You are suffering from a rather selective memory, there. When radio came out, the music industry lost its mind, thinking that if you could hear a record on the radio, you'd never go to the store and buy it (WRONG!). They lost it again when recordable tapes came out, thinking that all the taping from the radio would end the industry, and we had to hear it from them again when CD-R came out-- the argument then being that CD quality is so much higher, that it's different than analog tapes.
I agree with many of your latter arguments, but anybody who's been working in radio the last thirty years can tell you, the people who control the music seem to wet their pants in fear every time ANYTHING changes, it wasn't just the world of P2P that changed everything.
Well you can't -not- edit out the hundreds of hours of recordings on a candidate. You'd just about have to have The media had their way with his image, but that's what they do, it's why they're the media. They have a lot of power.
The infamous "Dean scream" was the result of serious acoustic/recording problems, but what sounds better: admitting that or making the wild-eyed candidate look like a raging maniac? Besides, his support was gone after Saddam was captured, so there was no reason to make him look good anymore.
Sad, the workings of the world. We say we can vote with our pocketbooks, but our pocketbooks voted for Dean: He got more campaign money in the time he was running than Kerry has today. Bush and the media had their way with his corpse.
I don't steal, I'm just employed by the "illegal services industry--" they pay cash only, so I don't have to worry about being tracked-- but I hear the government is horning in on our business these days; at least you can't outsource the black market.
Does anyone seriously think they can stand up in a court of law and convince the judge that they deserve to have music for free
I seriously believe people can stand up in a court of law and convince a judge that this lawsuit scare tactic is just a way to continue keeping CD prices overly high, and that this sort of intimidation is illegal (sorry, I forget the specific name of what it is she's challenging under, but a woman sued by the RIAA is planning on going in with this defense, it's been covered on Slashdot). We're not demanding free music, we're demaning the right not to be bullied by corporations. I believe I have that right.
I very much understand civil disobedience, thanks, going back to colonists protesting the stamp act and other attempts by their government and the companies of the day to take money from them illegally, to people like Susan B. Anthony casting her ballot at a time when women could not vote, and facing jail for it. Civil disobedience means I think something is an injustice, I am willing to stand up for it, and I am willing to pay the penalties for my actions though they be unjust, should it come to that.
You really think that with your 25 cents on an album sale going to the artist is supporting them, especially for somebody who buys so little music? You want to help out an artist, go to concerts, where they get a fair profit for their work.
You, sir, are no music lover. Now, I'm going to give you that CD's somewhere in magical lala land cost $10, even though I'd say average price around here $17. At this ridiculously low price, I've shelled out more than $5000 to the industry, and that's nothing; I know many people with CD collections into the thousands. Maybe you don't listen to enough music to have it effect your bottom line, but it does mine.
Really, they're so unnecessary, huh? Then why did we put them in place? Could it be that without these things, we never would have recovered from the great depression-- a result of you're godsend of capitalism? People were talking about revolting against the government when 20 and 30 perecent of the population could not find work, and got no assistance, no help. It would have been the end of us without it; you take it away, it'll all fall down again. We need balance between these things.
This strikes as a "can't have it both ways" sort of argument. You see, the recording industry claims piracy is the big reason for the decrease in CD sales, not the cost of CD's or anything else. Well, in that case, it sounds like these people ARE their customer base.
If that is the case, it sounds an awful lot like alienating customers to me, since they apparently would have bought all the music the pirated.
On the other hand, if you're right, then CD sales have been dropping all on their precious little own, perhaps indicating that consumers (who apparently according to you aren't the same people as those pirating music) are fed up with the industry's practices regarding pricing and stifling of new talent.
Before somebody else jumps on my back, Dominick's is owned by Safeway-- It's the Jewel (other local chain) that Albertson's owns...all in all, really the same thing.
Well, the major chains here (owned by Safeway and Albertson's) both use them, and it's sort of a "well, fine, if you don't want them, go somewhere else." Living in a large city (Chicago), many people do because of the vast array of choices...but it's a hassle if you don't have a car, and a lot of people would rather walk to their neighborhood store than ride a bus halfway across town. So the stores seem to win out in doing this-- they hold onto enough business to not be disturbed.
