First, My post had nothing to do with "violent overthrow". I said "turn on", and there are many ways of doing that. I think violent revolution is very unlikely, but that doesn't mean the Cubans won't be pissed off enough to demand, and get, change.
Second, I don't really believe Castro is truly a socialist either. My point wasn't to parse definitions but to point out that he is a dictator, contrary to Marxist ideology. Put it another way - if he is such a devout Marxist, WHY IS HE STILL IN POWER?
Third, my comments about dropping the embargo included the travel restrictions, but I didn't say that explicitly. My belief is that the US investment in the tourism industry would dwarf the Canadians and Europeans.
Fourth, you are focusing on the demand side of poverty - people want things but don't have the money, so no one will be able to buy American stuff. But what about the supply side? If American businesses employ Cubans for better wages, they WILL have some more money.
Fifth, there is a difference between "seeing" what their lives could be like and actually getting a taste of it. It's funny you mention China - their biggest political problem is the peasantry getting a little bit of the economic growth thrown there way, but seeing their countrymen making orders of magnitude more yuan. If the rural areas were being kept down as hard as they were, there would be less of a problem - the local farmer's attitude would be "I think I'd like a piece of that pie, but us folks will never see any.". But by giving them a taste, they are now saying "Wait a minute - this pie tastes great, and I want more of it. Why can't I get more of it?"
Re:If you want to see the real Cuba, go now...
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
"Yes, they can look up to Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvidor, Honduras, Guatemala, etc as a testament to the triumph and prosperity of capitalism and democracy."
Funny, the last 5 you list seem to be doing OK now. They all went through a really bad patch where no one acquitted themselves very well - both the US backed governments and "communist insurgencies", or vice-versa - committed plenty of atrocities. But they seem to have moved past it, and are functioning OK.
As for Haiti, it was, is, and possibly always will be a shithole. They have always been run by strongmen, except for that brief moment when Aristide pretended to be democratic - you know, right before the US reinstalled him in power.
"His brother Raul is as much of a dictator as Fidel. "
There, fixed that for ya'.
And before the flames start: 1) Cuba never was, nor has it ever been, "communist". MAYBE socialist. 2) US policy toward Castro has been a 50 year disaster. 3) The embargo propped up Fidel - he NEEDED it to continue governing. 4) The best way to get political change in Cuba is for the US Gov't to simply lift the embargo and then DO NOTHING!. The Cuban government will drown in American dollars from private investment, and the Cuban people, seeing what they REALLY missed for 50 years, will turn on the government. Will a lot of money stick to corrupt hands? Yep, and the Cuban people will still be better off for it. 5) And as a bonus, it would give a big fat finger to Hugo Chavez.
Because, some of us are casual buyers AND sellers, and the feedback score doesn't differentiate between transactions. I lost my perfect feedback rating on a purchase my wife made on my account - she left a negative feedback on a slow shipment, and the seller retaliated. So now, when I sell things, my rating isn't as good as it should be, because of something that had nothing to do with selling.
(BTW, my wife has her own Ebay account now - I'm not stupid)
I had a buyer in Canada give me a neutral feedback because of "excessive shipping fees - $50 for a 5$ item". What he didn't bither to say was:
1) The shipping fees were clearly listed in the ad, using the Ebay calculator, and I charged him at cost. 2) He accepted the Paypal invoice showing the shipping fees 3) He never bothered to contact me asking if there was an error or if I could do anything. 4) The problem was HIS government's draconian customs regime, combined with the fact that they enforce it against UPS but not USPS.
So betcherass I left him negative feedback - he didn't bother reading the ad, and then complained about the terms and conditions. If the shipping is listed, you pay it, or don't buy, or contact the seller and come to another arrangement.
"Read the anecdote again. The seller told the poster, prior to purchase, that he would combine shipping. After the purchase, he refused to do so. How is that not deceitful?"
Nope - you read again. He said that the seller "would have" combined IF he had asked before.
From the Wikipedia link you so helpfully provided:
"On September 26, 2002, during a stopover in New York City en route from a family vacation in Tunisia to Montreal, Arar was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS was acting upon information supplied by the RCMP.[13] When it became clear he was going to be deported, Arar requested he be deported to Canada; though he had not visited Syria since his move to Canada, he retained Syrian citizenship as Syria does not permit the renunciation of citizenship. Although he was travelling on a Canadian passport, Canadian officials erroneously informed the United States that he was no longer a resident of their nation.[citation needed] Canadian (initially) and American officials have labelled his transfer to Syria as a deportation, but critics have called the removal an example of rendition for torture by proxy, as Syria's government is infamous for its torture of detainees."
