You could go back to school for a few years and get an MBA. With skills in technology and management you could probably find a decent paying job somewhere much cheaper to live than the Bay Area (even just a few miles east in Sacramento). You could also switch to accounting and become a CPA. I know someone who gets $100 bucks an hour to do consulting because she is a CPA whith programming skills. She can come in, tweak, and fix a company's accounting systems and communicate with the accountants who use it in their language.
Now, if you are going to condemn it in this case you also need to condemn it when one of "the big guys" comes to the rescue of something that *you* like.
I don't even understand why you would think this. What we have here (regardless of the truth of the memo) is a classic case of a monpolist using its cash, market power and the legal system to maitain control of the market in order to continue its monopolistic practices. I can damned well condem this and be happy when a different company (say IBM) spends money to try to back a new product that threatens them, not because I think an IBM monopoly would be better but because I want no monopoly at all. That's consistent.
It's not a problem that Groklaw might or might not be biased in their research. EVERYONE IS BIASED! Why is it that so many people, whether critizing slashdot's "anti-microsoft bias" or now Groklaw's "anti-sco bias" seem to be scouring the world searching for someone to write an article or produce a site on a topic totally neutral on every possible opinion on the subject. Groklaw thinks SCO is full of shit. Therefore they are biased. Groklaw's arguments and evidence seem to substantiate their claims. Therefore they are also probably CORRECT.
Dealing with bias is why you have a brain. Read the articles, judge their evidence, and come to your own conclusion. If you disagree provide a detailed analysis, and prove your point. Enough with the goddamned bias mania.
You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers, the mujahudeen, the contras, the African National Congress, and a host of other US supported rebel groups, except the US didn't support the ANC and still considers Mandela to be a terrorist. Anyway you left out the part about whether or not you agree with their cause. That's the key that distinguishes between a terrorist and a freedom fighter/rebel group.
I think he is aware of that. He just doesn't think terrorist organizations, given a concrete definition, are necesarily bad. This makes perfect sense to me. The only negative thing you can say about them is that they target civilians, but if the cause is good enough, most people are willing to support this.
I like his definition precisely because it's morally neutral. Terrorism is a specific kind of violence. This definition is concrete, and not subject to vague interpretations where terrorists are "evildoers" and states that bomb civilian populations are the good guys. Additionally, I'm not sure when the "founding fathers" directed violence "intentionally against civilian populations." Maybe some incident involving Native Americans?
"If students regularly cheat in written exams, it's a good sign that the exams are pointless. The proper response is to ask "why are students so unmotivated that they don't bother to make an original contribution", not "how can we catch and punish the bastards one more time.""
Writing papers and exams in college should be about learning to think and write clearly. My experience with students who cheat is that they *come in* with the attitude that everything is BS and believe the prof just wants to hear their own views regurgitated back. In other words the come in with the conceded, arrogant view that you express here that all these people who have devoted their lives to learning and teaching a discipline are just morons, who should be giving me A's and letting me do important stuff instead of study trivia.
Most plagiarized material sucks or is off topic. The fact they think it's going to get them anywhere is usually symptomatic of their complete lack of understanding of the goals of higher education and the basic ideas of the course in general.
I'm all for motivating students. But cheaters themselves reduce the motivation of others and normally have terribly shortsighted views about what they are going to accomplish. They think of their education as a ticket to a paycheck, not as an opportunity to expand their minds.
" If MS did this, the/. crowd would scream bloody murder (hell, they have... and y'all have.) But you know Apple apologists are going to have some reason why this is OK for them to do, and try to make it out like Apple is still the good guy, no matter what.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, they're all I use, but Apple fanboys make me ill."
I see this argument on slashdot all the time. It does not work. It seems to follow some of the worse arguments in popular culture. Basically it claims that since Slashdot readers take a particular position about software, they are biased and can't possibly be doing so because they have good reason to.
This is a bad argument. If you think a particular post ignores facts and make poor arguments, point them out. Don't just yell "BIAS" as a blanket acusation against every future post that expresses the position that this is not as bad as it seems. If you think the moderation system is biased, I suggest you provide evidence showing particular posts of high quality being ignored and low quality advance to an extent that you can establish their is a systemic process going on here.
Just because people here seem to currently prefer OS X to XP does not mean everything they say can be ignored under the all encompasing label of bias. Please, provide arguments, not unsuported assertions.
"Note, too, the difference in wording: "PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare.""
And I would ask that you note the wording of "ESTABLISH justice." The authors argument is not that cancer deaths are more important than terror deaths. It is that the government spends far too much time funding a process that he views as a) unjust and b) unlikely to bring about much reduction in the number of deaths resulting from terror. Please respong to this argument, not a straw man you have invented.
But your using the same logic that's offending you. Your generalizing just like you assume he did (and I agree he *probably* did). You are assuming without knowing anything about him (if it is indeed a him) that he is upset at not finding a female geek. But he may be having problems finding homosexual male geeks as well. Perhaps he lives in a small town with few geeks and even fewer "out" homosexuals. Who knows.
Now the question is, is the joke offensive? I understand it's complicated. You clearly think it support a hetrocentric notion that, albeit unintentionally, marginalizes homsexuals by assuming they don't exist. I understand your concerns. However, I think your tone was far far to harsh if this is the case. It seems highly unlikely that this was intentional. Making him recognize the possibilities is probably ill served by insulting him. Rather you at best opened his eyes by making him feel bad about himself (ironic since what were bothered by is people being made to feel bad about themselves), but more likely pissed him off and made him unwilling to listed to your (inmho reasonable) point.
"Ah ha! 3 quick posts pointing out the same something: it wouldn't have been a distasteful joke if the 2nd poster was a gay male.
However, it is clear that the intention of the 2nd poster was to point out a female correlation as there are plenty of male geeks out there. And following normal population deviance, there should be normal number of gays among them. Therefore, it wouldn't have been funny if the comments weren't inteded for a female."
"This joke seems only funny in an old-school way: a joke when made my a insenstive male clod thinking there are only hetrosexual people in this world."
How do you know this poster is not a gay male? If so, then your oh so clever retort is only clever to him, and he is laughing at you right now.
It is correct to suggest we should be worried about the potential lethality of the substances we manufacture. That is precisely why people who claim they are alergic to "chemicals" are so dangerous. They do damage to an important issue through their irrational claims. Look people, EVERYTHING is a fucking chemical. That includes things like AIR and water. Just because it came out of a factory does not *necesarily* mean it is toxic. Plenty of "natural" things are far far more toxic than anything in your kitchen. "Fragrances" are not a category of chemical with a specific bilogical effect.
As to medicine ruining the genetic crop, I don't really think it's that big of a deal. First off, if the gene pool is "weekened" because more people are surviving it seems indicative to me of their being a different standard for survival in the modern age. This doesn't mean were all going to get weak and die. Second, evolution occurs gradually. Finally, I think brains are a more important adaption than brawn. The human race also appears to be getting smarter over time.
Copyrighters Need to Justify their Existence
on
Copyright Rumblings
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't argue that making illegal copies of copyrighted material is morally correct. I don't care if it is or is not. I want to know if it's worth spending my tax dollars to enforce.
As it grows easier and easier to steal copyrighted material, I think the question of what should we and should we not do to protect corporations like Time Warner is better though of after taking an example to heart. Let's suppose I ran a radio station. Let's suppose I wanted everyone to pay me $.10 a minute to listen to my radio station. I have no technology to do this any differently from a normal radio station. People can turn to my radio station and listen regardless of whether or not they have paid me. It seems likely that thousands of people (at least if my content was any good) would listen to my station without paying. This angers me, and I ask the legislators to start passing laws with long sentences, and law enforcement to invade privacy to find violators.
Clearly there would be no reason for the government to artificially create a situation where my failed business model works. There has to some damn GOOD REASON to expend the time and money to make a business work despite the ease of cheating.
So the question isn't whether or not people steal content. It's not whether or not these people are good or evil. The question is, how hard would it be to actually stop them, and what do we really get by doing so?
In general for research it is better to find biased sources that clearly state their arguments and methods, than to look for "unbiased" ones to follow. Read up from allot of different sources, especially academic ones (www.jstor.org is a great place to find journals, but you may have to get onto a college campus to access it) and thumb through their footnotes. Where are they getting their information? How are they using the data? How good it their argument? Then make your own mind up based on all these biased sources.
I'm currently a senior in college writing a thesis. If I don't have a thesis I don't graduate, so as one can imagine I'm kind of paranoid about backups. For small data, I find the following procedurs sufficient:
1) Burn every single revision to cd 2) Keep a copy of most recent version in on campus mail box 3) Keep most recent version on my free web space at yahoo.com (you have to link it, but whatever). 4) Keep as many revisions as space allows in mailbox on www.runbox.com. They give you 100 megs of storage for a very small price.
It would be pretty difficult for all my data to get destroyed as it spans two continents and lots of different media. Most personal users have a relatively small ammount of absolutely critical data, and for them I think my solution makes allot of sense. Even for larger data sizes renting space from someone a fair geographic distance away makes sense. Sure their building can burn down to, but what are the odds of their building and yours burning down the same day?
