"There are international agreements on the treatment of prisoners of war and those should apply"
That would be nice, but we do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions on POWs as we have defined these folks as "Enemy Combatants". They have very limited access to the Red Cross, amongst many other issues. IANAL, but I believe if they are not POWs, they are criminals, and should be afforded legal counsel and access to the court system. Creating this new category is a sham and embarrassing to me (and many others) as an American.
Yes, I agree, it is hard to compare the US to China in regards to human rights. But, as the crusaders for freedom, we should hold ourselves to a much higher standard. Why is the government so scared to allow the courts to be involved and have lawyers representing them? Could it be that they know most (almost certainly not all) of the prisoners are guilty of nothing or very little?
As Americans we were taught (brainwashed perhaps) that our system of justice is far superior to all others. That the checks and balances of our system will check abuse, and everyone will have their day in court. I could go on and on about warrants, judicial oversight, etc.
Your point on government criticism is valid, we are pretty free in that regard (this post is a great example). But freedom of speech is just one right "guaranteed" in our constitution. There are many others, and they are being rolled over like a bug under a steamroller. And not just in regards to the war on terror, but the 2nd amendment, equal protection under the law (gay marriage amongst other issues), wiretaps without judicial oversight, etc.
"Enough with the torture in Gitmo. This myth was blown away by Democrats themselves when they sent several Dem lawmakers down there and returned to confirm this was not true."
Yeah, I can just picture the walk-through by the congressman. "OK everyone, ignore the dudes in the suits, just keep doing what we always do". Like they would actually be doing this stuff when there are congresscritters watching!
That said, most of the torture allegations did not occur at Gitmo. They occurred at secret CIA and military jails, and foreign jails (such as in Egypt). They have not really denied it either, just redefined the term "torture" to not include what they were/are doing, and/or outsourced it to other governments.
"A) The constitution already contains a method to amend it as needed; it's been done quite a few times, you might recall from school."
True, but it is not very feasible to do so for little things, or for timely issues. It is not very practical in most cases, so is just ignored in many. As we are on the slippery slope, the exceptions get broadened.
A quick example is that we ban a certain weapon through the amendment process, let's say a 50 BMG. Then, some company comes out with a very similar, but legally different, 49 BMG. Do we go through the whole exercise of a constitutional amendment every time? It would not work.
A more extreme example is someone invents a new weapon that can knock out a city with commonly available chemicals. Do we have to go through the amendment process for that? It generally takes many years.
The current method, pass the law and hope common sense prevails generally works. But, the process is getting abused, and the Second Amendment is effectively just a guideline with no real teeth. Similar arguments could be made for many other basic constitutional rights.
"B) Determining what is, and what is not "in violation of the constitution" is not exactly clear-cut. The Supreme Court is basically responsible for this now, but they do it after-the-fact, as I'm sure reviewing every piece of legislation before any voting is conducted would be unfeasible."
Sometimes it is very clear-cut, sometimes isn't. There remains a role for the courts in this, but they are far from perfect (and would likely be the first to admit that) and their latitude should be reigned in. There will always be ambiguity, but limiting it is a good thing. Also, the cost of going through the court system (especially if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court) is generally out of the realm of the common man.
In a perfect world, your points are dead on, but the world is far from perfect. We have apparently given our government wide latitude to ignore our basic rights with a simple majority, or the stroke of the Executive's pen. In many cases, to have standing to even challenge a law you have to risk jail and break it, then challenge your conviction through a very expensive process. That system is broken and unfair. As is the case with many gun laws, there is a pretty good chance you are going to lose. Here in Chicago the gun ownership laws are incredibly draconian, have been challenged in court several times, and never overturned. This is despite the fact they are clearly unconstitutional based on a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment.
I could make the same case for our activities in Guantanamo, our treatment of Jose Padilla, etc. The constitution is being trampled on daily, sometimes with the best of intentions and probably good judgment, by all three branches of government. My suggestion is intended to come up with a reasonable system to allow some flexibility, protect basic rights, and keep the law as clear as possible.
Interesting idea. I think you may have taken it to the extreme, but the concept in general is something I have pondered before. A good example is for laws that violate basic rights, but are probably the right thing to do.
An example would be the US right to bear arms. With a literal reading, it clearly states we can possess any weapon we want. That, in most people's opinion, is preposterous as it allows anyone to own a missile or atomic weapon. We, of course, long ago made these things illegal. BUT, that is a slippery slope and many governments in the US have used that concept to ban handguns, assault weapons (broadly defined in many cases), etc. in clear violation of the constitution (IMNSHO). One gets the feeling the Constitution is just a silly piece of badly-worn paper at times.
One can find many examples outside of the contentious firearms issue. Restrictions on freedom of speech, habeas corpus, requirements for warrants, etc. all come to mind in recent times. Sometimes these laws are necessary, but it should not be done with a secret presidential order, by a simple majority of a legislature, or with the concurrence of a sympathetic judge. There should be structure behind it, not in any single person's purview, certainly not easy to do, with lots of checks and balances.
My idea is to allow laws in violation of the constitution but require a super-majority to enact them. To pick a number, say 80%. We would have no problem banning private ownership of a nuke or automatic weapon, but banning or heavily restricting owning a semi-auto rifle would not likely ever pass.
