Re: Pax Americana? Don't bring Rome into this
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
At what point do the ends justify the means? It is very easy for us to sit in judgement of them, with 2000 years of hindsight on our side. The world as we know it today was affected in an untold number of ways by Roman rule, both good and bad. If they had not operated the way they did, the world would be different -- how different no one can say, but most certainly it would be different. Perhaps the world would've been a better place, but it also might've been a more barbarous place. You must accept these tenets because you cannot prove one thing or another with any degree of certainty.
One thing is certain, however. The Roman culture, for all its hedonism and brutality, was the pinnacle of "civilized" society at that time. And I did not say they invented democracy, I said they invented the Republic, which (contrary to popular notion) is the real form of government in the U.S., not democracy. Rome invented the concept of roads to secure an empire, created a system of trade that spanned the known globe, pioneered philosophy, spawned countless objects d'art...they had an immense impact on the future world. Could they have done all this without the crushing heel of a conqueror? Who knows? You and I certainly don't, and we are in no position to judge them since we now live and breath in a world that (for better or worse) they helped to create.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
I can think of a lot of ideas that were "laughed out of academic circles" long ago that were later vindicated, but we shant get into that.
Suffice to say that social Darwinism does exist as a byproduct of human nature. Those who have a drive to excel will rise to the top and become inventors and leaders of industry and nations. Those who do not have such drive will remain garbage collectors, ditch diggers, and other menial positions where they will be unable to affect the lives of others. Society will stratify into the "have's" and the "have not's", as every society in the history of man has done. While we do not "breed out" the less motivated from our society, their impact on societal development is minimalized by their low social status. It is a rare case that a firmly entrenched bum ever morphs into anything else. It is much easier to fail than to succeed.
You cannot dispute this fact -- it is true. Just go find any homeless bum, then go find the CEO of a company. Which one has more influence, more impact to other people? The bum has impact only to himself, whereas a CEO affects the lives of all employees, stockholders, suppliers, competitors, etc. etc. I am not arguing that one human being is worthless and the other is not, I am arguing that competitiveness and the desire to "come out on top" is something bred into human nature, and those who ignore it are inevitably marginalized. That is the core of social Darwinism, and it's affects are apparent anywhere you care to look in modern society.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
Eloquently put, my friend. You are correct that the founding fathers did not put dictatorial powers in the hands of the President precisely because they feared tyranny. To that end, the U.S. President has a tremendous amount of power but must use it wisely and sparingly or face the wrath of Congress and the people. Past presidents have ignored this at their peril (Nixon). The system is not perfect, but it does work in keeping the commander in chief from launching wars of aggression just for the hell of it.
And I will restate that the U.S. does attempt to influence foreign governments to "lean in our direction". So? So what? Is this any different from any other powerful or semi-powerful nation on earth, or in history? If you ran the world, would you not reward those who helped further your ideals, and penalized those that ran counter to your goals? Of course you would, because you would consider your goals and ideals to be the best thing out there. Don't deny it -- it's human nature.
Morals do have a chance to wither in a totalitarian regime, but you must remember that such a thing is difficult to organize and maintain in a free, open society such as ours.
Sure, we could be more free and more open, but compared to the rest of the world it's hard to find a place more open and free than ours is. Any leader seeking to wage war would have to convince the American people of his rightness, not an easy task if history is our guide. It usually takes a tremendous shock (Pearl Harbor, WTC) to wake the American people. And even then, no administration can last more than 8 (10 in certain circumstances). Any politician seeking to fight that would have to shred the Constitution first, and although the Constitution has been stretched over the years, no one has had the political will or might to circumvent it without consequences.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
Not angry, frustrated. It's become quite popular and common to demonize the U.S. Sure, we do a lot of things wrong. We also do a lot of things right, but nobody notices that. I love my country, and I want us to be a better place, but castigating this nation is not a way to achieve that. And I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm just venting on general principles.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
And what do you think the U.S. is going to do, shoot down some other nation's space shuttle? Why? We're not a nation of bloodthirsty, baby-killing, run-over-old-ladies-for-the-hell-of-it warmongers here. We're pragmatists. Before we take an action, we weigh the action to see whether it will benefit us or not, and then weigh the costs and consequences. Why in the hell would we want to stop another nation from peacefully exploring the cosmos? To create a monopoly on space? PLEASE! "Space is big...REALLY big". We couldn't do that if we wanted to, and we don't want to.
Hell, if we wanted to do that, we could ALREADY threaten nations with conventional or nuclear arms. "If you launch that new comsat tomorrow we're going to vaporize your capital". We could do this with any nation on the planet right now without much fear of retribution. Heck, we could corner the global sat market, force everyone to pay ridiculous taxes to use our satellites, charge duties for any nation wanting to send up an astronaught.
Don't you get it? The U.S. is THE superpower on the planet right now. We can militarily do pretty much whatever we want. Tomorrow we could crush Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and there is nothing they could do to stop us. The U.N. can carp and moan, but we can ignore them if we choose to do so.
If we're so fucking bloodthirsty and Imperialistic, why aren't we doing this already???
I'll answer that: it's because we have no interest in it. We are not a conquering nation. Sure, we pressure, we cajole, and politic to get our way, as does any nation, but we do not rule by the sword. History has shown this never works for long, and we are astute studiers of that. I think that we're in a unique position in history being that we're the strongest nation ever, yet we have launched no wars of conquest since achieving that position. I can think of many other nations that would not have been so...restrained. Most of them hate us virulently. Gee, I wonder why.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I would point out that an orbiting nuclear launcher would be subject to intense scrutiny by any potential target, thus partially offsetting some of the "surprise" factor. It would also be a fat and juicy target, as manuevering satellites is very expensive from a fuel standpoint -- ergo, the satellite will be easy to track, target, and destroy with something much cheaper than an orbiting nuclear "bomber".
Remember our anti-sat missle program using F-15 jets as launchers? Very cheap. Not very reliable, but if you can launch 50 missles at it for 1/10 the cost of the target, who cares?
And I'm going to go out on a limb here that will undoubtedly bring some flak, but I'm going to say it anyway -- the U.S. is not about to start an offensive nuclear war of conquest. If we were, we would've done it in the 50's when we could've wiped the Soviet Union off the map without fear of retribution. We had the nukes, they didn't. We could've taken over the world militarily and nobody could've stopped us. We didn't. I have a very funny feeling that had things been reversed (i.e. the Soviets having the bomb, not us) the outcome would not have been so pleasant. Or if the Nazi's had developed it first...imagine a nuclear payload on a V-2 rocket hitting London. How many of those would Churchill have put up with before capitulating? He would've had little choice except extermination, and the Nazi's already showed they had no compunction in that area.
The U.S. will continue to ply the world's economic and political culture to further our national interest -- as does ANY country on the planet. Again, I will allude to Darwinism and the survival instinct. It is in our best interests to cultivate governments that are friendly to us and to penalize those that are not. Like it or not, that's the way the world operates and the U.S. is far from being the worst example here (we are, however, the LARGEST example, one reason we're a lightning rod for criticism). While other countries kill their own citizens for speaking out against their government and no one utters a whimper, we are castigated daily for failing to shell out billions in economic aid to "the less fortunate", even though "the less fortunate" chant "Death to America" every other breath.
