Obviously someone failed Russian spy school. If you'll look on your nifty little code sheet there that you were forced (at gunpoint by your teacher) to memorize.
Apparently the Russian spy school you attended wasn't up to snuff, since all the other spies have these little things called One Time Pads.
Therefore, I have the power and the right to create unrestricted anonymous waste disposal. It's a guaranteed right of mine and I may provide that service.
That's a very novel definition of "rights." I suspect that the constitution also guarantees you a right to drive a car at any speed and play your stereo at maximum volume at 3am as well.
You do know that NY-Washington already has high speed rail, right?
Um... No, it doesn't. (From the article you linked to, "The average speed of the Acela in operation falls far short of common definitions of high-speed rail, spending much of its time on the route at less than 100 mph")
I've ridden high speed rail, it ain't the 60 mph Acela, and it's MUCH better than flying.
There are other issues besides subsidies. For example, here in California wealth NIMBYs in southern Marin County (near San Francisco) have successfully lobbied to have the proposed high speed rail line either routed around or tunneled under their wealthy suburban communities,
"Successfully lobbied?" Um... No once again. Not only have they failed at every turn, but they have no options than meritless lawsuits. Yes, the luddites can delay, but they can not stop the train. Just looking at the map of the of the route, shows no less than three plans, including the "dreaded" aerial viaduct. And yes, these are the current plans, as of two weeks ago.
I guess we'll just have to increase what we charge for production, then. You know, trivial things like: * Corn * Wheat * Soy * Fuel (yeah, we make a fair amount of it) * Beef * Chicken * Pork * Machinery (used to pave your roads, build your sky rises, construct your high speed rail...)
Given your choice of commodities I can only assume that when you say "increase what we charge", you mean "eliminate the subsidize that you already pay, and allow for a true market pricing that results in a net decrease in prices." Got ya.
Maybe, but those rural areas create the food that the cities need to house and feed their populations
And this is relevant how?
The roads needed to truck in supplies, heavily subsidized food programs, and greatly disproportionate distribution of state tax income as well as federal aid.
Well since the majority of the people live there, and the majority of the wealth is both generated and consumed there, then of course cities account for the most of government revenue and expenditures. It's pretty damn hard to say that cities are "greatly disproportionate" when according to the 2000 Census, 79 % of all Americans live in urban areas. If you really want to look at disproportionate spending look at the rural area. Mapping states according to federal contributors and beneficiaries (contributors receive less than $1 of federal spending for each dollar paid in taxes, beneficiaries receive more than $1 for each dollar paid in taxes), you find two curious facts. First. there's the irony of the political leanings of the states; but more importantly for this conversation, the more populous and urban states are net contributors and the less populous and rural states tend to be beneficiaries. We see this again and again by any metric and any population you choose. For instance, poverty rates for instance.
I grew up in the rural area. It sucked. I'm glad I got out, because there's simply no future there.
I wonder what the world's reaction would be were Jews to build a huge synagogue on the site of the first Iranian nuclear reactor they bomb into smithereens.
Or perhaps the Dome of the Rock?
Bush said that the muslims have the right to build next to Ground Zero.
We would have been dumbstruck that he would have said anything so shockingly obvious.
Actually, teledildonic products have continously been brought to market. Of course Fuck-U-Fuck-Me, will always have a place in my heart, just because of the punny name.
No, because private enterprise would find a way to make it work.
Sorry dude. History simply isn't on your side on this one.
Well they didn't now did they? History is pretty clear on this. After 30 years, and the cities on the coasts were wired, and the remainder of the country was still struck in late 1800s. The fact that The Market(tm) didn't electrify the rural area because of baseless bias. Essentially it was red lining. It's an economic inefficiency that happens all the time. Why? Because people are lazy and stupid. They get a misconception in their head, and pretty soon it becomes the conventional wisdom. Try and go against the conventional wisdom, and you simply don't get access to the capital you need because why would anyone want to loan money to someone to do something as patently stupid as what's being proposed? If it was such a good idea, how come everyone else isn't doing it? It's not happening because The Market(tm) has decreed that it shouldn't happen. And yes, it's just that circular logic that condemns the economy to an inefficiency.
