"i.e. the supid ones need to be weeded out early. It's not like we don't have fun making more of the little bastards. Wanna put some common sense into little Johnny's head, assuming his head is capable of holding such?"
Except they don't always get killed. How much more sense can you put into Johnny's head when you spend the rest of your life wiping drool off his chin because of Johnny's brain injury?
"Just look him right in the eye and say, "Go right ahead. It's not like you're my only one.""
After that debilitating injury and the massive medical bills you'll have to pay because of it, you won't be able to afford any more children. Hopefully your insurance provider will kick you to the curb rather than raising rates for the rest of us.
Of course, you, being raised properly, will do the responsible thing and take on a second (or even third) job so that you can pay for Johnny's wheelchair/prosthesis/live-in nurse, since you helped bring him into the world and allowed the injury to happen on your watch.
If we really need all this "preparedness," then, with all these foreign bases scattered around the globe, why is it every other industrialized country on the planet is doing just fine with 1/10 of what we're spending?
"because no matter what YOU may think the real "bad guys" aren't the ones in the white house and the pentagon."
Because we've never had a war criminal in the White Hosue before? Kissinger much? Cambodia is another example of where the US actively helped with the oppression of a people in the name of liberty.
"The real "bad guys" are the ones who'd gladly chop your fucking head off for daring to smoke that joint."
The "bad guys" wouldn't give a damn if we weren't over there "searching for monsters" to begin with, if we ourselves hadn't gotten the ball rolling by supporting other people who gladly chopped peoples' heads off (such as near and dear US allies as Saddam Hussein and the House of Saud) before bin Laden was even born.
You may feel that this is all "necessary" and "proper" to pursue and continue to be the "dictatress of the world" as Adams put it, but that doesn't mean you also get to claim your hands are clean, your soul is pure, and that platitudes about liberty, democracy, or even peace mean anything in this country any more, as we continue to decide that what we call liberty only belongs to our own and the rest are worth, what, a 3/5 share? Continuing down this path means that Old Glory is nothing more than a blood-soaked banner of war that no adherent of the Declaration of Independence would want to fly, let alone salute, as any school child can see many indictments in the document that the United States continues to be guilty of.
Another John Quincy Adams quote:
I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right.
If you're going to be so imperial, you should at least be honest with yourself.
"I don't necessarily read that as an argument against the US establishing a democratic government in places where it has gone to war for reasons other than to spread its revolution."
Then you are promoting a situation where the US will simply look for excuses to promote their "liberation" doctrine, just as you are now looking for excuses to avoid the stinging indictment of statements like "She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
"My other reaction is that democracy seems to be showing some life in the former fascist nations of Italy, German, and Japan, where it was imposed."
Imposed by the US coming in and saying "Change your government," or imposed by the way those three countries were so utterly devastated by the course of their own wars of aggression, what it did to themselves, their families, their economies, that the war itself left a bad taste in their mouths when it came to such a system of government?
By that token, it seems the only thing keeping counries like the Philippines, Cuba, Panama, Venezuela, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, or the countless, countless other nations we've sent troops to from full liberal democracy is that we didn't firebomb them enough, that we didn't wipe enough of their cities off the face of the map, eliminate enough of an entire generation.
"Former Communist nations like Poland, East Germany, and the Baltic states seem to be doing well also."
You are relying on the fiction that the United States had somethin to do with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. If anything, the examples you cite support Mr. Adams stance, not yours.
"Arab citizens in Israel vote and hold office."
Only because they are the minority, and the Israelis make sure to keep it that way. The Israeli government that the United States backs would never grant Israeli citizenship and enfranchisement to the Palestinians.
"Increasingly large numbers of Iraqis have turned out at the polls in each election;"
The same can be said of the United States in 1860. Look how well that went for national unity.
"The fact that the Iraqi security forces are just reaching their full strength now, their training is almost complete, and some of the bad apple units are being weeded out, means that the coming months will see significantly greater pressure against the insurgents."
Yeah... you guys have been singing the same tune since 2003. The training is "almost complete" only on the basis of the ever-changing standards we hold them to. I find it more likely that they are not getting closer to the standards, but that the standards are getting closer to them as we look for more warm bodies to shovel into the growing civil war.
"There is a good chance that their fate will be the same as that of the Nazi Werewolves who terrorized Germany for a time following the surrender of Nazi Germany."
The metaphor was tired in 2001, and the metaphor you're beating is very much dead (Bush has mentioned WWII more often than Roosevelt and Truman combined). If Iraq is Germany, where's Poland? Where's France? Where's Britain? Where are all the neighbors, the US allies that Iraq bombed, invaded and brutallized, or even so much as threatened?
