I wouldn't trust Transparency International beyond getting a *general* idea of a country's corruption. In country's where this is lots of corruption, TI itself can be corrupt.
The Corruption Perceptions Survey, 2009, blatantly asked about the corruption perceptions surrounding the ANP and the PML-N. For the ANP it did that mostly in areas where the party is unlikely to even field a candidate while for the PML-N it chose areas which are the party’s traditional strongholds. Therefore, the results cannot be considered an objective assessment, or even a ranking.
TI volunteered to present a fact-finding report to the SC establishing the innocence of NICL officials. In return NICL would award contracts solely to private parties cleared by TI and advertise tenders in newspapers after referring to the agency for advice.
Sources told Pakistan Today that the TIP chairman had blackmailed the Ports and Shipping Secretary Saleem Khan on Port Qasim issue to have his son appointed as a board member of the corporation.
They should be replaced by some rules protecting the basic values, i.e. no resolution can be passed that would suppress human rights (and other basic protections)
So yes it really has never been harder and asymmetric warfare has not really been easy for two centuries
The goals of war have never been harder than they are today.
We want a war, but we go out of our way to protect civilians, even those who support the enemy. We want to respect other cultures. We want to prosecute our own soldiers for war crimes that in the past would not be considered crimes. We have goals like "bring democracy" and "win hearts and minds" -- things that past wars did not give a crap about.
I mean, asymmetric warfare has always been hard, but it's a lot harder than it has been in the past not due to our enemy or any physical conditions or weapons technology, but because of our cultural conditions.
No what's retarded, beyond retarded, is making disparaging remarks against someone who will be covering your back in a foxhole.
Awesome then it's not an issue because everyone in the army must love and respect each other. So why does it happen? Maybe different people have different thoughts about what is funny and what is inappropriate. Maybe different people have different levels of sensitivity to others, both in what they say and in how they react to what others say.
Having rules that cater to the most sensitive, irritable types makes it unbearable for everyone else.
If you want to be a "normal person" then don't put yourself where you can't be one. There is no draft, enlisting is a personal choice.
You could say the same thing to people who are looking for a tolerant, inclusive, cuddly PC environment. If you don't want to be exposed to "sexual harassment", if you are ultra sensitive to casual remarks, then don't enlist. Why is your ultimatum better than mine?
My expectations for people who are already risking their lives and often placed in situations that they don't want to be in but legally cannot walk away from are A LOT lower than yours. So whatever. If some guy makes a sexually harassing remark to a woman, I don't think he should be punished. Likewise if a woman makes fun of a man in a demeaning way, so what. Comparing the violence of words to, you know, WAR is just completely stupid to me.
Systematic emotional abuse of people you don't like is violence.
So at some point discomfort turns into violence. But looking at the other perspective, you would never suggest that a gay person who makes others uncomfortable is violent at some point. For instance is kissing in public violence?
If I work in a company and I slur or slander my co-workers, I get punished. The same should hold true whether you are gay, woman, minority or what have you in a military situation.
I already said I don't think you can compare the military to a regular job. When your punishment means being court-marshaled and sent to prison it's different than being fired. If it means your commanding officer doesn't like you and starts preferring you for the most dangerous missions, where you can die, and you can't just quit your job because you'll be sent to prison.. I just don't see how you can compare them.
And in some crazy future scenario where the draft is reinstated, it's definitely not comparable.
A neanderthal utopia isn't really my ideal definition of "freedom". Being "free" doesn't mean you are free to abuse everyone around you.
It's hardly a utopia if people are abusing others, so I don't know why you would call it that. But we're talking about reality, not a utopia.
A couple of things: First, it's not your tax dollars, the USPS is not a full government agency, it's quasi-government. It's basically a private company that's wholly owned by the government, but receives no funding whatsoever and has to be self-sustaining.
Serious question: What's this? A lot of people say the USPS is totally self-funded but then why do they request funding from Congress every year? Is that considered a separate organization within the USPS or something?
It's good for bulk mail, and also for small packages, now that people are ordering more and more stuff online.
I think they should start accepting larger packages, if anything. They're becoming increasingly irrelevant, and they can't seem to compete on price for anything but letters (which I never send).
Yeah a private company like the USPS with "sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail." (Wikipedia).
If you really mean that, great. I support gays serving openly, but only in the right circumstances. I strongly oppose any kind of restrictions on what people are allowed to talk about or do that doesn't immediately harm someone else. If someone doesn't like gays and they find out someone is gay and they make fun of them, that's freedom vs. discomfort right? Do you support that person being free of fear of sexual harassment lawsuits or whatever?
