Humanity has been inventing things long before patents, corporations or indeed the very concept of profit was around.
I respectfully disagree. I think the very concept of profit is as old as trade and possibly as old as property. Cavemen were jealously protecting the secret of fire against other tribes, as it gave them a competitive advantage.
The rate of human discoveries has skyrocketed in recent times, while patents were increasingly used. Of course, correlation does not mean causation. Yet the case against patents is far from proven.
I'm sorry if I sounded insensitive or exceedingly siding with big pharmas. I agree with most people that overly broad patents should not be granted. Patents on a gene for instance, or patents on a given organism (your Amazonian flower) with no indication of any specific application. But the/. discussion quickly turned into a general patent-bashing and big-pharma-bashing fest which culminated in my original parent saying that not giving drugs for free amounts to murder.
Bringing a new drug to the market takes 10 years and $1Bn. Who's gonna take that kind of risk if they're not allowed to profit in case of success? Big pharma are evil if/when they stifle innovation. Not when they do their job : develop and SELL drugs.
Why should everyone be allowed to make a profit : carmakers, airlines, software vendors, restaurants, pet grooming shops, stock brokers, insurance salesmen, TV evangelists... EXCEPT those who invent life-saving drugs?
If you crave for a world where everyone can access the same drugs, regardless of their wealth, you can : 1. lobby your government and fellow citizens so that a decent health care system is instituted; 2. start a charity that focuses on providing drugs to the poor (or just give to such a charity); 3. become a biochemist and start your own drug discovery company.
I guess my position on this stuff can be summarized in 2 quick points: 1. I don't think execs at big pharmas are more or less evil than in other industries. 2. Careful what you do with the patent system, it's worked not so bad so far.
You bring some valid points. I agree that the current system is far from perfect, even though it's not as bad as you say.
Patents don't give a monopoly for curing a given disease, they give a monopoly on ONE way to cure the disease. If the "market" for a given pathology is large enough, it will incite competitors to develop alternative (better?) treatments. Mechanisms like government-backed insurance can ensure that a solvable market exists while guaranteeing "equal" health care for everyone.
Developing a new drug costs around $1Bn and takes close to 10 years. Here, the patent system works as intended. By granting a limited monopoly on their drug, it rewards the innovators and incites others to do the same.
I'm all for considering the "multitude of alternative systems" that you mention (not that you specify any), if they can correct the current system's drawbacks while still rewarding innovation.
But saying, as my parent did, that drug companies are murderers if they don't give away their products is just useless posturing.
Pray you never have to watch a loved one die while the drugs that could save them sit on a shelf in a clinic you will never be able to afford to check into.
Thank you for the caring thought. Now, if that happened in spite of our prayers, who should I blame? The lab, the govt, myself, God?
And since we're talking about grim scenarii, pray you never have to watch a loved one die while the drugs that could save them have not been developped yet. Who would you blame then?
It's interesting that a hospital or Dr. can be sued for watching a patient die and not helping but [Mistlefoot (636417)] do this everyday with no repercussions.
I wonder if this could be winnable in a US court.....probably not....
Why isn't this murder? Watching someone die a slow painful death when you could keep them alive is certainly not something that this country claims is humane.
What prevents you from drawing your checkbook and paying for the fucking drugs? How are you better than the big pharmas? They have developped drugs and made something possible : now ANYBODY (the patient, the govt, any charity, even you...) can buy the drugs for the patients. What have YOU done? You're blasting the big pharmas for not doing enough.
You're such a hero. It's a pity the world is not 100% populated by your type. Nobody would do anything, but everybody would blame the others for not doing enough.
Whenever those questions of censorship/hate speech arise, the whole slashdot (US) crowd is unanimous. While I generally agree that free speech should trump everything, I have the following comments :
1. In this specific case, there is no censorship. First, Google is not a government entity; second, not advertising != censoring.
2. More generally, we should never underevaluate the dangers of racist speech. The following may sound controversial, but at the end of the day, the reason why the US public allowed its govt to invade Iraq is racism. Iraqis are Arab and Muslim. With the bullshit about WMD and helping Bin Laden, they looked close enough to Al Qaeda (the real perpetrators) to deserve punishment. This is racism : punishing someone for the sins of his (alledged) fathers/brothers.
