This one is my favorite. They've spent the last 35 years telling men to be better listeners, and getting them in touch with their feelings, and now I read all these articles wondering where all the masculine, take-charge men have gone. It's kinda funny, really.
The funny part is that you read that shit.
Did you also read about the new diet secret that personal trainers don't want you to know about? Or that new face cream that plastic surgeons hate?
I'm sorry if my tastes are too varied for you. Going forward I'll make sure to restrict my reading to graphic novels and the Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers.
men are being told at school and university that they must adhere to a feminist ideal that in turn puts off many women that want a successful alpha male as a partner.
This one is my favorite. They've spent the last 35 years telling men to be better listeners, and getting them in touch with their feelings, and now I read all these articles wondering where all the masculine, take-charge men have gone. It's kinda funny, really.
I have the right to not be forced to breathe cancer inducing air from someone who chooses to pollute their own body with such things.
What? No, you don't. You have no such right. But regardless, you are not being forced to do anything. If someone is doing something objectionable near you, you are free to leave. An further, let's be real: breathing in a little cigarette smoke while sitting in the park will have no effect on your health. You just don't like the smell.
The resolution says pornography "equates violence toward women and children with sex and pain with pleasure, which increases the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images, and child pornography."
I don't know which sites the Governor has been sampling, but my tastes are much more tame.
Yes, you do. Because you didn't ask one question, you asked ten, while suggesting a media conspiracy.
Oh, so that's the limit? One question is okay, but 10 is too many to be taken seriously? But I really asked only one question: why was there molten metal found under all three buildings that collapsed in New York? I didn't mean to suggest a media conspiracy. In fact, the media are how we know about the molten metal.
Oh, and one more thing. We have more than one goal. We could stop all traffic fatalities by banning vehicles. But we would lose so much convenience and utility that the trade off would not be worth it. So in talking about the ends justifying the means, we have to not only make sure that our means will result in the desired end but also that we don't lose something more valuable in the process (like our privacy and freedom in the case of surveillance).
When it comes to rooting out terrorist cells and keeping our citizens safe, I don't understand why we are trying to handcuff the people we've tasked with doing this. We've given them a job to do and withheld the tools they need to do it effectively.
The reason is that if they are not regulated and monitored (what you call handcuffing) they will exceed the scope of their mandate. They will spy for political, personal, and criminal reasons. They will do things with their powers other than rooting out terrorists and keeping people safe. Those with power are prone to abuse it. We cannot assume they are all benevolent or wise. So there must be limits on their power, and this is one of them.
I would also point out that the ends never justify the means; the ends are the means. The way in which you go about something determines the outcome. If I told you I wanted to build a functioning car engine out of cheese, would you say the ends justify the means? No, because the means I am using will not bring about the desired end. Likewise if I say I want to bring peace to a region by killing most of the people there, we cannot say the ends justify the means because killing people does not bring peace; only the choice not to kill brings peace. So there should be no question as to whether the ends justify the means. The question should be whether a given course of action will bring about the desired result and what the side effects will be. In the case of surveillance stopping terrorism, I don't think that question has been adequately answered.
So people who say "jet fuel doesn't ordinarily burn hot enough to ignite structural steel, so that's odd..." or "isn't it convenient so many people hadn't gotten to work yet" are generally not painted as crazy conspiracy theory nuts. But if you turn that into "GWB and all those Arabs caused 9/11" then you'll be called a conspiracy theorist.
Yes, those people certainly are painted as crazy conspiracy theorists. S.petry is right, anyone who questions what everyone has been told about 9/11 is labeled a nut. Let's take your example. It has been well publicized that burning jet fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel in open air. It has been less well publicized that first responders reported molten steel "flowing like lava", "like you were in a foundry", under all three buildings that collapsed. Is molten metal a common aspect of building collapse? I am not aware that it is. If not, why was it there? Why did the rubble pile burn for 3 months, literally melting the boots of people working on it? What was the source of the heat necessary to do that under all three buildings? And finally, why is there no mention of that in any of the government reports?
