World War II: Rosevelt (D). (more dead americans than any war in history)
Your comparing our two modern wars to WWII? Please tell me your doing this for mere partisanship, as there is absolutely nothing in common with our current political wars and WWII.
WWII was a war fought over genuine despots, and not just tinpot dictators raised to that level for the sake of political ends. In the case of WWII there was a genuine act of war, a threat to our allies, general geopolitcal stability, and a real genocidal bona fide bad guy. Our current crop of wars lack ALL of these. In WWII there was an ACTUAL threat to the US, a threat that is completely lacking in our current wars.
These wars are poltical only.
I can agree with your complaints against Korea and Vietnam, but comparing WWII to the neocon "Bush doctrine" wars we're in currently is just dumb and fallacious.
Arguably Afghanistan might be just, since the Taliban did INDIRECTLY cause a direct threat, unlike Pearl Harbor and the Japanese incidentally which was a DIRECT threat. I personally think Afghanistan is a good war, as do most nonpartisan analysts, but oddly this is the war we ignore, and proved to be the least of Bush's military priorities.
Iraq is, and was, just dumb, and only motivated by petty political reasons. We had no real reason for being there, outside of purely ideological (and partisan) political reasons. Even Iraq is a bit dumber than our involvement in Vietnam and Korea, since that was at least for BIPARTISAN political idiocy based purely on temporal and fallacious political grounds.
Ignoring war, though GWB was the worst president we have ever had. He did more to dissolve our rights than any president before him (except perhaps Adams). He didn't even have the illusion of ethics, he endorsed torture, exceptionalism (rebranded nationalism), he looked out for his rich cronies in a way that Reagan could only dream of, he killed ALL safety regulation, and generally fought against the majority of Americans as much as possible. I don't understand how ANYONE can like him, he didn't even support his religiously fundamentalist base, much less true fiscal conservatives. Hell even hopeless pure war-for-wars-sake hawks can't like him since he f*'ed up both the wars he decided to start.
Economically, I suppose, he did start a trend some might like, decreasing income and dramatically increasing spending. Perhaps some might even like the idea of a "war against x" where "x" is an unassigned variable. He also popularized the wonderous anti-intellectualism that uneducated idiots love (we can call it populism), where ruling a country by your "gut" is preferable to ruling it by experts, information, and science.
I'm not going to hop on the partisan band wagon here, either. Clinton was a BAD president, as was every modern president we've had since FDR. It isn't a question of "us versus them". that mentality is the problem. We CAN have political differences, we SHOULD have them. You are about as right as I am. Politics are necessarily subjective. When you act as if they are objective, you always act towards tyranny.
e. Communism was not simply a political belief or even a party, it was quite firmly under the thumb of a foreign power who used it to gain intelligence on some of the most delicate secrets of the government, including the atomic bomb.
No disagreement here. But we both agree that this was only a small part of McCarthyism. He and Hoover also went after the equal rights movement, leftists (not communists, but progressives), and anyone disagreeing with the American government or the ultra-conservative views of McCarthy or Hoover. This is what I take affront with.
Central to Communism is the concept of a class war and a change to a worker's state.
Here we disagree. I don't find either of these "bad". I don't completely agree with either, but these are simply a difference in opinion. These fall in line with ones subjective political philosophy. Yes, they might be a bit extreme, but some find the more common (and vocal these days) libertarian philosophy extreme too.
I do think that they should have considered what they were thinking was going to happen if they succeeded.
At the same time, I believe there should be social consequences for undermining the US in the way I see communist sympathizers doing...
This brings up a difficult question; what is the US (or any other country) and how can one actually undermine it short of selling secrets to hostile governments or terrorism? The way I see it, nations are only subjective constructs at worst, and (very) imperfect reflections of their population at best. When I state "I am proud to be American" what do I actually mean? To me I mean I'm proud of the philosophy behind our founders actions(if not how we apply it in practice), the geography, and to a less extent my fellow citizens. The government as a temporal body doesn't play into it, nor does its ideologies or expectations, nor does our economic model.
I can be pro-American and anti-American government. I can also be pro-American and anti-Free Market.
In fact, as my sig implies, I think it is often the more patriotic act to defy your government, than to obey it without thinking.
McCarthy (and Hoover) was as much against communism, as he was against other social issues he decided fit the communist bill. If you look at Hoover's files, he was against black activists (acting in the spirit of our founders, IMO), and union organizers, as he was against actual communist activists. He was the bad type of conservative, in other words. He like how our culture was, and wanted to resist change, as much as he actually wanted to protect us from actual communists.
but that does not mean they are all on the same level...
This obviously is true. But how do we actually judge the merits? I personally find the classic "libertarian" on Slashdot to be far more harmful to America than the socialist element. The libertarian element, on the other hand, will say the opposite. How can we differentiate? I'd venture to say that we can judge based on the "principles" of the nation; does the ideology fit the foundations of the nation, and not the current popular whim? This even runs into trouble, since I'm sure a libertarian and a socialist will even disagree with the principles (or founders intentions) of the nation.
My personal metric is a balance between what benefits EVERYONE in a society (not just the power elite), and maximizing the freedom of everyone in society. By freedom I don't mean the libertarian economic sense, but the ability to actually be who you want to be with the maximum amount of autonomy, and the minimum amount of tyranny. This includes the ability to have and form your own opinion of things, even if it is against the majority or popular opinion of the times.
We can all agree (probably) that the Soviet style of communism is against the foundations of America (and most other democracies), and is generally against the tenets of freedom. Socialism on the other hand isn't, even if it is of the same origins as Communism. Fascism (by the original definition) is also against these principles, while libertarianism is benign.
A hegemony of either socialists or libertarians, though, would be against these principles, obviously.
I suppose a healthy government (a democracy) depends on OPPOSITION. Being against opposition, is generally a fool hardy move, and is generally less than a step away from pure tyranny. Enforcing your view of right is generally a bad thing, and is an irresponsible act for the government to take.
So only a handful of humans know anything about the moon. And we know nothing about space, the universe, the deep ocean, and the core of our very own planet. We know no history past 100 years, since hardly anyone living has ever lived back then.
That argument is fallacious.
That said; I just read a book by someone who was in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib (Fixing Hell, by Lt. Larry James), and some soldiers DID disobey orders, and did acknowledge the illegality of the actions by the BAD soldiers. Yes, I said it.
Just because you served doesn't make it impossible to be an asshole, it doesn't make you a better person. You still can break the law, you still can act like a sociopath. I'm sick of us treating soldiers with "kid gloves" as a reaction to us treating them like trash in Vietnam. There is a balance. We can respect, but still force them to live with the consequences of their illegal, immoral, and unethical, actions (if they are one of the few who acted such).