3. Real censorship walks under a disguise. If you call it "punishing the disclosure of classified material", it's still censorship. Especially if everything the govt does is classified.
1) There are riots caused by the release of some religious cartoons. The story shows Muslims negatively. Do you report on the riots and their cause? 2) Iraqis insurgents start using sniping as an efficient weapon against US troops. The story shows US troops negatively. Do you report on the sniping and their effect on US troops?
CNN answered Yes twice. Fox answered Yes and No, you can guess which order those were in.
Oh, and by the way, the SWIFT monitoring stuff was originally released by the Wall Street Journal and was not legal. Seems like it's more fashionable to bash the NYT.
Oh, and if you care to read the summary of RSF's report, you'll realize that they talk a lot about the Muhammad cartoon stuff and this is the reason why countries like Denmark and Netherland lost ground in the ranking. Yeah, that's called objectivity. Putting blame where it belongs. You should give it a try some time.
First, sorry for the spelling. It's Libya, of course. Now to answer your post :
The reports I've seen about Libyan WMD were even more vague than those about Iraq. Libya is a tiny country which had been under severe embargo for 20 years. I've got a hard time believing they could have developped anything remotely functionning. Anyway, if you have sources about specific programs being dismantled, please post them.
If true, Gaddafi's redemption is also an ONGOING event. Considering this administration catastrophic failure in anything related to foreign policy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea...), if they had a real success story, they'd be dwelling over it.
The Iran - Iraq war ended in 1988, 15 years before the invasion of Iraq.
Libya is one fifth the size of Iraq (in population) and has no significant military. Rummy's Theory of Modern Warfare states that it could be invaded by 30,000 troops. No need for complex logistics. As for the efficience of the Iraqi buffer against Iran, I'll let you elaborate on that.
I don't have much info on Libya's compliance with the UN, since nobody writes on them. What I know, though, is that the general feeling of UN inspectors over Iraq (remember Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei?) was that, if far from perfect, Iraq's collaboration was sufficient to ascertain that their WMD programs were effectively off. Of course, they were sharply criticized by the US media and administration. But they were right and the administration was wrong.
If Iraq is a classic example of 'how not to do regime change' then Lybia is a classic example of 'how to do it right'.
Regime change?
So Gaddafi is no longer the boss in Lybia? No, he's still there. But it's a democracy now, right? No, still dictator for life. At least, he's not a terrorist, is he? Well, it's been proved that Lybia has destroyed at least 2 airliners.
If the official story about Lybia was true, it would be such an asset for the current administration that they would be talking about it every day. Yet, Gaddafi's "redemption" receives a surprisingly low media coverage.
When you read between the lines, you realize that Gaddafi got an exceptional deal. 1. He got pardoned for his terrorist acts, 2. economic sanctions were lifted, 3. the US has stopped trying to kill him. In exchange for that : 1. he gave up a non-existing WMD program, 2. he paid a token sum to his victims' families, 3. he gave up terrorist activities (which he had not been able to pursue in the latest 10 years because of the embargo). In exchange, US/UK got 1. drilling rights for Lybian oil, 2. a good PR case for their "War against Terror" (TM) brand.
The irony is that, in 2003, Iraq and Lybia were very similar. Both were led by homicidal madmen, both were under UN embargo, both had no WMD, both were rich in oil.
There were just 2 differences. Lybia was actually a terrorist state and Iraq was not willing to give access to it's oil.
The NK regime has been in place for half a century and never has the US or Japan done anything for NK's starving citizens. What we currently hear from Washington is a sorry mix of pleas that someone else (China, Russia...) does the job and vague threats of premptive nuclear strike.
The parent was responding just to such a "nuke 'em" post. I fail to see how nuking NK will help its starving citizens. Well, besides the obvious : if they're dead, they won't starve anymore...
