Astonishingly simple; except your take is exactly what one would expect from a dedicated soldier. Yet the assessment lacks historical finesse. Your sole focus was in the capabilities of the American fighting machine being best trained, equipped etc. That may be correct in large part. History has shown though that an indigenous people cannot be subjugated for long. The Iraqis are at each other's throats specifically BECAUSE Hussein was taken out. It's their country and they'll fuck it up any way they choose. Besides, the nation of Iraq was a creation of post WW II politics on the part of the victors. It was pure hubris and ignorance on the part of the U.S. to create the power vacuum there. The Shiite, Sunni and Kurds have all been engaged in their own power struggle for decades as a direct result of WW II politics. Point being... they are all indigenous peoples who push come to shove did not and do not want us there. They only cooperated insofar as it benefitted their own sect. Result? Chaos ultimately. Why? The Bushes had a bone to pick with Hussein. The justification for the entire invasion was a creation in Bush's head encouraged by his wingnut advisors who should all be sitting in a federal pen right now.
We lost Korea, Vietnam, and every other conflict since then BECAUSE we took it upon ourselves to (attempt) instill western values across the planet when the indigenous peoples and their cultures were either incompatible with those values or the people themselves were recalcitrant about foreign "invaders". They have a right to fuck up their own little part of the planet just as we do ours (and in the manner we see fit). Not EVERYONE understands, values or desires our way of life even though generations of Americans have been told they do. When the indigenous people can't identify with you or your culture even the best foreign efforts at change will be for not.
And I suppose the fact that government surveillance is old news, we should all just acquiesce? There are always tradeoffs that have to be made in a so-called representative democracy. But to sacrifice freedom for security? Where does individual responsibility for one's own safety come into play? Rather than placing the sole burden for that on a monstrosity called "law enforcement and national security agencies". As Benjamin Franklin is claimed to have said, "those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for a little security, deserve neither." Don't get me wrong, there is a place for central government and I'm not one of those "free citizens" who reject the very idea of a national or state government and live by their own "code". Yet it is indisputable modern America is becoming less and less "free" unless freedom is redefined to mean "cooperation with the government".
Calling (or writing) the appropriate politicians is a joke anymore. For example, I've recently wrote the elected state representatives from my area (and I've done so many times) about the fact that the state House recently passed a bill to practically guarantee that "In God We Trust" will be in our public schools and other government buildings if the state Senate passes a similar bill it will be the catalyst for all kinds of local skirmishes over the issue. I'm adamantly opposed to such a bill. The response I get from the area legislators? They either ignore my protests or they blatantly show their religious biases by coming right out and telling me that I'm the mistaken one. That In God We Trust is part of American history (even though as I've pointed out only since the mid-twentieth century) thus it belongs in our schools, etc. Modern political America is so poisoned with confrontational theism that elected officials couldn't care less about minority opinions on the matter. And this country is becoming increasing factious over a multitude of issues like religion, immigration, the role of government, social programs, jobs, water supplies, energy sources, land management, vaccines, corporate personhood, war, crime, ad infinitum. Of which none ever gets satisfied to any one person or group's liking. We are an increasingly divided nation on... well you name it. Those divisions will ultimately undermine the sense of even being a nation of "united states". Some states are even considering seceding from the union, something we haven't heard since the Civil War.
Naivety strikes every 10 seconds! It's a rampant mental illness. Most people ASSUME their not doing anything wrong. Little do they realize that there are laws against much of what they engage in everyday. They just don't get caught at it. But widespread surveillance will ultimately undo much of what they believe. For example, I have yet to see ANYONE obeying motor vehicle speed limit laws. Unless you're 75 or older. And those elders turn in front of oncoming traffic, weave over traffic lane lines, mistake the accelerator for the break, etc. So they're just as hazardous on the road. Another example is people making left hand turns on red lights, shooting of explosive devices at celebrations even though it is against the law in most places. Or for example no one is permitted to tie their dog to the top of their car (Alaska); it is illegal for any person over 18 to have more than one missing front tooth when smiling (Arizona); honking your horn at a sandwich shop after 9 p.m. is illegal (Arkansas); boogers may not be flicked into the wind (Alabama); it's illegal to set a mouse trap without a hunting license (California); it's illegal to take a bath during the winter time (Indiana); pedestrians crossing state roads at night are required to wear tail lights (Kentucky); snoring is prohibited unless all windows are closed and secured (Massachusetts); a parent can be arrested if their child burps in church (Nebraska); it is illegal to slurp soup in New Jersey; it's against the law to go to bed with your shoes on (North Dakota); violators can be fined or arrested for making ugly faces at a dog (Oklahoma);
Need I go on? Not that I'm passing judgment on such laws. The point being, most people have no idea as to whether or not their actions are illegal. And the more people are spied upon, the more scrutiny one is subject to and ultimately your daily actions will be prescribed and monitored for compliance. You may think such laws are "silly" and never enforced but the only reason for that is because right now the government doesn't have the manpower to watch everyone all the time. But with the advancements in technology such as smart phones and TVs, , drones, etc. that surveillance is becoming more of a reality everyday.
