I hate to continue being the naysayer on this thread, but this almost certainly isn't true, because -- contrary to popular belief -- Americans today aren't any more mobile than they used to be.
From Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam's well-researched work on the "collapse of American community:
... for people as for plants, frequent repotting disrupts root systems. It takes time for a mobile individual to put down new roots. As a result, residential stability is strongly associated with civic engagement. Recent arrivals in any community are... less likely to have supportive networks of friends and neighbors.... Could rising mobility thus be the central villain of our mystery? The answer is unequivocal: No. Residential mobility can be entirely exonerated from any responsibility for our fading civic engagement, because mobility has not increased at all over the last fifty years. In fact, census reocrds show that both long-distance and short-distance mobility have slightly declined over the last five decades. (pg204-205)
I have a hard time buying this. A quick glance at population growth in the U.S. over the last hundred years reveals that we're really not growing all that fast at the moment -- in the 1950s -- which social scientists note for a very high degree of civic engagement -- population was routinely growing at almost 2% a year. But for the past ten years, it's been less than 1%. Moreover, with birth rates at historic lows, much of the population increase we're seeing is coming from immigration -- communities which by necessity are characterized by dense social networks.
If there's a culprit to be found in population patterns and geographic movements, it's not so much in urbanization (most cities have been losing people over the last few decades) -- as in suburbanization -- a pattern of life which is characterized by atomization and long commute times, leading Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone) speaks of a "sprawl civic penalty".
It's easy to resent union workers for having pay, benefits, and job security that other workers lack. But the solution to that is to strengthen unions, rather than weaken them. Higher union density means better wages, benefits, and conditions for everyone.
Compare the situation of workers in the U.S. to other industrialization nations with higher unionization rates, and you'll discover American workers are being seriously screwed.
Also consider the history of the United States. Appreciate the 40 hour work week? Think having a strong middle class has been good for the country? Thank the labor movement. It's not a coincidence that it's begun to disappear (real wages falling since the 1970s) at the same time as the unions have been weakened.
Check out the AFL-CIO's All About Unions page, and think seriously about the consequences of scabbing.
Absolutely. But if it were just about gambling, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it. Actually, the WTO, in its relatively short history, has accumulated quite a record of overturning democratically-enacted laws designed to protect consumers, workers, and the environment, ranging from dolphin-safe tuna to gasoline emissions to genetically modified organisms.
This is the just the tip of the iceberg with the FTAA, affectionately known as "NAFTA on Steroids." It would wreck havoc on the hemisphere, bringing living standards, wages, environmental protections, etc. down everywhere. This isn't about free trade, it's about a corporate-driven race to the bottom.
Conveniently, the next meeting to plan it is in Miami next month, giving us the convenient opportunity to deliver our thoughts on these matters in person. For more info on the FTAA and the Miamo demonstrations, check out the Citizens Trade Campaign.
Couldn't agree with you more on that PATRIOT Act. However, in the interests of accuracy:
Sen. John Kerry: Voted for Sen. John Edwards: Voted for Sen. Joe Lieberman: Voted for Sen. Bob Graham: Voted for Rep. Dick Gephardt: Voted for Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Voted AGAINST, and has strongly criticized ex-Gov. Howard Dean: never been in Congress, but has expressed concern/opposition ex-Sen. Mosely-Braun: wasn't in Congress at the time, opposes Al Sharpton: never been in Congress, opposes
Dean's position at this point could actually mean quite a lot, because the Democratic nomination will probably be determined before the first primary or caucus vote is cast. There hasn't been a true upset for the nomination since Jimmy Carter in 1976. The primary process is simply too front-loaded -- the season starts early, and then the primaries come all at once -- for a candidate to come from behind and build up momentum. What will determine the nomination is the "invisible primary": who raises the most money the quickest, closely related to who gets endorsements from important constituencies (most notably organized labor, but also enviro, civil rights, and women's groups). Right now, Howard Dean is tied in that race (thanks almost entirely to individual donations over the internet), with only about six months to go.
Whether any of them can beat Bush is an entirely separate question (to which I suspect the answer is no).
Not quite. But since you didn't bother to make the argument, let me present it for you. As governor of Vermont, Dean alienated many Progressives and Liberal Democrats through his sometimes-extreme fiscal conservatism (including cuts in taxes and state spending). He's also got a mixed to conservative record on gun rights, welfare, and Israel/Palestine.
You're right that Dean has been presented (and to some degree, presented himself) as much further to the left than his record shows. To call him a moderate, however is to miss the mark. If his Vermont record was centrist, it was centrist by Vermont standards, a politically idiosyncratic state represented by an independent self-avowed socialist in the U.S. House (Bernie Sanders). And it's a record that also includes being the first and only governor to sign legislation providing for same-sex civil unions, as well as a bill radically revamping public school funding to make it more equitable. Moreover, Dean has been a forceful and articulate critic of the Bush administration, including its foreign policy, while the establishment candidates (Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards) merely stick their fingers in the air, nervously tempering their rhetoric from week to week.
Personally, I'm a cautious supporter. I volunteered for Nader in 2000, and I'd be much happier with Dennis Kucinich (who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomination), but we desperately need a revitalized Democratic Party that's actually willing to stand for something if this country is to have any hope of moving away from the disastrous path Bush & co. have placed us on.