So the RCMP labelled him a terrorist, and then Canada denied his citizenship. So he was deported to the other country where he was a citizen. Where he may or may not have been tortured. By Syrians. And the only evidence is his unsworn testimony to a Canadian investigator.
Well, I guess Canadians really are in danger from the Government - theirs.
"The "I should be able to own an assault rifle for hunting" myth needs to be replaced with "I should be able to own an assault rifle in case the people decide to take back their country by overthrowing the government"... or something along those lines that sounds better."
No one who holds 2nd amendment rights seriously says that - it is the way the argument is being framed by gun control advocates. They are trying - hard - to frame the debate in terms of hunting and formal shooting sports. The problem with the "sporting purposes" test is
1) The people who decide what legitimate "sporting purposes" are generally have nothing personally to do with guns. But they can't let those "crazy gun nuts" decide - then EVERYTHING would be a sporting purpose, and then what would be the use of a gun ban.
2) While most so-called "assault rifles" (i.e. semi-automatic versions of real assault rifles), are singularly poor choices for hunting, there is no real way to distinguish between the semi-automatic hunting rifles and the former. Within 1/2 hour I can make a plain jane Remington or Ruger semi-auto look just as scary as anything seen on the evening news, and I can make an AK47 or SKS look like a deer rifle in the same time. It comes down to banning guns that LOOK scary - which would be fine, as long as we could ticket cars that look beat up, or arrest people that look ugly.
Unfortunately, the true hardcore 2A supporters must buy into this by necessity, because most gun owners don't use semi-auto rifles and handguns. So we need to appeal to the hunters, because gun bans never get smaller - they only increase. Fortunately, the gun control lobby makes this pretty easy - one prominent advocate is quoted as saying that the only firearms that should be allowed are single shot rifles and shotguns for hunting. That woke up a lot of hunters to the fact that most gun control advocates really don't care about hunting at all.
There is actually some debate about that among 2nd amendment supporters. If one defines "arms" as individual weapons, and "armaments" as crew served weapons, then the 2nd amendment could be interpreted that the individual gets to keep and bear rifles, shotguns, grenades, and assault rifles. But the state would keep control of cannon, tanks, etc.
This is countered by the fact that, at the time, there was no such dichotomy between the 2 words, and that there were plenty of private cannon - some held by folks involved in writing the constitution.
But any honest interpretation of the 2nd amendment must come to the conclusion that it wasn't talking about deer rifles and trap guns.
"I truly fear the day that the freedoms I enjoy now, that my forefathers gave their lives for, will be a distant memory, that can only be discussed via 'approved' texts."
Wow - US textbooks must really be crappy. I totally missed that "Canadian Revolution" where you threw off the yoke of the English monarchy. Oh, wait- it's not in Canadian textbooks either? Hmmm.
Face it - Canada has led a pretty charmed life as a nation. After the French and Indian wars, which were really a series of proxy wars between the British and French, Canada has not experienced revolution, rebellion, or invasion. Canadian soldiers have performed great deeds on the battlefield - in other countries. Actually, this is what makes Canada so attractive to certain members of the US populace - the perception of a lack of conflict. But the statement you make above is a it hyperbolic, don't you think?
"Even as a Canadian, I'm scared to go to the U.S. for what's it's become. I fear that 1 wrong move, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time could land me in world of pain or trouble."
Really? Name 1 Canadian citizen who has been subject to the treatment you describe (whatever that is). And no, being captured as part of the Taliban in Afganistan doesn't count.
"establish access protocols and to manage such access"
It's that last part that is tough. How do you keep different transmitters on the same frequency from tripping over each other? Yes, there are technologies coming that would allow that, but for now, you can't. So the FCC assigns certain frequency blocks to certain users, so that they don't interfere with each other - hence, the "license".
For the sake of arguement, lets assume that frequency interference is not an technical issue - what makes you think it can still be controlled? You propose a kind of land rush, where the frequencies are opened up to all comers equally. But as we saw in actual land rushes, some "comers" are more equal than others, and grow and quickly conflicts develop. Practically, how is the FCC to regulate that? It is hell to prove intentional interference when the licenses are separated into certain frequencies - how are they to do it when everyone has equal access to all bands?