Better yet, if the Germany/Iraq metaphor is so obvious, why are most of the countries that had personal experience with Nazi occupation so adamant against the war?
"It is because of this freedom that we seek to liberate others because the President believes, as I do, that the best probability for long term peace lies in democracy and freedom."
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
"Ok, I'll bite. You realize that the XBox360 has already been around for *a year*, right? And that many people already own one, right?"
If you want to go that route, why is the PS2 or the GBA still outselling it?
"Microsoft has already shipped 10 million 360's"
No, they've shipped 8 million, more or less. 10 million is their stated goal for next March.
"Yeah people want to buy PS3 and Wii, but if they're not available they buy a 360 instead."
Would you get a PS3 or a Wii if you had your heart set on Gears of War? I can't speak for the PS3, but with the way 3/4 of all Wii owners also getting Twilight Princess, it'd seem Nintendo would have more to "fear" from the GameCube version of it coming out next week, not something that can't play Zelda.
"Each state (and Washington DC) should able to interpret "well regulated militia" itself."
The Congress shall have power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress(.)
"The gov abandoned the idea of a state regulated militia in favor of a federally regulated national guard. If the right to bear arms only applies to a state regulated militia, then we lost our right to bear arms many years ago."
"it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
Jefferson, Jefferson, Jefforson... you dip into Mason and Hamilton a little bit, but you ignore the guy who wrote the amendment itself (Madison) and, more damningly, your idolization of your "founding fathers" makes you ignore the fact that we live in a federal republic and that it wasn't lone individuals who gave us either our federal constiution or our a bill of rights but the combined actions of federal and state legislatures. You also gloss over in one quote that you're refrencing a draft constitution; the final Declaration of Rights in Virginia made no mention of individual gun ownership (it took Pennsylvania and New England to introduce that one)
I grab the quote you provided specifically to point out the Eighteenth Century idea, the duty involved in gun ownership. Just because 1776 Virginia didn't seek to protect individual gun ownership, militia service was still mentioned and, additionally, freemen in Virginia were required to provide their own weapons for service in the militia. The people were expected (not "allowed") to not only arm themselves to but step forward and use those weapons in the defense of the state. Even all your precious Virginians didn't envision the current state of affairs, where gun owners are allowed to amass these toys with little or no obligations towards the maintenance of the state.
"Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the government moving to the left."
"Moving to the left?" As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Canada both has more guns per capita than the US (UK, Australia, etc.) and is generally described as being more aligned to the left than the US (UK, Australia, etc.). They have more firearms than the US, a larger percentage of those firearms are rifles or carbines than in the US (i. e. real weapons), and Canadian gun-owners have more legal responsibilities than in the US. It sounds to me like "leftist" Canada is closer to the 1776 "Everybody must own and maintain their own rifle and use it as directed by the state" ideal than the modern US (or at least the gun-crazy red states), and it seems that responsible gun owners should by their nature lean to the left (as you define it), as responsibility should never be optional when it comes to owning a weapon.
"If the U.S. founders and revolutionary army had put their fate in the hands of protest songs and peaceful sit-ins rather than armed rebellion, we might very well today still be paying our taxes to the U.K."
If the U.S. founders and revolutionary forces had put their fate in the hands of the state militias (despite propaganda, militamen couldn't go "ball for ball" with British regulars even if they did stick around long enough to try it) rather than the regular Continental Army, we might very well today still be paying our taxes to the U.K. (why do you think the federal government is allowed to have an army to begin with?).
"Iraq is a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of armed citizen resistance. The Iraqi people are better armed than us."
Iraq is a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of attrition. The Iraqi people are more willing to die in large numbers than us (witness the casualty reports).
It seems in both cases, you aren't supporting the idea of fighting for your rights, but rather the idea of dying for them. If I and a few thousand of my friends get together and throw ourselves on their bayonettes, the enemy might, eventually, get tired and go home, giving the blessings of liberty to whoever might be left alive.
The militia are not, and never have been, considered a war-fighting organization. Note that the constitution gives the executive the power to command the state militias only in cases of insurrection (instead of the "shoot first, ask questions later" line regulars) and invasion (i. e. "last line of defense").
"it is the police and other government agents not allowing the people to "be the police" as you suggest.
That whole "the police aren't obligated to protect you, but you can't take the law into your own hands either" thing."
Is that it, or is it that gun owners don't wish to have the same restrictions placed upon them that the people have placed upon gun-carrying police officers?
"Being the police" and vigilantism isn't the same thing.
Expanding on my last paragraph, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave us the spectacle of "mandatory trigger locks" Maryland deploying the Maryland Defense Force to assist "sportsman's paradse" Louisiana, which maintains no such organization. If that doesn't show that the classical militia ethos of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries is wholly divorced from the debate over gun ownership, I'm not sure what will.