So gays can serve openly, but no special treatment, no need to watch what you say or do, etc (and that goes for gay people too, they don't have to watch what they say). I would support that 100%.
Since this is a typical liberal project, it doesn't seem likely though. They want gays to serve openly, but they also want everybody else to walk on eggshells and create tolerance, inclusive environments and all that crap. That's really the only thing that bothers me.
Good points, but I don't know if it's fair to apply them to commenters on an article about gay rights. It's not like someone minding his own business and then suddenly raging about gays, or going out of his way to go to a gay parade and heckle. This is a mainstream site and one story happens to be about gay rights and we're all invited to comment. The fact that some have negative comments shouldn't automatically make them bigots. It's just a label people use to silence others.
I mean keep in mind if it were that cut and dry, there never would have *been* a don't ask don't tell rule and gays never would have been discriminated against. Unless you're comfortable saying like 30% or more of society is "completely bigoted" then it doesn't make sense. I know there are people like that but they are in the minority and they wouldn't be happy in *any* society except the one where they are an absolute dictator.
Have you served in the military? I have and we had a bunch of rules about saying things some may find offensive.
No, I'm mainly going off people I know and movies and stuff.
Say something about Blacks and you'll be dealt with. Whistle at a pretty female, or handsome male, and you could find charges filed against you. There is no difference between having these policies and having policies against harassment because of someone's sexual orientation.
I guess it's just me, but I find that really sad. People are in life and death situations where they're being shot at, they're killing people, etc. As we become more civilized and modern, soldiers are being treated really badly. Now they even have to watch what they say during their down time lest they offend someone? I mean really, that is pathetic.
I'm not in the army so it doesn't really affect me but just the thought that some 19 year old kid might be prosecuted for saying something racially insensitive.. in a war zone.. it's just beyond retarded. And it's not like normal workplace rules because when you're deployed or living on a base it's like 24/7. When do you get to be a normal person?
One issue is that we have special laws for protected minorities like gays. Hopefully the military won't try to treat "openly" gay people as having special privileges in terms of protection from harassment or obscene speech that non-protected minorities don't receive. Are soldiers going to get in trouble for saying things like "that's gay" or "you fag" or "that sucks dick" now because they have to be aware and sensitive to sexuality, even amongst themselves? Seems like a step in that direction.
Why is someone who is against gays a bigot? Look at the definition:
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."
"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"
"bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others"
Being against gays serving openly is not sufficient to call someone a bigot. It's one issue. And if you're so strict on enforcing gay rights, even in situations where it makes others uncomfortable, then you're a bigot too by your strict definition.
If Afghanistan reverted to its pre 9-11 state, there would be very little standing in the way of an Taliban and Al-Qaeda takeover of Pakistan
There's a huge difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan -- namely, Pakistan funds and controls the Taliban and works with al Qaeda. Pakistan would be thrilled if we just abandoned Afghanistan, because they can be more open about redirecting their internal terrorist problems back into the "global jihad (in other places)".
If the US retreated hastily from Afghanistan now, it could lead to an even larger regional war(s). The Afghan situation stinks, but for now we are stuck there.
We have already abandoned our goals in Afghanistan. We don't give a crap about fighting the Taliban, we are negotiating with them! We could leave today or we could leave 5 years from now and the outcome would be exactly the same, based on how we are currently operating.
That's not just us, it's many things in nature. If you're a nice, slow-growing oak tree, you'll be taken down by the ravenous kudzu, which doesn't give a crap about diversity or indigenous ecosystems.
There is a compromise -- no spending increases, no tax cuts. When the economy grows enough there can be inflationary spending increases, but not real increases. Eventually the deficit would take care of itself.
The thing is, science is worldwide. The basic science discovered in Japan will help us in America.
Military spending is different. Sure we have treaties and stuff, but in the end your own military protects you foremost. If you don't have one, you can be easily screwed.
You know, air superiority has been a major factor in the last 50 years. Why would you want to hamstring us now?
I want 100x more drones for low-level threats, and $300bn jet fighters for high level threats. And wow, $300bn is quite an exaggeration. Most funding things are talked about in a per-year basis, you're talking about total program costs.
And yet Social Security spending goes right back to the people who it was taken from. And is roughly in proportion to it's intake
You know that's not how it really works, right?