"presiding over equitable sharing and access to the said resource by all citizens?"
How, exactly, do you propose to do that? Send out 275 million transceivers?
The FCC has ALWAYS allocated various spectrum to private entities and other organizations. Previously, it just gave them away. Yep, that's right - aside from licensing fees, the spectrum was given away.
So, which is more in the public interest - giving away a property worth billions of dollars, or selling a property worth billions of dollars with the proceeds going to the government, which is (at least nominally) representing the people?
I guess you missed where I said "The conservative right, while bloviating at the top"
The "celebrities" of the right harbor a dirty secret - the NEED Hillary to win. Their shows and blogs do best when there is someone to rail against. And what do they lose if Hillary or Obama is elected? Nothing.
They aren't afraid of socialized medicine - they can afford paying cash out of pocket for the best private care.
They aren't afraid of losing 2nd amendment rights - they have bodyguards who carry guns for them, or already have their concealed weapons permits (I'm looking at YOU, Feinstein - OK, not a conservative, but the principle applies).
So it's in their best interests to try to damage McCain, as he has the best chance of winning. But the rank and file, who ARE worried about these things, see the Dems as an unmitigated disaster, where McCain is merely tolerable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and now every J-school grad with a 2.0 wants to be Woodward or Bernstein and score the big story that will set them up for life.
How, exactly, has that helped the state of journalism in America?
Because I broke with /. tradition and RTFM'd, and like a typical narcissistic blogger he had his picture right on top.
A young, white, white collar worker was fired? Because he did something to piss off his employers?
When will the madness stop??!
"Lord that thing could eat a cat, or the entire Toy Class at the Westminster Dog show."
Wrong direction on the food chain - think Super Jumbo Frog's Legs.
MMmmmmmmm......
I think you may have read more than I intended.
First, My post had nothing to do with "violent overthrow". I said "turn on", and there are many ways of doing that. I think violent revolution is very unlikely, but that doesn't mean the Cubans won't be pissed off enough to demand, and get, change.
Second, I don't really believe Castro is truly a socialist either. My point wasn't to parse definitions but to point out that he is a dictator, contrary to Marxist ideology. Put it another way - if he is such a devout Marxist, WHY IS HE STILL IN POWER?
Third, my comments about dropping the embargo included the travel restrictions, but I didn't say that explicitly. My belief is that the US investment in the tourism industry would dwarf the Canadians and Europeans.
Fourth, you are focusing on the demand side of poverty - people want things but don't have the money, so no one will be able to buy American stuff. But what about the supply side? If American businesses employ Cubans for better wages, they WILL have some more money.
Fifth, there is a difference between "seeing" what their lives could be like and actually getting a taste of it. It's funny you mention China - their biggest political problem is the peasantry getting a little bit of the economic growth thrown there way, but seeing their countrymen making orders of magnitude more yuan. If the rural areas were being kept down as hard as they were, there would be less of a problem - the local farmer's attitude would be "I think I'd like a piece of that pie, but us folks will never see any.". But by giving them a taste, they are now saying "Wait a minute - this pie tastes great, and I want more of it. Why can't I get more of it?"
"Yes, they can look up to Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvidor, Honduras, Guatemala, etc as a testament to the triumph and prosperity of capitalism and democracy."
Funny, the last 5 you list seem to be doing OK now. They all went through a really bad patch where no one acquitted themselves very well - both the US backed governments and "communist insurgencies", or vice-versa - committed plenty of atrocities. But they seem to have moved past it, and are functioning OK.
As for Haiti, it was, is, and possibly always will be a shithole. They have always been run by strongmen, except for that brief moment when Aristide pretended to be democratic - you know, right before the US reinstalled him in power.
"His brother Raul is as much of a dictator as Fidel. "
There, fixed that for ya'.
And before the flames start:
1) Cuba never was, nor has it ever been, "communist". MAYBE socialist.
2) US policy toward Castro has been a 50 year disaster.
3) The embargo propped up Fidel - he NEEDED it to continue governing.
