off video chats to direct connections is an obvious engineering solution; nobody should get a patent on it. Many of the software patents are written by academics with no understanding of engineering or what is actually going on in the real world.
You can selectively quote out of this thread up the wazoo, but my position was quite clear in this thread: the German railway system is good for people like you who live in city centers, it's lousy transportation for much of the country who end up subsidizing your convenience. And that would be even worse in the US where very few people live within walking distance of the few high speed rail stations that are being planned.
If it were profitable, it wouldn't require $50-100 billion in initial government spending, plus endless further subsidies. The California high speed rail is likely going to cost every Californian of the order of $1000. That's a huge waste of money for something that a few percent of the population on the SF-LA corridor actually ever are going to use. It is beyond stupid.
I don't want to convince you of anything; you can't convince a German that anything is wrong in your country. You're indoctrinated from birth to believe certain things and it is hopeless to change your views.
I just point out to my fellow Americans that when they say that we should have a railway system like Europe, I know they wouldn't like it. They wouldn't like the uncomfortable seats, the crowded cars, the hours of delays, the inability to plan their arrival time, the high cost, the ever changing schedules, and the endless waits on drafty platforms in the middle of nowhere. And they wouldn't like paying the higher taxes that are needed to pay for it either. I know that because I have actually used the German system and it sucks.
You keep comparing apples and oranges. What matters isn't how fast a train can get you from station to station, but what matters when you have to leave your house to make it to your appointment in time with high probability, and that adds many hours to every long distance trip. Similar considerations apply to prices. And all these would be far worse in the US, where there isn't even the rail support network for such a high speed line. And you keep denying the subsidies that are clearly going to German rail.
I've taken literally hundreds of high speed rail trips in Germany; I don't want a system like that in the US. Even if it were efficient (which it is not), I wouldn't want the other changes that go along with it: the housing density, real estate prices, political power structure, etc. Even if it resulted in lower carbon emissions or cheaper and faster transportation (which it clearly does not), I still wouldn't want it because those are only some of many factors to consider.
But we don't believe that there is a single right way of doing things. Feel free to make whatever choices you like in Germany. Use horse-and-buggy if you like, we'll come and admire the quaintness of it all as tourists, without ever complaining or telling you to do it differently.
No, you are arguing with me because you are German and the one thing Germans generally hate beyond all others is non-conformity, at the individual, group, and nation level. The German cultural norm is to believe that there is one right way of doing things and if others do it differently, they must be made to see the errors of their ways. You feel threatened if other people make different choices from you and so you attack them and rationalize your choices.
I have no idea what the right transportation system for the US is. But I'm quite sure that I don't want the US to turn in any way into anything like Germany or Europe, so we need to make different choices.
It's a proposition, not a law of nature. And, believe me, socializing in grad school didn't used to be limited to 20 minutes a day.
Gosh, what could the founding of a single unified Germany have to do with creating a nationwide railway system? Whatever reason would railway historians have to pick that date to start talking about the creation of the modern German railway system? You'll obviously never figure it out.
Proof? Are you kidding?
I told you to butt out of US policy decisions because it's none of your business. I don't see Americans giving Germans advice about Stuttgart 21 or the failing Berlin airport. Don't you have your own problems to worry about instead of giving Americans transportation advice?
Socializing via Facebook is probably a lot faster and more efficient than socializing in the numerous ways that past graduate students used. So I'm not sure that this actually achieves what aims to achieve.
I stand by what I wrote, not your misquoting of it. I gave you examples, I'm sorry if you can't follow them. You also keep wrongly claiming that the system isn't subsidized; it is, extensively, on all routes.
If you can't figure out why 1871 is a key date in the expansion of the German railway system or what governmental powers at the time were, your understanding of German history is even poorer than that of the average German. The fact remains that eminent domain and takings, necessary for building a railroad network, are much harder in the US today than they were in imperial and Nazi Germany.
Ultimately, I'd thank you to butt out of discussions about US policies. Americans in general don't care how you people live, eat, travel, f*ck, or do any of the other things you do, and we'd thank you to return the favor. But you're obviously an adherent of the belief "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen." Sorry, I don't want my country to be like yours; if I liked your country, I'd still be living there.
Lord Blair: Off with his head.
It may not be canonical, but it's the way these things usually go.
And by "terrorism" he means anything that strikes terror in the hearts of an entrenched, arrogant, lazy, overpaid, and incompetent political power structure, like free elections, free press, limited government, and low taxes.
I really don't care what kind of world-wide lists we're first on. We should stop obsessing about what people in Europe or Asia do or think.
Technology gets more power efficient. Something as computationally powerful as your Galaxy Ace these days uses a lot less power and generates less heat.
What's there to fix? It works as well as it ever has over the past 200 years. I doubt your nation, whatever it may be, has done better.
What does that have to do with the observation that I don't have a problem with Germany attempting to spy on me?
Oh my, a TYPO!
You have no idea what my native language is.
You tell me.