Okay, I'm heading OT here, so I'm going to stop. I still say that a defensive space-based weapons system is absolutely necessary. One crazed madman controlling one silo in Siberia could make the WTC disaster look like a sunburn, and there is nothing at all we could do to stop him once the "launch" button is pressed. A defensive shield would not be to protect us from mass nuclear war for the obvious reasons that are plaguing the system now (tracking, decoys, etc.), but it could make childs play of a small attack mounted by some lunatic with an axe to grind, nothing to lose, and a desire to be a martyr.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Just to put a little perspective on your comment, the Roman Empire was the most dominant empire in the history of man in terms of total amount of world population under their control as well as territory, technology, and medicine. They lasted for much longer than any other modern empire on record, and formed the basis of a representative democracy which you now participate in.
Granted they were brutal in some of their rule, but you cannot ignore the benefits they brought to this world in the midst of said brutality. If you're going to use them as an example, you must speak on BOTH sides of the issue, not just the one that happens to support your argument.
Using the Third Reich is a poor example and you know it. You might as well use the Taliban as an example.
Before you start calling other people myopic, it might do you a little good to open your eyes a bit more yourself. The world is not a pretty place, but that does not make it evil. Darwinism forces us to survive by whatever means possible, and you are not in a position to criticize the very system you benefit from without sounding a tad hypocritical.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'd love to know how you'd propose turning a space-based kinetic kill vehicle into something you could conceivably use against a ground target. Or for that matter an orbitting laser.
Do a little research on kinetic kill vehicles from the old Reagan-era "Star Wars" program. It's essentially a hunk of dense metal with a few thrusters and an infrared seeker on the front. It has no explosives and doesn't need any; it kills its target by impact at orbital velocities (18,000mph). Using this against a ground target would result in either (a) a burnt-up kill vehicle or (b) a small hole in the ground about the size of a trashcan. Offensive weapon? Unlikely.
What about space-based lasers? Well, let's forget for a moment that no easily-loftable laser is currently available, and if it was it'd be hideously expensive to launch. Let's focus on the physics, namely "blooming". No, we're not talking about flowers here, we're talking about atmospheric attenuation of a laser beam. You could try shooting a ground target with an orbiting laser, but you'd lose a ton of beam power just punching through 50 miles of atmosphere. And again, all you'd get is a very small impact. You'd do much more damage with a cruise missle.
No one is proposing lofting any orbiting nukes, and even if they did, so what? What can an orbiting nuke hit that an ICBM or nuclear-tipped cruise missle can't already hit with impunity?
Or were you referring to space-vs-space offensive weaponry? Well, what would we shoot down with our lasers and KKV's? Comm and surveillance satellites perhaps, but we'd risk war by doing so, and for what gain? The only folks on earth who have a sizable space presence other than the U.S. and the E.U. is the former Soviet Union. Last I checked, the cold war was over, so I don't think they're our target. China is starting to get into the game, but a conflict with them would have to be decades off if China wants any hopes at actually winning anything.
So, in short, take your knee-jerk reaction and apply a little logic and common sense to it. Space-based weaponry right now pretty much HAS to be defensive, because we lack the technology to make an offensive use practical or even economical. If you're so concerned about indiscriminate use of offensive weapons, why not choose weapons that are actually useful at what they do, like cruise missles.
Re:please think twice about stories like this.
on
When Looks Can Kill
·
· Score: 2
I think that many of us are too easily charmed into the "coolness" of the applications, the "coolness" of the implementation, and forget what military hardware is designed to do, namely to commit aggression and kill people.
Not to be starting any flaming here, but you forget that when someone else is trying to kill you, it's not "commit[ting] aggression" to try and stop them with deadly force. Until we perfect stun phasers and such, the only defense against someone trying to kill you is to try and kill them first. You can try half measures, intimidation, saber rattling, sanctions, and other things, but if your opponents is hell bent on killing you, you're going to have to kill him to make it stop. It's ugly, but it's true. There can be no reasoning with a zealot, especially religious ones...
...unless you propose just giving in and letting an aggressor have his/her way? I seem to recall that's been done before, in the late 1930's...didn't work out too well for the world, did it?
All U.S. military aircraft have IFF ("Identification Friend or Foe") systems that automatically query potential targets to see if they're transmitting a "friendly" code. These codes are changed regularly and kept secret to prevent enemies from duping them.
If a target IFF's friendly, the pilot will be informed of this on his HUD ("Heads Up Display") or by a tone in his headset prior to any weapons firing. Likewise, targets that are not squawking friendly codes will show as elevated threats on the pilot HUD. The system is not perfect, but it is better than nothing, especially since the vast majority of air combat weapons these days are BVR ("Beyond Visual Range").
No, I'm doing it because (a) it's more convenient for me to download songs than it is to physically pick them up and (b) there is no method available for me to purchase the song I want without also purchasing 10-15 other songs that I do not want, do not like, and will never listen to.
Your claim that once you copy it to your computer "these 1s and 0s are MINE, I own it now" is quite incorrect. You do NOT own it. You own the rights to listen to it yourself for your own private entertainment. You cannot legally give a copy to a friend, whether for free or for profit.
Why am I stating that I have illegal MP3's? Partially to dispell the inevitable hypocrisy that's out there concerning the illicit trade of MP3's. The vast majority of this topic is being fillibustered by those who claim either (a) music should be free (which I disagree with), or (b) after purchasing a CD you own the music (something I also disagree with), or (c) all these MP3's are really just bootlegs and independent artists which is completely legal (which is nonsense -- everyone knows that the vast majority of MP3's being traded are copyrighted). I wish to separate myself from the above camps. I don't think I own the music, nor do I think it should be free. And I don't think you're stupid enough to buy the line that most MP3's are acquired legally. I'm a bizarre minority, someone who wants to pay for my music, but not under the current terms and restrictions. You can demonize me all you want, but it's the truth. When I feel that the deal is equitable to both sides, I will gladly pony up. In the meantime, I will buy only the CD's I can't do without, I will buy singles where I can, but the remainder will be found online via Gnutella. The recording industry has a golden opportunity here to get customers like myself into their pocket. I'm making an offer, but they are not listening. I, however, am listening, and not to their silence.
You mistook the meaning of my posting. I am not trying to defend music pirating. I realize that the collection I have is largely illegal, and I would like to make amends. The only problem here is that there is currently no way for me to pay for songs a la carte, as I have them currently. I am forced to buy a full CD which contains a great deal of music I do not want. Is this a defense of pirating? No, it is not, but I am merely asking the very same question that millions of consumers have pondered for decades: why must I buy the music I want bundled with other things I do not want?
And, you are right, Sony et. al. DOES own the music, and the artists HAVE signed it away in that manner. That is unfortunate. I feel that artists would love to bypass the music industry if possible, but right now it's logistically impossible. But the day is coming where the recording industry is going to be FORCED to accept technological progress, DMCA and SSSA be damned.
I will restate again: if there is a way I can compensate the artists/owners of the music for their production costs but NOT for CD stamping, distribution, or other music on the CD that I do not possess and do not want, my dollars are on the table for the taking.
This unfortunately sounds like pedantic ranting to me, although I see the author's point. I like being able to get MP3's from LimeWire without paying for them. It's saved me a fortune in buying CD's with 1 song I like and 15 that I hate. It's saved me gas by not having to drive to my local Media Play.
It's also illegal, and it should be illegal. I know it's illegal, but I've gone and done it anyway. I have no moral defense, because there is none. If I use someone else's works, then I should compensate them for it. I work in the media industry, for crying out loud! I would hate to have someone using MY stuff and not compensating me for it. If this sounds hypocritical, it's because it is.
