What if language started to gradually change such that citizens, residents, or passport holders of Luxembourg became known as Europeans? Wouldn't that necessarily imply that they're more European than other Europeans? Wouldn't that come across as arrogant to you?
That is in no way a similar situation. Is it the very first country on 2 continents? Does it have "Europe" in its name? Was the name first chosen by non-locals? Was the name selection a choice of the entire English speaking world? Did continent suddenly become synonymous with country?
Also, a majority of commonplace continent models include a single continent named "America" which can then be further subdefined into North, South, and possible Central regions, much like Asia is often further subdivided as Minor, South-East, etc. Much like many would argue that there is no continent named South-East Asia, so too would they argue that there is no continent named North America. I was never taught this in US public schools, so I'm not surprised to hear so many "Americans" bring this point up.
There is nothing wrong with having SWAT teams armed to the teeth and willing to invade your home at a moments notice on merest of pretexts!
They are protecting your freedom so stop whining and embrace with love the men and women who serve and protect you from evil doers wanting to
harm your loved ones and take over your wonderful country!
Let them go about their work unencumbered by petty laws and lets keep America free for the true lovers of freedom not the whining dogs who bark
at a little discomfort as our warriors of freedom do their job and keep our country safe!
I'm just trying to make sure only the GOOD swat teams invade my home on a no-knock warrant, shooting my dog & grandfather to serve me a speeding ticket. Not the lawless "We're an NGO so we're exempt from reporting laws but still a GO so we get cool weapons" ones.
Now I know you are trolling, since the median citizen commits an average of three felonies a day.
I heard that before, and it seems to be a quote from some book, but I have never ever heard any evidence of that. So tell me three things that an average citizen with no intent of breaking the law might do that would be felonies.
Please tell me the three felonies I probably committed today.
What did you do? That is the point of the book: you won't know what you did wrong until the DA files charges and you get arrested.
It is stuff like fraud & using computers without authorization. The problem is that there are literally thousands of laws & regulations with the power of law that are vague or outdated, combined with the current popular trend for DAs to ignore intent (more specifically the lack thereof) & Grand Juries when deciding to prosecute. Seemingly innocent, common things that people do every day can, have, and will again be prosecuted.
How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal."
Are you absolutely sure you don't have evidence of a crime on your phone? Because there are professionals, such as Harvey Silverglate, that think you probably do. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe him than either your or my own understanding of the literally thousands of laws & regulations that would turn you into one. Read Three Felonies A Day. Good book.
because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.
NOT assuming cops are out to get you is exactly how you get fucked over. That is why the first words out of every criminal defense attorney are synonymous with "shut up."
So, you can let them search your phone. And when they find evidence of something you thought was innocent, like a picture of your kids taking a bath, and arrest & charge you, you can come back here, read this, and slap your forehead.
And that would require some sort of giant entity with the power to spend billions of dollars, or enact legislation for the whole country. Too bad.
Nah. It would just require the City of New York to provide an example by requiring local restaurants to provide the same nutritional information as national chains. I don't think checking the nutritional content would be prohibitively expensive for a new business. Once a single city displays a successful program, it will spread.
I agree in philosophy. But pragmatically, US society has decided to force participation in health insurance. So, prohibit unhealthy activity (as in this case), or tax it as an insurance surcharge. Why should people who live healthy lifestyles subsidize those who don't?
And that is exactly why Obamacare is so frightening. It is the beginning to that. The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate your health. Now that your health affects the bottom line, you have no control over your body. You are no longer a person, you are a tool to maintain the economy.
(a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED.—(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal prop-
erty of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is
(emphasis mine)
If you're not a government agency... what are you doing with all that excess military equipment acquired via the 1033 program?
Put aside your bigotry (or racism? Is that it?) so a discussion can be had.
It's not bigotry to call the anti-affirmative action movement what it is... Angry White Men upset about having to give up unearned privilege.
Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
Assigning ignorant, negative labels to those that hold a different opinion than yourself is the very essence of bigotry.
