If we all could only just admit that the region is just a plot of land, like any other, without all the mumbo jumbo... Never going to happen, but a geek can dream.
Too many people don't know that the most dangerous thing in the world is a stupid person with a gun, and he's even more dangerous if the gun's not loaded. IINM more people die from thinking their guns are unloaded than from intentional murder.
One of my earlier lessons that always stuck with me was "The Devil Likes to Load Guns", basically meaning there is no such thing as an unloaded firearm.
I was talking more of the idiots who carry for "street cred", or to purvey the threat of violence for their image. They are looking for people to kill, basically. Rational people never want an excuse to upholster their firearm, hell I don't even want to use it on a wild beasty in the wilderness.
If the laws themselves were just there would be no "large criminal organizations" (except maybe Sony, Microsoft, the RIAA...). The Mafia would have never gotten a toehold in the US had it not been for alcohol prohibition. Legalize victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, gambling) and you've pretty much shut down organized crime.
I doubt this, never underestimate the will to make money illegitimately. It might be better than now, but organized crime will always exist.
Besides, it was Jewish land long before Islam was even a religion. It was Jewish land first. Sorry, but if you want to play that "this land is my land" game, it was the Jew's land first.
When was the Diaspora? Can the American Indians reclaim all of America because they were here first? NO one has a God-given right to that land, since both sides (and Christians) have a religious tie to it. So what? A book of dubious authorship says so, that holds no salt, and only make the conflict MORE religious, and thus more blood to be had for both sides.
Desperate enough to kill a bunch of kids? Really? Fuck off! We are done here. THERE IS NEVER EVER A GOOD FUCKING REASON TO KILL A BUNCH OF KIDS. EVER! The fact that you even consider defending such an action, much less attempting to do so, tells me that you don't deserve the right to breathe the same air as I do. Listen to this and listen well:
Agreed. Mind you I NEVER defended it, I only understand how it can happen. Seeing other people's point of view does not mean you agree with their actions. In my perfect world no one can kill anyone, since life is the most sacred thing of all, no matter what some silly old book says.
* Any nation or group of people that targets and attacks school children is an enemy of humanity.
* I support fully backing the group of country that is having their children targeted and attacked.
* Any nation of group of people that targets and attacks kids deserves to die, period.
Saying nation is making this overly simple. There are lots of Palestinians who want to live their lives peacefully, just like their are lots of Israelis. Their are radical lunatics on both sides who act like... well... homicidal lunatics. These homicidal lunatics do nasty things that that lead to actions that justify homicidal lunatics on the other side. They are a vocal minority, who sadly, fucks up the lives of the silent majority ON BOTH SIDES.
When you say that a whole nation deserves to die because of the actions of some of their more sociopathic individuals you sound down right genocidal. I'm not saying you are, this is a passionate issue, but if you read what you wrote again you see. The lunatics deserve to be silenced, the normal folk deserve to live their lives.
I'm guessing your American, if not, sorry, but the example still will apply. In America we have a large Christian Fundamentalist contingent, they whine, they bitch, they get their way. This includes wars on random countries, and banning rational thoughts to whole generations of children. They color how Americans see their own country, and how the world sees it. Guess how many of them their are? 20%. They are powerful and overrepresnted because they are louder than rational folk. The same holds true for any country with a fundamentalist segment, Palestine, Israel, etc.
The silent majority should rule. Screw the Jihadists and Zionists, let them kill each other, and leave everyone else out of it.
Your right on the history, but you can see how it can be interpreted either way
Your also right it is a holy war, but I don't think the term just pertains to the Muslims, why else would the future Israelis really want that land? Why would America back them (outside of the pragmatic military sense) with arms and monies? I agree, Israelis DO have the right to live, it would be moronic to assert otherwise, just as it would be moronic to assert that Palestinians don't (I've seen both positions asserted here).
Zionist fundi's would NOT stop harassing Palestinians even if Palestinians did nothing in return. These are people who whine about an exile that happened thousands of years ago and threaten death over throwing stones. Zealots don't stop.
That said. There are fundamentalists on both sides. BUT most people on both sides probably just want to get on with their lives without the threat of random violence, ON BOTH SIDES. To classify one side as largely sane, and the other as mostly zealots is wrong. The loud ones usually get all the attention.
Here's hoping. I think that the 2-state solution is probably the only hope, and even at that hostilities will continue from both sides (though to be completely honest mostly from the Palestinian), but I think it would help put the wind back in the sails of Palestinian moderates (who contrary to popular belief are probably the silent majority), and perhaps help to stop breeding the hatred.
Another problem I see is in the outside influences. I'm sure if it was just Israel and the Palestinians in a perfect vacuum, something would have been worked out by now, but sadly politics don't operate in a vacuum, just the minds of politicians. I don't think that the extremist states of the Middle East will ever settle for anything but the annihilation of any Jewish presence. While, to an admittedly lesser degree, the Christian Fundamentalists (who like the Israeli right seem to be dying off, thankfully) really do think that the Jew's having the full Holy Land will bring about the oddly desired Armageddon (why is this a good thing? But I digress), and thus would be hell-bent on full Jewish rule. The flock a friend of mine's father is in sends thousands of dollars to Israel every month for this goal, but I'm not sure of the details, just the intent.
That said, I am a naive optimist, and thus think that most people are inherently good, thus any good compromise would solve most of the problems, with patience.
This story, btw, is probably the best flame bait topic EVER posted on/.
I'm hoping for a day when politics and religion will just shut up, and let me live my life.:)
Just because someone disagrees with the Israelis doesn't mean they agree with the Palestinians.