"How does this follow? What are you basing this assertion on?"
The federal constitution gives the president the right to command the militia to suppress insurrection and enforce the law. State and federal law in the Eighteenth Century took the view of not just "allowing" all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 to be in the militia, but laws such as the Militia Act of 1792 actually required all such freemen to have a rifle or a musket, a bayonette, and a minimum number of prepared cartridges, all in the name of using those weapons to support the state and/or federal governments. The states that ratified the federal constitution (and the subesquent Second Amendment) had things to say like (emphasis mine) "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and of their own State, or of the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals" (Pennsylvania ratifying convention).
But in general, one of the basic principles in the Declaration of Independence (and expanded upon in the Federalist Papers) is the right of a just state to exist and to defend itself, and of the duty of people in a republic (as well as states in a federation) to support said government.
It just doesn't follow for a republican government to duly enact a law and then expect neither a separate police power nor a posse comitatus to enforce that law. Otherwise what you would have us call "law" is merely "suggestion."
"Wait a second here. I would accept without proof that "some" people exhibit this behavior. But "most?" On what do you base that?"
The National Rifle Association repeats loudly and often that they are the largest constituant organization repesenting the interests of gun owners, and they neither seek the abolishment of police power outright, nor even the repeal of existing gun laws; their main goal is maintaining the status quo. This large lobbying group instead focuses solely on gun ownership while maintaining the shockingly low number of legal responsibilities for gun owners (or dealers or manufacturers), in stark contrast to their adopted their Minuteman icon, who reached for his rifle to fulfil his civic duty to defend his free state.
Now, if you wish to claim that the NRA does not rerpesent most gunowers, I accept that it is debatable, but certainly they represesnt most of the outspoken gunowners.
I also find it curoius how the relatively small number of "blue states," whose people tend to support more restrictive laws on gun ownership, tend to be over-represented in the list of 21 states that maintain at least some modicum of an independent state militia. Of the eighteen states that voted for John Kerry in 2004, ten of them are on that list. There seems to be a correlation between most of the people in the state supporting a minimum of gun ownership restrictions and a desire of those same people to rely solely on federal forces and dually-enlisted National Guard members for defense of the state in times of emergency.
"You see, lack of gun ownership is very convenient if you want to build a police state."
You're forgetting the flip-side of that statement: in a country that allows gun ownership, you're expected to be the police. The United States is a country where people are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want to own a gun, but they often want it as a penis extender, not to use it to secure public safety and promote domestic tranquility. Most gun owners still want the police to be around to get their hands dirty.
"You haven't seen the news in the last couple of years, have you? (Iraq, Afghanistan)"
Those insurencies rely more on attrition than small arms, or haven't you noticed the disparities in the body counts? It isn't the abundance and availability of small arms, but the abundance and availability of young men willing to pick one up and get shot at, increasing the odds that maybe, just maybe, one of the fifty dead in the latest firefight will be an American.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution"
Written by a man who did not forsee the passage of the Militia Act of 1903. It's very easy to "discipline the militia" if you require them to also join what is effectively the Army Reserve.
Of course, you don't have to dually enlist, but you don't get any federal money that way, and state governments today exist for little more than begging for federal money. Many of those pro-gun red states don't have any sort of state militia outside of the National Guard.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped "
Which we don't do. All we have today is "You can buy a gun if you want." What Hamilton was obviously alluding to here is the example from then-recent English and American history that today is thought of as a Swiss model: now allowing but requiring people to own weapons. The policies he's thinking of here are all but outright conscription.
"and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Hamilton wasn't a fool, nor were many people present at the Convention. They had seen the recent examples given to them by the Revolution. Even in the Eighteenth Century, militia units could not stand up to line regulars!. If there were any expectation for the militia to be on the same level as (say) redcoats, Hamilton would instead be talking about assembling "once or twice in the course of a month," at the very least. The militia envisioned here was less about outright war fighting and more about law enforcement, putting down riots and the like; it existed to serve, defend and uphold the state, not as a potential avenue of overthrowing it.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. "
No modern American could truly be described as being attached to their state government. More often than not, they hold the federal government in higher esteem, and will first turn towards a potential federal solution to a problem and completely ignore the possibility of state legislation whenever given the chance. Today we see people in state government aspiring to be elected to federal office, not the other way around.
The American people will bend over backwards to pay taxes to fund the federal military, but half the states in the Union can't be bothered to assemble a self defense force, even one that is completely voluntary and self-armed, let alone one that might approach the Japanese Self Defense Force (which by all rights every state has the constitutional right to emulate).