That would be a great way to get Snowden back to the USA. I have very strong doubts that a President elected by the "people" would be prosecuted for treason, illegally disseminating classified documents, etc.
Oh contrare my fine feathered friend. In the actual functioning of government religion was specifically written OUT of the Constitution. And any contrary appearances was due entirely to accommodations made to the religious zealots in Congress. However, legally the Architects intended for the government to be a secular government with laws based upon the Constitution which was firmly grounded in "enlightenment" ideals. And the enlightenment ideals were an overt movement to crush (in large part) the rule of the clergy and the church (i.e. rule of God or the bible). That's why the founding of American form of representative democracy was viewed by the rest of the world as the "great experiment", government without God. And it is feeble argument to keep asserting that America was founded as a Christian nation. All comers were welcome in order to build a nation in which citizens were free to worship (or not) as they please. It is well known that Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and many others at the time were either deist, agnostic or atheist. Something the church consistently loves to ignore. Diplomacy is the art of government. And those Founding Fathers were far more concerned about holding an emerging nation together than the validity of any faith belief.
Yah, those guys. First of all, you (or anyone else) should realize the Declaration of Independence is not this country's LEGAL document. It was merely a statement claiming America was divorcing itself from British rule. There is very little in that document that is used as a framework for what happens legally or constitutionally in America. Second, the actual legal document, the Constitution, specifically states there is no religious test to hold public office. Government will accord no preference to religion (or interfere with its practice). There is NO "under God" "so help me God", "In God We Trust" or any other god phrase in the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution is essentially devoid of any reference to god except for the brief reference in the First Amendment. What does that tell you? It says the Architects wanted nothing to so with religion when it came to the functioning of secular government. Third, the federal legislative session prayer (and architectural frescoes) were merely an accommodation made to the religious zealots elected to Congress. Nothing in the Constitution called for it. That same Declaration of Independence you mention also states "all men are created equal" but slavery was permitted to continue as an accommodation for plantation owners. It was wrong then as it is now. And so is government showing ANY preference (seeming or factual) toward religion... period. The fact that the Supreme Court found in favor of religion doesn't make the decision correct, morally or legally. The courts have made many errors in the past and this is just another one to chalk up to their incompetence.
QUITE right. The case was Town of Greece (NY) v. Galloway. The town board allowed only Christian prayer at town meetings since 1999. Prior to that it was merely a moment of silence. By permitting only Christian prayer the litigant asserted the town was showing an obvious sectarian bias which is supposedly unconstitutional. However, in the Supreme Court ruling in May, the majority ruled that such prayer is permissible BECAUSE the court had ruled in the early 1980's in a similar case that prayer was permissible since prayer was permitted at the very first congressional session. As intelligent as justices view themselves, the majority opinion was ludicrous in that it demonstrated their own religious prejudices. First of all the majority justices failed to draw any distinction between state/federal legislative session and local government functions. At the state and federal legislative sessions the general public is admitted merely as observers/nonparticipants. Whereas local sessions are the exact opposite because that is where local residents take their government concerns such as zoning ordinances, budget matters, community health concerns, fire and law enforcement concerns, etc. etc. In other words, at local government meetings citizens are active participants and EVERYONE has a right to be treated equally and with respect as to their individual freedom of conscience choices. Secondly, the justices have failed (or purposely ignored) the fact that the chaplains allowed at the first congressional session (and ever since) was/is merely an accommodation to the more religiously extreme. Thus contradicting themselves in word and deed. After all, the actual Constitution clearly states the government will give no preference to religion. That is a legal document which holds more power than mere accommodations historically made. Another example, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly state that "all men are created equal" and that there is NO religious test for anyone to hold public office. Yet there were accommodations made at the time that allowed plantations owners to keep their slaves even though most northern representatives opposed slavery. Which ultimately led to the Civil War. It was morally wrong then as it is today. The same is true of religious preferences the Supreme Court seems inclined to view as perfectly natural thing for the government to do. Obviously because of their own prejudices and indoctrination. However, like slavery, it is morally reprehensible and someday a wiser and better educated court (or series of courts) will ultimately see the huge error made by this court and reverse the decision. Technically, there shouldn't even be "In God We Trust" on our currency, "so help me God" in swearing in ceremonies or for judicial witnesses, and no "under God" in our national pledge. All that came about by overzealous religious fanatics (and anti-communists) in the mid twentieth century. How is it America got along just fine without any of that crap for 230 years before it was wrongly changed?
