Maybe the cigarrette, deluxe burger, or liquor money?
(And before you rant about my elitism, tell me I'm lying. People of EVERY income level above "can JUST eat if I find three more quarters" - and even some of them - waste some money, either in useless pursuits or less than efficient selections in necessities. I could just as truthfully say, "Maybe the Pokemon, Playstation, or ISP money.")
Yeah. We pay farmers with tax money to not grow food, then spend more tax money on subsidies so that the price doesn't go up and distributors make more money. (Or in a truly absurd cycle, millions of federal subsidies fund ADM, "Supermarket to the World" in order to keep it solvent, and then ADM gives money to PBS and NPR, tax-funded and government-controlled media outlets...) The WTO is certainly the wrong way to fix a problem like that, but they are not wrong in declaring that it is a problem.
No, the industrialized nations PRODUCE most of the world's wealth. And the free market will scale very well in the future even as its "alternatives" start to show cracks at the seams. Most importantly, the poor nations ARE developing, and absent the "keep the darkies down" mentality of tariffs aimed at preventing them from exporting, they will continue to do so. Not that I support the WTO. It does not exist to free trade, but to advance the trade theories of the administrations of the most powerful nations that are members. We should just finally abandon protectionism as the bad idea it was known to be in the first place.
So you valiantly chose to force those who drive cars to subsidize your cheap public transit (since huge chunks of federal highway taxes are diverted to support nowhere-near-solvent programs and similar idiocy happens at local and state levels). Gee, thanks.
People: "Oh, no, Portland is being paved over and becoming another Los Angeles!" Transit authorities: "We'll stop that!" People: "How?" TA: "By emulating the city with the least miles of roads per capita in the US, of course." People: "Where's that?" TA: "*checks* Los Angeles. Step 1..."
The histories of China and the US are meaningless to compare. No one alive in the US has owned a slave, for example. No one alive participated in the the anti-Native-American atrocities in the 19th century. (Though I have one friend who had an great-grandmother who was on the Trail of Tears.) We still have the damnable Bureau of Indian Affairs (the sole US government body I would want dissolved before the IRS and the BATF), but their abuses have relatively minor in the last few decades. And, on the other side, no one alive in China sent conscripts to work to death on the Great Wall, for example.
The only valid comparison that can be made of the US and the PRC governments is their contemporary state. The US engages in various rights violations (I'm a libertarian, I can probably write a longer list than you can in a given amount of time:-) ), but none of them are as egregious as the violations of, say, 1800s America (since we've presumably had time to learn), or modern China. China has a far worse current amount of rights abuses and restrictions, and they've had just as much time to learn from the mistakes of their ancestors and our ancestors. The US government has definite problems, and I don't consider it my friend, but the Chinese goverment makes it look virtually angelic by comparison.
You've got the mortality numbers way off. From PBS (a source I think I can trust for historical data): Faced with the nightmarish conditions of the voyage and the unknown future that lay beyond, many Africans preferred to die. But even the choice of suicide was taken away from these persons. From the captain's point of view, his human cargo was extremely valuable and had to be kept alive and, if possible, uninjured. A slave who tried to starve him or herself was tortured. If torture didn't work, the slave was force fed with the help of a contraption called a speculum orum, which held the mouth open.
Despite the captain's desire to keep as many slaves as possible alive, Middle Passage mortality rates were high. Although it's difficult to determine how many Africans died en route to the new world, it is now believed that between ten and twenty percent of those transported lost their lives.
These factors were true at all stages of the slave trade. The Africans who captured and sold members of other tribes, the Americans that bought and transported them, and the final slaveowners who bought them were handling what they considered to be valuable merchandise.
Now, this is far from excusing or justifying the slave trade. C'mon, it was slavery, and everyone who was involved was a party to kidnapping, abuse, rape, and occasionally murder, no matter whether it was legal at the time. But to use inaccurate hyperbole in the tradition of Harriet Beecher Stowe (her novel UNCLE TOM depicted the slavemaster Simon LeGree, who worked his slaves to death and bought new ones since "it was cheaper" - even though anyone actually doing that would have been ruined inside of a year) just makes getting to the real atrocities harder.