"But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Having such rights in the hands of the state governments doesn't mean they'd actually exercise it. That would require showing responsibility, and accepting any potential blame. State legislators are all too willing to let the federal government pay for everything, and will bend over backwards to meet stipulations to that money, rather than go to the polls next election as the guy who raised taxes.
"If this goes through, the loss of future medical technology will be enormous."
I think our medical technology in the fields of blunt trauma and prosthetics are "good enough" at this point. The Army can develop ways to better help you cope with getting shot or getting into a car collision, but they haven't touched the field of disease since they figured out how to avoid malaria and promote hygene. I don't see the Army curing cancer or AIDS or anything of the sort.
Besides, a lot of the treatments developed by the Army nowadays are so expensive you'll need the budget of the Department of Defense to pay for it.
I wouldn't say that. Both pertain to U2's public image, what they as performing artists rely on for their livelihood. There may be a philosophical argument to be made that one shouldn't be tied to the other, but the reality of the situation that there are some fans of U2 and their altruistic image that will be turned away by this new side of U2 being published in FT, and that will be a detriment to their record sales (though I don't doubt they'll make up the loss from others). If nothing else, I can see it causing people to pay more attention to the distribution of charitable moneys collected through U2's actions, much the same way the scandal following 9/11 caused people to take a closer look at how the American Red Cross operates.
More directly, talking about AIDS in Africa often means talking about drug patents. It seems disingenuous that U2 might say how patents on AIDS drugs should be violated but the IP laws most near and dear to them should be extended.
"Copyright laws are (intended) to protect THEIR rights"
Granted, we're talking about UK law, but in the US at least, from TFConstitution (emphasis mine):
The Congress shall have power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries(.)
The end-goal of US copyright law isn't to give the creators money, but to give them money in pursuit of the end-goal of advancing science and art. In light of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the only purpose that federal copyright and patent law could pursue is in promoting the arts and science, and copyright laws going beyond that intent are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has decided that "Is progress being promoted here?" is a political, rather than a legal, question.
"This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information."
The UK is an entirely different matter, but here in the US, our federal constitution ain't exactly Tolstoy. Even the Federalist Papers (aka TFM) are, altogether, a reasonably short length. So why do you believe that what parent posted was "completely misleading?"
"while the XBox 360 had 511k, and the Wii had a very respectable 476k."
Remember, these are November sales. In the eleven days for which the Wii was "available" in November, it almost caught up with what the Xbox 360 did in thirty?
And note the quotes I put around "available." I've still never seen a Wii in the wild. In the local Best Buy, they have goofy Wii "protection kits" (that come in boxes at around the right size, shape and markings to pass off as a Wii) stacked up under the Wii demo endcap in an effort to either give the illusion of having Wii in stock, tricking unsuspecting parents into buying the accessory pack instead of the actual console, or both (this insult to my intelligence is enough that this was the last time I'll go video game shopping there), while there are multiple piles of Xbox 360 consoles in the middle of the floor, acting all but as a trip hazard.
I'd say in general, anybody who sells consoles is pushing the Xbox 360 hard, and either they're selling as fast as the stores can put them on the floor (and there are always a lot on the floor), or Microsoft is having trouble with their unspoken "Can't find our direct competitors? Try us!" strategy. But there's still 2 weeks until Christmas, so who knows what will happen.
"However, all of the new consoles were outsold by the lowly PS2 (664k) and DS Lite(641k)."
Um, according to first TFA, the DS sold 918k. Maybe only 641k of those were Lites, but there's no sign of that 641k number in either link provided. Also unmentioned in the blurb is that the PSP did 412k. Since these are US numbers, it makes me wonder where all the "The PSP is neck-and-neck with the DS in North America!" comments are coming from. Unless Canadians bought a half-million PSPs while totally ignoring the DS during November, it looks like the DS has the PSP by over 2:1.
Diclaimer: I'm a raving, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Nintendo fanboy. However, the numbers are the numbers.
They broke DNS, now they're screwing up email. Are they even allowed to call themselves an "internet service provider" any more? It seems that, whatever they're providing, it ain't internet access.
"Biggest problem is that Earthlink uses a white-list spam blocking setup that sends back a time-limited challenge to the sender"
It's opt-in, off by default. The user has to go into their webmail interface and turn it on from there. If it's on, it's not by accident.
"We get these challenges when our automated system sends messages to customers"
And this, ladies and gentlemen (well, gentlemen), is why email hosts have these whitelists and why people use them. "Would you like to not opt-out of our informative and exciting hourly emails?"
Slashdot Mirror
"i.e. the supid ones need to be weeded out early. It's not like we don't have fun making more of the little bastards. Wanna put some common sense into little Johnny's head, assuming his head is capable of holding such?"
Except they don't always get killed. How much more sense can you put into Johnny's head when you spend the rest of your life wiping drool off his chin because of Johnny's brain injury?