Your own citation from Wikipedia clearly states that her preference was to leave the actual choice (to be or not to be) up to the individual and she was not a supporter to the Nazi style (or similar) euthanasia programs. Yes... it is possible to believe in one ideal but also realize that ideal is simply not practical because of other legal, social and psychological constraints. Thus... her approach of establishing clinics where women made the choice. Your world is perhaps too black and white. For example, I personally believe that gun ownership and carry should be easier to attain in many states than what it currently is. However I also recognize that my belief is not equally shared. But that would not prevent me from being politically active to change the social consciousness of those who disagree. I think Sanger did what she felt could be a workable solution to a difficult social problem while still having her own personal views. Ultimately she left the choice p to the individual which is exactly the way it should be.
Even though that alleged Russian criminal was indicted three years ago, might I suggest that the U.S. went to extreme measures to obtain possession of a prominent Russian for the ultimate purpose of executing an exchange with him for Snowden at some point. The U.S. would go to extremes to get their hands on Snowden and capturing a suspected Russian criminal who is related to a Russian MP would be classic international criminal exchanges.
That statement was asserted (by you) out of context. Sanger was referring to (a separate group) the eugenicists. She clearly goes on to explain that Planned Parenthood is focused upon providing women reproductive choice. Which is an altogether different matter.
Ludicrous... (science) does "vote". It's called scientific "consensus". And your comparison with Eugenics and Phrenology are lacking in scientific consensus. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that carbon emissions are a major factor in rising global temperatures. There is far less consensus on the validity of eugenics (although that may change with advances in genetic manipulation capabilities) and there is no consensus in the scientific professions that agree with the premises of Phrenology. That's not to say that scientific consensus is immutable as Newton and Einstein have demonstrated. But one can at any given time base reasonable conclusions upon the best available evidence and the consensus at the time of those who invest their time and knowledge in studying certain scientific fields. And please, don't assert the "argument from authority" fallacy. There is a difference and hierarchies of so-called "authorities". For example a politician could be considered an authority by virtue of their high social standing but it does not necessarily make them an authority in physics. Even individual scientists can disagree. What makes the difference is the scientific consensus.
It's flabbergasting from where you would draw such conclusions. The 2013 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers clearly concludes the climate temperatures have increased over the past 800,000 years and that recent decadal changes are directly related to anthropogenic carbon emissions (70%). The contradictions seem to only exist in your own mind. Literally every recent IPCC report (Including the 2014 SPM) clearly concludes anthropogenic activity is warming the planet in particular the upper 70 meters or so of the global oceans. http://ipcc.ch/
Saudi Arabia is only an ally insofar as we support (militarily) the royal Saudi family. Most Saudi Arabians loathe the United States. One reason being the Saudi family are nepotistic dictators, don't live according Arabian cultural and religious values and rule with an iron fist. The Arabian also are well aware of the fact that the Saudi family for many decades had a secret agreement with the U.S. for the U.S. military presence in Arabia was there to aid the royal family in controlling the masses in exchange for dirt cheap oil. At least until the OPEC nations pressured the royal family to join them in their embargo against the U.S. for their support of Israel.
That statement is the height of hubris and arrogance. Ever hear of the anthropological/sociological idea of "cultural relativism"? It not only applies to subgroups within a nation but also between nations/cultures. Generally speaking the idea is that different cultures live by different values. What might be a crime in one culture can be an accepted norm in another. It also implies that it is not the place of foreigners to impose their values on other cultures regardless of whether or not you were to view their values as offensive. It also implies that it is up to each nation or culture to change their own values from within. Only then with the general population accept such changes. You would have no right, morally or otherwise, to dictate norms to any other culture. Consider the equivalent of the Star Fleet Prime Directive.
The only reason the foreign occupiers triumphed over the Native Americans was due to the huge immigration from western Europe. In other words, the Indian population couldn't keep pace with the number of occupiers. However, generally speaking occupations do fail when the indigenous people greatly out number the occupiers. Thus, sending military forces into other countries are almost always destined to fail because the indigenous people WILL eventually rebel.
That's an understatement. Anyone in business, investing, banks, academia etc that DIDNT see it coming is incompetent. They knew, they rode the bull as long as it kept bucking, pocketed (for themselves) every cent they could and held their breath until the bull collapsed. Hardly a single person in a position to knowing what was going on has been prosecuted or found guilty of fraud. Reason? Free-markets are very accommodating to market manipulation, abuses of free speech (in other words outright lying), theft by deception, etc. Why? Because of the multilayered business structures, authority structures and the like which makes it very difficult to identify and prosecute individuals. Couple that with the fact that money buys power, and you have a system ripe for abuse. Government oversight is intended to limit such abuses but Congress for the past 25 years has scaled back banking/investment regulations, agency funding, etc. For the purposes of promoting the free-market. But one has to ask, compared to 40 years ago has the average consumer'a purchasing power increased or decreased. Not counting the widespread use of "credit". Because it is merely money you don't own and has to be paid back (with interest) to someone else. Thus in the final analysis borrowed money does not increase one's purchasing power it only put a them farther in debt. Which is why American's are the largest debtors in the world. Lifestyle is not necessarily reflective of one's wealth.