I do agree that everyone should have a balanced education. But let me sound off for a moment on one of my pet peeves: EVERYONE should have a balanced education, not just those in the sciences or engineering! It continually annoys me that "geeks" are made to feel sheepish about any lack of "breadth" they may have, while those in the humanities are free to boast about their complete lack of knowledge of science and mathematics, apparently feeling no shame about it.
The idea of a liberal arts education is often presented as being the opposite of an engineering or scientific education, but let's just review what the seven liberal arts actually were, shall we? Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. Science and math
were strongly represented; enough said."
As student of the social "sciences" in a liberal arts college, I feel there are a few things you are missing. First students in the "humanities" side of academia often feel neglected by a society that places enormous value on technical training and advancement and a significantly lower value on knowledge of the art, literature, and history. If you don't believe this, I suggest you compare the amount your institution spends on the sciences in comparison to its budget for the social sciences and humanities.
Secondly, the job primary education does in actually teaching, say history or philosophy is overall piss poor. There was an earlier thread on the inability of most lower educational institutions to teach algebra. I agree with this. But I think it is worth mentioning here that while my physics and calculus classes at least *resembled* the college level courses I took with the same names (I took the intro physics course for physics majors offered at my college) history did not and philosophy was non-existent. Thus humanities majors are often forced to pick up a little math and science in their previous education, but I think math and science folks are forced to pick up less history and philosophy (a better job is done with literature).
Thirdly, I agree with you in that a *liberal arts* education should mean at least a basic working knowledge of the sciences and math as well as some knowledge on the "humanities" side of the divide. I run in to too many history majors who freak out at the site of statistics to say everything is as it should be. However, overall, I think humanities tend to be neglected more both in course requirements and in financing.
Algebra never seemed interesting to me the way it was taught in public schools. I took it in two different states (Vermont and California) and the method used to teach it never worked for me. Our public schools seem to teach math in a "follow this trick and get the correct answer" type of way. I was always left wondering *why* it all worked. I never did well in mathematics untill I took Calculus in highschool. Math then started to seem interesting and my algebra skills improved. I did not realise of how much I had been robbed by having math taught in the way it is untill I took math in college. Proofs! Everything laid out consistently, logically, and everything argues for and proven rigorously. I loved it. If I were to change majors from history, it would be to mathematics. I'm sure my skills in mathematics would be much improved had I always been taught math as a set of proven theorems from limited axioms instead of as tricks to get the same result as the back of the book. It seems to me the way math is taught has some advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages:
1) Some people *hate* proofs. They don't care why it works, just that it does. These people might have more trouble learning a very usefull skill set (algebraic manipulation) if math were taught differently.
2) Some people aren't smart. This is different than (1), in that 1 indicates a different style of learning rather than potential for thought. These people need to learn basic math to do jobs in the real world. Teaching math in a more complicate manner may compromise their education.
3) Teaching math rigorously is time consuming and requires well trained teachers.
Disadvantages:
1) Some people are turned off by the way math is taught.
2) Some people have trouble dealing with the change in approach in higher level mathematics twoards proofs.
I'm not an education proffesional, and I don't know how resources are best spent teaching math. In my particular case, I'd say most of the resources thrown my way in math were wasted.
"The "central issues" that drove the ultimate outcome of the revolution -- and resulted in the bulk of the Constitution -- were not representative of what motivated most of its participants. The delegates who negotiated it represented the interests of only a tiny fraction of them."
What were those interests and how do you evidence them? I really don't think coporate monopolies would be the main issue on the 18th century common man's check list. The fact of the matter is that the constitution supported liberalism over monarchism, which lead to the rise of corporate capitlism during the industrial revolution. The idea that a person or corporation of persons should not be able to give as much as they would like to a political campaign would seem strange to the "common man" of the 18th century. Of course this is because the issues were different. Which is exactly my point. The consitution is not really much of a document to be used against major corporations, and *this is one of its main failings*.
"The Bill of Rights better suggests the more common concerns than the rest of the document. By comparing the bias of the two fragments you can deduce where the true "central concerns" lay, further in the direction indicated by the later fragment."
You specifically cited the constitution as the document in danger from coporate capitalism. Now you switch to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not written by the "common man" either. It's conception of liberty is rooted in property ala John Locke. This is classic liberalism, the main idea which led to the rise of mega-corporations. Once again, I ask how you have gleamed these concerns from documents written by a terribly unrepresentative government which still viewed political power as the purview of the rich. Thomas Jefferson, the main figure surrounding so much of the "liberal thought" was very suprised at the representitive democracy he created and where it went. The direction it went was partially rule by the masses and partially rule by money. Attacking corporations has had a history of half-hearted support by "the masses". This is where Marx comes in. You take what you perceive to be the "objective" interests of the masses and then posit them as the actuall interests of the masses. This rarely works out. Ronald Regan was a very popular leader and a great guy for corporate America. This wasn't *just* because he received so much funding from corporations (though I will not deny it was part of it, Ronald is after all probably on my top ten list of shitty presidents).
"I don't think the discussion benefits from complexifying by crypto-religious political cant. Whatever the academic arguments about trade policy (which would stupefy us all by their subtlety and erudition), it is a fact that trade policy manipulation is (also) used by megacorporations to exercise political power. Furthermore, the evidence shows that those academic arguments which happen to reinforce corporate preferences find more application (and grant money)."
Of course academics tend to also be liberal. I would argue this is because the left makes more sense than the right, but I am clearly biased. The argument for free trade is actually quite simple, and has been made many many times in various forms. The idea being specialization creates greater total production. For example country A can produce 5 grapes or 10 oranges. Country B can produce 20 grapes or 10000 oranges. There is a net gain in goods is country a produces just grapes and country b just oranges.
"Trade liberalization is more often a convenient excuse for eliminating inconvenient restrictions on pollution and on harmful products. For example, anti-smoking public-health campaigns have frequently had to be canceled just to prevent retaliation by the U.S. on the "trade barriers" excuse."
More often? Where is this coming from? Where is your evidence? What do I support? I support the increased power of the UN and the expansion of the WTO to include basic environmental restrictions. I also think a fund needs to be set up to deal with the short term structural problems caused by industrialization in third world countries. I want most tarrifs dropped some on long term schedules (to avoid having economies imediatly jolted by the new competition).
"In evaluating claims of merit in trade barrier reductions, it's essential to examine who wants them and what they want them for. Barriers against DDT, CFCs, and PCBs are all to the good. Barriers against plutonium are essential to continued life on Earth. Barriers to THC trade are foolish but viciously defended by those those most vocal about "free trade"."
This I agree with. Free Trade=bad I do not. Of course anything needs to be evaluated and pollution is a major issue. I'm not sure when free traders argued to end restrictions on plutonium.
"The median standard of living, worldwide and in the U.S., has declined in recent decades, even as the mean has risen. Trade liberalization, as exercised, manifestly has not "improve[d] the lot of the average person", despite all its apparent potential to do so. The reasons are easy to see: those who design the changes bias them for their masters' benefit, and the "average person" isn't invited to participate."
Well, let me put it to you this way: the American Revolution was a giant victory for the principles behind free trade. Adam Smith has loomed large over American trade for the past 200+ years and capitalism despite its flaws is one of the most important influences in the current flood of goods in comparison with those past centuries. Unions, and antimonopoly policy have made further gains. I really don't see *any* evidence to back your claim that looser trade policies are the main reason behind the median standard of living declining in recent decades. I also would like to see where this figure is coming from, as I have not heard it before. Please tell me where this info is coming from, I have tried to provide you with some clues as to where what I am saying is coming from. What years is it including? I would imagine the worldwide recent economic problems have something to do with it (and they have little to do with free trade). If trade within a state creates more goods (and I don't know of anyone who maintains it does not), then why would trade between states tend to create less goods? Besides this I would say your critique is more allong the lines of "free trade is often gone about in the wrong ways" than "free trade is bad". Of course free trade is often gone about in the wrong ways, and of course giant corporations paying big bucks for politicians affects this. BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE FREE TRADE BAD! My problem is that you appear (mainly in your first posting) to be making the claim that isolationism is the way to go in the 21'st century. IT IS NOT. To say "free trade is a complicated issue and allong with its benefits presents problems which need to be dealt with but are not because of the power structure of our society" is entirely different from "globilization is bad". Now I think the expansion of free trade in the last 50+ years since WWII has done more good than harm. But I think it could be done *much* better in the future.
"The longer history of corporate monopolization in the rest of the world is well-documented: the government-granted East India, Dutch East Indies, and Hudson Bay monopolies are known even to many Americans, despite the abysmal history education available here. The American revolution was in part a reaction to those -- recall the Boston Tea Party in rebellion to a tax to help pay for the East India company's military ventures. "
Hmmm. Certainly this is a part of the American revolution, but the way the economy operated (mercantalism) was quite different from the theory underlying more modern corporate power (capitalism). While reacting against monopoly has a long history in American and English thought, I would not place it among the central issues of the revolution. The revolution had more to do with the role of elites in relation to british authority. See Gordon Wood "The Radicalism of the American Revolution", and Joyce Appleby "Capitalism and the New Social Order".