In the spirit of equality, I don't care who you are, or what you've done, the consequences should be the same for all for like actions.
Just because you served in the military, doesn't make you immune from the consequences of illegal actions.
Its just a political ideology, and just like the rest of them, it has good points and bad points. Discriminating, or ruining peoples lives in this case, against people because you don't personally like their opinion is wrong. This man based his whole life and reputation on this, therefore I would say it okay to "diss" him.
Most of these people weren't "anti-American", they just had a different view of how the government should act, and possibly (justifiably) found the cold war a silly, destructive, thing.
Hell, being anti-American isn't even a crime, much less being communist, or socialist. What the hell does "anti-American" even mean, really? I hated Bush, his policies, his wars, his abuse of the constitution; does that make me anti-American? I really dislike much of our culture; does this make me anti-American? I'm a social libertarian; does that? I'm not a fan of our economic philosophies and our view that they are superior to everyone else's (or worse, that their sinonymous with democracy or freedom); am I anti-American?
You or whoever "we" is and I'll assume you're not using the royal "we" have nothing to do with my kids. Your input is (to be honest) intrusive, unwanted and more than a little presumptuous and if all you see around you are terrible parents that says more about your social circle than anything else.
My point is you parent your kids however the hell you want. As long as it isn't abusive or intrusive on my (or anyone else's) rights, I don't care what you do. Nor should you care what anyone else does.
If you think your children seeing boobs is destructive, good for you. If you think the f-bomb is the devil's tool, good. I don't care. Shelter them. The second, though, your parental standards hurt my life, or my ability to raise kids, then you can go to hell, and take your kids with you. Your standards are not mine, and they should never inflict on mine unless there is objective, and provable, harm. Period.
That is my point.
As for the "we", yes, I think people who over shelter their kids do nothing but hurt them. I never said though that people should be able to if they want to. I just don't think everyone should be forced into the most prude, fanciful, and moronic mode of protection. Choice is all there should be, no coercion.
I say its harmful because I've seen over-protected children enter the real world, and become self-destructive. Its a point of data people can use to make decisions, or not. If not, and its true, then they have to live with the consequences. Input is just that, it isn't a directive or mandate.
Do you find developmental psychologists intrusive? Juvenile corrections people? Teachers?
I think advice (again, not mandates) are needed, since we all can agree that there ARE bad parents out there (Like the recent story about the parents who named their kids Adolf Hitler, and Aryan Nation, for example). And while we should never tell them HOW to raise their child, we should provide information and education.
Sorry for the hostile tone, I just don't like being misread as a tyrant. I never presumed to tell you how to raise your kids, and take some affront at being perceived to be doing so. Though I find some amusement in the fact that my "leave parents alone" statement was construed as a "this is what parents have to do" statement.
Wait, isn't Germany the country where videogames can't have red blood? And aren't they the ones the ruined the Fallout tradition of being able to shoot kids (in game, obviously).
Smells like censorship. Smells like censorship that has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Also, censoring a book, or a thought ("the holocaust never happened") is still censorship, no matter how much you agree with it being banned. Mein Kampf has some historical importance, so reading it does not denote that the reader is an aspiring Nazi. Hell, I've read it, and it didn't make me a Nazi, far from it. It was actually educational, it allowed me to get into the head of a despot, which informed me about future possible despots. Its a (really badly written) warning.
As for holocaust denial... I find it tragically funny. Some of my friends grandparents have tattoos on their arms. Hell my grandfather was among the first US troops to arrive at Auschwitz, he didn't talk about it much, but he was there. How can you deny something that people who are still alive lived through? Ignoring that, if you want to claim that their are "lying Jews" about, there is actual Nazi paper work, and forensic evidence.
Banning denial is silly, since the whole argument is silly. I doubt listening to a denier is going to convince ANYONE with half a brain.
That's a rather absolute statement. Kids are raised by everyone who influences them, including parents, teachers, after school care providers, and others they interact with. Your statement is only completely accurate for sheltered, shut-in, home-schooled kids who grow up completely clueless about the world.
True, but expecting everyone else in the world to conform to your parental standards is rather absurd. This is the problem that I have with laws like this. No one can really object to "protecting children", which is why it is such a persuasive argument, but the whole thing starts to verge on evil when it becomes legislating what people are allowed to say, do, or create.
This is problematic on two levels. The more obvious one is that we all have different standards of what is acceptable for our children. A lot of the things governments try to ban "for the children" I have no problem with, like sexuality, or alternative lifestyles.
The second reason is the more we protect our children, the more juvenile they will remain throughout life. Children are not eternal, they, like the rest of us, must spend 4/5ths of their lives as adults. The more we block them off from the world, the more we stunt their emotional growth, and ability to cope with foreign (if distasteful) concepts.
Remember college? Remember the freshman experience, the first time away from home? The alcohol poisoning, the bad sexual encounters, the drug use?
We're basically lying to them, stating over and over "this does not exist", when they will find out soon enough on their own, with no emotional preparation at all.
I digress.
I try to shape the influence other people have over my son by giving him the mental tools to evaluate what they tell him, but I can't lock him away from outside influences. Nor do I want to. Listening to and evaluating different opinions is the only way you develop interpersonal critical thinking skills.
This is where the parent comes in. You are correct, and probably a good parent for that statement. This, though, is the role we're trying to hand to the schools and government.
Schools are where you LEARN things, not become a good person. I don't care if my child becomes a good Christian (or Brit, or American, or whatnot) because of school, I'd rather he learn math and how to read, and perhaps, god forbid, a bit of history.
I think the large part of the problem is that people are too lazy/egotistical to raise their own children, or think of them as puppies. It takes work, and time that can be "better" spent enriching the parents life. At least this is the observation I make from the people around me who are terrible parents.
Most LSD in the world is still distributed on blotter and is unadultered, perhaps you hang out with easily tricked teenagers who will eat anything that someone tells them is LSD?
This might be true, though they aren't teens. Basically all I have to go on here is their description, and what they bought looked like. One of them had some experience, but probably never did LSA themselves.
Ever extracted LSA from Hawaiian Baby Woodrose seeds yourself? I have and I can tell you that the effect you describe sounds nothing like LSA or LSA + MDMA.
Morning Glory. And no the descriptions weren't exactly the same as when I did it. But... It was the closest analogy I could come up with (also mild doses of LSA with heavy doses of speed/MDMA sounds about right, or, as stated, normal doses of MDMA with heavy doses of expectations).
Not to attempt to be insulting but when did you "get off drugs"? When you were 15? I have never heard of anyone peddling LSA as LSD although I've heard similar stories of older stoners tricking teenagers into thinking some random cheap and weak drug really was an expensive more rare drug.
