He's murdered thousands of American citizens and would do so again if he had the means and the opportunity?
As others have pointed out, more americans die every day at the hands of impaired drivers than died in the 9/11 attacks...
I think a sense of proportion is required.
What purpose does allowing him to continue living serve? He murdered almost three thousand people.
So he did. Why not treat him as the criminal he is, rather than the martyr he wants to be?
Will killing OBL un-do any of the crimes he is responsible for? The answer is self-evident, but it should also be self-evident that killing him will not achieve anything beyond appeasing a base desire for revenge. Worse still, it will likely encourage his followers to seek their own vengence in return.
As Ghandi, observed, the policy of 'an eye for an eye' eventually makes everyone blind.
I'll never understand why we play the game by the rules when we are fighting people who don't.
Um, because playing by the rules is the mark of a civilized people?
It is interesting that you invoke the Romans. Perhaps you might want to re-read your Roman history, and find out why their empire crumbled. Something to do with too many foreign mis-adventures, not enough money to pay for it all, and incompetent leadership. Does any of that sound even remotely familiar to you?
Good for him. He'll still be dead though. I'll take a dead martyr over a living murderer any day of the week.
I see. Well then, what kind of seeing eye dog would you like?
On the whole, I agree with your post but for this statement:
The only thing that has worked lately and gotten us closer to leaving has been the surge.
Can you reasonably conclude that the surge of additional troops accomplished anything? Another equally (if not more) plausible explanation is that after four years of ethnic cleansing, the Sunni and Shiite people have driven each other into enclaves. As a result, they simply do not encounter each other as often as they used to, so the level of sectarian violence is diminished accordingly.
The fact that OBL still draws breath is a national disgrace.
Is it?
Certainly it is a bit embarassing that the most powerful military in the history of the planet cannot find one guy and his dialysis machine in a cave in Pakistan. However, I'm not sure it's a disgrace. What harm does he pose anyone in the United States going forward?
Sure, he has a global brand and the media is all too-willing to claim that any act of politically motivated violence is somehow linked to Al Queda, but those links are all too often imaginary.
If anything, Bin Laden is a useful bogeyman for those who use fear as a means of manipulating the population. Call me cynical, but if I were interested in doing that sort of thing, capturing the guy would be the LAST thing I would want my troops to do...
Leaving the cynicism aside for a moment, what purpose do you think his death would serve anyways? I doubt that it would deter anyone else with similar ambitions. Like James Dean and Marilyn Monroe, Osama Bin Laden's death at the hands of the americans would make him immortal...
CEOs, on the other hand, are more like coaches. They're a lot more in the trenches and actually make the decisions that carry significant consequences, good or bad. And while their answers will certainly be biased in the direction of their self interests, it's more likely that their self interest coincides with yours/ours.
In the trenches? I think your average CEO resides in an ivory tower every bit as removed from reality as a career academic.
Similarly, I do not believe that the CEO's self interest is particularly aligned with that of the staff. Most people have mortgages and bills to pay and have to plan for a future which revolves around meeting those financial commitments. CEO's are grossly overpaid and are evaluated based on the most recent quarterly earnings. Executive compensation packages tend to reward short-term behaviour, reflecting the reality that most CEO's are free agents recruited from outside the organization to achieve some goal. Without a history within the organization, or any long-term commitment to it, it is in the CEO's best interest to game the system for maximum short-term advantage and if that doesn't work out, there is always the golden parachute to look forward to.
This behaviour is closely aligned with the interests of the largest shareholders who are not typically long-term investors. I'm not so sure that the short and long-term interests of the staff are taken into account, but that's fair enough. CEO's are accountable to the shareholders - not the staff.
While more people should have had access to the network were it ever really needed, sometimes the only really efficient way to take care of a really intricate and dedicated task is to have one person do it all.
I do not agree, but even if what you say is true, that just goes to show that efficiency isn't everything!