"Marxism has little to do with modern processes of globalization, and has little to teach opponents of it. The conflict is between citizens and artificial legal constructs, not between "classes". (I presume Marxism was mentioned mainly to try to change the subject.)"
Marxism is one of the first "hisories" of globilization (though it views it as a good, never yet reached stage). All legal constructions are "artificial", imagined. A corporation is a man made thing which has both revolutionized the amount of shit we can make, and has a long history of damaging the greater community interest to serve its own. I added Marxism not to change the subject, but rather to add some complexity to your very simplistic argument.
"Corporate power can be fought not by killing corporate toadies, but only by enforcing laws that limit corporate power. Antitrust, campaign finance reform, prison sentences for corporate criminals, these are tools that could help."
This I agree with. It is your rant about globilization which I find indicitative of oversimplistic thinking on the matter. I like globilization, and I see trade as the main way this will happen. Like it or not, I see free markets (avec corporations in all their glory) as the most reliable way we have come up with to improve the lot of the average person. Of course I think we have learned a lot about the limits of such markets. Corporations need not be givin a free hand, but trade bariers tend to do everyone a *net* misservice.
Your place the rise of "corporate capitalism" in its "historicall" context here.
"In the U.S. it traces back to 1883, when the Supreme Court chose (without legislative authority) to extend to corporations all the rights of a person. In the '20s another court decreed that they were not only persons, but "natural persons", in response to laws passed after 1883 that distinguished between the two. After that, corporations got powerful enough to control the Congress as well.
"
Of course you leave out allot of earlier history and ignore allot of later history. For instance a little thing called the "New Deal" happened during the 30's (you end at the twenties) where the rise of unions and government became a check to corporate power. Of course one could argue a) this was nothing but a shallow attempt by the institution of corporatism to protect itself from the radicall left or b) that this was reversed in the 70's and 80's. But but of these arguments are still going to have to recognize that the rize of corporate capitalism cannot be scene as an uninterupted rise to glory (or rather evil).
Furthermore you neglect to explain the history leading up to the explosive 19th century, conveniently leaving out how classic liberalism made gains for individual liberty, and changing the way hierarchy is conceived of. This helps portray capitalism as an unmitigated evil, but like most tales of devils (or heros for that matter) it has little bearing on the complex reality of the rise of the liberal state.
Finally you explain how globilization trumps the constitution (of course conveniently forgetting the constitution itself can be seen as an attempt for the upper class of the late 18th century to institutionalize its dominance) as a "sacred" text which of course would protect Americans from the evil of corporatism. Sadly, the constitution with its maintence of "freedom" grounded in property is ill equiped to be a document protecting economic equality and fighting the hegemony of corporate America. Of course their are other forces in our country more promising to do this, like unions. Of course these institutions themselves are far from perfect.
I think globilization's overiding of the power of individual states is a good thing. I don't like war (though I admit war is sadly sometimes the only alternative). Because of this I don't like hundreds of states, each with their own military vying for power. Trade may in fact undermine this. And it may not. We can hope. I might here remark the Karl Marx, perhaps the most discernable influence in your thinking about "corporate" capitlism, could not give two shits about the shredding of the constitution. Marxism is an "internationalist" movement. Perhaps you don't view yourself as a Marxist, but your theory (as I understand it) of corporations marching onwards to opress the underclass. You might want to reed some of what he wrote. Personally, I'm not a big fan of his.
I wanted to e-mail you this reply, hopefully you will read this.
"Few terrorists are bombing victims? Few bombing victims are alive after becoming bombing victims. By your logic, you have no reason to undertake retaliatory action unless YOU were a 9/11 victim PERSONALLY."
I define victim in broader terms than this. For example if your mother, father, brother or sister was killed in the blast. Or if you were wounded by shrapnel. Bin Laden does not claim to be motivated by this, and the people who actually flew the planes appear to be predominantly wealthy individuals who's motivations are mainly religious. Osama Bin Laden himself claims this is true. They think it is part of Islam to kill the impure, like Jews or Americans if they happen to live in "Muslim lands".
"As for how many lives bombing saved, that is a question you should pose to every Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Grenadan, Libyan, Panamanian, Iraqi, Serb, Sudanese, and Afghan (among others) you meet. While many disagreed with their political leadership, I'm sure theyd've preferred that their innocent countrymen not die. Set aside will be our actions in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Iran, as they don't involve aerial bombardment per se, but rather differing levels of meddling and interference (i.e., assasinations, propaganda and sabotage.) To a lesser extent, our presence in places like Haiti, Japan and the Phillipines brews some resentment, even if the overall effect is stabilizing in some places. Just because there are no bullets flying in a country where we have troops on the ground is an inadequate basis for concluding that they love us. Also to be ignored is our tampering in an Australian PM election in the 1970's. Still, you have to admit that this is a long and varied list."
Weather the victims prefer it does not deal with the substance of my argument. My argument is based on whether or not U.S. action in the last 30 (I would broaden it to 50 but the figures or only 30) years saved more than it killed. Certainly many of the operations you bring up were all or in part ill considered. But, honestly, 3-million isn't as many as it sounds. During de-Kulakization alone Stalin killed 4-million via starvation (I would recommend the historian Sheila Fitzpatrick on the subject). Would other communists have done the same? The leaders at the time thought so. They were often very wrong, but not always. In all of those cases the people we fought killed many. I don't know what they would add up to, but I am certain they are well over 3 million.
"As to our world being fucked up, yes. I believe there are people whose deaths would make the world a better place. My list differs from yours. Who decides, then?"
In the future, I hope an international body. With the "multilateral" nature of current U.S. action I think you can see things are already (thank god) headed in that direction. In the meantime, someone has to. Because I don't have a mathematical model, which charts good, and evil does not mean that I can never act. Never acting can cause more damage than action.
"If we generally try to do the right thing, why did we sit on our asses and let Rwanda and the Congo turn into such bloody messes? If we're the good guys, why didn't we drop support for the Apartheid regime in SA until after institutions starting divesting themselves of their shares of companies who did business there due to grassroots pressure? The boardrooms of America stood up and struck a blow for freedom only after it bit too deeply into their bottom line. This last example is a case of Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason. Do you honestly think wed've given two shits if Kuwait had been a poverty-stricken African or Asian nation?"
Now you begin to support more action? Which is it you want. Your argument can't explain Somalia and Kosovo; they were not rich. Apartheid is the most damaging of your examples. But remember I do not pretend the U.S. is always right but generally tried to do the right thing. In the Congo and Rwanda the general feeling was that American action would not work, and that it was going to happen anyway. Was this correct? It is hard to say. I fear some of the feeling may have been racist. I think it has more to do with memories of Vietnam and the "jungle". Most Americans are very frightened of "jungle" warfare. Deciding when to act and when not to is a tricky thing.
"Bombing is always profitable if you're a bombmaker. Think about it for a second. If planes get shot down, it becomes profitable for aircraft manufacturers. When civilian infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, it becomes profitable for international civil engineering companies. And because you need oil to do all of this, it is always profitable for petroleum producers. If there were companies that cloned humans for use as soldiers, they would profit too."
Yup, bomb makers make money from bombing. That doesn't mean they are responsible for the bombing. I find it highly problematic to try to maintain the argument that Kosovo was done for the sake of defense budgets. I really don't see evidence for your claim, especially since most politicians who generally seem to speak for the defense industry seemed to complain that it would never work.
"Everyone else doesn't rule the world. Our mistakes are magnified because of our economic, political and military stature. The more power we have, the more responsibility there is to use it wisely and humanely. IOW, the consequences of a toddler somewhere ordering an aerial bombardment are practically nil, as he doesn't have the power to do so. As for Pakistan's ISI and their culpability, I suggest you research who supported and liased with them. "We all do stupid things?" This is not letting your coonhound steer your pickup into a fishin' hole. This is war. War means killing. Killing is irreversible. It's not a mistake you can fix, no matter how much you wished you'd torched the right hooch. Innocents still die."
You make two arguments here. First you claim that when a more powerful nation does something wrong it is worse than when a less powerful nation does it. I disagree with this, though some moral philosophers may maintain that only outcomes matter and not intentions. I think if you point a gun and fire it at someone with intent to kill them you are as morally culpable whether or not the bullet is a dud. Secondly you claim that killing is irreversible so should never be done. While I agree that killing should only be done after great contemplation I think it is possible to create a situation where killing is the right thing. Let's assume there is an equal chance Bin Laden gets a nuclear weapon as not (and I don't think this is true, this is just a demonstration of the type of argument where killing would be justified). Now we can drop a bomb that has a fifty percent chance of killing him and a fifty percent chance of killing 10 innocent civilians. You drop the bomb.