Not insulting, though this might be the silliest argument I've been in for a long time.:)
I quit in my mid-20s, had better priorities, and a dose of insight that drugs weren't actually giving me anything. I have heard of it. Hell, the dumb things my friends sold in the 90's were worse. If you convince a moron who never has done it before that urine is good acid, they will report a mild trip, and come back for more.
Most drugs, when you don't personally know the supplier, are dubious crap.
I haven't done it for a VERY long time, but the kids these days get it in a gel cap, as far as I've seen. The gel caps are filled with an off white powder. Judging from the effects reported to me from the people who did it (I still babysit from time to time, even if I swore off of the stuff) sounded more like LSA than LSD, or more specifically LSA cut with MDMA. Namely a "body fry" with only minor mental elements. Nothing like the LSD as I remember it from years past.
Most modern acid isn't on blotter, or in a vial. At least the stuff still floating around where I live, but on a pill, or in a gel cap. Judging from the color of the powder in their pill, I'd say it was either MDMA cut with heroin, or really bad methamphetamines. As I didn't do any, it could have been bad ecstasy laced with wishful expectations.
When I started getting off drugs, about 90% of the LSD available started to be replaced with LSA or highly diluted LSD. So this might be all that novices expect, leading them to confuse it with the actual drug. Yes, I can tell the difference, but that doesn't mean most people can, having never experienced "the good stuff".
Areas with widespread legal firearms ownership tend to have less crime than areas with severe gun restrictions
Again, correlation does not equal causation, and also [citation needed]. I'm guessing most areas with widespread gun-ownership are rural areas with low population density, whereas most of the areas with gun restrictions are urban areas with high density. This leads to two problems, accepting your premise as true; A) Higher density leads to more crime, and B) there are massive social differences between cities and rural areas. In small towns and rural areas, you generally have a rather homogeneous community, of people who know each other, and who share values and cultural ties (for the most part). In urban areas you have the opposite, hugely divergent communities, spread widely in cultural mores, wealth, and education. Cities thus bread more conflict, which increases the incidence of homicide. Cities are also more stressful, which can lead to higher incidence of violence.
You didn't take these things into account, so I'm forced to call "shenanigans".
Finally, if someone is that nuts, operating an axe, shovel, hatchet or any number of other hand tools is no great obstacle.
Agreed. I think all the emphasis we put on what kills people take the light from the real problem, what causes people to kill. In a world without guns, there still would be violence, murder, and war. A large part of the problem is we glorify violence in the States, our media makes violence look like the solution to all problems. I say we need to reverse our priorities, we need to be ashamed of violence, but glorify sex. This duplicity confuses the hell out of me.
Also we do have some pretty bad endemic social problems that we refuse to fix, or even acknowledge. All of the wind being wasted by both sides on the 2nd amendment debate could be better utilized in fixing the actual root causes for violence (gun and otherwise).
Lizzie Borden was just a chick, but did a "hatchet job" quite smartly (and beat the rap too).
Maybe she didn't? I remember reading a book on it, and there was some rather dubious evidence for her guilt. Just because children sing about you, doesn't make it so.
I personally stay away from energy drinks and soft-drinks. I've noticed that sugar is far more likely to give me insomnia and the jitters than caffeine. That and the other side effects of too much sugar intake of course. Most energy drinks taste like ass, as well. Bawls is pretty good, much better than Redbull, but it has far less caffeine than a grande drip from Starbucks.
In college I went caffeine free one day (not by choice, two courses of Latin over summer reduces your ability to live) I woke up around 9am, and by 11am I had one of the worst migraines of my life (and I used to suffer "cluster headaches" in my youth), I had no energy whatsoever, and ended up dosing in and out of a light sleep every 30-45 minutes. Added to this was a depressed mood, and general irritability. This, for clarification, was the first time I've been without caffeine for a 24 hour period since I was 14, or earlier.
My father is a truck driver, so I had my first cup of coffee at around 7 or earlier. I was far into addiction by junior high. Black coffee, mind.
Digression aside, I went to the nearest coffee shop, had a double espresso, and a big glass of hot yerba mate. Within 5 minutes I was in love with life, and in one of the best moods I've ever been in.
It was far worse than any of my attempts to quit smoking. It made me realize that caffeine owns me. I'm okay with this. Better coffee than soft-drinks, I figure. At least I can miss out on the sugar.
That depends on the formula, dosage, and person biology, really. Most of the stuff kids do these days is not true LSD, its generally LSA. It also is generally cut with all sorts of unsavory chemicals, such as ecstasy, heroin, etc...
With good stuff (I giggle a bit saying that) you can experience true hallucinations, though at a lower incidence, and potency, than say mescaline or DMT. LSD hallucinations are also generally not of the "I'm talking to space aliens" type, and more of the "patterns overlaying things" type, but just because they don't involve fictional entities, doesn't make them not hallucinations.
Actually when I was experiencing sleep-deprivation once the hallucinations were about on par with LSD. When I had a 120 degree (f) fever and, on tons of codeine, the hallucinations were FAR more realistic and convincing. Not that I would recommend anyone getting strep for the trip.
If you really want to see people/things not there, I would recommend DMT or high doses of Salvia.
As a child I was bullied, as probably was around half of the/. crowd (being nerds and all..). I don't have any emotional scarring that I'm aware of, nor does most of the people here, probably. Emotional scarring is VERY rare, especially in children (who, as you know are resilient as hell), emotional scarring because of schoolyard bullies is probably pretty much nonexistent.
If you really are that scarred, then there probably was something else wrong in your life, greater than the ubiquitous bully. Lack of good parental support comes to mind, as does a bevy of preexistant mental problems (which may have resulted from lack of parental support).
Hell, I completely forgot I was bullied, until the other weekend I broke out giggling while eating a sandwich while discussing a topic much like this one. My 3rd grade bully's name was Reuben. I'd like to think of that as the opportune appearance of a sight gag, more than trauma.
Yes, bullying can be a problem, but generally it isn't that big of a deal. It's always been here, and it always will, yet somehow we managed to survive to this point.
Its like this self-esteem shit we bandy about, over rated crap.
They act as both an IQ test to see if you are too stupid to lie, and a drone test to see if you are the kind of person willing to sit in a cubicle and waste 40 minutes on something so stupid, with little to no promise of reward.
I took one once for some stupid desk job at an insurance company once (USAA?), it actually asked you things like "would you rather be outside in a forest, or sitting at a desk answering phones", and "would you rather be painting a picture or sitting at a desk answering phones", "do you enjoy missing lunch and working long hours". I started laughing during the test, and decided to be VERY honest just for the hilarity of it all.
It was nice talking to the HR chick though, since I told her that they should hire me because I have moral standards, unlike any who could ever pass their test.