Now, in a perfect world, I would happily hand over the royalties to the song owners/producers/artists and everyone would be happy. The problem here is that I can't do that. Sony, Bertlesmann, etc. want their share. The problem there is that Sony, et. al. are music distributors, not creators. They only publish the music, stamp the CD's, and ship them to Media Play. If I download an MP3, they incur none of that cost. I should just be able to compensate the artist and be done with it.
The huge music companies have all worked very hard to prevent consumers from having too many choices in how to purchase their products. They can do this because there are only a few huge megalithic companies, and they all know each other very cozily. They simply will not give up their lucrative business for anything else, even perhaps a just as lucrative business selling music online, one song at a time. Anybody remember how badly the MPAA and the RIAA tried to fight VCR's? Now video rentals and sales account for 40% of a movie's total take!
I would personally pay a nominal fee per month (say, $19.95) to be able to download high-quality MP3's that are legal and licensed. It would be so damned convenient nobody would care about pirating the music. I believe that convenience is one of the largest reasons MP3's have become as popular as they are. After all, who wants to stand in line? Who wants to browse endless racks of CD's looking for that one song you want? If the record companies would wake up and realize that they're sitting on a potential gold mine just as large as their current monopoly, we'd all be able to be happy AND legal.
It is truly sad and somewhat frightening to see how thoroughly brainwashed you are. The fact that you cannot see it only makes it more frightening.
Fact: The Arab nations have pledged to destroy Israel. They proclaimed this long before Israel had Gaza or the West Bank.
Fact: The Arab nations have launched several wars of aggression against the state of Israel. These attacks were unprovoked. During the course of these wars, Israeli forces pushed back the Arab forces and took the lands now called Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. The Arabs rolled their dice and lost. Now they carp about being "occupied". Perhaps they should've thought about that before they attacked, eh?
Fact: The Arab press continually spouts vitriolic hate on a daily basis proclaiming attrocities against Muslims by Israelis. The latest farce was the claim that Jews eat a pastry that must be made with the blood of young Muslims. This was stated in the state-run newspaper of Saudi Arabia. Most Arabs believe it, although there is absolutely no proof or evidence behind it. They are just as brainwashed as you are.
Fact: Young Israeli men and women are not being brought up to strap explosives to themselves, wander into a crowded restaurant, and blow themselves and as many Arabs up as they can. Apart from two incidents where deranged Israeli's shot several Palestinians, there have been no acts of terror against innocent civilians by Israeli's. Today we heard of the fourth day in a row where another young Arab blew himself to Allah while taking out folks eating lunch. Mighty brave of him, preying on people who had no defenses, had done him no wrong. He even killed a few Arabs as well. I wonder how that sits with Allah, eh?
Fact: When the WTC towers were destroyed, Arabs danced in the streets, yet they continue to depend on the west for investment cash, technology, and popular culture. I don't care if 3000 Muslim's, Christian's, Jew's or whatever were killed, nobody should be dancing in the streets celebrating it. It was a brutal, uncivilized act of a coward, striking out from the shadows because he cannot strike any other way. The perpetrators of 9/11 will get their comeuppance, in this world or the next.
And you, as a citizen, have the right and the responsibility to use your voting power to alter the government, the legislators, and (by proxy) the executives that you so despise. You DO vote, don't you?
And while we're at it, what cloth are YOU cut from, comrade?
The previous poster had it right: the lax airport/airline security was a direct result of conventional thinking by EVERYONE. Most terrorist hijackings up to 9/11 had been resolved without massive loss of life. Pilots and crew were trained not to resist, which is precisely what they did on 9/11. Castigating them, their bosses, or legislators for this policy is pointless as most terrorists had an agenda other than slamming planes into buildings. Now we're dealing with a different kind of animal, and our policies have changed. It is a rare plan that works in all situations for all time.
You know, I absolutely love it when folks like you pick a totally unbiased, unslanted, undeniably objective source and quote it to support your arguments. And I supposed that "The Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace" has no agenda, no objective to try and present the facts in the most unflattering light possible in order to support their arguments?
Now be a good little boy and go find me a REAL source, on that doesn't have something to gain by printing an inflammatory story that supports their (and your) preconceived notions.
And I also note you quote salon.com, which has ALWAYS been known as a BASTION of objective, non-biased, absolutely centrist thought -- yeah right. Your link to "newhumanist.com" only further impugnes you as some lefty radical with an agenda to push. If you can't find an objective source to back up your claim, you HAVE no claim, buster. Any fool can find another fool to support his or her claim, as you've so ably proven. Now go out and do some REAL work -- find a source that didn't have it's mind already made up before it wrote the article.
I see it's pointless to even waste my time enumerating facts when you're far too easily dissuaded by fantasy and your own anti-American, anti-Capitalist mentality. But, I'll keep on bashing your thick skull against a brick wall in the hopes that a modicum of sense will somehow permeate your gray matter. Call me stubborn, but I'm a sucker for hopelessly lost idealists like yourself.
Name any building or building pair with a capacity of 50,000+ individuals that is not related to international capitalism.
I'm going to respond with a resounding "SO?". I fail to see how a large building filled with working people constitutes something bad. Oh, I forgot, they're evil corporate people, not human beings trying to work hard, better themselves, and provide for their families.
Watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et. al. These are all Corporate America and depend on ratings and ad revenue for survival. All of them are happy to support the party line in the US these days -- Arabs are bad, non-whites are bad, non-Christians are bad.
Bias magically appears when you look hard enough for it, or when you've got something to prove as you most obviously do. You denounce these networks because they operate for profit. I assume that you have absolutely no problem with networks like Al Jazeera, Pravda, or other organizations that routinely supressed dissenting opinions, slant their news towards what the government tells them to, or maligns facts to suit their own agenda. If you're going to point out bias, don't be biased yourself; show that both sides of the equation are not on the level.
And your analogy about "those poor Muslims" (your rhetorical shame, not mine) is flawed. What has gone on in the US since September 11th is more like executing all males between the ages of 15 and 50 because one girl got raped.
Rhetorical shame? You wish. All males between 15 and 50? Well, if those males are busy chanting "Death to America", brandishing AK-47's, and training terrorists to blow me up, then I say they're getting their just deserts. If they're just peace-loving farmers and goat herders who are being wrongfully blasted by U.S. munitions, then I challenge you to provide evidence of such. You're the one accusing U.S. forces of attrocities here, so the burden of proof is yours. Pony up or shut up.
It's why the US had poor airport security and why the US has Jerry Springer, who you Libertarians love. It's a failing of capitalism -- getting people to want what will make the most money most quickly, then selling it to them, regardless of actual utility or risks.
You commit the obvious fallacy here of taking things to an extreme to prove your point. I never stated capitalism was perfect, but it's much better than the alternatives as world history unerringly proves. And by the way, Libertarians despise Springer as a shyster bufoon. Go brush up a bit at www.lp.org before you make stuff up like that again.
So you don't believe that the political infrastructure in a media-driven democracy like the US is beholden at all to economic realities? Give me a break.
You don't think that government-run media outlets are beholden to the governments that control them? Give me a break.
Wake up and smell reality. Media outlets are not run by little organizations. They are either for-profit companies or they are government run. No matter what, they are beholden to who owns them or runs them and that can and will color what they do. Capitalism is no worse than any other in this regard. Again, try balancing your opinions with both sides to stop looking like a zealot.
You commit an obvious fallacy here by extrapolating from the specific incident to the general case.
See pot calling kettle black and get back to me on that.