In the enterprise space, it simply isn't possible to have one person design, implement and operate a non-trivial environment. There aren't enough hours in the day to do all that is required, and I (for one) would like to have a bit of free time - even if all I do with it is sit in front of my playstation.
If the work is so complicated and the deadlines so tight that only one person can pull it off, the project is a disaster waiting to happen. Truly competent technical staff would be the first to escalate that situation to management, rather than indulge their inner megalomaniac and try to do it all solo.
I think we nerds tend to focus on the really cool technology so much that we fail to see the big picture. When you step back a moment, and put it all into perspective, it does not matter if I work 7x24x365 to complete a really complex project on my own. It _really_ does not matter if the design is incredibly elegant, the implementation flawless, and the cut-over into production goes as smooth as silk if one mis-step in front of a speeding bus renders the whole thing an unsupported mess the first time it breaks.
While some might mourn my passing, the lack of documentation and shared knowledge and experience will have reduced all of my heroic efforts to a complete and utter waste of time.
My obligation to my employer isn't to hoard knowledge and information to myself - it is to share that knowledge and information with the other members of my department. If I bring everyone else up to speed, I can have a few week-ends to myself because even the most junior member of the team can step up and help resolve problems if the knowledge base and procedures are thorough and well-documented.
Coming from that perspective, I am unable to find much sympathy for Childs or his former employer. Both have demonstrated extraordinarily poor judgment and are paying the consequences for their lack of professionalism.
(I have to say though, I'm not sure Childs deserves to be in jail, or face such an absurdly high bail amount.)
maybe he really was trying to document his system for others but management got in the way of anything productive. That's what management's for, right?
We nerds tend to interpret "productive" differently than management does. I'm sure most would agree that sitting in front of the keyboard actually doing UNIX-related work qualifies as productive. Management might place a higher priority on documentation, or training other team members as equally if not more productive tasks.
I work in a large enterprise environment and most of my time is not spent at the command line. Most of it is spend communicating with other departments, with my own department, with project teams I have been assigned to, with various levels of management, and with vendors. While I would not have thought so at the beginning of my career, I now see that effective communication skills (which includes listening to others) plays a greater role in being successful at my job than what I do at the command line.
Did you just say that if he screws you over, then says, oops I was wrong... it's ok?
Well, it would make a nice change from the current administration who insist on staying the course regardless of the consequences. Only terrorists learn from their mistakes!
The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh no.
You know that talk is cheap, and those rumors aint nice.
And when I fall asleep I dont think Ill survive the night, the night.
cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.
The dream police, they live inside of my head.
(live inside of my head.)
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
(come to me in my bed.)
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh no.
Well, I cant tell lies, cause theyre listening to me.
And when I fall asleep, bet theyre spying on me tonight, tonight.
cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.
I try to sleep, theyre wide awake, they wont leave me alone.
They dont get paid to take vacations, or let me alone.
They spy on me, I try to hide, they wont let me alone.
They persecute me, theyre the judge and jury all in one.
cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.
The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me.
why would a 'natural born' American citizen not be able to be as proud?
Did the natural-born citizen actually _do_ anything to to achieve citizenship? Nope. As such, that passport seems like a strange thing to be proud of, although it is certainly worthy of appreciation.
so by your definition, one can only be a 'proud black man' when dealing with racists?
If there were no racists, there would not be any need to take pride in one's pigmentation.
Please explain how the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are being treated inhumanely.
Well, apart from the torture (I don't care if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld reclassify their interrogation methods, contract the procedure out to private contractors who do not have to abide by international treaty obligations, or play with semantics, waterboarding _is_ torture), all of the people who have been imprisoned there have been held without charge for several years and those people do not have any legal recourse to challenge their indefinite detenion.
Bush et. al. claim that the Guantanamo inmates are NOT prisoners of war, hence the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Even so, some justifiable cause must be shown to justify the continued detention.
I think you meant, nationalism as in 'I'm proud to be American' as opposed to 'I'm proud to live in a country that has such an amazing Constitution, Bill of Rights and Balance of Power baked into its governance'.