This legislation can be stopped. It only takes 40 Senators to filibuster a bill, and if the Democrats are willing to show some guts, there might be enough pro-civil liberties Republicans to shoot it down there, too.
Immediately go the ACLU's action page where you can send a free fax to your representatives. It'll take you all of 15 seconds.
Next, call both of your Senators and your representative. Politely but firmly demand that they vote against this. Make clear that how your senator votes on civil liberties issues is very important to you.
If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote (PDF document).
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Doesn't have to be a great work of prose, just give an example or two of how the PATRIOT Act threatens the constitution. Give the Ben Franklin quote. Letters to the Editor is one of the most read sections of the newspaper, and politicos read it closely.
Tell your friends. Sure, some people get irritated when politics gets brought up, but that's a small price to pay for the future of American democracy.
Lastly, act on your belief when election time comes around. Donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who are on record supporting constitutional liberties.
North Korea may export terrorist and technology but it hasn't invaded anyone in 50 years and it doesn't gas it's civilians nor does it do shitty things to wetlands or coastal areas.
So let me get this straight: North Korea shows a decade-long drive to develop nuclear weapons, and is openly hostile to the United States. It also feeds its army while the population suffers from severe famine. Now it's posturing about using nukes, and the Bush administration doesn't seem particularly concerned. But Iraq poses a threat?
Iraq invades and invades and shots anti-ship missiles and generally carries on.
So you're admitting, then, that this isn't about weapons of mass destruction?
Now, you claim that Iraq gasses its civilians, that it "do[es] shitty things to wetlands and coastal areas" (I presume you're referring to the draining of the areas traditionally inherited by the Marsh Arabs), that it "invades and invades," that it "shots [sic] anti-ship missiles" (the only thing I can figure you might be referring to is anti-aircraft fire in the "no fly" zone) and "generally carries on."
Let's take these one by one:
Yes, Iraq did use chemical weapons against civilian populations. This was almost twenty years ago, when Iraq was enjoying the support of the U.S., during the Iraq-Iran War (if memory serves, the U.S. actively supported the use of chemical weapons against Iranians).
Draining of wetlands falls into a similar category as an egregious behavior against a civilian population. Although I'm not entirely sure how different it is from financing dam projects that flood areas also inhabited by indigenous populations, which the World Bank is famous for.
In both cases, it fits the larger trend of the United States supporting governments which commit terrible acts of repression and genocide against their own peoples. (See also: Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, etc.)
As for Iraq "invad[ing] and invad[ing]," I know of two instances. One was an attempted invasion of Iran, actively supported by the U.S. The other, of course, was the invasion of Kuwait. Both were well over ten years ago.
Now, assuming you refer to Iraq's anti-aircraft fire in the No-Fly Zones, the U.S. and Britain have zero argument under international law. The "No-Fly Zones" are arbitrarily dictated by the U.S. and Britain, without any sort of U.N. mandate. I'm no more in favor of Saddam firing on U.S. pilots than I am of Bush bombing Iraqi civilians, but Iraqi hositility to illegal U.S./U.K. patrolling is hardly a basis for war.
So what we have hear is a litany of accusations, mostly for crimes committed over a decade ago and with the support of the United States, and we're supposed to take this as a case for the U.S. invading in 2003? Even as plenty of other countries have taken similar actions, and many continue to occupy territory illegally under international law (most notably Turkey and Israel)?
The young men and women the Administration is sending off all volunteered to be in the service, then volunteered again to be in an MOS that would put them in harms way.
Two points:
1) With the demise of an actual draft in this country, we have developed a poverty draft, where for many kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, the military seems to be the only viable career option, and a good way to pay for college. Obviously there are exceptions, but the military is disproportionaly black and working-class compared to society at large. There's a reason you see more recruiting stations in poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones.
2) So what? They volunteered, therefore our leaders shouldn't give a second thought to risking their lives?
Now, as for oil and empire:
Why does the United States care about Iraq?
Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have nothing to do with it. Plenty of governments around the world possess WMDs (including nuclear weapons, which Iraq does not have) in flagrant violation of international law. Several of them, most notably Pakistan, receive the support of the United States. Hell, North Korea is openly posturing itself as an agressive nuclear power, and the administration hardly seems to care. Moreover, Saddam developed his WMD programs in the 1980s with the active support of the Reagan and Bush I administrations.
No, U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf has everything to do with oil. Nobody in the foreign policy establishment denies it. The world's richest supplies of oil are in the Persian Gulf, a region with a number of countries which are unfriendly to the United States. Hence, it is the stated policy of the U.S. government that we will take military action to defend our "interests" there (look up the Carter Doctrine of 1980 sometime if you don't believe me).
In the 1980s, that meant supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, supplying Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars worth of weapons, and looking the other way when he committed acts of genocide against Shi'ites and Kurds (just as the U.S. is looking the other way now while Turkey commits similar atrocities towards its Kurds).
At the end of the '80s, however, Iraq and Kuwait became involved in a dispute over oil prices (Kuwait, friendly to the U.S., was pumping more oil than Iraq and OPEC wanted it to, lowering prices, which hurt Iraq) and slant drilling. In 1990, Saddam made the mistake of invading Kuwait. Everyone knows the story from there.