And with it's roughly 25% usage of the world's energy supplies (including oil) what does the US do with it? Create an even greater percentage of the world's goods
23 years ago, parts of the Western LEFT reviled Reagan, and Thatcher and... pretty much any right wing ruler. The protests against the US military and the deployment of nukes in western Europe were limited to a fringe of extreme leftists. President Mitterrand of France, a socialist, supported the US and famously said "protesters are in the West, but warheads are in the East". In short, a large majority supported and trusted the US, a (very vocal) minority protested.
Today, the Iraq venture, the torture memos, the Guantanamo circus etc... are making lots of people, left AND right, very nervous about where the US is going as a nation.
You are right to compare Reagan and Clinton. Each was (undeservedly) hated and reviled by the opposing party. Bush is a completely different matter. Even people from his side distrust him : Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, Gen. Shoomaker...
He obviously takes a lot of pleasure in torturing this Jerry guy. He plays cat and mouse while Jerry swings into full panic mode. Reading this transcript was literally painful. Seeing someone take so much fun at inflicting so much anguish to another person is deeply disturbing.
The guy shows absolutely zero empathy towards his victims. In some way, he's a cripple. He lacks a basic ability that most people have : the ability to care and to relate. I think he's perfectly aware of the harm he's causing. He just doesn't think it's wrong.
The fact that he chose to call this an experiment is revealing. In his mind, his victims are mere subjects not people with feelings.
Half the population blames the government or accuses it of conspiracy no matter what the government does
Govt said Saddam had WMD. Govt said Saddam was Bin Laden's friend. Govt went to war. Saddam had no WMD. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.
Govt said it had "irrefutable evidence". It was not irrefutable. It was not evidence either. Downing street memo says "intelligence and facts are fixed around the policy".
Govt said Iraqis would welcome soldiers with flowers and chocolate. Iraqis sent road side bombs and mortar shells.
Govt said Mission Accomplished. It was 3 years ago. Mission still not accomplished.
Govt said it's spreading democracy in the middle-east. The whole region is spiralling into chaos and mayhem (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran...)
Election time comes. Govt changes alert levels repeatedly. Population is scared into trusting the Govt. Govt wins elections. Nothing happens. Nothing is revealed.
Govt said Abu Graib was "bad apples". Govt fights anti-torture law. Anti-torture law passes. Prez's signing statement says he will ignore it.
Govt says it needs secrecy to defend America. Govt classifies each and every instance it breaks the law.
Shall I go on?
In general, it's healthy to distrust the government. In this particular case, it's a necessity.
The correlation between the two (being a farmer or living in a low-population state) is very low. Connecticut or Rhode Island, for instance, are everything but rural states. But they have a low population thus they benefit a lot from the EC. On the other hand, Texas is a very rural state and is penalized heavily by the EC system.
I agree with you on one point : The electoral college is designed to NOT reflect the popular vote.
But the rationale you propose - ie. to protect rural voters from the tyranny of city-dwellers - doesn't hold water. Actually there are many instances where the EC actively discriminates against farmers. Rural people in New York State are effectively discriminated AGAINST twice by the EC system. First they happen to live in a highly populated state so the EC vote / population ratio is low. Second, they are bunched together with lots of city-dwellers and don't stand a chance of ever being heard within the state. Have you ever heard of a candidate visiting rural New York State?
The EC system might make sense for a number of good reasons (state rights, history...) that could, or could not, offset its blatant unfairness. But the protection against mob rule is NOT one of them.
The EC "protects" the minority only according to ONE possible subdivision of the US population : the state borders. People who happen to fall in the minority according to any other criteria are not protected. Gays, blacks, mormons, taxi drivers, holocaust deniers, left handed people, people who liked the da Vinci Code movie, slashdotters, you name it... All of these people belong to a minority that is not protected by the EC.
Mob rule is prevented by the whole constitution. The EC has nothing to do with it. All democratic countries in the world have constitutions that prevent mob rules. Only USA have the EC.
- We sell weapons, but the French sell weapons too... - We use landmines, but the Poles do it too... - We shoot civilians, but the Israelis do it too... - We start illegal wars, but the British were there too... - We trample civil rights, but would you rather live in China? - We torture prisoners, but Saddam was worse... -...
See a pattern?
If your stated policy is to never let anyone be more evil than you on any single issue, you've basically decided to become the evilest of the pack.
