This is one of the current arguments of communist apologists, that communism is compatible with freedom and democracy. Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is something you've been led to believe, possibly by one or more of your professors in college. The alternative requires either malice or dishonesty on your part, probably both.
If you want to understand communism and the effect it has upon any system of government where it exists, take a look at this book:
Here's a good site for general information on the education, or lack thereof, as presented in our colleges and universities:
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/
The main problem with communism/socialism is that both are founded upon a false premise, the idea of group rights. In other words the idea that groups of people somehow have rights that are not an aggregate of the rights of the individuals who make up that group. Don't ask me to explain it, since I can only barely fathom it myself. A good example of this attitude in this country is affirmative action, or other special rights and considerations extended to groups of people based upon their membership in that group, whatever it may be.
Under communism and socialism you as an individual have no rights. Rather "the people" have rights. The communists and socialist may not be very vocal or explicit about this point but it is an inherent and fundamental tenet of their ideology.
Another problem with communism especially is the idea that human nature is malleable, that human beings can be molded and shaped through education or indoctrination into whatever it is that society wishes them to be. This is fundamentally false. It is certainly possible to influence someone, and to encourage them to act and think in certain ways, but only within the constraints imposed by human nature itself. The other mistake they make is that they deny the role that individuals play. Einstein came along and revolutionized our understanding of the universe. If he's been hit by a train, some would argue that someone else would have made the same discoveries. Well probably, eventually, someday. The point is that his making those discoveries when he did had tremendously vast and far reaching consequences. The same is true in any field or endeavor, and politics is no exception. Communism denies this fundamental truth. Due to this denial of the influence of individuals, and their denial of human nature, communist regimes tend to fall under the control of individuals that epitomize the worst that human nature is capable of. Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim, etc, etc. It is not a coincidence that these madmen came to power when and where they did. Had the forces of freedom and democracy prevailed in the stead of communism and oppression, these men would either be in prison for other crimes, or locked up in a loony bin somewhere.
In any case that is all the time I have to talk about these issues. Sleep calls and I must obey.
The fact that this is happening in China suggests to me that this is being done on the behest of the socialist government, which is far more concerned about the threat of grass roots movements for freedom and democracy than anything else.
Make no mistake, the current chinese government may represent a "kindler, gentler" communist regime, but its mere existence is still a crime against humanity.
Anyone who is going to use my initial post as a jumping off point for a non sequitur political diatribe isn't rational, and therefore cannot be reasoned with. I leave the job of swaying the insane and demented to qualifed mental health professionals.
So in other words you've laid out some of the steps that Brazil needs to take in order to create the booming economy and stable middle class I spoke of.
So how exactly is that a refutation of anything I've said?
It's kind of hard to tell someone they're wrong when the points you make are all in agreement with theirs.
How about you crawl back into your hole at the Democratic Underground and leave Slashdot to those of us who don't ride the political equivalent of the short bus.
I do think he put it best when he said that the best social program is a booming economy.
The idea that the government can accomplish any good by spending money on a nebulous problem like "hunger" is foolish at best. Work on improving the economy and hunger will take care of itself. As for Brazil, they really, really need to work on establishing a viable middle class. The situation right now looks like a validation of marxist idiot-ology.
Apple was NOT wrong about the Newton, they were simply ahead of their time. Steve Jobs killed the Newton when he returned to Apple for no other reason than that it was John Scully's brainchild. Another foot-bullet in the history of Apple.
Thanks to Jobs' inability to grow up, PDA's are yet another area where Microsoft is gain dominance.
It is sad that we live in a world where the mere expression of certain ideas can cause a backlash and a shit storm of such proportions that mere censorship appears weak by comparison in its ability to bury and deny those ideas.
If ideas are wrong, they should be proven so. Unfortunately P.C. outbursts and hissy fits do nothing to prove anything. If anything these responses appear to be a desperate reaction to ideas that are unthinkable to those who oppose them, yet fundamentally true nonetheless.