"The profiteering argument dates from WWI because weapons production was not industrialized on a sufficient scale prior to that war. The assertion that it only arose after a certain point in time does nothing to detract from its cogency. And BTW, Bush, et al still want to go ahead with NMD even after 9/11. Doesn't that make your chest swell with patriotic pride?"
No, I think the missile defense system is one of the stupidest pieces of policy Bush has proposed. I think it sends the wrong message and tends to promote distrust of the U.S. I also think you can make a much stronger argument that defense contractors might have a role to play in the decision. I bring up the WWI because I think it is important to note because of the "fortress America" isolationism so popular at the time. It caused us to not try to change the provisions of the treaty of Versailles and then to not try to rally Europe against an expanding Hitler. This results of this are the reason the argument is no longer fashionable.
"Bombing now may prevent future suffering by killing people who were going to bomb us. Bombing can never end the suffering of those already bombed. There is a world of difference between the two. It should also be a given that bombing always creates human suffering. If it's only a matter of where, then all you have to fall back upon are the accidents of race or nationality or religion. Being loyal, honest, compassionate, pious etc. will not save you. That's what terror is."
Of the people being hit by the bombs yup, it can only harm them. See my early example for why this might be, regrettably the right decision. I might here note that I don't get all teary eyed and patriotic about it. I think it is sad and terrible. I don't get filled with patriotic pried when talking about the "good war" of WWII. I am sad that Americans had to die and kill people in order to prevent a greater evil from killing even more and making millions suffer.
"I want the people who planned and bankrolled 9/11 tormented to the point of insanity, rolled up in a pigskin, and thrown into the coldest stretch of ocean we can find. I know getting to that point will involve innocents being killed. That's the part I have a problem with. We have killed or will soon kill people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, just like the people in WTC had nothing to do with U.S.-Israel policy or U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Innocent is innocent. Rejoicing in the death of one innocent human being is an expression of our animality and not our humanity. A sober and serious people would know that already"
I don't rejoice. I am not happy. I didn't cheer. I cried. But that doesn't change the cold, hard fucked up decision. If we disregard the implications of our inaction in order to protect our shallow sense of morality, where will we be?
"And what is "the right thing"? So many people are so narrow-minded that they believe that there is only a singular "right" and "wrong". What is right to you may be extremely wrong to someone else. "Morals" and "ethics" are all relative.
This is the problem with the U.S., always trying to cram their belief system down other peoples' throats. I'm sick of the righteous attitude that America and its citizens ooze."
My answer to this is very simple; if morals are completely relative and there is no right and wrong then why is shoving belief systems down people's throats wrong? Hell, why not indoctrinate everyone in one set of beliefs where the most powerful are always right? It might end allot of conflict. Yes allot of morality is very relative. No all morality is not relative. No because it is impossible to make a perfect deterministic judgment about what is right and wrong it does not follow that you can never try. Notice I said trying to do the right thing. I think you clearly seem to feel people have a right to believe what they want. This is "morally" right. I don't think I need to explain how deeply problematic this becomes quite quickly. What about countries who force their people (or try to force their people) to believe in a certain system? Is this wrong? If we tolerate "nations" rights to do this how do we make this distinction and what is a "nation". Ultimately I will present you with a challenge:
Let us just say there is some government whose "morally relative" policy is to kill a certain segment of its population, consisting of, let's say 20 million people. We have the power to stop this, but cannot do it without telling them what is "right". Without ever appealing to morality, come up with a way we can interfere. And if you think we can interfere come up with a system which differentiates between this example and leveling sanctions when a country say, forces six year olds to work in sweat shops. The U.S. is faced with being an incredibly powerful nation in a very fucked up world. It makes mistakes. Its history is rife with error. Does this mean it can never ever do anything in the future? Why or why not? How culpable is the U.S. if it doesn't interfere with genocide and other "human rights violations"? It's easy to critique decisions when you never have to make one yourself or critically evaluate your own.
"1: We know that Bush was selling weapons to Hussein even while the military buildup in Saudi Arabia was happening. This is really disturbing and strongly suggests that this war was either staged or a profit-opertunity for American weapons manufactuers. "
You're right. It's clear that when a large multifaceted organization like the CIA doesn't act immediately on a change in policy, especially a secretive one, they are part of some giant purposeful conspiracy. It's never been the case that a beaurocracy has just been slow to act, and we wind up doing something stupid like funding the people we are trying to kill. COME ON! First off, where are you getting this? Secondly where is your evidence that any manufacturer lobbied, or met with anyone? How much equipment was sold? See my original post. Because you identify a group that could gain from a mistaken policy does not mean they are responsible for it. For instance, I got cheaper tickets to fly home because people are less likely to fly at this time. This does not mean I supported the destruction of the WTC. You need to establish a causal mechanism to make this claim.
"2: Hussein historically has had strong ties to the CIA and other organizations that looked the other way while he committed some real atrocities back in the 80's."
Yup. America was convinced at the time (quite wrongly and by the 80's even stupidly) that the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and make everyone a communist. We did a whole bunch of dumb shit, like funding any crappy dictator who was anticommunist. We also did some incredibly smart things like the Marshall plan. This does not necessarily indicate it was all a capitalistic plot by the CIA working with weapons manufacturers to make billions. The real money was made building star wars and bombers, not in selling Hussein weapons.
"The man [Hussein] is a monster, and we should get rid of him (but it falls upon us only because we created him in the first place), but I think he is still in power because there are certain interests at stake for having an enemy in that region"
If we killed every "monster" we really would be the hegemonic overlords the Chinese and others claim we want to be.
I think you use several very faulty lines of logic here and I will attempt to demonstrate them individually. I'd like to note that I think generally we would be on the same side regarding foreing policy, but I think in this instance I must firmly disagree.
First you imply that this is our fault, or deserved because of our funding of the Mujahadeen during the exuberant battle against the "evil empire" of the cold war. While I agree this was a mistake, let's not use that to claim that in any way justifies the current situation in that country. The Soviet Union invaded and we helped the rebels gain independence. This done we stopped helping them. They would have liked more money to set up a regime but we cared little after we won our battle. So we didn't help as much as we could/should have, is this reason to bomb us? NO. It does not follow that, since we declined to continue aiding the Mujahadeen as they set up a government we wronged them in such a way as to deserve 9/11. We helped create this monster yes, but isn't that all the more reason for us to step up to the plate and end it?
Next you have the bombing 1 nation every two years argument. Firstly few of these terrorist are victims of bombing. That aside, I wonder how many more peoploe would have died if we had not have dropped a bomb in the last 30 years? It sounds paradoxicall but unfortunately their are some seriously fucked up people in this world and sometimes you have to kill them. The US made mistakes, yes. But it made mistakes while generally *trying to do the right thing*. Explain to me how Somalia or Kosovo can be construed as the US profiteering from bombing? Come on. Perhaps our motives or our analysis haven't always been perfect, but they rarely have been purely economic profit. America had made mistakes like everyone else. You might want to research how much culpability Pakistan has in all this. Their crusade for Kashmire has caused them to fund some unsavory charecters. We all do stupid things. That does not mean the present situation is one of them or that America is evil.
Thirdly there is the profiteering from arm sales argument. This argument has been arround since after world war I where it gained popularity as an explanation for the horific wanton destruction from that war. Because a group stands to profit from a course of action does not mean that they are responsible for it. It is sometimes good grounds for suspicion but it nothing like positive evidence. I think your argument here is much stronger on issues like the missle defense system than on this. I really don't think Bush's main goal right now is "what do the defence contractors want me to do" regardless of how he may think on other occasions.
In the end I think this act is justified for one reason only; it may prevent future suffering. Terrorism like any other act of violence causes suffering. This action may create less suffering than it ends.
It seems to me a major problem with many American politicians is that they seem to think they can have a free society without a criminal element. This is not possible. I see more and more people wanting to have their cake and eat it to. Sure we want the free exchange of political ideas, a society where new ways of doing things is rewarded, but as long we can't have [inset porn, paranoid delusions of terrorism, racism, or whatever your favorite scape goat is here]. Life does not work like this. Do you want to live in a free society? Their is a price to pay. Encryption is important in giving people the fealing of SECURITY to exchange ideas without fear (even if it be paranoid) of being looked on by some governmental force. The government cannot have the ability to monitor all information sent out over a widespread medium like the telephone service or the internet without becoming a danger to the ideas it was built upon. The freedom of thought is an essential part of a succesfull democracy, and it is the real freedom the bill of rights attempts to protect. If we loose that, then what was the purpose of guarding against [inset your favorite scape goat here] in the first place. Just venting;).