Both sides are 100% in the wrong. If someone came and took my land, I'd probably fight. If they had the military backing of the most armed nation on Earth, and this lasted years with no REAL attempts at reasonable compromise, I'd probably get desperate. If the invaders put me into ghettos, and restricted my livelihood, some people might get desperate enough to blow themselves up. Add two (or three with the American Christian apocalypse cults) ultra-conservative religious sects into the the mix, and you have a recipe for general nastiness and all around war.
Yes, I did just paint that from the "terrorist" side, but only because I have some empathy for them. I also, though, understand the Israeli side, they are fighting for some modicum of identity and religious heritage (the meaning of which is another debate). Both sides, in the end though, break international laws, and humanistic standards with impunity.
There ARE reasonable solutions out there. Separate states being one of them. Yes, thanks to religion there will be continued zealotry on both sides, that would have to be combated, but it would be a workable solution for the normal folk on each side, who gives a shit about the religious goals. Let the Zionists and Islamic Fundamentalists duke it out and kill each other, as long as the average person isn't forced to suffer this shit anymore. And yes, I do believe that not all (nor even a majority) of Palestinians are fanatics, nor is the majority of Jews, these moderates and victims are the ones that we should care about.
Israel CAN'T have the whole damn pie, their going to have to settle for their own small slice, just like the original inhabitants.
For anything to happen we need to break the cycle of hatred. Giving the Palestinians less reason to hate would be good, but of course would never be an option, since Israel (or at least its politicians) play this as an all-or-nothing game (as do the vocal Jihadists).
I really hate this topic. But I feel obligated to respond to it every time.
Nobody, for some reason, can admit that BOTH are wrong, and probably share equal blame in the matter. The Israelis invades already occupied land and expects them to hold the Israelis sovereign because some ancient book says so, of course the Palestinians fought back. In this Israel is wrong. The Palestinians purposely targetting civilians is ALSO wrong. The Israelis near genocidal clamp down on said Palestinians is ALSO wrong. And so it goes.
My problem with this is when someone has the balls to criticize Israel they get branded either pro-Palestinian, or worse, anti-Semitic. To entertain a probable straw-man, don't say that EVERYONE does this, you rarely hear of the Israeli terrorists, or the Palestinian freedom fighters, these terms are just as valid this way, as the way they are commonly used thanks to the brutal tactics on BOTH sides. And yes, both sides can be looked on with sypathetic rhetoric, the Israelis are fighting for their existence, and the Palestinians are fighting against tyranny. Fine... To me this is an indicator that siding with one faction is impossible, since both are semi-justified, and semi-evil.
Neither side wants compromise, so bloodshed they shall get, and probably deserve.
The only point of policy I can come down on is that the U.S. has no right to assist either side. Either way we are left morally tainted and bloodied. This is especially true today when our support of Israel is a major contributing factor to the hatred of the West. I'd support which ever side decided to deal with things in accord with international law, and humanistic values, and for the time being it looks like neither even want to come close to this.
The only fair (albeit now dated) version of this conflict I've seen way David K. Shipler's Arab And Jew. Both sides are indoctrinating each other towards pure hatred and violence, there will never be a valid conversation on this until that stops.
Your probably right. Its been a long time since I've been to a bar with my pistol (it was in a pretty small town, Crown King or Yarnell, I forgot which), but I know restaurants and such are either perfectly legal, or at least the laws are ignored.
Two other rather droll observations. He made himself sound human (barring the odd IM speak), which doesn't sound like much, but is pretty important. He is a general, as such is a pretty big authority figure, and thus prone to being dehumanized. Also/. is the home to many anti-authority types, thus setting himself up as a person helped him. The first thing that struck me (after the culture shock of having a military type represented here, a member of the "system" if you will) was the semi-chatty tone, which can't be 100% due to PR staff.
The second observation is that it seems that he rather enjoys his job, and this "conversation". His use of exclamation marks is rather striking, and amusing.
Rather trite, as I said, but still interesting.
I think he did a pretty good job within his professional constraints, and did impart some insight into the position, and questions.
the war on rice in Vietnam was all about my free speech. Or how about both Gulf Wars and the right to cheap oil (and how cheap is your oil now)?
Not that I don't agree with you, but you forget Afghanistan. Don't feel bad, it seems no one cares or remembers it either, sadly. Afghanistan might have been the closest the US has been to a "just" war since WWII, since it was directly linked to our own protection. I mean just by our own interests in safety, since I guess Iraq II could be called "just" by a stretch to, since we did remove a pretty big genocidal asshat. By just I mean in intention, in Iraq the positive was only a secondary (and irrelevant) consequence of bad reasoning, but I digress.
One of them wore a pistol in a holster, as if he were a character in a TV western, only without the hat.
Your not from the southwest, I take it? You can bring a gun anywhere here (Arizona, though I'm sure NM and TX are the same), as long as it isn't government, or posted. When I'm out prospecting, I often forget to take off my pistol before going into business' (granted its small, and full of snakeshot), and never get a second look outside of the big cities. In small towns you might even be an oddity if you don't have a pistol on your belt at any given bar or restaurant.
I had a friend who went to a theater with his kids in the middle of Phoenix with a largish pistol on his belt. The manager came in and tried to kick him out, even if it wasn't posted at the entrance. The guy told the manager to call the cops. The cops came, sided with my friend, and left.
Mind I'm not a gun nut, support some restrictions on fire arms, I only have a gun for self defense (from snakes, mountain lion, and javelena), and I only wear it when I'm in the bush. But guns themselves are not that scary, its only people with guns for certain reasons that are scary.
As for undercover officers... I'm not sure. Some of what they do with small time operators verges on entrapment, but sometimes having them inside of large criminal organizations seems ethical, and useful.