I hope that this has been education for you, but I doubt it. You'll go on believing what you believe in spite of reality, and you'll continue to use petty arguments, supposition, and lack of facts to bolster your ideas. Unfortunately, history is not on your side here. One day, perhaps, you'll grow up and see that. Until then, keep dreaming of your ideals. They will never come to pass, but you'll feel good about yourself thinking that you're above it all, the sole intellectual who sees the "big picture" that us poor blind grunts can't seem to grasp.
Unless you've got some information to the contrary, the only people who are being bombed are people who have vowed to wreak havoc and destruction on us -- in a word, terrorists. 9/11 aside, these people have been linked with or have claimed credit for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole some time back. If they want to rattle their sabers, they ought to expect to receive a little "rattling" in return. Or did you think that all those "martyr" brigades chanting "death to America" out there were just poor, misunderstood peace-loving people?
And I will counter with this: you ask for proof, I ask you to state what it would take to convince you that Osama is behind this?
A written confession? You'd say it was forged. A taped confession? You'd say it was staged. A live confession? You'd say it was coerced.
If you are not willing to accept a possibility (i.e. totally close-minded to anything other that your version of things) then NO evidence will be enough for you. So, please state what it would take, so I can go find it.
Chip? No, I just can't stand to see people mouth off on things they either (a) have no knowledge of or (b) can't back up anyway. I will address your points in order:
1. Corporate America built the towers and staffed them. SO? Buildings are built and staffed all over the globe by billions of people every day. What is your point?
2. Since when does corporate America "label" anybody anything at all? Did Cantor-Fitzgerald "label" those poor Muslims something they didn't like? As last I recall, the only people that like to "label" anything these days are spinmeisters, talking heads, and religious zealots. Either way, that has no bearing whatsoever on the involvement of corp. America in causing the towers to be attacked. Proclaiming otherwise is like saying a rape victim caused her rape because she was female (i.e. an obvious target).
3. Market demand indeed. The one failing of capitalism that I routinely hate is that it sometimes bears a striking resemblance to a parent and child. If the child (i.e. consumer) wants something from the parent (i.e. the market), the child doesn't want to be told "no", and does not understand why some things are better that way. Consumers want to have their cake and eat it, too, and many businesses (and governments) do not have the gonads to deny them what is clearly not in their best interests.
That being said, airline passengers KNEW the ramifications of the security lapses, or if they didn't they should've taken the time to find out as all the reports are in the public domain. I place a very high value on my own skin as I am quite attached to it, and I don't take such matters lightly. Airlines had tried levying increased fees for increased security, and passengers voted with their wallets. It's sad, but in many ways they got what they asked for. They had a choice, and the majority chose wrong. Learning lessons can be painful sometimes -- just ask any child.
4. Corporate America has lobbied heavily? While this is true, it pales in comparison to what the past presidential administration lobbied for. Democrats would even like to see illegal immigrants allowed to vote, for crying out loud -- alongside convicted felons and the mentally insane. Please note I'm NOT a Republican, as I have no taste for their spinelessness. I'm Libertarian, but back to the chase...
"Anti-capitalist" can be taken how you like, insult or not. But to be against capitalism is to be blind to the very forces that make your daily life possible. The car you drive, the phone you use, the business you work at, the computer you work on, the Internet itself -- all of it has been created for, by, or as a result of corporations and capitalism. It is not perfect, but it is the best thing humans have come up with so far. All other forms of government have either failed (Communism, Socialism) have encroached on personal liberties (Monarchy), or brutally supress their own people and dissidents (Despotism, Religous Oligarchy). When someone comes up with a system of government that rewards hard work AND takes care of those that choose NOT to work as hard, I'll reconsider, but until then, Capitalism is (IMHO) the best thing going.
and for the impovershment that keeps 3rd world countries poor so that they will be cheap sources of labor, exploited by capitalism, local governments and terrorist organizations.
Exploited, eh? Good old evil exploitation by those awful bloody Yanks. It's a popular cry these days, and I don't know why I bother to even try to dissuade the poor souls here on/. that have yet to "see the light", but here I go again.
Pray tell, sir, if these greedy, pitiless capitalists weren't "exploiting" the third world, how would they be better off than they are now? As you noted, many of these countries have wealth and resources that could easily enrich them (India comes to mind) but instead vast swaths of their populations are near enslavement to their own government, their own kind!!! Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight better than Socialism, Communism, Anarchy, or Despotism.
After all, look at the U.S. If people would put rhetoric aside and quite carping about how evil the U.S. is, folks would see that although Capitalism has involved suffering, it has also created the highest standard of living that this globe has ever seen. Advancements in medicine, computers, crop growing, space travel -- most if not all of these have been lead by the U.S. or U.S.-based "evil" corporations. Like it or not, the "greed" that so many people demonize also drives capitalists to constantly strive and fight to be on top. It's social and economic Darwinism, and although it's callous towards some (Enron comes to mind), you cannot deny that it has its advantages as well.
Socialism and Communism have advantages as well but thus far no country has been able to prove them very well. I don't think either will ever really work, simply because of human nature. Where Socialism and Communism describe a "worker's paradise" or "classless society", in reality society will always stratify between the "have's" and the "have not's" simply because (deep breath here folks) not all people are created equally. Blasphemy?
I don't think so. Why? Well, I'm a damn good I.T. professional. I'm good at it, if I say so myself. I would make a hideous violinist, or a terrible chemist, so clearly I'm better suited to excel in some areas and not others. Many have talents that are misused or ignored, either by choice or by societal pressures, but by and large many people find their "calling" one way or another. Others are too damned lazy, or don't want the responsibility that is required to make serious money. Ever look at your trash collector? Does he strike you as an ambitious chap? Didn't think so. He made his niche and he's living in it. He's not "less fortunate", he's made his choice and no matter how much he may bitch and moan about the "rick folks", he's where he is because he lacks the ambition or drive to move himself on up. I firmly believe this, because I've seen far too many "disadvantaged" people work their way up from far more difficult circumstances. If they can do it, anyone can do it.
There, I've said my piece. No doubt many will bash me, Troll me, and what else. Go ahead. Just remember that those who choose not to debate their ideas and principles usually do so because they are afraid the underpinnings of their beliefs will not withstand criticism. I am not afraid.
Fizban, why do you subscribe to this hated view of things? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever than anyone is profiting from this disaster, unless you count the heartless scumbags that are claiming to have lost family in the Towers but in fact did not. What perks and bonuses are you talking about? You have no idea, do you? Nobody is making money off this incident, save perhaps the lawyers who will sue anyone and everyone in sight. To blame those with "millions in the bank" shows that you haven't given the matter much thought.
If you're looking for blame, heartlessness, greed, and a lack of pity or remorse, you have to look no further than a man in a camouflage jacket with an AK-47, running around somewhere in the hills of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq. He's the one who's happy about this.
Perhaps you could take your anti-capitalist rhetoric elsewhere, comrade. If you had any decency, you'd know that in the time period the towers were designed and constructed in they were paragons of efficiency and safety. Far from cutting all costs and maintenance, the towers were meticulously designed to withstand all manner of natural forces, fires, and other disasters. They were even designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 jetliner, the largest then available. Alas, a 767 is much larger and carries more fuel. Even then, the towers would have stood had it not been for the fire, and the impact and explosion were far more than any designer could've ever dreamed would happen.
My friend, you appear to have a huge chip on your shoulder that is clouding your judgement. People died because madmen hijacked two jetliners and deliberately slammed them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent human beings. Corporate greed and stockholders had nothing to do with it, and it is callous, irresponsible, and shallow of you to even suggest such a thing to further your obvious hatred of corporate America.