> So it's a good thing that warzones are always carefully put far away from any civilians are or will ever be, right?....right?
They are. From an american perspective.
Very insightful. I'd say that's the very reason why, on average, Americans are more comfortable with the idea of war than other nations. The last time US had war on its soil is the civil war, 150 years ago. The US people have collectively forgotten how destructive war is.
WTF are you talking about? Your posts are generally far more thought-out than this.
Disproving a positive is not the same thing as proving a negative. Excuse me? If I disprove a proposition P, I have proven NonP. Exemple : P = "all odd numbers are prime". NonP = "Not all odd numbers are prime" 9 is odd, yet it is not prime. I have disproved P. I have proven NonP.
Scientific theory is not based on proven negatives, it is based on positives which it has been impossible to refute. And when a positive which had until then been impossible to refute happens to be disproved (ie. its negative is proven), then said theory is permanently discarded as flawed (or more probably amended to accomodate the new results.)
You are mixing up your logical concepts. YOU are mixing your logical concepts. Logic does not treat positive and negative propositions differently. If you have a logical proposition P (which may contain as many negatives as you want); then the scientist either A. proves that P is true; B. proves that P is not true (ie. disproves P or proves NonP) C. Neither, P is undecided.
Maybe you meant "not proving a positive is not the same thing as proving a negative." This is VERY different from what you wrote.
This Rove guy is really a genius. He's once again managed to change the subject. This had NOTHING to do with publishing defense or intelligence secrets. It IS about the federal government having illegal and anticonstitutional activities and hiding them beneath the defense secret charade.
You say you're not trolling... I'll assume so and answer your post point by point.
I don't have the right to break into your house, steal your personal or buisness secrets, and post them in the newspaper. Nobody is advocating that. What's missing in your analogy is the illegal/anticonstitutional factor. A better analogy is : Assume you rape kids in your basement and bury their bodies in your garden. Now if the pizza delivery guy or the housemaid sees something disturbing and tells the neighbors or the police, would you sue them for publishing your business secret?
Now I know that the government is different and that they are supposed to be accountable. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. But this is about intelligence and defense secrets. No it's not. It's about the government violating the constitution.
If Klaus Fuchs published the blueprints on the atom bomb in the New York Times, I doubt he would be able to use the first amendment as a defense. Bad analogy, once again. Developping the atom bomb is not a violation of the constitution. If it were the case, people would be allowed to reveal the fact that the government is pursuing an illegal program (which is different from publishing the actual blueprints)
I'm pretty sure whistleblowing is protected by some federal regulation. Listen, I don't want to sound alarmist or anything. But if they're ready to limit the scope of the first amendment, I don't think some federal regulation will delay them for long.
I don't see how releasing intelligence methods and secrets, and posting them publicly, constitutes whistleblowing. What constitued whistleblowing is the act of revealing illegal/anticonstitutional activities by the government. Now, if you allow the government to classify the mere fact that they're having these activities and to prevent anyone from only mentioning them, you actually allow them to ignore the constitution and the bill of right.
Really this Rove guy is a genius. He's shifted attention from the government trampling the constitution to the debate of deciding whether journalists are super citizens and should anyone be allowed to publish classified secrets. It's brilliant.
When I get home early and find my son with his hand in the cookie jar, he sometimes tries the Rovian defense : "But you were not supposed to be back before next hour!" Doesn't work so well with me. Maybe it's me, or maybe Rove is brighter than my son:)
Slashdot Mirror
Humanity has been inventing things long before patents, corporations or indeed the very concept of profit was around.
/. discussion quickly turned into a general patent-bashing and big-pharma-bashing fest which culminated in my original parent saying that not giving drugs for free amounts to murder.
I respectfully disagree. I think the very concept of profit is as old as trade and possibly as old as property. Cavemen were jealously protecting the secret of fire against other tribes, as it gave them a competitive advantage.
The rate of human discoveries has skyrocketed in recent times, while patents were increasingly used. Of course, correlation does not mean causation. Yet the case against patents is far from proven.