The only people who really lose are privacy purists who are terrified that cookies = virii (a common misconception).
That is a strawman. I keep my cookies pretty clean, the only ones that stay at the end of the week are services with logins, which actually serve me in some way. I know cookies are not viruses (virii isn't a word), but they are put on my computer without my permission, and without telling me what their purpose might be. This is my computer, with my HDD in it, running my browser, via my internet connection, thus I get to decide what goes on my computer.
That and I find being tracked by nameless companies rather distasteful. Does randomwebsite.com really need to know I showed up there one, looking for something. Does this really warrant a permanent file on my computer (or at least expiring in 99 years), just in case I ever go back?
My computer will not die if I got rid of CookieSafe, my family would not be aducted by DoubleClick thugs, but I would lose some control over my own computer, and over who knows what I'm doing. People I trust can have information, if they ask for it (I've had the same google account for god knows how long), and if they provide a service I find useful. Faceless third parties, and fly by night web designers aren't trusted nor offer a service that serves me, and thus don't get free rein of my browser.
Pardon the rambling, cough medicine isn't great for lucidity. But to be short, it is more of a control issue, rather than a safety issue.
Since when was music mutually exclusive? If I throw the Beatles in my iTunes library will they eat everyone else? Zombie John Lennon will eat all my hip anti-mainstream crap? Might not be a bad thing, judging from the shear amount of bad small acts out there. A lot of small bands are small for a damn good reason, and it probably isn't because of Zombie John Lennon.
I'm getting really sick of the anti-mainstream hipsters. Great, your rebelious, you don't like the mainstream. Great, you still don't have taste, since you don't like the mainstream ONLY because it is the mainstream, and not because of any inherent property. The mainstream is a pretty big place that spans a huge amount of time.
And most importantly, taste is subjective. If someone wants to enjoy listening to the Beatles, I can't have anything against that, they're enjoying themselves. Good for them. If someone wants to wear one of these dreaded "accessories" you speak of, fine by me. You don't have to, unless, of course, it is a badge to ward of Zombie John Lennon. But then you still don't have to.
BTW, The Clash is also pretty mainstream, and available through iTunes.
The Beatles were pop, same as Britney Spears is pop. Don't hate pop music just "because", there is quality in the genre.
But then some nice man gave John Lennon some acid, and they started to do NEW stuff. Yes, they started in the crappy 50's pop box ("I wanna hold your hand"), but went on to Sgt. Pepper. Britney is still doing bubblegum, last I checked, with very little chance of actually changing the music scene, or producing something with even a small amount of edge.
The Beatles, also, were musicians, first and foremost. Ms. Spears is a "star" first and foremost, I kinda doubt that she would be doing it if it wasn't for the status, money, and image.
People who listen to Ms. Spears, and her ilk, don't LIKE music. When someone gets a new Brittney Spears CD do you see them putting on some good studio headphones, sitting in a dark room, and actually enjoying it?
There are ten bars within walking distance of my house, meaning those who want to be a bar maid can EASILY choose a different bar, if smoke bothers them. Just like you can choose to go to non-smoking establishments. Smoking bans are just a way for ineffectual liberals to find a popular cause, and inflict their views on others.
If non-smoking establishments were really all that desired they would be raking in the cash, and become ubiquitous. This isn't true, since they need to legislate the playing field. Therefore most people really don't care.
First off I didn't claim I agreed with the statement, it was an ironical, or satirical statement based on the US's current policies, and an attempt to show how absurd the situation is. I personally think that all people have rights, and that these rights should be respected beyond any political goal (or even security). America disagrees, in polls even a majority of people support torture, which in my opinion is a rather grievous denial of rights.
right, people FREELY decided (they did?) to give up their FREEDOM. got it. that's how you read cuban history. wtf!
Never said they did. Go back and reparse that sentence. I state "they should have free elections", and "if they chose communism we would have to accept that". No where did I state that they originally chose it, the closest I got was saying that Fidel is better than Batista.
the usa is the great devil. the usa is a godly saint. it doesn't matter what you think of the usa and what the usa does to realize this about your thinking: when you begin to assert that cubans have freely chosen to have less freedoms than americans, you have completely and utterly swallowed some really stupid propaganda
Never claimed it, therefore your ad hominem rolls off my back.
I also never claimed that they deserve less freedom. I stated that they should have the freedom to decide what form of government they want to live under. I'm careful in stating that, since if Cuba ever becomes a democracy, and doesn't turn into a micro-US, we'll bomb the shit out of them, or put another US-friendly bloodthirsty tyrant like Batista in. In America, also, we take free market economics as a sister of democracy and freedom, and I don't see this as necessarily true. People should be free to choose their economic system AND their political system.
I didn't call the Non-American Western countries "glowing beacons" of freedom, did I? Nor did I claim they were libertarian, only classically liberal. I admit they have some problems, but not as many, nor on as slippery a slope as we do. We're not the great satan, nor saint, but we seem to be working on the former rather than the latter.
What was the last country Canada invaded under flimsy pretexts and outright lies? When was the last time France broke some nations sovereignty to bomb the shit out of a "bad guy?". How many people has the Netherlands secretly moved to foreign countries to be tortured, just so they can allege that they don't condone torture (while endorsing whole heartedly).
Who is the main country in the world using the Geneva Convention as toilette paper?
Yes, the U.S. also gives out billions in aid to poor countries, which is nice.
I don't think the current atmosphere is to blame, though it exasperated the situation. I came of age at the tail end of the cold war, and we were still ruled by the same fear as we are today (albeit more based in reality), In the 90's, after the end of the cold war, we still managed to be ruled by wankers (Clinton, and the birth of neo-cons), but this was not fear based wankerism. Bush I and Clinton were both in a time of naive optimism, but we STILL voted the the extreme right into control.