Really? The "free-market" premise is meaningless without the assumption that human behavior is predictable and "rational". Thus, all the irrational (unpredictable) human behavior has a long-term and unaccounted for effect. All the (blue9steel) attributes listed above are an equal part of the free-market because the free-market is just another way of describing human behavior. Free-market economic theory is fundamentally flawed because irrational behavior is unaccounted for and I would suggest consists of a majority of human behavior. In his their book, "Sway" Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman discuss and dissect the contents and degree of irrational behavior. Concluding that we are not as rational as we like to think of ourselves. In the book "Just How Stupid Are We" Rick Shenkman documents how easily our wants are manipulated by media. So much so that most of our decisions are not rational. And in "Kluge" by Gary Marcus he analyzes the working of the human mind, gives examples of how we constantly ignore what's in our best long-term interest for short term gains, etc. Plus there are numerous psychological studies (that big business is well aware of) that overall, people are poor rational thinkers, impulsive and easy to manipulate.
So which model is it that accounts for daily irrational decisions? The whole foundation to economics (prediction of economic behavior) is based upon the premise that people make rational economic choices. That MAY have been somewhat true 100 years ago when people didn't have all the choices they have now or when incomes were hard earned. Even Milton Friedman's "experiments" in South America were a disaster for those economies. People DON'T act rationally. And any theory that relies upon that assumption is inherently flawed. And if flawed in such a fundamental way, therefore they are practically useless.
You seem to paint only a positive picture of corporations. What about the "dark side"? Which the Constitution architects were well aware of because of their experiences with the corporate powers of the old "first world" nations like France and Great Britain (in particular). Those experiences with the likes of (example) the East India Company which had become not only a political arm of the wealthy British and the Parliament but also an "enforcement" agent of British law, taught the Constitutional framers that the accumulated wealth and power of corporations were something to be avoided. As a result the Constitution (with its amendments) was specifically crafted for the purposes of protecting individual rights (living, breathing, living, dying individuals as persons) not legal fictions that can survive in perpetuity (i.e. corporations). Thus, in the early years of the nee world nation the architects had a somewhat restricted view of the role of corporations. First, corporations were viewed as a temporary measure in which a group of investors came to get her to fulfill some economic purpose that government did not have the funds or taxing authority to do themselves. For example constructing a bridge. Second, investors were permitted to engage in an economic activity, pay for the costs of building, charge for access to the project to recoup their investment, plus some reasonable degree of profit to make the project appealing investment wise, then once those goals were achieved it was up to the states to revoke their corporate charter and convert the project to public access. That is the original easing we even have corporate charters in the first place. However, corporations were able to wrangle sufficient wealth and political power out of the courts that we have the behemoths we have today. Which the Founding Fathers would recognize as a failure on their part. They DID NOT want exactly what we have today, large, wealthy and powerful corporations capable of buying democracy for themselves as opposed to democracy of individual "people". America has lived under the corporate fiction for so long thanks to bought politicians and courts that they don't even know what the Founding Fathers were afraid of happening and that we now have.
Constitutional amendments are a cynical joke. The U.S. can't even pass a constitutional amendment ensuring gender equality (male v. female) in the job market. Also, the Constitution was designed by and for a relatively homogeneous culture (western European) not the "melting pot" it literally has become. There is so much cultural and political diversity and extremes, the modern U.S. is extremely unlikely to pass any other amendments in the foreseeable future. And that doesn't even address the entrenched power regimes in D.C. and the various state governing bodies. It is quite possible that any radical change in the future will come about by reason of force. Either in the part of government or the citizenry. In either case the parties engaged will require the means to conduct military action. Thus, armament of the masses may be a necessary "evil". Seething under the surface of America's overt optimism and hubris is a culture decaying due to the destruction of confidence in the political, judicial and economic systems. Even though the decay may not be immediately obvious, there is an undercurrent of perception that the "system" is a sinking ship. The result being... people taking matters into their own hands. And armament is viewed as a necessary ingredient. Aside from the bleeding heart gun banners who will never loose faith in the goodness of tyranny, most Americans don't see themselves struggling to reassert basic freedoms on par with the Syrian rebellion in which they had to launch their struggle for freedom with stones, Molotov cocktails, etc. Americans want to be somewhat prepared to redeploy guerrilla warfare if need be. As much as the world likes to think that enlightened minds will eventually guide humankind to a more peaceful world, that is far more naïve than the expectation of continued conflicts. Human nature can not be denied. And what is that nature? Self interest not altruism.