Fast-forward to 2002, and we've got hawks like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and co. in the administration, and they're hopping mad that some of the world's most valuable oil fields are controlled by a government openly hostile to the United States. Saddam cutting deals with U.S. oil companies isn't a viable option, because he remains in power, becomes much wealthier, and continues to be a thorn in the U.S.'s side.
That's why an anonymous administration official was recently quoted in a news report as saying, "If you were trying to talk about Iraq and if you were not encumbered by the fear that your actions would be linked to ExxonMobil or the oil industry, you'd be talking about oil issues."
As for empire, the Bushies are speakly very openly about a decade-long military occupation, drawing comparisons with Japan. The idea will be to consolidate power (in what would otherwise become a very fractured country) in the hands of a government friendly to U.S. interests. There's also talk that Iran could be next, as part of a broader plan to "democratize" the Middle East (read: create regimes which pose no problems for continued American hegemony in the region).
I don't know about you, but I call that oil imperialism.
Obviously anything that could save peoples' lives is good. But the fact remains that CNN (and/., for that matter) devoting coverage to Pentagon public relations sideshows is bad journalism.
You want to save the lives of American troops? Try not putting them in harm's way in the first place!
The Bush administration is about to send young American men to die in Iraq for some combination of oil interests and delusions of empire, and we're supposed to believe it'll all be okay because of some new bandages?! In the run-up to war, Bush's people would rather we be fascinated by new military toys than considering the wisdom of their own warmongering; Thank you, CNN and./, for making their wishes come true.
It is, as Mary Lease (a Kansas Populist) said in 1890:
"Wall street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street."
Take hope, however. In time, most of the Populist reforms were enacted. Which leads me to another quote, better known, from Mother Jones:
The issue isn't the infrastructure of the Internet. It's all the millions of other ways that you're benefiting from government services and infrastructure, regardless of whether you order your goods on a website or at a retail counter. At the top of the list is probably the roads via which your just-ordered good will arrive.
Geezus, voodoo economic never really dies, does it?
First off, state (and federal, for that matter) fiscal crises at the moment aren't being caused because of escalating spending (with the significant exception of prisons). Rather, it's because the economy is tanking, so revenues are declining. Also, the corporate welfare that legislators have been passing out over the past few decades are finally catching up with them. (You know, the ones where they give employers tax breaks just in time for them to layoff large numbers of people -- does a great job stimulating the economy, I can assure you.)
Secondly, if you want to put more money into the economy, reducing taxes across the board is a bad way to do it, because you'll mostly wind up putting money in the pockets of the wealthy, who have a low marginal propensity to consume (so the money doesn't wind up going into the economy).
Rather, we should pursue tax policy specifically designed to put money in the hands of working class people, who are much more likely to spend it. The Economic Policy Institute has a great counter-economic stimulus plan which calls for, among other things, a one-time bonus of 3.5% on the first $15,000 of earned wages. Another major stimulus to the economy would be a national single-payer health plan, which would massively cut overhead and red tape in health care, saving billions of dollars for everyone concerned.
Or, to return to the point, we could abolish sales taxes, which not only discourage consumption but are also regressive, with the burden falling unfairly on poor and working-class people. Failing that, however, not applying sales taxes to transactions occuring over the internet creates an unfair business advantage which threatens the vitality of locally-based retail business, which has serious economic and social consequences.
They tax spending, they tax saving, and the only thing they encourage is earning no income at all.
Alright, I'll call you on this one -- how does the government tax saving?
And before you launch into some nonsense about the capital gains tax, realize that most of the capital gains ordinary people make aren't taxed, largely because of the one-time exemption for home sales. The overwhelming burden of the capital gains taxes fall on wealthy speculators, for whom it really is their primary source of income.
The official number for the Department of Defense for 2003 is $380 billion dollars. (As with all that follows, this number is based on the president's proposed budget for the year. Congress wouldn't dare cut it significantly, though they often add some pork.)
Now that's ridiculous enough. It's a good deal more than we spent during the Cold War, more than any other country on the face of the earth, and several times that of all of our potential enemies combined. Meanwhile, we're slashing funding for social services.
Then there's another $17 billion for nuclear weapons, that politicians have thoughtfully placed under the Department of Energy budget, for a total of $396 billion. (Both of those figures, incidentally, are also from the CDI's website, only for FY 2003).
My suspicion is that the original poster probably got his numbers from the War Resisters League, which puts out a great little flyer called Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes. Their purpose is not so much to discuss year-to-year policy decisions as to emphasize the degree of the tax burden that is the fault of military spending.
They come up with a total figure of $776 billion for 2003. $437 billion is current military spending, which is the DoD budget, plus DoE nuke programs, plus portions of the budgets for other federal programs which are used in large part for military purposes (CIA, Coast Guard, NASA, FEMA, etc.). Then there's $339 billion in military spending: $57 billion in veterans' benefits and $282 billion in interest on the national debt (80% estimated created by military spending). Neither of those are discretionary from the point of view of the annual budget process, but they are definitely indicative of how runaway military spending increases our tax burden.