I'm not interested in a discussion about topics like this with people like you, sorry.
But no one is wanting to do that because it means some overprivileged white guys in the burbs have to basically give away their unearned privilege and they don't want to do that.
What did "Mr. Black" do to earn the legal requirement that he be hired over "Mr. Yellow"? For that matter, what did he do to earn the right to be hired over "Mr. White", a poor hick that grew up in a 1-room shack with no running water, taught himself to read & write and worked his way through college completely on his own?
And they're resenting being told they should. The entire fucking anti-affirmative action movement is basically white guys upset they have to be nice to everyone and not show favoriism to other white guys, which is what they have been doing.
Put aside your bigotry (or racism? Is that it?) so a discussion can be had.
Fine...then what do we do to remedy it then? Nothing? How do we fix the game then?
Whether or not my ideas could pass your bigoted thought gates is irrelevant to whether or not AA is a workable solution. The logic that supports it is obviously, deeply, flawed and the program's history only confirms such.
No, it is not bigoted or racist to assume that someone of a different skin color may have had a different upbringing than you
It is certainly racist.
You are using race as the determining factor to make a presumption about an individual human.
What other useful definition of racism could there be?
The actual one: that inherited differences between the races naturally makes one inferior to another.
Believing one race has a tendency towards some cultural beliefs or another is not racist. As the different races come from different geographic regions, and cultural influence tends to be likewise limited to geographic regions, it is perfectly accurate (and historically verifiable) to say race & culture are tightly coupled without implying inferiority.
So your solution to a handful of people being assholes is to disadvantage everyone of European and Asian descent
Leveling the playing field isn't disadvantaging, though I can imagine some are upset that they are being called on their unearned privilege.
Race-based hiring is not leveling the playing field, it is leveling the score after the final results are in. The game started long before the job applications were submitted; before college; before primary; before birth even.
As much as I hate "USian", what's the preferred alternative? American? America isn't a country, it's a pair of continents.
There is no continent named "America". There is North America. There is South America. Just like there is the country United States of America. If you are consistently ignoring the beginning of each of the names, nobody can be called an American because there is no such place named just "America". But you're not, and I'm not sure why you arbitrarily decided to do that.
Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are.
Actually, I would argue they are because "American" when used in the context of continent is ambiguous: North or South. Whereas when used in reference to national origin, is not.
So it's down to "USian", which is retarded, or "American", which is ridiculously arrogant.
You do realize that Americans are not the only ones to refer to Americans as American, right? It is the accepted terminology to use in reference to US passport holders all over the planet. The terms history, including the transition in reference from First Americans (1570s-1590s) to North American residents of British descent (1640s) and then later to residents of the United States of America ("shockingly", 1770s), primarily flows via the choices of non-Americans.
Using abbreviated terms like "American" is not arrogance, it is how language naturally develops. Communication requires presumptions as to the meaning of whatever word, phrase, or gesture that is used. Communicators that share more knowledge, presume more and communicate less: Spouses can just look at each other, whereas strangers have to describe the entire situation to avoid ambiguity. Using "American" is simply somewhere in between a subtle gesture and having to explicitly state "A citizen, resident, or passport holder of the nation United States of America".
Electronic information is directly analogous to paper. Information is information regardless of how its stored.
Nope.
SCOTUS ruled police need a warrant to search your cell phone. If you had the exact same data on paper in a briefcase with you at the time of your arrest, they could search your briefcase (for personal safety reasons or for contraband), see the papers, and use them as evidence. http://www.politico.com/story/...
Aereo needs to separate the service providing part of the business from the hardware rental business so neither one is rebroadcasting.
1. Aereo Antenna Rental: you pay whatever fees they currently charge to rent an antenna & dvr; Additional $5/ month to be allowed to take it off their property (so you can set it up at home if you really want to)
2. Aereo Antenna Management: You pay them to manage your antenna... like a long-distance mechanical-turk style remote control.
Then its just Rent-A-Center partnering with an SI/SP to set your junk up.