We are obviously capable of understanding and navigationg 3 dimensionally but it was my impression (coming from some articles on neurology I think but It was so long ago I hardly want to say anything for sure) that the eye reported back images in 2d and the brain created 3d as needed. We are much better at 2 dimensionally processing being the point. We obviously can imagine and use 3 dimensional ideas, but we are better with 2 dimensional ones. This of course being part of the reason that most everything is done 2d, maps, language (written), most computers apps etc. You don't need 3d to walk across your living room. You move only in 4 possible directions. You do not move up or down. You need 3d in order to not hit the roof. How often do you need to do that?
don't humans think in 2d (I mean we can understand 3d but we actually interpret images in 3d)? I think naviagting a 3d desktop would be difficult as it would involve allot of complicated spatial memory. Has someone adressed this? I'm sure it would look damned cool and be fun to play with, but would it be harder to understand and use?
Slashdot Mirror
You could go back to school for a few years and get an MBA. With skills in technology and management you could probably find a decent paying job somewhere much cheaper to live than the Bay Area (even just a few miles east in Sacramento). You could also switch to accounting and become a CPA. I know someone who gets $100 bucks an hour to do consulting because she is a CPA whith programming skills. She can come in, tweak, and fix a company's accounting systems and communicate with the accountants who use it in their language.
I don't even understand why you would think this. What we have here (regardless of the truth of the memo) is a classic case of a monpolist using its cash, market power and the legal system to maitain control of the market in order to continue its monopolistic practices. I can damned well condem this and be happy when a different company (say IBM) spends money to try to back a new product that threatens them, not because I think an IBM monopoly would be better but because I want no monopoly at all. That's consistent.
Argh!
It's not a problem that Groklaw might or might not be biased in their research. EVERYONE IS BIASED! Why is it that so many people, whether critizing slashdot's "anti-microsoft bias" or now Groklaw's "anti-sco bias" seem to be scouring the world searching for someone to write an article or produce a site on a topic totally neutral on every possible opinion on the subject. Groklaw thinks SCO is full of shit. Therefore they are biased. Groklaw's arguments and evidence seem to substantiate their claims. Therefore they are also probably CORRECT.
Dealing with bias is why you have a brain. Read the articles, judge their evidence, and come to your own conclusion. If you disagree provide a detailed analysis, and prove your point. Enough with the goddamned bias mania.
"If students regularly cheat in written exams, it's a good sign that the exams are pointless. The proper response is to ask "why are students so unmotivated that they don't bother to make an original contribution", not "how can we catch and punish the bastards one more time.""
Writing papers and exams in college should be about learning to think and write clearly. My experience with students who cheat is that they *come in* with the attitude that everything is BS and believe the prof just wants to hear their own views regurgitated back. In other words the come in with the conceded, arrogant view that you express here that all these people who have devoted their lives to learning and teaching a discipline are just morons, who should be giving me A's and letting me do important stuff instead of study trivia.
Most plagiarized material sucks or is off topic. The fact they think it's going to get them anywhere is usually symptomatic of their complete lack of understanding of the goals of higher education and the basic ideas of the course in general.
I'm all for motivating students. But cheaters themselves reduce the motivation of others and normally have terribly shortsighted views about what they are going to accomplish. They think of their education as a ticket to a paycheck, not as an opportunity to expand their minds.
" If MS did this, the /. crowd would scream bloody murder (hell, they have... and y'all have.) But you know Apple apologists are going to have some reason why this is OK for them to do, and try to make it out like Apple is still the good guy, no matter what.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, they're all I use, but Apple fanboys make me ill."
I see this argument on slashdot all the time. It does not work. It seems to follow some of the worse arguments in popular culture. Basically it claims that since Slashdot readers take a particular position about software, they are biased and can't possibly be doing so because they have good reason to.
This is a bad argument. If you think a particular post ignores facts and make poor arguments, point them out. Don't just yell "BIAS" as a blanket acusation against every future post that expresses the position that this is not as bad as it seems. If you think the moderation system is biased, I suggest you provide evidence showing particular posts of high quality being ignored and low quality advance to an extent that you can establish their is a systemic process going on here.
Just because people here seem to currently prefer OS X to XP does not mean everything they say can be ignored under the all encompasing label of bias. Please, provide arguments, not unsuported assertions.
"Note, too, the difference in wording: "PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare.""
And I would ask that you note the wording of "ESTABLISH justice." The authors argument is not that cancer deaths are more important than terror deaths. It is that the government spends far too much time funding a process that he views as a) unjust and b) unlikely to bring about much reduction in the number of deaths resulting from terror. Please respong to this argument, not a straw man you have invented.
But your using the same logic that's offending you. Your generalizing just like you assume he did (and I agree he *probably* did). You are assuming without knowing anything about him (if it is indeed a him) that he is upset at not finding a female geek. But he may be having problems finding homosexual male geeks as well. Perhaps he lives in a small town with few geeks and even fewer "out" homosexuals. Who knows.
Now the question is, is the joke offensive? I understand it's complicated. You clearly think it support a hetrocentric notion that, albeit unintentionally, marginalizes homsexuals by assuming they don't exist. I understand your concerns. However, I think your tone was far far to harsh if this is the case. It seems highly unlikely that this was intentional. Making him recognize the possibilities is probably ill served by insulting him. Rather you at best opened his eyes by making him feel bad about himself (ironic since what were bothered by is people being made to feel bad about themselves), but more likely pissed him off and made him unwilling to listed to your (inmho reasonable) point.
"Ah ha! 3 quick posts pointing out the same something: it wouldn't have been a distasteful joke if the 2nd poster was a gay male.
However, it is clear that the intention of the 2nd poster was to point out a female correlation as there are plenty of male geeks out there. And following normal population deviance, there should be normal number of gays among them. Therefore, it wouldn't have been funny if the comments weren't inteded for a female."
"This joke seems only funny in an old-school way: a joke when made my a insenstive male clod thinking there are only hetrosexual people in this world."
How do you know this poster is not a gay male? If so, then your oh so clever retort is only clever to him, and he is laughing at you right now.
It is correct to suggest we should be worried about the potential lethality of the substances we manufacture. That is precisely why people who claim they are alergic to "chemicals" are so dangerous. They do damage to an important issue through their irrational claims. Look people, EVERYTHING is a fucking chemical. That includes things like AIR and water. Just because it came out of a factory does not *necesarily* mean it is toxic. Plenty of "natural" things are far far more toxic than anything in your kitchen. "Fragrances" are not a category of chemical with a specific bilogical effect.
As to medicine ruining the genetic crop, I don't really think it's that big of a deal. First off, if the gene pool is "weekened" because more people are surviving it seems indicative to me of their being a different standard for survival in the modern age. This doesn't mean were all going to get weak and die. Second, evolution occurs gradually. Finally, I think brains are a more important adaption than brawn. The human race also appears to be getting smarter over time.
I don't argue that making illegal copies of copyrighted material is morally correct. I don't care if it is or is not. I want to know if it's worth spending my tax dollars to enforce.
As it grows easier and easier to steal copyrighted material, I think the question of what should we and should we not do to protect corporations like Time Warner is better though of after taking an example to heart. Let's suppose I ran a radio station. Let's suppose I wanted everyone to pay me $.10 a minute to listen to my radio station. I have no technology to do this any differently from a normal radio station. People can turn to my radio station and listen regardless of whether or not they have paid me. It seems likely that thousands of people (at least if my content was any good) would listen to my station without paying. This angers me, and I ask the legislators to start passing laws with long sentences, and law enforcement to invade privacy to find violators.
Clearly there would be no reason for the government to artificially create a situation where my failed business model works. There has to some damn GOOD REASON to expend the time and money to make a business work despite the ease of cheating.
So the question isn't whether or not people steal content. It's not whether or not these people are good or evil. The question is, how hard would it be to actually stop them, and what do we really get by doing so?
In general for research it is better to find biased sources that clearly state their arguments and methods, than to look for "unbiased" ones to follow. Read up from allot of different sources, especially academic ones (www.jstor.org is a great place to find journals, but you may have to get onto a college campus to access it) and thumb through their footnotes. Where are they getting their information? How are they using the data? How good it their argument? Then make your own mind up based on all these biased sources.
I'm currently a senior in college writing a thesis. If I don't have a thesis I don't graduate, so as one can imagine I'm kind of paranoid about backups. For small data, I find the following procedurs sufficient:
1) Burn every single revision to cd
2) Keep a copy of most recent version in on campus mail box
3) Keep most recent version on my free web space at yahoo.com (you have to link it, but whatever).
4) Keep as many revisions as space allows in mailbox on www.runbox.com. They give you 100 megs of storage for a very small price.
It would be pretty difficult for all my data to get destroyed as it spans two continents and lots of different media. Most personal users have a relatively small ammount of absolutely critical data, and for them I think my solution makes allot of sense. Even for larger data sizes renting space from someone a fair geographic distance away makes sense. Sure their building can burn down to, but what are the odds of their building and yours burning down the same day?
I do agree that everyone should have a balanced education. But let me sound off for a moment on one of my pet peeves: EVERYONE should have a balanced education, not just those in the sciences or engineering! It continually annoys me that "geeks" are made to feel sheepish about any lack of "breadth" they may have, while those in the humanities are free to boast about their complete lack of knowledge of science and mathematics, apparently feeling no shame about it.
