Because tax-paying Americans are the vast majority of those attending the Super Bowl, which is held here on our homeland
It sickens me to see the word 'homeland' enter into the vernacular of north america. We never used this word before Bush's administration created it in the frenzy of false nationalism that followed 9/11.
Fatherland? Motherland? Homeland.
Thank you, but I'd rather not have my political discourse include the kind of rhetoric that was used to justify conquest and genocide.
You need to brush up on your history lessons a bit.
I know quite a bit of history, actually, enough to know that there were divergent movements within the Nazi party, but whose more socialistic elements were purged along the way. Fascism has always been a pastiche of ideologies, moreso collected for their uses as propaganda and recruitment than an end unto themselves. While it had paternalistic elements which regarded social programs as politically expedient or economically necessary, they were in no way wedded to the ideology.
So, no, you could not call Nazism a form of socialism, any more than you could call modern political ideologies "socialism" because they provide for basic social programs and safety nets, or will use those programs to gain political power.
At no point was socialism a goal for the Nazi part, even for it's violently-purged "left" wing.
When did the Nazis become socialists? I'd say around the same time that China truly became a Republic, and all those tin pot dictators became truly Democratic.
The Nazis called themselves socialists because they were brilliant propagandists (socialism was very popular at the time), not because they were socialists. In fact, fascism almost always has been virulently anti-Communist.
The so called "anarchists" get all over the news acting like total fuckwads at WTO "protests".
As an anarchist, somebody who was at the WTO protests, and someone who strongly supports online privacy and the cypherpunk perspective, I'd like to ask what the hell you're talking about?
The WTO protests was one of the biggest events of the late 20th century, it was part of a snowballing effect against corporate globalization which stretched from all points on the globe, and culminated in events such as the uprisings in Argentina and the Zapatista march on Mexico City.
In what way are the WTO protests, which were centered around deconstructing corporate control of our lives, including information and it's free flow, counter to the cypherpunk position?
Roosevelt did not sign a secret treaty with Hitler, giving him a free hand in Western Europe in exchange for favorable consideration of his plans for expansion in Eastern Europe. Stalin did.
Stalin was a fucker. But we still owe the Russian people a thank you for winning WW2 for us, whether or not Stalin had to be pushed into it by Hitler breaking their treaty, the greatest sacrifice still came from the Russians.
... is a bus thief. Say what you want about Bill Gates, or Bono, or whichever "great man" that Time wants to honor this year, but I really can't let my bosom swell over a millionaire or a billionaire throwing out a little bit of their plentiful time and/or money here or there. Hell, if somebody has that much power and money, we shouldn't be "thanking" them for doing the right thing, it should be *expected* of them.
My person of the year is Jabbar Gibson, the 18 year old kid who saved 70 people from the aftermath of Katrina by stealing a bus and driving to Houston. Maybe that's because my definition of a hero is somebody that rises above even when the chips are down.
That's absurd. How is a situation of chaos caused by ruthless warlords analagous to anarchy?
If anarchy means 'no rulers', then why do people insist that having eight different strongmen ruling with iron fists and trying to eliminate the other seven would be anarchy?
I've been working on a project called Appleseed, which aims to be a distributed MySpace that anybody could set up a site and "connect" it to the rest of the appleseed sites.
I've been working on open source software that solves that problem. None of the current systems in place will bother, because they want everybody to go to one website. Because I'm releasing my source, I don't want everybody on one website. I want every website to work together.
I'm anti-war, I've been against this war since before it was started, and will be for the next, oh, ten, fifteen years? Just because I'm against Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean I support the US invasion.
If ever the US government took a sharp turn towards authoritarianism, we can assume that no large US corporation would take a stand against it. In fact, these will be the first organizations to tow the line, like the spineless Iraqi politicians who, while dissidents were being led out and shot by Hussein, responded by standing up and declaring their allegience.
IBM's role in the holocaust had nothing to do with a shared ideal with Nazism, and everything to do with the fact that dirty money spends just as well as anything.
(And why, indeed, should they? Since the 1970s and 1980s, their teachers pretty much gave up teaching in the name of boosting self-esteem. If self-esteem is something everybody has - that is, if it's not something earned through performance, then everybody can feel great about themselves even though they're a bunch of ignorant fuckspittles who'll be first under the water when the revolving hurricane comes.)
