I have to disagree. I have personally spoken with Dean twice (in Iowa). Then and during most of the speeches that I have heard, he will give a straight answer to a direct question.
I don't agree with everything he says, but I do know where he stands. Ya, I'd rather have some of Kusinich's policies, but I'd also like someone who won't go psycho on stage (which Kusinich did during the 1st debate).
Yeah men's college basketball and football have been completely wiped out of existence. I remember when you used to be able to watch those games on television!
[sarcasm] Ya, I just hate having to channel surf to avoid all the radio stations that play March Madness non-stop 24/7 [/sarcasm]
>..The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA..
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
Think about what you just said. Of course you can't mandate advances in technology! But that's not what is happening. That's not what this bill is even proposing!
+1 insightful my foot.
The parent troll probably would have made the same criticism of Kennedy's vision to make it to the moon. The U.S. has been sorely lacking vision with respect to the space program since the moon program ended. Vision is absolutely essential to the space program. Find your member of congress, and fax your encouragement of this bill.
This was posted by an AC and got modded down as flamebait - I think it's worth people seeing, so here's the post:
"With little real power, is the Palestinian Authority still supposed to enforce copyright restrictions?"
That is a pretty good summation of the situation in Palestine in general. With little real power (and what power there is effectively being granted by an occupational force, historically a poor position for popular support), how is the Palestinian Authority supposed to enforce anything?
"...but on the other hand it seems a bit absurd to think that American laws should govern Iraq."
Who else's laws would govern? The US has excluded the UN at every stage so far, there's no reason to think they might start being inclusive now. On the other hand, the Berne Convention is an internationally recognized treaty regarding copyright, so the concept of copyright would still theoretically be applied by any interim administration. The devil is in the details. I said theoretically; you need electricity to run a P2P network...
Then again, the beauty of military occupation is that you can selectively apply laws as it suits you. "That wasn't a political assasination, he was resisting arrest (looting/breaking curfew/looking at me funny). Honest!".
Here's a troll for the conspiracy theorist neo-nazis: what if EarthStation5 is really a Mossad cover operation selectively distributing files in such a way as to shore up the Jewish dominance of the American entertainment industry by distributing non-Jewish financed productions? Its paranoid, its whacko, and you heard it here first, now flame away!
I am the original poster, and if you'd looked at my reply that's right next to yours you'd have seen me say that, indeed, there are much bigger problems in both Palestine and Iraq. I've visited Israel and Palestine, and talked to people in both places. There's a lot of truly aweful stuff going on.
But, that does not make my original post "crap", nor worth the expletives you shoved on the people who modded it up.
This was a story about filesharing and copyright infringement, and I asked a relevant question! So unless you have something interesting and worthwhile to add to the discussion, sit down and be quiet.
Oh, I agree! There are much more important issues to be dealt with. But I still wonder who, if anyone, is responsible for such matters in Palestine - Israel or the Palestinian Administration?
Most countries are signatories to one or more copyright treaties that commit them to recognizing and protecting international copyrights. They are therefore more or less prohibited from allowing the explicit breach of copyright declared in this PR release.
But who is responsible for enforcing copyright in an occupied country? Palestine has been recognized by the UN as an occupied territory, with Israel as the occupying power. With little real power, is the Palestinian Authority still supposed to enforce copyright restrictions? Or is that for Israel to do?
The same situation would apply, I assume, in Iraq. America is the occupying power, so I would think the same criteria should apply as in the Israel/Palestine situation. There is no true Iraqi government to enforce copyright, but on the other hand it seems a bit absurd to think that American laws should govern Iraq.
The fun bit would be to use a distro that tries as hard as possible to mimic Windows (Lycoris, Lindows...) and see if people notice the difference once their computers reboot....:)
So even if you argue that the ammendment was only intended for members of the milita, it applies to just about every adult anyway. Perhaps originally, but the armed forces and national guard of today is made up of volunteer citizen soldiers.
Your post doesn't really conflict with mine. My argument is that rather than serving as a guarantee of universal freedoms regarding firearm use, the 2nd amendment mandates a well-armed national guard.
Could you point me to the studies you've seen? I'd be interested to take a look.
Perhaps I should have been more precise in my earlier comments. I have absolutely nothing against guns for hunting. Much of my family uses guns for hunting, and there is no reason to prohibit competent trained hunters from using guns in hunting.
Handguns, on the other hand, have absolutely no place whatsoever in the hands of civilians. I have yet to hear a single compelling argument justifying why civilians need to carry handguns. Or, for that matter, to carry guns at all except when hunting. Concerns about preserving liberty can justify civilian possession of firearms, but not their use or carriage in public generally.
But sadly, the gun use in this country comes largely from citizens assaulting fellow citizens. Perhaps a better statement would be this:
People in the U.S commit crimes and acts of violence involving firearms at an alarmingly high rate.
Statistics from the U.S. DoJ place the numbers for violent crimes committed with a gun well above 500,000 in the year 2000. The same reports place the number of murders committed with a gun above 10,000.
And that doesn't even begin to address accidental deaths that could have been prevented by better safety measures (storing ammo and guns separately, locking weapons properly, etc).