Slashdot Mirror
Astonishingly simple; except your take is exactly what one would expect from a dedicated soldier. Yet the assessment lacks historical finesse. Your sole focus was in the capabilities of the American fighting machine being best trained, equipped etc. That may be correct in large part. History has shown though that an indigenous people cannot be subjugated for long. The Iraqis are at each other's throats specifically BECAUSE Hussein was taken out. It's their country and they'll fuck it up any way they choose. Besides, the nation of Iraq was a creation of post WW II politics on the part of the victors. It was pure hubris and ignorance on the part of the U.S. to create the power vacuum there. The Shiite, Sunni and Kurds have all been engaged in their own power struggle for decades as a direct result of WW II politics. Point being... they are all indigenous peoples who push come to shove did not and do not want us there. They only cooperated insofar as it benefitted their own sect. Result? Chaos ultimately. Why? The Bushes had a bone to pick with Hussein. The justification for the entire invasion was a creation in Bush's head encouraged by his wingnut advisors who should all be sitting in a federal pen right now. We lost Korea, Vietnam, and every other conflict since then BECAUSE we took it upon ourselves to (attempt) instill western values across the planet when the indigenous peoples and their cultures were either incompatible with those values or the people themselves were recalcitrant about foreign "invaders". They have a right to fuck up their own little part of the planet just as we do ours (and in the manner we see fit). Not EVERYONE understands, values or desires our way of life even though generations of Americans have been told they do. When the indigenous people can't identify with you or your culture even the best foreign efforts at change will be for not.
And I suppose the fact that government surveillance is old news, we should all just acquiesce? There are always tradeoffs that have to be made in a so-called representative democracy. But to sacrifice freedom for security? Where does individual responsibility for one's own safety come into play? Rather than placing the sole burden for that on a monstrosity called "law enforcement and national security agencies". As Benjamin Franklin is claimed to have said, "those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for a little security, deserve neither." Don't get me wrong, there is a place for central government and I'm not one of those "free citizens" who reject the very idea of a national or state government and live by their own "code". Yet it is indisputable modern America is becoming less and less "free" unless freedom is redefined to mean "cooperation with the government".
Calling (or writing) the appropriate politicians is a joke anymore. For example, I've recently wrote the elected state representatives from my area (and I've done so many times) about the fact that the state House recently passed a bill to practically guarantee that "In God We Trust" will be in our public schools and other government buildings if the state Senate passes a similar bill it will be the catalyst for all kinds of local skirmishes over the issue. I'm adamantly opposed to such a bill. The response I get from the area legislators? They either ignore my protests or they blatantly show their religious biases by coming right out and telling me that I'm the mistaken one. That In God We Trust is part of American history (even though as I've pointed out only since the mid-twentieth century) thus it belongs in our schools, etc. Modern political America is so poisoned with confrontational theism that elected officials couldn't care less about minority opinions on the matter. And this country is becoming increasing factious over a multitude of issues like religion, immigration, the role of government, social programs, jobs, water supplies, energy sources, land management, vaccines, corporate personhood, war, crime, ad infinitum. Of which none ever gets satisfied to any one person or group's liking. We are an increasingly divided nation on... well you name it. Those divisions will ultimately undermine the sense of even being a nation of "united states". Some states are even considering seceding from the union, something we haven't heard since the Civil War.
Naivety strikes every 10 seconds! It's a rampant mental illness. Most people ASSUME their not doing anything wrong. Little do they realize that there are laws against much of what they engage in everyday. They just don't get caught at it. But widespread surveillance will ultimately undo much of what they believe. For example, I have yet to see ANYONE obeying motor vehicle speed limit laws. Unless you're 75 or older. And those elders turn in front of oncoming traffic, weave over traffic lane lines, mistake the accelerator for the break, etc. So they're just as hazardous on the road. Another example is people making left hand turns on red lights, shooting of explosive devices at celebrations even though it is against the law in most places. Or for example no one is permitted to tie their dog to the top of their car (Alaska); it is illegal for any person over 18 to have more than one missing front tooth when smiling (Arizona); honking your horn at a sandwich shop after 9 p.m. is illegal (Arkansas); boogers may not be flicked into the wind (Alabama); it's illegal to set a mouse trap without a hunting license (California); it's illegal to take a bath during the winter time (Indiana); pedestrians crossing state roads at night are required to wear tail lights (Kentucky); snoring is prohibited unless all windows are closed and secured (Massachusetts); a parent can be arrested if their child burps in church (Nebraska); it is illegal to slurp soup in New Jersey; it's against the law to go to bed with your shoes on (North Dakota); violators can be fined or arrested for making ugly faces at a dog (Oklahoma); Need I go on? Not that I'm passing judgment on such laws. The point being, most people have no idea as to whether or not their actions are illegal. And the more people are spied upon, the more scrutiny one is subject to and ultimately your daily actions will be prescribed and monitored for compliance. You may think such laws are "silly" and never enforced but the only reason for that is because right now the government doesn't have the manpower to watch everyone all the time. But with the advancements in technology such as smart phones and TVs, , drones, etc. that surveillance is becoming more of a reality everyday.