Both parse as being essentially the same to me. One should be grateful to live in the West. We collectively take for granted a quality and quantity of life far in excess of what most people on the planet dare to imagine. That said, we should also be prepared to stand up to politicians of all stripes who advocate policies that damage what we have.
I don't understand why living here should be a point of pride unless you made a conscious decision to immigrate. Someone who was born here should appreciate that they have already won the only lottery that is worth winning, but that isn't anything to boast about. It's not like babies have any say over where or when they are born, or who they will have for parents.
how can you proud of something that is no 'achievement' in any sense of the word, and over which you had no control?
Placed in the context of nationalism, I would agree with your sentiments. However, in the case of a traditionally repressed minority group, an argument can be made: Bigots believe in inaccurate stereotypes and make the mistaken assumption that all members of a group will conform to that stereotype. Ethnicity or race is not something that an individual has any choice or control over, and yet bigots like Jesse Helms (good riddance to bad rubbish!) have no problem in hating on people who are different. In that case, the oppressed minority might as well be proud of the very traits (over which they had no choice or control.) that the bigots hate.
What kind of conditions do you think American prisoners were held in Iraq by Al-Queda? How about the Tootsies in Rwanda when they were held by their enemies?
Apparently these higher standards don't apply in places like Guantanamo Bay...
The greatest tragedy about Rwanda is that we in the West did not see it as worth our involvement, so we allowed another genocide to occur on our watch. What a shame Rwanda does not have any oil or geo-political strategic value.
The best hope for your own troops to be treated humanely when captured by hostile forces, is to treat captured enemy troops humanely. Our own bad behaviour is not justified because someone else does something worse...
Wow. While I applaud him for such a goal and motive, it is really hard to read that and not laugh when I remember what we do at places like Guantanamo.
I simply don't understand why anyone would be proud of their country. Unless you made the conscious decision to immigrate, it's just where you happen to live. Being proud of living in a nation you happen to live in makes about as much sense to me as being proud of being right-handed, or having blue eyes.
I understand there is a fundamental human need to define "us" versus "the other" and nationalism is the modern way to do so, but I still don't understand why it is something that we can (or should) be proud of.
BTW - people living in the West should be grateful, but that is altogether different.
Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but I prefer the old-school look of green text on a black background.
Re:It's all because John Wayne is no lonvger with
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
So, instead, you find assault by someone ELSE to be acceptable, because they're in a bad mood?
When did I say that? Oh - that's right, I didn't...
Having someone scream at you, throw things, shove people out of their way, physically harass flight attendants, etc... THAT's OK, but laying a hand on them to get them to stop? The horror! Lock those people AWAY for looking to keep civilization civilized without having to call in a public servant, who will arrive in an hour or so. Maybe.
First off, there is a big difference rude behaviour and assault, and I think that different situations call for different responses. Even in the latter case, one can intervene without opening up a can of whoop-ass on the offending person. Like I said before, all it takes is for the adults to behave like adults.
That's your response to a description of a culture that coddles people having angry, violent fits in public?
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Apart from your ranting, I fail to see any evidence that people who freak out in public are not held accountable for their actions. To the contrary, it seems that the authorities tend to taser first (and often) and ask questions later.
So yes. If you act like a grumpy old curmudgeon, you should expect to be treated like one.
No, it sounds like YOU are the one with misplaced empathy. You have zero empathy for the 100 people that one loudmouthed, obnoxious jerk can impact when no one stops them from going on some "rage" because they're displeased with the size of their peanut bag, or can't grasp why they shouldn't talk loudly through your $10 movie.
Remind me again when I said that?
I do believe that there is a general problem with a lack of common courtesy today. I don't know why but anti-social and rude behaviour is far more common in the US than in Canada and Europe, although the UK seems to be catching up to the Americans...