"Just look him right in the eye and say, "Go right ahead. It's not like you're my only one.""
After that debilitating injury and the massive medical bills you'll have to pay because of it, you won't be able to afford any more children. Hopefully your insurance provider will kick you to the curb rather than raising rates for the rest of us.
Of course, you, being raised properly, will do the responsible thing and take on a second (or even third) job so that you can pay for Johnny's wheelchair/prosthesis/live-in nurse, since you helped bring him into the world and allowed the injury to happen on your watch.
"because no matter what YOU may think the real "bad guys" aren't the ones in the white house and the pentagon."
Because we've never had a war criminal in the White Hosue before? Kissinger much? Cambodia is another example of where the US actively helped with the oppression of a people in the name of liberty.
"The real "bad guys" are the ones who'd gladly chop your fucking head off for daring to smoke that joint."
The "bad guys" wouldn't give a damn if we weren't over there "searching for monsters" to begin with, if we ourselves hadn't gotten the ball rolling by supporting other people who gladly chopped peoples' heads off (such as near and dear US allies as Saddam Hussein and the House of Saud) before bin Laden was even born.
You may feel that this is all "necessary" and "proper" to pursue and continue to be the "dictatress of the world" as Adams put it, but that doesn't mean you also get to claim your hands are clean, your soul is pure, and that platitudes about liberty, democracy, or even peace mean anything in this country any more, as we continue to decide that what we call liberty only belongs to our own and the rest are worth, what, a 3/5 share? Continuing down this path means that Old Glory is nothing more than a blood-soaked banner of war that no adherent of the Declaration of Independence would want to fly, let alone salute, as any school child can see many indictments in the document that the United States continues to be guilty of.
Another John Quincy Adams quote:If you're going to be so imperial, you should at least be honest with yourself.
Do you think we'd need all this "preparedness" if we weren't using it to dictate terms to the world?
Show him the permanent seat the United States has on the UN Security Council.
"Show him a stealth bomber."
Show him the European bases they operate from.
"Explain to him the functioning of a nuclear weapon."
Show him the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
"Show him a video of a Jihadi."
Show him US support for the House of Saud and Saddam Hussein.
"THEN see what he says."
"I don't necessarily read that as an argument against the US establishing a democratic government in places where it has gone to war for reasons other than to spread its revolution."
Then you are promoting a situation where the US will simply look for excuses to promote their "liberation" doctrine, just as you are now looking for excuses to avoid the stinging indictment of statements like "She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
"My other reaction is that democracy seems to be showing some life in the former fascist nations of Italy, German, and Japan, where it was imposed."
Imposed by the US coming in and saying "Change your government," or imposed by the way those three countries were so utterly devastated by the course of their own wars of aggression, what it did to themselves, their families, their economies, that the war itself left a bad taste in their mouths when it came to such a system of government?
By that token, it seems the only thing keeping counries like the Philippines, Cuba, Panama, Venezuela, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, or the countless, countless other nations we've sent troops to from full liberal democracy is that we didn't firebomb them enough, that we didn't wipe enough of their cities off the face of the map, eliminate enough of an entire generation.
"Former Communist nations like Poland, East Germany, and the Baltic states seem to be doing well also."
You are relying on the fiction that the United States had somethin to do with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. If anything, the examples you cite support Mr. Adams stance, not yours.
"Arab citizens in Israel vote and hold office."
Only because they are the minority, and the Israelis make sure to keep it that way. The Israeli government that the United States backs would never grant Israeli citizenship and enfranchisement to the Palestinians.
"Increasingly large numbers of Iraqis have turned out at the polls in each election;"
The same can be said of the United States in 1860. Look how well that went for national unity.
"The fact that the Iraqi security forces are just reaching their full strength now, their training is almost complete, and some of the bad apple units are being weeded out, means that the coming months will see significantly greater pressure against the insurgents."
Yeah... you guys have been singing the same tune since 2003. The training is "almost complete" only on the basis of the ever-changing standards we hold them to. I find it more likely that they are not getting closer to the standards, but that the standards are getting closer to them as we look for more warm bodies to shovel into the growing civil war.
"There is a good chance that their fate will be the same as that of the Nazi Werewolves who terrorized Germany for a time following the surrender of Nazi Germany."
The metaphor was tired in 2001, and the metaphor you're beating is very much dead (Bush has mentioned WWII more often than Roosevelt and Truman combined). If Iraq is Germany, where's Poland? Where's France? Where's Britain? Where are all the neighbors, the US allies that Iraq bombed, invaded and brutallized, or even so much as threatened?
Better yet, if the Germany/Iraq metaphor is so obvious, why are most of the countries that had personal experience with Nazi occupation so adamant against the war?
