I'm a conservative Republican. Still, if a reasonable percentage of the Nader voters wouldn't have voted otherwise, and they tended to vote Democrat in the downticket races (both reasonable assumptions), then Nader likely made the Democrats take Senate seats at least in Washington and Michigan. Possibly also Nebraska.
Miami-Dade and Palm Beach decided that they couldn't get under the Florida Supreme Court's arbitrary deadline they made up out of thin air after the election to replace the arbitrary deadline set by the Legislature before the election. But Broward's hand recount is in.
Over in the New York Times, we see that Al Gore and Joe Lieberman are calling for regulation by the FTC and legislation to punish the entertainment industry for marketing violent material to minors. It would be called false and deceptive marketing, similar to the tobacco cases. At least Bush is somewhat skeptical, saying he "prefers" self-regulation to federal censorship. (Still not making a ringing denunciation of censorship, though.) I would think trying to make advertising violent movies, music, and video games to minors basically illegal would be something for Slashdot to care about.
The hubris of being exempt from natural selection? Most of civilization is an attempt to evade natural selection. Do you favor no one having eyeglasses, since that would help weed out the poor sighted? Is it a "disgusting way of thinking" to come up with allergy medication, or to treat possibly fatal congenital diseases, helping them spread to later generations? Like it or not, most of civilization interferes with natural selection.
The comparison to Hitler is more apt that you apparently think. Yes, he killed the Jews, whom he thought inferior. However, the sick, the weak, those with congenital diseases, the alcoholic, the mentally or physically infirm, these were all separated, prevented from reproducing (under the various German Health Acts), and were planned to be killed.
As you point out, Singer isn't saying to make this mandatory. However, unless people disagree with him, his views could easily be adopted by the majority and become mandatory. Secondly, due to the statistical and biological fact of "regression to the mean," eugenics is unlikely to work with massive coercion, and its proponents would realize that. Finally, I simply find it strange that a bunch of supposed geeks, who often seem to take offense at the idea of parents controlling the lives of teenaged children, find nothing wrong with parents having complete control over their children's life and death.
I also wonder how, if "morality is wholly in your mind" and "there is nothing natural about it," why Hitler was evil? Certainly the Jews couldn't resist his power; weren't they being selected against in a social sense? Why do you seem to claim it's a good thing to give to Oxfam; shouldn't natural selection weed out those who can't fight to survive when food is scarce?
Actually, conservatives nowadays are more likely to be against crypto controls. (Bob Dole actually said he'd lift them if elected.) It varies a lot by party in any case-- supposed moderates like Clinton are all for them (but then again, he's for FBI roving wiretaps without warrants, but I digress), as are national security-minded moderates in the Republican party. On the other hand, activists on both the liberal and conservative side tend to be against crypto controls.
I agree with the your statement. It echoes what the great British statesman Edmund Burke said on the subject. Whether it is a necessity or merely the natural proceeding is not the issue-- it must merely be taken as fact that as people lose their capacity for self-governance, that the government becomes ever more oppressive and must govern more. Whether you view this as unfortunate reaction or as a necessity to keep the common order and good, if you treasure your rights it does you well to help encourage self governance in all. Those who do not use their rights well are apt to lose them. The reaction against free speech is caused by the proliferation of unwanted smut, the reaction against the right to bear arms by those who misuse them, and so it goes with all of our civil rights.
is between a stockholder and corporate contributions, which _do_ affect the stockholder's money. FWIW, I feel that stockholders should also be able to get refunds on profits used for contributions which they don't approve of.
is that if the money comes from a union that you belong to, or from the company you work for out of your paycheck (yes, I know there are companies that force employees to contribute, and that's blantantly wrong as well) it actually comes out of your pay, and your pay affects how much they give. Plus you have much less choice when it comes to the job you're in. It's just not as bad to me as the other, because not only do you have a choice, but their giving doesn't affect the price of goods you buy (economics-- would they reduce the price just because they were lobbying less, or would they charge the same because you were still willing to pay it). Thus you don't get a refund, because their contributions didn't raise the price of what you bought, it only decreased the profits. When an employer or a union forces you to contribute, it actually reduces your take-home pay.
All I'm considering is whether someone has a right to spend your money. Money taken out of your paycheck by a company forcing you to contribute or by a union does affect you. Money spent by a corporation you patronize does not cost you anything, since their prices wouldn't be any lower if they didn't do the lobbying.
I don't think anyone should be able to force you to spend your money. I don't think an employer should be able to, and I don't think a union should be able to, especially in those states where you have to join the union to continue to hold your job.
The DoL has employers post posters listing most of their rights. Except one. The Beck decision established that a union member can get refunds for that portion of union dues used for campaign contributions to candidates and parties, and not for collective bargaining. Since Clinton depends on union allies, one of his first acts when he came into office was to prevent any posters or other means of notifying workers of their Beck rights to go out. In addition, his DoL has acted in a politically motivated manner repeatedly. Complaints about corrupt unions have not gone forward at all. Companies which donated to his campaign have not been investigated.
As you say, the clincher is "agreement." They _agreed_ to do that. I agree, No Thank You too, but then, I wouldn't do it. You don't have a right to work for them. If they establish stupid rules, don't do their volunteer work.