Canada has an interesting approach, called the "Notwithstanding clause". It provides a mechanism for Parliament to ignore parts of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms when necessary, but requires renewal every 5 years (or less if an expiry time was written into the law) or it automatically expires. An interesting concept, but seems way too easy to invoke.
The "tyranny of the majority" is certainly a big issue, and has eroded the sanctity of the US Constitution. It is not exactly useless, but is becoming less "supreme" everyday. This could bring it back to it's supreme status, while giving us some flexibility to deal with changing times and technology in an open and clear manner.
Bottom line, I like the way you are thinking, but there are some danger areas. It could have an opposite effect. Very small minorities could hold up a budget, but agree once they are bought off with some pork for their district. This happens even with a 50% requirement, and would become rampant with a 90%.
"The Federal Communications Commission requires that we obtain your consent to do so."
And there is the kicker that bothered me most when I read this thing a couple weeks ago. They repeatedly used terms like "consent" and "permission", then slipped in that they assume consent if you do not opt-out. I believe your average (and even above average) consumer would read this as something that must actively be consented to, not passively. It would have been very easy to miss the fact you needed to actively opt-out.
A simple mail carrier slip-up, or it getting accidentally tossed out with your other junk-mail, and you would have unwittingly given consent.
I hope the FCC is looking into their definition of consent.
"I thought that it was not sugar so much as Phenylalanine"
The theory I have heard that makes the most sense is "high fructose corn syrup". 20 years ago Coke switched from sugar to this crap. The whole Coke/New Coke/Classic Coke marketing ploy was used to make the switch with few noticing (we were so glad to get our old coke back, we did not pay attention). Most other soft drink producers, and many other junk food manufacturers, did the same. It was much cheaper. Fructose does not trigger insulin the same way regular sugar does, causing a lot of glucose to build up in your blood. It also metabolizes quickly, sending your blood sugar through the roof within minutes of consumption.
The current Diabetes epidemic tracks this massive change in our diets almost perfectly. Give it 20 years, people get older, exercise less, the cumulative effects take hold and wham.
I almost never drank diet soda, primarily just Classic Coke. Not ridiculous quantities, but 2-3 cans a day was pretty normal. Mix that with a Snickers, ice cream, pasta, etc. In my late 30s I tried to lose weight by avoiding fat, but that pretty much leads to a high carb diet (unless you just eat rabbit food). By 40 (I am now 44) the symptoms started showing up, but I mostly ignored them.
One night I was out drinking with some coworkers, one noticed I was drinking water by the pitcher and we started talking. He was diabetic (not surprisingly another programmer who led a similar life to many of us) and had a glucometer. He measured my blood glucose and almost fell over. I had 520 mg/dl (80-120 is normal).
I am pretty sure that there is no one "smoking gun", but high fructose corn syrup sure seems a likely major factor. At least for me and many others. Especially considering the massive spike in cases, and the 15-20 year correlation to the massive introduction of HFCS to our diets.
If I can give a couple pieces of advice to the 20-somethings on this forum:
- You are not invincible. Bad habits will catch up with you in one way or another. Whether it is diabetes, heart problems, etc., it will get you. All the stock option bonanzas in the world won't save you either. Look around your office at the 40 somethings. Lots of fat and lazy folks. They were just like you 20 years ago!!!
- Get into an exercise habit, and stick with it. It does not have to be a formal plan or involve going to the gym, but walking or biking to work, the store (or the bar), parking at the back of the parking lot, etc. will all help. Going for a walk after eating is really good, as it is working off what you just shoved down your throat and speeds up your metabolism. It helps the environment too.
- Moderation is the key to food consumption. I don't advocate dropping all the good stuff, that gets too boring and you will likely not stick with it. Have your favorites, but get smaller portions and go for a walk afterwards.
I still love my DQ, but I only get it from the DQ 3 miles from my house, I get a small dish, and I ride my bike there. I still drink beer, but I only have 2 or 3 (instead of 7 or 8), and I ride my bike there too. I skip fries and have a salad instead. Have a coke, but then alternate with water or coffee instead of another coke. Get the can of coke, instead of the 20 oz or Big Gulp (forget about the price advantage, long-term that is a fallacy when you consider your health costs). All the little steps help, as long as there are lots of little things to have a cumulative effect, and you do it all (or at least most) of the time.
I will be living with this the rest of my shortened life. I will say though, it scared the the hell out of me, and I am now in as good a shape as I was 20 years ago, and way better than 10 years ago. I feel fucking great. I have more energy than I got from caffeine and sugar. I am just pissed off at myself for getting into this situation. I can't go back and change it, the damage is done. All I can do is contain it, and make it not get much worse. Hopefully I can help at least one person avoid my fate with this rant.
"Has this ever happened to anybody here (while in their home country)? It's something you hear about, and it's something I could imagine happening, but I ride in cabs fairly regularly, and I've never had a cab driver try to do this to me.."
I had it happen in my own neighborhood in Chicago. Me and a buddy came out of a bar at 4am, drunk as skunks. The doorman insisted (rightly) that we not drive and he flagged us down a cab. It was a 3 mile drive home, a straight shot down a major thoroughfare. Definite no-brainer and we were even pointed in the right direction.
This bar was about a block inside the city limits. Cabs get double meter if they have to go outside the city, to cover for the fact they cannot pickup a fare outside the city limits for the return trip. This jerk took a right, then a tour of several alleys, looped into the neighboring town (Evanston) then headed back into the city (the right direction).