Slashdot Mirror
At what point do the ends justify the means? It is very easy for us to sit in judgement of them, with 2000 years of hindsight on our side. The world as we know it today was affected in an untold number of ways by Roman rule, both good and bad. If they had not operated the way they did, the world would be different -- how different no one can say, but most certainly it would be different. Perhaps the world would've been a better place, but it also might've been a more barbarous place. You must accept these tenets because you cannot prove one thing or another with any degree of certainty.
One thing is certain, however. The Roman culture, for all its hedonism and brutality, was the pinnacle of "civilized" society at that time. And I did not say they invented democracy, I said they invented the Republic, which (contrary to popular notion) is the real form of government in the U.S., not democracy. Rome invented the concept of roads to secure an empire, created a system of trade that spanned the known globe, pioneered philosophy, spawned countless objects d'art...they had an immense impact on the future world. Could they have done all this without the crushing heel of a conqueror? Who knows? You and I certainly don't, and we are in no position to judge them since we now live and breath in a world that (for better or worse) they helped to create.
I can think of a lot of ideas that were "laughed out of academic circles" long ago that were later vindicated, but we shant get into that.
Suffice to say that social Darwinism does exist as a byproduct of human nature. Those who have a drive to excel will rise to the top and become inventors and leaders of industry and nations. Those who do not have such drive will remain garbage collectors, ditch diggers, and other menial positions where they will be unable to affect the lives of others. Society will stratify into the "have's" and the "have not's", as every society in the history of man has done. While we do not "breed out" the less motivated from our society, their impact on societal development is minimalized by their low social status. It is a rare case that a firmly entrenched bum ever morphs into anything else. It is much easier to fail than to succeed.
You cannot dispute this fact -- it is true. Just go find any homeless bum, then go find the CEO of a company. Which one has more influence, more impact to other people? The bum has impact only to himself, whereas a CEO affects the lives of all employees, stockholders, suppliers, competitors, etc. etc. I am not arguing that one human being is worthless and the other is not, I am arguing that competitiveness and the desire to "come out on top" is something bred into human nature, and those who ignore it are inevitably marginalized. That is the core of social Darwinism, and it's affects are apparent anywhere you care to look in modern society.
Eloquently put, my friend. You are correct that the founding fathers did not put dictatorial powers in the hands of the President precisely because they feared tyranny. To that end, the U.S. President has a tremendous amount of power but must use it wisely and sparingly or face the wrath of Congress and the people. Past presidents have ignored this at their peril (Nixon). The system is not perfect, but it does work in keeping the commander in chief from launching wars of aggression just for the hell of it.
And I will restate that the U.S. does attempt to influence foreign governments to "lean in our direction". So? So what? Is this any different from any other powerful or semi-powerful nation on earth, or in history? If you ran the world, would you not reward those who helped further your ideals, and penalized those that ran counter to your goals? Of course you would, because you would consider your goals and ideals to be the best thing out there. Don't deny it -- it's human nature.
Morals do have a chance to wither in a totalitarian regime, but you must remember that such a thing is difficult to organize and maintain in a free, open society such as ours.
Sure, we could be more free and more open, but compared to the rest of the world it's hard to find a place more open and free than ours is. Any leader seeking to wage war would have to convince the American people of his rightness, not an easy task if history is our guide. It usually takes a tremendous shock (Pearl Harbor, WTC) to wake the American people. And even then, no administration can last more than 8 (10 in certain circumstances). Any politician seeking to fight that would have to shred the Constitution first, and although the Constitution has been stretched over the years, no one has had the political will or might to circumvent it without consequences.
Not angry, frustrated. It's become quite popular and common to demonize the U.S. Sure, we do a lot of things wrong. We also do a lot of things right, but nobody notices that. I love my country, and I want us to be a better place, but castigating this nation is not a way to achieve that. And I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm just venting on general principles.
And what do you think the U.S. is going to do, shoot down some other nation's space shuttle? Why? We're not a nation of bloodthirsty, baby-killing, run-over-old-ladies-for-the-hell-of-it warmongers here. We're pragmatists. Before we take an action, we weigh the action to see whether it will benefit us or not, and then weigh the costs and consequences. Why in the hell would we want to stop another nation from peacefully exploring the cosmos? To create a monopoly on space? PLEASE! "Space is big...REALLY big". We couldn't do that if we wanted to, and we don't want to.
Hell, if we wanted to do that, we could ALREADY threaten nations with conventional or nuclear arms. "If you launch that new comsat tomorrow we're going to vaporize your capital". We could do this with any nation on the planet right now without much fear of retribution. Heck, we could corner the global sat market, force everyone to pay ridiculous taxes to use our satellites, charge duties for any nation wanting to send up an astronaught.
Don't you get it? The U.S. is THE superpower on the planet right now. We can militarily do pretty much whatever we want. Tomorrow we could crush Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and there is nothing they could do to stop us. The U.N. can carp and moan, but we can ignore them if we choose to do so.
If we're so fucking bloodthirsty and Imperialistic, why aren't we doing this already???
I'll answer that: it's because we have no interest in it. We are not a conquering nation. Sure, we pressure, we cajole, and politic to get our way, as does any nation, but we do not rule by the sword. History has shown this never works for long, and we are astute studiers of that. I think that we're in a unique position in history being that we're the strongest nation ever, yet we have launched no wars of conquest since achieving that position. I can think of many other nations that would not have been so...restrained. Most of them hate us virulently. Gee, I wonder why.
I would point out that an orbiting nuclear launcher would be subject to intense scrutiny by any potential target, thus partially offsetting some of the "surprise" factor. It would also be a fat and juicy target, as manuevering satellites is very expensive from a fuel standpoint -- ergo, the satellite will be easy to track, target, and destroy with something much cheaper than an orbiting nuclear "bomber".
Remember our anti-sat missle program using F-15 jets as launchers? Very cheap. Not very reliable, but if you can launch 50 missles at it for 1/10 the cost of the target, who cares?
And I'm going to go out on a limb here that will undoubtedly bring some flak, but I'm going to say it anyway -- the U.S. is not about to start an offensive nuclear war of conquest. If we were, we would've done it in the 50's when we could've wiped the Soviet Union off the map without fear of retribution. We had the nukes, they didn't. We could've taken over the world militarily and nobody could've stopped us. We didn't. I have a very funny feeling that had things been reversed (i.e. the Soviets having the bomb, not us) the outcome would not have been so pleasant. Or if the Nazi's had developed it first...imagine a nuclear payload on a V-2 rocket hitting London. How many of those would Churchill have put up with before capitulating? He would've had little choice except extermination, and the Nazi's already showed they had no compunction in that area.
The U.S. will continue to ply the world's economic and political culture to further our national interest -- as does ANY country on the planet. Again, I will allude to Darwinism and the survival instinct. It is in our best interests to cultivate governments that are friendly to us and to penalize those that are not. Like it or not, that's the way the world operates and the U.S. is far from being the worst example here (we are, however, the LARGEST example, one reason we're a lightning rod for criticism). While other countries kill their own citizens for speaking out against their government and no one utters a whimper, we are castigated daily for failing to shell out billions in economic aid to "the less fortunate", even though "the less fortunate" chant "Death to America" every other breath.
Okay, I'm heading OT here, so I'm going to stop. I still say that a defensive space-based weapons system is absolutely necessary. One crazed madman controlling one silo in Siberia could make the WTC disaster look like a sunburn, and there is nothing at all we could do to stop him once the "launch" button is pressed. A defensive shield would not be to protect us from mass nuclear war for the obvious reasons that are plaguing the system now (tracking, decoys, etc.), but it could make childs play of a small attack mounted by some lunatic with an axe to grind, nothing to lose, and a desire to be a martyr.