I didn't get the job, but then again the questions made me realize I didn't want it. Also the fact that it was a square mile campus, which you weren't allowed to leave until quitting time, with a full "no outdoors smoking" policy. I think someone told me that you could get fired smoking off-campus before work if you were in view of the guard shack. It reminded me too much of highschool.
I always have to ask people who claim to have adult ADD this question: "what do you do for a living?"
I have a feeling you have a very boring job, and generally a pretty boring life. This isn't meant to be an attack on you, just a statement that your life is probably not very fulfilling, which leads you to be unfocused and discontent. In short, modern life leads to the symptoms of ADD.
A large part with the mental illness industry is that it refuses to acknowledge that most mental illnesses are symptoms of social problems. Society no longer fits our biology/psychology as it evolved, this leads to issues.
Another problem with the mild/functional mental illnesses that are becoming more and more common today, such as adult ADD/ADHD and Asperger's is that the DSM criteria are vague. Personally I fit the diagnosis of both of these, as does EVERYONE I KNOW. They are overly vague and nebulous, thus a large portion of the population fit them.
They, generally, though are not even "illnesses". The definition of a mental illness is "impaired ability to function", by function we mean live our domestic and professional lives. You probably have a family and a job, you probably are rather successful, and educated (this being Slashdot), and thus you fail on the "illness" front.
Sitting for hours in front of a monitor is unnatural to your evolved biology, it is no wonder that we have a hard time coping with it. It is no wonder that unnatural circumstances cause stress, and that boring circumstances cause an inability to concentrate.
I really wish we would reinvest all the money we spend of psychiatric conditions towards the ill fitting circumstances that CAUSE them. For the most part, the psychiatric problems are a normal reaction to bad stimulus. Its like your stomach hurting when you are bad food, your body is telling you that something is wrong. But for some reason psychiatrists diagnose the ache as the problem, and ignore the actual cause.
Another issue I have with adult ADD and Aspergers is the dramatic rise in diagnosis. Why would these "illnesses" show exponential growth? Hell, 20 years ago adults COULDN'T have ADD, by definition. But now about half of children have it (making it NOT an illness in my book, it is normal now), and a huge portion of adults. This doesn't make sense.
Yes, a large portion of mental illnesses are very real, but these two I don't see being real.
People also forget that the DSM is the only medical handbook where diseases are recognized by a vote, and whose very existence is solely because of insurance companies. Just because it is in the DSM does not make it real. Hell, up until the version before this one (DSMII) homosexuality was a mental disorder, just because people voted that it should be. Take it with a grain of salt.
State sponsored slavery is taking people's money to pay for prisoner's housing.
Hyperbole much?
The government is providing a service, keeping violent criminals off the streets. For this, we pay. We all indirectly benefit from this, so I doubt any definition of slavery would actually fit.
No, our laws are not perfect. Far FAR from it, I'd say. Our criteria of what a jailable crime is pretty far wrong. But.. your personal lack of support for it still does not make it slavery. Our government is about society, not YOU. Apparently the majority implicitly agrees with the actions of the government, and the criteria it uses to jail people.
Am I a slave because I don't believe in our war policies, in defense spending period? Am I a slave because I don't think any corporation should EVER receive my tax money, for any reason?
Government serves society, and not YOU. This is how it should be. Otherwise all we would have is anarchy, and pure rule by the strong.
No. It is my burden to CHANGE the system by convincing enough people to either vote for me, or for people who share my points of view. Because of this I cannot be a slave, since I do have a say, and a chance to change the system. If I fail, either my point of view is in left field, or no one actually cares, or I'm not trying hard enough.
This ability to choose our government invalidates any argument that we are slaves. All your doing is denying your own responsibilities as a citizens.
given than the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT to bear arms, not the right to get permission from the government
Why do people always ignore the first bit of the amendment;
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
That and we consistently ignore the the use of the term "the people", which is used instead of "persons". It does NOT connote that "everyone should have unrestricted access to guns". The People != Individuals in the original use of the term (meaning in the sense the framers were using).
It also does not contain any legislative context, saying HOW access to guns should be permitted/regulated.
I personally don't care. I have a couple guns, they all are locked up, unloaded, and pretty much forgotten. I used them as tools for when I'm in the boonies, but would never level one at a human being. I personally think that its an archaic amendment, and that most people who debate it have a fuzzy idea of what it actually means (myself included), since it is the most opaque phraseology in our Constitution.
We'd previously decided not to based on the Presedent, now we probably won't because of the queues at the entry barrier.
I'd still put off visiting here for a period of time. First let Obama prove that he isn't just another creepy American politician (i.e. authoritarian, xenophobic, dictatorial and an egomaniac). If he isn't, then wait until he actually has a chance to fix our more antisocial policies.
Toyota will not do anything that diminishes their brand, nor anything that would improve the image of their competitors (ie. Lexus is for people who want to appear rich, while BMW is for people who actually are rich).
I'd argue that making your drivers listen to advertisements would hurt your image. If I owned a Beemer, I would laugh at all the ad-listening Lexis fools. Actually if I owned a Beemer I might laugh at them anyways, a Lexis doesn't LOOK like Luxary cars to me, they're just priced like them (which is generally enough to fool the masses).
That is besides my point, though; Perhaps there is a larger market for people who want to APPEAR rich, than there is for the ACTUAL rich. I'm guessing this is the case, I know a couple people who sprung for huge luxury items (taking a huge hit to their meager savings) just to have something to show off. These are people only making around 20k, mind.
I'm not saying that they're going to do this, but it still might be a viable option.
Though the constitution doesn't really place our rights at any given source, the closest we get is the Declaration, and that doesn't hold water.
I have read my Locke, and agree somewhat with him (I'm more of a J.S. Mill person myself). Though I find the idea that rights are natural to be absurd, they have varied from culture to culture, and time to time, if those cultures even had a concept of them. In many "primitive" cultures these rights were nonexistent. Hell, America didn't even grasp "liberty" as a right until fairly recently. Though I can see some distinction here, since rights might be universally applicable to "people", and we change who we consider as "people" constantly.
Being that these rights are not universal throughout disparate cultures and times, then Locke either discovered something unforeseen to the world, or made a mere normative statement dressed in the guise of universal principle. If the latter is true, I'd rather accept Kant's Imperative as the origin of "rights".
In the end, I have a hard time seeing "rights" as anything but socially constructed to mirror the values (i.e. ad hoc) of that society, or to justify that society's history/goals.
Slashdot Mirror
Gr... Now I must undo mods...
World War II: Rosevelt (D). (more dead americans than any war in history)
Your comparing our two modern wars to WWII? Please tell me your doing this for mere partisanship, as there is absolutely nothing in common with our current political wars and WWII.
WWII was a war fought over genuine despots, and not just tinpot dictators raised to that level for the sake of political ends. In the case of WWII there was a genuine act of war, a threat to our allies, general geopolitcal stability, and a real genocidal bona fide bad guy. Our current crop of wars lack ALL of these. In WWII there was an ACTUAL threat to the US, a threat that is completely lacking in our current wars.
