First off, being a superpower means being all the world's neighbors. Don't forget that around 1/3 of our military is stationed outside our borders.
Secondly, why bother nuking either Mexico or Canada? It's not worth the price of the warheads. There are far less expensive and more insidious ways to subjugate a nation, especially two that desparately want your business.
Oh noes! A typo! And because my right hand was faster than my left for an instant, transposing two near-identical letters, that means I don't know how to spell the acronym for Democratic People'a Republic of Korea! Thanks for saving me from my ignorance!
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States(.)"
Utah cannot establish a theocracy because the Utah legislature is prevented from "respecting an establishment of religion" by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is why there's the whole debacle concerning the display of the Ten Commandments on state courthouse grounds.
Except those restrictions, a state government can be whatever the people want. So long as it maintained its republicanism, a state could set up a communist government if it wanted to, a facist government, or anything in between, so long as it didn't do things like mandate atheism (establishment of religion) or ban political parties (right of the people peacably to assemble).
Totalitarianism is allowed, just not that particular flavor.
Speaking as someone who's been accused of being a right-wing nutcase, it's not that states should be able to ban things the feds aren't allowed to touched, but that laws that have the potential to do the most harm should be enacted and enforced in as small and compact a community as possible.
In small nations the scrutiny of society penetrates into every part, and the spirit of improvement enters into the most trifling details; as the ambition of the people is necessarily checked by its weakness, all the efforts and resources of the citizens are turned to the internal benefit of the community, and are not likely to evaporate in the fleeting breath of glory. The desires of every individual are limited, because extraordinary faculties are rarely to be met with. The gifts of an equal fortune render the various conditions of life uniform; and the manners of the inhabitants are orderly and simple. Thus, if we estimate the gradations of popular morality and enlightenment, we shall generally find that in small nations there are more persons in easy circumstances, a more numerous population, and a more tranquil state of society than in great empires.
When tyranny is established in the bosom of a small nation, it is more galling than elsewhere, because, as it acts within a narrow circle, every point of that circle is subject to its direct influence. It supplies the place of those great designs which it cannot entertain, by a violent or an exasperating interference in a multitude of minute details; and it leaves the political world to which it properly belongs, to meddle with the arrangements of domestic life. Tastes as well as actions are to be regulated at its pleasure; and the families of the citizens as well as the affairs of the state are to be governed by its decisions. This invasion of rights occurs, however, but seldom, and freedom is in truth the natural state of small communities. The temptations which the government offers to ambition are too weak, and the resources of private individuals are too slender, for the sovereign power easily to fall within the grasp of a single citizen: and should such an event have occurred, the subjects of the state can without difficulty overthrow the tyrant and his oppression by a simultaneous effort.
Small nations have therefore ever been the cradles of political liberty: and the fact that many of them have lost their immunities by extending their dominion, shows that the freedom they enjoyed was more a consequence of their inferior size than of the character of the people.
It isn't that bad laws are "more right" in smaller communities, it is that they're more easily corrected. Federal laws, by their nature, not only have the potential to do wrong but also the potential for the harm to go unnoticed by the masses. One of the main reason we have a federal framework that allows state autonomy is to avoid such travesties.
If segregation were a national policy instead of a state policy, if there was no moral high ground in the United States to march on Selma from, do you think it would have ended? Before answering, consider that South Africa is both smaller than us and has a black majority, and yet the national policy of Apartheid lasted until the 1990's.
That was back when it took a constitutional amendment to ban the production and/or consumption of anything nationwide. Be sure to thank Congress and the Supreme Court for the extension of federal powers since then.
"intellegent life in our own system would probably cause mayhem and panic among the populace!"
I doubt that. We 0wnz0r the star system. I suspect if there was any other species capable of launching a Sputnik (let alone a Pioneer), we'd know by now. Finding other sentients in the system would cause as much panic and mayhem as finding natives in the Americas and South Pacific caused panic and mayhem in Europe.