Though drunk, I kinda knew what was going on. I had him drop us off a block from home at a local 24hr convenience store popular with cops (they get free coffee there). The fare should have been around $7-8, but he tried to charge us $18, claiming double fare (and the extra for the "alley tour"). I threw him a ten spot and got out. He got nasty and started swearing at us, threatening to "kick our asses" and call the police. At that point, a couple of the cops inside the store came out to investigate. I knew one of them, and slurred out a "Hi John". The cabbie realized he was screwed, quickly jumped back in his car and drove away, tail between his legs.
1 ATM/debit card 2 Major-label credit/debit card (may be the same as #1) with a Visa or Master Card logo"
I pretty much agree with you, but if you want to rent a car, you pretty much need a real credit card (not just a Visa/MC labelled debit card).
There are some rental car agencies that will rent you a car with a debit card, but they are rare and usually put a large hold on your account for several weeks.
I had converted to debit card only, but had to get a credit card again when I ran into this issue.
"but there wasn't much in the way of open alternatives to.doc 10 years ago or whatever(which would be Office '97 right?)."
Well, at least there was the prior defacto standard (and still pretty much the defacto standard in the legal world) of WordPerfect format (WP5). And, Word could save to that and it probably still can (I don't have a copy to check with). WP did not make it difficult to use by other apps like MS did. I do not recall if it was actually documented, or just easy to reverse engineer.
"Not at all true. As has been mentioned many times in this thread, the merchant can do everything *perfectly* and still get fucked. My sis runs a mail order business. The cards go through her merchant gateway (which she pays through the nose for), the security checks go through, and she's STILL stiffed for payments on a regular basis. There's really nothing that merchants can do."
They can REDUCE the fraud, probably not eliminate it. But they still have an advantage if they use due diligence and reduce the fraud.
I agree though, if they did do it right, they should not be charged.
I imagine there will be a shaking out. If things get out of hand (as in your example) the market should adjust.
"The merchant has to make a living, the credit card company too. The money for fraud can only come from the end of the chain: the customer. The only notable thing here is that all customers pay, not just the ones who use a credit card."
All good points, but you are missing one major issue. The customers of the companies that put proper safeguards in place (check ID/shipping Address, firewalls, etc.) do not have to pay, or pay as much at least.
Therefore, those companies are able to charge less for the same goods, and thrive. Those companies that are sloppy will be hurt, possibly to the point of going out of business.
BTW, I think your post is way too cynical. There are many excellent police officers out there, doing great work. Sure, there are idiots, power-freeks, and other malcontents, but your broad-brush approach is way off-base. Sorry to hear you feel that way.
"If you were God in that position, what would you do?"
Hehe. Good one. I'll bite.
I would probably clarify the situation now that a large number of folks can comprehend me.
Heck, I am omnipotent, I can be VERY convincing even if I seem to be contradicting earlier simplified statements.
I might also, while I am motivated, clean up some of these war and hunger problems, eradicate a few corrupt governments, etc. I might even make more people gay to deal with the population problem. A little spring cleaning, so to speak.
"It was either Barack Hussein Obama or Alan Carpetbagger Keyes. Obama was the sane sounding black guy so he got elected. Believe me, in 2008, as long as he's not facing a complete lunatic, he will lose because he is black."
Good point (Alan Keyes was outrageous), but:
- Keyes was not the original candidate, Ryan was (before he had a very embarassing revelation from his divorce). Ryan was fairly mainstream. Obama was way ahead in the polls before he ran into trouble.
- Same folks put Carol Mosely Braun into the Senate.
- Obama is insanely popular here. Can't say I have heard a disparaging word about him from anyone.
Blacks are fairly rare in the Senate, and Illinois has put two in within very recent times. I think we have a better record of taking race out of the picture than the coasts.
You might be right on your general assessment, but it won't be because of the midwest, at least not the upper-Midwest. He will have trouble in places like Kansas because of his stance on abortion, not likely because of his race.
The main problem here is "cherry-picking". AT&T will come in and serve only the most profitable areas of a town, avoiding the less profitable..... if they are allowed to.
I live in Chicago (the city proper, not the suburbs mentioned in this article) and we have zero competition in our neighborhood. The lakefront area where many of the wealthier folks live have a wide variety of choices for telco and TV. Some parts of town don't even have DSL available, even if they live near a CO.
AT&T (nee SBC, Ameritech, Illinois Bell) has a long history of this, as do the cable companies. I bet AT&T would have a lot more luck if they agreed to a reasonable (over several years) "full coverage" plan.
What surprises me is the lack of active participation by the insurance industry in the search for a cure for Diabetes. These are the commercial entities most likely to benefit financially by a "cure".
As several have pointed out, the commercial entities most likely to benefit from from treating, rather than curing, are the pharmaceutical and, to a lesser degree, the food industries (diet foods). It is no surprise they are not interested in a cure, but the health insurance industry would benefit directly in lower costs and the life insurance industry in getting more payments before they have to pay out.
The only argument I have heard as to why not is that diabetes (type 2 in particular) is so slow coming on that their patients will move on to other employer's health plans and/or simply become uninsurable.
"This is one area, where 5th amendment protection usually doesn't apply (since its considered a search)."
The core legal issue here in the US (and probably other places) is that driving a car is not a funadamental "right". It is a "privilege" granted by the state.