Private equity doesn't act to solve society's problems, it acts to concentrate money in the hands of the few. It makes no difference if you're curing malaria or selling Blend-a-Babies. Government exists to solve problems, and often, like with the Rural Electrification Act, it works marvelously. When The Market(tm) refuses to solve a problem, it's up to the government to do it. There's simply no benefit for letting an inefficiency fester.
They expect us to ride the bus, but they won't provide the fundage. They'll just raise taxes
What you're saying doesn't make sense. How exactly do you think public services are paid for? In this case, where exactly do you think the funds for mass transit actually come from? If you really think that it's only that $2 ticket, you've got another thing coming.
Really? I teach math at a decent university, and I could teach a semester's worth of material in one class using PowerPoint. Nobody would learn anything, of course. But speaking as a math teacher, it's really easy to go far too fast using things like PowerPoint.
As a former math student, I agree. Math definitely works better with a blackboard. It's much easier to follow the steps, and break parts off and derive/solve for things as needed.
Yes. Not because it's inherently better (it's not), but because it's what students can expect to be exposed to for the rest of their lives/careers. So they might as well become used to it.
So you're saying, the professor should simply stand up there, and dismiss every question with "It's on the wiki," which invariably is out of date, incomplete, and too often wrong? Because that's what most of get in our careers.
I don't see why people get so upset about that. There are a lot of trade-offs to living out in the sticks, and driving to town to get mail would be a minor inconvenience compared to some of them.
Clearly, you've never lived in the rural area. There's simply no reason to go into town, which can be miles away, every day.
There are some less-critical areas where USPS could improve as well.
If there is much snow in the way, they won't deliver
Never heard that one, and never heard that in comparison to FedEx or UPS. Also, it's ironic given its unofficial creed, but then again, it is unofficial.;)
The USPS is also cheaper than any alternative, and has home pickup and delivery, including weekend delivery, all for no extra charge. Tell that to UPS or FedEx.
You're familiar with the concept of (small d) democracy, yes?
..and BTW, its a Republic.
Did you fail fourth grade social studies?
You're spouting nonsense that only serves to promote an illegitimate subtext that somehow one political party is somehow more true than the other.
Let's review, with a little help from our friends Mr. Dictionary, and PJ O'Rourke!
Democracy: From the Greek "demokratia", meaning "popular government" Republic: From the Latin "res publica", meaning "a public matter"
Let's dig a little deeper shall we? Democracy comes in two forms. Direct democracy is where the citizens vote (you guessed it) directly on laws. This exists in a limited form in some states of the United States, through initiatives and referendums. These are also known as "propositions." (Does your state have either initiatives or referendums? If you live in the western United States, I bet it does!) The other from of democracy is Representative democracy. In this form, citizens vote for (You guessed it!) representatives who vote on the laws. If you live in anywhere in the United States, you vote for representatives at all levels of government, local (such as city council members and mayors), state (such as assemblymen and governors), and federal (congressmen, senators, and the president)! What makes both of these forms of government democratic, is that the citizens vote for their government, and the power and legitimacy of the government derives from the people.
If a "democracy" means that people vote, then what's a republic? Simple. A republic is just a fancy word for a government that's headed by an elected official. Does that mean that all democracies are republics? No! Many prominent, stable, and well functioning democracies are not republics! Many of the democracies of Europe, and former European colonies are constitutional monarchies. This means that while the people vote for the government through the election of their members of parliament, the government is legally run by a monarch. It's just happens that in these governments, the monarch is typically a powerless figurehead, and that's what makes these governments democracies rather than absolute monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia.
BONUS QUESTION: What does "federalism" mean? A country with a federalist system of government has the powers of government split between two levels. Some powers are held by the national government (also called the "federal government") and others are delegated to state or provincial governments. Does federalism imply anything about the underlying mechanism of governing? No! While both Canada and the United States are federations, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, while the United States is a republic.
So in conclusion, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know the meanings of the words you're using.
We are a Republic so we don't have the masses deciding "what's good for everyone". It is a representative Republic. What's good for one State might not be good for another.
No, that's called a representative democracy. A republic, is simply a government headed by a president.
Obama as witchdoctor, isn't intrinsically racist, but is racially charged given the context. On the other hand, telling Obama to return to Kenya, isn't racist, it's a mistaken, but not a fringe belief with right wing activists.