I've heard this over and over again, and I fail to see where this concept of education originated. Nobody has ever given up teaching in the name of boosting self-esteem. Although teachers don't smack kids around anymore, and they make an effort to not call a kid a know-nothing retard, doesn't mean that school is just one big shoulder massage.
If anything, teaching has been replaced by rote memorization in the name of standardized tests. This is why nobody has the skills to learn things on their own, most of schooling is the teacher handing you the answer, and asking you to memorize it so you can spit it out at a later date. Self-esteem has nothing to do with it.
And as for the comment about the Hurricane Katrina victims, somebody who would talk shit about people who have had their whole lives ripped out from under them, and showed incredible courage through a hell most of us will never know, should be really careful about how he uses the word 'ignorant.'
The hypothesis that I've heard is not that global warming is the cause of more hurricanes, but that the higher surface temperature of the ocean is resulting in more powerful hurricanes.
makes it impossible for anyone to make writing software, performing music, or producing movies their profession because the people who use and enjoy the fruit of their efforts assign it a value of zero.
A new economy will be built around the new ideology. What you're trying to do is fit the old square peg into the new round hole.
If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).
You want to see what happens with a society that follows the basic laws of economics to the letter, look at Argentina. In fact, the over 800 factories that are being run by the employees after the owners and top management fled the country when the economy took a nose dive is about the only thing keeping the Argentine economy alive.
One of the problems with people who pull out "economics" is that they assume that there is this one, monolithic concept of the economy that is etched in stone, and that success or failure depends on adherence to those set rules. Anybody who pays attention outside of their economics 101 class and looks at the rest of the world, and history itself, can see that there is no set definition of economics. There are only ideologies, and economies are formed around those ideologies, and success or failure can not be boiled down to one or two strawman arguments.
A new ideology is spreading through the first world, and that ideology is based on the concept that anything that can be readily copied and distributed so cheaply it's almost free belongs to everybody. People trade movies, music, games, software, anything they want, and nobody ever feels a single bit guilty about it.
And that lack of guilt is exactly why a new ideology is being formed around freely available digital content. The fact of the matter is that most people don't break into people's houses, not because they're afraid of getting caught, but because they know it's not right. Somebody who won't break into someone elses house and steal all their shit wouldn't do it whether there was 1 law against it or 100 laws, or none at all.
But nobody ever looks at a link to an mp3 of their favorite artist and thinks "Oh, I don't know, this just doesn't feel right...". They think "Whoah, new song! *click*".
Ideology comes first, and economics are formed around those ideologies. That is why the music industry is failing at stopping piracy: They have an economy based on an old ideology that they are trying to force the consumer who has adopted the new ideology to change back to the old ideology.
The reality is that the only way to move forward is to adjust the economy to fit the new ideology. Everything else is like trying to push back a tidal wave with a tennis racket.
No, I'm referring to socialism. Communism (big "c") is an outgrowth of socialism where the state as a protective force of the workers councils dissolves because the external threat no longer exists. Conversely, communism (small "c" or anarcho-communism) is a full economic theory delineated by the platform put forth by Errico Malatesta. This communism (which rejects the state from the beginning) puts the ownership of the means of production and distribution in the hands of a federative structure which coordinates using syndicates, community councils, and fully recallable delegates.
What you're referring to are Social Democratic reforms, which I'm not particularly opposed to, but Socialism it is not.
This is just another example of why I am glad to live here in the United States of America.
You know, it's fine if you want to be glad that you don't live in China, but you should at least recognize that being better than China when it comes to human rights is kinda like bragging that you're not the stupidest kid on the short bus.
Slashdot Mirror
Because tax-paying Americans are the vast majority of those attending the Super Bowl, which is held here on our homeland
It sickens me to see the word 'homeland' enter into the vernacular of north america. We never used this word before Bush's administration created it in the frenzy of false nationalism that followed 9/11.
Fatherland? Motherland? Homeland.
Thank you, but I'd rather not have my political discourse include the kind of rhetoric that was used to justify conquest and genocide.
You need to brush up on your history lessons a bit.