I'm sorry if I sounded insensitive or exceedingly siding with big pharmas. I agree with most people that overly broad patents should not be granted. Patents on a gene for instance, or patents on a given organism (your Amazonian flower) with no indication of any specific application. But the
Bringing a new drug to the market takes 10 years and $1Bn. Who's gonna take that kind of risk if they're not allowed to profit in case of success? Big pharma are evil if/when they stifle innovation. Not when they do their job : develop and SELL drugs.
Why should everyone be allowed to make a profit : carmakers, airlines, software vendors, restaurants, pet grooming shops, stock brokers, insurance salesmen, TV evangelists... EXCEPT those who invent life-saving drugs?
If you crave for a world where everyone can access the same drugs, regardless of their wealth, you can :
1. lobby your government and fellow citizens so that a decent health care system is instituted;
2. start a charity that focuses on providing drugs to the poor (or just give to such a charity);
3. become a biochemist and start your own drug discovery company.
I guess my position on this stuff can be summarized in 2 quick points:
1. I don't think execs at big pharmas are more or less evil than in other industries.
2. Careful what you do with the patent system, it's worked not so bad so far.
You bring some valid points. I agree that the current system is far from perfect, even though it's not as bad as you say.
Patents don't give a monopoly for curing a given disease, they give a monopoly on ONE way to cure the disease. If the "market" for a given pathology is large enough, it will incite competitors to develop alternative (better?) treatments. Mechanisms like government-backed insurance can ensure that a solvable market exists while guaranteeing "equal" health care for everyone.
Developing a new drug costs around $1Bn and takes close to 10 years. Here, the patent system works as intended. By granting a limited monopoly on their drug, it rewards the innovators and incites others to do the same.
I'm all for considering the "multitude of alternative systems" that you mention (not that you specify any), if they can correct the current system's drawbacks while still rewarding innovation.
But saying, as my parent did, that drug companies are murderers if they don't give away their products is just useless posturing.
Pray you never have to watch a loved one die while the drugs that could save them sit on a shelf in a clinic you will never be able to afford to check into.
Thank you for the caring thought.
Now, if that happened in spite of our prayers, who should I blame? The lab, the govt, myself, God?
And since we're talking about grim scenarii, pray you never have to watch a loved one die while the drugs that could save them have not been developped yet. Who would you blame then?
It's interesting that a hospital or Dr. can be sued for watching a patient die and not helping but [Mistlefoot (636417)] do this everyday with no repercussions.
I wonder if this could be winnable in a US court.....probably not....
Why isn't this murder? Watching someone die a slow painful death when you could keep them alive is certainly not something that this country claims is humane.
What prevents you from drawing your checkbook and paying for the fucking drugs? How are you better than the big pharmas? They have developped drugs and made something possible : now ANYBODY (the patient, the govt, any charity, even you...) can buy the drugs for the patients. What have YOU done? You're blasting the big pharmas for not doing enough.
You're such a hero. It's a pity the world is not 100% populated by your type. Nobody would do anything, but everybody would blame the others for not doing enough.
It would be like heaven on earth, wouldn't it?
Seems like a convenient way to circumvent campaign funding laws. Now the GOP can tap the whole Defense budget to finance their ads. Great move Karl.
Whenever those questions of censorship/hate speech arise, the whole slashdot (US) crowd is unanimous. While I generally agree that free speech should trump everything, I have the following comments :
1. In this specific case, there is no censorship. First, Google is not a government entity; second, not advertising != censoring.
2. More generally, we should never underevaluate the dangers of racist speech. The following may sound controversial, but at the end of the day, the reason why the US public allowed its govt to invade Iraq is racism. Iraqis are Arab and Muslim. With the bullshit about WMD and helping Bin Laden, they looked close enough to Al Qaeda (the real perpetrators) to deserve punishment. This is racism : punishing someone for the sins of his (alledged) fathers/brothers.
3. Real censorship walks under a disguise. If you call it "punishing the disclosure of classified material", it's still censorship. Especially if everything the govt does is classified.
1) There are riots caused by the release of some religious cartoons. The story shows Muslims negatively. Do you report on the riots and their cause?
2) Iraqis insurgents start using sniping as an efficient weapon against US troops. The story shows US troops negatively. Do you report on the sniping and their effect on US troops?