Are these fringe elements of the Tea Party? I hope, and believe so. But it's hard to dismiss when the leaders of the "movement," exhibit racist signs themselves. As seen with Daje Robertson, self-refered founder of the Texas Tea Party, and operator of teaparty.org, holds a sign that reads "Congress = Slave Owner; Taxpayer = Niggar [sic]." Most people would have used,"slave," also they would have spelled the word correctly.
Now how does the leadership of the GOP respond to statements like this? That's the real question. You might not be able to help it if idiots show up to your public rally, but nothing stops you from calling them out. Well silence.
Why? Well the Republic party has long used racism as a main tactic for stirring up votes. Jesse Helms' infamous "Hands" ad for instance. So was the ad racist? It certainly was immediately perceived that way, but let's use the words of the Helms' campaign manager, and later CHAIRMAN of the Republican Party, Lee Atwater:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968, you can't say ‘nigger,’ that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] Blacks get hurt worse than Whites ”
This is called "The Southern Strategy", and hinges almost exclusively on promoting racism, and racist policies. One legacy of this is the fetishization of the Confederacy and Civil War. It is not a coincidence that Confederate flags regained prominence at the start of the Civil Rights movement, long after the symbol had become associated with explicitly racist groups such as the Klan. (See South Carolina,1962; Georgia, 1956) ("It's pride, not prejudice," the apologists say. Yet, many of these people aren't from the Confederacy, regularly make racist statements, and invoke "freedom" and "patriotism" while lionizing, traitors who began an armed rebellion for the "freedom" to keep slaves. The mind reels at the irony.)
1) People still have landlines? Really? Why? Cell phones work indoors just fine, and everyone has one of those.
2) Wouldn't improving Internet, simply attract more consumers, thus increasing revenue, including potentially offset any loss of a legacy and shrinking services like home phone service?
3) Given the lack of live programing, and the majority of the content online, television isn't going anywhere, at least not soon.
When I was on a federal grand jury once. One of the Assistant US Attorneys had a habit of bringing in a piece of evidence for the grand jury to examine during the cases. Bringing an indictment against a prisoner for making a shiv? Pass around the confiscated shiv in an evidence bag. Bringing an indictment for safety violations? Pass around photos of the unsafe truck. Bringing an indictment on child porn? Well, he didn't pass them around. Instead he placed them face down on the table, described the photos, and then said that if anyone wanted to view them they could.
No one did, probably because you had to walk to the front of the room filled with 20 people. Still, part of me wanted to go up, look at them oh so slowly, salivating, say, "Oh. Oh. That's. That's... That's nasty. Mmmm." Then turning and excusing myself for the bathroom, just to watch their horrified faces.
Texas has the right to break itself into 5 separate states
Well it is true that annexation said that the Texas could divide itself into to four additional states (bringing the total up to five), it's dubious if this is legal.
It would take an act of Congress to agree to the subdivision (Article IV of US Constitution), but it could be argued that Congress already agreed on February 26 1845, when annexation was ratified. So let's say for the sake of argument, that this is true, and congress already agreed, thus only requiring the Texas legislature to draw up some new maps and vote.
Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution has been held to require all states to be treated equally by the federal government, and any clauses that place restrictions, or grant additional rights to certain states have been repeatedly nullified by the Supreme Court. Notably, Alabama was granted equal rights to its waterways (an expansion of rights), and Texas has been reduced in rights in waterways. Specifically, Texas lost jurisdiction of all coastal waters, since none of the states had jurisdiction over coastal waters. (Texas didn't receive jurisdiction over territorial coastal waters again, until the Submerged Lands Act of 1953.) It can therefore be argued that since no other state has this "right of metastasization," it was granted special rights, and therefore this right is invalid.
Now here's the kicker. It might have already happened! Look at a map of the Texas Republic overlaid on the modern borders. Obviously, Texas is a lot smaller now than then. In fact, the territory of the Texas Republic was carved up into the territories of Utah and New Mexico with the Compromise of 1850. Since a state can't have it's borders changed without its consent, and Texas was admitted directly as a state, it may have already lost two of these potential states. But wait! It gets worse! The Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory were further carved up into additional states, of which former Texas Republic territory contributes to five.(New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming) Arguably, Texas returned its role in subdividing itself when it returned territory to the federal government, but this is something for the Supreme Court to decide.;)
and to fly our state flag at the same height as the US flag.