4) The best way to get political change in Cuba is for the US Gov't to simply lift the embargo and then DO NOTHING!. The Cuban government will drown in American dollars from private investment, and the Cuban people, seeing what they REALLY missed for 50 years, will turn on the government. Will a lot of money stick to corrupt hands? Yep, and the Cuban people will still be better off for it.
5) And as a bonus, it would give a big fat finger to Hugo Chavez.
"Oprah, Uma. Uma, Oprah."
And that fat bitch will make sure you never work on THIS awards show AGAIN!
(Of course, I think Letterman is a flaming asshole, but not for that particular bit - it was the best part of his whole presentation)
You should have hooked up a garden tractor battery and had it spinning when you shot it - 7200 rpm of centrifugal goodness.
Because, some of us are casual buyers AND sellers, and the feedback score doesn't differentiate between transactions. I lost my perfect feedback rating on a purchase my wife made on my account - she left a negative feedback on a slow shipment, and the seller retaliated. So now, when I sell things, my rating isn't as good as it should be, because of something that had nothing to do with selling.
(BTW, my wife has her own Ebay account now - I'm not stupid)
Sorry, no sympathy here.
I had a buyer in Canada give me a neutral feedback because of "excessive shipping fees - $50 for a 5$ item". What he didn't bither to say was:
1) The shipping fees were clearly listed in the ad, using the Ebay calculator, and I charged him at cost.
2) He accepted the Paypal invoice showing the shipping fees
3) He never bothered to contact me asking if there was an error or if I could do anything.
4) The problem was HIS government's draconian customs regime, combined with the fact that they enforce it against UPS but not USPS.
So betcherass I left him negative feedback - he didn't bother reading the ad, and then complained about the terms and conditions. If the shipping is listed, you pay it, or don't buy, or contact the seller and come to another arrangement.
"Read the anecdote again. The seller told the poster, prior to purchase, that he would combine shipping. After the purchase, he refused to do so. How is that not deceitful?"
Nope - you read again. He said that the seller "would have" combined IF he had asked before.
From the Wikipedia link you so helpfully provided:
"On September 26, 2002, during a stopover in New York City en route from a family vacation in Tunisia to Montreal, Arar was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS was acting upon information supplied by the RCMP.[13] When it became clear he was going to be deported, Arar requested he be deported to Canada; though he had not visited Syria since his move to Canada, he retained Syrian citizenship as Syria does not permit the renunciation of citizenship. Although he was travelling on a Canadian passport, Canadian officials erroneously informed the United States that he was no longer a resident of their nation.[citation needed] Canadian (initially) and American officials have labelled his transfer to Syria as a deportation, but critics have called the removal an example of rendition for torture by proxy, as Syria's government is infamous for its torture of detainees."
So the RCMP labelled him a terrorist, and then Canada denied his citizenship. So he was deported to the other country where he was a citizen. Where he may or may not have been tortured. By Syrians. And the only evidence is his unsworn testimony to a Canadian investigator.
Well, I guess Canadians really are in danger from the Government - theirs.
"The "I should be able to own an assault rifle for hunting" myth needs to be replaced with "I should be able to own an assault rifle in case the people decide to take back their country by overthrowing the government"... or something along those lines that sounds better."
No one who holds 2nd amendment rights seriously says that - it is the way the argument is being framed by gun control advocates.
They are trying - hard - to frame the debate in terms of hunting and formal shooting sports. The problem with the "sporting purposes" test is
1) The people who decide what legitimate "sporting purposes" are generally have nothing personally to do with guns. But they can't let those "crazy gun nuts" decide - then EVERYTHING would be a sporting purpose, and then what would be the use of a gun ban.
2) While most so-called "assault rifles" (i.e. semi-automatic versions of real assault rifles), are singularly poor choices for hunting, there is no real way to distinguish between the semi-automatic hunting rifles and the former. Within 1/2 hour I can make a plain jane Remington or Ruger semi-auto look just as scary as anything seen on the evening news, and I can make an AK47 or SKS look like a deer rifle in the same time. It comes down to banning guns that LOOK scary - which would be fine, as long as we could ticket cars that look beat up, or arrest people that look ugly.
Unfortunately, the true hardcore 2A supporters must buy into this by necessity, because most gun owners don't use semi-auto rifles and handguns. So we need to appeal to the hunters, because gun bans never get smaller - they only increase. Fortunately, the gun control lobby makes this pretty easy - one prominent advocate is quoted as saying that the only firearms that should be allowed are single shot rifles and shotguns for hunting. That woke up a lot of hunters to the fact that most gun control advocates really don't care about hunting at all.