The 5th amendment definitely applies. That is why they cannot force you to submit to a search (breathalyzer, blood test, etc.) without a warrant.
But, since it is a privilege to drive, and not a right, they can revoke that privilege if you refuse a test. You will not be charged with a crime, or be subject to jail or fine, but your privilege to drive can be suspended without any constitutional muss or fuss.
"So listing two (related) bombings by foreign persons and 3 domestic bombings by US nationals counts as justification for war? Or were you just saying the debatable "domestic" bombings were justification for war? And which war, exactly, are they justification for? The "War on Terror" or the war in Iraq?
I'm just trying to clarify here."
Read my post, and it's parent, again. My guess based on your questions, is you and I have similar opinions. I believe I was clear.
My own personal opinion, is the only "justified" war we have engaged in recent times is against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
My only reason for mentioning Oklahoma City, the Unibomber, etc. is that it directly addresses his statement.
"This "attack" on Paypal seems more like an act of vandalism than a terrorist strike."
That is almost certain. I called it exactly that in the last line of my post.
My reason for posting was simple. I can't stand to see good points ruined with misleading information. Michael Moore is a classic example. He has so many great points, but makes them vulerable to debunking by twisting the truth (bad use of statistics for example). His credibility with exactly the people he wants to convince (the ones who don't already agree with him) suffers as a result. The catch the BS line, and ignore the rest of his message.
Again, I am sure, you, the parent I replied to, and I are pretty much on the same page.
"Yes I look upon this pathetic excuse for a terrorist act and agree that it is the biggest incident of domestic terrorism in five years the second largest in the past fifteen years, third largest in decades."
Not to dispute your overall point (I basically agree), but that is a pretty ridiculous statement. Without any research or even deep thought, these come to mind (and I am sure I am missing many) in the last 15 years that greatly exceed this one by an order of magnitude:
- 9/11 - WTC (1993) - Oklahoma City (Murrah Federal Building) - Unibomber (several separate incidents, including a few deaths) - 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing - Re-election of George W. Bush (just kidding, sort of)
And, I think we can include the 1998 US embassy bombings as attacks on US soil, and throw in the attacks on the Marine Barracks in Saudi and the USS Cole in a similar group. Yeah, these are debatable as "domestic" but they certainly fall into the category of justifications for war in many people's minds.
Just the other day a suburban Chicago man was arrested for bombing a Salt Lake City library and is under suspicion for 2 similar pipe-bombings in the Chicago area over the past several months. These are at least equal in severity to the Paypal "bombing", and I would say exceed as most (maybe all) were done in the daytime when people were around. Thankfully no one was seriously injured in any of them.
I am sure I missed many that were more severe than this "serious case of vandalism" that occurred at Paypal HQ.
"I do not think they would go as far as making it retroactively illegal and charge this guy under the new law. "
The good news is, they couldn't if they wanted to. That is called an "ex post facto" law, and is expressly forbidden in the US constitution. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution. Section 10 applies the same restriction on the States.
"The Oulook Outlook Express UI has been more or less the same for years."
And it won't likely ever.
MS stopped development on Outlook Express long ago (5 years or so, I forget).
I think the only changes made in several years were default changes to make it more secure. It no longer runs scripts by default, etc. Might have also been a few changes to make it fully XP compatible.
Too bad, despite my general aversion to MS products, OE inspired a whole new generation of mail clients. For it's time, it was revolutionary in many ways.
"Could you get away with presenting a documentary on a prime time mainstream channel about the shady connections between the bush family and house of saud, and infleunce this has exerted over the "war on terror"? or any other of the manifold outrages the US government has perpetrated in developing countries since the 2nd world war?
Would any one even take you seriously, or would you be shot straight down as a left wing conspiracy theorist nutcase?"
You have taken this quite a bit further than I can't express ANY dissent against the government without being shot down or branded a communist. That is a whole different argument. You are comparing apples and oranges.
I could turn that question around. Could you do something similar in the UK implicating The Crown or Blair in such conspiracies and not be branded as a left wing conspiracy theorist nutcase? I think, without significant tangible proof, you would suffer the same reaction in the UK if all you did was present a bunch of opinion and conjecture. Find a smoking gun, and you might have success in either country.
"You honestly believe the UK is as bad as the US? At least in the UK it is socially acceptable to criticise the government. If you do that in the US you're commie terrorist traitor that wants americans to die. In the UK everyone sees the government for what it is and tells it so regularly in the mainstream media. (Pity Tony Blair never listened)"
And you are basing this on one isolated incident of some overzealous cops and security screeners? If all the facts of this story are true (they rarely are), these guys are going to get disciplined for exceeding their authority. I am pretty sure the US does not have a monopoly on police exceeding their authority and making bad decisions. I am also sure most of those involved regret their actions.
I am quite against the Iraq war, and say so anytime I can, including in conservative circles. About the worst I have been called is "naive", and generally get agreement or at least a respectful debate.
Most of the issues are well-vetted in the mainstream media. Both sides of the debate are fairly well represented in the media. Why else would popular opinion in the US be shifting against the war in Iraq?
Slashdot Mirror
"There are international agreements on the treatment of prisoners of war and those should apply"
That would be nice, but we do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions on POWs as we have defined these folks as "Enemy Combatants". They have very limited access to the Red Cross, amongst many other issues. IANAL, but I believe if they are not POWs, they are criminals, and should be afforded legal counsel and access to the court system. Creating this new category is a sham and embarrassing to me (and many others) as an American.