Why? I imagine that some of them - while having been shamed out of ever disciplining their kids - are none the less embarassed by the little punks they've raised. I have a lot of empathy for them, since they're surrounded by teachers, preachers, shrinks, and PBS specials that seek to drown out their commons sense.
And some people think that irony is dead!
I am going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you do not have any children of your own...
Yes, and those parents used to grab that kid and march them right out of the movie, or not buy them the ice cream they're screaming about. And where do you draw the line on your use of the word "toddler," anyway? I'm talking about kids as old as 6 or 8 or 10+.
Again, kids are going to act their age whether the adults like it or not. That's what they do, and that's their job. At those times, adults need to act their age and behave in a mature and responsible way. Unfortunately, parents are people too and they also get tired and have bad days.
So, when I observe some kids and/or parents having a bad day, I don't take it personally, even if it is disruptive. Instead, I try to find some empathy for both, since I have been on both sides of that situation before. Far better to take that approach, instead of judging them all for their perceived shortcomings.
No, the child is usually trying to manipulate the parent into a desired action (or cease an undesired action).
So, the child is acting the way children tend to do. I wonder if you were any different at that age?
And parents give in. Big time. As a result, that sense of entitlement sets in very early, and permanently. As does the Drama Queen methodology.
Newsflash: parents sometimes give in. Film at 11!
Even though that occasionally happens,
Re:It's all because John Wayne is no lonvger with
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
40 years ago, someone who started pitching a violent and/or profane fit in close quarters where other people had paid for a service (like watching a movie or traveling for a few hours) could reasonably expect a sound thumping from someone willing to shut them up. And no jury in the world would give the person doing the thumping a hard time.
Even if this were true (and I think not,) I find it disturbing that someone would wax nostalgic about assault being a socially acceptable way to deal with public annoyances.
Shame used to be a useful tool.
Public stoning used to be a useful tool as well, but we have (hopefully) evolved beyond such crude methods.
We've become a coddling culture, and this is the price we pay
Should I get off your lawn now?
Every one of those screaming kids you see in the grocery store today will become the asshat in seat 30B on your flight to Chicago.
It sounds like empathy isn't one of your strong suits, so I won't ask you to have some for the parents of said kids, even though _every_ toddler in existence has freaked out in public when it it is least convenient to his/her parents, at least once.
Whether you like it or not, children are going to behave like children. The Victorian-era belief that children should be seen and not heard is long gone, and rightly so. However, there will be times when a child's age-appropriate behaviour is undesirable. At those times, adults need to behave like adults. The child is not deliberately trying to offend, so the grown-ups should act their age. The inconvenience is only temporary, so deal with it.
And yes, I have been stuck on a transatlantic flight with a colicky infant in the seat behind me.
The government should have no say about what I do on my property
Monopolies are created by government regulations. In an open market free of most regulations, competition can come and go as the market allows for it.
There appears to be a big difference between what is, versus what you think ought to be.
The nature of the business suggests that telco is a natural monopoly with room for very few providers. Given the high cost of entry, I would say that the free market has already spoken and is content to let the few existing providers have the market for themselves.
The CRTC board is also throroughly liberal. So it will not be suprising that the CRTC will eventually rules in favour of Bell, and it will probably because it will face pressure from liberals.
Please remove your tinfoil hat - there is no conspiracy here.
It is the nature of regulated monopolies to try and co-opt their regulatory agency. From their perspective, it would be bad business (and bad for shareholders) not to. There is simply too much at stake.
Corporations also bribe^H^H^H^H^Hdonate money to politicians all the time, and it is obvious that those donations pay off big time.
If Bell has made efforts to get in good with the Liberal Party of Canada, it is because that is the party that tends to govern, and the party that has appointed most of the members of the CRTC.
You will notice that the US telcos have done a very good job of co-opting the FCC, regardless of which party appoints the chair....
His response to the bill C-61 was pretty much word for word the same. "The free markets will decide if DRM gets used or not"
Given the strong penalties for subverting DRM that Bill C-61 provides, I would say that DRM is a certainty.