SS taxes are not collected from people and saved for their retirement. They are collected and immediately paid to current retirees. SS tax used to be less than 2% total (employee + employer), now it's over 12%. If it had always been 12%, you'd have a point, and SS wouldn't be such a mess, but in reality baby boomers have all paid less than 12% for much of their careers -- not to mention the lower caps on earnings affected by SS, and the earlier retiring ages in the past.
If we cut the military budget by 80%, it would still be the largest military in the world.
How about per capita or as a percent of GDP?
It's already not the biggest as a percentage of GDP, do you find that inconvenient?
If we cut Social Security by 80%, we'll have no deficit and still have the best military in the world. That sounds like a better plan.
But you can see that science and scientific progress comes rather late in this hierarchy. And, bluntly, right now we have a LOT of problems with the lower 3 tiers.
I don't know who "we" is to you but I think you have to remember that a country is made up of millions of individuals. Unlike the case for a single person, they don't ALL need to be fed and healthy before moving on to stage two, and in fact it's against human nature to insist on it.
When you look at countries like India and China that have reinvented their economies, moved to a much more (though not completely) capitalist system, and focused resources on a small portion of the population in order to advance them to a world-competitive level, you see that skipping levels in your hierarchy actually makes a lot of sense.
There are far more people in India who have increased food security because of what you might call trickle-down economics than what communist policies of making sure everybody gets fed before bothering with science and technology ever did.
Explain to me why the largest military in the world 'needs' another carrier or two.
1. Stuff wears out 2. Technology marches onwards
If we were to cut ALL military spending across the board by 80%, the US military would still be the largest military in the world by about 35% over China.
Think of how much more $1 buys in China than America, especially for troop salaries and stuff. I'd say comparing military use of resources purely in terms of cash is misleading.
Maybe if the US military wasn't required to be the world's policemen by the US govt
World's policemen? Let me know when the world's policemen are going around actually fighting criminals and punishing them, not rebuilding their countries. It's more like "world's bitches" if anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't trust Transparency International beyond getting a *general* idea of a country's corruption. In country's where this is lots of corruption, TI itself can be corrupt.
http://criticalppp.com/archives/12664
The Corruption Perceptions Survey, 2009, blatantly asked about the corruption perceptions surrounding the ANP and the PML-N. For the ANP it did that mostly in areas where the party is unlikely to even field a candidate while for the PML-N it chose areas which are the party’s traditional strongholds. Therefore, the results cannot be considered an objective assessment, or even a ranking.
http://criticalppp.com/archives/33751
TI volunteered to present a fact-finding report to the SC establishing the innocence of NICL officials. In return NICL would award contracts solely to private parties cleared by TI and advertise tenders in newspapers after referring to the agency for advice.
http://pakistantoday.com.pk/pakistan-news/Regional/Karachi/17-Nov-2010/TIP-chairmans-son-resigns-from-PNSC-board-membership
Sources told Pakistan Today that the TIP chairman had blackmailed the Ports and Shipping Secretary Saleem Khan on Port Qasim issue to have his son appointed as a board member of the corporation.
They should be replaced by some rules protecting the basic values, i.e. no resolution can be passed that would suppress human rights (and other basic protections)
Who enforces that rule?
So yes it really has never been harder and asymmetric warfare has not really been easy for two centuries
The goals of war have never been harder than they are today.
We want a war, but we go out of our way to protect civilians, even those who support the enemy. We want to respect other cultures. We want to prosecute our own soldiers for war crimes that in the past would not be considered crimes. We have goals like "bring democracy" and "win hearts and minds" -- things that past wars did not give a crap about.
I mean, asymmetric warfare has always been hard, but it's a lot harder than it has been in the past not due to our enemy or any physical conditions or weapons technology, but because of our cultural conditions.
No what's retarded, beyond retarded, is making disparaging remarks against someone who will be covering your back in a foxhole.
Awesome then it's not an issue because everyone in the army must love and respect each other. So why does it happen? Maybe different people have different thoughts about what is funny and what is inappropriate. Maybe different people have different levels of sensitivity to others, both in what they say and in how they react to what others say.
Having rules that cater to the most sensitive, irritable types makes it unbearable for everyone else.
If you want to be a "normal person" then don't put yourself where you can't be one. There is no draft, enlisting is a personal choice.
You could say the same thing to people who are looking for a tolerant, inclusive, cuddly PC environment. If you don't want to be exposed to "sexual harassment", if you are ultra sensitive to casual remarks, then don't enlist. Why is your ultimatum better than mine?