Well Flag Code, was never legally binding, so BFD. McDonald's flies its flag at the same height all the time.;)
Ditto the US Constitution. Read it sometime. Carefully. It gives the nation-states of the US the power to completely abolish the US, and go off on their separate routes. You are trying to make a difference where none exists.
Wow. That is just so totally and completely wrong. The states of United States aren't nation-states at all. They're provinces with certain governmental tasks devolved to them, and others not. They aren't nations at all. They never were. The Constitution is not a Compact of Free Association. Delaware is not Micronesia.
You say to read the constitution "carefully," yet there's no exit clause in it. There's a method for adding states (Article IV, Section 3), but there is not an exit clause. Don't believe me? Find it. Show it.
[T]he Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But what about Texas seceding any time it wants, or "metastasizing" into five states?
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
In other words, states can't leave unless the federal government wants them to.
For all your "expertise" you have no idea what you're talking about. Next you'll be saying that the United States isn't a "democracy" but rather a "republic," without understanding the very definitions of the words. (Seriously, they cover this in 4th grade social studies. There's direct democracy and indirect (a.k.a. representative) democracy.)
civil and criminal penalties for damaging infrastructure... big civil and criminal penalties for damaging infrastructure
B-b-but if you don't let me string my own wires then you're illegally restraining interstate trade! You must let me destroy your major thoroughfares and negatively impact your entire economy!
Municipal monopolies exist for very practical reasons.
Of course, a much better solution would be for the city to run dumb pipes (e.g. twisted pair, coax, and fiber) and then sell access to the end points. Multiple runs of pipes would allow direct competition between the service providers; but multiple runs aren't necessary. If each contract is for a limited time (say 5 or 10 years), the contract can be rebid by competing interests.
"Pipe" mantainence is by the municipal utility, but paid for by whoever has the municipal contract. (e.g. Comcast pays Exampleville InterTube Utility a monthly fee for coaxial cable maintenance.)
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously someone failed Russian spy school. If you'll look on your nifty little code sheet there that you were forced (at gunpoint by your teacher) to memorize.
Apparently the Russian spy school you attended wasn't up to snuff, since all the other spies have these little things called One Time Pads.
Oh, where is the Russian No Spy Left Behind Act!
Therefore, I have the power and the right to create unrestricted anonymous waste disposal. It's a guaranteed right of mine and I may provide that service.
That's a very novel definition of "rights." I suspect that the constitution also guarantees you a right to drive a car at any speed and play your stereo at maximum volume at 3am as well.
You do know that NY-Washington already has high speed rail, right?
Um... No, it doesn't. (From the article you linked to, "The average speed of the Acela in operation falls far short of common definitions of high-speed rail, spending much of its time on the route at less than 100 mph")
I've ridden high speed rail, it ain't the 60 mph Acela, and it's MUCH better than flying.
Just wait until the first person tries to blow up a train. Then many of those advantages will vanish.
Spain suggests otherwise.
When did America go from being the nation of "can" to the nation of "can't"?
1980
There are other issues besides subsidies. For example, here in California wealth NIMBYs in southern Marin County (near San Francisco) have successfully lobbied to have the proposed high speed rail line either routed around or tunneled under their wealthy suburban communities,
Umm... The train doesn't go to Marin. It stops in San Francisco. Perhaps you're referring to the less wealthy, but equally NIMBY San Mateo county?
"Successfully lobbied?" Um... No once again. Not only have they failed at every turn, but they have no options than meritless lawsuits. Yes, the luddites can delay, but they can not stop the train. Just looking at the map of the of the route, shows no less than three plans, including the "dreaded" aerial viaduct. And yes, these are the current plans, as of two weeks ago.
I suggest you read up on the Cal HSR proceedings.
I guess we'll just have to increase what we charge for production, then. You know, trivial things like:
* Corn
* Wheat
* Soy
* Fuel (yeah, we make a fair amount of it)
* Beef
* Chicken
* Pork
* Machinery (used to pave your roads, build your sky rises, construct your high speed rail...)
Given your choice of commodities I can only assume that when you say "increase what we charge", you mean "eliminate the subsidize that you already pay, and allow for a true market pricing that results in a net decrease in prices." Got ya.