It's not a free market if the media cartels dictate the rules...
Of course, Prentice also claims that Bill C-61 provides the strongest and most balanced copyright in the world. I am not sure how you can have both of those things at the same time.
And don't even get me started on how legislation written by foreign media cartels qualifies as a "Made in Canada" solution...
I guess you completely missed my point. TobascoKid said they are practicing what they preach, and I was refuting that. My whole point was the disparity between the administration's words and actions, and it looks like you agree with me.
I wondered about that possibility when I was replying to your post. I guess you were just too subtle for me:-)
What about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and extraordinary rendition to name but three. Cheney is on record saying that torture is a no-brainer if there is the potential to save (presumably american) lives...
and hire terrorists
Well, depending on how you define terrorist, the US has provided support for: the IRA, Osama Bin Laden, and various death squads in South America. Doing business with "friendly" tyrants has not been atypical either.
Do you hear the administration publicly admitting to all that?
Actions speak much louder than words.
Otherwise the talk is all about freedom, liberty, democracy, and fighting terrorism.
Talk is cheap. The actions of this administration suggest less-than-noble intentions.
Oh, and I hardly consider "Human Rights Watch" news.
I bet they will be absolutely _crushed_ to hear that.
The source is irrelevant, Cheney is widely quoted as making those remarks. He has never issued a correction/retraction/denial.
A dunk in water? IF IT SAVES LIVES? You can dunk ME in water if it saves lives! Hell, I've been dunked in water FOR FREE! To take that step a bit further, if it would save lives, I would gladly volunteer to be subjected to torture. That's a small price to pay so a little girl can see her daddy again.
You really don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?
Go and play with your toys, and leave the serious conversation to the adults...
But they were out there to defend the Constitution
Maybe it is a case of hindsight being 20-20 and all, but what did Vietnam or Korea have to do with defending a domestic constitution?
Remember, our soldiers aren't out there dying simply to preserve our land or our property. They are out there defending our way of life.
Is that what they were doing at Abu Ghraib, My Lai, and Guantanamo Bay?
Don't throw that away over a few accused terrorists.
Emphasis on the accused, if you don't mind. You might also want to add "tortured" to that list, given that is one of the extra-curricular activities at Guantanamo Bay.
If you aren't willing to stand up for the principles of your precious constitution, it's literally not worth the paper it's written on.
Slashdot Mirror
As others have pointed out, more americans die every day at the hands of impaired drivers than died in the 9/11 attacks...
I think a sense of proportion is required.
So he did. Why not treat him as the criminal he is, rather than the martyr he wants to be?
Will killing OBL un-do any of the crimes he is responsible for? The answer is self-evident, but it should also be self-evident that killing him will not achieve anything beyond appeasing a base desire for revenge. Worse still, it will likely encourage his followers to seek their own vengence in return.
As Ghandi, observed, the policy of 'an eye for an eye' eventually makes everyone blind.
Um, because playing by the rules is the mark of a civilized people?
It is interesting that you invoke the Romans. Perhaps you might want to re-read your Roman history, and find out why their empire crumbled. Something to do with too many foreign mis-adventures, not enough money to pay for it all, and incompetent leadership. Does any of that sound even remotely familiar to you?
I see. Well then, what kind of seeing eye dog would you like?
On the whole, I agree with your post but for this statement:
Can you reasonably conclude that the surge of additional troops accomplished anything? Another equally (if not more) plausible explanation is that after four years of ethnic cleansing, the Sunni and Shiite people have driven each other into enclaves. As a result, they simply do not encounter each other as often as they used to, so the level of sectarian violence is diminished accordingly.
Is it?
Certainly it is a bit embarassing that the most powerful military in the history of the planet cannot find one guy and his dialysis machine in a cave in Pakistan. However, I'm not sure it's a disgrace. What harm does he pose anyone in the United States going forward?
Sure, he has a global brand and the media is all too-willing to claim that any act of politically motivated violence is somehow linked to Al Queda, but those links are all too often imaginary.