I know quite a bit of history, actually, enough to know that there were divergent movements within the Nazi party, but whose more socialistic elements were purged along the way. Fascism has always been a pastiche of ideologies, moreso collected for their uses as propaganda and recruitment than an end unto themselves. While it had paternalistic elements which regarded social programs as politically expedient or economically necessary, they were in no way wedded to the ideology.
So, no, you could not call Nazism a form of socialism, any more than you could call modern political ideologies "socialism" because they provide for basic social programs and safety nets, or will use those programs to gain political power.
At no point was socialism a goal for the Nazi part, even for it's violently-purged "left" wing.
When did the Nazis become socialists? I'd say around the same time that China truly became a Republic, and all those tin pot dictators became truly Democratic.
The Nazis called themselves socialists because they were brilliant propagandists (socialism was very popular at the time), not because they were socialists. In fact, fascism almost always has been virulently anti-Communist.
The so called "anarchists" get all over the news acting like total fuckwads at WTO "protests".
As an anarchist, somebody who was at the WTO protests, and someone who strongly supports online privacy and the cypherpunk perspective, I'd like to ask what the hell you're talking about?
The WTO protests was one of the biggest events of the late 20th century, it was part of a snowballing effect against corporate globalization which stretched from all points on the globe, and culminated in events such as the uprisings in Argentina and the Zapatista march on Mexico City.
In what way are the WTO protests, which were centered around deconstructing corporate control of our lives, including information and it's free flow, counter to the cypherpunk position?
Roosevelt did not sign a secret treaty with Hitler, giving him a free hand in Western Europe in exchange for favorable consideration of his plans for expansion in Eastern Europe. Stalin did.
Stalin was a fucker. But we still owe the Russian people a thank you for winning WW2 for us, whether or not Stalin had to be pushed into it by Hitler breaking their treaty, the greatest sacrifice still came from the Russians.
... is a bus thief. Say what you want about Bill Gates, or Bono, or whichever "great man" that Time wants to honor this year, but I really can't let my bosom swell over a millionaire or a billionaire throwing out a little bit of their plentiful time and/or money here or there. Hell, if somebody has that much power and money, we shouldn't be "thanking" them for doing the right thing, it should be *expected* of them.
My person of the year is Jabbar Gibson, the 18 year old kid who saved 70 people from the aftermath of Katrina by stealing a bus and driving to Houston. Maybe that's because my definition of a hero is somebody that rises above even when the chips are down.
That's absurd. How is a situation of chaos caused by ruthless warlords analagous to anarchy?
If anarchy means 'no rulers', then why do people insist that having eight different strongmen ruling with iron fists and trying to eliminate the other seven would be anarchy?
Anarchy would be no strongmen at all.
I've been working on a project called Appleseed, which aims to be a distributed MySpace that anybody could set up a site and "connect" it to the rest of the appleseed sites.
BushCheney08 wrote I guess we all have to have our dreams, no matter how impossible. (Yeah, yeah, -5000 offtopic, I just had to say it)
We proud Arians are a superior race.
But oddly enough, spelling isn't your people's strong point, is it?
Wow, and I thought I was doing good.
I've been working on open source software that solves that problem. None of the current systems in place will bother, because they want everybody to go to one website. Because I'm releasing my source, I don't want everybody on one website. I want every website to work together.
appleseed.sourceforge.net
No, those are different spineless politicians than the ones I was referring to.
And I'm anti-war. Don't be so damn knee-jerk.
I'm anti-war, I've been against this war since before it was started, and will be for the next, oh, ten, fifteen years? Just because I'm against Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean I support the US invasion.
God do you look like an idiot now.
If ever the US government took a sharp turn towards authoritarianism, we can assume that no large US corporation would take a stand against it. In fact, these will be the first organizations to tow the line, like the spineless Iraqi politicians who, while dissidents were being led out and shot by Hussein, responded by standing up and declaring their allegience.
IBM's role in the holocaust had nothing to do with a shared ideal with Nazism, and everything to do with the fact that dirty money spends just as well as anything.
And there's usually more of it.