None of this, however, is particularly relevant for the original context of this discussion, because sales taxes are state and local, not federal. My personal opinion is that we can solve the whole problem by doing away with most sales taxes, which are regressive, and funding government primarily through a steeply progressive income tax (both personal and corporate).
[Please ignore my other post -- inadvertently hit the wrong button.]
If you are suggesting that subjective experience is unassailable from the point of view of a third party...
I am not making such a universal claim, only speculating that a woman is probably more qualified to judge her own experience with a professor than some random guy on/. determined the contradict the obvious social reality of sexism (especially without any particular rationale, as was the case here).
No one calls a woman a "blowhard" for criticizing men.
No, instead she is often tagged with a much more derisive label (i.e., bitch).
That's not too say that I approve of anti-male jokes. They too contribute to stereotyping and restrictive socially-enforced gender roles. There is a very critical difference between comments stereotyping women and those targeting men -- men hold most of the power in this society: in education, government, business, and so forth. This means that men's attitudes towards women have serious negative consequences for women, visible in everything from pay inequity to the lack of female politicians to alarmingly high rates of man-on-woman sexual assault.
Much of the "coercion" displayed in this thread as anecdotal evidence would be laughed at by those suffering hardships in other countries.
You're setting up a strawman here. I never used the word "coercion," nor attempted to equate insensitivy on/. with oppression in the Two-Thirds World. But that still doesn't justify making blanketly sexist/bigoted comments, as several posters here have done.
People who do bad in school do so because they are not interested in their school work. Is is the fault of the school that they lack interest?
Not always. Numerous studies have shown that teachers often call on boys more often, encourage them more, and provide other not-so-subtle to girls that they are less capable as students (particularly in math and science fields.) It may be unconscious on their part, but it still has very real effects, as plenty of women will tell you (assuming you actually listen to them, instead of telling them you know better, as has been done in this discussion).
If you are suggesting that subjective experience is unassailable from the point of view of a third party, you should reconsider your beliefs about those who claim to have experienced alien abductions, or religious awakenings.
I admit it's a tough cookie to crack and I don't think there's any simple solutions.
However, I do think it all depends on how the issue is raised. There are a few openings I've found work:
1) Any conversation about the future of technology. If a non-techish friends asks you anything about where computers and media will be going in the future, point out that much of that will depend on the threats posed by big media companies to consumer freedom.
2) Any mention of the use of current technologies which are threatened by repressive legislation.
- "So I just burned a great mix CD from the mp3s on my computer." - "Cool. Did you know that if the record industry has their way, no one will be able to do that in a few years?..."
3) Any conversation about abuses of corporate power in general. A great many folks these days have become very distrustful of corporate behemoths for obvious reasons. Often they will get what you're talking about much more quickly if it can be related to their own experiences and opinions about corporations. Corporate control over politics is a particularly good opening.
- "Well that's because politicians don't give a damn about the voters, only the corporate fatcats that are giving them money." - "Yeah, isn't it terrible? Did you know the record and movie companies have been donating millions of dollars to restrict our freedoms to listen to music and watch movies on computers?"
(In my travels in leftie political circles, I've often found that even people who don't know the first thing about technology often have a sympathetic ear for topics like the DMCA and such, because they're already _very_ suspicious of media conglomerates, for a whole slew of other reasons.)
Anyhow, keep up the good fight.
Why? For starters, look over this thread...
on
Girls not Going into CS
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Browsing through this thread should give anyone a pretty good sense of why women might not be going into the field.
Could it be connected to the fact that anytime the gender disparity issue gets raised, the reaction on the part of men is to reply with old sexist jokes and pathetic rationalizations ("women just aren't wired for computers")?
Then, if some amazingly brave woman actually has the courage to relate her experiences with sexism in CS departments (I noticed one -- thank you neuroticia), the thanks she gets is accusations of paranoia (becuase obviously some blowhard./ guy knows what she experienced better than she does.)
Even a man relating the experiences of a woman he knew in CS being stalked gets met with claims that women are just being too oversensitive.
There isn't one simple explanation for why women aren't going into computers, but it might have something to do with men's total lack of restraint in making blatantly sexist and obnoxious comments whenever the subject is raised.
As an American who opposes most of "my" government's policies, who fall back on this sort of reasoning as a defense of American imperialism and plutocracy. The implication that we ought to stand united behind a government which fails to represent our interests simply because we don't get in locked in jail for saying so is absurd. Moreover, there are plenty of countries around the world which respect the most basic civil liberties of its citizens (and quite a number that do a better job of it).
The history of American is largely one two separate threads. One is those who have advocated for the continued expansion of this great experiment we call democracy -- the anti-Federalists, abolitionists, sufragettes, Populists, labor unionists, Socialists, (some) progressives, New Dealers, and the Civil Rights and peace activists of the 60s.
On the other side is those who have typically held power, in alliance with the nation's wealthiest and selfish interests. It is they who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, maintained slavery in the South, opposed voting rights' for women, turned their back on starving farmers, martryed labor leaders, threw the Socialists in jail for speaking out against WWI, opposed anti-trust legislation, let loose the dogs on Martin Luther King, and sent our young men to die needlessly in Vietnam.