Maybe, but those rural areas create the food that the cities need to house and feed their populations
And this is relevant how?
The roads needed to truck in supplies, heavily subsidized food programs, and greatly disproportionate distribution of state tax income as well as federal aid.
Well since the majority of the people live there, and the majority of the wealth is both generated and consumed there, then of course cities account for the most of government revenue and expenditures. It's pretty damn hard to say that cities are "greatly disproportionate" when according to the 2000 Census, 79 % of all Americans live in urban areas. If you really want to look at disproportionate spending look at the rural area. Mapping states according to federal contributors and beneficiaries (contributors receive less than $1 of federal spending for each dollar paid in taxes, beneficiaries receive more than $1 for each dollar paid in taxes), you find two curious facts. First. there's the irony of the political leanings of the states; but more importantly for this conversation, the more populous and urban states are net contributors and the less populous and rural states tend to be beneficiaries. We see this again and again by any metric and any population you choose. For instance, poverty rates for instance.
I grew up in the rural area. It sucked. I'm glad I got out, because there's simply no future there.
I think it is arrogant and counterproductive to Islamic/US relations for them to build this symbol near ground zero
Of course there is no Grand Central Islamic Authority to engage in "Islamic-US relations."
And oh yeah, THERE ALREADY A MOSQUE RIGHT THERE !
I wonder what the world's reaction would be were Jews to build a huge synagogue on the site of the first Iranian nuclear reactor they bomb into smithereens.
Or perhaps the Dome of the Rock?
Bush said that the muslims have the right to build next to Ground Zero.
We would have been dumbstruck that he would have said anything so shockingly obvious.
Actually, teledildonic products have continously been brought to market. Of course Fuck-U-Fuck-Me, will always have a place in my heart, just because of the punny name.
A market dominated by a collusive cartel is not a free market.
I'm glad you agree with the need for a vigorous government regulation of markets.
No, because private enterprise would find a way to make it work.
Sorry dude. History simply isn't on your side on this one.
Well they didn't now did they? History is pretty clear on this. After 30 years, and the cities on the coasts were wired, and the remainder of the country was still struck in late 1800s. The fact that The Market(tm) didn't electrify the rural area because of baseless bias. Essentially it was red lining. It's an economic inefficiency that happens all the time. Why? Because people are lazy and stupid. They get a misconception in their head, and pretty soon it becomes the conventional wisdom. Try and go against the conventional wisdom, and you simply don't get access to the capital you need because why would anyone want to loan money to someone to do something as patently stupid as what's being proposed? If it was such a good idea, how come everyone else isn't doing it? It's not happening because The Market(tm) has decreed that it shouldn't happen. And yes, it's just that circular logic that condemns the economy to an inefficiency.
Private equity doesn't act to solve society's problems, it acts to concentrate money in the hands of the few. It makes no difference if you're curing malaria or selling Blend-a-Babies. Government exists to solve problems, and often, like with the Rural Electrification Act, it works marvelously. When The Market(tm) refuses to solve a problem, it's up to the government to do it. There's simply no benefit for letting an inefficiency fester.
They expect us to ride the bus, but they won't provide the fundage. They'll just raise taxes
What you're saying doesn't make sense. How exactly do you think public services are paid for? In this case, where exactly do you think the funds for mass transit actually come from? If you really think that it's only that $2 ticket, you've got another thing coming.
Really?
I teach math at a decent university, and I could teach a semester's worth of material in one class using PowerPoint. Nobody would learn anything, of course. But speaking as a math teacher, it's really easy to go far too fast using things like PowerPoint.
As a former math student, I agree. Math definitely works better with a blackboard. It's much easier to follow the steps, and break parts off and derive/solve for things as needed.
Yes. Not because it's inherently better (it's not), but because it's what students can expect to be exposed to for the rest of their lives/careers. So they might as well become used to it.
So you're saying, the professor should simply stand up there, and dismiss every question with "It's on the wiki," which invariably is out of date, incomplete, and too often wrong? Because that's what most of get in our careers.
I don't see why people get so upset about that. There are a lot of trade-offs to living out in the sticks, and driving to town to get mail would be a minor inconvenience compared to some of them.
Clearly, you've never lived in the rural area. There's simply no reason to go into town, which can be miles away, every day.