If anything, Bin Laden is a useful bogeyman for those who use fear as a means of manipulating the population. Call me cynical, but if I were interested in doing that sort of thing, capturing the guy would be the LAST thing I would want my troops to do...
Leaving the cynicism aside for a moment, what purpose do you think his death would serve anyways? I doubt that it would deter anyone else with similar ambitions. Like James Dean and Marilyn Monroe, Osama Bin Laden's death at the hands of the americans would make him immortal...
In the trenches? I think your average CEO resides in an ivory tower every bit as removed from reality as a career academic.
Similarly, I do not believe that the CEO's self interest is particularly aligned with that of the staff. Most people have mortgages and bills to pay and have to plan for a future which revolves around meeting those financial commitments. CEO's are grossly overpaid and are evaluated based on the most recent quarterly earnings. Executive compensation packages tend to reward short-term behaviour, reflecting the reality that most CEO's are free agents recruited from outside the organization to achieve some goal. Without a history within the organization, or any long-term commitment to it, it is in the CEO's best interest to game the system for maximum short-term advantage and if that doesn't work out, there is always the golden parachute to look forward to.
This behaviour is closely aligned with the interests of the largest shareholders who are not typically long-term investors. I'm not so sure that the short and long-term interests of the staff are taken into account, but that's fair enough. CEO's are accountable to the shareholders - not the staff.
I do not agree, but even if what you say is true, that just goes to show that efficiency isn't everything!
In the enterprise space, it simply isn't possible to have one person design, implement and operate a non-trivial environment. There aren't enough hours in the day to do all that is required, and I (for one) would like to have a bit of free time - even if all I do with it is sit in front of my playstation.
If the work is so complicated and the deadlines so tight that only one person can pull it off, the project is a disaster waiting to happen. Truly competent technical staff would be the first to escalate that situation to management, rather than indulge their inner megalomaniac and try to do it all solo.
I think we nerds tend to focus on the really cool technology so much that we fail to see the big picture. When you step back a moment, and put it all into perspective, it does not matter if I work 7x24x365 to complete a really complex project on my own. It _really_ does not matter if the design is incredibly elegant, the implementation flawless, and the cut-over into production goes as smooth as silk if one mis-step in front of a speeding bus renders the whole thing an unsupported mess the first time it breaks.
While some might mourn my passing, the lack of documentation and shared knowledge and experience will have reduced all of my heroic efforts to a complete and utter waste of time.
My obligation to my employer isn't to hoard knowledge and information to myself - it is to share that knowledge and information with the other members of my department. If I bring everyone else up to speed, I can have a few week-ends to myself because even the most junior member of the team can step up and help resolve problems if the knowledge base and procedures are thorough and well-documented.
Coming from that perspective, I am unable to find much sympathy for Childs or his former employer. Both have demonstrated extraordinarily poor judgment and are paying the consequences for their lack of professionalism.
(I have to say though, I'm not sure Childs deserves to be in jail, or face such an absurdly high bail amount.)
We nerds tend to interpret "productive" differently than management does. I'm sure most would agree that sitting in front of the keyboard actually doing UNIX-related work qualifies as productive. Management might place a higher priority on documentation, or training other team members as equally if not more productive tasks.
I work in a large enterprise environment and most of my time is not spent at the command line. Most of it is spend communicating with other departments, with my own department, with project teams I have been assigned to, with various levels of management, and with vendors. While I would not have thought so at the beginning of my career, I now see that effective communication skills (which includes listening to others) plays a greater role in being successful at my job than what I do at the command line.
Well, it would make a nice change from the current administration who insist on staying the course regardless of the consequences. Only terrorists learn from their mistakes!
Cheap Trick - The Dream Police
The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh no.
You know that talk is cheap, and those rumors aint nice.
And when I fall asleep I dont think Ill survive the night, the night.
cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.
The dream police, they live inside of my head.
(live inside of my head.)
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
(come to me in my bed.)