In my time in Michigan, where Kroger and Meijer are the behemoths, they also both use the cards, and seem to get away with it fine. There aren't, in most places I've been throughout the state, very many local alternatives left. It sounds to be mostly a Minnesota thing-- I've never heard of it in Wisconsin either-- but it'd be great if that became a trend.
In a way I'm sure the use of credit cards does...I don't really think too horribly of using a credit card at a grocery store, because if you're tracking me that way you're not finding any pertinent information about me other than how to exploit somebody who buys lots of bologna and provolone cheese, and there's also no way to track everybody specifically via this-- too many people buy groceries on credit card to sift through these lists for any worthwhile information about terrorist investigations or what have you.
Some people will always pay cash for its anonimity, though, and these days it's definitely the only way I'm going to pay at bookstores and the like, where verifiable interests can be catologued. Once again, that's an awful lot of people and purchases for any agency to keep track of, but I'm a slashdotter...where would I be if not for my tinfoil hat?
Here, we have Dominick's, owned by the same people as Albertson's. My loyalty card is issued to one "Robert X Dole" and my address is for their purposes 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in DC. It's not horribly personal to me. I have, more recently, stopped shopping there at all in trade for alternative shopping venues such as Treasure Island and Whole Foods (corporate owned, but know this sort of thing would drive off their sort of customers). They didn't have that check box for us here, but it didn't matter. Even so, they're still able to track what a single shopper's purchases and orient prices to best suit their needs. It's also useful information to them in that a lot more money is made in the modern grocery store by the placement of in-store displays; the companies pour a lot of money to get their products featured prominently, and it comes out to a lot more than the cents-on-the-dollar from us consumers buying food.
Whenever asked my zipcode and phone number, as various stores now have a practice of doing, I tell them 90210 and (313) 867-5309. Or, alternately, "No."
My only concern is when technology like this takes away my right to give this sort of BS response. It's not exactly "speaking truth to power," but it's also not me going into somebody's database, and that's good enough. That's a lot of what they seem to be talking about, losing that anonimity, giving up my wallet in exchange for a chip that contains everything that's me, and "speeds up" the process. I like my wallet. I like the option of paying for things in cold, hard, untraceable cash when I want to.
I also resent the snooty "it's inevitable, deal with it" attitude of the article. Yeah, everything's inevitable like the pc and the cell phone. And Divx, and the eight track, and-- ohh, wait. No.
Politicians are controlled by those who give them money. That stated, a different, and more pleasant, set of people sponsor Kerry and are putting as much money as possible into defeating Bush (The Sierra Club and Moveon.org, for a couple examples of major groups involved in spending this time around).
Vote for Nader? No! Vote for me. You're doing just as much for your country, and your supposed conscience that makes you vote for a candidate that has no chance to win will feel EVEN BETTER knowing it's casting a vote for somebody who feels the need to be politically active the year round, rather than showing up on the political scene every four years to reap the benefits of my pro-consumer activism from years and years ago. I'm more leftist than he is, and I'm beholden to nobody, as nobody is giving me any money at all.
I can understand voting for the man in 2002 in an attempt to establish a third party, but right now he's running on his own, as an independent. All you're doing is ensuring a greater evil wins. You have the right to vote for whomever you choose-- feel free to put down Nader-- but know that you may as well be writing down your own name on that ballot, as you have just as good a chance to win as he does.
All the more reason to comment. There are infinitely more of 'us' than there are of 'them.' The simplest way to beat the system is to get as many people involved as possible: it takes a lot more manpower to raid the houses of a hundred thousand than of ten. If there's enough public dissent, whether or not we're written off, we can prevent them from going after others by showing number solidarity-- and when people look back, the history books won't say "...and nobody tried to help."
More seriously as to all of this, I am a little tired of the cynical view on issues, speaking as a cynic: My vote may or may not be actually counted, my opinion may or may not be listened to, I'm pretty sure they're probably not. Either way, though, isn't it worth a little effort, and a little fight, just to try? If you're right, sure, your efforts amount to nothing-- but why not give it a try, just in case you may be wrong?
Just because you're cynical doesn't mean you have to be apathetic.
Laws are by and large reactionary to the times. With the exception of things like laws against obvious crime (theft, murder), most of these 'just' laws are the result of people doing things against them.