These wars are poltical only.
I can agree with your complaints against Korea and Vietnam, but comparing WWII to the neocon "Bush doctrine" wars we're in currently is just dumb and fallacious.
Arguably Afghanistan might be just, since the Taliban did INDIRECTLY cause a direct threat, unlike Pearl Harbor and the Japanese incidentally which was a DIRECT threat. I personally think Afghanistan is a good war, as do most nonpartisan analysts, but oddly this is the war we ignore, and proved to be the least of Bush's military priorities.
Iraq is, and was, just dumb, and only motivated by petty political reasons. We had no real reason for being there, outside of purely ideological (and partisan) political reasons. Even Iraq is a bit dumber than our involvement in Vietnam and Korea, since that was at least for BIPARTISAN political idiocy based purely on temporal and fallacious political grounds.
Ignoring war, though GWB was the worst president we have ever had. He did more to dissolve our rights than any president before him (except perhaps Adams). He didn't even have the illusion of ethics, he endorsed torture, exceptionalism (rebranded nationalism), he looked out for his rich cronies in a way that Reagan could only dream of, he killed ALL safety regulation, and generally fought against the majority of Americans as much as possible. I don't understand how ANYONE can like him, he didn't even support his religiously fundamentalist base, much less true fiscal conservatives. Hell even hopeless pure war-for-wars-sake hawks can't like him since he f*'ed up both the wars he decided to start.
Economically, I suppose, he did start a trend some might like, decreasing income and dramatically increasing spending. Perhaps some might even like the idea of a "war against x" where "x" is an unassigned variable. He also popularized the wonderous anti-intellectualism that uneducated idiots love (we can call it populism), where ruling a country by your "gut" is preferable to ruling it by experts, information, and science.
I'm not going to hop on the partisan band wagon here, either. Clinton was a BAD president, as was every modern president we've had since FDR. It isn't a question of "us versus them". that mentality is the problem. We CAN have political differences, we SHOULD have them. You are about as right as I am. Politics are necessarily subjective. When you act as if they are objective, you always act towards tyranny.
search /. and look for all the posts I've read from Canadians bitching just about how much they pay in taxes.
Doesn't everyone bitch about taxes? I thought that was the universal principle that unites all of humanity.
e. Communism was not simply a political belief or even a party, it was quite firmly under the thumb of a foreign power who used it to gain intelligence on some of the most delicate secrets of the government, including the atomic bomb.
No disagreement here. But we both agree that this was only a small part of McCarthyism. He and Hoover also went after the equal rights movement, leftists (not communists, but progressives), and anyone disagreeing with the American government or the ultra-conservative views of McCarthy or Hoover. This is what I take affront with.
Central to Communism is the concept of a class war and a change to a worker's state.
Here we disagree. I don't find either of these "bad". I don't completely agree with either, but these are simply a difference in opinion. These fall in line with ones subjective political philosophy. Yes, they might be a bit extreme, but some find the more common (and vocal these days) libertarian philosophy extreme too.
I do think that they should have considered what they were thinking was going to happen if they succeeded.
Good advice for all ideologues in general.
At the same time, I believe there should be social consequences for undermining the US in the way I see communist sympathizers doing...
This brings up a difficult question; what is the US (or any other country) and how can one actually undermine it short of selling secrets to hostile governments or terrorism? The way I see it, nations are only subjective constructs at worst, and (very) imperfect reflections of their population at best. When I state "I am proud to be American" what do I actually mean? To me I mean I'm proud of the philosophy behind our founders actions(if not how we apply it in practice), the geography, and to a less extent my fellow citizens. The government as a temporal body doesn't play into it, nor does its ideologies or expectations, nor does our economic model.
I can be pro-American and anti-American government. I can also be pro-American and anti-Free Market.
In fact, as my sig implies, I think it is often the more patriotic act to defy your government, than to obey it without thinking.
McCarthy (and Hoover) was as much against communism, as he was against other social issues he decided fit the communist bill. If you look at Hoover's files, he was against black activists (acting in the spirit of our founders, IMO), and union organizers, as he was against actual communist activists. He was the bad type of conservative, in other words. He like how our culture was, and wanted to resist change, as much as he actually wanted to protect us from actual communists.
but that does not mean they are all on the same level...
This obviously is true. But how do we actually judge the merits? I personally find the classic "libertarian" on Slashdot to be far more harmful to America than the socialist element. The libertarian element, on the other hand, will say the opposite. How can we differentiate? I'd venture to say that we can judge based on the "principles" of the nation; does the ideology fit the foundations of the nation, and not the current popular whim? This even runs into trouble, since I'm sure a libertarian and a socialist will even disagree with the principles (or founders intentions) of the nation.
My personal metric is a balance between what benefits EVERYONE in a society (not just the power elite), and maximizing the freedom of everyone in society. By freedom I don't mean the libertarian economic sense, but the ability to actually be who you want to be with the maximum amount of autonomy, and the minimum amount of tyranny. This includes the ability to have and form your own opinion of things, even if it is against the majority or popular opinion of the times.
We can all agree (probably) that the Soviet style of communism is against the foundations of America (and most other democracies), and is generally against the tenets of freedom. Socialism on the other hand isn't, even if it is of the same origins as Communism. Fascism (by the original definition) is also against these principles, while libertarianism is benign.
A hegemony of either socialists or libertarians, though, would be against these principles, obviously.
I suppose a healthy government (a democracy) depends on OPPOSITION. Being against opposition, is generally a fool hardy move, and is generally less than a step away from pure tyranny. Enforcing your view of right is generally a bad thing, and is an irresponsible act for the government to take.
So you can't say anything unless you did it?
So only a handful of humans know anything about the moon. And we know nothing about space, the universe, the deep ocean, and the core of our very own planet. We know no history past 100 years, since hardly anyone living has ever lived back then.
That argument is fallacious.
That said; I just read a book by someone who was in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib (Fixing Hell, by Lt. Larry James), and some soldiers DID disobey orders, and did acknowledge the illegality of the actions by the BAD soldiers. Yes, I said it.
Just because you served doesn't make it impossible to be an asshole, it doesn't make you a better person. You still can break the law, you still can act like a sociopath. I'm sick of us treating soldiers with "kid gloves" as a reaction to us treating them like trash in Vietnam. There is a balance. We can respect, but still force them to live with the consequences of their illegal, immoral, and unethical, actions (if they are one of the few who acted such).
In the spirit of equality, I don't care who you are, or what you've done, the consequences should be the same for all for like actions.
Just because you served in the military, doesn't make you immune from the consequences of illegal actions.