Really the down fall of American politics can probably be traced to the Truman administration, if not before.
Remember before the current USAPATRIOT act mentality we had McCarthy and J.Edgar Hooverism. Islamic extremists are nothing more than the new International Communist Conspiracy. I guess (barring the unexplanable wankerism of the 90's) fear can be the main effect, which still begs the question "why are we so afraid?".
Not to sound to paranoid, I'm still sad to admit that I can see ourselves being the bad-guys of the next century, taking Germany and the USSR's place. I want to love my country, I really want to, but I have no shared values with America anymore, it seems. This depresses the hell out of me. For Pete's sake, we actually are arguing about the merits of torture, this is the sign of a whole country jumping the shark.
Actually not, let us draw this analogy (or beat this dead horse) further; Both Rand and L. Ron don't fall into the general trappings of a founder of a "school". In religion this is generally some form of "after death things are okay", and a variation of the categorical imperative; in philosophy this is reasoned debate, and a purely logical foundation or critique. Neither Rand or L. Ron deliver.
On religion we can take these values as more subjective, since the prime purpose is to give meaning and structure to our lives, which, I suppose, it does. Philosophy, on the other hand, is to tell us something objective about the universe, or meaning, which Rand fails at. Both of them though (Scientology and Objectivism) are cults of personality foremost above their rolls in their perspective disciplines. I'll admit L. Ron was more about the money of his cult over sincerity, while Rand probably believed in her own writings. But the true comparison is that both were wholly egotistical. Rand was just over-responding to her upbringing, while L. Ron just want bad sci-fi to be religion.
Sorry for over-responding. I have some big issues with Objectivism being called philosophy, just as I have issues with "eastern" philosophy being called such. This does not remove its value, though I think the actual classification is wrong. Looking at Rand in a philosophical lens killer her, she is more the antithesis of modern sociology than having any thing in common with Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Kant, or Sartre.
I still think she is wrong though, which is a different discussion all together.
Our people just gave it all away, a little at a time, by always voting for politicians who promised to make the country a safe place for children and kittens
I know I'm replying to your rather flippant remark with something serious, but why are we doing this? The other democracies in the world seem to have veered in a more liberal direction (liberal, not by the American definition). What makes the Americans MORE susceptible to welcoming a tyranny with open arms? I would have thought it the opposite, being one of the most violently individualistic countries on earth.
The average American, it seems, is the epitomy of sheep, anti-education, anti-freedom, and pro-tyranny, and not just our tyranny, but the tyranny of everyone else too. How did this happen, for a large part our founding fathers were ideal freethinkers (minus Adams), and liberals (again in the non-modern American sense), but somehow we've turned into the modern Soviets. This confuses the hell out of me.
How the hell did Europe (and Canada) beat us at our own, original, game?
Your going to get modded down, but thank you for saying that, and saving me the effort and mod points. Your the official karma martyr of the sane fringe.
That said, I psychologically understand Rand, she was over reacting to her repressive communist (collectivist) upbringing by becoming an uber-individualist. Sadly she also was basically a sociopath, and lead her adherents more as a cult, than as a rational philosopher, meaning it was more about agreeing with the matron, than a rational discourse on the strong and weak points of Objectivism. I've notices that this trend still follows in the circle of Randian adherents I see (mostly here on/.).
It, like the more fundamentalist libertarians here, are completely dogmatic, and closed to any argument which would put their core-beliefs at jeopardy.
I still don't know how Rand became considered a philosopher though. In my 8 years of schooling for that subject she never came up. Nor does she in most of the texts and surveys I own, or have read.
To quote my old sig: Ayn Rand is to philosophy, what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.
And all they've given up is their inalienable rights as human beings. Yay!
Er... where do I find these "inalienable rights" for all human beings? Last I checked, the common interpretation was that these only apply to US citizens, if we had to extend them to everyone else our current international (and increasingly domestic) policies would dissolve.
To all of our leaders, since FDR (perhaps before), the only "inalienable right" that the US has stood for is opening your markets to our corporations, and do what we say. Or at least this is the right that we've fought every modern war over.
That said, Cuba has some problems, and should have free elections. I do think, sans the embargo, that they are better off than under the US shill Batista, though. If the people freely decided to be communist, then fine, no business of ours. Appearently communism isn't enough, since we are now trading with Vietnam and China, leaving only two "verboten" states, Cuba and North Korea. Cuba doesn't compare to N. Korea in any way besides economic systems.
Wondering a bit off topic here, but what the hell. My standard takes the assumption that too much interaction isn't a good thing when talking about weighty, or detailed, subjects. For communications-for-communications sake I would agree with you completely, I'd rather chat with friends in person than text any day. Taking this discussion that we're having right now, for example, I'd rather be doing it via a forum (as we are) or email than at a local pub. When writing you have the ability to focus more on arguments and structure, you can sit and stare at what you write and edit it for clarity, and remove erroneous arguments. Long-text formats allow you to convey more complex arguments and thoughts. In conversation these generally get removed by the interplay, the interplay also leads to more distractions and tangents. This is why I put lecture so high, since it is a guided form of communications.
I guess I used "bandwidth" in a more metaphorical sense, in the literal I think your probably right in you assessment, though.
Most of this is subjective, of course, it just seems the lower on my totem pole of communications you go, the less content can be expressed. If the medium is too immediate you don't think enough, if its too slow you run into the issues you mentioned with books.
Slashdot Mirror
If we all could only just admit that the region is just a plot of land, like any other, without all the mumbo jumbo... Never going to happen, but a geek can dream.