Today, that tradition is being continued by politicians like Bush and Ashcroft who seek precisely to limit our liberty and threaten democracy. To uphold America-under-Bush as a beacon of openness for the rest of the world plays into their hands.
Slashdot Mirror
From Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam's well-researched work on the "collapse of American community:
I have a hard time buying this. A quick glance at population growth in the U.S. over the last hundred years reveals that we're really not growing all that fast at the moment -- in the 1950s -- which social scientists note for a very high degree of civic engagement -- population was routinely growing at almost 2% a year. But for the past ten years, it's been less than 1%. Moreover, with birth rates at historic lows, much of the population increase we're seeing is coming from immigration -- communities which by necessity are characterized by dense social networks.
If there's a culprit to be found in population patterns and geographic movements, it's not so much in urbanization (most cities have been losing people over the last few decades) -- as in suburbanization -- a pattern of life which is characterized by atomization and long commute times, leading Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone) speaks of a "sprawl civic penalty".
It's easy to resent union workers for having pay, benefits, and job security that other workers lack. But the solution to that is to strengthen unions, rather than weaken them. Higher union density means better wages, benefits, and conditions for everyone.
Compare the situation of workers in the U.S. to other industrialization nations with higher unionization rates, and you'll discover American workers are being seriously screwed.
Also consider the history of the United States. Appreciate the 40 hour work week? Think having a strong middle class has been good for the country? Thank the labor movement. It's not a coincidence that it's begun to disappear (real wages falling since the 1970s) at the same time as the unions have been weakened.
Check out the AFL-CIO's All About Unions page, and think seriously about the consequences of scabbing.
"Joe won't be coming in to work and you can't fire him nor can you hire a temporary replacement for him."
Actually, you can usually do both those things, because our (U.S.) labor laws suck.
Absolutely. But if it were just about gambling, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it. Actually, the WTO, in its relatively short history, has accumulated quite a record of overturning democratically-enacted laws designed to protect consumers, workers, and the environment, ranging from dolphin-safe tuna to gasoline emissions to genetically modified organisms.
Check out Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch for more info.
This is the just the tip of the iceberg with the FTAA, affectionately known as "NAFTA on Steroids." It would wreck havoc on the hemisphere, bringing living standards, wages, environmental protections, etc. down everywhere. This isn't about free trade, it's about a corporate-driven race to the bottom.
Conveniently, the next meeting to plan it is in Miami next month, giving us the convenient opportunity to deliver our thoughts on these matters in person. For more info on the FTAA and the Miamo demonstrations, check out the Citizens Trade Campaign.
Couldn't agree with you more on that PATRIOT Act. However, in the interests of accuracy:
Sen. John Kerry: Voted for
Sen. John Edwards: Voted for
Sen. Joe Lieberman: Voted for
Sen. Bob Graham: Voted for
Rep. Dick Gephardt: Voted for
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Voted AGAINST, and has strongly criticized
ex-Gov. Howard Dean: never been in Congress, but has expressed concern/opposition
ex-Sen. Mosely-Braun: wasn't in Congress at the time, opposes
Al Sharpton: never been in Congress, opposes
Dean's position at this point could actually mean quite a lot, because the Democratic nomination will probably be determined before the first primary or caucus vote is cast. There hasn't been a true upset for the nomination since Jimmy Carter in 1976. The primary process is simply too front-loaded -- the season starts early, and then the primaries come all at once -- for a candidate to come from behind and build up momentum. What will determine the nomination is the "invisible primary": who raises the most money the quickest, closely related to who gets endorsements from important constituencies (most notably organized labor, but also enviro, civil rights, and women's groups). Right now, Howard Dean is tied in that race (thanks almost entirely to individual donations over the internet), with only about six months to go.
Whether any of them can beat Bush is an entirely separate question (to which I suspect the answer is no).
Not quite. But since you didn't bother to make the argument, let me present it for you. As governor of Vermont, Dean alienated many Progressives and Liberal Democrats through his sometimes-extreme fiscal conservatism (including cuts in taxes and state spending). He's also got a mixed to conservative record on gun rights, welfare, and Israel/Palestine.
You're right that Dean has been presented (and to some degree, presented himself) as much further to the left than his record shows. To call him a moderate, however is to miss the mark. If his Vermont record was centrist, it was centrist by Vermont standards, a politically idiosyncratic state represented by an independent self-avowed socialist in the U.S. House (Bernie Sanders). And it's a record that also includes being the first and only governor to sign legislation providing for same-sex civil unions, as well as a bill radically revamping public school funding to make it more equitable. Moreover, Dean has been a forceful and articulate critic of the Bush administration, including its foreign policy, while the establishment candidates (Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards) merely stick their fingers in the air, nervously tempering their rhetoric from week to week.
Personally, I'm a cautious supporter. I volunteered for Nader in 2000, and I'd be much happier with Dennis Kucinich (who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomination), but we desperately need a revitalized Democratic Party that's actually willing to stand for something if this country is to have any hope of moving away from the disastrous path Bush & co. have placed us on.
This legislation can be stopped. It only takes 40 Senators to filibuster a bill, and if the Democrats are willing to show some guts, there might be enough pro-civil liberties Republicans to shoot it down there, too.
Immediately go the ACLU's action page where you can send a free fax to your representatives. It'll take you all of 15 seconds.