Simply put, guns can be extremely dangerous, and as such do require some degree of regulation. I think biometric safety devices might be a good place to start. Perhaps all new guns could have fingerprint sensors so that only the owner can active the weapon. Legitimate use is allowed, but it becomes much more difficult for the gun to be fired inadvertently, and it becomes more difficult for stolen guns to be used in crimes.
And here I thought this country was based on things like freedom and justice. It was based on capitalism and nationalism like everyting before it, huh? Well, yes, and yes. The U.S. was definitely founded by people with a firm belief in freedom and justice. But the founders were a mixed lot, and social baggage doesn't go away easily. So, yes, capitalism and nationalism did play a part in the foundation of the U.S.
What does the Bill of Rights do for us? Does it grant us freedom or does it supply laws and rules and guidelines for us to follow? Believe it or not, some of the founders believed more in the latter interpretation than in the former. Some in fact fought hard against a Bill of Rights, specifically because having one would infer that the people have the rights in the Bill, and none others!
I will acknowledge that my personal belief on this issue may in fact conflict with some of our early leaders. Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of your quoted philosophy - that citizens should routinely rebel against the government. But sadly, the gun use in this country comes largely from citizens assaulting fellow citizens. Hardly the ideals espoused by Jefferson.
I think we need to continue a public discussion on the 2nd Amendment and on gun regulation in general. Too often people on all sides get caught up in the emotions of the topic, and fail to properly communicate their arguments and fail to read the Constitution. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue intelligently with someone who has a different interpretation. Honestly, it makes me think hard about why I believe what I believe!
I do believe that we must safeguard our rights. Whenever those rights start to endanger the public safety, we're in trouble no matter what - either dangerous insecurity abounds or overzealous laws trample liberty. The goal which we must strive towards is that elusive middle ground where liberty is protected and prized, while reasonable security measures are performed in a sensitive manner.
Of the approaches to gun control that I've heard about so far, I like Howard Dean's the best. I got the chance to talk to him when he came to my town in Iowa. It boiled down to this 1) we need to regulate gun use to prevent violence; 2) the degree to which guns affect people varies widely from state to state; 3) the states should enact laws that allow gun ownership, but regulate to the degree required to combat local gun violence.
Not a perfect plan, but at least it's a place to start the conversation. What do you think?
Re:Socialism tends toward totalitarianism
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 1
The more socialist something is, the more totalitarian it is. Socialist policy enacted via a democracy is just and fair, and as voluntary as any law can be. You assume incorrectly that a socialist society has dictator(s) at its head. Stalin and Mao did far more damage in perpetuating this misconception than McCarthy ever could.
No true socialism could be anything but a democracy. The USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea, and all their ilk are and were totalitarianist states. They were not socialist.
Socialism takes power away from the people and puts it into the hands of the rulers, the State.
A socialist democracy does this no more nor less than any other democracy.
The Bible verse most applicable to socialism is the one that includes "Render unto Caesar", because that is what socialism is all about
No, my young AC, socialism is about loving one's neighbor as oneself. It is about ensuring that all people have enough to eat, a place to live, and access to health care. It is about guaranteeing that compassion, not greed, prevails. I wasn't kidding - read Acts.
Re:Human rights are opposed to democracy?
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Capitalism says "Let the people decide their own destiny
Try again, my cynical AC, try again. Capitalism is the law of the wild let loose on civilization.
Capitalism says, "Let the strong survive, and all will be well."
It is democracy that says "Let the people decide their own destiny." Capitalism can harm democracy by allowing the rich to overwhelm the political decision-making process.
And just who were the founding fathers? Empirialists?
No, they were a mixed bunch of aristocrats and farmers, many of them slave-holders; rebels who had just shot their way to freedom from the world's greatest superpower through a combination of luck, perserverence, and homefield advantage.
They recognized that the security of their new-born nation was still very much at risk, and they realized that it was necessary to maintain a well-regulated, well-armed citizen army to guard against future attacks, both domestic and foreign.
Rather than insult my intelligence with your posts, why don't you try to defend your position. The wording of the constitution holds up my interpretation much more readily than yours. Here it is again:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Read my post above and get your terms straight. When everything is controlled by the state, that's totalitarianism. Socialism is diametrically opposed to totalitarianism, as one of the fundamental tennets of socialism is to put power in the hands of the people, and to provide essential human services to the people.
If you want to know what real socialism looks like, read the Acts of the Apostles, not the Communist Manifesto.
Perhaps rather than bicker over terms it would be more useful to discuss the ideas behind them.
When I say that I'm a socialist, I'm saying I work for a nation of social justice, universal access to health care, where the people have the power. I don't believe that all capitalism is bad, nor do I believe that the government should control all aspects of your life. But, I do believe it is wrong for massive transnational corporations to usurp the role of government.
I believe that laws are necessary and that it is right and proper for many aspects of life to be either regulated or provided by the government. You disagree? OK, that's fine. Just don't forget about the police, firefighters, road construction workers, public health officials and facilities, train lines, airlines, telecommunications infrastructure, research funding, arts facilities, armed forces, parks, and water treatment facilities that are provided or heavily subsidized via the public coffers. And that's just in the U.S., a country that for decades has been scared of the term "socialism."