Too many people don't know that the most dangerous thing in the world is a stupid person with a gun, and he's even more dangerous if the gun's not loaded. IINM more people die from thinking their guns are unloaded than from intentional murder.
One of my earlier lessons that always stuck with me was "The Devil Likes to Load Guns", basically meaning there is no such thing as an unloaded firearm.
I was talking more of the idiots who carry for "street cred", or to purvey the threat of violence for their image. They are looking for people to kill, basically. Rational people never want an excuse to upholster their firearm, hell I don't even want to use it on a wild beasty in the wilderness.
If the laws themselves were just there would be no "large criminal organizations" (except maybe Sony, Microsoft, the RIAA...). The Mafia would have never gotten a toehold in the US had it not been for alcohol prohibition. Legalize victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, gambling) and you've pretty much shut down organized crime.
I doubt this, never underestimate the will to make money illegitimately. It might be better than now, but organized crime will always exist.
Besides, it was Jewish land long before Islam was even a religion. It was Jewish land first. Sorry, but if you want to play that "this land is my land" game, it was the Jew's land first.
When was the Diaspora? Can the American Indians reclaim all of America because they were here first? NO one has a God-given right to that land, since both sides (and Christians) have a religious tie to it. So what? A book of dubious authorship says so, that holds no salt, and only make the conflict MORE religious, and thus more blood to be had for both sides.
Desperate enough to kill a bunch of kids? Really? Fuck off! We are done here. THERE IS NEVER EVER A GOOD FUCKING REASON TO KILL A BUNCH OF KIDS. EVER! The fact that you even consider defending such an action, much less attempting to do so, tells me that you don't deserve the right to breathe the same air as I do. Listen to this and listen well:
Agreed. Mind you I NEVER defended it, I only understand how it can happen. Seeing other people's point of view does not mean you agree with their actions. In my perfect world no one can kill anyone, since life is the most sacred thing of all, no matter what some silly old book says.
* Any nation or group of people that targets and attacks school children is an enemy of humanity.
* I support fully backing the group of country that is having their children targeted and attacked.
* Any nation of group of people that targets and attacks kids deserves to die, period.
Saying nation is making this overly simple. There are lots of Palestinians who want to live their lives peacefully, just like their are lots of Israelis. Their are radical lunatics on both sides who act like... well... homicidal lunatics. These homicidal lunatics do nasty things that that lead to actions that justify homicidal lunatics on the other side. They are a vocal minority, who sadly, fucks up the lives of the silent majority ON BOTH SIDES.
When you say that a whole nation deserves to die because of the actions of some of their more sociopathic individuals you sound down right genocidal. I'm not saying you are, this is a passionate issue, but if you read what you wrote again you see. The lunatics deserve to be silenced, the normal folk deserve to live their lives.
I'm guessing your American, if not, sorry, but the example still will apply. In America we have a large Christian Fundamentalist contingent, they whine, they bitch, they get their way. This includes wars on random countries, and banning rational thoughts to whole generations of children. They color how Americans see their own country, and how the world sees it. Guess how many of them their are? 20%. They are powerful and overrepresnted because they are louder than rational folk. The same holds true for any country with a fundamentalist segment, Palestine, Israel, etc.
The silent majority should rule. Screw the Jihadists and Zionists, let them kill each other, and leave everyone else out of it.
Your right on the history, but you can see how it can be interpreted either way
Your also right it is a holy war, but I don't think the term just pertains to the Muslims, why else would the future Israelis really want that land? Why would America back them (outside of the pragmatic military sense) with arms and monies? I agree, Israelis DO have the right to live, it would be moronic to assert otherwise, just as it would be moronic to assert that Palestinians don't (I've seen both positions asserted here).
For the sake of amusement:
Zionist fundi's would NOT stop harassing Palestinians even if Palestinians did nothing in return. These are people who whine about an exile that happened thousands of years ago and threaten death over throwing stones. Zealots don't stop.
That said. There are fundamentalists on both sides. BUT most people on both sides probably just want to get on with their lives without the threat of random violence, ON BOTH SIDES. To classify one side as largely sane, and the other as mostly zealots is wrong. The loud ones usually get all the attention.
Here's hoping. I think that the 2-state solution is probably the only hope, and even at that hostilities will continue from both sides (though to be completely honest mostly from the Palestinian), but I think it would help put the wind back in the sails of Palestinian moderates (who contrary to popular belief are probably the silent majority), and perhaps help to stop breeding the hatred.
/.
:)
Another problem I see is in the outside influences. I'm sure if it was just Israel and the Palestinians in a perfect vacuum, something would have been worked out by now, but sadly politics don't operate in a vacuum, just the minds of politicians. I don't think that the extremist states of the Middle East will ever settle for anything but the annihilation of any Jewish presence. While, to an admittedly lesser degree, the Christian Fundamentalists (who like the Israeli right seem to be dying off, thankfully) really do think that the Jew's having the full Holy Land will bring about the oddly desired Armageddon (why is this a good thing? But I digress), and thus would be hell-bent on full Jewish rule. The flock a friend of mine's father is in sends thousands of dollars to Israel every month for this goal, but I'm not sure of the details, just the intent.
That said, I am a naive optimist, and thus think that most people are inherently good, thus any good compromise would solve most of the problems, with patience.
This story, btw, is probably the best flame bait topic EVER posted on
I'm hoping for a day when politics and religion will just shut up, and let me live my life.
Just because someone disagrees with the Israelis doesn't mean they agree with the Palestinians.
Both sides are 100% in the wrong. If someone came and took my land, I'd probably fight. If they had the military backing of the most armed nation on Earth, and this lasted years with no REAL attempts at reasonable compromise, I'd probably get desperate. If the invaders put me into ghettos, and restricted my livelihood, some people might get desperate enough to blow themselves up. Add two (or three with the American Christian apocalypse cults) ultra-conservative religious sects into the the mix, and you have a recipe for general nastiness and all around war.