My expectations for people who are already risking their lives and often placed in situations that they don't want to be in but legally cannot walk away from are A LOT lower than yours. So whatever. If some guy makes a sexually harassing remark to a woman, I don't think he should be punished. Likewise if a woman makes fun of a man in a demeaning way, so what. Comparing the violence of words to, you know, WAR is just completely stupid to me.
Systematic emotional abuse of people you don't like is violence.
So at some point discomfort turns into violence. But looking at the other perspective, you would never suggest that a gay person who makes others uncomfortable is violent at some point. For instance is kissing in public violence?
If I work in a company and I slur or slander my co-workers, I get punished. The same should hold true whether you are gay, woman, minority or what have you in a military situation.
I already said I don't think you can compare the military to a regular job. When your punishment means being court-marshaled and sent to prison it's different than being fired. If it means your commanding officer doesn't like you and starts preferring you for the most dangerous missions, where you can die, and you can't just quit your job because you'll be sent to prison.. I just don't see how you can compare them.
And in some crazy future scenario where the draft is reinstated, it's definitely not comparable.
A neanderthal utopia isn't really my ideal definition of "freedom". Being "free" doesn't mean you are free to abuse everyone around you.
It's hardly a utopia if people are abusing others, so I don't know why you would call it that. But we're talking about reality, not a utopia.
As a practical matter, how many addresses are not serviced by UPS? What percent of the population is affected?
A couple of things: First, it's not your tax dollars, the USPS is not a full government agency, it's quasi-government. It's basically a private company that's wholly owned by the government, but receives no funding whatsoever and has to be self-sustaining.
Serious question: What's this? A lot of people say the USPS is totally self-funded but then why do they request funding from Congress every year? Is that considered a separate organization within the USPS or something?
It's good for bulk mail, and also for small packages, now that people are ordering more and more stuff online.
I think they should start accepting larger packages, if anything. They're becoming increasingly irrelevant, and they can't seem to compete on price for anything but letters (which I never send).
Yeah a private company like the USPS with "sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail." (Wikipedia).
Sound like many private companies you know?
Cool so you completely ignore population and available resources. Really good plan.
I'm sure you feel the same way about stuff like education spending. We spend more than any other country. So we should definitely cut that right?
Freedom trumps discomfort, every single time.
If you really mean that, great. I support gays serving openly, but only in the right circumstances. I strongly oppose any kind of restrictions on what people are allowed to talk about or do that doesn't immediately harm someone else. If someone doesn't like gays and they find out someone is gay and they make fun of them, that's freedom vs. discomfort right? Do you support that person being free of fear of sexual harassment lawsuits or whatever?
So gays can serve openly, but no special treatment, no need to watch what you say or do, etc (and that goes for gay people too, they don't have to watch what they say). I would support that 100%.
Since this is a typical liberal project, it doesn't seem likely though. They want gays to serve openly, but they also want everybody else to walk on eggshells and create tolerance, inclusive environments and all that crap. That's really the only thing that bothers me.
Good points, but I don't know if it's fair to apply them to commenters on an article about gay rights. It's not like someone minding his own business and then suddenly raging about gays, or going out of his way to go to a gay parade and heckle. This is a mainstream site and one story happens to be about gay rights and we're all invited to comment. The fact that some have negative comments shouldn't automatically make them bigots. It's just a label people use to silence others.
I mean keep in mind if it were that cut and dry, there never would have *been* a don't ask don't tell rule and gays never would have been discriminated against. Unless you're comfortable saying like 30% or more of society is "completely bigoted" then it doesn't make sense. I know there are people like that but they are in the minority and they wouldn't be happy in *any* society except the one where they are an absolute dictator.
Have you served in the military? I have and we had a bunch of rules about saying things some may find offensive.
No, I'm mainly going off people I know and movies and stuff.
Say something about Blacks and you'll be dealt with. Whistle at a pretty female, or handsome male, and you could find charges filed against you. There is no difference between having these policies and having policies against harassment because of someone's sexual orientation.
I guess it's just me, but I find that really sad. People are in life and death situations where they're being shot at, they're killing people, etc. As we become more civilized and modern, soldiers are being treated really badly. Now they even have to watch what they say during their down time lest they offend someone? I mean really, that is pathetic.
I'm not in the army so it doesn't really affect me but just the thought that some 19 year old kid might be prosecuted for saying something racially insensitive.. in a war zone.. it's just beyond retarded. And it's not like normal workplace rules because when you're deployed or living on a base it's like 24/7. When do you get to be a normal person?