Not everything can be proven absolutely, but that doesn't mean you can't marshal enough evidence to convince a reasonable person. Trying to convince an unreasonable or irrational person is a waste of time. For some reason the P.C. crowd is unduly afraid of the irrational ones among us. It is almost like they feel that any disagreement with whatever it is they believe somehow undermines the inherent truth of what they believe.
The truth is not a matter of public opinion. It is what is real, and in political or social issues, the truth is beyond the control of any one person, and in cases of innate human nature, beyond the control of anyone.
It is no big secret that women tend to have stronger verbal skills, and be weaker at math, at least as measured by standardized tests. There have even been studies conducted on transsexuals to determine if the hormones they are taking have affected their abilities in these areas. Does this mean that women are "inferior" to men? No, just that they are not the same.
So much of our society is caught up in this BS notion that certain segments of society are perpetually out to get other segments. That men seek to oppress women, or white people are out to keep the black man down, etc. etc. There are certainly sexists and racists in the world, but when fear of these members of the lunatic fringe overcomes our ability to be rational and objective about the differences between different types of people, our understanding of what it means to be human suffers as a whole.
Now the president of Harvard has committed the unforgivable sin of calling a spade a spade. I can only imagine that his attackers, or at least the more virulent of them, are responding more to the voices in their head than to anything they heard him actually say. He says that women (and I'm paraphrasing here) are statistically less likely to be good at math than men. These critics on the other hand don't hear this. Instead they hear him say that women are stupid and incapable and probably also imagine him saying that they should be barefoot and pregnant because they aren't good for much else. Look at how these people are responding to his comments and see if what I've described isn't just plausible, but quite likely based upon their behavior.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but ultimately the outcome is predictable. The loons will howl for as long as anyone is willing to listen to them, and then they will relive this experience among themselves for years to come and hold it up as an example of sexism and men's innate desire to degrade and control women.
Why the world pays any attention to such people is beyond me. Even a cursory examination of who and what they are reveals them to be confused at best, but far more likely to be insane.
Once upon a time sex and issues related to sex were the verboten subjects. Today it seems that race and issues related to race have assumed these roles. Welcome to the new puritanism.
Are you one of these people who don't know the difference between right and wrong? Who make excuses like "I did nothing illegal" when caught doing something WRONG?
Taking time to point out that something patently wrong is technically legal in order to defend or justify it is well....disturbing. It shows a clear lack of any sort of a moral compass, and that is a character flaw that is all too common in today's world.
Don't feel too bad, at least you're in famous (if not good) company. Bill Clinton, SCO executives, Enron Execs, etc. etc.
How can the government, as a provider of services, ever hope to avoid competing with private business?
Is there something so sacrosanct about our private enterprises that the government must tiptoe around each and every one for fear of stepping on their claimed turf?
If there are laws like what you've described, I'm sure they are either narrow in scope or intent (in other words they don't apply to this situation), or were bought and paid for by business interests as a means of doing what this article complains about in the first place, stifling competition. If this is true then that simply proves that these companies are abusing their power, in which case I'd like to thank you for proving it.
There are some problems that are best addressed by private for-profit solutions. Then there are other problems that are better solved by public initiatives. To say that the two approaches to solving problems cannot compete with one another is...well...creepy. I can't think of any good or honest reason why the two approaches should be prevented from competing. On the other hand I can think of more than a few dishonest and malicious reasons why some would do anything in their power to prevent said competition.
There are some situations where competition from public institutions is the only way of preventing a monopoly, and the communications industry is one of the best examples I can think of.
There are few things in this world worse than communism, but a plutocracy is one of them, especially a corporate plutocracy.
The free nations of the world use jails to incarcerate criminals. Nations that are not free use jails to incarcerate dissidents.
Under a communist regime, the government is not answerable to the people. The political process is controlled by the party elites. The average citizen's only role in the process is to submit to the dictates of the party. To do otherwise means a short painful life in a gulag.