Next, call both of your Senators and your representative. Politely but firmly demand that they vote against this. Make clear that how your senator votes on civil liberties issues is very important to you.
If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote (PDF document).
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Doesn't have to be a great work of prose, just give an example or two of how the PATRIOT Act threatens the constitution. Give the Ben Franklin quote. Letters to the Editor is one of the most read sections of the newspaper, and politicos read it closely.
Tell your friends. Sure, some people get irritated when politics gets brought up, but that's a small price to pay for the future of American democracy.
Lastly, act on your belief when election time comes around. Donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who are on record supporting constitutional liberties.
North Korea may export terrorist and technology but it hasn't invaded anyone in 50 years and it doesn't gas it's civilians nor does it do shitty things to wetlands or coastal areas.
So let me get this straight: North Korea shows a decade-long drive to develop nuclear weapons, and is openly hostile to the United States. It also feeds its army while the population suffers from severe famine. Now it's posturing about using nukes, and the Bush administration doesn't seem particularly concerned. But Iraq poses a threat?
Iraq invades and invades and shots anti-ship missiles and generally carries on.
So you're admitting, then, that this isn't about weapons of mass destruction?
Now, you claim that Iraq gasses its civilians, that it "do[es] shitty things to wetlands and coastal areas" (I presume you're referring to the draining of the areas traditionally inherited by the Marsh Arabs), that it "invades and invades," that it "shots [sic] anti-ship missiles" (the only thing I can figure you might be referring to is anti-aircraft fire in the "no fly" zone) and "generally carries on."
Let's take these one by one:
Yes, Iraq did use chemical weapons against civilian populations. This was almost twenty years ago, when Iraq was enjoying the support of the U.S., during the Iraq-Iran War (if memory serves, the U.S. actively supported the use of chemical weapons against Iranians).
Draining of wetlands falls into a similar category as an egregious behavior against a civilian population. Although I'm not entirely sure how different it is from financing dam projects that flood areas also inhabited by indigenous populations, which the World Bank is famous for.
In both cases, it fits the larger trend of the United States supporting governments which commit terrible acts of repression and genocide against their own peoples. (See also: Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, etc.)
As for Iraq "invad[ing] and invad[ing]," I know of two instances. One was an attempted invasion of Iran, actively supported by the U.S. The other, of course, was the invasion of Kuwait. Both were well over ten years ago.
Now, assuming you refer to Iraq's anti-aircraft fire in the No-Fly Zones, the U.S. and Britain have zero argument under international law. The "No-Fly Zones" are arbitrarily dictated by the U.S. and Britain, without any sort of U.N. mandate. I'm no more in favor of Saddam firing on U.S. pilots than I am of Bush bombing Iraqi civilians, but Iraqi hositility to illegal U.S./U.K. patrolling is hardly a basis for war.
So what we have hear is a litany of accusations, mostly for crimes committed over a decade ago and with the support of the United States, and we're supposed to take this as a case for the U.S. invading in 2003? Even as plenty of other countries have taken similar actions, and many continue to occupy territory illegally under international law (most notably Turkey and Israel)?
Huh?!
The young men and women the Administration is sending off all volunteered to be in the service, then volunteered again to be in an MOS that would put them in harms way.
Two points:
1) With the demise of an actual draft in this country, we have developed a poverty draft, where for many kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, the military seems to be the only viable career option, and a good way to pay for college. Obviously there are exceptions, but the military is disproportionaly black and working-class compared to society at large. There's a reason you see more recruiting stations in poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones.
2) So what? They volunteered, therefore our leaders shouldn't give a second thought to risking their lives?
Now, as for oil and empire:
Why does the United States care about Iraq?
Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have nothing to do with it. Plenty of governments around the world possess WMDs (including nuclear weapons, which Iraq does not have) in flagrant violation of international law. Several of them, most notably Pakistan, receive the support of the United States. Hell, North Korea is openly posturing itself as an agressive nuclear power, and the administration hardly seems to care. Moreover, Saddam developed his WMD programs in the 1980s with the active support of the Reagan and Bush I administrations.
No, U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf has everything to do with oil. Nobody in the foreign policy establishment denies it. The world's richest supplies of oil are in the Persian Gulf, a region with a number of countries which are unfriendly to the United States. Hence, it is the stated policy of the U.S. government that we will take military action to defend our "interests" there (look up the Carter Doctrine of 1980 sometime if you don't believe me).
In the 1980s, that meant supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, supplying Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars worth of weapons, and looking the other way when he committed acts of genocide against Shi'ites and Kurds (just as the U.S. is looking the other way now while Turkey commits similar atrocities towards its Kurds).
At the end of the '80s, however, Iraq and Kuwait became involved in a dispute over oil prices (Kuwait, friendly to the U.S., was pumping more oil than Iraq and OPEC wanted it to, lowering prices, which hurt Iraq) and slant drilling. In 1990, Saddam made the mistake of invading Kuwait. Everyone knows the story from there.
Fast-forward to 2002, and we've got hawks like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and co. in the administration, and they're hopping mad that some of the world's most valuable oil fields are controlled by a government openly hostile to the United States. Saddam cutting deals with U.S. oil companies isn't a viable option, because he remains in power, becomes much wealthier, and continues to be a thorn in the U.S.'s side.