Just to point something out about the use of the atomic bomb to end WWII (since others will bother with those of your other points that aren't correct - some are)...Try looking up the recently-declassified information uncovered by reputable news agencies about "Operation Olympic". (Olympic was the incredibly horrific plan to invade Japan, and had American and Japanese casualties estimated in the hundreds of thousands and millions, respectively.) While you're at it, take a look at what Japan was planning to do in the event of American landings (among other things, kill all Western POWs they had - you can look this up from the same sources). Then explain why the use of the atomic bomb, which killed far less people than conventional bombing of Japanese cities had, was the worse choice. Oh, and get real about the Japanese intent to surrender. They were unwilling to "lose" the war and wanted to keep their territories gained by their aggression. When Japan did surrender - after two cities were atomically bombed - there was an attempt at a coup by the hard-liners.
Oh, yes. There doesn't actually happen to be any governmental support for the Tibetan freedom movement, and the US and the UK governments both have gone to great length to keep Chinese dignitaries from being confronted with protesters supporting Tibetan freedom, but of course it's all the work of the Evil West.
I happily criticize the US government more than any other government when it comes to rights abuses. I do criticize many other governments. I will also readily admit that the US government has supported despicable regimes.
But to claim that the US government is even remotely as bad as the PRC government is ludicrous, and I have to suspect you of vast ignorance or outright lying if you continue to try to claim that.
He said "ambassadors", not "ambassador". He's probably referring to Stallmanistas in general and other folks who make people unfamiliar with the movement queasy about it.
That's not the point I was trying to make, though. I'm saying that the Chinese, in some large measure, don't really care whether or not they've got more freedom than they used to. It's not as big a deal to the Chinese as it is to the Americans. Which, granted, isn't saying much.
Fair enough. Going by what I sometimes hear on Slashdot, that may be truer than I care to believe.
1. So, in essence, both nations were communist and oppressive. Now, the USSR doesn't exist, and the PRC is much less communist and still oppressive. Not encouraging.
2. Why is that? With Linux, the government knows the source code and limitations of the OS, making it easier to modify for easier snooping and other uses. The PRC government could easily require that every computer sold in the country use their custom distribution. It wouldn't prevent some people from using other distros or OSes, but it would cow most.
3. I wish I could believe that, but I really suspect the hard-liners are just waiting.
Well, if you want to make China responsible for all the misdeeds of Communists, in all fairness you have to make the US responsible for all deeds of Capitalists.
No one is accusing the people, but instead the government. The government is certainly responsible for its actions.
I'm a libertarian (civil and otherwise), and we're the first people to criticize the US government when it (often) goes wrong. However, to compare the Kent State shooting (certainly not intentional nor planned) with the Tiannamen Square massacre (certainly and cold-bloodedly intentional and planned) is ludicrous, and an attempt to divert attention away from China.
And, in no way would the Chinese government using Linux translate to the Chinese people getting the benefits of Linux.
I was all for the idea of China adopting Linux as an official OS, and it also makes sense, considering that GNU/Linux is the current choice of Richard Stalin^H^Hlman. (I don't mean that as a slur, either. I'm a pinko leftie communist at heart.:)
It's one thing to be a "pinko leftie communist". I think it's a mental blind spot at best, but it doesn't make someone a bad person. However, conflating someone's name with Josef Stalin's (you know, the one guy in the world who managed to brutally oppress and murder more people than even Hitler did?) and not meaning it to be a fairly dire slur, but presumably an expression of approval, is something wholly other. It is, in fact, reprehensible. I don't agree with much of what Stallman argues for, but I think you owe the guy a serious apology.
Anyone who posts on slashdot and is angered because someone dared to post something disagreeing with his post (Ie, the guy pointing out that criticizing socialism was not "nonsense") should probably not post on Slashdot.
And when Cuba goes democratic and free-market (about a month after Castro dies, unless they get a bunch of well-meaning economic "advisors" like Russia did), you won't see the need to justify everything on a Cuban web page with ideology.
This kind of apologism for the Chinese government should be embarassing to post.
I suppose if a government doesn't engage in the self-destructive single-minded horror that Pol Pot's regime did, it's alright? Systematic and mostly-sustainable totalitarianism isn't all that bad, comparitively?
True, the Chinese government calmed down after the crackdown and executions of prominent dissidents. That's because all the dissidents died, left the country, or shut up. The democracy movement has been silenced on any public level in that country. Those who've been keeping an eye on China are waiting for a similar crackdown on the Fu Long Gong (sp?) religion.
And no, the US is far from a sterling example when it comes to any form of personal rights. It's just usually the least-worst country out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the cigarrette, deluxe burger, or liquor money?