It is not whether or not he has a crooked dogs hind leg to stand on, it is whether or not he can conspire via his lawyers to intimidate those person with the threat of court costs.
Are you trying to be funny? I ask because after reading the article and some of the discussions and edits, that is exactly the kind of language that was going on his page that he is suing over. If the man is acquitted, especially because the case was "flimsy", why would you be referring to him with negative words like "crooked", "conspire", and "intimidate" and focus on that period of his life? Are you just a rich-hater? Anybody with money that tries to defend their reputation is "clearly intending to threaten all Wikipedia contributors with threats of civil suits by the wealthy"?
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetency. Or something like that.
I'm sure that the best system admins around the world have deleted a file, mistakenly reused a backup tape out of order, or otherwise screwed up and lost something irretrievable sometime in their careers.
Sure.
But 6 times, once for each of the top managers involved in a scandal?
That statute (federal) is for unauthorized access, not using it for unauthorized reasons. You have access to the computer. If your company revokes that access and you continue to go on slashdot from that computer, then it becomes a felony (on top of a likely trespassing charge).
Incorrect. The statue says "unauthorized access; or exceeding authorization." If you are authorized to use a computer for work purposes only, but also use it for personal purposes, you are exceeding authorization.
That, by itself, I'm not sure is enough to be charged. I believe you have to do something else, such as accessing protected data. Its not difficult to do that by, say, mistyping your phone's serial number into AT&T's website and being shown records for somebody else's phone.
Cantor WAS the exception, proving EXCEPTIONS are possible. And, if you've paid any attention the last six years or so, you'll have seen a number of incumbent (R) lose primaries. I can't recall a (D) losing a primary... if ever.
I know some lottery winners too. Thinking exceptions are more common, or available, or possible, than they really are, is why the stupid tax is so effective.
Again, the problem isn't the money, it is stupid voters who click based on name recognition and characterizations by opponents.
And what triggers name recognition and characterizations better than tons and tons of money buying tons and tons of advertising to brainwash stupid voters?
It is easy to paint me as a bumbling fool, but only to people who don't really know me.
It is difficult to paint you as a bumbling fool amongst a wide enough audience without lots of money. It is likewise difficult for people to get to know you without spending money to tell them about yourself.
The problem you're facing though, believing the problems with our elections are stupid voters and not something like money or rules, is how you're going to fix it. With such contempt for the decision making abilities of the majority of the country and believing that limiting financial influence won't help in a capitalist society, you're left with pretty much 2 options: disenfranchisement or genetic engineering combined with euthanasia. I don't see either of those ideas winning you any elections.
No, it didn't.
Redskin has always referred to the people, due to their "red" skin.
This may be hard to grasp, but a word can have multiple meanings.
This may be hard to grasp, prick, but claiming a little-used secondary definition as the definition is ignorant, stupid, or disingenuous. Furthermore, being a condescending prick is... just that. Discuss it, don't be an asshole about it.
Just because you think you know what a word meant to one group of people at one point in history does not mean that all peoples throughout history have used that word the same way. To many people "redskin" undoubtedly means "person with red skin, aka an injun/Indian/Native American/etc.".
To most people throughout history, even today, redskin means "person with red skin". Take for example, the Redskins NFL team.
However, it also was used to refer to the scalps of murdered Native Americans:
Recently. By people misinterpreting things like the newspaper clipping you quoted.
"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." [snip] and the second sentence further clarifies that they were talking about (pieces of) corpses.
It does nothing of the sort. "Sum" is referring to the $200 reward. Dead bodies refers to... dead bodies, of Indians. Not dead body parts. You're either willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding some simple English there.
P.S. Check your sources before quoting them. That Esquire story is just crap. One random writer's mother claims it has one meaning, and that is somehow more credible than a linguist's 7 month study, with citations? Oh, but the update you actually linked to (not the original story btw), the writer supports his original claim with a quote from another linguist who said, "I don't care where it comes from", like that somehow negates Goddard's findings. Baxter doesn't even offer a single shred of evidence to support his/your claim.