Child labor laws were passed specifically because there were people in this country who could not afford to feed themselves and their children unless they sent them off to work. They didn't necessarily want to, but they had no choice. Among poor families, it still goes on today at some levels (I know some very poor folk, for example, who have seven kids, and each works a paper route along with any other employment they might have, even those too young to 'work' technically, since paper routes are legal for kids under working age). Sure, the rich don't send their kids off to work-- if you're able to support your kid all the way through college without them putting in a dime, you're either pretty well off or amassing quite the debt-- but people back then with the money to keep their children at home did so as well.
Now, the economy is tanking at current, and a lot of people are desparate for whatever they can get. Let this go on another ten years, and who knows, maybe we'll be back in that situation again. I know I'm being extreme, but I'm trying to illustrate the point of why these laws were passed. It's not just because it's "common sense." It goes the same for safe working conditions-- we have not always had the option of going to work somewhere safe, and if there are not laws in place to protect us, we cannot say that we always will.
I agree with you on the ideas, but the military does not work that way. I am morally opposed to having any involvement with the military, for the exact reason you stated, but that is not what the army means when they talk about CO status.
Conscientious objectors by military status were offered jobs doing things that were not essentially "military based," such as those above. What they believed and what they were offered are two different things. If you were to claim CO status, they could still assign you to non-combative positions. If you were to object to all offered positions, you could be effectively thrown in prison. Some people chose this route during Vietnam, rather than fleeing or being compliant with the government's demands for service.
2 years of military duty might teach our nations emerging adults a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness.
Sure! And two years of work at dead end Wal-mart and McDonald's entry level positions will teach our nation's older generations a thing or two about humility, money management (how to live on a lot less), and the importance of groveling to superiors even when you're right.
I'll go to boot camp for a couple years, and when I come back I get to yell and scream at you that my burger has onions on it while you smile and apologize. Good deal?
I know people who've bent over backwards trying to deal with dishonorable discharge issues, who at least felt it was the black mark on their record the military says it is. Your milage may vary, and as you said if you have a legitimate reason for that discharge, most people are probably going to be fairly understanding.
I agree and I disagree with your second assertation. Ghandi would never tell you to kill anybody-- there would be no need for a military under his leadership: he didn't believe that violence solved problems ("An eye for an eye would only make the whole world blind"). He believed in reasoning with the sense of decency that most people have, instead. We've never really tried this style of diplomacy, so we can't really know what the results would be. It'd be an interesting experiment, though, and it is bothersome to me that the rich send in the troops and the poor fight the wars. It's very easy to be "brave" with the secret service following you around.
Given that the winner takes over leadership of a virtual government in a virtual city in a virtual world, one might wonder whether there's anything to take seriously here.
A conscientious objector would probably not be able to get out of things like language translation or computer maitenance, as these aren't military jobs in the first place.
If you really don't want to serve in any position in the military during a draft, your options are basically A. prove yourself unfit for service B. run away to where you won't be found until it passes or C. Spend a couple years in jail, as some who refused to work in the conscientous objector positions they were offered chose during Vietnam.
There are usually other outs (students, people who do great works in the community, etc), but we'd have to wait for a draft to be enacted to know what would and would not be allowed this time.
Historically, that doesn't work during draft times. If you're already in the military, It's also rather often a dishonorable discharge-- not a good thing to have on your record, believe me.
It seems to vary from place to place. I can tell you that eating at the Naval Academy in Annapolis for a while is enough to make boiled boots seem appetizing.
1. It's not 'selfish' to vote your conscience, unless you believe in Utilitarianism (in which case a hell of a lot of things make us all pretty damn selfish in this country). It's my right to vote for whomever I so choose.
2. Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, and around 8 in 1996. Nader won 1% of the vote in 2000 (he also won 1% in 1996, but nobody seems to remember him, he didn't campaign near so hard). As independent candidates go, particularly for somebody with the huge early support and mass campaigning that Nader did, 1% is piddly. A lot of people thought it was better to keep Bush out of the white house than vote independent in this case.