Does it really matter if people were "commies"?
Its just a political ideology, and just like the rest of them, it has good points and bad points. Discriminating, or ruining peoples lives in this case, against people because you don't personally like their opinion is wrong. This man based his whole life and reputation on this, therefore I would say it okay to "diss" him.
Most of these people weren't "anti-American", they just had a different view of how the government should act, and possibly (justifiably) found the cold war a silly, destructive, thing.
Hell, being anti-American isn't even a crime, much less being communist, or socialist. What the hell does "anti-American" even mean, really? I hated Bush, his policies, his wars, his abuse of the constitution; does that make me anti-American? I really dislike much of our culture; does this make me anti-American? I'm a social libertarian; does that? I'm not a fan of our economic philosophies and our view that they are superior to everyone else's (or worse, that their sinonymous with democracy or freedom); am I anti-American?
You or whoever "we" is and I'll assume you're not using the royal "we" have nothing to do with my kids. Your input is (to be honest) intrusive, unwanted and more than a little presumptuous and if all you see around you are terrible parents that says more about your social circle than anything else.
My point is you parent your kids however the hell you want. As long as it isn't abusive or intrusive on my (or anyone else's) rights, I don't care what you do. Nor should you care what anyone else does.
If you think your children seeing boobs is destructive, good for you. If you think the f-bomb is the devil's tool, good. I don't care. Shelter them. The second, though, your parental standards hurt my life, or my ability to raise kids, then you can go to hell, and take your kids with you. Your standards are not mine, and they should never inflict on mine unless there is objective, and provable, harm. Period.
That is my point.
As for the "we", yes, I think people who over shelter their kids do nothing but hurt them. I never said though that people should be able to if they want to. I just don't think everyone should be forced into the most prude, fanciful, and moronic mode of protection. Choice is all there should be, no coercion.
I say its harmful because I've seen over-protected children enter the real world, and become self-destructive. Its a point of data people can use to make decisions, or not. If not, and its true, then they have to live with the consequences. Input is just that, it isn't a directive or mandate.
Do you find developmental psychologists intrusive? Juvenile corrections people? Teachers?
I think advice (again, not mandates) are needed, since we all can agree that there ARE bad parents out there (Like the recent story about the parents who named their kids Adolf Hitler, and Aryan Nation, for example). And while we should never tell them HOW to raise their child, we should provide information and education.
Sorry for the hostile tone, I just don't like being misread as a tyrant. I never presumed to tell you how to raise your kids, and take some affront at being perceived to be doing so. Though I find some amusement in the fact that my "leave parents alone" statement was construed as a "this is what parents have to do" statement.
Wait, isn't Germany the country where videogames can't have red blood? And aren't they the ones the ruined the Fallout tradition of being able to shoot kids (in game, obviously).
Smells like censorship. Smells like censorship that has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Also, censoring a book, or a thought ("the holocaust never happened") is still censorship, no matter how much you agree with it being banned. Mein Kampf has some historical importance, so reading it does not denote that the reader is an aspiring Nazi. Hell, I've read it, and it didn't make me a Nazi, far from it. It was actually educational, it allowed me to get into the head of a despot, which informed me about future possible despots. Its a (really badly written) warning.
As for holocaust denial... I find it tragically funny. Some of my friends grandparents have tattoos on their arms. Hell my grandfather was among the first US troops to arrive at Auschwitz, he didn't talk about it much, but he was there. How can you deny something that people who are still alive lived through? Ignoring that, if you want to claim that their are "lying Jews" about, there is actual Nazi paper work, and forensic evidence.
Banning denial is silly, since the whole argument is silly. I doubt listening to a denier is going to convince ANYONE with half a brain.
That's a rather absolute statement. Kids are raised by everyone who influences them, including parents, teachers, after school care providers, and others they interact with. Your statement is only completely accurate for sheltered, shut-in, home-schooled kids who grow up completely clueless about the world.
True, but expecting everyone else in the world to conform to your parental standards is rather absurd. This is the problem that I have with laws like this. No one can really object to "protecting children", which is why it is such a persuasive argument, but the whole thing starts to verge on evil when it becomes legislating what people are allowed to say, do, or create.
This is problematic on two levels. The more obvious one is that we all have different standards of what is acceptable for our children. A lot of the things governments try to ban "for the children" I have no problem with, like sexuality, or alternative lifestyles.
The second reason is the more we protect our children, the more juvenile they will remain throughout life. Children are not eternal, they, like the rest of us, must spend 4/5ths of their lives as adults. The more we block them off from the world, the more we stunt their emotional growth, and ability to cope with foreign (if distasteful) concepts.
Remember college? Remember the freshman experience, the first time away from home? The alcohol poisoning, the bad sexual encounters, the drug use?
We're basically lying to them, stating over and over "this does not exist", when they will find out soon enough on their own, with no emotional preparation at all.
I digress.
I try to shape the influence other people have over my son by giving him the mental tools to evaluate what they tell him, but I can't lock him away from outside influences. Nor do I want to. Listening to and evaluating different opinions is the only way you develop interpersonal critical thinking skills.
This is where the parent comes in. You are correct, and probably a good parent for that statement. This, though, is the role we're trying to hand to the schools and government.
Schools are where you LEARN things, not become a good person. I don't care if my child becomes a good Christian (or Brit, or American, or whatnot) because of school, I'd rather he learn math and how to read, and perhaps, god forbid, a bit of history.
I think the large part of the problem is that people are too lazy/egotistical to raise their own children, or think of them as puppies. It takes work, and time that can be "better" spent enriching the parents life. At least this is the observation I make from the people around me who are terrible parents.
Most LSD in the world is still distributed on blotter and is unadultered, perhaps you hang out with easily tricked teenagers who will eat anything that someone tells them is LSD?
This might be true, though they aren't teens. Basically all I have to go on here is their description, and what they bought looked like. One of them had some experience, but probably never did LSA themselves.
Ever extracted LSA from Hawaiian Baby Woodrose seeds yourself? I have and I can tell you that the effect you describe sounds nothing like LSA or LSA + MDMA.
Morning Glory. And no the descriptions weren't exactly the same as when I did it. But... It was the closest analogy I could come up with (also mild doses of LSA with heavy doses of speed/MDMA sounds about right, or, as stated, normal doses of MDMA with heavy doses of expectations).
Not to attempt to be insulting but when did you "get off drugs"? When you were 15? I have never heard of anyone peddling LSA as LSD although I've heard similar stories of older stoners tricking teenagers into thinking some random cheap and weak drug really was an expensive more rare drug.
Not insulting, though this might be the silliest argument I've been in for a long time. :)
I quit in my mid-20s, had better priorities, and a dose of insight that drugs weren't actually giving me anything. I have heard of it. Hell, the dumb things my friends sold in the 90's were worse. If you convince a moron who never has done it before that urine is good acid, they will report a mild trip, and come back for more.