There are some less-critical areas where USPS could improve as well.
If there is much snow in the way, they won't deliver
Never heard that one, and never heard that in comparison to FedEx or UPS. Also, it's ironic given its unofficial creed, but then again, it is unofficial. ;)
The USPS is also cheaper than any alternative, and has home pickup and delivery, including weekend delivery, all for no extra charge. Tell that to UPS or FedEx.
You're familiar with the concept of (small d) democracy, yes?
..and BTW, its a Republic.
Did you fail fourth grade social studies?
You're spouting nonsense that only serves to promote an illegitimate subtext that somehow one political party is somehow more true than the other.
Let's review, with a little help from our friends Mr. Dictionary, and PJ O'Rourke!
Democracy: From the Greek "demokratia", meaning "popular government"
Republic: From the Latin "res publica", meaning "a public matter"
Let's dig a little deeper shall we? Democracy comes in two forms. Direct democracy is where the citizens vote (you guessed it) directly on laws. This exists in a limited form in some states of the United States, through initiatives and referendums. These are also known as "propositions." (Does your state have either initiatives or referendums? If you live in the western United States, I bet it does!) The other from of democracy is Representative democracy. In this form, citizens vote for (You guessed it!) representatives who vote on the laws. If you live in anywhere in the United States, you vote for representatives at all levels of government, local (such as city council members and mayors), state (such as assemblymen and governors), and federal (congressmen, senators, and the president)! What makes both of these forms of government democratic, is that the citizens vote for their government, and the power and legitimacy of the government derives from the people.
If a "democracy" means that people vote, then what's a republic? Simple. A republic is just a fancy word for a government that's headed by an elected official. Does that mean that all democracies are republics? No! Many prominent, stable, and well functioning democracies are not republics! Many of the democracies of Europe, and former European colonies are constitutional monarchies. This means that while the people vote for the government through the election of their members of parliament, the government is legally run by a monarch. It's just happens that in these governments, the monarch is typically a powerless figurehead, and that's what makes these governments democracies rather than absolute monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia.
BONUS QUESTION: What does "federalism" mean? A country with a federalist system of government has the powers of government split between two levels. Some powers are held by the national government (also called the "federal government") and others are delegated to state or provincial governments. Does federalism imply anything about the underlying mechanism of governing? No! While both Canada and the United States are federations, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, while the United States is a republic.
So in conclusion, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know the meanings of the words you're using.
We are a Republic so we don't have the masses deciding "what's good for everyone". It is a representative Republic. What's good for one State might not be good for another.
No, that's called a representative democracy. A republic, is simply a government headed by a president.
Go back to the fourth grade.
Proof or GTFO.
It's quite simple. The question isn't where to begin, but rather where to end. Let's start at the present and work backwards shall we?
We've got over racist elements in the Tea Party. ("Obama-nomics: Monkey See Monkey Spend", "Zoo Has an African, and the White House has a Lyin' African!".
Obama as witchdoctor, isn't intrinsically racist, but is racially charged given the context. On the other hand, telling Obama to return to Kenya, isn't racist, it's a mistaken, but not a fringe belief with right wing activists.
Are these fringe elements of the Tea Party? I hope, and believe so. But it's hard to dismiss when the leaders of the "movement," exhibit racist signs themselves. As seen with Daje Robertson, self-refered founder of the Texas Tea Party, and operator of teaparty.org, holds a sign that reads "Congress = Slave Owner; Taxpayer = Niggar [sic]." Most people would have used,"slave," also they would have spelled the word correctly.
Also, we've got the pre-Tea Party the president is a pimp, and the first lady is his (presumably) number one ho, and Michelle Obama is a monkey, and who could forget, "Obama Bucks"?
Now how does the leadership of the GOP respond to statements like this? That's the real question. You might not be able to help it if idiots show up to your public rally, but nothing stops you from calling them out. Well silence.
Why? Well the Republic party has long used racism as a main tactic for stirring up votes.