3. Had one county in Florida not had an illegal ballot, Gore would have won despite Nader. Over 2,000 people in a largely liberal, Jewish dominated community voted for a man who denied the holocaust-- Pat Buchanan. That's compared to an average of around 400 people per county in the rest of Florida-- most of Florida's other counties being less populated and more conservative. On top of the fact that the vote was clearly screwed up by the ballot, it's illegal to put anybody but the top two candidates in the top two slots on a ballot, so the whole election in that county should have been invalidated and redone. Had it, Gore would have won the election.
3. Calling people "selfish" and "out of touch with reality" isn't really a compelling argument, they're just words to justify your opinion.
I agree, it is sad that we're ruled by two nearly identical political parties, but I understand why people vote R or D instead of opening their minds-- just turn on the news. How was Ralph Nader painted during the past election? It's very similar to the way Kucinich has been throughout his DNC nomination campaign. They tell people that these guys don't have a chance to win, and people believe it. It's positively frightening how many people vote based on who they think will win-- not who they want, mind you, but who they think other people are going to vote for.
You have to keep in mind, too, that many politicians wear the badges of democrat/republican because people will vote for them then-- a lot of candidates for both parties are way away from the party line in one direction or the other, but there's no special effort of accounting for this.
Me, I'm not voting for Nader because he's not my ideal candidate any more so than whomever the DNC will pick.
I'm always a little amused and a little disturbed when people talk about all those votes Nader 'stole' from Gore, as if obviously all Green party members would have voted for him if Nader hadn't run-- instead of voting for another 3rd party candidate, declining to vote for president, or writing in; or even *gasp* voting for Bush! It's like average joe Democrat thinks the Green party are all Borg, assimilated solely from their ranks.
But who knows? The voter turnout for 18- to 24-year-olds in the 2000 election was 9 percent. Nobody cares anyway.
I'm just curious, where does this number comes from? I had heard some figures, but none as low as this-- I'd love to see some statistics about who votes and who doesn't.
Also, about your sig: Bob the Angry Flower rocks, and Slashdot would do well to heed his grammatical advice.
Slashdot Mirror
You are suffering from a rather selective memory, there. When radio came out, the music industry lost its mind, thinking that if you could hear a record on the radio, you'd never go to the store and buy it (WRONG!). They lost it again when recordable tapes came out, thinking that all the taping from the radio would end the industry, and we had to hear it from them again when CD-R came out-- the argument then being that CD quality is so much higher, that it's different than analog tapes.
I agree with many of your latter arguments, but anybody who's been working in radio the last thirty years can tell you, the people who control the music seem to wet their pants in fear every time ANYTHING changes, it wasn't just the world of P2P that changed everything.
Well you can't -not- edit out the hundreds of hours of recordings on a candidate. You'd just about have to have The media had their way with his image, but that's what they do, it's why they're the media. They have a lot of power.
The infamous "Dean scream" was the result of serious acoustic/recording problems, but what sounds better: admitting that or making the wild-eyed candidate look like a raging maniac? Besides, his support was gone after Saddam was captured, so there was no reason to make him look good anymore.
Sad, the workings of the world. We say we can vote with our pocketbooks, but our pocketbooks voted for Dean: He got more campaign money in the time he was running than Kerry has today. Bush and the media had their way with his corpse.
Man, What state has that law?
I think I'm gonna move.
Sir, I notice you have recieved a five in moderation. I would like to present you with this new Fedora.
I don't steal, I'm just employed by the "illegal services industry--" they pay cash only, so I don't have to worry about being tracked-- but I hear the government is horning in on our business these days; at least you can't outsource the black market.
Does anyone seriously think they can stand up in a court of law and convince the judge that they deserve to have music for free
I seriously believe people can stand up in a court of law and convince a judge that this lawsuit scare tactic is just a way to continue keeping CD prices overly high, and that this sort of intimidation is illegal (sorry, I forget the specific name of what it is she's challenging under, but a woman sued by the RIAA is planning on going in with this defense, it's been covered on Slashdot). We're not demanding free music, we're demaning the right not to be bullied by corporations. I believe I have that right.
I very much understand civil disobedience, thanks, going back to colonists protesting the stamp act and other attempts by their government and the companies of the day to take money from them illegally, to people like Susan B. Anthony casting her ballot at a time when women could not vote, and facing jail for it. Civil disobedience means I think something is an injustice, I am willing to stand up for it, and I am willing to pay the penalties for my actions though they be unjust, should it come to that.