So, do I sound like a conspiracy theorist yet? Are you taking me seriously? Of course not, because any questioning of what we have been told, any identification of something that doesn't fit with the story, leads to the idea there has been a cover up. And suggesting that there has been a cover up in relation to 9/11 is something people consider a conspiracy theory.
The government, the president is siding with Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 families.
Is anybody really shocked by this? Obama has made it a habit of failing to live up to his campaign promise to "run the most transparent administration in American history."
It's not about Obama though. Or, it is bigger than Obama. The Bush Administration did the same thing. Absent some outside pressure, the next administration would likely do it as well. But you're right, it's not shocking or it should not be.
Most people wouldn't think that a national government would prioritize ongoing economic, strategic and military goals and partnerships over telling the truth about the worst terrorist attack in the country's history. But that's actually exactly what they would do. These people send others off to die in war on a regular basis. They take actions that ensure the deaths of thousands of people. They know that, in the abstract, human life is cheap. They won't let something like knowing who funded the 9/11 attacks stand in the way of geo-strategic concerns; especially if that funding came from a valuable partner. If they are paying attention, this is when the people of the US can find out just how much their government cares about them.
I abhor terrorism - I despise those who fund terrorists
Yeah, but you buy gasoline, which could be made from Saudi crude. So that funds terrorism. And you pay taxes in the US, and the US funds terrorism when it suits the purpose. Yeah, they don't call it terrorism, but it is. So that funds terrorism.
It's not you personally, it's just that one cannot live in the modern world with a clean conscience. Look hard enough and you find some terrible thing you are indirectly supporting.
If you were a police officer, I doubt you would have gotten a ticket. If you were a police officer with the lights on, you certainly wouldn't, because you'd be doing it in the course of your official duties. The Secretary of State is at a sufficiently high level to bend the rules in the course of her official duties, because the duties are more important than the rules.
The duties are more important than the rules? Is that like the ends justifying the means? It seems that if the rules are not to be enforced at that level, then they shouldn't be the rules. As the AC below me asked, where does this stop? Who decides which rules can be bent, and how far? Does the President decide which breaches of security warrant a response and which don't? I guess Nixon was right when he said that something is not illegal if the President does it.
Look, I know this is how the world works. But the examples you gave of having different rules for officials acting in their official capacity don't reflect the same dynamic. It is codified in law that police are allowed to drive over the speed limit when responding to an emergency. That's why they get the fancy lights and siren. What we have in the case of Sec. Clinton is more like a cop being pulled over for speeding when off duty, and being let go by the other officer because they're both cops and what's the big deal. Sorry, but that's corruption. It's low level corruption, but it's still corruption. Those in positions of power should be held to a higher standard because of their position, not given special dispensation when they end up on the wrong side of the law. But again, I know how the world works. I don't have to agree with it and will continue to point out the double standard that separates the powerful from the rest of us.
President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.
A similar thing happened to me recently. I got a little careless in managing my speed on the highway, but I would never intentionally do anything to endanger other drivers. So citing the President's logic I will not be paying the fine I received. Is that how it works now?
You look silly with that hook in your mouth. I'd almost say that there's no way in hell that they could honestly hold those opinions but, sadly, there are those who do. However, in this particular case, they're just tossing some cheap bait out there and hoping for a couple of strikes. Now you're sitting here with a hook dangling from your lip and looking silly.;-)
Heh, maybe. But as you say, there are people out there who think like the guy I responded to. And I was calm and measured in my response, so I don't think I look silly. But regardless, I got +5 Insightful.;-)
I feel a little safer going about my daily activities knowing that, while nothing can prevent all possible forms of terrorism, at least someone is keeping an eye out and looking for irregulatities. The bad guys need to be perfect to escape detection, and they've shown that they really are not capable of that. I know a lot of people feel threatened by this an complain, but stop and think for a minute if you lived in a land where there was utter lawlessness and you were afraid to leave your house for fear of being robbed or assaulted. I think those people that complain are spoiled by 100+ years of success in our country and take our safeness for granted. A lot of the world is not so lucky.