Non-trivial totalitarian governments can only be implemented through coercion and force. Democracies and republics can only be implemented, let alone preserved, through the consent of the governed.
Communism requires a totalitarian dictatorship because it is contrary to rational self interest. No human society is not going to willingly submit to a system where everyone enjoys the equal status of being a slave.
Communism is one of the great evils that came to plague the world in the 20th century, if not THE great evil. As bad as the Nazi's were, they've got nothing on communism.
Christianity has been a mixed blessing to Western civilization. I for one would argue that the ills of christianity result from flaws in human nature itself. If Christianity didn't exist then the dark side of whatever religion or religions that existed in its place would be little different. In other words its not the religion but its followers that are the problem, and those problems are shared by every other religion because human nature is universal.
Scientology on the other hand is a criminal cult whose nature is an amalgamation of the moonies, the Nazis, and the mob. Even at its historical low point, Christianity's got NOTHING on the clams when it comes to the evil department.
Besides, isn't the whole "I hate christianity" thing a bit trite?
From what you've described, the issue seems to be stuff that might turn someone on.....am I the only one who thinks this is an awfully silly thing to worry about?
Since when was being horny a fate that anyone needs protection from?
Now I'm sure you're going to ask "But what if it was your kids?" Don't bother. I've never seen anything that I felt anyone needed to be protected from, at least not within the context of normal living. There are many things I would not want anyone to be subjected to 24/7, regardless of their age. In the real world we don't have that problem. If my kid sees a little T&A on TV its no more going to warp him than anything else he might see or hear. People seem to think that kids are walking tape recorders, or that if they see certain things, defined as anything society is touchy about, then those things will somehow be indelibly enscribed upon their psyche. Needless to say, these people are so full of shit its coming out their ears.
I'm far more concerned about the example that I set and the things that my children learn from SEEING ME. If your kids are fucked up, it's not because they watched too much south park, it's because you either suck as a parent, or you cursed them with the same genes that made you a fuck up.
The athiest left is every bit as bad about trying to shove its agenda down everyone else's throat as the religious right ever was.
It is called the culture war, and every war has at least 2 sides. The battleground is our society itself and the hearts and minds of the american people are the prize.
Both the left and the right want the rest of us to buy into their respective bullshit and I for one would much rather just line the whole lot of them up against a wall and execute them.
I'm sick and tired of trying to play both ends against the middle in the hope that if they can be kept at each other's throats they won't have much energy left to attack the rest of us.
Both sides are equally noxious. If it isn't the ACLU suing someone for daring to discuss religion in public, its some group like this one trying to censor anything that doesn't comply with their puritain interpretation of what is decent. The left tries to shove "affirmative action" down our throats while the right attacks people with sexual orientations they think are "sinful" or "immoral." The list goes on but you get the idea.
Don't you just love it when two ideologically bankrupt and intellectually rigid groups go to war about which one is right? That's like asking what kind of shit is better, bullshit or horseshit. I don't know about you, but if you ask me they both stink!
If there was a country as great as the US where I didn't have to deal with this bullshit I'd move there in a nanosecond. The thing is, as bad as this crap is, things are still better here than they are anywhere else and I fear for the world as a whole if that ever changes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the current arguments of communist apologists, that communism is compatible with freedom and democracy. Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is something you've been led to believe, possibly by one or more of your professors in college. The alternative requires either malice or dishonesty on your part, probably both.
5 7/ qid=1107852099/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-4981621- 1528822
1 8/ qid=1107852402/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-4981621- 1528822
If you want to understand communism and the effect it has upon any system of government where it exists, take a look at this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/18935544
The Road To Serfdom by Hayek would also be a good book to read, and it is far shorter:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/02263206
Here's a good site for general information on the education, or lack thereof, as presented in our colleges and universities:
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/
The main problem with communism/socialism is that both are founded upon a false premise, the idea of group rights. In other words the idea that groups of people somehow have rights that are not an aggregate of the rights of the individuals who make up that group. Don't ask me to explain it, since I can only barely fathom it myself. A good example of this attitude in this country is affirmative action, or other special rights and considerations extended to groups of people based upon their membership in that group, whatever it may be.