Oxford dictionary definition of redskin: An American Indian.
Google's definition: An American Indian.
Merriam-webster definition: american indian.
dictionary.reference.com definition: a North American Indian.
Wikipedia doesn't even try to claim redskin means scalp. Doesn't even suggest it means that. A site maintained by "the community" that you claim thinks redskin means "scalp", doesn't say it. The closest it gets is a quote by "one activist", the person behind the current (and past) lawsuit against the Redskins. Oh, and talks about the Phips Proclamation and "revisionist history".
Was redskin used in derogatory, inflammatory, and genocidal context? Absolutely (FYI "Indian" appears just as often, in the same context, further suggesting they are synonyms). It did not refer to body parts.
Condescension, horrible citation, absolutely nothing to back your claim or your attitude. Try again next story.
Redskin means "top of scalp taken from a dead Native American to be turned in for a bounty to the US government (which paid for the murder of Native American men, women and children)".
No, it didn't.
Redskin has always referred to the people, due to their "red" skin. It was first used by First American chiefs in discussions with the British & French. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Even in the proclamations and stories offering rewards for scalps that actually used the term "redskin", it referred to the people, not the scalps.
Today it is still used by First Americans for their own mascots. Upwards of 90% of First Americans don't even find the term offensive. http://washington.cbslocal.com...
You can't say the groups were or weren't denied, because they were kept in limbo, on purpose, for months and sometimes years. As good as denied, but actually better, because they couldn't appeal that non-denial, limbo condition.
They were delayed "on purpose" requires that pre-supposition that it was for political reasons. Being a government bureaucracy, you'd rather believe it was malice as opposed to being a normal, government bureaucracy that takes too long to do things.
Which liberal groups waited 3 years for an answer?
Slashdot Mirror
What if language started to gradually change such that citizens, residents, or passport holders of Luxembourg became known as Europeans? Wouldn't that necessarily imply that they're more European than other Europeans? Wouldn't that come across as arrogant to you?
That is in no way a similar situation. Is it the very first country on 2 continents? Does it have "Europe" in its name? Was the name first chosen by non-locals? Was the name selection a choice of the entire English speaking world? Did continent suddenly become synonymous with country?
Also, a majority of commonplace continent models include a single continent named "America" which can then be further subdefined into North, South, and possible Central regions, much like Asia is often further subdivided as Minor, South-East, etc. Much like many would argue that there is no continent named South-East Asia, so too would they argue that there is no continent named North America. I was never taught this in US public schools, so I'm not surprised to hear so many "Americans" bring this point up.
lol we're done.
There is nothing wrong with having SWAT teams armed to the teeth and willing to invade your home at a moments notice on merest of pretexts! They are protecting your freedom so stop whining and embrace with love the men and women who serve and protect you from evil doers wanting to harm your loved ones and take over your wonderful country! Let them go about their work unencumbered by petty laws and lets keep America free for the true lovers of freedom not the whining dogs who bark at a little discomfort as our warriors of freedom do their job and keep our country safe!
I'm just trying to make sure only the GOOD swat teams invade my home on a no-knock warrant, shooting my dog & grandfather to serve me a speeding ticket. Not the lawless "We're an NGO so we're exempt from reporting laws but still a GO so we get cool weapons" ones.
Now I know you are trolling, since the median citizen commits an average of three felonies a day.
I heard that before, and it seems to be a quote from some book, but I have never ever heard any evidence of that. So tell me three things that an average citizen with no intent of breaking the law might do that would be felonies.
(bold mine)
Its the title of a book.
The link doesn't answer the question.
Please tell me the three felonies I probably committed today.
What did you do? That is the point of the book: you won't know what you did wrong until the DA files charges and you get arrested.
It is stuff like fraud & using computers without authorization. The problem is that there are literally thousands of laws & regulations with the power of law that are vague or outdated, combined with the current popular trend for DAs to ignore intent (more specifically the lack thereof) & Grand Juries when deciding to prosecute. Seemingly innocent, common things that people do every day can, have, and will again be prosecuted.