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh no.
Well, I cant tell lies, cause theyre listening to me.
And when I fall asleep, bet theyre spying on me tonight, tonight.
cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.
I try to sleep, theyre wide awake, they wont leave me alone.
They dont get paid to take vacations, or let me alone.
They spy on me, I try to hide, they wont let me alone.
They persecute me, theyre the judge and jury all in one.
cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.
The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me.
Did the natural-born citizen actually _do_ anything to to achieve citizenship? Nope. As such, that passport seems like a strange thing to be proud of, although it is certainly worthy of appreciation.
If there were no racists, there would not be any need to take pride in one's pigmentation.
Well, apart from the torture (I don't care if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld reclassify their interrogation methods, contract the procedure out to private contractors who do not have to abide by international treaty obligations, or play with semantics, waterboarding _is_ torture), all of the people who have been imprisoned there have been held without charge for several years and those people do not have any legal recourse to challenge their indefinite detenion.
Bush et. al. claim that the Guantanamo inmates are NOT prisoners of war, hence the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Even so, some justifiable cause must be shown to justify the continued detention.
Both parse as being essentially the same to me. One should be grateful to live in the West. We collectively take for granted a quality and quantity of life far in excess of what most people on the planet dare to imagine. That said, we should also be prepared to stand up to politicians of all stripes who advocate policies that damage what we have.
I don't understand why living here should be a point of pride unless you made a conscious decision to immigrate. Someone who was born here should appreciate that they have already won the only lottery that is worth winning, but that isn't anything to boast about. It's not like babies have any say over where or when they are born, or who they will have for parents.
Placed in the context of nationalism, I would agree with your sentiments. However, in the case of a traditionally repressed minority group, an argument can be made: Bigots believe in inaccurate stereotypes and make the mistaken assumption that all members of a group will conform to that stereotype. Ethnicity or race is not something that an individual has any choice or control over, and yet bigots like Jesse Helms (good riddance to bad rubbish!) have no problem in hating on people who are different. In that case, the oppressed minority might as well be proud of the very traits (over which they had no choice or control.) that the bigots hate.
Apparently these higher standards don't apply in places like Guantanamo Bay...
The greatest tragedy about Rwanda is that we in the West did not see it as worth our involvement, so we allowed another genocide to occur on our watch. What a shame Rwanda does not have any oil or geo-political strategic value.
The best hope for your own troops to be treated humanely when captured by hostile forces, is to treat captured enemy troops humanely. Our own bad behaviour is not justified because someone else does something worse...
Word.
I simply don't understand why anyone would be proud of their country. Unless you made the conscious decision to immigrate, it's just where you happen to live. Being proud of living in a nation you happen to live in makes about as much sense to me as being proud of being right-handed, or having blue eyes.
I understand there is a fundamental human need to define "us" versus "the other" and nationalism is the modern way to do so, but I still don't understand why it is something that we can (or should) be proud of.
BTW - people living in the West should be grateful, but that is altogether different.
Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but I prefer the old-school look of green text on a black background.
When did I say that? Oh - that's right, I didn't...
First off, there is a big difference rude behaviour and assault, and I think that different situations call for different responses. Even in the latter case, one can intervene without opening up a can of whoop-ass on the offending person. Like I said before, all it takes is for the adults to behave like adults.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Apart from your ranting, I fail to see any evidence that people who freak out in public are not held accountable for their actions. To the contrary, it seems that the authorities tend to taser first (and often) and ask questions later.
So yes. If you act like a grumpy old curmudgeon, you should expect to be treated like one.
Remind me again when I said that?
I do believe that there is a general problem with a lack of common courtesy today. I don't know why but anti-social and rude behaviour is far more common in the US than in Canada and Europe, although the UK seems to be catching up to the Americans...
And some people think that irony is dead!
I am going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you do not have any children of your own...
Again, kids are going to act their age whether the adults like it or not. That's what they do, and that's their job. At those times, adults need to act their age and behave in a mature and responsible way. Unfortunately, parents are people too and they also get tired and have bad days.