Most drugs, when you don't personally know the supplier, are dubious crap.
I haven't done it for a VERY long time, but the kids these days get it in a gel cap, as far as I've seen. The gel caps are filled with an off white powder. Judging from the effects reported to me from the people who did it (I still babysit from time to time, even if I swore off of the stuff) sounded more like LSA than LSD, or more specifically LSA cut with MDMA. Namely a "body fry" with only minor mental elements. Nothing like the LSD as I remember it from years past.
Most modern acid isn't on blotter, or in a vial. At least the stuff still floating around where I live, but on a pill, or in a gel cap. Judging from the color of the powder in their pill, I'd say it was either MDMA cut with heroin, or really bad methamphetamines. As I didn't do any, it could have been bad ecstasy laced with wishful expectations.
When I started getting off drugs, about 90% of the LSD available started to be replaced with LSA or highly diluted LSD. So this might be all that novices expect, leading them to confuse it with the actual drug. Yes, I can tell the difference, but that doesn't mean most people can, having never experienced "the good stuff".
Point taken, don't know what I was thinking (perhaps I need more/less caffeine?).
It was around the 103-5 range. The whole experience is understandably murky.
Areas with widespread legal firearms ownership tend to have less crime than areas with severe gun restrictions
Again, correlation does not equal causation, and also [citation needed]. I'm guessing most areas with widespread gun-ownership are rural areas with low population density, whereas most of the areas with gun restrictions are urban areas with high density. This leads to two problems, accepting your premise as true; A) Higher density leads to more crime, and B) there are massive social differences between cities and rural areas. In small towns and rural areas, you generally have a rather homogeneous community, of people who know each other, and who share values and cultural ties (for the most part). In urban areas you have the opposite, hugely divergent communities, spread widely in cultural mores, wealth, and education. Cities thus bread more conflict, which increases the incidence of homicide. Cities are also more stressful, which can lead to higher incidence of violence.
You didn't take these things into account, so I'm forced to call "shenanigans".
Finally, if someone is that nuts, operating an axe, shovel, hatchet or any number of other hand tools is no great obstacle.
Agreed. I think all the emphasis we put on what kills people take the light from the real problem, what causes people to kill. In a world without guns, there still would be violence, murder, and war. A large part of the problem is we glorify violence in the States, our media makes violence look like the solution to all problems. I say we need to reverse our priorities, we need to be ashamed of violence, but glorify sex. This duplicity confuses the hell out of me.
Also we do have some pretty bad endemic social problems that we refuse to fix, or even acknowledge. All of the wind being wasted by both sides on the 2nd amendment debate could be better utilized in fixing the actual root causes for violence (gun and otherwise).
Lizzie Borden was just a chick, but did a "hatchet job" quite smartly (and beat the rap too).
Maybe she didn't? I remember reading a book on it, and there was some rather dubious evidence for her guilt. Just because children sing about you, doesn't make it so.
Bawls kind of sucks for caffeine content, try Mana, it has more caffeine per ounce than any other energy drink.
Check out this chart, and plan accordingly.
I personally stay away from energy drinks and soft-drinks. I've noticed that sugar is far more likely to give me insomnia and the jitters than caffeine. That and the other side effects of too much sugar intake of course. Most energy drinks taste like ass, as well. Bawls is pretty good, much better than Redbull, but it has far less caffeine than a grande drip from Starbucks.
You wish you were dead though.
In college I went caffeine free one day (not by choice, two courses of Latin over summer reduces your ability to live) I woke up around 9am, and by 11am I had one of the worst migraines of my life (and I used to suffer "cluster headaches" in my youth), I had no energy whatsoever, and ended up dosing in and out of a light sleep every 30-45 minutes. Added to this was a depressed mood, and general irritability. This, for clarification, was the first time I've been without caffeine for a 24 hour period since I was 14, or earlier.
My father is a truck driver, so I had my first cup of coffee at around 7 or earlier. I was far into addiction by junior high. Black coffee, mind.
Digression aside, I went to the nearest coffee shop, had a double espresso, and a big glass of hot yerba mate. Within 5 minutes I was in love with life, and in one of the best moods I've ever been in.
It was far worse than any of my attempts to quit smoking. It made me realize that caffeine owns me. I'm okay with this. Better coffee than soft-drinks, I figure. At least I can miss out on the sugar.
That depends on the formula, dosage, and person biology, really. Most of the stuff kids do these days is not true LSD, its generally LSA. It also is generally cut with all sorts of unsavory chemicals, such as ecstasy, heroin, etc...
With good stuff (I giggle a bit saying that) you can experience true hallucinations, though at a lower incidence, and potency, than say mescaline or DMT. LSD hallucinations are also generally not of the "I'm talking to space aliens" type, and more of the "patterns overlaying things" type, but just because they don't involve fictional entities, doesn't make them not hallucinations.
Actually when I was experiencing sleep-deprivation once the hallucinations were about on par with LSD. When I had a 120 degree (f) fever and, on tons of codeine, the hallucinations were FAR more realistic and convincing. Not that I would recommend anyone getting strep for the trip.
If you really want to see people/things not there, I would recommend DMT or high doses of Salvia.
As a child I was bullied, as probably was around half of the /. crowd (being nerds and all..). I don't have any emotional scarring that I'm aware of, nor does most of the people here, probably. Emotional scarring is VERY rare, especially in children (who, as you know are resilient as hell), emotional scarring because of schoolyard bullies is probably pretty much nonexistent.
If you really are that scarred, then there probably was something else wrong in your life, greater than the ubiquitous bully. Lack of good parental support comes to mind, as does a bevy of preexistant mental problems (which may have resulted from lack of parental support).
Hell, I completely forgot I was bullied, until the other weekend I broke out giggling while eating a sandwich while discussing a topic much like this one. My 3rd grade bully's name was Reuben. I'd like to think of that as the opportune appearance of a sight gag, more than trauma.
Yes, bullying can be a problem, but generally it isn't that big of a deal. It's always been here, and it always will, yet somehow we managed to survive to this point.
Its like this self-esteem shit we bandy about, over rated crap.
They act as both an IQ test to see if you are too stupid to lie, and a drone test to see if you are the kind of person willing to sit in a cubicle and waste 40 minutes on something so stupid, with little to no promise of reward.
I took one once for some stupid desk job at an insurance company once (USAA?), it actually asked you things like "would you rather be outside in a forest, or sitting at a desk answering phones", and "would you rather be painting a picture or sitting at a desk answering phones", "do you enjoy missing lunch and working long hours". I started laughing during the test, and decided to be VERY honest just for the hilarity of it all.