--John Quincy Adams
"Ok, I'll bite. You realize that the XBox360 has already been around for *a year*, right? And that many people already own one, right?"
If you want to go that route, why is the PS2 or the GBA still outselling it?
"Microsoft has already shipped 10 million 360's"
No, they've shipped 8 million, more or less. 10 million is their stated goal for next March.
"Yeah people want to buy PS3 and Wii, but if they're not available they buy a 360 instead."
Would you get a PS3 or a Wii if you had your heart set on Gears of War? I can't speak for the PS3, but with the way 3/4 of all Wii owners also getting Twilight Princess, it'd seem Nintendo would have more to "fear" from the GameCube version of it coming out next week, not something that can't play Zelda.
"Each state (and Washington DC) should able to interpret "well regulated militia" itself."
The Congress shall have power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress(.)
"The gov abandoned the idea of a state regulated militia in favor of a federally regulated national guard. If the right to bear arms only applies to a state regulated militia, then we lost our right to bear arms many years ago."
Your mileage may vary.
"it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
Jefferson, Jefferson, Jefforson... you dip into Mason and Hamilton a little bit, but you ignore the guy who wrote the amendment itself (Madison) and, more damningly, your idolization of your "founding fathers" makes you ignore the fact that we live in a federal republic and that it wasn't lone individuals who gave us either our federal constiution or our a bill of rights but the combined actions of federal and state legislatures. You also gloss over in one quote that you're refrencing a draft constitution; the final Declaration of Rights in Virginia made no mention of individual gun ownership (it took Pennsylvania and New England to introduce that one)
I grab the quote you provided specifically to point out the Eighteenth Century idea, the duty involved in gun ownership. Just because 1776 Virginia didn't seek to protect individual gun ownership, militia service was still mentioned and, additionally, freemen in Virginia were required to provide their own weapons for service in the militia. The people were expected (not "allowed") to not only arm themselves to but step forward and use those weapons in the defense of the state. Even all your precious Virginians didn't envision the current state of affairs, where gun owners are allowed to amass these toys with little or no obligations towards the maintenance of the state.
"Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the government moving to the left."
"Moving to the left?" As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Canada both has more guns per capita than the US (UK, Australia, etc.) and is generally described as being more aligned to the left than the US (UK, Australia, etc.). They have more firearms than the US, a larger percentage of those firearms are rifles or carbines than in the US (i. e. real weapons), and Canadian gun-owners have more legal responsibilities than in the US. It sounds to me like "leftist" Canada is closer to the 1776 "Everybody must own and maintain their own rifle and use it as directed by the state" ideal than the modern US (or at least the gun-crazy red states), and it seems that responsible gun owners should by their nature lean to the left (as you define it), as responsibility should never be optional when it comes to owning a weapon.
"If the U.S. founders and revolutionary army had put their fate in the hands of protest songs and peaceful sit-ins rather than armed rebellion, we might very well today still be paying our taxes to the U.K."
If the U.S. founders and revolutionary forces had put their fate in the hands of the state militias (despite propaganda, militamen couldn't go "ball for ball" with British regulars even if they did stick around long enough to try it) rather than the regular Continental Army, we might very well today still be paying our taxes to the U.K. (why do you think the federal government is allowed to have an army to begin with?).
"Iraq is a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of armed citizen resistance. The Iraqi people are better armed than us."
Iraq is a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of attrition. The Iraqi people are more willing to die in large numbers than us (witness the casualty reports).
It seems in both cases, you aren't supporting the idea of fighting for your rights, but rather the idea of dying for them. If I and a few thousand of my friends get together and throw ourselves on their bayonettes, the enemy might, eventually, get tired and go home, giving the blessings of liberty to whoever might be left alive.
The militia are not, and never have been, considered a war-fighting organization. Note that the constitution gives the executive the power to command the state militias only in cases of insurrection (instead of the "shoot first, ask questions later" line regulars) and invasion (i. e. "last line of defense").
"it is the police and other government agents not allowing the people to "be the police" as you suggest.
That whole "the police aren't obligated to protect you, but you can't take the law into your own hands either" thing."
Is that it, or is it that gun owners don't wish to have the same restrictions placed upon them that the people have placed upon gun-carrying police officers?
"Being the police" and vigilantism isn't the same thing.
Expanding on my last paragraph, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave us the spectacle of "mandatory trigger locks" Maryland deploying the Maryland Defense Force to assist "sportsman's paradse" Louisiana, which maintains no such organization. If that doesn't show that the classical militia ethos of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries is wholly divorced from the debate over gun ownership, I'm not sure what will.
Quoth the OP:
"You only need three consoles, the three from the new generation: the Wii, the PS3, and the Xbox 360."