You really think that with your 25 cents on an album sale going to the artist is supporting them, especially for somebody who buys so little music? You want to help out an artist, go to concerts, where they get a fair profit for their work.
You, sir, are no music lover. Now, I'm going to give you that CD's somewhere in magical lala land cost $10, even though I'd say average price around here $17. At this ridiculously low price, I've shelled out more than $5000 to the industry, and that's nothing; I know many people with CD collections into the thousands. Maybe you don't listen to enough music to have it effect your bottom line, but it does mine.
Really, they're so unnecessary, huh? Then why did we put them in place? Could it be that without these things, we never would have recovered from the great depression-- a result of you're godsend of capitalism? People were talking about revolting against the government when 20 and 30 perecent of the population could not find work, and got no assistance, no help. It would have been the end of us without it; you take it away, it'll all fall down again. We need balance between these things.
This strikes as a "can't have it both ways" sort of argument. You see, the recording industry claims piracy is the big reason for the decrease in CD sales, not the cost of CD's or anything else. Well, in that case, it sounds like these people ARE their customer base.
If that is the case, it sounds an awful lot like alienating customers to me, since they apparently would have bought all the music the pirated.
On the other hand, if you're right, then CD sales have been dropping all on their precious little own, perhaps indicating that consumers (who apparently according to you aren't the same people as those pirating music) are fed up with the industry's practices regarding pricing and stifling of new talent.
Before somebody else jumps on my back, Dominick's is owned by Safeway-- It's the Jewel (other local chain) that Albertson's owns...all in all, really the same thing.
Well, the major chains here (owned by Safeway and Albertson's) both use them, and it's sort of a "well, fine, if you don't want them, go somewhere else." Living in a large city (Chicago), many people do because of the vast array of choices...but it's a hassle if you don't have a car, and a lot of people would rather walk to their neighborhood store than ride a bus halfway across town. So the stores seem to win out in doing this-- they hold onto enough business to not be disturbed.
In my time in Michigan, where Kroger and Meijer are the behemoths, they also both use the cards, and seem to get away with it fine. There aren't, in most places I've been throughout the state, very many local alternatives left. It sounds to be mostly a Minnesota thing-- I've never heard of it in Wisconsin either-- but it'd be great if that became a trend.
In a way I'm sure the use of credit cards does...I don't really think too horribly of using a credit card at a grocery store, because if you're tracking me that way you're not finding any pertinent information about me other than how to exploit somebody who buys lots of bologna and provolone cheese, and there's also no way to track everybody specifically via this-- too many people buy groceries on credit card to sift through these lists for any worthwhile information about terrorist investigations or what have you.
Some people will always pay cash for its anonimity, though, and these days it's definitely the only way I'm going to pay at bookstores and the like, where verifiable interests can be catologued. Once again, that's an awful lot of people and purchases for any agency to keep track of, but I'm a slashdotter...where would I be if not for my tinfoil hat?
Here, we have Dominick's, owned by the same people as Albertson's. My loyalty card is issued to one "Robert X Dole" and my address is for their purposes 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in DC. It's not horribly personal to me. I have, more recently, stopped shopping there at all in trade for alternative shopping venues such as Treasure Island and Whole Foods (corporate owned, but know this sort of thing would drive off their sort of customers). They didn't have that check box for us here, but it didn't matter. Even so, they're still able to track what a single shopper's purchases and orient prices to best suit their needs. It's also useful information to them in that a lot more money is made in the modern grocery store by the placement of in-store displays; the companies pour a lot of money to get their products featured prominently, and it comes out to a lot more than the cents-on-the-dollar from us consumers buying food.
Whenever asked my zipcode and phone number, as various stores now have a practice of doing, I tell them 90210 and (313) 867-5309. Or, alternately, "No."
My only concern is when technology like this takes away my right to give this sort of BS response. It's not exactly "speaking truth to power," but it's also not me going into somebody's database, and that's good enough. That's a lot of what they seem to be talking about, losing that anonimity, giving up my wallet in exchange for a chip that contains everything that's me, and "speeds up" the process. I like my wallet. I like the option of paying for things in cold, hard, untraceable cash when I want to.