I remember a time when the authorities were not monitoring people all the time and I still lived in a very safe society. So this type of surveillance is not required to have a safe society. Terrorism existed then, too. We just weren't as terrified by it.
I also keep in mind that my idea of a "bad guy" (such an unfortunate term, as there is no such thing) may be different from the FBI's idea of a "bad guy". The FBI considered Occupy Wall Street protesters to be "bad guys". On the flip side they also consider members of the Patriot movement to be "bad guys". I know it's almost inconceivable, but any one of us could be considered a "bad guy" for reasons we haven't even thought of. Therefore there needs to be a balanced solution. And over the past 15 years I think things have gotten out of balance.
Not exactly. Those 8,000 jobs will be in Boston, but they'll be H1B jobs. It actually makes sense because there isn't really a skilled tech workforce in Boston.
Is that why Microsoft, Google, EMC, Care and Amazon have offices there?
You need to remember that Massachusetts was founded by Puritans and Boston is predominantly Catholic. Neither of those groups are particularly friendly to those who live outside the norm. (And, yes, Massachusetts is still littered with churches that trace their roots directly to the Puritans. They're slowly dying out but they still exist!) There's a reason people refer to people from the state as "Massholes" and it isn't because they have a friendly, welcoming personality.
But you also need to remember that Massachusetts has a shitload of colleges. That means people come to the state from all over the country. So while there is a strong Catholic base in Massachusetts, it is also very cosmopolitan.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny. It's like you think you know me or something.
This one is my favorite. They've spent the last 35 years telling men to be better listeners, and getting them in touch with their feelings, and now I read all these articles wondering where all the masculine, take-charge men have gone. It's kinda funny, really.
The funny part is that you read that shit. Did you also read about the new diet secret that personal trainers don't want you to know about? Or that new face cream that plastic surgeons hate?
I'm sorry if my tastes are too varied for you. Going forward I'll make sure to restrict my reading to graphic novels and the Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers.
No one expects it!
men are being told at school and university that they must adhere to a feminist ideal that in turn puts off many women that want a successful alpha male as a partner.
This one is my favorite. They've spent the last 35 years telling men to be better listeners, and getting them in touch with their feelings, and now I read all these articles wondering where all the masculine, take-charge men have gone. It's kinda funny, really.
I say we make the smokers build their own private booths and we will make them pay for its construction!
No, make Mexico pay for it!
public drunkenness is not allowed, so why should smoking be allowed in public?
I would guess it's because smoking and drunkenness are two different things.
The problem is that a lot of smokers think its a good idea to smoke anywhere they are allowed to smoke, regardless of who may be nearby.
Is it always a problem when people do things in the places they are allowed to do them, or just in the case of cigarette smoking?
I have the right to not be forced to breathe cancer inducing air from someone who chooses to pollute their own body with such things.
What? No, you don't. You have no such right. But regardless, you are not being forced to do anything. If someone is doing something objectionable near you, you are free to leave. An further, let's be real: breathing in a little cigarette smoke while sitting in the park will have no effect on your health. You just don't like the smell.
The resolution says pornography "equates violence toward women and children with sex and pain with pleasure, which increases the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images, and child pornography."
I don't know which sites the Governor has been sampling, but my tastes are much more tame.
Yes, you do. Because you didn't ask one question, you asked ten, while suggesting a media conspiracy.
Oh, so that's the limit? One question is okay, but 10 is too many to be taken seriously? But I really asked only one question: why was there molten metal found under all three buildings that collapsed in New York? I didn't mean to suggest a media conspiracy. In fact, the media are how we know about the molten metal.
Oh, and one more thing. We have more than one goal. We could stop all traffic fatalities by banning vehicles. But we would lose so much convenience and utility that the trade off would not be worth it. So in talking about the ends justifying the means, we have to not only make sure that our means will result in the desired end but also that we don't lose something more valuable in the process (like our privacy and freedom in the case of surveillance).
When it comes to rooting out terrorist cells and keeping our citizens safe, I don't understand why we are trying to handcuff the people we've tasked with doing this. We've given them a job to do and withheld the tools they need to do it effectively.