Jesse Helms' infamous "Hands" ad for instance. So was the ad racist? It certainly was immediately perceived that way, but let's use the words of the Helms' campaign manager, and later CHAIRMAN of the Republican Party, Lee Atwater:
This is called "The Southern Strategy", and hinges almost exclusively on promoting racism, and racist policies. One legacy of this is the fetishization of the Confederacy and Civil War. It is not a coincidence that Confederate flags regained prominence at the start of the Civil Rights movement, long after the symbol had become associated with explicitly racist groups such as the Klan. (See South Carolina,1962; Georgia, 1956) ("It's pride, not prejudice," the apologists say. Yet, many of these people aren't from the Confederacy, regularly make racist statements, and invoke "freedom" and "patriotism" while lionizing, traitors who began an armed rebellion for the "freedom" to keep slaves. The mind reels at the irony.)
1) People still have landlines? Really? Why? Cell phones work indoors just fine, and everyone has one of those.
2) Wouldn't improving Internet, simply attract more consumers, thus increasing revenue, including potentially offset any loss of a legacy and shrinking services like home phone service?
3) Given the lack of live programing, and the majority of the content online, television isn't going anywhere, at least not soon.
When I was on a federal grand jury once. One of the Assistant US Attorneys had a habit of bringing in a piece of evidence for the grand jury to examine during the cases. Bringing an indictment against a prisoner for making a shiv? Pass around the confiscated shiv in an evidence bag. Bringing an indictment for safety violations? Pass around photos of the unsafe truck. Bringing an indictment on child porn? Well, he didn't pass them around. Instead he placed them face down on the table, described the photos, and then said that if anyone wanted to view them they could.
No one did, probably because you had to walk to the front of the room filled with 20 people. Still, part of me wanted to go up, look at them oh so slowly, salivating, say, "Oh. Oh. That's. That's... That's nasty. Mmmm." Then turning and excusing myself for the bathroom, just to watch their horrified faces.
Never did though.
We did get some special privileges.
Texas has the right to break itself into 5 separate states
Well it is true that annexation said that the Texas could divide itself into to four additional states (bringing the total up to five), it's dubious if this is legal.
Notably, Alabama was granted equal rights to its waterways (an expansion of rights), and Texas has been reduced in rights in waterways. Specifically, Texas lost jurisdiction of all coastal waters, since none of the states had jurisdiction over coastal waters. (Texas didn't receive jurisdiction over territorial coastal waters again, until the Submerged Lands Act of 1953.) It can therefore be argued that since no other state has this "right of metastasization," it was granted special rights, and therefore this right is invalid.
and to fly our state flag at the same height as the US flag.
Well Flag Code, was never legally binding, so BFD. McDonald's flies its flag at the same height all the time. ;)
Ditto the US Constitution. Read it sometime. Carefully. It gives the nation-states of the US the power to completely abolish the US, and go off on their separate routes. You are trying to make a difference where none exists.
Wow. That is just so totally and completely wrong. The states of United States aren't nation-states at all. They're provinces with certain governmental tasks devolved to them, and others not. They aren't nations at all. They never were. The Constitution is not a Compact of Free Association. Delaware is not Micronesia.
You say to read the constitution "carefully," yet there's no exit clause in it. There's a method for adding states (Article IV, Section 3), but there is not an exit clause. Don't believe me? Find it. Show it.
In fact, Texas v White, held:
But what about Texas seceding any time it wants, or "metastasizing" into five states?
In other words, states can't leave unless the federal government wants them to.
For all your "expertise" you have no idea what you're talking about. Next you'll be saying that the United States isn't a "democracy" but rather a "republic," without understanding the very definitions of the words. (Seriously, they cover this in 4th grade social studies. There's direct democracy and indirect (a.k.a. representative) democracy.)
civil and criminal penalties for damaging infrastructure... big civil and criminal penalties for damaging infrastructure
B-b-but if you don't let me string my own wires then you're illegally restraining interstate trade! You must let me destroy your major thoroughfares and negatively impact your entire economy!
Municipal monopolies exist for very practical reasons.
Of course, a much better solution would be for the city to run dumb pipes (e.g. twisted pair, coax, and fiber) and then sell access to the end points. Multiple runs of pipes would allow direct competition between the service providers; but multiple runs aren't necessary. If each contract is for a limited time (say 5 or 10 years), the contract can be rebid by competing interests.
"Pipe" mantainence is by the municipal utility, but paid for by whoever has the municipal contract. (e.g. Comcast pays Exampleville InterTube Utility a monthly fee for coaxial cable maintenance.)