So, when I observe some kids and/or parents having a bad day, I don't take it personally, even if it is disruptive. Instead, I try to find some empathy for both, since I have been on both sides of that situation before. Far better to take that approach, instead of judging them all for their perceived shortcomings.
So, the child is acting the way children tend to do. I wonder if you were any different at that age?
Newsflash: parents sometimes give in. Film at 11!
Even though that occasionally happens,
Even if this were true (and I think not,) I find it disturbing that someone would wax nostalgic about assault being a socially acceptable way to deal with public annoyances.
Public stoning used to be a useful tool as well, but we have (hopefully) evolved beyond such crude methods.
Should I get off your lawn now?
It sounds like empathy isn't one of your strong suits, so I won't ask you to have some for the parents of said kids, even though _every_ toddler in existence has freaked out in public when it it is least convenient to his/her parents, at least once.
Whether you like it or not, children are going to behave like children. The Victorian-era belief that children should be seen and not heard is long gone, and rightly so. However, there will be times when a child's age-appropriate behaviour is undesirable. At those times, adults need to behave like adults. The child is not deliberately trying to offend, so the grown-ups should act their age. The inconvenience is only temporary, so deal with it.
And yes, I have been stuck on a transatlantic flight with a colicky infant in the seat behind me.
There appears to be a big difference between what is, versus what you think ought to be.
The nature of the business suggests that telco is a natural monopoly with room for very few providers. Given the high cost of entry, I would say that the free market has already spoken and is content to let the few existing providers have the market for themselves.
Please remove your tinfoil hat - there is no conspiracy here.
It is the nature of regulated monopolies to try and co-opt their regulatory agency. From their perspective, it would be bad business (and bad for shareholders) not to. There is simply too much at stake.
Corporations also bribe^H^H^H^H^Hdonate money to politicians all the time, and it is obvious that those donations pay off big time.
If Bell has made efforts to get in good with the Liberal Party of Canada, it is because that is the party that tends to govern, and the party that has appointed most of the members of the CRTC.
You will notice that the US telcos have done a very good job of co-opting the FCC, regardless of which party appoints the chair....
Given the strong penalties for subverting DRM that Bill C-61 provides, I would say that DRM is a certainty. It's not a free market if the media cartels dictate the rules...
Of course, Prentice also claims that Bill C-61 provides the strongest and most balanced copyright in the world. I am not sure how you can have both of those things at the same time.
And don't even get me started on how legislation written by foreign media cartels qualifies as a "Made in Canada" solution...
I wondered about that possibility when I was replying to your post. I guess you were just too subtle for me :-)
Do the ends always justify the means, or only during times of war?
Did you ever hear of Free Speech Zones
What about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and extraordinary rendition to name but three. Cheney is on record saying that torture is a no-brainer if there is the potential to save (presumably american) lives...
Well, depending on how you define terrorist, the US has provided support for: the IRA, Osama Bin Laden, and various death squads in South America. Doing business with "friendly" tyrants has not been atypical either.
Actions speak much louder than words.
Talk is cheap. The actions of this administration suggest less-than-noble intentions.
I had no idea that Dick Cheney posted on slashdot!
How on earth did this tripe get modded informative?
I bet they will be absolutely _crushed_ to hear that.
The source is irrelevant, Cheney is widely quoted as making those remarks. He has never issued a correction/retraction/denial.
You really don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?
Go and play with your toys, and leave the serious conversation to the adults...
Maybe it is a case of hindsight being 20-20 and all, but what did Vietnam or Korea have to do with defending a domestic constitution?
Is that what they were doing at Abu Ghraib, My Lai, and Guantanamo Bay?
Emphasis on the accused, if you don't mind. You might also want to add "tortured" to that list, given that is one of the extra-curricular activities at Guantanamo Bay.
If you aren't willing to stand up for the principles of your precious constitution, it's literally not worth the paper it's written on.