Though I do admit the concept of homo sapiens being the advanced ones scares me...
Speaking of kiwis and fission, how's your election going?
Seriously, I can understand and respect the "no nuclear weapons" stance, but the "no nuclear-powered vessels/no fission at all" stance just strikes me as silly.
" Suppose there is intelligent life in there, what will they think of earth creatures?"
Drop a radio transceiver onto the surface and we can talk about it.
Seriously, since FTL won't be happening in my lifetime, I kinda hope we find some sort of intelligent life elsewhere in our neighborhood to give space exploration a kick in the pants.
All we really know right now is nobody else around is using radio, but radio wouldn't even work all that well in some of the environments that have the potential to host some sort of life.
"Microsoft brought computing to the masses (what's wrong with that?)"
No, I'd say that was IBM, or maybe Apple. Try again.
"Microsoft made lots of money by being good at what they do (what's wrong with that?)"
Making money in and of itself is neutral, the question is what exactly you're exchanging for the money. For example, murder for hire is generally considered "bad." Microsoft didn't "bring computing to the masses," the software they produce only supplanted other wildly popular applications that did the real work of "bringing application X to the masses" (WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Netscape, etc.). And it is the way they supplanted many of them, by abusing monopoly powers, that made them money. So, yes, it is bad.
"Microsoft made computers easy to use (what's wrong with that?)"
For what use? How does having to go through a three-step process just to turn the silly things off make it "easy to use?"
"Microsoft is powerful and is led by the charitable Mr. Gates (what's wrong with that?)"
Again, the transfer of money in and of itself is neutral. The question is why these charities exist. Is it because of genuine philanthropy, or is it to get the IRS off his back?
"Why? It's a loophole, and Lucent has exploited it marvelously."
Only until the patent holders start raising the constitutional issues. The constitution specifically states that the patent-holders are entitled to the exclusive right to their inventions, and the Fourteenth Amendment reiterates that the patent-holders are entitled to the equal protection of their rights. No act of Congress or "executive privilege" can get around what is defined as "the supreme law of the land."
If they can't sue Lucent for patent violations, they should be entitled to sue the federal government for failing to do its job.
"John Dvorak has written an article for MarketWatch in which he postulates that the reorganization by Microsoft is actually a prelude to its breakup into three separate entities."
As if Ma Microsoft wasn't enough, I just can't wait to see a Verizon or an SBC running around in the software business.
You're forgetting the fatigue that false positives bring. There are a finite number of non-terrorists that the police inspect before they develop a Pavlovlian fatigue and laziness ("The last 28 people we've investigated in the past two days were false alarms, why should this one be any different?")
If this keeps up, it's only a matter of time before a third kind of story pop up: Suicide bomber was investigated and released shortly before detonnating himself.
You do realize, of course, that you're supporting this mentality by continuing to give Blizzard money. Simply bitching and moaning before logging on to WoW won't change a thing, except maybe to encourage more behavior like this.
"And yet after only 50 years Japan is one of the strongest democracies in the world."
Japan is a special case. They've been trying to emulate the West to outperform us since their rude awakening in 1853, and their government by the beginning of the Twentieth Century resembled any of the major nations of Europe.
Unless the government and the Beloved Party is painted as the provider of all those creature comforts. People only really care about freedom so long as they're free to get their creature comforts, then they're done.
Europe's democratic/republican traditions came from Greece, which Rome tried to emulate to a degree. But then the Western Roman Empire collapsed, triggering several centuries of "If it's not Catholic it's CRAP!" thinking in Europe, ignoring the various schools of Greek philosophy that the ideals were based on until the Renaissance.
All during that time, Greece was under the thumb of Constantinople, which fell to the Ottomans. Greek thought flourished in the Middle East, preserving all the books the Catholic church saw fit to burn. They had several centuries worth of head start on us.