(And why, indeed, should they? Since the 1970s and 1980s, their teachers pretty much gave up teaching in the name of boosting self-esteem. If self-esteem is something everybody has - that is, if it's not something earned through performance, then everybody can feel great about themselves even though they're a bunch of ignorant fuckspittles who'll be first under the water when the revolving hurricane comes.)
I've heard this over and over again, and I fail to see where this concept of education originated. Nobody has ever given up teaching in the name of boosting self-esteem. Although teachers don't smack kids around anymore, and they make an effort to not call a kid a know-nothing retard, doesn't mean that school is just one big shoulder massage.
If anything, teaching has been replaced by rote memorization in the name of standardized tests. This is why nobody has the skills to learn things on their own, most of schooling is the teacher handing you the answer, and asking you to memorize it so you can spit it out at a later date. Self-esteem has nothing to do with it.
And as for the comment about the Hurricane Katrina victims, somebody who would talk shit about people who have had their whole lives ripped out from under them, and showed incredible courage through a hell most of us will never know, should be really careful about how he uses the word 'ignorant.'
The hypothesis that I've heard is not that global warming is the cause of more hurricanes, but that the higher surface temperature of the ocean is resulting in more powerful hurricanes.
makes it impossible for anyone to make writing software, performing music, or producing movies their profession because the people who use and enjoy the fruit of their efforts assign it a value of zero.
A new economy will be built around the new ideology. What you're trying to do is fit the old square peg into the new round hole.
If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).
You want to see what happens with a society that follows the basic laws of economics to the letter, look at Argentina. In fact, the over 800 factories that are being run by the employees after the owners and top management fled the country when the economy took a nose dive is about the only thing keeping the Argentine economy alive.
One of the problems with people who pull out "economics" is that they assume that there is this one, monolithic concept of the economy that is etched in stone, and that success or failure depends on adherence to those set rules. Anybody who pays attention outside of their economics 101 class and looks at the rest of the world, and history itself, can see that there is no set definition of economics. There are only ideologies, and economies are formed around those ideologies, and success or failure can not be boiled down to one or two strawman arguments.
A new ideology is spreading through the first world, and that ideology is based on the concept that anything that can be readily copied and distributed so cheaply it's almost free belongs to everybody. People trade movies, music, games, software, anything they want, and nobody ever feels a single bit guilty about it.
And that lack of guilt is exactly why a new ideology is being formed around freely available digital content. The fact of the matter is that most people don't break into people's houses, not because they're afraid of getting caught, but because they know it's not right. Somebody who won't break into someone elses house and steal all their shit wouldn't do it whether there was 1 law against it or 100 laws, or none at all.
But nobody ever looks at a link to an mp3 of their favorite artist and thinks "Oh, I don't know, this just doesn't feel right...". They think "Whoah, new song! *click*".
Ideology comes first, and economics are formed around those ideologies. That is why the music industry is failing at stopping piracy: They have an economy based on an old ideology that they are trying to force the consumer who has adopted the new ideology to change back to the old ideology.
The reality is that the only way to move forward is to adjust the economy to fit the new ideology. Everything else is like trying to push back a tidal wave with a tennis racket.
No, I'm referring to socialism. Communism (big "c") is an outgrowth of socialism where the state as a protective force of the workers councils dissolves because the external threat no longer exists. Conversely, communism (small "c" or anarcho-communism) is a full economic theory delineated by the platform put forth by Errico Malatesta. This communism (which rejects the state from the beginning) puts the ownership of the means of production and distribution in the hands of a federative structure which coordinates using syndicates, community councils, and fully recallable delegates.
What you're referring to are Social Democratic reforms, which I'm not particularly opposed to, but Socialism it is not.
While they may not admit it, France is very much a socialist country.
You mean the workers own the means of production and distribution!?? That's amazing! I've been waiting to find a country like that.
Or do you mean they just have strong labor laws?
This is just another example of why I am glad to live here in the United States of America.
You know, it's fine if you want to be glad that you don't live in China, but you should at least recognize that being better than China when it comes to human rights is kinda like bragging that you're not the stupidest kid on the short bus.
Alright, smartass, that's enough.
(which is always funny, anarchists being anarchists together)
Not if you know anything about anarchism.
a teacher feels too threatened to teach arguments and counterarguments for intelligent design because of anti-creationist nuts?
You misspelled 'scientists.'