How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal."
Are you absolutely sure you don't have evidence of a crime on your phone? Because there are professionals, such as Harvey Silverglate, that think you probably do. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe him than either your or my own understanding of the literally thousands of laws & regulations that would turn you into one. Read Three Felonies A Day. Good book.
because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.
Way to understate the criminal activity of entire divisions , entire towns and even the entire police force for major US Cities. Shall I mention the federal agencies engaged in some questionable to illegal spying?
NOT assuming cops are out to get you is exactly how you get fucked over. That is why the first words out of every criminal defense attorney are synonymous with "shut up."
So, you can let them search your phone. And when they find evidence of something you thought was innocent, like a picture of your kids taking a bath, and arrest & charge you, you can come back here, read this, and slap your forehead.
Don't piss them off.
That does piss them off.
ftfy. Everything else was redundant.
And that would require some sort of giant entity with the power to spend billions of dollars, or enact legislation for the whole country. Too bad.
Nah. It would just require the City of New York to provide an example by requiring local restaurants to provide the same nutritional information as national chains. I don't think checking the nutritional content would be prohibitively expensive for a new business. Once a single city displays a successful program, it will spread.
I agree in philosophy. But pragmatically, US society has decided to force participation in health insurance. So, prohibit unhealthy activity (as in this case), or tax it as an insurance surcharge. Why should people who live healthy lifestyles subsidize those who don't?
And that is exactly why Obamacare is so frightening. It is the beginning to that. The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate your health. Now that your health affects the bottom line, you have no control over your body. You are no longer a person, you are a tool to maintain the economy.
(a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED .—(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal prop-
erty of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is
(emphasis mine)
If you're not a government agency... what are you doing with all that excess military equipment acquired via the 1033 program?
References: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agen...
https://www.justnet.org/other/...
http://www.nps.gov/legal/laws/...
What do Law, Statistics, and Amelia Badelia all have in common?
lack of context.
Put aside your bigotry (or racism? Is that it?) so a discussion can be had.
It's not bigotry to call the anti-affirmative action movement what it is... Angry White Men upset about having to give up unearned privilege.
Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
Assigning ignorant, negative labels to those that hold a different opinion than yourself is the very essence of bigotry.
I'm not interested in a discussion about topics like this with people like you, sorry.
But no one is wanting to do that because it means some overprivileged white guys in the burbs have to basically give away their unearned privilege and they don't want to do that.
What did "Mr. Black" do to earn the legal requirement that he be hired over "Mr. Yellow"? For that matter, what did he do to earn the right to be hired over "Mr. White", a poor hick that grew up in a 1-room shack with no running water, taught himself to read & write and worked his way through college completely on his own?
And they're resenting being told they should. The entire fucking anti-affirmative action movement is basically white guys upset they have to be nice to everyone and not show favoriism to other white guys, which is what they have been doing.
Put aside your bigotry (or racism? Is that it?) so a discussion can be had.
Fine...then what do we do to remedy it then? Nothing? How do we fix the game then?
Whether or not my ideas could pass your bigoted thought gates is irrelevant to whether or not AA is a workable solution. The logic that supports it is obviously, deeply, flawed and the program's history only confirms such.
It is certainly racist.
You are using race as the determining factor to make a presumption about an individual human.
What other useful definition of racism could there be?
The actual one: that inherited differences between the races naturally makes one inferior to another.
Believing one race has a tendency towards some cultural beliefs or another is not racist. As the different races come from different geographic regions, and cultural influence tends to be likewise limited to geographic regions, it is perfectly accurate (and historically verifiable) to say race & culture are tightly coupled without implying inferiority.
So your solution to a handful of people being assholes is to disadvantage everyone of European and Asian descent
Leveling the playing field isn't disadvantaging, though I can imagine some are upset that they are being called on their unearned privilege.