Under communism and socialism you as an individual have no rights. Rather "the people" have rights. The communists and socialist may not be very vocal or explicit about this point but it is an inherent and fundamental tenet of their ideology.
Another problem with communism especially is the idea that human nature is malleable, that human beings can be molded and shaped through education or indoctrination into whatever it is that society wishes them to be. This is fundamentally false. It is certainly possible to influence someone, and to encourage them to act and think in certain ways, but only within the constraints imposed by human nature itself. The other mistake they make is that they deny the role that individuals play. Einstein came along and revolutionized our understanding of the universe. If he's been hit by a train, some would argue that someone else would have made the same discoveries. Well probably, eventually, someday. The point is that his making those discoveries when he did had tremendously vast and far reaching consequences. The same is true in any field or endeavor, and politics is no exception. Communism denies this fundamental truth. Due to this denial of the influence of individuals, and their denial of human nature, communist regimes tend to fall under the control of individuals that epitomize the worst that human nature is capable of. Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim, etc, etc. It is not a coincidence that these madmen came to power when and where they did. Had the forces of freedom and democracy prevailed in the stead of communism and oppression, these men would either be in prison for other crimes, or locked up in a loony bin somewhere.
In any case that is all the time I have to talk about these issues. Sleep calls and I must obey.
Lee
The fact that this is happening in China suggests to me that this is being done on the behest of the socialist government, which is far more concerned about the threat of grass roots movements for freedom and democracy than anything else.
Make no mistake, the current chinese government may represent a "kindler, gentler" communist regime, but its mere existence is still a crime against humanity.
Lee
first post?
Anyone who is going to use my initial post as a jumping off point for a non sequitur political diatribe isn't rational, and therefore cannot be reasoned with. I leave the job of swaying the insane and demented to qualifed mental health professionals.
Agnostic Libertarian actually, but thanks for the compliment.
So in other words you've laid out some of the steps that Brazil needs to take in order to create the booming economy and stable middle class I spoke of.
So how exactly is that a refutation of anything I've said?
It's kind of hard to tell someone they're wrong when the points you make are all in agreement with theirs.
Lee
How about you crawl back into your hole at the Democratic Underground and leave Slashdot to those of us who don't ride the political equivalent of the short bus.
I do think he put it best when he said that the best social program is a booming economy.
The idea that the government can accomplish any good by spending money on a nebulous problem like "hunger" is foolish at best. Work on improving the economy and hunger will take care of itself. As for Brazil, they really, really need to work on establishing a viable middle class. The situation right now looks like a validation of marxist idiot-ology.
Lee
The moral of this story is, avoid software products that operate off of the "sofware as a service" model.
Imagine if you bought a car that relied on special gas that the manufacturer would stop producing in 3 years. Would you buy such a car?
Lee
Apple was NOT wrong about the Newton, they were simply ahead of their time. Steve Jobs killed the Newton when he returned to Apple for no other reason than that it was John Scully's brainchild. Another foot-bullet in the history of Apple.
Thanks to Jobs' inability to grow up, PDA's are yet another area where Microsoft is gain dominance.
Lee
It is sad that we live in a world where the mere expression of certain ideas can cause a backlash and a shit storm of such proportions that mere censorship appears weak by comparison in its ability to bury and deny those ideas.
If ideas are wrong, they should be proven so. Unfortunately P.C. outbursts and hissy fits do nothing to prove anything. If anything these responses appear to be a desperate reaction to ideas that are unthinkable to those who oppose them, yet fundamentally true nonetheless.