That's why an anonymous administration official was recently quoted in a news report as saying, "If you were trying to talk about Iraq and if you were not encumbered by the fear that your actions would be linked to ExxonMobil or the oil industry, you'd be talking about oil issues."
As for empire, the Bushies are speakly very openly about a decade-long military occupation, drawing comparisons with Japan. The idea will be to consolidate power (in what would otherwise become a very fractured country) in the hands of a government friendly to U.S. interests. There's also talk that Iran could be next, as part of a broader plan to "democratize" the Middle East (read: create regimes which pose no problems for continued American hegemony in the region).
I don't know about you, but I call that oil imperialism.
Obviously anything that could save peoples' lives is good. But the fact remains that CNN (and /., for that matter) devoting coverage to Pentagon public relations sideshows is bad journalism.
./, for making their wishes come true.
You want to save the lives of American troops? Try not putting them in harm's way in the first place!
The Bush administration is about to send young American men to die in Iraq for some combination of oil interests and delusions of empire, and we're supposed to believe it'll all be okay because of some new bandages?! In the run-up to war, Bush's people would rather we be fascinated by new military toys than considering the wisdom of their own warmongering; Thank you, CNN and
And in my haste, I have flubbed up the quote. That last one is from Joe Hill, as he went to be hanged for a murder he probably did not commit.
The famous quote from Mother Jones is "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living."
It is, as Mary Lease (a Kansas Populist) said in 1890:
"Wall street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street."
Take hope, however. In time, most of the Populist reforms were enacted. Which leads me to another quote, better known, from Mother Jones:
"Don't mourn, organize!"
The issue isn't the infrastructure of the Internet. It's all the millions of other ways that you're benefiting from government services and infrastructure, regardless of whether you order your goods on a website or at a retail counter. At the top of the list is probably the roads via which your just-ordered good will arrive.
WA has one of the worst budget shortfalls in the country, and we have no income tax.
Geezus, voodoo economic never really dies, does it?
First off, state (and federal, for that matter) fiscal crises at the moment aren't being caused because of escalating spending (with the significant exception of prisons). Rather, it's because the economy is tanking, so revenues are declining. Also, the corporate welfare that legislators have been passing out over the past few decades are finally catching up with them. (You know, the ones where they give employers tax breaks just in time for them to layoff large numbers of people -- does a great job stimulating the economy, I can assure you.)
Secondly, if you want to put more money into the economy, reducing taxes across the board is a bad way to do it, because you'll mostly wind up putting money in the pockets of the wealthy, who have a low marginal propensity to consume (so the money doesn't wind up going into the economy).
Rather, we should pursue tax policy specifically designed to put money in the hands of working class people, who are much more likely to spend it. The Economic Policy Institute has a great counter-economic stimulus plan which calls for, among other things, a one-time bonus of 3.5% on the first $15,000 of earned wages. Another major stimulus to the economy would be a national single-payer health plan, which would massively cut overhead and red tape in health care, saving billions of dollars for everyone concerned.
Or, to return to the point, we could abolish sales taxes, which not only discourage consumption but are also regressive, with the burden falling unfairly on poor and working-class people. Failing that, however, not applying sales taxes to transactions occuring over the internet creates an unfair business advantage which threatens the vitality of locally-based retail business, which has serious economic and social consequences.
They tax spending, they tax saving, and the only thing they encourage is earning no income at all.
Alright, I'll call you on this one -- how does the government tax saving?
And before you launch into some nonsense about the capital gains tax, realize that most of the capital gains ordinary people make aren't taxed, largely because of the one-time exemption for home sales. The overwhelming burden of the capital gains taxes fall on wealthy speculators, for whom it really is their primary source of income.
The official number for the Department of Defense for 2003 is $380 billion dollars. (As with all that follows, this number is based on the president's proposed budget for the year. Congress wouldn't dare cut it significantly, though they often add some pork.)
Now that's ridiculous enough. It's a good deal more than we spent during the Cold War, more than any other country on the face of the earth, and several times that of all of our potential enemies combined. Meanwhile, we're slashing funding for social services.
Then there's another $17 billion for nuclear weapons, that politicians have thoughtfully placed under the Department of Energy budget, for a total of $396 billion. (Both of those figures, incidentally, are also from the CDI's website, only for FY 2003).
My suspicion is that the original poster probably got his numbers from the War Resisters League, which puts out a great little flyer called Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes. Their purpose is not so much to discuss year-to-year policy decisions as to emphasize the degree of the tax burden that is the fault of military spending.
They come up with a total figure of $776 billion for 2003. $437 billion is current military spending, which is the DoD budget, plus DoE nuke programs, plus portions of the budgets for other federal programs which are used in large part for military purposes (CIA, Coast Guard, NASA, FEMA, etc.). Then there's $339 billion in military spending: $57 billion in veterans' benefits and $282 billion in interest on the national debt (80% estimated created by military spending). Neither of those are discretionary from the point of view of the annual budget process, but they are definitely indicative of how runaway military spending increases our tax burden.
None of this, however, is particularly relevant for the original context of this discussion, because sales taxes are state and local, not federal. My personal opinion is that we can solve the whole problem by doing away with most sales taxes, which are regressive, and funding government primarily through a steeply progressive income tax (both personal and corporate).