The idea of a liberal arts education is often presented as being the opposite of an engineering or scientific education, but let's just review what the seven liberal arts actually were, shall we? Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. Science and math were strongly represented; enough said."
As student of the social "sciences" in a liberal arts college, I feel there are a few things you are missing. First students in the "humanities" side of academia often feel neglected by a society that places enormous value on technical training and advancement and a significantly lower value on knowledge of the art, literature, and history. If you don't believe this, I suggest you compare the amount your institution spends on the sciences in comparison to its budget for the social sciences and humanities.
Secondly, the job primary education does in actually teaching, say history or philosophy is overall piss poor. There was an earlier thread on the inability of most lower educational institutions to teach algebra. I agree with this. But I think it is worth mentioning here that while my physics and calculus classes at least *resembled* the college level courses I took with the same names (I took the intro physics course for physics majors offered at my college) history did not and philosophy was non-existent. Thus humanities majors are often forced to pick up a little math and science in their previous education, but I think math and science folks are forced to pick up less history and philosophy (a better job is done with literature).
Thirdly, I agree with you in that a *liberal arts* education should mean at least a basic working knowledge of the sciences and math as well as some knowledge on the "humanities" side of the divide. I run in to too many history majors who freak out at the site of statistics to say everything is as it should be. However, overall, I think humanities tend to be neglected more both in course requirements and in financing.
Algebra never seemed interesting to me the way it was taught in public schools. I took it in two different states (Vermont and California) and the method used to teach it never worked for me. Our public schools seem to teach math in a "follow this trick and get the correct answer" type of way. I was always left wondering *why* it all worked. I never did well in mathematics untill I took Calculus in highschool. Math then started to seem interesting and my algebra skills improved. I did not realise of how much I had been robbed by having math taught in the way it is untill I took math in college. Proofs! Everything laid out consistently, logically, and everything argues for and proven rigorously. I loved it. If I were to change majors from history, it would be to mathematics. I'm sure my skills in mathematics would be much improved had I always been taught math as a set of proven theorems from limited axioms instead of as tricks to get the same result as the back of the book. It seems to me the way math is taught has some advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages:
1) Some people *hate* proofs. They don't care why it works, just that it does. These people might have more trouble learning a very usefull skill set (algebraic manipulation) if math were taught differently.
2) Some people aren't smart. This is different than (1), in that 1 indicates a different style of learning rather than potential for thought. These people need to learn basic math to do jobs in the real world. Teaching math in a more complicate manner may compromise their education.
3) Teaching math rigorously is time consuming and requires well trained teachers.
Disadvantages:
1) Some people are turned off by the way math is taught.
2) Some people have trouble dealing with the change in approach in higher level mathematics twoards proofs.
I'm not an education proffesional, and I don't know how resources are best spent teaching math. In my particular case, I'd say most of the resources thrown my way in math were wasted.
"The "central issues" that drove the ultimate outcome of the revolution -- and resulted in the bulk of the Constitution -- were not representative of what motivated most of its participants. The delegates who negotiated it represented the interests of only a tiny fraction of them."
What were those interests and how do you evidence them? I really don't think coporate monopolies would be the main issue on the 18th century common man's check list. The fact of the matter is that the constitution supported liberalism over monarchism, which lead to the rise of corporate capitlism during the industrial revolution. The idea that a person or corporation of persons should not be able to give as much as they would like to a political campaign would seem strange to the "common man" of the 18th century. Of course this is because the issues were different. Which is exactly my point. The consitution is not really much of a document to be used against major corporations, and *this is one of its main failings*.
"The Bill of Rights better suggests the more common concerns than the rest of the document. By comparing the bias of the two fragments you can deduce where the true "central concerns" lay, further in the direction indicated by the later fragment."
You specifically cited the constitution as the document in danger from coporate capitalism. Now you switch to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not written by the "common man" either. It's conception of liberty is rooted in property ala John Locke. This is classic liberalism, the main idea which led to the rise of mega-corporations. Once again, I ask how you have gleamed these concerns from documents written by a terribly unrepresentative government which still viewed political power as the purview of the rich. Thomas Jefferson, the main figure surrounding so much of the "liberal thought" was very suprised at the representitive democracy he created and where it went. The direction it went was partially rule by the masses and partially rule by money. Attacking corporations has had a history of half-hearted support by "the masses". This is where Marx comes in. You take what you perceive to be the "objective" interests of the masses and then posit them as the actuall interests of the masses. This rarely works out. Ronald Regan was a very popular leader and a great guy for corporate America. This wasn't *just* because he received so much funding from corporations (though I will not deny it was part of it, Ronald is after all probably on my top ten list of shitty presidents).
"I don't think the discussion benefits from complexifying by crypto-religious political cant. Whatever the academic arguments about trade policy (which would stupefy us all by their subtlety and erudition), it is a fact that trade policy manipulation is (also) used by megacorporations to exercise political power. Furthermore, the evidence shows that those academic arguments which happen to reinforce corporate preferences find more application (and grant money)."
Of course academics tend to also be liberal. I would argue this is because the left makes more sense than the right, but I am clearly biased. The argument for free trade is actually quite simple, and has been made many many times in various forms. The idea being specialization creates greater total production. For example country A can produce 5 grapes or 10 oranges. Country B can produce 20 grapes or 10000 oranges. There is a net gain in goods is country a produces just grapes and country b just oranges.
"Trade liberalization is more often a convenient excuse for eliminating inconvenient restrictions on pollution and on harmful products. For example, anti-smoking public-health campaigns have frequently had to be canceled just to prevent retaliation by the U.S. on the "trade barriers" excuse."
More often? Where is this coming from? Where is your evidence? What do I support? I support the increased power of the UN and the expansion of the WTO to include basic environmental restrictions. I also think a fund needs to be set up to deal with the short term structural problems caused by industrialization in third world countries. I want most tarrifs dropped some on long term schedules (to avoid having economies imediatly jolted by the new competition).
"In evaluating claims of merit in trade barrier reductions, it's essential to examine who wants them and what they want them for. Barriers against DDT, CFCs, and PCBs are all to the good. Barriers against plutonium are essential to continued life on Earth. Barriers to THC trade are foolish but viciously defended by those those most vocal about "free trade"."
This I agree with. Free Trade=bad I do not. Of course anything needs to be evaluated and pollution is a major issue. I'm not sure when free traders argued to end restrictions on plutonium.
"The median standard of living, worldwide and in the U.S., has declined in recent decades, even as the mean has risen. Trade liberalization, as exercised, manifestly has not "improve[d] the lot of the average person", despite all its apparent potential to do so. The reasons are easy to see: those who design the changes bias them for their masters' benefit, and the "average person" isn't invited to participate."
Well, let me put it to you this way: the American Revolution was a giant victory for the principles behind free trade. Adam Smith has loomed large over American trade for the past 200+ years and capitalism despite its flaws is one of the most important influences in the current flood of goods in comparison with those past centuries. Unions, and antimonopoly policy have made further gains. I really don't see *any* evidence to back your claim that looser trade policies are the main reason behind the median standard of living declining in recent decades. I also would like to see where this figure is coming from, as I have not heard it before. Please tell me where this info is coming from, I have tried to provide you with some clues as to where what I am saying is coming from. What years is it including? I would imagine the worldwide recent economic problems have something to do with it (and they have little to do with free trade). If trade within a state creates more goods (and I don't know of anyone who maintains it does not), then why would trade between states tend to create less goods? Besides this I would say your critique is more allong the lines of "free trade is often gone about in the wrong ways" than "free trade is bad". Of course free trade is often gone about in the wrong ways, and of course giant corporations paying big bucks for politicians affects this. BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE FREE TRADE BAD! My problem is that you appear (mainly in your first posting) to be making the claim that isolationism is the way to go in the 21'st century. IT IS NOT. To say "free trade is a complicated issue and allong with its benefits presents problems which need to be dealt with but are not because of the power structure of our society" is entirely different from "globilization is bad". Now I think the expansion of free trade in the last 50+ years since WWII has done more good than harm. But I think it could be done *much* better in the future.
"The longer history of corporate monopolization in the rest of the world is well-documented: the government-granted East India, Dutch East Indies, and Hudson Bay monopolies are known even to many Americans, despite the abysmal history education available here. The American revolution was in part a reaction to those -- recall the Boston Tea Party in rebellion to a tax to help pay for the East India company's military ventures. "
Hmmm. Certainly this is a part of the American revolution, but the way the economy operated (mercantalism) was quite different from the theory underlying more modern corporate power (capitalism). While reacting against monopoly has a long history in American and English thought, I would not place it among the central issues of the revolution. The revolution had more to do with the role of elites in relation to british authority. See Gordon Wood "The Radicalism of the American Revolution", and Joyce Appleby "Capitalism and the New Social Order".
"Marxism has little to do with modern processes of globalization, and has little to teach opponents of it. The conflict is between citizens and artificial legal constructs, not between "classes". (I presume Marxism was mentioned mainly to try to change the subject.)"