I also resent the snooty "it's inevitable, deal with it" attitude of the article. Yeah, everything's inevitable like the pc and the cell phone. And Divx, and the eight track, and-- ohh, wait. No.
Politicians are controlled by those who give them money. That stated, a different, and more pleasant, set of people sponsor Kerry and are putting as much money as possible into defeating Bush (The Sierra Club and Moveon.org, for a couple examples of major groups involved in spending this time around).
Vote for Nader? No! Vote for me. You're doing just as much for your country, and your supposed conscience that makes you vote for a candidate that has no chance to win will feel EVEN BETTER knowing it's casting a vote for somebody who feels the need to be politically active the year round, rather than showing up on the political scene every four years to reap the benefits of my pro-consumer activism from years and years ago. I'm more leftist than he is, and I'm beholden to nobody, as nobody is giving me any money at all.
I can understand voting for the man in 2002 in an attempt to establish a third party, but right now he's running on his own, as an independent. All you're doing is ensuring a greater evil wins. You have the right to vote for whomever you choose-- feel free to put down Nader-- but know that you may as well be writing down your own name on that ballot, as you have just as good a chance to win as he does.
All the more reason to comment. There are infinitely more of 'us' than there are of 'them.' The simplest way to beat the system is to get as many people involved as possible: it takes a lot more manpower to raid the houses of a hundred thousand than of ten. If there's enough public dissent, whether or not we're written off, we can prevent them from going after others by showing number solidarity-- and when people look back, the history books won't say "...and nobody tried to help."
More seriously as to all of this, I am a little tired of the cynical view on issues, speaking as a cynic: My vote may or may not be actually counted, my opinion may or may not be listened to, I'm pretty sure they're probably not. Either way, though, isn't it worth a little effort, and a little fight, just to try? If you're right, sure, your efforts amount to nothing-- but why not give it a try, just in case you may be wrong?
Just because you're cynical doesn't mean you have to be apathetic.
Laws are by and large reactionary to the times. With the exception of things like laws against obvious crime (theft, murder), most of these 'just' laws are the result of people doing things against them.
Child labor laws were passed specifically because there were people in this country who could not afford to feed themselves and their children unless they sent them off to work. They didn't necessarily want to, but they had no choice. Among poor families, it still goes on today at some levels (I know some very poor folk, for example, who have seven kids, and each works a paper route along with any other employment they might have, even those too young to 'work' technically, since paper routes are legal for kids under working age). Sure, the rich don't send their kids off to work-- if you're able to support your kid all the way through college without them putting in a dime, you're either pretty well off or amassing quite the debt-- but people back then with the money to keep their children at home did so as well.
Now, the economy is tanking at current, and a lot of people are desparate for whatever they can get. Let this go on another ten years, and who knows, maybe we'll be back in that situation again. I know I'm being extreme, but I'm trying to illustrate the point of why these laws were passed. It's not just because it's "common sense." It goes the same for safe working conditions-- we have not always had the option of going to work somewhere safe, and if there are not laws in place to protect us, we cannot say that we always will.
I agree with you on the ideas, but the military does not work that way. I am morally opposed to having any involvement with the military, for the exact reason you stated, but that is not what the army means when they talk about CO status.
Conscientious objectors by military status were offered jobs doing things that were not essentially "military based," such as those above. What they believed and what they were offered are two different things. If you were to claim CO status, they could still assign you to non-combative positions. If you were to object to all offered positions, you could be effectively thrown in prison. Some people chose this route during Vietnam, rather than fleeing or being compliant with the government's demands for service.
2 years of military duty might teach our nations emerging adults a thing or two about self disipline, respect, hard work, and preparedness.
Sure! And two years of work at dead end Wal-mart and McDonald's entry level positions will teach our nation's older generations a thing or two about humility, money management (how to live on a lot less), and the importance of groveling to superiors even when you're right.
I'll go to boot camp for a couple years, and when I come back I get to yell and scream at you that my burger has onions on it while you smile and apologize. Good deal?
I know people who've bent over backwards trying to deal with dishonorable discharge issues, who at least felt it was the black mark on their record the military says it is. Your milage may vary, and as you said if you have a legitimate reason for that discharge, most people are probably going to be fairly understanding.