Yes, I agree, it is hard to compare the US to China in regards to human rights. But, as the crusaders for freedom, we should hold ourselves to a much higher standard. Why is the government so scared to allow the courts to be involved and have lawyers representing them? Could it be that they know most (almost certainly not all) of the prisoners are guilty of nothing or very little?
As Americans we were taught (brainwashed perhaps) that our system of justice is far superior to all others. That the checks and balances of our system will check abuse, and everyone will have their day in court. I could go on and on about warrants, judicial oversight, etc.
Your point on government criticism is valid, we are pretty free in that regard (this post is a great example). But freedom of speech is just one right "guaranteed" in our constitution. There are many others, and they are being rolled over like a bug under a steamroller. And not just in regards to the war on terror, but the 2nd amendment, equal protection under the law (gay marriage amongst other issues), wiretaps without judicial oversight, etc.
"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
"Enough with the torture in Gitmo. This myth was blown away by Democrats themselves when they sent several Dem lawmakers down there and returned to confirm this was not true."
Yeah, I can just picture the walk-through by the congressman. "OK everyone, ignore the dudes in the suits, just keep doing what we always do". Like they would actually be doing this stuff when there are congresscritters watching!
That said, most of the torture allegations did not occur at Gitmo. They occurred at secret CIA and military jails, and foreign jails (such as in Egypt). They have not really denied it either, just redefined the term "torture" to not include what they were/are doing, and/or outsourced it to other governments.
"A) The constitution already contains a method to amend it as needed; it's been done quite a few times, you might recall from school."
True, but it is not very feasible to do so for little things, or for timely issues. It is not very practical in most cases, so is just ignored in many. As we are on the slippery slope, the exceptions get broadened.
A quick example is that we ban a certain weapon through the amendment process, let's say a 50 BMG. Then, some company comes out with a very similar, but legally different, 49 BMG. Do we go through the whole exercise of a constitutional amendment every time? It would not work.
A more extreme example is someone invents a new weapon that can knock out a city with commonly available chemicals. Do we have to go through the amendment process for that? It generally takes many years.
The current method, pass the law and hope common sense prevails generally works. But, the process is getting abused, and the Second Amendment is effectively just a guideline with no real teeth. Similar arguments could be made for many other basic constitutional rights.
"B) Determining what is, and what is not "in violation of the constitution" is not exactly clear-cut. The Supreme Court is basically responsible for this now, but they do it after-the-fact, as I'm sure reviewing every piece of legislation before any voting is conducted would be unfeasible."
Sometimes it is very clear-cut, sometimes isn't. There remains a role for the courts in this, but they are far from perfect (and would likely be the first to admit that) and their latitude should be reigned in. There will always be ambiguity, but limiting it is a good thing. Also, the cost of going through the court system (especially if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court) is generally out of the realm of the common man.
In a perfect world, your points are dead on, but the world is far from perfect. We have apparently given our government wide latitude to ignore our basic rights with a simple majority, or the stroke of the Executive's pen. In many cases, to have standing to even challenge a law you have to risk jail and break it, then challenge your conviction through a very expensive process. That system is broken and unfair. As is the case with many gun laws, there is a pretty good chance you are going to lose. Here in Chicago the gun ownership laws are incredibly draconian, have been challenged in court several times, and never overturned. This is despite the fact they are clearly unconstitutional based on a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment.
I could make the same case for our activities in Guantanamo, our treatment of Jose Padilla, etc. The constitution is being trampled on daily, sometimes with the best of intentions and probably good judgment, by all three branches of government. My suggestion is intended to come up with a reasonable system to allow some flexibility, protect basic rights, and keep the law as clear as possible.
Interesting idea. I think you may have taken it to the extreme, but the concept in general is something I have pondered before. A good example is for laws that violate basic rights, but are probably the right thing to do.
An example would be the US right to bear arms. With a literal reading, it clearly states we can possess any weapon we want. That, in most people's opinion, is preposterous as it allows anyone to own a missile or atomic weapon. We, of course, long ago made these things illegal. BUT, that is a slippery slope and many governments in the US have used that concept to ban handguns, assault weapons (broadly defined in many cases), etc. in clear violation of the constitution (IMNSHO). One gets the feeling the Constitution is just a silly piece of badly-worn paper at times.
One can find many examples outside of the contentious firearms issue. Restrictions on freedom of speech, habeas corpus, requirements for warrants, etc. all come to mind in recent times. Sometimes these laws are necessary, but it should not be done with a secret presidential order, by a simple majority of a legislature, or with the concurrence of a sympathetic judge. There should be structure behind it, not in any single person's purview, certainly not easy to do, with lots of checks and balances.
My idea is to allow laws in violation of the constitution but require a super-majority to enact them. To pick a number, say 80%. We would have no problem banning private ownership of a nuke or automatic weapon, but banning or heavily restricting owning a semi-auto rifle would not likely ever pass.
Canada has an interesting approach, called the "Notwithstanding clause". It provides a mechanism for Parliament to ignore parts of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms when necessary, but requires renewal every 5 years (or less if an expiry time was written into the law) or it automatically expires. An interesting concept, but seems way too easy to invoke.