Yes, I did just paint that from the "terrorist" side, but only because I have some empathy for them. I also, though, understand the Israeli side, they are fighting for some modicum of identity and religious heritage (the meaning of which is another debate). Both sides, in the end though, break international laws, and humanistic standards with impunity.
There ARE reasonable solutions out there. Separate states being one of them. Yes, thanks to religion there will be continued zealotry on both sides, that would have to be combated, but it would be a workable solution for the normal folk on each side, who gives a shit about the religious goals. Let the Zionists and Islamic Fundamentalists duke it out and kill each other, as long as the average person isn't forced to suffer this shit anymore. And yes, I do believe that not all (nor even a majority) of Palestinians are fanatics, nor is the majority of Jews, these moderates and victims are the ones that we should care about.
Israel CAN'T have the whole damn pie, their going to have to settle for their own small slice, just like the original inhabitants.
For anything to happen we need to break the cycle of hatred. Giving the Palestinians less reason to hate would be good, but of course would never be an option, since Israel (or at least its politicians) play this as an all-or-nothing game (as do the vocal Jihadists).
I really hate this topic. But I feel obligated to respond to it every time.
Nobody, for some reason, can admit that BOTH are wrong, and probably share equal blame in the matter. The Israelis invades already occupied land and expects them to hold the Israelis sovereign because some ancient book says so, of course the Palestinians fought back. In this Israel is wrong. The Palestinians purposely targetting civilians is ALSO wrong. The Israelis near genocidal clamp down on said Palestinians is ALSO wrong. And so it goes.
My problem with this is when someone has the balls to criticize Israel they get branded either pro-Palestinian, or worse, anti-Semitic. To entertain a probable straw-man, don't say that EVERYONE does this, you rarely hear of the Israeli terrorists, or the Palestinian freedom fighters, these terms are just as valid this way, as the way they are commonly used thanks to the brutal tactics on BOTH sides. And yes, both sides can be looked on with sypathetic rhetoric, the Israelis are fighting for their existence, and the Palestinians are fighting against tyranny. Fine... To me this is an indicator that siding with one faction is impossible, since both are semi-justified, and semi-evil.
Neither side wants compromise, so bloodshed they shall get, and probably deserve.
The only point of policy I can come down on is that the U.S. has no right to assist either side. Either way we are left morally tainted and bloodied. This is especially true today when our support of Israel is a major contributing factor to the hatred of the West. I'd support which ever side decided to deal with things in accord with international law, and humanistic values, and for the time being it looks like neither even want to come close to this.
The only fair (albeit now dated) version of this conflict I've seen way David K. Shipler's Arab And Jew. Both sides are indoctrinating each other towards pure hatred and violence, there will never be a valid conversation on this until that stops.
Your probably right. Its been a long time since I've been to a bar with my pistol (it was in a pretty small town, Crown King or Yarnell, I forgot which), but I know restaurants and such are either perfectly legal, or at least the laws are ignored.
Sorry for the error.
Two other rather droll observations. He made himself sound human (barring the odd IM speak), which doesn't sound like much, but is pretty important. He is a general, as such is a pretty big authority figure, and thus prone to being dehumanized. Also /. is the home to many anti-authority types, thus setting himself up as a person helped him. The first thing that struck me (after the culture shock of having a military type represented here, a member of the "system" if you will) was the semi-chatty tone, which can't be 100% due to PR staff.
The second observation is that it seems that he rather enjoys his job, and this "conversation". His use of exclamation marks is rather striking, and amusing.
Rather trite, as I said, but still interesting.
I think he did a pretty good job within his professional constraints, and did impart some insight into the position, and questions.
I Yawn Knowingly With Israeli Mutants Acceding Into The Yellow Door?
Ignorant Yokels Kiss White Indigent Mammals Always in Tidy Yiddish Delis?
IHNCWTFYTA, stick with TLAs.
the war on rice in Vietnam was all about my free speech. Or how about both Gulf Wars and the right to cheap oil (and how cheap is your oil now)?
Not that I don't agree with you, but you forget Afghanistan. Don't feel bad, it seems no one cares or remembers it either, sadly. Afghanistan might have been the closest the US has been to a "just" war since WWII, since it was directly linked to our own protection. I mean just by our own interests in safety, since I guess Iraq II could be called "just" by a stretch to, since we did remove a pretty big genocidal asshat. By just I mean in intention, in Iraq the positive was only a secondary (and irrelevant) consequence of bad reasoning, but I digress.
One of them wore a pistol in a holster, as if he were a character in a TV western, only without the hat.
Your not from the southwest, I take it? You can bring a gun anywhere here (Arizona, though I'm sure NM and TX are the same), as long as it isn't government, or posted. When I'm out prospecting, I often forget to take off my pistol before going into business' (granted its small, and full of snakeshot), and never get a second look outside of the big cities. In small towns you might even be an oddity if you don't have a pistol on your belt at any given bar or restaurant.
I had a friend who went to a theater with his kids in the middle of Phoenix with a largish pistol on his belt. The manager came in and tried to kick him out, even if it wasn't posted at the entrance. The guy told the manager to call the cops. The cops came, sided with my friend, and left.
Mind I'm not a gun nut, support some restrictions on fire arms, I only have a gun for self defense (from snakes, mountain lion, and javelena), and I only wear it when I'm in the bush. But guns themselves are not that scary, its only people with guns for certain reasons that are scary.