Not everything can be proven absolutely, but that doesn't mean you can't marshal enough evidence to convince a reasonable person. Trying to convince an unreasonable or irrational person is a waste of time. For some reason the P.C. crowd is unduly afraid of the irrational ones among us. It is almost like they feel that any disagreement with whatever it is they believe somehow undermines the inherent truth of what they believe.
The truth is not a matter of public opinion. It is what is real, and in political or social issues, the truth is beyond the control of any one person, and in cases of innate human nature, beyond the control of anyone.
It is no big secret that women tend to have stronger verbal skills, and be weaker at math, at least as measured by standardized tests. There have even been studies conducted on transsexuals to determine if the hormones they are taking have affected their abilities in these areas. Does this mean that women are "inferior" to men? No, just that they are not the same.
So much of our society is caught up in this BS notion that certain segments of society are perpetually out to get other segments. That men seek to oppress women, or white people are out to keep the black man down, etc. etc. There are certainly sexists and racists in the world, but when fear of these members of the lunatic fringe overcomes our ability to be rational and objective about the differences between different types of people, our understanding of what it means to be human suffers as a whole.
Now the president of Harvard has committed the unforgivable sin of calling a spade a spade. I can only imagine that his attackers, or at least the more virulent of them, are responding more to the voices in their head than to anything they heard him actually say. He says that women (and I'm paraphrasing here) are statistically less likely to be good at math than men. These critics on the other hand don't hear this. Instead they hear him say that women are stupid and incapable and probably also imagine him saying that they should be barefoot and pregnant because they aren't good for much else. Look at how these people are responding to his comments and see if what I've described isn't just plausible, but quite likely based upon their behavior.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but ultimately the outcome is predictable. The loons will howl for as long as anyone is willing to listen to them, and then they will relive this experience among themselves for years to come and hold it up as an example of sexism and men's innate desire to degrade and control women.
Why the world pays any attention to such people is beyond me. Even a cursory examination of who and what they are reveals them to be confused at best, but far more likely to be insane.
Once upon a time sex and issues related to sex were the verboten subjects. Today it seems that race and issues related to race have assumed these roles. Welcome to the new puritanism.
Lee
I'm far more likely to give them condoms, buy them whiskey, and let them borrow my Japanese Spin-Fuck chair.
Are you one of these people who don't know the difference between right and wrong? Who make excuses like "I did nothing illegal" when caught doing something WRONG?
Taking time to point out that something patently wrong is technically legal in order to defend or justify it is well....disturbing. It shows a clear lack of any sort of a moral compass, and that is a character flaw that is all too common in today's world.
Don't feel too bad, at least you're in famous (if not good) company. Bill Clinton, SCO executives, Enron Execs, etc. etc.
Lee
How can the government, as a provider of services, ever hope to avoid competing with private business?
Is there something so sacrosanct about our private enterprises that the government must tiptoe around each and every one for fear of stepping on their claimed turf?
If there are laws like what you've described, I'm sure they are either narrow in scope or intent (in other words they don't apply to this situation), or were bought and paid for by business interests as a means of doing what this article complains about in the first place, stifling competition. If this is true then that simply proves that these companies are abusing their power, in which case I'd like to thank you for proving it.
There are some problems that are best addressed by private for-profit solutions. Then there are other problems that are better solved by public initiatives. To say that the two approaches to solving problems cannot compete with one another is...well...creepy. I can't think of any good or honest reason why the two approaches should be prevented from competing. On the other hand I can think of more than a few dishonest and malicious reasons why some would do anything in their power to prevent said competition.
There are some situations where competition from public institutions is the only way of preventing a monopoly, and the communications industry is one of the best examples I can think of.
There are few things in this world worse than communism, but a plutocracy is one of them, especially a corporate plutocracy.
Under a communist regime, the government is not answerable to the people. The political process is controlled by the party elites. The average citizen's only role in the process is to submit to the dictates of the party. To do otherwise means a short painful life in a gulag.
A report from CNN on gulags in North Korea
Non-trivial totalitarian governments can only be implemented through coercion and force. Democracies and republics can only be implemented, let alone preserved, through the consent of the governed.