There is actually some debate about that among 2nd amendment supporters. If one defines "arms" as individual weapons, and "armaments" as crew served weapons, then the 2nd amendment could be interpreted that the individual gets to keep and bear rifles, shotguns, grenades, and assault rifles. But the state would keep control of cannon, tanks, etc.
This is countered by the fact that, at the time, there was no such dichotomy between the 2 words, and that there were plenty of private cannon - some held by folks involved in writing the constitution.
But any honest interpretation of the 2nd amendment must come to the conclusion that it wasn't talking about deer rifles and trap guns.
"I truly fear the day that the freedoms I enjoy now, that my forefathers gave their lives for, will be a distant memory, that can only be discussed via 'approved' texts."
Wow - US textbooks must really be crappy. I totally missed that "Canadian Revolution" where you threw off the yoke of the English monarchy. Oh, wait- it's not in Canadian textbooks either? Hmmm.
Face it - Canada has led a pretty charmed life as a nation. After the French and Indian wars, which were really a series of proxy wars between the British and French, Canada has not experienced revolution, rebellion, or invasion. Canadian soldiers have performed great deeds on the battlefield - in other countries. Actually, this is what makes Canada so attractive to certain members of the US populace - the perception of a lack of conflict. But the statement you make above is a it hyperbolic, don't you think?
"Even as a Canadian, I'm scared to go to the U.S. for what's it's become. I fear that 1 wrong move, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time could land me in world of pain or trouble."
Really? Name 1 Canadian citizen who has been subject to the treatment you describe (whatever that is). And no, being captured as part of the Taliban in Afganistan doesn't count.
"(And before you say it: the thieves were absolute pros. I have travelled for 30 years and have never before had anything stolen. I am very careful)."
The word you are looking for is "lucky" - carrying every single document in your briefcase is NOT being careful. Period.
Checked out the pics - those generators are so CUTE! What is the spec on them, and what are you doing for low temp starts?
I think he was referring to the sexual orientation of the admins.
Tourists in Rio during Carnival? A Hunting trip with Dick Cheney? Driving with Ted Kennedy?
Yeah, you probably won't be harmed, but that doesn't mean it's "safe"
"establish access protocols and to manage such access"
It's that last part that is tough. How do you keep different transmitters on the same frequency from tripping over each other? Yes, there are technologies coming that would allow that, but for now, you can't. So the FCC assigns certain frequency blocks to certain users, so that they don't interfere with each other - hence, the "license".
For the sake of arguement, lets assume that frequency interference is not an technical issue - what makes you think it can still be controlled? You propose a kind of land rush, where the frequencies are opened up to all comers equally. But as we saw in actual land rushes, some "comers" are more equal than others, and grow and quickly conflicts develop. Practically, how is the FCC to regulate that? It is hell to prove intentional interference when the licenses are separated into certain frequencies - how are they to do it when everyone has equal access to all bands?
Where's the "whattooksolong" tag?
"presiding over equitable sharing and access to the said resource by all citizens?"
How, exactly, do you propose to do that? Send out 275 million transceivers?
The FCC has ALWAYS allocated various spectrum to private entities and other organizations. Previously, it just gave them away. Yep, that's right - aside from licensing fees, the spectrum was given away.
So, which is more in the public interest - giving away a property worth billions of dollars, or selling a property worth billions of dollars with the proceeds going to the government, which is (at least nominally) representing the people?
Just remember, you can't spell "geek" without "EE"!
I guess you missed where I said "The conservative right, while bloviating at the top"
The "celebrities" of the right harbor a dirty secret - the NEED Hillary to win. Their shows and blogs do best when there is someone to rail against. And what do they lose if Hillary or Obama is elected? Nothing.
They aren't afraid of socialized medicine - they can afford paying cash out of pocket for the best private care.
They aren't afraid of losing 2nd amendment rights - they have bodyguards who carry guns for them, or already have their concealed weapons permits (I'm looking at YOU, Feinstein - OK, not a conservative, but the principle applies).
So it's in their best interests to try to damage McCain, as he has the best chance of winning. But the rank and file, who ARE worried about these things, see the Dems as an unmitigated disaster, where McCain is merely tolerable.