As for undercover officers... I'm not sure. Some of what they do with small time operators verges on entrapment, but sometimes having them inside of large criminal organizations seems ethical, and useful.
The only people who really lose are privacy purists who are terrified that cookies = virii (a common misconception).
That is a strawman. I keep my cookies pretty clean, the only ones that stay at the end of the week are services with logins, which actually serve me in some way. I know cookies are not viruses (virii isn't a word), but they are put on my computer without my permission, and without telling me what their purpose might be. This is my computer, with my HDD in it, running my browser, via my internet connection, thus I get to decide what goes on my computer.
That and I find being tracked by nameless companies rather distasteful. Does randomwebsite.com really need to know I showed up there one, looking for something. Does this really warrant a permanent file on my computer (or at least expiring in 99 years), just in case I ever go back?
My computer will not die if I got rid of CookieSafe, my family would not be aducted by DoubleClick thugs, but I would lose some control over my own computer, and over who knows what I'm doing. People I trust can have information, if they ask for it (I've had the same google account for god knows how long), and if they provide a service I find useful. Faceless third parties, and fly by night web designers aren't trusted nor offer a service that serves me, and thus don't get free rein of my browser.
Pardon the rambling, cough medicine isn't great for lucidity. But to be short, it is more of a control issue, rather than a safety issue.
Feeding the troll... ugh...
Since when was music mutually exclusive? If I throw the Beatles in my iTunes library will they eat everyone else? Zombie John Lennon will eat all my hip anti-mainstream crap? Might not be a bad thing, judging from the shear amount of bad small acts out there. A lot of small bands are small for a damn good reason, and it probably isn't because of Zombie John Lennon.
I'm getting really sick of the anti-mainstream hipsters. Great, your rebelious, you don't like the mainstream. Great, you still don't have taste, since you don't like the mainstream ONLY because it is the mainstream, and not because of any inherent property. The mainstream is a pretty big place that spans a huge amount of time.
And most importantly, taste is subjective. If someone wants to enjoy listening to the Beatles, I can't have anything against that, they're enjoying themselves. Good for them. If someone wants to wear one of these dreaded "accessories" you speak of, fine by me. You don't have to, unless, of course, it is a badge to ward of Zombie John Lennon. But then you still don't have to.
BTW, The Clash is also pretty mainstream, and available through iTunes.
The Beatles were pop, same as Britney Spears is pop. Don't hate pop music just "because", there is quality in the genre.
But then some nice man gave John Lennon some acid, and they started to do NEW stuff. Yes, they started in the crappy 50's pop box ("I wanna hold your hand"), but went on to Sgt. Pepper. Britney is still doing bubblegum, last I checked, with very little chance of actually changing the music scene, or producing something with even a small amount of edge.
The Beatles, also, were musicians, first and foremost. Ms. Spears is a "star" first and foremost, I kinda doubt that she would be doing it if it wasn't for the status, money, and image.
People who listen to Ms. Spears, and her ilk, don't LIKE music. When someone gets a new Brittney Spears CD do you see them putting on some good studio headphones, sitting in a dark room, and actually enjoying it?
There are ten bars within walking distance of my house, meaning those who want to be a bar maid can EASILY choose a different bar, if smoke bothers them. Just like you can choose to go to non-smoking establishments. Smoking bans are just a way for ineffectual liberals to find a popular cause, and inflict their views on others.
If non-smoking establishments were really all that desired they would be raking in the cash, and become ubiquitous. This isn't true, since they need to legislate the playing field. Therefore most people really don't care.
First off I didn't claim I agreed with the statement, it was an ironical, or satirical statement based on the US's current policies, and an attempt to show how absurd the situation is. I personally think that all people have rights, and that these rights should be respected beyond any political goal (or even security). America disagrees, in polls even a majority of people support torture, which in my opinion is a rather grievous denial of rights.
right, people FREELY decided (they did?) to give up their FREEDOM. got it. that's how you read cuban history. wtf!
Never said they did. Go back and reparse that sentence. I state "they should have free elections", and "if they chose communism we would have to accept that". No where did I state that they originally chose it, the closest I got was saying that Fidel is better than Batista.
the usa is the great devil. the usa is a godly saint. it doesn't matter what you think of the usa and what the usa does to realize this about your thinking: when you begin to assert that cubans have freely chosen to have less freedoms than americans, you have completely and utterly swallowed some really stupid propaganda
Never claimed it, therefore your ad hominem rolls off my back.
I also never claimed that they deserve less freedom. I stated that they should have the freedom to decide what form of government they want to live under. I'm careful in stating that, since if Cuba ever becomes a democracy, and doesn't turn into a micro-US, we'll bomb the shit out of them, or put another US-friendly bloodthirsty tyrant like Batista in. In America, also, we take free market economics as a sister of democracy and freedom, and I don't see this as necessarily true. People should be free to choose their economic system AND their political system.
I didn't call the Non-American Western countries "glowing beacons" of freedom, did I? Nor did I claim they were libertarian, only classically liberal. I admit they have some problems, but not as many, nor on as slippery a slope as we do. We're not the great satan, nor saint, but we seem to be working on the former rather than the latter.
What was the last country Canada invaded under flimsy pretexts and outright lies? When was the last time France broke some nations sovereignty to bomb the shit out of a "bad guy?". How many people has the Netherlands secretly moved to foreign countries to be tortured, just so they can allege that they don't condone torture (while endorsing whole heartedly).
Who is the main country in the world using the Geneva Convention as toilette paper?
Yes, the U.S. also gives out billions in aid to poor countries, which is nice.