Slashdot Mirror
At least, that's what the Washington Post reported. Texas is really about the only exception to that rule, actually. The Illinois court case Boies cited had the court rejecting dimpled ballots, as the Chicago Tribune found.
I'm a conservative Republican. Still, if a reasonable percentage of the Nader voters wouldn't have voted otherwise, and they tended to vote Democrat in the downticket races (both reasonable assumptions), then Nader likely made the Democrats take Senate seats at least in Washington and Michigan. Possibly also Nebraska.
Miami-Dade and Palm Beach decided that they couldn't get under the Florida Supreme Court's arbitrary deadline they made up out of thin air after the election to replace the arbitrary deadline set by the Legislature before the election. But Broward's hand recount is in.
as price for making Hayes president. Disenfranchising blacks in the South isn't exactly what I'd call status quo.
Over in the New York Times, we see that Al Gore and Joe Lieberman are calling for regulation by the FTC and legislation to punish the entertainment industry for marketing violent material to minors. It would be called false and deceptive marketing, similar to the tobacco cases. At least Bush is somewhat skeptical, saying he "prefers" self-regulation to federal censorship. (Still not making a ringing denunciation of censorship, though.) I would think trying to make advertising violent movies, music, and video games to minors basically illegal would be something for Slashdot to care about.
The comparison to Hitler is more apt that you apparently think. Yes, he killed the Jews, whom he thought inferior. However, the sick, the weak, those with congenital diseases, the alcoholic, the mentally or physically infirm, these were all separated, prevented from reproducing (under the various German Health Acts), and were planned to be killed.
As you point out, Singer isn't saying to make this mandatory. However, unless people disagree with him, his views could easily be adopted by the majority and become mandatory. Secondly, due to the statistical and biological fact of "regression to the mean," eugenics is unlikely to work with massive coercion, and its proponents would realize that. Finally, I simply find it strange that a bunch of supposed geeks, who often seem to take offense at the idea of parents controlling the lives of teenaged children, find nothing wrong with parents having complete control over their children's life and death.
I also wonder how, if "morality is wholly in your mind" and "there is nothing natural about it," why Hitler was evil? Certainly the Jews couldn't resist his power; weren't they being selected against in a social sense? Why do you seem to claim it's a good thing to give to Oxfam; shouldn't natural selection weed out those who can't fight to survive when food is scarce?
Actually, conservatives nowadays are more likely to be against crypto controls. (Bob Dole actually said he'd lift them if elected.) It varies a lot by party in any case-- supposed moderates like Clinton are all for them (but then again, he's for FBI roving wiretaps without warrants, but I digress), as are national security-minded moderates in the Republican party. On the other hand, activists on both the liberal and conservative side tend to be against crypto controls.
I agree with the your statement. It echoes what the great British statesman Edmund Burke said on the subject. Whether it is a necessity or merely the natural proceeding is not the issue-- it must merely be taken as fact that as people lose their capacity for self-governance, that the government becomes ever more oppressive and must govern more. Whether you view this as unfortunate reaction or as a necessity to keep the common order and good, if you treasure your rights it does you well to help encourage self governance in all. Those who
do not use their rights well are apt to lose them. The reaction against free speech is caused by the proliferation of unwanted smut, the reaction against the right to bear arms by those who misuse them, and so it goes with all of our civil rights.
is between a stockholder and corporate contributions, which _do_ affect the stockholder's money. FWIW, I feel that stockholders should also be able to get refunds on profits used for contributions which they don't approve of.
is that if the money comes from a union that you belong to, or from the company you work for out of your paycheck (yes, I know there are companies that force employees to contribute, and that's blantantly wrong as well) it actually comes out of your pay, and your pay affects how much they give. Plus you have much less choice when it comes to the job you're in. It's just not as bad to me as the other, because not only do you have a choice, but their giving doesn't affect the price of goods you buy (economics-- would they reduce the price just because they were lobbying less, or would they charge the same because you were still willing to pay it). Thus you don't get a refund, because their contributions didn't raise the price of what you bought, it only decreased the profits. When an employer or a union forces you to contribute, it actually reduces your take-home pay.
All I'm considering is whether someone has a right to spend your money. Money taken out of your paycheck by a company forcing you to contribute or by a union does affect you. Money spent by a corporation you patronize does not cost you anything, since their prices wouldn't be any lower if they didn't do the lobbying.
I don't think anyone should be able to force you to spend your money. I don't think an employer should be able to, and I don't think a union should be able to, especially in those states where you have to join the union to continue to hold your job.
The DoL has employers post posters listing most of their rights. Except one. The Beck decision established that a union member can get refunds for that portion of union dues used for campaign contributions to candidates and parties, and not for collective bargaining. Since Clinton depends on union allies, one of his first acts when he came into office was to prevent any posters or other means of notifying workers of their Beck rights to go out. In addition, his DoL has acted in a politically motivated manner repeatedly. Complaints about corrupt unions have not gone forward at all. Companies which donated to his campaign have not been investigated.
As you say, the clincher is "agreement." They _agreed_ to do that. I agree, No Thank You too, but then, I wouldn't do it. You don't have a right to work for them. If they establish stupid rules, don't do their volunteer work.