The reason is that if they are not regulated and monitored (what you call handcuffing) they will exceed the scope of their mandate. They will spy for political, personal, and criminal reasons. They will do things with their powers other than rooting out terrorists and keeping people safe. Those with power are prone to abuse it. We cannot assume they are all benevolent or wise. So there must be limits on their power, and this is one of them.
I would also point out that the ends never justify the means; the ends are the means. The way in which you go about something determines the outcome. If I told you I wanted to build a functioning car engine out of cheese, would you say the ends justify the means? No, because the means I am using will not bring about the desired end. Likewise if I say I want to bring peace to a region by killing most of the people there, we cannot say the ends justify the means because killing people does not bring peace; only the choice not to kill brings peace. So there should be no question as to whether the ends justify the means. The question should be whether a given course of action will bring about the desired result and what the side effects will be. In the case of surveillance stopping terrorism, I don't think that question has been adequately answered.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? We don't want them going to the Russians or the Chinese... Oy! The things we do for love...
Nuke em` and they won't be going anywhere.
Are you seriously suggesting we attack Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons?
*Looks at member number*
Oh, no you're not seriously suggesting that. You're just young enough to say something that stupid.
So people who say "jet fuel doesn't ordinarily burn hot enough to ignite structural steel, so that's odd..." or "isn't it convenient so many people hadn't gotten to work yet" are generally not painted as crazy conspiracy theory nuts. But if you turn that into "GWB and all those Arabs caused 9/11" then you'll be called a conspiracy theorist.
Yes, those people certainly are painted as crazy conspiracy theorists. S.petry is right, anyone who questions what everyone has been told about 9/11 is labeled a nut. Let's take your example. It has been well publicized that burning jet fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel in open air. It has been less well publicized that first responders reported molten steel "flowing like lava", "like you were in a foundry", under all three buildings that collapsed. Is molten metal a common aspect of building collapse? I am not aware that it is. If not, why was it there? Why did the rubble pile burn for 3 months, literally melting the boots of people working on it? What was the source of the heat necessary to do that under all three buildings? And finally, why is there no mention of that in any of the government reports?
So, do I sound like a conspiracy theorist yet? Are you taking me seriously? Of course not, because any questioning of what we have been told, any identification of something that doesn't fit with the story, leads to the idea there has been a cover up. And suggesting that there has been a cover up in relation to 9/11 is something people consider a conspiracy theory.
The government, the president is siding with Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 families.
Is anybody really shocked by this? Obama has made it a habit of failing to live up to his campaign promise to "run the most transparent administration in American history."
It's not about Obama though. Or, it is bigger than Obama. The Bush Administration did the same thing. Absent some outside pressure, the next administration would likely do it as well. But you're right, it's not shocking or it should not be.
Most people wouldn't think that a national government would prioritize ongoing economic, strategic and military goals and partnerships over telling the truth about the worst terrorist attack in the country's history. But that's actually exactly what they would do. These people send others off to die in war on a regular basis. They take actions that ensure the deaths of thousands of people. They know that, in the abstract, human life is cheap. They won't let something like knowing who funded the 9/11 attacks stand in the way of geo-strategic concerns; especially if that funding came from a valuable partner. If they are paying attention, this is when the people of the US can find out just how much their government cares about them.
I do not fund terrorist
I abhor terrorism - I despise those who fund terrorists
Yeah, but you buy gasoline, which could be made from Saudi crude. So that funds terrorism. And you pay taxes in the US, and the US funds terrorism when it suits the purpose. Yeah, they don't call it terrorism, but it is. So that funds terrorism.
It's not you personally, it's just that one cannot live in the modern world with a clean conscience. Look hard enough and you find some terrible thing you are indirectly supporting.
Let's hope so! My hearing is tomorrow.
If you were a police officer, I doubt you would have gotten a ticket. If you were a police officer with the lights on, you certainly wouldn't, because you'd be doing it in the course of your official duties. The Secretary of State is at a sufficiently high level to bend the rules in the course of her official duties, because the duties are more important than the rules.