Marxism is one of the first "hisories" of globilization (though it views it as a good, never yet reached stage). All legal constructions are "artificial", imagined. A corporation is a man made thing which has both revolutionized the amount of shit we can make, and has a long history of damaging the greater community interest to serve its own. I added Marxism not to change the subject, but rather to add some complexity to your very simplistic argument.
"Corporate power can be fought not by killing corporate toadies, but only by enforcing laws that limit corporate power. Antitrust, campaign finance reform, prison sentences for corporate criminals, these are tools that could help."
This I agree with. It is your rant about globilization which I find indicitative of oversimplistic thinking on the matter. I like globilization, and I see trade as the main way this will happen. Like it or not, I see free markets (avec corporations in all their glory) as the most reliable way we have come up with to improve the lot of the average person. Of course I think we have learned a lot about the limits of such markets. Corporations need not be givin a free hand, but trade bariers tend to do everyone a *net* misservice.
Your place the rise of "corporate capitalism" in its "historicall" context here.
"In the U.S. it traces back to 1883, when the Supreme Court chose (without legislative authority) to extend to corporations all the rights of a person. In the '20s another court decreed that they were not only persons, but "natural persons", in response to laws passed after 1883 that distinguished between the two. After that, corporations got powerful enough to control the Congress as well.
"
Of course you leave out allot of earlier history and ignore allot of later history. For instance a little thing called the "New Deal" happened during the 30's (you end at the twenties) where the rise of unions and government became a check to corporate power. Of course one could argue a) this was nothing but a shallow attempt by the institution of corporatism to protect itself from the radicall left or b) that this was reversed in the 70's and 80's. But but of these arguments are still going to have to recognize that the rize of corporate capitalism cannot be scene as an uninterupted rise to glory (or rather evil).
Furthermore you neglect to explain the history leading up to the explosive 19th century, conveniently leaving out how classic liberalism made gains for individual liberty, and changing the way hierarchy is conceived of. This helps portray capitalism as an unmitigated evil, but like most tales of devils (or heros for that matter) it has little bearing on the complex reality of the rise of the liberal state.
Finally you explain how globilization trumps the constitution (of course conveniently forgetting the constitution itself can be seen as an attempt for the upper class of the late 18th century to institutionalize its dominance) as a "sacred" text which of course would protect Americans from the evil of corporatism. Sadly, the constitution with its maintence of "freedom" grounded in property is ill equiped to be a document protecting economic equality and fighting the hegemony of corporate America. Of course their are other forces in our country more promising to do this, like unions. Of course these institutions themselves are far from perfect.
I think globilization's overiding of the power of individual states is a good thing. I don't like war (though I admit war is sadly sometimes the only alternative). Because of this I don't like hundreds of states, each with their own military vying for power. Trade may in fact undermine this. And it may not. We can hope. I might here remark the Karl Marx, perhaps the most discernable influence in your thinking about "corporate" capitlism, could not give two shits about the shredding of the constitution. Marxism is an "internationalist" movement. Perhaps you don't view yourself as a Marxist, but your theory (as I understand it) of corporations marching onwards to opress the underclass. You might want to reed some of what he wrote. Personally, I'm not a big fan of his.
I wanted to e-mail you this reply, hopefully you will read this.
"Few terrorists are bombing victims? Few bombing victims are alive after becoming bombing victims. By your logic, you have no reason to undertake retaliatory action unless YOU were a 9/11 victim PERSONALLY."
I define victim in broader terms than this. For example if your mother, father, brother or sister was killed in the blast. Or if you were wounded by shrapnel. Bin Laden does not claim to be motivated by this, and the people who actually flew the planes appear to be predominantly wealthy individuals who's motivations are mainly religious. Osama Bin Laden himself claims this is true. They think it is part of Islam to kill the impure, like Jews or Americans if they happen to live in "Muslim lands".
"As for how many lives bombing saved, that is a question you should pose to every Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Grenadan, Libyan, Panamanian, Iraqi, Serb, Sudanese, and Afghan (among others) you meet. While many disagreed with their political leadership, I'm sure theyd've preferred that their innocent countrymen not die. Set aside will be our actions in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Iran, as they don't involve aerial bombardment per se, but rather differing levels of meddling and interference (i.e., assasinations, propaganda and sabotage.) To a lesser extent, our presence in places like Haiti, Japan and the Phillipines brews some resentment, even if the overall effect is stabilizing in some places. Just because there are no bullets flying in a country where we have troops on the ground is an inadequate basis for concluding that they love us. Also to be ignored is our tampering in an Australian PM election in the 1970's. Still, you have to admit that this is a long and varied list."
Weather the victims prefer it does not deal with the substance of my argument. My argument is based on whether or not U.S. action in the last 30 (I would broaden it to 50 but the figures or only 30) years saved more than it killed. Certainly many of the operations you bring up were all or in part ill considered. But, honestly, 3-million isn't as many as it sounds. During de-Kulakization alone Stalin killed 4-million via starvation (I would recommend the historian Sheila Fitzpatrick on the subject). Would other communists have done the same? The leaders at the time thought so. They were often very wrong, but not always. In all of those cases the people we fought killed many. I don't know what they would add up to, but I am certain they are well over 3 million.
"As to our world being fucked up, yes. I believe there are people whose deaths would make the world a better place. My list differs from yours. Who decides, then?"
In the future, I hope an international body. With the "multilateral" nature of current U.S. action I think you can see things are already (thank god) headed in that direction. In the meantime, someone has to. Because I don't have a mathematical model, which charts good, and evil does not mean that I can never act. Never acting can cause more damage than action.
"If we generally try to do the right thing, why did we sit on our asses and let Rwanda and the Congo turn into such bloody messes? If we're the good guys, why didn't we drop support for the Apartheid regime in SA until after institutions starting divesting themselves of their shares of companies who did business there due to grassroots pressure? The boardrooms of America stood up and struck a blow for freedom only after it bit too deeply into their bottom line. This last example is a case of Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason. Do you honestly think wed've given two shits if Kuwait had been a poverty-stricken African or Asian nation?"
Now you begin to support more action? Which is it you want. Your argument can't explain Somalia and Kosovo; they were not rich. Apartheid is the most damaging of your examples. But remember I do not pretend the U.S. is always right but generally tried to do the right thing. In the Congo and Rwanda the general feeling was that American action would not work, and that it was going to happen anyway. Was this correct? It is hard to say. I fear some of the feeling may have been racist. I think it has more to do with memories of Vietnam and the "jungle". Most Americans are very frightened of "jungle" warfare. Deciding when to act and when not to is a tricky thing.
"Bombing is always profitable if you're a bombmaker. Think about it for a second. If planes get shot down, it becomes profitable for aircraft manufacturers. When civilian infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, it becomes profitable for international civil engineering companies. And because you need oil to do all of this, it is always profitable for petroleum producers. If there were companies that cloned humans for use as soldiers, they would profit too."
Yup, bomb makers make money from bombing. That doesn't mean they are responsible for the bombing. I find it highly problematic to try to maintain the argument that Kosovo was done for the sake of defense budgets. I really don't see evidence for your claim, especially since most politicians who generally seem to speak for the defense industry seemed to complain that it would never work.
"Everyone else doesn't rule the world. Our mistakes are magnified because of our economic, political and military stature. The more power we have, the more responsibility there is to use it wisely and humanely. IOW, the consequences of a toddler somewhere ordering an aerial bombardment are practically nil, as he doesn't have the power to do so. As for Pakistan's ISI and their culpability, I suggest you research who supported and liased with them. "We all do stupid things?" This is not letting your coonhound steer your pickup into a fishin' hole. This is war. War means killing. Killing is irreversible. It's not a mistake you can fix, no matter how much you wished you'd torched the right hooch. Innocents still die."
You make two arguments here. First you claim that when a more powerful nation does something wrong it is worse than when a less powerful nation does it. I disagree with this, though some moral philosophers may maintain that only outcomes matter and not intentions. I think if you point a gun and fire it at someone with intent to kill them you are as morally culpable whether or not the bullet is a dud. Secondly you claim that killing is irreversible so should never be done. While I agree that killing should only be done after great contemplation I think it is possible to create a situation where killing is the right thing. Let's assume there is an equal chance Bin Laden gets a nuclear weapon as not (and I don't think this is true, this is just a demonstration of the type of argument where killing would be justified). Now we can drop a bomb that has a fifty percent chance of killing him and a fifty percent chance of killing 10 innocent civilians. You drop the bomb.
"The profiteering argument dates from WWI because weapons production was not industrialized on a sufficient scale prior to that war. The assertion that it only arose after a certain point in time does nothing to detract from its cogency. And BTW, Bush, et al still want to go ahead with NMD even after 9/11. Doesn't that make your chest swell with patriotic pride?"