One issue is that we have special laws for protected minorities like gays. Hopefully the military won't try to treat "openly" gay people as having special privileges in terms of protection from harassment or obscene speech that non-protected minorities don't receive. Are soldiers going to get in trouble for saying things like "that's gay" or "you fag" or "that sucks dick" now because they have to be aware and sensitive to sexuality, even amongst themselves? Seems like a step in that direction.
Why is someone who is against gays a bigot? Look at the definition:
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."
"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"
"bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others"
Being against gays serving openly is not sufficient to call someone a bigot. It's one issue. And if you're so strict on enforcing gay rights, even in situations where it makes others uncomfortable, then you're a bigot too by your strict definition.
The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.
Do the only people who rage against blacks struggle with their own blackness too?
Men who hate women are actually women?
Obviously not, so why would it be true for people against homosexuality?
But gays can't follow the simple command of "don't talk about being gay"?
Not saying they shouldn't, but your argument reeks of double standard.
If Afghanistan reverted to its pre 9-11 state, there would be very little standing in the way of an Taliban and Al-Qaeda takeover of Pakistan
There's a huge difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan -- namely, Pakistan funds and controls the Taliban and works with al Qaeda. Pakistan would be thrilled if we just abandoned Afghanistan, because they can be more open about redirecting their internal terrorist problems back into the "global jihad (in other places)".
If the US retreated hastily from Afghanistan now, it could lead to an even larger regional war(s). The Afghan situation stinks, but for now we are stuck there.
We have already abandoned our goals in Afghanistan. We don't give a crap about fighting the Taliban, we are negotiating with them! We could leave today or we could leave 5 years from now and the outcome would be exactly the same, based on how we are currently operating.
That's not just us, it's many things in nature. If you're a nice, slow-growing oak tree, you'll be taken down by the ravenous kudzu, which doesn't give a crap about diversity or indigenous ecosystems.
Why shouldn't we consume more, if we can?
There is a compromise -- no spending increases, no tax cuts. When the economy grows enough there can be inflationary spending increases, but not real increases. Eventually the deficit would take care of itself.
The thing is, science is worldwide. The basic science discovered in Japan will help us in America.
Military spending is different. Sure we have treaties and stuff, but in the end your own military protects you foremost. If you don't have one, you can be easily screwed.
You know, air superiority has been a major factor in the last 50 years. Why would you want to hamstring us now?
I want 100x more drones for low-level threats, and $300bn jet fighters for high level threats. And wow, $300bn is quite an exaggeration. Most funding things are talked about in a per-year basis, you're talking about total program costs.
And yet Social Security spending goes right back to the people who it was taken from. And is roughly in proportion to it's intake
You know that's not how it really works, right?
SS taxes are not collected from people and saved for their retirement. They are collected and immediately paid to current retirees. SS tax used to be less than 2% total (employee + employer), now it's over 12%. If it had always been 12%, you'd have a point, and SS wouldn't be such a mess, but in reality baby boomers have all paid less than 12% for much of their careers -- not to mention the lower caps on earnings affected by SS, and the earlier retiring ages in the past.
If we cut the military budget by 80%, it would still be the largest military in the world.
How about per capita or as a percent of GDP?
It's already not the biggest as a percentage of GDP, do you find that inconvenient?
If we cut Social Security by 80%, we'll have no deficit and still have the best military in the world. That sounds like a better plan.
But you can see that science and scientific progress comes rather late in this hierarchy. And, bluntly, right now we have a LOT of problems with the lower 3 tiers.
I don't know who "we" is to you but I think you have to remember that a country is made up of millions of individuals. Unlike the case for a single person, they don't ALL need to be fed and healthy before moving on to stage two, and in fact it's against human nature to insist on it.
When you look at countries like India and China that have reinvented their economies, moved to a much more (though not completely) capitalist system, and focused resources on a small portion of the population in order to advance them to a world-competitive level, you see that skipping levels in your hierarchy actually makes a lot of sense.
There are far more people in India who have increased food security because of what you might call trickle-down economics than what communist policies of making sure everybody gets fed before bothering with science and technology ever did.
Explain to me why the largest military in the world 'needs' another carrier or two.
1. Stuff wears out
2. Technology marches onwards
If we were to cut ALL military spending across the board by 80%, the US military would still be the largest military in the world by about 35% over China.
Think of how much more $1 buys in China than America, especially for troop salaries and stuff. I'd say comparing military use of resources purely in terms of cash is misleading.
Maybe if the US military wasn't required to be the world's policemen by the US govt
World's policemen? Let me know when the world's policemen are going around actually fighting criminals and punishing them, not rebuilding their countries. It's more like "world's bitches" if anything.