Just to put a little perspective on your comment, the Roman Empire was the most dominant empire in the history of man in terms of total amount of world population under their control as well as territory, technology, and medicine. They lasted for much longer than any other modern empire on record, and formed the basis of a representative democracy which you now participate in.
Granted they were brutal in some of their rule, but you cannot ignore the benefits they brought to this world in the midst of said brutality. If you're going to use them as an example, you must speak on BOTH sides of the issue, not just the one that happens to support your argument.
Using the Third Reich is a poor example and you know it. You might as well use the Taliban as an example.
Before you start calling other people myopic, it might do you a little good to open your eyes a bit more yourself. The world is not a pretty place, but that does not make it evil. Darwinism forces us to survive by whatever means possible, and you are not in a position to criticize the very system you benefit from without sounding a tad hypocritical.
I'd love to know how you'd propose turning a space-based kinetic kill vehicle into something you could conceivably use against a ground target. Or for that matter an orbitting laser.
Do a little research on kinetic kill vehicles from the old Reagan-era "Star Wars" program. It's essentially a hunk of dense metal with a few thrusters and an infrared seeker on the front. It has no explosives and doesn't need any; it kills its target by impact at orbital velocities (18,000mph). Using this against a ground target would result in either (a) a burnt-up kill vehicle or (b) a small hole in the ground about the size of a trashcan. Offensive weapon? Unlikely.
What about space-based lasers? Well, let's forget for a moment that no easily-loftable laser is currently available, and if it was it'd be hideously expensive to launch. Let's focus on the physics, namely "blooming". No, we're not talking about flowers here, we're talking about atmospheric attenuation of a laser beam. You could try shooting a ground target with an orbiting laser, but you'd lose a ton of beam power just punching through 50 miles of atmosphere. And again, all you'd get is a very small impact. You'd do much more damage with a cruise missle.
No one is proposing lofting any orbiting nukes, and even if they did, so what? What can an orbiting nuke hit that an ICBM or nuclear-tipped cruise missle can't already hit with impunity?
Or were you referring to space-vs-space offensive weaponry? Well, what would we shoot down with our lasers and KKV's? Comm and surveillance satellites perhaps, but we'd risk war by doing so, and for what gain? The only folks on earth who have a sizable space presence other than the U.S. and the E.U. is the former Soviet Union. Last I checked, the cold war was over, so I don't think they're our target. China is starting to get into the game, but a conflict with them would have to be decades off if China wants any hopes at actually winning anything.
So, in short, take your knee-jerk reaction and apply a little logic and common sense to it. Space-based weaponry right now pretty much HAS to be defensive, because we lack the technology to make an offensive use practical or even economical. If you're so concerned about indiscriminate use of offensive weapons, why not choose weapons that are actually useful at what they do, like cruise missles.
I think that many of us are too easily charmed into the "coolness" of the applications, the "coolness" of the implementation, and forget what military hardware is designed to do, namely to commit aggression and kill people.
Not to be starting any flaming here, but you forget that when someone else is trying to kill you, it's not "commit[ting] aggression" to try and stop them with deadly force. Until we perfect stun phasers and such, the only defense against someone trying to kill you is to try and kill them first. You can try half measures, intimidation, saber rattling, sanctions, and other things, but if your opponents is hell bent on killing you, you're going to have to kill him to make it stop. It's ugly, but it's true. There can be no reasoning with a zealot, especially religious ones...
...unless you propose just giving in and letting an aggressor have his/her way? I seem to recall that's been done before, in the late 1930's...didn't work out too well for the world, did it?
All U.S. military aircraft have IFF ("Identification Friend or Foe") systems that automatically query potential targets to see if they're transmitting a "friendly" code. These codes are changed regularly and kept secret to prevent enemies from duping them.
If a target IFF's friendly, the pilot will be informed of this on his HUD ("Heads Up Display") or by a tone in his headset prior to any weapons firing. Likewise, targets that are not squawking friendly codes will show as elevated threats on the pilot HUD. The system is not perfect, but it is better than nothing, especially since the vast majority of air combat weapons these days are BVR ("Beyond Visual Range").
copyright 1997-2002, U.S. Submarines, Inc. All rights reserved. All wrongs revenged!
Last update: January 9, 2002
Why does this seem like old news? Because it is!
USE SOAP!
(the above was brought to you humorously)
No, I'm doing it because (a) it's more convenient for me to download songs than it is to physically pick them up and (b) there is no method available for me to purchase the song I want without also purchasing 10-15 other songs that I do not want, do not like, and will never listen to.
Your claim that once you copy it to your computer "these 1s and 0s are MINE, I own it now" is quite incorrect. You do NOT own it. You own the rights to listen to it yourself for your own private entertainment. You cannot legally give a copy to a friend, whether for free or for profit.
Why am I stating that I have illegal MP3's? Partially to dispell the inevitable hypocrisy that's out there concerning the illicit trade of MP3's. The vast majority of this topic is being fillibustered by those who claim either (a) music should be free (which I disagree with), or (b) after purchasing a CD you own the music (something I also disagree with), or (c) all these MP3's are really just bootlegs and independent artists which is completely legal (which is nonsense -- everyone knows that the vast majority of MP3's being traded are copyrighted). I wish to separate myself from the above camps. I don't think I own the music, nor do I think it should be free. And I don't think you're stupid enough to buy the line that most MP3's are acquired legally. I'm a bizarre minority, someone who wants to pay for my music, but not under the current terms and restrictions. You can demonize me all you want, but it's the truth. When I feel that the deal is equitable to both sides, I will gladly pony up. In the meantime, I will buy only the CD's I can't do without, I will buy singles where I can, but the remainder will be found online via Gnutella. The recording industry has a golden opportunity here to get customers like myself into their pocket. I'm making an offer, but they are not listening. I, however, am listening, and not to their silence.
You mistook the meaning of my posting. I am not trying to defend music pirating. I realize that the collection I have is largely illegal, and I would like to make amends. The only problem here is that there is currently no way for me to pay for songs a la carte, as I have them currently. I am forced to buy a full CD which contains a great deal of music I do not want. Is this a defense of pirating? No, it is not, but I am merely asking the very same question that millions of consumers have pondered for decades: why must I buy the music I want bundled with other things I do not want?
And, you are right, Sony et. al. DOES own the music, and the artists HAVE signed it away in that manner. That is unfortunate. I feel that artists would love to bypass the music industry if possible, but right now it's logistically impossible. But the day is coming where the recording industry is going to be FORCED to accept technological progress, DMCA and SSSA be damned.
I will restate again: if there is a way I can compensate the artists/owners of the music for their production costs but NOT for CD stamping, distribution, or other music on the CD that I do not possess and do not want, my dollars are on the table for the taking.
This unfortunately sounds like pedantic ranting to me, although I see the author's point. I like being able to get MP3's from LimeWire without paying for them. It's saved me a fortune in buying CD's with 1 song I like and 15 that I hate. It's saved me gas by not having to drive to my local Media Play.
It's also illegal, and it should be illegal. I know it's illegal, but I've gone and done it anyway. I have no moral defense, because there is none. If I use someone else's works, then I should compensate them for it. I work in the media industry, for crying out loud! I would hate to have someone using MY stuff and not compensating me for it. If this sounds hypocritical, it's because it is.