(And before you rant about my elitism, tell me I'm lying. People of EVERY income level above "can JUST eat if I find three more quarters" - and even some of them - waste some money, either in useless pursuits or less than efficient selections in necessities. I could just as truthfully say, "Maybe the Pokemon, Playstation, or ISP money.")
Yeah. We pay farmers with tax money to not grow food, then spend more tax money on subsidies so that the price doesn't go up and distributors make more money. (Or in a truly absurd cycle, millions of federal subsidies fund ADM, "Supermarket to the World" in order to keep it solvent, and then ADM gives money to PBS and NPR, tax-funded and government-controlled media outlets...)
The WTO is certainly the wrong way to fix a problem like that, but they are not wrong in declaring that it is a problem.
No, the industrialized nations PRODUCE most of the world's wealth.
And the free market will scale very well in the future even as its "alternatives" start to show cracks at the seams.
Most importantly, the poor nations ARE developing, and absent the "keep the darkies down" mentality of tariffs aimed at preventing them from exporting, they will continue to do so.
Not that I support the WTO. It does not exist to free trade, but to advance the trade theories of the administrations of the most powerful nations that are members. We should just finally abandon protectionism as the bad idea it was known to be in the first place.
So you valiantly chose to force those who drive cars to subsidize your cheap public transit (since huge chunks of federal highway taxes are diverted to support nowhere-near-solvent programs and similar idiocy happens at local and state levels).
Gee, thanks.
People: "Oh, no, Portland is being paved over and becoming another Los Angeles!"
Transit authorities: "We'll stop that!"
People: "How?"
TA: "By emulating the city with the least miles of roads per capita in the US, of course."
People: "Where's that?"
TA: "*checks* Los Angeles. Step 1..."
Story Here
The histories of China and the US are meaningless to compare. No one alive in the US has owned a slave, for example. No one alive participated in the the anti-Native-American atrocities in the 19th century. (Though I have one friend who had an great-grandmother who was on the Trail of Tears.) We still have the damnable Bureau of Indian Affairs (the sole US government body I would want dissolved before the IRS and the BATF), but their abuses have relatively minor in the last few decades. And, on the other side, no one alive in China sent conscripts to work to death on the Great Wall, for example.
:-) ), but none of them are as egregious as the violations of, say, 1800s America (since we've presumably had time to learn), or modern China. China has a far worse current amount of rights abuses and restrictions, and they've had just as much time to learn from the mistakes of their ancestors and our ancestors. The US government has definite problems, and I don't consider it my friend, but the Chinese goverment makes it look virtually angelic by comparison.
The only valid comparison that can be made of the US and the PRC governments is their contemporary state. The US engages in various rights violations (I'm a libertarian, I can probably write a longer list than you can in a given amount of time
You've got the mortality numbers way off. From PBS (a source I think I can trust for historical data):
Faced with the nightmarish conditions of the voyage and the unknown future that lay beyond, many Africans preferred to die. But even the choice of suicide was taken away from these persons. From the captain's point of view, his human cargo was extremely valuable and had to be kept alive and, if possible, uninjured. A slave who tried to starve him or herself was tortured. If torture didn't work, the slave was force fed with the help of a contraption called a speculum orum, which held the mouth open.
Despite the captain's desire to keep as many slaves as possible alive, Middle Passage mortality rates were high. Although it's difficult to determine how many Africans died en route to the new world, it is now believed that between ten and twenty percent of those transported lost their lives.
These factors were true at all stages of the slave trade. The Africans who captured and sold members of other tribes, the Americans that bought and transported them, and the final slaveowners who bought them were handling what they considered to be valuable merchandise.
Now, this is far from excusing or justifying the slave trade. C'mon, it was slavery, and everyone who was involved was a party to kidnapping, abuse, rape, and occasionally murder, no matter whether it was legal at the time. But to use inaccurate hyperbole in the tradition of Harriet Beecher Stowe (her novel UNCLE TOM depicted the slavemaster Simon LeGree, who worked his slaves to death and bought new ones since "it was cheaper" - even though anyone actually doing that would have been ruined inside of a year) just makes getting to the real atrocities harder.
First of all, any witnesses sent to any such demonstration might not have been believed.
Second of all, the detonation at Trinity was quite sufficient for a "real test".
Except, of course, he was right in the Salon article. And except, of course, he did not say that anyone should be prevented from using Linux.
No, your original post. The one I replied to in the first place.