Geezzz, I thought she was traditional "family values".
Andy, grab your Bushmaster!
Right on!
That would be a great way to get Snowden back to the USA. I have very strong doubts that a President elected by the "people" would be prosecuted for treason, illegally disseminating classified documents, etc.
Oh contrare my fine feathered friend. In the actual functioning of government religion was specifically written OUT of the Constitution. And any contrary appearances was due entirely to accommodations made to the religious zealots in Congress. However, legally the Architects intended for the government to be a secular government with laws based upon the Constitution which was firmly grounded in "enlightenment" ideals. And the enlightenment ideals were an overt movement to crush (in large part) the rule of the clergy and the church (i.e. rule of God or the bible). That's why the founding of American form of representative democracy was viewed by the rest of the world as the "great experiment", government without God. And it is feeble argument to keep asserting that America was founded as a Christian nation. All comers were welcome in order to build a nation in which citizens were free to worship (or not) as they please. It is well known that Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and many others at the time were either deist, agnostic or atheist. Something the church consistently loves to ignore. Diplomacy is the art of government. And those Founding Fathers were far more concerned about holding an emerging nation together than the validity of any faith belief.
Yah, those guys. First of all, you (or anyone else) should realize the Declaration of Independence is not this country's LEGAL document. It was merely a statement claiming America was divorcing itself from British rule. There is very little in that document that is used as a framework for what happens legally or constitutionally in America. Second, the actual legal document, the Constitution, specifically states there is no religious test to hold public office. Government will accord no preference to religion (or interfere with its practice). There is NO "under God" "so help me God", "In God We Trust" or any other god phrase in the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution is essentially devoid of any reference to god except for the brief reference in the First Amendment. What does that tell you? It says the Architects wanted nothing to so with religion when it came to the functioning of secular government. Third, the federal legislative session prayer (and architectural frescoes) were merely an accommodation made to the religious zealots elected to Congress. Nothing in the Constitution called for it. That same Declaration of Independence you mention also states "all men are created equal" but slavery was permitted to continue as an accommodation for plantation owners. It was wrong then as it is now. And so is government showing ANY preference (seeming or factual) toward religion... period. The fact that the Supreme Court found in favor of religion doesn't make the decision correct, morally or legally. The courts have made many errors in the past and this is just another one to chalk up to their incompetence.
QUITE right. The case was Town of Greece (NY) v. Galloway. The town board allowed only Christian prayer at town meetings since 1999. Prior to that it was merely a moment of silence. By permitting only Christian prayer the litigant asserted the town was showing an obvious sectarian bias which is supposedly unconstitutional. However, in the Supreme Court ruling in May, the majority ruled that such prayer is permissible BECAUSE the court had ruled in the early 1980's in a similar case that prayer was permissible since prayer was permitted at the very first congressional session. As intelligent as justices view themselves, the majority opinion was ludicrous in that it demonstrated their own religious prejudices. First of all the majority justices failed to draw any distinction between state/federal legislative session and local government functions. At the state and federal legislative sessions the general public is admitted merely as observers/nonparticipants. Whereas local sessions are the exact opposite because that is where local residents take their government concerns such as zoning ordinances, budget matters, community health concerns, fire and law enforcement concerns, etc. etc. In other words, at local government meetings citizens are active participants and EVERYONE has a right to be treated equally and with respect as to their individual freedom of conscience choices. Secondly, the justices have failed (or purposely ignored) the fact that the chaplains allowed at the first congressional session (and ever since) was/is merely an accommodation to the more religiously extreme. Thus contradicting themselves in word and deed. After all, the actual Constitution clearly states the government will give no preference to religion. That is a legal document which holds more power than mere accommodations historically made. Another example, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly state that "all men are created equal" and that there is NO religious test for anyone to hold public office. Yet there were accommodations made at the time that allowed plantations owners to keep their slaves even though most northern representatives opposed slavery. Which ultimately led to the Civil War. It was morally wrong then as it is today. The same is true of religious preferences the Supreme Court seems inclined to view as perfectly natural thing for the government to do. Obviously because of their own prejudices and indoctrination. However, like slavery, it is morally reprehensible and someday a wiser and better educated court (or series of courts) will ultimately see the huge error made by this court and reverse the decision. Technically, there shouldn't even be "In God We Trust" on our currency, "so help me God" in swearing in ceremonies or for judicial witnesses, and no "under God" in our national pledge. All that came about by overzealous religious fanatics (and anti-communists) in the mid twentieth century. How is it America got along just fine without any of that crap for 230 years before it was wrongly changed?