The "tyranny of the majority" is certainly a big issue, and has eroded the sanctity of the US Constitution. It is not exactly useless, but is becoming less "supreme" everyday. This could bring it back to it's supreme status, while giving us some flexibility to deal with changing times and technology in an open and clear manner.
Bottom line, I like the way you are thinking, but there are some danger areas. It could have an opposite effect. Very small minorities could hold up a budget, but agree once they are bought off with some pork for their district. This happens even with a 50% requirement, and would become rampant with a 90%.
"The Federal Communications Commission requires that we obtain your consent to do so."
And there is the kicker that bothered me most when I read this thing a couple weeks ago. They repeatedly used terms like "consent" and "permission", then slipped in that they assume consent if you do not opt-out. I believe your average (and even above average) consumer would read this as something that must actively be consented to, not passively. It would have been very easy to miss the fact you needed to actively opt-out.
A simple mail carrier slip-up, or it getting accidentally tossed out with your other junk-mail, and you would have unwittingly given consent.
I hope the FCC is looking into their definition of consent.
"I thought that it was not sugar so much as Phenylalanine"
The theory I have heard that makes the most sense is "high fructose corn syrup". 20 years ago Coke switched from sugar to this crap. The whole Coke/New Coke/Classic Coke marketing ploy was used to make the switch with few noticing (we were so glad to get our old coke back, we did not pay attention). Most other soft drink producers, and many other junk food manufacturers, did the same. It was much cheaper. Fructose does not trigger insulin the same way regular sugar does, causing a lot of glucose to build up in your blood. It also metabolizes quickly, sending your blood sugar through the roof within minutes of consumption.
The current Diabetes epidemic tracks this massive change in our diets almost perfectly. Give it 20 years, people get older, exercise less, the cumulative effects take hold and wham.
I almost never drank diet soda, primarily just Classic Coke. Not ridiculous quantities, but 2-3 cans a day was pretty normal. Mix that with a Snickers, ice cream, pasta, etc. In my late 30s I tried to lose weight by avoiding fat, but that pretty much leads to a high carb diet (unless you just eat rabbit food). By 40 (I am now 44) the symptoms started showing up, but I mostly ignored them.
One night I was out drinking with some coworkers, one noticed I was drinking water by the pitcher and we started talking. He was diabetic (not surprisingly another programmer who led a similar life to many of us) and had a glucometer. He measured my blood glucose and almost fell over. I had 520 mg/dl (80-120 is normal).
I am pretty sure that there is no one "smoking gun", but high fructose corn syrup sure seems a likely major factor. At least for me and many others. Especially considering the massive spike in cases, and the 15-20 year correlation to the massive introduction of HFCS to our diets.
If I can give a couple pieces of advice to the 20-somethings on this forum:
- You are not invincible. Bad habits will catch up with you in one way or another. Whether it is diabetes, heart problems, etc., it will get you. All the stock option bonanzas in the world won't save you either. Look around your office at the 40 somethings. Lots of fat and lazy folks. They were just like you 20 years ago!!!
- Get into an exercise habit, and stick with it. It does not have to be a formal plan or involve going to the gym, but walking or biking to work, the store (or the bar), parking at the back of the parking lot, etc. will all help. Going for a walk after eating is really good, as it is working off what you just shoved down your throat and speeds up your metabolism. It helps the environment too.
- Moderation is the key to food consumption. I don't advocate dropping all the good stuff, that gets too boring and you will likely not stick with it. Have your favorites, but get smaller portions and go for a walk afterwards.
I still love my DQ, but I only get it from the DQ 3 miles from my house, I get a small dish, and I ride my bike there. I still drink beer, but I only have 2 or 3 (instead of 7 or 8), and I ride my bike there too. I skip fries and have a salad instead. Have a coke, but then alternate with water or coffee instead of another coke. Get the can of coke, instead of the 20 oz or Big Gulp (forget about the price advantage, long-term that is a fallacy when you consider your health costs). All the little steps help, as long as there are lots of little things to have a cumulative effect, and you do it all (or at least most) of the time.
I will be living with this the rest of my shortened life. I will say though, it scared the the hell out of me, and I am now in as good a shape as I was 20 years ago, and way better than 10 years ago. I feel fucking great. I have more energy than I got from caffeine and sugar. I am just pissed off at myself for getting into this situation. I can't go back and change it, the damage is done. All I can do is contain it, and make it not get much worse. Hopefully I can help at least one person avoid my fate with this rant.
"Has this ever happened to anybody here (while in their home country)? It's something you hear about, and it's something I could imagine happening, but I ride in cabs fairly regularly, and I've never had a cab driver try to do this to me.."
I had it happen in my own neighborhood in Chicago. Me and a buddy came out of a bar at 4am, drunk as skunks. The doorman insisted (rightly) that we not drive and he flagged us down a cab. It was a 3 mile drive home, a straight shot down a major thoroughfare. Definite no-brainer and we were even pointed in the right direction.
This bar was about a block inside the city limits. Cabs get double meter if they have to go outside the city, to cover for the fact they cannot pickup a fare outside the city limits for the return trip. This jerk took a right, then a tour of several alleys, looped into the neighboring town (Evanston) then headed back into the city (the right direction).