If I want to play GBA games on my television, I'll need more than that.
"How does this follow? What are you basing this assertion on?"
The federal constitution gives the president the right to command the militia to suppress insurrection and enforce the law. State and federal law in the Eighteenth Century took the view of not just "allowing" all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 to be in the militia, but laws such as the Militia Act of 1792 actually required all such freemen to have a rifle or a musket, a bayonette, and a minimum number of prepared cartridges, all in the name of using those weapons to support the state and/or federal governments. The states that ratified the federal constitution (and the subesquent Second Amendment) had things to say like (emphasis mine) "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and of their own State, or of the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals" (Pennsylvania ratifying convention).
But in general, one of the basic principles in the Declaration of Independence (and expanded upon in the Federalist Papers) is the right of a just state to exist and to defend itself, and of the duty of people in a republic (as well as states in a federation) to support said government.
It just doesn't follow for a republican government to duly enact a law and then expect neither a separate police power nor a posse comitatus to enforce that law. Otherwise what you would have us call "law" is merely "suggestion."
"Wait a second here. I would accept without proof that "some" people exhibit this behavior. But "most?" On what do you base that?"
The National Rifle Association repeats loudly and often that they are the largest constituant organization repesenting the interests of gun owners, and they neither seek the abolishment of police power outright, nor even the repeal of existing gun laws; their main goal is maintaining the status quo. This large lobbying group instead focuses solely on gun ownership while maintaining the shockingly low number of legal responsibilities for gun owners (or dealers or manufacturers), in stark contrast to their adopted their Minuteman icon, who reached for his rifle to fulfil his civic duty to defend his free state.
Now, if you wish to claim that the NRA does not rerpesent most gunowers, I accept that it is debatable, but certainly they represesnt most of the outspoken gunowners.
I also find it curoius how the relatively small number of "blue states," whose people tend to support more restrictive laws on gun ownership, tend to be over-represented in the list of 21 states that maintain at least some modicum of an independent state militia. Of the eighteen states that voted for John Kerry in 2004, ten of them are on that list. There seems to be a correlation between most of the people in the state supporting a minimum of gun ownership restrictions and a desire of those same people to rely solely on federal forces and dually-enlisted National Guard members for defense of the state in times of emergency.
"You see, lack of gun ownership is very convenient if you want to build a police state."
You're forgetting the flip-side of that statement: in a country that allows gun ownership, you're expected to be the police. The United States is a country where people are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want to own a gun, but they often want it as a penis extender, not to use it to secure public safety and promote domestic tranquility. Most gun owners still want the police to be around to get their hands dirty.
"You haven't seen the news in the last couple of years, have you? (Iraq, Afghanistan)"
Those insurencies rely more on attrition than small arms, or haven't you noticed the disparities in the body counts? It isn't the abundance and availability of small arms, but the abundance and availability of young men willing to pick one up and get shot at, increasing the odds that maybe, just maybe, one of the fifty dead in the latest firefight will be an American.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution"
Written by a man who did not forsee the passage of the Militia Act of 1903. It's very easy to "discipline the militia" if you require them to also join what is effectively the Army Reserve.
Of course, you don't have to dually enlist, but you don't get any federal money that way, and state governments today exist for little more than begging for federal money. Many of those pro-gun red states don't have any sort of state militia outside of the National Guard.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped "
Which we don't do. All we have today is "You can buy a gun if you want." What Hamilton was obviously alluding to here is the example from then-recent English and American history that today is thought of as a Swiss model: now allowing but requiring people to own weapons. The policies he's thinking of here are all but outright conscription.
"and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Hamilton wasn't a fool, nor were many people present at the Convention. They had seen the recent examples given to them by the Revolution. Even in the Eighteenth Century, militia units could not stand up to line regulars!. If there were any expectation for the militia to be on the same level as (say) redcoats, Hamilton would instead be talking about assembling "once or twice in the course of a month," at the very least. The militia envisioned here was less about outright war fighting and more about law enforcement, putting down riots and the like; it existed to serve, defend and uphold the state, not as a potential avenue of overthrowing it.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. "
No modern American could truly be described as being attached to their state government. More often than not, they hold the federal government in higher esteem, and will first turn towards a potential federal solution to a problem and completely ignore the possibility of state legislation whenever given the chance. Today we see people in state government aspiring to be elected to federal office, not the other way around.
The American people will bend over backwards to pay taxes to fund the federal military, but half the states in the Union can't be bothered to assemble a self defense force, even one that is completely voluntary and self-armed, let alone one that might approach the Japanese Self Defense Force (which by all rights every state has the constitutional right to emulate).