Now, in a perfect world, I would happily hand over the royalties to the song owners/producers/artists and everyone would be happy. The problem here is that I can't do that. Sony, Bertlesmann, etc. want their share. The problem there is that Sony, et. al. are music distributors, not creators. They only publish the music, stamp the CD's, and ship them to Media Play. If I download an MP3, they incur none of that cost. I should just be able to compensate the artist and be done with it.
The huge music companies have all worked very hard to prevent consumers from having too many choices in how to purchase their products. They can do this because there are only a few huge megalithic companies, and they all know each other very cozily. They simply will not give up their lucrative business for anything else, even perhaps a just as lucrative business selling music online, one song at a time. Anybody remember how badly the MPAA and the RIAA tried to fight VCR's? Now video rentals and sales account for 40% of a movie's total take!
I would personally pay a nominal fee per month (say, $19.95) to be able to download high-quality MP3's that are legal and licensed. It would be so damned convenient nobody would care about pirating the music. I believe that convenience is one of the largest reasons MP3's have become as popular as they are. After all, who wants to stand in line? Who wants to browse endless racks of CD's looking for that one song you want? If the record companies would wake up and realize that they're sitting on a potential gold mine just as large as their current monopoly, we'd all be able to be happy AND legal.
Alas, 'tis not to be, I think.
It is truly sad and somewhat frightening to see how thoroughly brainwashed you are. The fact that you cannot see it only makes it more frightening.
Fact: The Arab nations have pledged to destroy Israel. They proclaimed this long before Israel had Gaza or the West Bank.
Fact: The Arab nations have launched several wars of aggression against the state of Israel. These attacks were unprovoked. During the course of these wars, Israeli forces pushed back the Arab forces and took the lands now called Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. The Arabs rolled their dice and lost. Now they carp about being "occupied". Perhaps they should've thought about that before they attacked, eh?
Fact: The Arab press continually spouts vitriolic hate on a daily basis proclaiming attrocities against Muslims by Israelis. The latest farce was the claim that Jews eat a pastry that must be made with the blood of young Muslims. This was stated in the state-run newspaper of Saudi Arabia. Most Arabs believe it, although there is absolutely no proof or evidence behind it. They are just as brainwashed as you are.
Fact: Young Israeli men and women are not being brought up to strap explosives to themselves, wander into a crowded restaurant, and blow themselves and as many Arabs up as they can. Apart from two incidents where deranged Israeli's shot several Palestinians, there have been no acts of terror against innocent civilians by Israeli's. Today we heard of the fourth day in a row where another young Arab blew himself to Allah while taking out folks eating lunch. Mighty brave of him, preying on people who had no defenses, had done him no wrong. He even killed a few Arabs as well. I wonder how that sits with Allah, eh?
Fact: When the WTC towers were destroyed, Arabs danced in the streets, yet they continue to depend on the west for investment cash, technology, and popular culture. I don't care if 3000 Muslim's, Christian's, Jew's or whatever were killed, nobody should be dancing in the streets celebrating it. It was a brutal, uncivilized act of a coward, striking out from the shadows because he cannot strike any other way. The perpetrators of 9/11 will get their comeuppance, in this world or the next.
And you, as a citizen, have the right and the responsibility to use your voting power to alter the government, the legislators, and (by proxy) the executives that you so despise. You DO vote, don't you?
And while we're at it, what cloth are YOU cut from, comrade?
The previous poster had it right: the lax airport/airline security was a direct result of conventional thinking by EVERYONE. Most terrorist hijackings up to 9/11 had been resolved without massive loss of life. Pilots and crew were trained not to resist, which is precisely what they did on 9/11. Castigating them, their bosses, or legislators for this policy is pointless as most terrorists had an agenda other than slamming planes into buildings. Now we're dealing with a different kind of animal, and our policies have changed. It is a rare plan that works in all situations for all time.
You know, I absolutely love it when folks like you pick a totally unbiased, unslanted, undeniably objective source and quote it to support your arguments. And I supposed that "The Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace" has no agenda, no objective to try and present the facts in the most unflattering light possible in order to support their arguments?
Now be a good little boy and go find me a REAL source, on that doesn't have something to gain by printing an inflammatory story that supports their (and your) preconceived notions.
And I also note you quote salon.com, which has ALWAYS been known as a BASTION of objective, non-biased, absolutely centrist thought -- yeah right. Your link to "newhumanist.com" only further impugnes you as some lefty radical with an agenda to push. If you can't find an objective source to back up your claim, you HAVE no claim, buster. Any fool can find another fool to support his or her claim, as you've so ably proven. Now go out and do some REAL work -- find a source that didn't have it's mind already made up before it wrote the article.
I see it's pointless to even waste my time enumerating facts when you're far too easily dissuaded by fantasy and your own anti-American, anti-Capitalist mentality. But, I'll keep on bashing your thick skull against a brick wall in the hopes that a modicum of sense will somehow permeate your gray matter. Call me stubborn, but I'm a sucker for hopelessly lost idealists like yourself.
Name any building or building pair with a capacity of 50,000+ individuals that is not related to international capitalism.
I'm going to respond with a resounding "SO?". I fail to see how a large building filled with working people constitutes something bad. Oh, I forgot, they're evil corporate people, not human beings trying to work hard, better themselves, and provide for their families.
Watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et. al. These are all Corporate America and depend on ratings and ad revenue for survival. All of them are happy to support the party line in the US these days -- Arabs are bad, non-whites are bad, non-Christians are bad.
Bias magically appears when you look hard enough for it, or when you've got something to prove as you most obviously do. You denounce these networks because they operate for profit. I assume that you have absolutely no problem with networks like Al Jazeera, Pravda, or other organizations that routinely supressed dissenting opinions, slant their news towards what the government tells them to, or maligns facts to suit their own agenda. If you're going to point out bias, don't be biased yourself; show that both sides of the equation are not on the level.
And your analogy about "those poor Muslims" (your rhetorical shame, not mine) is flawed. What has gone on in the US since September 11th is more like executing all males between the ages of 15 and 50 because one girl got raped.
Rhetorical shame? You wish. All males between 15 and 50? Well, if those males are busy chanting "Death to America", brandishing AK-47's, and training terrorists to blow me up, then I say they're getting their just deserts. If they're just peace-loving farmers and goat herders who are being wrongfully blasted by U.S. munitions, then I challenge you to provide evidence of such. You're the one accusing U.S. forces of attrocities here, so the burden of proof is yours. Pony up or shut up.
It's why the US had poor airport security and why the US has Jerry Springer, who you Libertarians love. It's a failing of capitalism -- getting people to want what will make the most money most quickly, then selling it to them, regardless of actual utility or risks.
You commit the obvious fallacy here of taking things to an extreme to prove your point. I never stated capitalism was perfect, but it's much better than the alternatives as world history unerringly proves. And by the way, Libertarians despise Springer as a shyster bufoon. Go brush up a bit at www.lp.org before you make stuff up like that again.
So you don't believe that the political infrastructure in a media-driven democracy like the US is beholden at all to economic realities? Give me a break.
You don't think that government-run media outlets are beholden to the governments that control them? Give me a break.
Wake up and smell reality. Media outlets are not run by little organizations. They are either for-profit companies or they are government run. No matter what, they are beholden to who owns them or runs them and that can and will color what they do. Capitalism is no worse than any other in this regard. Again, try balancing your opinions with both sides to stop looking like a zealot.
You commit an obvious fallacy here by extrapolating from the specific incident to the general case.
See pot calling kettle black and get back to me on that.