Though drunk, I kinda knew what was going on. I had him drop us off a block from home at a local 24hr convenience store popular with cops (they get free coffee there). The fare should have been around $7-8, but he tried to charge us $18, claiming double fare (and the extra for the "alley tour"). I threw him a ten spot and got out. He got nasty and started swearing at us, threatening to "kick our asses" and call the police. At that point, a couple of the cops inside the store came out to investigate. I knew one of them, and slurred out a "Hi John". The cabbie realized he was screwed, quickly jumped back in his car and drove away, tail between his legs.
"Why is it always Bushes fault? Geesh. I suppose its his fault it rained last night too eh?"
No, not his fault at all. We really needed the rain, so I credit Obama for that.
"What you need:
1 ATM/debit card
2 Major-label credit/debit card (may be the same as #1) with a Visa or Master Card logo"
I pretty much agree with you, but if you want to rent a car, you pretty much need a real credit card (not just a Visa/MC labelled debit card).
There are some rental car agencies that will rent you a car with a debit card, but they are rare and usually put a large hold on your account for several weeks.
I had converted to debit card only, but had to get a credit card again when I ran into this issue.
"but there wasn't much in the way of open alternatives to .doc 10 years ago or whatever(which would be Office '97 right?)."
Well, at least there was the prior defacto standard (and still pretty much the defacto standard in the legal world) of WordPerfect format (WP5). And, Word could save to that and it probably still can (I don't have a copy to check with). WP did not make it difficult to use by other apps like MS did. I do not recall if it was actually documented, or just easy to reverse engineer.
why can't the phone they're working on be the iphone?
"I believe that name is taken."
like twice
"Not at all true. As has been mentioned many times in this thread, the merchant can do everything *perfectly* and still get fucked. My sis runs a mail order business. The cards go through her merchant gateway (which she pays through the nose for), the security checks go through, and she's STILL stiffed for payments on a regular basis. There's really nothing that merchants can do."
They can REDUCE the fraud, probably not eliminate it. But they still have an advantage if they use due diligence and reduce the fraud.
I agree though, if they did do it right, they should not be charged.
I imagine there will be a shaking out. If things get out of hand (as in your example) the market should adjust.
"The merchant has to make a living, the credit card company too. The money for fraud can only come from the end of the chain: the customer. The only notable thing here is that all customers pay, not just the ones who use a credit card."
All good points, but you are missing one major issue. The customers of the companies that put proper safeguards in place (check ID/shipping Address, firewalls, etc.) do not have to pay, or pay as much at least.
Therefore, those companies are able to charge less for the same goods, and thrive. Those companies that are sloppy will be hurt, possibly to the point of going out of business.
Darwinism in a business sense.
Here is one police officer that did not find himself above the law. He wrote himself a ticket for passing a stopped school bus!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12784367?GT1=9033
BTW, I think your post is way too cynical. There are many excellent police officers out there, doing great work. Sure, there are idiots, power-freeks, and other malcontents, but your broad-brush approach is way off-base. Sorry to hear you feel that way.
"If you were God in that position, what would you do?"
Hehe. Good one. I'll bite.
I would probably clarify the situation now that a large number of folks can comprehend me.
Heck, I am omnipotent, I can be VERY convincing even if I seem to be contradicting earlier simplified statements.
I might also, while I am motivated, clean up some of these war and hunger problems, eradicate a few corrupt governments, etc. I might even make more people gay to deal with the population problem. A little spring cleaning, so to speak.
Of course, I would have to exist to do all that.
"It was either Barack Hussein Obama or Alan Carpetbagger Keyes. Obama was the sane sounding black guy so he got elected. Believe me, in 2008, as long as he's not facing a complete lunatic, he will lose because he is black."
Good point (Alan Keyes was outrageous), but:
- Keyes was not the original candidate, Ryan was (before he had a very embarassing revelation from his divorce). Ryan was fairly mainstream. Obama was way ahead in the polls before he ran into trouble.
- Same folks put Carol Mosely Braun into the Senate.
- Obama is insanely popular here. Can't say I have heard a disparaging word about him from anyone.
Blacks are fairly rare in the Senate, and Illinois has put two in within very recent times. I think we have a better record of taking race out of the picture than the coasts.
You might be right on your general assessment, but it won't be because of the midwest, at least not the upper-Midwest. He will have trouble in places like Kansas because of his stance on abortion, not likely because of his race.
The main problem here is "cherry-picking". AT&T will come in and serve only the most profitable areas of a town, avoiding the less profitable..... if they are allowed to.
I live in Chicago (the city proper, not the suburbs mentioned in this article) and we have zero competition in our neighborhood. The lakefront area where many of the wealthier folks live have a wide variety of choices for telco and TV. Some parts of town don't even have DSL available, even if they live near a CO.
AT&T (nee SBC, Ameritech, Illinois Bell) has a long history of this, as do the cable companies. I bet AT&T would have a lot more luck if they agreed to a reasonable (over several years) "full coverage" plan.
What surprises me is the lack of active participation by the insurance industry in the search for a cure for Diabetes. These are the commercial entities most likely to benefit financially by a "cure".
As several have pointed out, the commercial entities most likely to benefit from from treating, rather than curing, are the pharmaceutical and, to a lesser degree, the food industries (diet foods). It is no surprise they are not interested in a cure, but the health insurance industry would benefit directly in lower costs and the life insurance industry in getting more payments before they have to pay out.
The only argument I have heard as to why not is that diabetes (type 2 in particular) is so slow coming on that their patients will move on to other employer's health plans and/or simply become uninsurable.