Communism requires a totalitarian dictatorship because it is contrary to rational self interest. No human society is not going to willingly submit to a system where everyone enjoys the equal status of being a slave.
Communism is one of the great evils that came to plague the world in the 20th century, if not THE great evil. As bad as the Nazi's were, they've got nothing on communism.
Lee
"Self-defeating" as applied to a communist nation simply means continuing to embrace communism.
"$65 million once wasted on newspaper classifieds now available for health, education, other productive uses".
Come on! You're old enough to understand that people are going to spend that money on junk food, beer, cigarrettes and gas.
The hard part is finding a woman with:
1: The mind of a sage.
2: The patience of a saint
3: The face of an angel
4: The body of a baywatch hottie
5: The libido of a nymphomaniac.
In other words, marriage material.
Christianity has been a mixed blessing to Western civilization. I for one would argue that the ills of christianity result from flaws in human nature itself. If Christianity didn't exist then the dark side of whatever religion or religions that existed in its place would be little different. In other words its not the religion but its followers that are the problem, and those problems are shared by every other religion because human nature is universal.
Scientology on the other hand is a criminal cult whose nature is an amalgamation of the moonies, the Nazis, and the mob. Even at its historical low point, Christianity's got NOTHING on the clams when it comes to the evil department.
Besides, isn't the whole "I hate christianity" thing a bit trite?
Lee
Yes, yes, I know, go ahead mod me down...
I never pass up an opportunity to tell the world just how evil this cult is.
http://www.xenu.net
If I were you I'd remind them that Jesus considered hypocrisy to be an unforgivable sin.
Lee
"Do you see Al Franken being fined?"
That would imply that he has listeners.
From what you've described, the issue seems to be stuff that might turn someone on.....am I the only one who thinks this is an awfully silly thing to worry about?
Since when was being horny a fate that anyone needs protection from?
Now I'm sure you're going to ask "But what if it was your kids?" Don't bother. I've never seen anything that I felt anyone needed to be protected from, at least not within the context of normal living. There are many things I would not want anyone to be subjected to 24/7, regardless of their age. In the real world we don't have that problem. If my kid sees a little T&A on TV its no more going to warp him than anything else he might see or hear. People seem to think that kids are walking tape recorders, or that if they see certain things, defined as anything society is touchy about, then those things will somehow be indelibly enscribed upon their psyche. Needless to say, these people are so full of shit its coming out their ears.
I'm far more concerned about the example that I set and the things that my children learn from SEEING ME. If your kids are fucked up, it's not because they watched too much south park, it's because you either suck as a parent, or you cursed them with the same genes that made you a fuck up.
Lee
The athiest left is every bit as bad about trying to shove its agenda down everyone else's throat as the religious right ever was.
It is called the culture war, and every war has at least 2 sides. The battleground is our society itself and the hearts and minds of the american people are the prize.
Both the left and the right want the rest of us to buy into their respective bullshit and I for one would much rather just line the whole lot of them up against a wall and execute them.
I'm sick and tired of trying to play both ends against the middle in the hope that if they can be kept at each other's throats they won't have much energy left to attack the rest of us.
Both sides are equally noxious. If it isn't the ACLU suing someone for daring to discuss religion in public, its some group like this one trying to censor anything that doesn't comply with their puritain interpretation of what is decent. The left tries to shove "affirmative action" down our throats while the right attacks people with sexual orientations they think are "sinful" or "immoral." The list goes on but you get the idea.
Don't you just love it when two ideologically bankrupt and intellectually rigid groups go to war about which one is right? That's like asking what kind of shit is better, bullshit or horseshit. I don't know about you, but if you ask me they both stink!
If there was a country as great as the US where I didn't have to deal with this bullshit I'd move there in a nanosecond. The thing is, as bad as this crap is, things are still better here than they are anywhere else and I fear for the world as a whole if that ever changes.
Lee