The duties are more important than the rules? Is that like the ends justifying the means? It seems that if the rules are not to be enforced at that level, then they shouldn't be the rules. As the AC below me asked, where does this stop? Who decides which rules can be bent, and how far? Does the President decide which breaches of security warrant a response and which don't? I guess Nixon was right when he said that something is not illegal if the President does it.
Look, I know this is how the world works. But the examples you gave of having different rules for officials acting in their official capacity don't reflect the same dynamic. It is codified in law that police are allowed to drive over the speed limit when responding to an emergency. That's why they get the fancy lights and siren. What we have in the case of Sec. Clinton is more like a cop being pulled over for speeding when off duty, and being let go by the other officer because they're both cops and what's the big deal. Sorry, but that's corruption. It's low level corruption, but it's still corruption. Those in positions of power should be held to a higher standard because of their position, not given special dispensation when they end up on the wrong side of the law. But again, I know how the world works. I don't have to agree with it and will continue to point out the double standard that separates the powerful from the rest of us.
President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.
A similar thing happened to me recently. I got a little careless in managing my speed on the highway, but I would never intentionally do anything to endanger other drivers. So citing the President's logic I will not be paying the fine I received. Is that how it works now?
It's also rear wheel drive. It's as if they don't want people in northern climates driving them
You didn't RTFA. It will come in RWD and AWD. And besides, I drove RWD cars for years in the north east. It's not an issue if you know how to drive.
You look silly with that hook in your mouth. I'd almost say that there's no way in hell that they could honestly hold those opinions but, sadly, there are those who do. However, in this particular case, they're just tossing some cheap bait out there and hoping for a couple of strikes. Now you're sitting here with a hook dangling from your lip and looking silly. ;-)
Heh, maybe. But as you say, there are people out there who think like the guy I responded to. And I was calm and measured in my response, so I don't think I look silly. But regardless, I got +5 Insightful. ;-)
These flights actually started under Bush.
On this subject there is little difference between the parties. On abortion, sure. On mass surveillance, they're all for it.
I feel a little safer going about my daily activities knowing that, while nothing can prevent all possible forms of terrorism, at least someone is keeping an eye out and looking for irregulatities. The bad guys need to be perfect to escape detection, and they've shown that they really are not capable of that. I know a lot of people feel threatened by this an complain, but stop and think for a minute if you lived in a land where there was utter lawlessness and you were afraid to leave your house for fear of being robbed or assaulted. I think those people that complain are spoiled by 100+ years of success in our country and take our safeness for granted. A lot of the world is not so lucky.
I remember a time when the authorities were not monitoring people all the time and I still lived in a very safe society. So this type of surveillance is not required to have a safe society. Terrorism existed then, too. We just weren't as terrified by it.
I also keep in mind that my idea of a "bad guy" (such an unfortunate term, as there is no such thing) may be different from the FBI's idea of a "bad guy". The FBI considered Occupy Wall Street protesters to be "bad guys". On the flip side they also consider members of the Patriot movement to be "bad guys". I know it's almost inconceivable, but any one of us could be considered a "bad guy" for reasons we haven't even thought of. Therefore there needs to be a balanced solution. And over the past 15 years I think things have gotten out of balance.
Not exactly. Those 8,000 jobs will be in Boston, but they'll be H1B jobs. It actually makes sense because there isn't really a skilled tech workforce in Boston.
Is that why Microsoft, Google, EMC, Care and Amazon have offices there?
You need to remember that Massachusetts was founded by Puritans and Boston is predominantly Catholic. Neither of those groups are particularly friendly to those who live outside the norm. (And, yes, Massachusetts is still littered with churches that trace their roots directly to the Puritans. They're slowly dying out but they still exist!) There's a reason people refer to people from the state as "Massholes" and it isn't because they have a friendly, welcoming personality.
But you also need to remember that Massachusetts has a shitload of colleges. That means people come to the state from all over the country. So while there is a strong Catholic base in Massachusetts, it is also very cosmopolitan.