"But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Having such rights in the hands of the state governments doesn't mean they'd actually exercise it. That would require showing responsibility, and accepting any potential blame. State legislators are all too willing to let the federal government pay for everything, and will bend over backwards to meet stipulations to that money, rather than go to the polls next election as the guy who raised taxes.
At any rate, as others more eloquent than
"The Wii replaces your NES, SNES, 64, and GC (full backward compatible with GC, virtual console for the rest)."
With respect to the GameCube compatibility, where on the Wii shall I plug in my Game Boy Player?
"If this goes through, the loss of future medical technology will be enormous."
I think our medical technology in the fields of blunt trauma and prosthetics are "good enough" at this point. The Army can develop ways to better help you cope with getting shot or getting into a car collision, but they haven't touched the field of disease since they figured out how to avoid malaria and promote hygene. I don't see the Army curing cancer or AIDS or anything of the sort.
Besides, a lot of the treatments developed by the Army nowadays are so expensive you'll need the budget of the Department of Defense to pay for it.
"Seems like two entirely unrelated things to me."
I wouldn't say that. Both pertain to U2's public image, what they as performing artists rely on for their livelihood. There may be a philosophical argument to be made that one shouldn't be tied to the other, but the reality of the situation that there are some fans of U2 and their altruistic image that will be turned away by this new side of U2 being published in FT, and that will be a detriment to their record sales (though I don't doubt they'll make up the loss from others). If nothing else, I can see it causing people to pay more attention to the distribution of charitable moneys collected through U2's actions, much the same way the scandal following 9/11 caused people to take a closer look at how the American Red Cross operates.
More directly, talking about AIDS in Africa often means talking about drug patents. It seems disingenuous that U2 might say how patents on AIDS drugs should be violated but the IP laws most near and dear to them should be extended.
Granted, we're talking about UK law, but in the US at least, from TFConstitution (emphasis mine):The end-goal of US copyright law isn't to give the creators money, but to give them money in pursuit of the end-goal of advancing science and art. In light of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the only purpose that federal copyright and patent law could pursue is in promoting the arts and science, and copyright laws going beyond that intent are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has decided that "Is progress being promoted here?" is a political, rather than a legal, question.
"This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information."
The UK is an entirely different matter, but here in the US, our federal constitution ain't exactly Tolstoy. Even the Federalist Papers (aka TFM) are, altogether, a reasonably short length. So why do you believe that what parent posted was "completely misleading?"
"while the XBox 360 had 511k, and the Wii had a very respectable 476k."
Remember, these are November sales. In the eleven days for which the Wii was "available" in November, it almost caught up with what the Xbox 360 did in thirty?
And note the quotes I put around "available." I've still never seen a Wii in the wild. In the local Best Buy, they have goofy Wii "protection kits" (that come in boxes at around the right size, shape and markings to pass off as a Wii) stacked up under the Wii demo endcap in an effort to either give the illusion of having Wii in stock, tricking unsuspecting parents into buying the accessory pack instead of the actual console, or both (this insult to my intelligence is enough that this was the last time I'll go video game shopping there), while there are multiple piles of Xbox 360 consoles in the middle of the floor, acting all but as a trip hazard.
I'd say in general, anybody who sells consoles is pushing the Xbox 360 hard, and either they're selling as fast as the stores can put them on the floor (and there are always a lot on the floor), or Microsoft is having trouble with their unspoken "Can't find our direct competitors? Try us!" strategy. But there's still 2 weeks until Christmas, so who knows what will happen.
"However, all of the new consoles were outsold by the lowly PS2 (664k) and DS Lite(641k)."
Um, according to first TFA, the DS sold 918k. Maybe only 641k of those were Lites, but there's no sign of that 641k number in either link provided. Also unmentioned in the blurb is that the PSP did 412k. Since these are US numbers, it makes me wonder where all the "The PSP is neck-and-neck with the DS in North America!" comments are coming from. Unless Canadians bought a half-million PSPs while totally ignoring the DS during November, it looks like the DS has the PSP by over 2:1.
Diclaimer: I'm a raving, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Nintendo fanboy. However, the numbers are the numbers.
Is it bigger than a Nomad?
They broke DNS, now they're screwing up email. Are they even allowed to call themselves an "internet service provider" any more? It seems that, whatever they're providing, it ain't internet access.
"Biggest problem is that Earthlink uses a white-list spam blocking setup that sends back a time-limited challenge to the sender"
It's opt-in, off by default. The user has to go into their webmail interface and turn it on from there. If it's on, it's not by accident.
"We get these challenges when our automated system sends messages to customers"
And this, ladies and gentlemen (well, gentlemen), is why email hosts have these whitelists and why people use them. "Would you like to not opt-out of our informative and exciting hourly emails?"