So what happened? Too many people got hooked on the idea of the divine right of Saud? Heck, most of those ancient Greek books they preserved not too long ago are now denounced as herecy (not even the US has gotten that bad yet). The best I can figure is that Islam has yet to have a bloody experience like the Reformation to make them think that having mosque and state married to each other maybe isn't such a good idea. But even then, it seems to be cultural differences that allowed the Reformation to happen to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, being a superpower means being all the world's neighbors. Don't forget that around 1/3 of our military is stationed outside our borders.
Secondly, why bother nuking either Mexico or Canada? It's not worth the price of the warheads. There are far less expensive and more insidious ways to subjugate a nation, especially two that desparately want your business.
Oh noes! A typo! And because my right hand was faster than my left for an instant, transposing two near-identical letters, that means I don't know how to spell the acronym for Democratic People'a Republic of Korea! Thanks for saving me from my ignorance!
</sarcasm>
Of course it's ROK. DRPK couldn't afford the electricity to charge the batteries on one of these death machines.
Except those restrictions, a state government can be whatever the people want. So long as it maintained its republicanism, a state could set up a communist government if it wanted to, a facist government, or anything in between, so long as it didn't do things like mandate atheism (establishment of religion) or ban political parties (right of the people peacably to assemble).
Totalitarianism is allowed, just not that particular flavor.
He never said "right."
Speaking as someone who's been accused of being a right-wing nutcase, it's not that states should be able to ban things the feds aren't allowed to touched, but that laws that have the potential to do the most harm should be enacted and enforced in as small and compact a community as possible.It isn't that bad laws are "more right" in smaller communities, it is that they're more easily corrected. Federal laws, by their nature, not only have the potential to do wrong but also the potential for the harm to go unnoticed by the masses. One of the main reason we have a federal framework that allows state autonomy is to avoid such travesties.
If segregation were a national policy instead of a state policy, if there was no moral high ground in the United States to march on Selma from, do you think it would have ended? Before answering, consider that South Africa is both smaller than us and has a black majority, and yet the national policy of Apartheid lasted until the 1990's.
That was back when it took a constitutional amendment to ban the production and/or consumption of anything nationwide. Be sure to thank Congress and the Supreme Court for the extension of federal powers since then.
If Congress grants rights to a patent, they must be exclusive, because those are the only kinds of IP rights that Congress is allowed to grant.
And the Equal Protection Clause says that "exclusive" has to mean just that.
"intellegent life in our own system would probably cause mayhem and panic among the populace!"
I doubt that. We 0wnz0r the star system. I suspect if there was any other species capable of launching a Sputnik (let alone a Pioneer), we'd know by now. Finding other sentients in the system would cause as much panic and mayhem as finding natives in the Americas and South Pacific caused panic and mayhem in Europe.
Though I do admit the concept of homo sapiens being the advanced ones scares me...
Speaking of kiwis and fission, how's your election going?
Seriously, I can understand and respect the "no nuclear weapons" stance, but the "no nuclear-powered vessels/no fission at all" stance just strikes me as silly.
" Suppose there is intelligent life in there, what will they think of earth creatures?"
Drop a radio transceiver onto the surface and we can talk about it.
Seriously, since FTL won't be happening in my lifetime, I kinda hope we find some sort of intelligent life elsewhere in our neighborhood to give space exploration a kick in the pants.
All we really know right now is nobody else around is using radio, but radio wouldn't even work all that well in some of the environments that have the potential to host some sort of life.
Only if you consider labor relations to be a game.
" They'll take it to that crazy old guy in the corner house with uncut grass in his lawn,"
His mom hasn't bugged him enough about mowing yet.
Nah, he'll wait a week before responding. The new Joint Chiefs, affectionally known as "Brownie," will be on top of everything.
"Microsoft brought computing to the masses (what's wrong with that?)"
No, I'd say that was IBM, or maybe Apple. Try again.
"Microsoft made lots of money by being good at what they do (what's wrong with that?)"