Just to point something out about the use of the atomic bomb to end WWII (since others will bother with those of your other points that aren't correct - some are)...Try looking up the recently-declassified information uncovered by reputable news agencies about "Operation Olympic". (Olympic was the incredibly horrific plan to invade Japan, and had American and Japanese casualties estimated in the hundreds of thousands and millions, respectively.) While you're at it, take a look at what Japan was planning to do in the event of American landings (among other things, kill all Western POWs they had - you can look this up from the same sources). Then explain why the use of the atomic bomb, which killed far less people than conventional bombing of Japanese cities had, was the worse choice.
Oh, and get real about the Japanese intent to surrender. They were unwilling to "lose" the war and wanted to keep their territories gained by their aggression. When Japan did surrender - after two cities were atomically bombed - there was an attempt at a coup by the hard-liners.
Oh, yes. There doesn't actually happen to be any governmental support for the Tibetan freedom movement, and the US and the UK governments both have gone to great length to keep Chinese dignitaries from being confronted with protesters supporting Tibetan freedom, but of course it's all the work of the Evil West.
I happily criticize the US government more than any other government when it comes to rights abuses. I do criticize many other governments. I will also readily admit that the US government has supported despicable regimes.
But to claim that the US government is even remotely as bad as the PRC government is ludicrous, and I have to suspect you of vast ignorance or outright lying if you continue to try to claim that.
He said "ambassadors", not "ambassador". He's probably referring to Stallmanistas in general and other folks who make people unfamiliar with the movement queasy about it.
Well, that resolves that, doesn't it ? :)
Wow. We now know why there isn't a lot of American support for the Chinese democracy movement, don't we?
Then do clarify what point you were "actually" making, instead of spending all your time spouting GNU propaganda.
Fair enough. Going by what I sometimes hear on Slashdot, that may be truer than I care to believe.
1. So, in essence, both nations were communist and oppressive. Now, the USSR doesn't exist, and the PRC is much less communist and still oppressive. Not encouraging.
:)
2. Why is that? With Linux, the government knows the source code and limitations of the OS, making it easier to modify for easier snooping and other uses. The PRC government could easily require that every computer sold in the country use their custom distribution. It wouldn't prevent some people from using other distros or OSes, but it would cow most.
3. I wish I could believe that, but I really suspect the hard-liners are just waiting.
4. Cool.
No one is accusing the people, but instead the government. The government is certainly responsible for its actions.
I'm a libertarian (civil and otherwise), and we're the first people to criticize the US government when it (often) goes wrong. However, to compare the Kent State shooting (certainly not intentional nor planned) with the Tiannamen Square massacre (certainly and cold-bloodedly intentional and planned) is ludicrous, and an attempt to divert attention away from China.
And, in no way would the Chinese government using Linux translate to the Chinese people getting the benefits of Linux.
I was all for the idea of China adopting Linux as an official OS, and it also makes sense, considering that GNU/Linux is the current choice of Richard Stalin^H^Hlman. (I don't mean that as a slur, either. I'm a pinko leftie communist at heart.
It's one thing to be a "pinko leftie communist". I think it's a mental blind spot at best, but it doesn't make someone a bad person. However, conflating someone's name with Josef Stalin's (you know, the one guy in the world who managed to brutally oppress and murder more people than even Hitler did?) and not meaning it to be a fairly dire slur, but presumably an expression of approval, is something wholly other. It is, in fact, reprehensible. I don't agree with much of what Stallman argues for, but I think you owe the guy a serious apology.
Anyone who posts on slashdot and is angered because someone dared to post something disagreeing with his post (Ie, the guy pointing out that criticizing socialism was not "nonsense") should probably not post on Slashdot.
Very true. Preventing the PRC governent from using Linux would be wrong and destructive to open source/free software.
It doesn't mean it would be wrong to try to discourage it, or be against it.
And when Cuba goes democratic and free-market (about a month after Castro dies, unless they get a bunch of well-meaning economic "advisors" like Russia did), you won't see the need to justify everything on a Cuban web page with ideology.
This kind of apologism for the Chinese government should be embarassing to post.
I suppose if a government doesn't engage in the self-destructive single-minded horror that Pol Pot's regime did, it's alright? Systematic and mostly-sustainable totalitarianism isn't all that bad, comparitively?
True, the Chinese government calmed down after the crackdown and executions of prominent dissidents. That's because all the dissidents died, left the country, or shut up. The democracy movement has been silenced on any public level in that country. Those who've been keeping an eye on China are waiting for a similar crackdown on the Fu Long Gong (sp?) religion.
And no, the US is far from a sterling example when it comes to any form of personal rights. It's just usually the least-worst country out there.