Your own citation from Wikipedia clearly states that her preference was to leave the actual choice (to be or not to be) up to the individual and she was not a supporter to the Nazi style (or similar) euthanasia programs. Yes... it is possible to believe in one ideal but also realize that ideal is simply not practical because of other legal, social and psychological constraints. Thus... her approach of establishing clinics where women made the choice. Your world is perhaps too black and white. For example, I personally believe that gun ownership and carry should be easier to attain in many states than what it currently is. However I also recognize that my belief is not equally shared. But that would not prevent me from being politically active to change the social consciousness of those who disagree. I think Sanger did what she felt could be a workable solution to a difficult social problem while still having her own personal views. Ultimately she left the choice p to the individual which is exactly the way it should be.
Even though that alleged Russian criminal was indicted three years ago, might I suggest that the U.S. went to extreme measures to obtain possession of a prominent Russian for the ultimate purpose of executing an exchange with him for Snowden at some point. The U.S. would go to extremes to get their hands on Snowden and capturing a suspected Russian criminal who is related to a Russian MP would be classic international criminal exchanges.
That statement was asserted (by you) out of context. Sanger was referring to (a separate group) the eugenicists. She clearly goes on to explain that Planned Parenthood is focused upon providing women reproductive choice. Which is an altogether different matter.
Ludicrous... (science) does "vote". It's called scientific "consensus". And your comparison with Eugenics and Phrenology are lacking in scientific consensus. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that carbon emissions are a major factor in rising global temperatures. There is far less consensus on the validity of eugenics (although that may change with advances in genetic manipulation capabilities) and there is no consensus in the scientific professions that agree with the premises of Phrenology. That's not to say that scientific consensus is immutable as Newton and Einstein have demonstrated. But one can at any given time base reasonable conclusions upon the best available evidence and the consensus at the time of those who invest their time and knowledge in studying certain scientific fields. And please, don't assert the "argument from authority" fallacy. There is a difference and hierarchies of so-called "authorities". For example a politician could be considered an authority by virtue of their high social standing but it does not necessarily make them an authority in physics. Even individual scientists can disagree. What makes the difference is the scientific consensus.
It's flabbergasting from where you would draw such conclusions. The 2013 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers clearly concludes the climate temperatures have increased over the past 800,000 years and that recent decadal changes are directly related to anthropogenic carbon emissions (70%). The contradictions seem to only exist in your own mind. Literally every recent IPCC report (Including the 2014 SPM) clearly concludes anthropogenic activity is warming the planet in particular the upper 70 meters or so of the global oceans. http://ipcc.ch/
Agreed.
Saudi Arabia is only an ally insofar as we support (militarily) the royal Saudi family. Most Saudi Arabians loathe the United States. One reason being the Saudi family are nepotistic dictators, don't live according Arabian cultural and religious values and rule with an iron fist. The Arabian also are well aware of the fact that the Saudi family for many decades had a secret agreement with the U.S. for the U.S. military presence in Arabia was there to aid the royal family in controlling the masses in exchange for dirt cheap oil. At least until the OPEC nations pressured the royal family to join them in their embargo against the U.S. for their support of Israel.
That statement is the height of hubris and arrogance. Ever hear of the anthropological/sociological idea of "cultural relativism"? It not only applies to subgroups within a nation but also between nations/cultures. Generally speaking the idea is that different cultures live by different values. What might be a crime in one culture can be an accepted norm in another. It also implies that it is not the place of foreigners to impose their values on other cultures regardless of whether or not you were to view their values as offensive. It also implies that it is up to each nation or culture to change their own values from within. Only then with the general population accept such changes. You would have no right, morally or otherwise, to dictate norms to any other culture. Consider the equivalent of the Star Fleet Prime Directive.
The only reason the foreign occupiers triumphed over the Native Americans was due to the huge immigration from western Europe. In other words, the Indian population couldn't keep pace with the number of occupiers. However, generally speaking occupations do fail when the indigenous people greatly out number the occupiers. Thus, sending military forces into other countries are almost always destined to fail because the indigenous people WILL eventually rebel.
That's an understatement. Anyone in business, investing, banks, academia etc that DIDNT see it coming is incompetent. They knew, they rode the bull as long as it kept bucking, pocketed (for themselves) every cent they could and held their breath until the bull collapsed. Hardly a single person in a position to knowing what was going on has been prosecuted or found guilty of fraud. Reason? Free-markets are very accommodating to market manipulation, abuses of free speech (in other words outright lying), theft by deception, etc. Why? Because of the multilayered business structures, authority structures and the like which makes it very difficult to identify and prosecute individuals. Couple that with the fact that money buys power, and you have a system ripe for abuse. Government oversight is intended to limit such abuses but Congress for the past 25 years has scaled back banking/investment regulations, agency funding, etc. For the purposes of promoting the free-market. But one has to ask, compared to 40 years ago has the average consumer'a purchasing power increased or decreased. Not counting the widespread use of "credit". Because it is merely money you don't own and has to be paid back (with interest) to someone else. Thus in the final analysis borrowed money does not increase one's purchasing power it only put a them farther in debt. Which is why American's are the largest debtors in the world. Lifestyle is not necessarily reflective of one's wealth.