CNN answered Yes twice. Fox answered Yes and No, you can guess which order those were in.
Oh, and by the way, the SWIFT monitoring stuff was originally released by the Wall Street Journal and was not legal. Seems like it's more fashionable to bash the NYT.
Oh, and if you care to read the summary of RSF's report, you'll realize that they talk a lot about the Muhammad cartoon stuff and this is the reason why countries like Denmark and Netherland lost ground in the ranking. Yeah, that's called objectivity. Putting blame where it belongs. You should give it a try some time.
First, sorry for the spelling. It's Libya, of course. Now to answer your post :
The reports I've seen about Libyan WMD were even more vague than those about Iraq. Libya is a tiny country which had been under severe embargo for 20 years. I've got a hard time believing they could have developped anything remotely functionning. Anyway, if you have sources about specific programs being dismantled, please post them.
If true, Gaddafi's redemption is also an ONGOING event. Considering this administration catastrophic failure in anything related to foreign policy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea...), if they had a real success story, they'd be dwelling over it.
The Iran - Iraq war ended in 1988, 15 years before the invasion of Iraq.
Libya is one fifth the size of Iraq (in population) and has no significant military. Rummy's Theory of Modern Warfare states that it could be invaded by 30,000 troops. No need for complex logistics. As for the efficience of the Iraqi buffer against Iran, I'll let you elaborate on that.
I don't have much info on Libya's compliance with the UN, since nobody writes on them. What I know, though, is that the general feeling of UN inspectors over Iraq (remember Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei?) was that, if far from perfect, Iraq's collaboration was sufficient to ascertain that their WMD programs were effectively off. Of course, they were sharply criticized by the US media and administration. But they were right and the administration was wrong.
If Iraq is a classic example of 'how not to do regime change' then Lybia is a classic example of 'how to do it right'.
Regime change?
So Gaddafi is no longer the boss in Lybia? No, he's still there.
But it's a democracy now, right? No, still dictator for life.
At least, he's not a terrorist, is he? Well, it's been proved that Lybia has destroyed at least 2 airliners.
If the official story about Lybia was true, it would be such an asset for the current administration that they would be talking about it every day. Yet, Gaddafi's "redemption" receives a surprisingly low media coverage.
When you read between the lines, you realize that Gaddafi got an exceptional deal. 1. He got pardoned for his terrorist acts, 2. economic sanctions were lifted, 3. the US has stopped trying to kill him. In exchange for that : 1. he gave up a non-existing WMD program, 2. he paid a token sum to his victims' families, 3. he gave up terrorist activities (which he had not been able to pursue in the latest 10 years because of the embargo). In exchange, US/UK got 1. drilling rights for Lybian oil, 2. a good PR case for their "War against Terror" (TM) brand.
The irony is that, in 2003, Iraq and Lybia were very similar. Both were led by homicidal madmen, both were under UN embargo, both had no WMD, both were rich in oil.
There were just 2 differences. Lybia was actually a terrorist state and Iraq was not willing to give access to it's oil.
Guess which one was invaded...
Dude, in which world are you living?
The NK regime has been in place for half a century and never has the US or Japan done anything for NK's starving citizens. What we currently hear from Washington is a sorry mix of pleas that someone else (China, Russia...) does the job and vague threats of premptive nuclear strike.
The parent was responding just to such a "nuke 'em" post. I fail to see how nuking NK will help its starving citizens. Well, besides the obvious : if they're dead, they won't starve anymore...
And with it's roughly 25% usage of the world's energy supplies (including oil) what does the US do with it? Create an even greater percentage of the world's goods
WRONG
World GDP = 60,000 Bn
US GDP = 12,000 Bn
Share of US in World GDP : 20%
Amazingly enough, the US are less energy efficient than the RoW.
If you're looking for an exceptionally efficient economy, try the EU.
23 years ago, parts of the Western LEFT reviled Reagan, and Thatcher and... pretty much any right wing ruler. The protests against the US military and the deployment of nukes in western Europe were limited to a fringe of extreme leftists. President Mitterrand of France, a socialist, supported the US and famously said "protesters are in the West, but warheads are in the East". In short, a large majority supported and trusted the US, a (very vocal) minority protested.