I don't think the current atmosphere is to blame, though it exasperated the situation. I came of age at the tail end of the cold war, and we were still ruled by the same fear as we are today (albeit more based in reality), In the 90's, after the end of the cold war, we still managed to be ruled by wankers (Clinton, and the birth of neo-cons), but this was not fear based wankerism. Bush I and Clinton were both in a time of naive optimism, but we STILL voted the the extreme right into control.
Really the down fall of American politics can probably be traced to the Truman administration, if not before.
Remember before the current USAPATRIOT act mentality we had McCarthy and J.Edgar Hooverism. Islamic extremists are nothing more than the new International Communist Conspiracy. I guess (barring the unexplanable wankerism of the 90's) fear can be the main effect, which still begs the question "why are we so afraid?".
Not to sound to paranoid, I'm still sad to admit that I can see ourselves being the bad-guys of the next century, taking Germany and the USSR's place. I want to love my country, I really want to, but I have no shared values with America anymore, it seems. This depresses the hell out of me. For Pete's sake, we actually are arguing about the merits of torture, this is the sign of a whole country jumping the shark.
I'm speechless.
Actually not, let us draw this analogy (or beat this dead horse) further; Both Rand and L. Ron don't fall into the general trappings of a founder of a "school". In religion this is generally some form of "after death things are okay", and a variation of the categorical imperative; in philosophy this is reasoned debate, and a purely logical foundation or critique. Neither Rand or L. Ron deliver.
On religion we can take these values as more subjective, since the prime purpose is to give meaning and structure to our lives, which, I suppose, it does. Philosophy, on the other hand, is to tell us something objective about the universe, or meaning, which Rand fails at. Both of them though (Scientology and Objectivism) are cults of personality foremost above their rolls in their perspective disciplines. I'll admit L. Ron was more about the money of his cult over sincerity, while Rand probably believed in her own writings. But the true comparison is that both were wholly egotistical. Rand was just over-responding to her upbringing, while L. Ron just want bad sci-fi to be religion.
Sorry for over-responding. I have some big issues with Objectivism being called philosophy, just as I have issues with "eastern" philosophy being called such. This does not remove its value, though I think the actual classification is wrong. Looking at Rand in a philosophical lens killer her, she is more the antithesis of modern sociology than having any thing in common with Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Kant, or Sartre.
I still think she is wrong though, which is a different discussion all together.
Our people just gave it all away, a little at a time, by always voting for politicians who promised to make the country a safe place for children and kittens
I know I'm replying to your rather flippant remark with something serious, but why are we doing this? The other democracies in the world seem to have veered in a more liberal direction (liberal, not by the American definition). What makes the Americans MORE susceptible to welcoming a tyranny with open arms? I would have thought it the opposite, being one of the most violently individualistic countries on earth.
The average American, it seems, is the epitomy of sheep, anti-education, anti-freedom, and pro-tyranny, and not just our tyranny, but the tyranny of everyone else too. How did this happen, for a large part our founding fathers were ideal freethinkers (minus Adams), and liberals (again in the non-modern American sense), but somehow we've turned into the modern Soviets. This confuses the hell out of me.
How the hell did Europe (and Canada) beat us at our own, original, game?
How did France, Canada, the Nether
Your going to get modded down, but thank you for saying that, and saving me the effort and mod points. Your the official karma martyr of the sane fringe.
/.).
That said, I psychologically understand Rand, she was over reacting to her repressive communist (collectivist) upbringing by becoming an uber-individualist. Sadly she also was basically a sociopath, and lead her adherents more as a cult, than as a rational philosopher, meaning it was more about agreeing with the matron, than a rational discourse on the strong and weak points of Objectivism. I've notices that this trend still follows in the circle of Randian adherents I see (mostly here on
It, like the more fundamentalist libertarians here, are completely dogmatic, and closed to any argument which would put their core-beliefs at jeopardy.
I still don't know how Rand became considered a philosopher though. In my 8 years of schooling for that subject she never came up. Nor does she in most of the texts and surveys I own, or have read.
To quote my old sig: Ayn Rand is to philosophy, what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.
And all they've given up is their inalienable rights as human beings. Yay!
Er... where do I find these "inalienable rights" for all human beings? Last I checked, the common interpretation was that these only apply to US citizens, if we had to extend them to everyone else our current international (and increasingly domestic) policies would dissolve.
To all of our leaders, since FDR (perhaps before), the only "inalienable right" that the US has stood for is opening your markets to our corporations, and do what we say. Or at least this is the right that we've fought every modern war over.
That said, Cuba has some problems, and should have free elections. I do think, sans the embargo, that they are better off than under the US shill Batista, though. If the people freely decided to be communist, then fine, no business of ours. Appearently communism isn't enough, since we are now trading with Vietnam and China, leaving only two "verboten" states, Cuba and North Korea. Cuba doesn't compare to N. Korea in any way besides economic systems.
Wondering a bit off topic here, but what the hell. My standard takes the assumption that too much interaction isn't a good thing when talking about weighty, or detailed, subjects. For communications-for-communications sake I would agree with you completely, I'd rather chat with friends in person than text any day. Taking this discussion that we're having right now, for example, I'd rather be doing it via a forum (as we are) or email than at a local pub. When writing you have the ability to focus more on arguments and structure, you can sit and stare at what you write and edit it for clarity, and remove erroneous arguments. Long-text formats allow you to convey more complex arguments and thoughts. In conversation these generally get removed by the interplay, the interplay also leads to more distractions and tangents. This is why I put lecture so high, since it is a guided form of communications.
I guess I used "bandwidth" in a more metaphorical sense, in the literal I think your probably right in you assessment, though.
Most of this is subjective, of course, it just seems the lower on my totem pole of communications you go, the less content can be expressed. If the medium is too immediate you don't think enough, if its too slow you run into the issues you mentioned with books.