I agree and I disagree with your second assertation. Ghandi would never tell you to kill anybody-- there would be no need for a military under his leadership: he didn't believe that violence solved problems ("An eye for an eye would only make the whole world blind"). He believed in reasoning with the sense of decency that most people have, instead. We've never really tried this style of diplomacy, so we can't really know what the results would be. It'd be an interesting experiment, though, and it is bothersome to me that the rich send in the troops and the poor fight the wars. It's very easy to be "brave" with the secret service following you around.
From the article itself:
Given that the winner takes over leadership of a virtual government in a virtual city in a virtual world, one might wonder whether there's anything to take seriously here.
Gee, really?
Gay marriage, legalized marijuana, and socialized healthcare? Sure, you got it! I'm willing to give up huge portions of my salary for that. See ya!
A conscientious objector would probably not be able to get out of things like language translation or computer maitenance, as these aren't military jobs in the first place.
If you really don't want to serve in any position in the military during a draft, your options are basically A. prove yourself unfit for service B. run away to where you won't be found until it passes or C. Spend a couple years in jail, as some who refused to work in the conscientous objector positions they were offered chose during Vietnam.
There are usually other outs (students, people who do great works in the community, etc), but we'd have to wait for a draft to be enacted to know what would and would not be allowed this time.
Historically, that doesn't work during draft times. If you're already in the military, It's also rather often a dishonorable discharge-- not a good thing to have on your record, believe me.
It seems to vary from place to place. I can tell you that eating at the Naval Academy in Annapolis for a while is enough to make boiled boots seem appetizing.
A couple points:
1. It's not 'selfish' to vote your conscience, unless you believe in Utilitarianism (in which case a hell of a lot of things make us all pretty damn selfish in this country). It's my right to vote for whomever I so choose.
2. Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, and around 8 in 1996. Nader won 1% of the vote in 2000 (he also won 1% in 1996, but nobody seems to remember him, he didn't campaign near so hard). As independent candidates go, particularly for somebody with the huge early support and mass campaigning that Nader did, 1% is piddly. A lot of people thought it was better to keep Bush out of the white house than vote independent in this case.
3. Had one county in Florida not had an illegal ballot, Gore would have won despite Nader. Over 2,000 people in a largely liberal, Jewish dominated community voted for a man who denied the holocaust-- Pat Buchanan. That's compared to an average of around 400 people per county in the rest of Florida-- most of Florida's other counties being less populated and more conservative. On top of the fact that the vote was clearly screwed up by the ballot, it's illegal to put anybody but the top two candidates in the top two slots on a ballot, so the whole election in that county should have been invalidated and redone. Had it, Gore would have won the election.
3. Calling people "selfish" and "out of touch with reality" isn't really a compelling argument, they're just words to justify your opinion.
According to exit polls, Gore won Florida, too. You'll have to excuse my skepticism.
I agree, it is sad that we're ruled by two nearly identical political parties, but I understand why people vote R or D instead of opening their minds-- just turn on the news. How was Ralph Nader painted during the past election? It's very similar to the way Kucinich has been throughout his DNC nomination campaign. They tell people that these guys don't have a chance to win, and people believe it. It's positively frightening how many people vote based on who they think will win-- not who they want, mind you, but who they think other people are going to vote for.
You have to keep in mind, too, that many politicians wear the badges of democrat/republican because people will vote for them then-- a lot of candidates for both parties are way away from the party line in one direction or the other, but there's no special effort of accounting for this.
Me, I'm not voting for Nader because he's not my ideal candidate any more so than whomever the DNC will pick.
I'm always a little amused and a little disturbed when people talk about all those votes Nader 'stole' from Gore, as if obviously all Green party members would have voted for him if Nader hadn't run-- instead of voting for another 3rd party candidate, declining to vote for president, or writing in; or even *gasp* voting for Bush! It's like average joe Democrat thinks the Green party are all Borg, assimilated solely from their ranks.
But who knows? The voter turnout for 18- to 24-year-olds in the 2000 election was 9 percent. Nobody cares anyway.
I'm just curious, where does this number comes from? I had heard some figures, but none as low as this-- I'd love to see some statistics about who votes and who doesn't.
Also, about your sig: Bob the Angry Flower rocks, and Slashdot would do well to heed his grammatical advice.