Today, the Iraq venture, the torture memos, the Guantanamo circus etc... are making lots of people, left AND right, very nervous about where the US is going as a nation.
You are right to compare Reagan and Clinton. Each was (undeservedly) hated and reviled by the opposing party. Bush is a completely different matter. Even people from his side distrust him : Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, Gen. Shoomaker...
You're right, of course.
On a related note, I still haven't understood why eBay paid 4Bn for a glorified Teamspeak.
He obviously takes a lot of pleasure in torturing this Jerry guy. He plays cat and mouse while Jerry swings into full panic mode. Reading this transcript was literally painful. Seeing someone take so much fun at inflicting so much anguish to another person is deeply disturbing.
The guy shows absolutely zero empathy towards his victims. In some way, he's a cripple. He lacks a basic ability that most people have : the ability to care and to relate. I think he's perfectly aware of the harm he's causing. He just doesn't think it's wrong.
The fact that he chose to call this an experiment is revealing. In his mind, his victims are mere subjects not people with feelings.
Half the population blames the government or accuses it of conspiracy no matter what the government does
Govt said Saddam had WMD. Govt said Saddam was Bin Laden's friend. Govt went to war. Saddam had no WMD. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.
Govt said it had "irrefutable evidence". It was not irrefutable. It was not evidence either. Downing street memo says "intelligence and facts are fixed around the policy".
Govt said Iraqis would welcome soldiers with flowers and chocolate. Iraqis sent road side bombs and mortar shells.
Govt said Mission Accomplished. It was 3 years ago. Mission still not accomplished.
Govt said it's spreading democracy in the middle-east. The whole region is spiralling into chaos and mayhem (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran...)
Election time comes. Govt changes alert levels repeatedly. Population is scared into trusting the Govt. Govt wins elections. Nothing happens. Nothing is revealed.
Govt said Abu Graib was "bad apples". Govt fights anti-torture law. Anti-torture law passes. Prez's signing statement says he will ignore it.
Govt says it needs secrecy to defend America. Govt classifies each and every instance it breaks the law.
Shall I go on?
In general, it's healthy to distrust the government. In this particular case, it's a necessity.
Which third world country was it necessary to bomb in order to avert this plot?
You don't get it.
It's not US and EU in a pissing contest over whose method is better.
It's 200 countries trying their best to accomodate different formats, and the US (and parts of Canada) not even realizing that other formats exist.
Read the threads, it's amazing. Half of Slashdot seems sincerely surprised when they learn that dates could be written dd/mm/yy. Hilarious.
It helps voters living in low-population states.
The correlation between the two (being a farmer or living in a low-population state) is very low. Connecticut or Rhode Island, for instance, are everything but rural states. But they have a low population thus they benefit a lot from the EC. On the other hand, Texas is a very rural state and is penalized heavily by the EC system.
I agree with you on one point : The electoral college is designed to NOT reflect the popular vote.
But the rationale you propose - ie. to protect rural voters from the tyranny of city-dwellers - doesn't hold water. Actually there are many instances where the EC actively discriminates against farmers. Rural people in New York State are effectively discriminated AGAINST twice by the EC system. First they happen to live in a highly populated state so the EC vote / population ratio is low. Second, they are bunched together with lots of city-dwellers and don't stand a chance of ever being heard within the state. Have you ever heard of a candidate visiting rural New York State?
The EC system might make sense for a number of good reasons (state rights, history...) that could, or could not, offset its blatant unfairness. But the protection against mob rule is NOT one of them.
The EC "protects" the minority only according to ONE possible subdivision of the US population : the state borders. People who happen to fall in the minority according to any other criteria are not protected. Gays, blacks, mormons, taxi drivers, holocaust deniers, left handed people, people who liked the da Vinci Code movie, slashdotters, you name it... All of these people belong to a minority that is not protected by the EC.
Mob rule is prevented by the whole constitution. The EC has nothing to do with it. All democratic countries in the world have constitutions that prevent mob rules. Only USA have the EC.