Making money in and of itself is neutral, the question is what exactly you're exchanging for the money. For example, murder for hire is generally considered "bad." Microsoft didn't "bring computing to the masses," the software they produce only supplanted other wildly popular applications that did the real work of "bringing application X to the masses" (WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Netscape, etc.). And it is the way they supplanted many of them, by abusing monopoly powers, that made them money. So, yes, it is bad.
"Microsoft made computers easy to use (what's wrong with that?)"
For what use? How does having to go through a three-step process just to turn the silly things off make it "easy to use?"
"Microsoft is powerful and is led by the charitable Mr. Gates (what's wrong with that?)"
Again, the transfer of money in and of itself is neutral. The question is why these charities exist. Is it because of genuine philanthropy, or is it to get the IRS off his back?
IANAL
"Why? It's a loophole, and Lucent has exploited it marvelously."
Only until the patent holders start raising the constitutional issues. The constitution specifically states that the patent-holders are entitled to the exclusive right to their inventions, and the Fourteenth Amendment reiterates that the patent-holders are entitled to the equal protection of their rights. No act of Congress or "executive privilege" can get around what is defined as "the supreme law of the land."
If they can't sue Lucent for patent violations, they should be entitled to sue the federal government for failing to do its job.
"John Dvorak has written an article for MarketWatch in which he postulates that the reorganization by Microsoft is actually a prelude to its breakup into three separate entities."
As if Ma Microsoft wasn't enough, I just can't wait to see a Verizon or an SBC running around in the software business.
You're forgetting the fatigue that false positives bring. There are a finite number of non-terrorists that the police inspect before they develop a Pavlovlian fatigue and laziness ("The last 28 people we've investigated in the past two days were false alarms, why should this one be any different?")
If this keeps up, it's only a matter of time before a third kind of story pop up: Suicide bomber was investigated and released shortly before detonnating himself.
And yet the Almighty still types things like "ZOMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!1!1!!!one!"
"Believe it's true?" How? You can't even believe it's false, there's no content there to believe or disbelieve. It's white noise disguised as English.
"I'm just disgusted at these responses."
You do realize, of course, that you're supporting this mentality by continuing to give Blizzard money. Simply bitching and moaning before logging on to WoW won't change a thing, except maybe to encourage more behavior like this.
"And yet after only 50 years Japan is one of the strongest democracies in the world."
Japan is a special case. They've been trying to emulate the West to outperform us since their rude awakening in 1853, and their government by the beginning of the Twentieth Century resembled any of the major nations of Europe.
China, on the other hand, never really "got it."
Unless the government and the Beloved Party is painted as the provider of all those creature comforts. People only really care about freedom so long as they're free to get their creature comforts, then they're done.
"The only question is how much impact will a blog have on a repressive government like China"
Maybe it will help keep Congress from giving them Permanent Normal Trade Rela... er, nevermind.
"It takes some time,"
They've had it in spades.
Europe's democratic/republican traditions came from Greece, which Rome tried to emulate to a degree. But then the Western Roman Empire collapsed, triggering several centuries of "If it's not Catholic it's CRAP!" thinking in Europe, ignoring the various schools of Greek philosophy that the ideals were based on until the Renaissance.
All during that time, Greece was under the thumb of Constantinople, which fell to the Ottomans. Greek thought flourished in the Middle East, preserving all the books the Catholic church saw fit to burn. They had several centuries worth of head start on us.
So what happened? Too many people got hooked on the idea of the divine right of Saud? Heck, most of those ancient Greek books they preserved not too long ago are now denounced as herecy (not even the US has gotten that bad yet). The best I can figure is that Islam has yet to have a bloody experience like the Reformation to make them think that having mosque and state married to each other maybe isn't such a good idea. But even then, it seems to be cultural differences that allowed the Reformation to happen to begin with.
The democracies of ancient Greece are stil more paletable to our modern opinions than, say, the Saudi government.