I hope that this has been education for you, but I doubt it. You'll go on believing what you believe in spite of reality, and you'll continue to use petty arguments, supposition, and lack of facts to bolster your ideas. Unfortunately, history is not on your side here. One day, perhaps, you'll grow up and see that. Until then, keep dreaming of your ideals. They will never come to pass, but you'll feel good about yourself thinking that you're above it all, the sole intellectual who sees the "big picture" that us poor blind grunts can't seem to grasp.
Unless you've got some information to the contrary, the only people who are being bombed are people who have vowed to wreak havoc and destruction on us -- in a word, terrorists. 9/11 aside, these people have been linked with or have claimed credit for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole some time back. If they want to rattle their sabers, they ought to expect to receive a little "rattling" in return. Or did you think that all those "martyr" brigades chanting "death to America" out there were just poor, misunderstood peace-loving people?
And I will counter with this: you ask for proof, I ask you to state what it would take to convince you that Osama is behind this?
A written confession? You'd say it was forged.
A taped confession? You'd say it was staged.
A live confession? You'd say it was coerced.
If you are not willing to accept a possibility (i.e. totally close-minded to anything other that your version of things) then NO evidence will be enough for you. So, please state what it would take, so I can go find it.
Chip? No, I just can't stand to see people mouth off on things they either (a) have no knowledge of or (b) can't back up anyway. I will address your points in order:
1. Corporate America built the towers and staffed them. SO? Buildings are built and staffed all over the globe by billions of people every day. What is your point?
2. Since when does corporate America "label" anybody anything at all? Did Cantor-Fitzgerald "label" those poor Muslims something they didn't like? As last I recall, the only people that like to "label" anything these days are spinmeisters, talking heads, and religious zealots. Either way, that has no bearing whatsoever on the involvement of corp. America in causing the towers to be attacked. Proclaiming otherwise is like saying a rape victim caused her rape because she was female (i.e. an obvious target).
3. Market demand indeed. The one failing of capitalism that I routinely hate is that it sometimes bears a striking resemblance to a parent and child. If the child (i.e. consumer) wants something from the parent (i.e. the market), the child doesn't want to be told "no", and does not understand why some things are better that way. Consumers want to have their cake and eat it, too, and many businesses (and governments) do not have the gonads to deny them what is clearly not in their best interests.
That being said, airline passengers KNEW the ramifications of the security lapses, or if they didn't they should've taken the time to find out as all the reports are in the public domain. I place a very high value on my own skin as I am quite attached to it, and I don't take such matters lightly. Airlines had tried levying increased fees for increased security, and passengers voted with their wallets. It's sad, but in many ways they got what they asked for. They had a choice, and the majority chose wrong. Learning lessons can be painful sometimes -- just ask any child.
4. Corporate America has lobbied heavily? While this is true, it pales in comparison to what the past presidential administration lobbied for. Democrats would even like to see illegal immigrants allowed to vote, for crying out loud -- alongside convicted felons and the mentally insane. Please note I'm NOT a Republican, as I have no taste for their spinelessness. I'm Libertarian, but back to the chase...
"Anti-capitalist" can be taken how you like, insult or not. But to be against capitalism is to be blind to the very forces that make your daily life possible. The car you drive, the phone you use, the business you work at, the computer you work on, the Internet itself -- all of it has been created for, by, or as a result of corporations and capitalism. It is not perfect, but it is the best thing humans have come up with so far. All other forms of government have either failed (Communism, Socialism) have encroached on personal liberties (Monarchy), or brutally supress their own people and dissidents (Despotism, Religous Oligarchy). When someone comes up with a system of government that rewards hard work AND takes care of those that choose NOT to work as hard, I'll reconsider, but until then, Capitalism is (IMHO) the best thing going.
and for the impovershment that keeps 3rd world countries poor so that they will be cheap sources of labor, exploited by capitalism, local governments and terrorist organizations.
/. that have yet to "see the light", but here I go again.
Exploited, eh? Good old evil exploitation by those awful bloody Yanks. It's a popular cry these days, and I don't know why I bother to even try to dissuade the poor souls here on
Pray tell, sir, if these greedy, pitiless capitalists weren't "exploiting" the third world, how would they be better off than they are now? As you noted, many of these countries have wealth and resources that could easily enrich them (India comes to mind) but instead vast swaths of their populations are near enslavement to their own government, their own kind!!! Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight better than Socialism, Communism, Anarchy, or Despotism.
After all, look at the U.S. If people would put rhetoric aside and quite carping about how evil the U.S. is, folks would see that although Capitalism has involved suffering, it has also created the highest standard of living that this globe has ever seen. Advancements in medicine, computers, crop growing, space travel -- most if not all of these have been lead by the U.S. or U.S.-based "evil" corporations. Like it or not, the "greed" that so many people demonize also drives capitalists to constantly strive and fight to be on top. It's social and economic Darwinism, and although it's callous towards some (Enron comes to mind), you cannot deny that it has its advantages as well.
Socialism and Communism have advantages as well but thus far no country has been able to prove them very well. I don't think either will ever really work, simply because of human nature. Where Socialism and Communism describe a "worker's paradise" or "classless society", in reality society will always stratify between the "have's" and the "have not's" simply because (deep breath here folks) not all people are created equally. Blasphemy?
I don't think so. Why? Well, I'm a damn good I.T. professional. I'm good at it, if I say so myself. I would make a hideous violinist, or a terrible chemist, so clearly I'm better suited to excel in some areas and not others. Many have talents that are misused or ignored, either by choice or by societal pressures, but by and large many people find their "calling" one way or another. Others are too damned lazy, or don't want the responsibility that is required to make serious money. Ever look at your trash collector? Does he strike you as an ambitious chap? Didn't think so. He made his niche and he's living in it. He's not "less fortunate", he's made his choice and no matter how much he may bitch and moan about the "rick folks", he's where he is because he lacks the ambition or drive to move himself on up. I firmly believe this, because I've seen far too many "disadvantaged" people work their way up from far more difficult circumstances. If they can do it, anyone can do it.
There, I've said my piece. No doubt many will bash me, Troll me, and what else. Go ahead. Just remember that those who choose not to debate their ideas and principles usually do so because they are afraid the underpinnings of their beliefs will not withstand criticism. I am not afraid.
Fizban, why do you subscribe to this hated view of things? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever than anyone is profiting from this disaster, unless you count the heartless scumbags that are claiming to have lost family in the Towers but in fact did not. What perks and bonuses are you talking about? You have no idea, do you? Nobody is making money off this incident, save perhaps the lawyers who will sue anyone and everyone in sight. To blame those with "millions in the bank" shows that you haven't given the matter much thought.
If you're looking for blame, heartlessness, greed, and a lack of pity or remorse, you have to look no further than a man in a camouflage jacket with an AK-47, running around somewhere in the hills of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq. He's the one who's happy about this.
Perhaps you could take your anti-capitalist rhetoric elsewhere, comrade. If you had any decency, you'd know that in the time period the towers were designed and constructed in they were paragons of efficiency and safety. Far from cutting all costs and maintenance, the towers were meticulously designed to withstand all manner of natural forces, fires, and other disasters. They were even designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 jetliner, the largest then available. Alas, a 767 is much larger and carries more fuel. Even then, the towers would have stood had it not been for the fire, and the impact and explosion were far more than any designer could've ever dreamed would happen.
My friend, you appear to have a huge chip on your shoulder that is clouding your judgement. People died because madmen hijacked two jetliners and deliberately slammed them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent human beings. Corporate greed and stockholders had nothing to do with it, and it is callous, irresponsible, and shallow of you to even suggest such a thing to further your obvious hatred of corporate America.