- We sell weapons, but the French sell weapons too... ...
- We use landmines, but the Poles do it too...
- We shoot civilians, but the Israelis do it too...
- We start illegal wars, but the British were there too...
- We trample civil rights, but would you rather live in China?
- We torture prisoners, but Saddam was worse...
-
See a pattern?
If your stated policy is to never let anyone be more evil than you on any single issue, you've basically decided to become the evilest of the pack.
> So it's a good thing that warzones are always carefully put far away from any civilians are or will ever be, right? ....right?
They are. From an american perspective.
Very insightful. I'd say that's the very reason why, on average, Americans are more comfortable with the idea of war than other nations. The last time US had war on its soil is the civil war, 150 years ago. The US people have collectively forgotten how destructive war is.
Nice rant.
Let me guess : you're 22 years old with no kids but you know exactly how people should deal with their teenage children.
Right?
WTF are you talking about? Your posts are generally far more thought-out than this.
Disproving a positive is not the same thing as proving a negative.
Excuse me? If I disprove a proposition P, I have proven NonP.
Exemple : P = "all odd numbers are prime". NonP = "Not all odd numbers are prime"
9 is odd, yet it is not prime. I have disproved P. I have proven NonP.
Scientific theory is not based on proven negatives, it is based on positives which it has been impossible to refute.
And when a positive which had until then been impossible to refute happens to be disproved (ie. its negative is proven), then said theory is permanently discarded as flawed (or more probably amended to accomodate the new results.)
You are mixing up your logical concepts.
YOU are mixing your logical concepts. Logic does not treat positive and negative propositions differently. If you have a logical proposition P (which may contain as many negatives as you want); then the scientist either
A. proves that P is true;
B. proves that P is not true (ie. disproves P or proves NonP)
C. Neither, P is undecided.
Maybe you meant "not proving a positive is not the same thing as proving a negative." This is VERY different from what you wrote.
This Rove guy is really a genius. He's once again managed to change the subject. This had NOTHING to do with publishing defense or intelligence secrets. It IS about the federal government having illegal and anticonstitutional activities and hiding them beneath the defense secret charade.
:)
You say you're not trolling... I'll assume so and answer your post point by point.
I don't have the right to break into your house, steal your personal or buisness secrets, and post them in the newspaper.
Nobody is advocating that. What's missing in your analogy is the illegal/anticonstitutional factor. A better analogy is : Assume you rape kids in your basement and bury their bodies in your garden. Now if the pizza delivery guy or the housemaid sees something disturbing and tells the neighbors or the police, would you sue them for publishing your business secret?
Now I know that the government is different and that they are supposed to be accountable. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. But this is about intelligence and defense secrets.
No it's not. It's about the government violating the constitution.
If Klaus Fuchs published the blueprints on the atom bomb in the New York Times, I doubt he would be able to use the first amendment as a defense.
Bad analogy, once again. Developping the atom bomb is not a violation of the constitution. If it were the case, people would be allowed to reveal the fact that the government is pursuing an illegal program (which is different from publishing the actual blueprints)
I'm pretty sure whistleblowing is protected by some federal regulation.
Listen, I don't want to sound alarmist or anything. But if they're ready to limit the scope of the first amendment, I don't think some federal regulation will delay them for long.
I don't see how releasing intelligence methods and secrets, and posting them publicly, constitutes whistleblowing.
What constitued whistleblowing is the act of revealing illegal/anticonstitutional activities by the government. Now, if you allow the government to classify the mere fact that they're having these activities and to prevent anyone from only mentioning them, you actually allow them to ignore the constitution and the bill of right.
Really this Rove guy is a genius. He's shifted attention from the government trampling the constitution to the debate of deciding whether journalists are super citizens and should anyone be allowed to publish classified secrets. It's brilliant.
When I get home early and find my son with his hand in the cookie jar, he sometimes tries the Rovian defense : "But you were not supposed to be back before next hour!" Doesn't work so well with me. Maybe it's me, or maybe Rove is brighter than my son
They have a plan
Wow, it's been eons since I last saw someone spell Microsoft that way !
Thank you for that refreshing trip back into 20th century.