[Please ignore my other post -- inadvertently hit the wrong button.]
...
/. determined the contradict the obvious social reality of sexism (especially without any particular rationale, as was the case here).
/. with oppression in the Two-Thirds World. But that still doesn't justify making blanketly sexist/bigoted comments, as several posters here have done.
If you are suggesting that subjective experience is unassailable from the point of view of a third party
I am not making such a universal claim, only speculating that a woman is probably more qualified to judge her own experience with a professor than some random guy on
No one calls a woman a "blowhard" for criticizing men.
No, instead she is often tagged with a much more derisive label (i.e., bitch).
That's not too say that I approve of anti-male jokes. They too contribute to stereotyping and restrictive socially-enforced gender roles. There is a very critical difference between comments stereotyping women and those targeting men -- men hold most of the power in this society: in education, government, business, and so forth. This means that men's attitudes towards women have serious negative consequences for women, visible in everything from pay inequity to the lack of female politicians to alarmingly high rates of man-on-woman sexual assault.
Much of the "coercion" displayed in this thread as anecdotal evidence would be laughed at by those suffering hardships in other countries.
You're setting up a strawman here. I never used the word "coercion," nor attempted to equate insensitivy on
People who do bad in school do so because they are not interested in their school work. Is is the fault of the school that they lack interest?
Not always. Numerous studies have shown that teachers often call on boys more often, encourage them more, and provide other not-so-subtle to girls that they are less capable as students (particularly in math and science fields.) It may be unconscious on their part, but it still has very real effects, as plenty of women will tell you (assuming you actually listen to them, instead of telling them you know better, as has been done in this discussion).
If you are suggesting that subjective experience is unassailable from the point of view of a third party, you should reconsider your beliefs about those who claim to have experienced alien abductions, or religious awakenings.
I admit it's a tough cookie to crack and I don't think there's any simple solutions.
..."
However, I do think it all depends on how the issue is raised. There are a few openings I've found work:
1) Any conversation about the future of technology. If a non-techish friends asks you anything about where computers and media will be going in the future, point out that much of that will depend on the threats posed by big media companies to consumer freedom.
2) Any mention of the use of current technologies which are threatened by repressive legislation.
- "So I just burned a great mix CD from the mp3s on my computer."
- "Cool. Did you know that if the record industry has their way, no one will be able to do that in a few years?
3) Any conversation about abuses of corporate power in general. A great many folks these days have become very distrustful of corporate behemoths for obvious reasons. Often they will get what you're talking about much more quickly if it can be related to their own experiences and opinions about corporations. Corporate control over politics is a particularly good opening.
- "Well that's because politicians don't give a damn about the voters, only the corporate fatcats that are giving them money."
- "Yeah, isn't it terrible? Did you know the record and movie companies have been donating millions of dollars to restrict our freedoms to listen to music and watch movies on computers?"
(In my travels in leftie political circles, I've often found that even people who don't know the first thing about technology often have a sympathetic ear for topics like the DMCA and such, because they're already _very_ suspicious of media conglomerates, for a whole slew of other reasons.)
Anyhow, keep up the good fight.
Browsing through this thread should give anyone a pretty good sense of why women might not be going into the field.
./ guy knows what she experienced better than she does.)
Could it be connected to the fact that anytime the gender disparity issue gets raised, the reaction on the part of men is to reply with old sexist jokes and pathetic rationalizations ("women just aren't wired for computers")?
Then, if some amazingly brave woman actually has the courage to relate her experiences with sexism in CS departments (I noticed one -- thank you neuroticia), the thanks she gets is accusations of paranoia (becuase obviously some blowhard
Even a man relating the experiences of a woman he knew in CS being stalked gets met with claims that women are just being too oversensitive.
There isn't one simple explanation for why women aren't going into computers, but it might have something to do with men's total lack of restraint in making blatantly sexist and obnoxious comments whenever the subject is raised.
Yes and no.
As an American who opposes most of "my" government's policies, who fall back on this sort of reasoning as a defense of American imperialism and plutocracy. The implication that we ought to stand united behind a government which fails to represent our interests simply because we don't get in locked in jail for saying so is absurd. Moreover, there are plenty of countries around the world which respect the most basic civil liberties of its citizens (and quite a number that do a better job of it).
The history of American is largely one two separate threads. One is those who have advocated for the continued expansion of this great experiment we call democracy -- the anti-Federalists, abolitionists, sufragettes, Populists, labor unionists, Socialists, (some) progressives, New Dealers, and the Civil Rights and peace activists of the 60s.
On the other side is those who have typically held power, in alliance with the nation's wealthiest and selfish interests. It is they who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, maintained slavery in the South, opposed voting rights' for women, turned their back on starving farmers, martryed labor leaders, threw the Socialists in jail for speaking out against WWI, opposed anti-trust legislation, let loose the dogs on Martin Luther King, and sent our young men to die needlessly in Vietnam.
Today, that tradition is being continued by politicians like Bush and Ashcroft who seek precisely to limit our liberty and threaten democracy. To uphold America-under-Bush as a beacon of openness for the rest of the world plays into their hands.