Race-based hiring is not leveling the playing field, it is leveling the score after the final results are in. The game started long before the job applications were submitted; before college; before primary; before birth even.
As much as I hate "USian", what's the preferred alternative? American? America isn't a country, it's a pair of continents.
There is no continent named "America". There is North America. There is South America. Just like there is the country United States of America. If you are consistently ignoring the beginning of each of the names, nobody can be called an American because there is no such place named just "America". But you're not, and I'm not sure why you arbitrarily decided to do that.
Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are.
Actually, I would argue they are because "American" when used in the context of continent is ambiguous: North or South. Whereas when used in reference to national origin, is not.
So it's down to "USian", which is retarded, or "American", which is ridiculously arrogant.
You do realize that Americans are not the only ones to refer to Americans as American, right? It is the accepted terminology to use in reference to US passport holders all over the planet. The terms history, including the transition in reference from First Americans (1570s-1590s) to North American residents of British descent (1640s) and then later to residents of the United States of America ("shockingly", 1770s), primarily flows via the choices of non-Americans.
Using abbreviated terms like "American" is not arrogance, it is how language naturally develops. Communication requires presumptions as to the meaning of whatever word, phrase, or gesture that is used. Communicators that share more knowledge, presume more and communicate less: Spouses can just look at each other, whereas strangers have to describe the entire situation to avoid ambiguity. Using "American" is simply somewhere in between a subtle gesture and having to explicitly state "A citizen, resident, or passport holder of the nation United States of America".
(compared to my classmates back then I'm black)
How about compared to your coworkers now? Are you still black? ;)
Electronic information is directly analogous to paper. Information is information regardless of how its stored.
Nope.
SCOTUS ruled police need a warrant to search your cell phone. If you had the exact same data on paper in a briefcase with you at the time of your arrest, they could search your briefcase (for personal safety reasons or for contraband), see the papers, and use them as evidence.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
1. Aereo Antenna Rental: you pay whatever fees they currently charge to rent an antenna & dvr; Additional $5/ month to be allowed to take it off their property (so you can set it up at home if you really want to)
2. Aereo Antenna Management: You pay them to manage your antenna... like a long-distance mechanical-turk style remote control.
Then its just Rent-A-Center partnering with an SI/SP to set your junk up.
It is not whether or not he has a crooked dogs hind leg to stand on, it is whether or not he can conspire via his lawyers to intimidate those person with the threat of court costs.
Are you trying to be funny? I ask because after reading the article and some of the discussions and edits, that is exactly the kind of language that was going on his page that he is suing over. If the man is acquitted, especially because the case was "flimsy", why would you be referring to him with negative words like "crooked", "conspire", and "intimidate" and focus on that period of his life? Are you just a rich-hater? Anybody with money that tries to defend their reputation is "clearly intending to threaten all Wikipedia contributors with threats of civil suits by the wealthy"?
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetency. Or something like that.
I'm sure that the best system admins around the world have deleted a file, mistakenly reused a backup tape out of order, or otherwise screwed up and lost something irretrievable sometime in their careers.
Sure.
But 6 times, once for each of the top managers involved in a scandal?
That statute (federal) is for unauthorized access, not using it for unauthorized reasons. You have access to the computer. If your company revokes that access and you continue to go on slashdot from that computer, then it becomes a felony (on top of a likely trespassing charge).
Incorrect. The statue says "unauthorized access; or exceeding authorization." If you are authorized to use a computer for work purposes only, but also use it for personal purposes, you are exceeding authorization.
That, by itself, I'm not sure is enough to be charged. I believe you have to do something else, such as accessing protected data. Its not difficult to do that by, say, mistyping your phone's serial number into AT&T's website and being shown records for somebody else's phone.
Cantor WAS the exception, proving EXCEPTIONS are possible. And, if you've paid any attention the last six years or so, you'll have seen a number of incumbent (R) lose primaries. I can't recall a (D) losing a primary ... if ever.
I know some lottery winners too. Thinking exceptions are more common, or available, or possible, than they really are, is why the stupid tax is so effective.