"This is one area, where 5th amendment protection usually doesn't apply (since its considered a search)."
The core legal issue here in the US (and probably other places) is that driving a car is not a funadamental "right". It is a "privilege" granted by the state.
The 5th amendment definitely applies. That is why they cannot force you to submit to a search (breathalyzer, blood test, etc.) without a warrant.
But, since it is a privilege to drive, and not a right, they can revoke that privilege if you refuse a test. You will not be charged with a crime, or be subject to jail or fine, but your privilege to drive can be suspended without any constitutional muss or fuss.
"So listing two (related) bombings by foreign persons and 3 domestic bombings by US nationals counts as justification for war? Or were you just saying the debatable "domestic" bombings were justification for war? And which war, exactly, are they justification for? The "War on Terror" or the war in Iraq?
I'm just trying to clarify here."
Read my post, and it's parent, again. My guess based on your questions, is you and I have similar opinions. I believe I was clear.
My own personal opinion, is the only "justified" war we have engaged in recent times is against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
My only reason for mentioning Oklahoma City, the Unibomber, etc. is that it directly addresses his statement.
"This "attack" on Paypal seems more like an act of vandalism than a terrorist strike."
That is almost certain. I called it exactly that in the last line of my post.
My reason for posting was simple. I can't stand to see good points ruined with misleading information. Michael Moore is a classic example. He has so many great points, but makes them vulerable to debunking by twisting the truth (bad use of statistics for example). His credibility with exactly the people he wants to convince (the ones who don't already agree with him) suffers as a result. The catch the BS line, and ignore the rest of his message.
Again, I am sure, you, the parent I replied to, and I are pretty much on the same page.
"Yes I look upon this pathetic excuse for a terrorist act and agree that it is the biggest incident of domestic terrorism in five years the second largest in the past fifteen years, third largest in decades."
Not to dispute your overall point (I basically agree), but that is a pretty ridiculous statement. Without any research or even deep thought, these come to mind (and I am sure I am missing many) in the last 15 years that greatly exceed this one by an order of magnitude:
- 9/11
- WTC (1993)
- Oklahoma City (Murrah Federal Building)
- Unibomber (several separate incidents, including a few deaths)
- 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing
- Re-election of George W. Bush (just kidding, sort of)
And, I think we can include the 1998 US embassy bombings as attacks on US soil, and throw in the attacks on the Marine Barracks in Saudi and the USS Cole in a similar group. Yeah, these are debatable as "domestic" but they certainly fall into the category of justifications for war in many people's minds.
Just the other day a suburban Chicago man was arrested for bombing a Salt Lake City library and is under suspicion for 2 similar pipe-bombings in the Chicago area over the past several months. These are at least equal in severity to the Paypal "bombing", and I would say exceed as most (maybe all) were done in the daytime when people were around. Thankfully no one was seriously injured in any of them.
I am sure I missed many that were more severe than this "serious case of vandalism" that occurred at Paypal HQ.
"I do not think they would go as far as making it retroactively illegal and charge this guy under the new law. "
i on.articlei.html
The good news is, they couldn't if they wanted to. That is called an "ex post facto" law, and is expressly forbidden in the US constitution. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution. Section 10 applies the same restriction on the States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
A more thorough discussion of the concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
"The Oulook Outlook Express UI has been more or less the same for years."
And it won't likely ever.
MS stopped development on Outlook Express long ago (5 years or so, I forget).
I think the only changes made in several years were default changes to make it more secure. It no longer runs scripts by default, etc. Might have also been a few changes to make it fully XP compatible.
Too bad, despite my general aversion to MS products, OE inspired a whole new generation of mail clients. For it's time, it was revolutionary in many ways.
"Could you get away with presenting a documentary on a prime time mainstream channel about the shady connections between the bush family and house of saud, and infleunce this has exerted over the "war on terror"? or any other of the manifold outrages the US government has perpetrated in developing countries since the 2nd world war?
Would any one even take you seriously, or would you be shot straight down as a left wing conspiracy theorist nutcase?"
You have taken this quite a bit further than I can't express ANY dissent against the government without being shot down or branded a communist. That is a whole different argument. You are comparing apples and oranges.
I could turn that question around. Could you do something similar in the UK implicating The Crown or Blair in such conspiracies and not be branded as a left wing conspiracy theorist nutcase? I think, without significant tangible proof, you would suffer the same reaction in the UK if all you did was present a bunch of opinion and conjecture. Find a smoking gun, and you might have success in either country.
"You honestly believe the UK is as bad as the US? At least in the UK it is socially acceptable to criticise the government. If you do that in the US you're commie terrorist traitor that wants americans to die. In the UK everyone sees the government for what it is and tells it so regularly in the mainstream media. (Pity Tony Blair never listened)"
And you are basing this on one isolated incident of some overzealous cops and security screeners? If all the facts of this story are true (they rarely are), these guys are going to get disciplined for exceeding their authority. I am pretty sure the US does not have a monopoly on police exceeding their authority and making bad decisions. I am also sure most of those involved regret their actions.
I am quite against the Iraq war, and say so anytime I can, including in conservative circles. About the worst I have been called is "naive", and generally get agreement or at least a respectful debate.
Most of the issues are well-vetted in the mainstream media. Both sides of the debate are fairly well represented in the media. Why else would popular opinion in the US be shifting against the war in Iraq?