Really? The "free-market" premise is meaningless without the assumption that human behavior is predictable and "rational". Thus, all the irrational (unpredictable) human behavior has a long-term and unaccounted for effect. All the (blue9steel) attributes listed above are an equal part of the free-market because the free-market is just another way of describing human behavior. Free-market economic theory is fundamentally flawed because irrational behavior is unaccounted for and I would suggest consists of a majority of human behavior. In his their book, "Sway" Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman discuss and dissect the contents and degree of irrational behavior. Concluding that we are not as rational as we like to think of ourselves. In the book "Just How Stupid Are We" Rick Shenkman documents how easily our wants are manipulated by media. So much so that most of our decisions are not rational. And in "Kluge" by Gary Marcus he analyzes the working of the human mind, gives examples of how we constantly ignore what's in our best long-term interest for short term gains, etc. Plus there are numerous psychological studies (that big business is well aware of) that overall, people are poor rational thinkers, impulsive and easy to manipulate.
So which model is it that accounts for daily irrational decisions? The whole foundation to economics (prediction of economic behavior) is based upon the premise that people make rational economic choices. That MAY have been somewhat true 100 years ago when people didn't have all the choices they have now or when incomes were hard earned. Even Milton Friedman's "experiments" in South America were a disaster for those economies. People DON'T act rationally. And any theory that relies upon that assumption is inherently flawed. And if flawed in such a fundamental way, therefore they are practically useless.
You seem to paint only a positive picture of corporations. What about the "dark side"? Which the Constitution architects were well aware of because of their experiences with the corporate powers of the old "first world" nations like France and Great Britain (in particular). Those experiences with the likes of (example) the East India Company which had become not only a political arm of the wealthy British and the Parliament but also an "enforcement" agent of British law, taught the Constitutional framers that the accumulated wealth and power of corporations were something to be avoided. As a result the Constitution (with its amendments) was specifically crafted for the purposes of protecting individual rights (living, breathing, living, dying individuals as persons) not legal fictions that can survive in perpetuity (i.e. corporations). Thus, in the early years of the nee world nation the architects had a somewhat restricted view of the role of corporations. First, corporations were viewed as a temporary measure in which a group of investors came to get her to fulfill some economic purpose that government did not have the funds or taxing authority to do themselves. For example constructing a bridge. Second, investors were permitted to engage in an economic activity, pay for the costs of building, charge for access to the project to recoup their investment, plus some reasonable degree of profit to make the project appealing investment wise, then once those goals were achieved it was up to the states to revoke their corporate charter and convert the project to public access. That is the original easing we even have corporate charters in the first place. However, corporations were able to wrangle sufficient wealth and political power out of the courts that we have the behemoths we have today. Which the Founding Fathers would recognize as a failure on their part. They DID NOT want exactly what we have today, large, wealthy and powerful corporations capable of buying democracy for themselves as opposed to democracy of individual "people". America has lived under the corporate fiction for so long thanks to bought politicians and courts that they don't even know what the Founding Fathers were afraid of happening and that we now have.
Constitutional amendments are a cynical joke. The U.S. can't even pass a constitutional amendment ensuring gender equality (male v. female) in the job market. Also, the Constitution was designed by and for a relatively homogeneous culture (western European) not the "melting pot" it literally has become. There is so much cultural and political diversity and extremes, the modern U.S. is extremely unlikely to pass any other amendments in the foreseeable future. And that doesn't even address the entrenched power regimes in D.C. and the various state governing bodies. It is quite possible that any radical change in the future will come about by reason of force. Either in the part of government or the citizenry. In either case the parties engaged will require the means to conduct military action. Thus, armament of the masses may be a necessary "evil". Seething under the surface of America's overt optimism and hubris is a culture decaying due to the destruction of confidence in the political, judicial and economic systems. Even though the decay may not be immediately obvious, there is an undercurrent of perception that the "system" is a sinking ship. The result being... people taking matters into their own hands. And armament is viewed as a necessary ingredient. Aside from the bleeding heart gun banners who will never loose faith in the goodness of tyranny, most Americans don't see themselves struggling to reassert basic freedoms on par with the Syrian rebellion in which they had to launch their struggle for freedom with stones, Molotov cocktails, etc. Americans want to be somewhat prepared to redeploy guerrilla warfare if need be. As much as the world likes to think that enlightened minds will eventually guide humankind to a more peaceful world, that is far more naïve than the expectation of continued conflicts. Human nature can not be denied. And what is that nature? Self interest not altruism.