Again, the problem isn't the money, it is stupid voters who click based on name recognition and characterizations by opponents.
And what triggers name recognition and characterizations better than tons and tons of money buying tons and tons of advertising to brainwash stupid voters?
It is easy to paint me as a bumbling fool, but only to people who don't really know me.
It is difficult to paint you as a bumbling fool amongst a wide enough audience without lots of money. It is likewise difficult for people to get to know you without spending money to tell them about yourself.
The problem you're facing though, believing the problems with our elections are stupid voters and not something like money or rules, is how you're going to fix it. With such contempt for the decision making abilities of the majority of the country and believing that limiting financial influence won't help in a capitalist society, you're left with pretty much 2 options: disenfranchisement or genetic engineering combined with euthanasia.
I don't see either of those ideas winning you any elections.
No, it didn't. Redskin has always referred to the people, due to their "red" skin.
This may be hard to grasp, but a word can have multiple meanings.
This may be hard to grasp, prick, but claiming a little-used secondary definition as the definition is ignorant, stupid, or disingenuous. Furthermore, being a condescending prick is... just that. Discuss it, don't be an asshole about it.
Just because you think you know what a word meant to one group of people at one point in history does not mean that all peoples throughout history have used that word the same way. To many people "redskin" undoubtedly means "person with red skin, aka an injun/Indian/Native American/etc.".
To most people throughout history, even today, redskin means "person with red skin". Take for example, the Redskins NFL team.
However, it also was used to refer to the scalps of murdered Native Americans:
Recently. By people misinterpreting things like the newspaper clipping you quoted.
"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." [snip] and the second sentence further clarifies that they were talking about (pieces of) corpses.
It does nothing of the sort. "Sum" is referring to the $200 reward. Dead bodies refers to... dead bodies, of Indians. Not dead body parts. You're either willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding some simple English there.
P.S. Check your sources before quoting them. That Esquire story is just crap. One random writer's mother claims it has one meaning, and that is somehow more credible than a linguist's 7 month study, with citations? Oh, but the update you actually linked to (not the original story btw), the writer supports his original claim with a quote from another linguist who said, "I don't care where it comes from", like that somehow negates Goddard's findings. Baxter doesn't even offer a single shred of evidence to support his/your claim.
Oxford dictionary definition of redskin: An American Indian.
Google's definition: An American Indian.
Merriam-webster definition: american indian.
dictionary.reference.com definition: a North American Indian.
Wikipedia doesn't even try to claim redskin means scalp. Doesn't even suggest it means that. A site maintained by "the community" that you claim thinks redskin means "scalp", doesn't say it. The closest it gets is a quote by "one activist", the person behind the current (and past) lawsuit against the Redskins. Oh, and talks about the Phips Proclamation and "revisionist history".
Was redskin used in derogatory, inflammatory, and genocidal context? Absolutely (FYI "Indian" appears just as often, in the same context, further suggesting they are synonyms). It did not refer to body parts.
Condescension, horrible citation, absolutely nothing to back your claim or your attitude. Try again next story.
Redskin means "top of scalp taken from a dead Native American to be turned in for a bounty to the US government (which paid for the murder of Native American men, women and children)".
No, it didn't.
Redskin has always referred to the people, due to their "red" skin. It was first used by First American chiefs in discussions with the British & French. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Even in the proclamations and stories offering rewards for scalps that actually used the term "redskin", it referred to the people, not the scalps.
Today it is still used by First Americans for their own mascots. Upwards of 90% of First Americans don't even find the term offensive. http://washington.cbslocal.com...
You can't say the groups were or weren't denied, because they were kept in limbo, on purpose, for months and sometimes years. As good as denied, but actually better, because they couldn't appeal that non-denial, limbo condition.
They were delayed "on purpose" requires that pre-supposition that it was for political reasons. Being a government bureaucracy, you'd rather believe it was malice as opposed to being a normal, government bureaucracy that takes too long to do things.
Which liberal groups waited 3 years for an answer?