It was nice talking to the HR chick though, since I told her that they should hire me because I have moral standards, unlike any who could ever pass their test.
I didn't get the job, but then again the questions made me realize I didn't want it. Also the fact that it was a square mile campus, which you weren't allowed to leave until quitting time, with a full "no outdoors smoking" policy. I think someone told me that you could get fired smoking off-campus before work if you were in view of the guard shack. It reminded me too much of highschool.
I always have to ask people who claim to have adult ADD this question: "what do you do for a living?"
I have a feeling you have a very boring job, and generally a pretty boring life. This isn't meant to be an attack on you, just a statement that your life is probably not very fulfilling, which leads you to be unfocused and discontent. In short, modern life leads to the symptoms of ADD.
A large part with the mental illness industry is that it refuses to acknowledge that most mental illnesses are symptoms of social problems. Society no longer fits our biology/psychology as it evolved, this leads to issues.
Another problem with the mild/functional mental illnesses that are becoming more and more common today, such as adult ADD/ADHD and Asperger's is that the DSM criteria are vague. Personally I fit the diagnosis of both of these, as does EVERYONE I KNOW. They are overly vague and nebulous, thus a large portion of the population fit them.
They, generally, though are not even "illnesses". The definition of a mental illness is "impaired ability to function", by function we mean live our domestic and professional lives. You probably have a family and a job, you probably are rather successful, and educated (this being Slashdot), and thus you fail on the "illness" front.
Sitting for hours in front of a monitor is unnatural to your evolved biology, it is no wonder that we have a hard time coping with it. It is no wonder that unnatural circumstances cause stress, and that boring circumstances cause an inability to concentrate.
I really wish we would reinvest all the money we spend of psychiatric conditions towards the ill fitting circumstances that CAUSE them. For the most part, the psychiatric problems are a normal reaction to bad stimulus. Its like your stomach hurting when you are bad food, your body is telling you that something is wrong. But for some reason psychiatrists diagnose the ache as the problem, and ignore the actual cause.
Another issue I have with adult ADD and Aspergers is the dramatic rise in diagnosis. Why would these "illnesses" show exponential growth? Hell, 20 years ago adults COULDN'T have ADD, by definition. But now about half of children have it (making it NOT an illness in my book, it is normal now), and a huge portion of adults. This doesn't make sense.
Yes, a large portion of mental illnesses are very real, but these two I don't see being real.
People also forget that the DSM is the only medical handbook where diseases are recognized by a vote, and whose very existence is solely because of insurance companies. Just because it is in the DSM does not make it real. Hell, up until the version before this one (DSMII) homosexuality was a mental disorder, just because people voted that it should be. Take it with a grain of salt.
State sponsored slavery is taking people's money to pay for prisoner's housing.
Hyperbole much?
The government is providing a service, keeping violent criminals off the streets. For this, we pay. We all indirectly benefit from this, so I doubt any definition of slavery would actually fit.
No, our laws are not perfect. Far FAR from it, I'd say. Our criteria of what a jailable crime is pretty far wrong. But.. your personal lack of support for it still does not make it slavery. Our government is about society, not YOU. Apparently the majority implicitly agrees with the actions of the government, and the criteria it uses to jail people.
Am I a slave because I don't believe in our war policies, in defense spending period? Am I a slave because I don't think any corporation should EVER receive my tax money, for any reason?
Government serves society, and not YOU. This is how it should be. Otherwise all we would have is anarchy, and pure rule by the strong.
No. It is my burden to CHANGE the system by convincing enough people to either vote for me, or for people who share my points of view. Because of this I cannot be a slave, since I do have a say, and a chance to change the system. If I fail, either my point of view is in left field, or no one actually cares, or I'm not trying hard enough.
This ability to choose our government invalidates any argument that we are slaves. All your doing is denying your own responsibilities as a citizens.
given than the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT to bear arms, not the right to get permission from the government
Why do people always ignore the first bit of the amendment;
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
That and we consistently ignore the the use of the term "the people", which is used instead of "persons". It does NOT connote that "everyone should have unrestricted access to guns". The People != Individuals in the original use of the term (meaning in the sense the framers were using).
It also does not contain any legislative context, saying HOW access to guns should be permitted/regulated.
I personally don't care. I have a couple guns, they all are locked up, unloaded, and pretty much forgotten. I used them as tools for when I'm in the boonies, but would never level one at a human being. I personally think that its an archaic amendment, and that most people who debate it have a fuzzy idea of what it actually means (myself included), since it is the most opaque phraseology in our Constitution.
We'd previously decided not to based on the Presedent, now we probably won't because of the queues at the entry barrier.
I'd still put off visiting here for a period of time. First let Obama prove that he isn't just another creepy American politician (i.e. authoritarian, xenophobic, dictatorial and an egomaniac). If he isn't, then wait until he actually has a chance to fix our more antisocial policies.
These things don't happen over night.
There is a bug that truncates the first 30sec for MP3 (and .WAV perhaps) files. I forgot why, but I found a lucid explanation online.
It has nothing to do with DRM though, just some peculiarities of WMP7.
Toyota will not do anything that diminishes their brand, nor anything that would improve the image of their competitors (ie. Lexus is for people who want to appear rich, while BMW is for people who actually are rich).
I'd argue that making your drivers listen to advertisements would hurt your image. If I owned a Beemer, I would laugh at all the ad-listening Lexis fools. Actually if I owned a Beemer I might laugh at them anyways, a Lexis doesn't LOOK like Luxary cars to me, they're just priced like them (which is generally enough to fool the masses).
That is besides my point, though; Perhaps there is a larger market for people who want to APPEAR rich, than there is for the ACTUAL rich. I'm guessing this is the case, I know a couple people who sprung for huge luxury items (taking a huge hit to their meager savings) just to have something to show off. These are people only making around 20k, mind.
I'm not saying that they're going to do this, but it still might be a viable option.
I thank you for the rational response.
Though the constitution doesn't really place our rights at any given source, the closest we get is the Declaration, and that doesn't hold water.
I have read my Locke, and agree somewhat with him (I'm more of a J.S. Mill person myself). Though I find the idea that rights are natural to be absurd, they have varied from culture to culture, and time to time, if those cultures even had a concept of them. In many "primitive" cultures these rights were nonexistent. Hell, America didn't even grasp "liberty" as a right until fairly recently. Though I can see some distinction here, since rights might be universally applicable to "people", and we change who we consider as "people" constantly.
Being that these rights are not universal throughout disparate cultures and times, then Locke either discovered something unforeseen to the world, or made a mere normative statement dressed in the guise of universal principle. If the latter is true, I'd rather accept Kant's Imperative as the origin of "rights".
In the end, I have a hard time seeing "rights" as anything but socially constructed to mirror the values (i.e. ad hoc) of that society, or to justify that society's history/goals.