No, I think the missile defense system is one of the stupidest pieces of policy Bush has proposed. I think it sends the wrong message and tends to promote distrust of the U.S. I also think you can make a much stronger argument that defense contractors might have a role to play in the decision. I bring up the WWI because I think it is important to note because of the "fortress America" isolationism so popular at the time. It caused us to not try to change the provisions of the treaty of Versailles and then to not try to rally Europe against an expanding Hitler. This results of this are the reason the argument is no longer fashionable.
"Bombing now may prevent future suffering by killing people who were going to bomb us. Bombing can never end the suffering of those already bombed. There is a world of difference between the two. It should also be a given that bombing always creates human suffering. If it's only a matter of where, then all you have to fall back upon are the accidents of race or nationality or religion. Being loyal, honest, compassionate, pious etc. will not save you. That's what terror is."
Of the people being hit by the bombs yup, it can only harm them. See my early example for why this might be, regrettably the right decision. I might here note that I don't get all teary eyed and patriotic about it. I think it is sad and terrible. I don't get filled with patriotic pried when talking about the "good war" of WWII. I am sad that Americans had to die and kill people in order to prevent a greater evil from killing even more and making millions suffer.
"I want the people who planned and bankrolled 9/11 tormented to the point of insanity, rolled up in a pigskin, and thrown into the coldest stretch of ocean we can find. I know getting to that point will involve innocents being killed. That's the part I have a problem with. We have killed or will soon kill people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, just like the people in WTC had nothing to do with U.S.-Israel policy or U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Innocent is innocent. Rejoicing in the death of one innocent human being is an expression of our animality and not our humanity. A sober and serious people would know that already"
I don't rejoice. I am not happy. I didn't cheer. I cried. But that doesn't change the cold, hard fucked up decision. If we disregard the implications of our inaction in order to protect our shallow sense of morality, where will we be?
"And what is "the right thing"? So many people are so narrow-minded that they believe that there is only a singular "right" and "wrong". What is right to you may be extremely wrong to someone else. "Morals" and "ethics" are all relative.
This is the problem with the U.S., always trying to cram their belief system down other peoples' throats. I'm sick of the righteous attitude that America and its citizens ooze."
My answer to this is very simple; if morals are completely relative and there is no right and wrong then why is shoving belief systems down people's throats wrong? Hell, why not indoctrinate everyone in one set of beliefs where the most powerful are always right? It might end allot of conflict. Yes allot of morality is very relative. No all morality is not relative. No because it is impossible to make a perfect deterministic judgment about what is right and wrong it does not follow that you can never try. Notice I said trying to do the right thing. I think you clearly seem to feel people have a right to believe what they want. This is "morally" right. I don't think I need to explain how deeply problematic this becomes quite quickly. What about countries who force their people (or try to force their people) to believe in a certain system? Is this wrong? If we tolerate "nations" rights to do this how do we make this distinction and what is a "nation". Ultimately I will present you with a challenge:
Let us just say there is some government whose "morally relative" policy is to kill a certain segment of its population, consisting of, let's say 20 million people. We have the power to stop this, but cannot do it without telling them what is "right". Without ever appealing to morality, come up with a way we can interfere. And if you think we can interfere come up with a system which differentiates between this example and leveling sanctions when a country say, forces six year olds to work in sweat shops. The U.S. is faced with being an incredibly powerful nation in a very fucked up world. It makes mistakes. Its history is rife with error. Does this mean it can never ever do anything in the future? Why or why not? How culpable is the U.S. if it doesn't interfere with genocide and other "human rights violations"? It's easy to critique decisions when you never have to make one yourself or critically evaluate your own.
"1: We know that Bush was selling weapons to Hussein even while the military buildup in Saudi Arabia was happening. This is really disturbing and strongly suggests that this war was either staged or a profit-opertunity for American weapons manufactuers. "
You're right. It's clear that when a large multifaceted organization like the CIA doesn't act immediately on a change in policy, especially a secretive one, they are part of some giant purposeful conspiracy. It's never been the case that a beaurocracy has just been slow to act, and we wind up doing something stupid like funding the people we are trying to kill. COME ON! First off, where are you getting this? Secondly where is your evidence that any manufacturer lobbied, or met with anyone? How much equipment was sold? See my original post. Because you identify a group that could gain from a mistaken policy does not mean they are responsible for it. For instance, I got cheaper tickets to fly home because people are less likely to fly at this time. This does not mean I supported the destruction of the WTC. You need to establish a causal mechanism to make this claim.
"2: Hussein historically has had strong ties to the CIA and other organizations that looked the other way while he committed some real atrocities back in the 80's."
Yup. America was convinced at the time (quite wrongly and by the 80's even stupidly) that the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and make everyone a communist. We did a whole bunch of dumb shit, like funding any crappy dictator who was anticommunist. We also did some incredibly smart things like the Marshall plan. This does not necessarily indicate it was all a capitalistic plot by the CIA working with weapons manufacturers to make billions. The real money was made building star wars and bombers, not in selling Hussein weapons.
"The man [Hussein] is a monster, and we should get rid of him (but it falls upon us only because we created him in the first place), but I think he is still in power because there are certain interests at stake for having an enemy in that region"
If we killed every "monster" we really would be the hegemonic overlords the Chinese and others claim we want to be.
I think you use several very faulty lines of logic here and I will attempt to demonstrate them individually. I'd like to note that I think generally we would be on the same side regarding foreing policy, but I think in this instance I must firmly disagree.
First you imply that this is our fault, or deserved because of our funding of the Mujahadeen during the exuberant battle against the "evil empire" of the cold war. While I agree this was a mistake, let's not use that to claim that in any way justifies the current situation in that country. The Soviet Union invaded and we helped the rebels gain independence. This done we stopped helping them. They would have liked more money to set up a regime but we cared little after we won our battle. So we didn't help as much as we could/should have, is this reason to bomb us? NO. It does not follow that, since we declined to continue aiding the Mujahadeen as they set up a government we wronged them in such a way as to deserve 9/11. We helped create this monster yes, but isn't that all the more reason for us to step up to the plate and end it?
Next you have the bombing 1 nation every two years argument. Firstly few of these terrorist are victims of bombing. That aside, I wonder how many more peoploe would have died if we had not have dropped a bomb in the last 30 years? It sounds paradoxicall but unfortunately their are some seriously fucked up people in this world and sometimes you have to kill them. The US made mistakes, yes. But it made mistakes while generally *trying to do the right thing*. Explain to me how Somalia or Kosovo can be construed as the US profiteering from bombing? Come on. Perhaps our motives or our analysis haven't always been perfect, but they rarely have been purely economic profit. America had made mistakes like everyone else. You might want to research how much culpability Pakistan has in all this. Their crusade for Kashmire has caused them to fund some unsavory charecters. We all do stupid things. That does not mean the present situation is one of them or that America is evil.
Thirdly there is the profiteering from arm sales argument. This argument has been arround since after world war I where it gained popularity as an explanation for the horific wanton destruction from that war. Because a group stands to profit from a course of action does not mean that they are responsible for it. It is sometimes good grounds for suspicion but it nothing like positive evidence. I think your argument here is much stronger on issues like the missle defense system than on this. I really don't think Bush's main goal right now is "what do the defence contractors want me to do" regardless of how he may think on other occasions.
In the end I think this act is justified for one reason only; it may prevent future suffering. Terrorism like any other act of violence causes suffering. This action may create less suffering than it ends.
It seems to me a major problem with many American politicians is that they seem to think they can have a free society without a criminal element. This is not possible. I see more and more people wanting to have their cake and eat it to. Sure we want the free exchange of political ideas, a society where new ways of doing things is rewarded, but as long we can't have [inset porn, paranoid delusions of terrorism, racism, or whatever your favorite scape goat is here]. Life does not work like this. Do you want to live in a free society? Their is a price to pay. Encryption is important in giving people the fealing of SECURITY to exchange ideas without fear (even if it be paranoid) of being looked on by some governmental force. The government cannot have the ability to monitor all information sent out over a widespread medium like the telephone service or the internet without becoming a danger to the ideas it was built upon. The freedom of thought is an essential part of a succesfull democracy, and it is the real freedom the bill of rights attempts to protect. If we loose that, then what was the purpose of guarding against [inset your favorite scape goat here] in the first place. Just venting ;).
We are obviously capable of understanding and navigationg 3 dimensionally but it was my impression (coming from some articles on neurology I think but It was so long ago I hardly want to say anything for sure) that the eye reported back images in 2d and the brain created 3d as needed. We are much better at 2 dimensionally processing being the point. We obviously can imagine and use 3 dimensional ideas, but we are better with 2 dimensional ones. This of course being part of the reason that most everything is done 2d, maps, language (written), most computers apps etc. You don't need 3d to walk across your living room. You move only in 4 possible directions. You do not move up or down. You need 3d in order to not hit the roof. How often do you need to do that?
don't humans think in 2d (I mean we can understand 3d but we actually interpret images in 3d)? I think naviagting a 3d desktop would be difficult as it would involve allot of complicated spatial memory. Has someone adressed this? I'm sure it would look damned cool and be fun to play with, but would it be harder to understand and use?