As the scandals in corporate America have so vividly demonstrated, Adam Smith's invisible hand does not guide our economy and our nation into the idealistic self-regulating paradise that proponents of pure capitalism would have us believe. Capitalism is not diametrically opposed to socialism.
Capitalism is opposed to democracy.
Democratic socialism is the check against greed and corruption. It says, "Let the people decide their own destiny." It acknowledges that left unchecked, big businesses will underpay employees, pay little regard to the environment, and give little thought to the public good. We realize that certain aspects of life cannot be adequately provided by the market, and that it is the role of goverment to ensure that those aspects (health care, a safety net against starvation and homelessness, police and fire protection, social services....) are provided to the people who are the very base of that nation.
Communism was an excuse for totalitarians to highjack socialism and gut it of democracy. Capitalism is an excuse for the rich and powerful to replace a democracy with an oligarchy of the elite. The best part is that the capitalists have conned most people into believing that they (the people) are really the beneficiaries of this corporate power-grubbing!
So debate all you like. Just know what those terms mean when you use them.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is the most ambiguous amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights, and one more subject to interpretation than almost any other section in the U.S. Constitution.
Many might agree with your revolutionary interpretation. Including some of the Founding Fathers. But an equally valid (and I believe more socially reasonable) interpretation is this:
The 2nd amendment was designed primarily to ensure the national security of the United States of America. In order to ensure national security, the states must maintain a well-regulated militia. Any such militia must be well-armed. In the citizen-militias most common in the early U.S., militia members will likely keep their arms with them at home, for use whenever needed to ensure the national security of the U.S. (for instance during the British invasion in the War of 1812).
By this interpretation, the following conclusion can be drawn:
The right of ordinary citizens to bear arms is assumed, but not explicitly protected, by this amendment.
Re:Our diversity IS our political strength.
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As a socialist, it feels bit odd for me to be on the same side of many issues as libertarians.
But so many people focus on left vs right that it's easy to forget the model of political philosophies as a circle. As your example points out, it seems that many of our issues show where the ends of the circle join together!
Let's stick together and put our action where are mouths are: MoveOn.org EFF.org
Slashdot Mirror
I can't find this on the Dean site. Could you please provide a link? Thanks!
I don't agree with everything he says, but I do know where he stands. Ya, I'd rather have some of Kusinich's policies, but I'd also like someone who won't go psycho on stage (which Kusinich did during the 1st debate).
Any particular reason you place so much blind faith in the private sector?
[sarcasm]
Ya, I just hate having to channel surf to avoid all the radio stations that play March Madness non-stop 24/7
[/sarcasm]
>..The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA..
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
Think about what you just said. Of course you can't mandate advances in technology! But that's not what is happening. That's not what this bill is even proposing!
+1 insightful my foot.
The parent troll probably would have made the same criticism of Kennedy's vision to make it to the moon. The U.S. has been sorely lacking vision with respect to the space program since the moon program ended. Vision is absolutely essential to the space program. Find your member of congress, and fax your encouragement of this bill.
Thanks for the info.
What hardware/software are you using?
So after you have hacked into your TiVo, is there any way to program it manually - ie. not have to pay the TiVo subscription?
"With little real power, is the Palestinian Authority still supposed to enforce copyright restrictions?"
That is a pretty good summation of the situation in Palestine in general. With little real power (and what power there is effectively being granted by an occupational force, historically a poor position for popular support), how is the Palestinian Authority supposed to enforce anything?
"...but on the other hand it seems a bit absurd to think that American laws should govern Iraq."
Who else's laws would govern? The US has excluded the UN at every stage so far, there's no reason to think they might start being inclusive now. On the other hand, the Berne Convention is an internationally recognized treaty regarding copyright, so the concept of copyright would still theoretically be applied by any interim administration. The devil is in the details. I said theoretically; you need electricity to run a P2P network...
Then again, the beauty of military occupation is that you can selectively apply laws as it suits you. "That wasn't a political assasination, he was resisting arrest (looting/breaking curfew/looking at me funny). Honest!".
Here's a troll for the conspiracy theorist neo-nazis: what if EarthStation5 is really a Mossad cover operation selectively distributing files in such a way as to shore up the Jewish dominance of the American entertainment industry by distributing non-Jewish financed productions? Its paranoid, its whacko, and you heard it here first, now flame away!
I am the original poster, and if you'd looked at my reply that's right next to yours you'd have seen me say that, indeed, there are much bigger problems in both Palestine and Iraq. I've visited Israel and Palestine, and talked to people in both places. There's a lot of truly aweful stuff going on.
But, that does not make my original post "crap", nor worth the expletives you shoved on the people who modded it up.
This was a story about filesharing and copyright infringement, and I asked a relevant question! So unless you have something interesting and worthwhile to add to the discussion, sit down and be quiet.
Oh, I agree! There are much more important issues to be dealt with. But I still wonder who, if anyone, is responsible for such matters in Palestine - Israel or the Palestinian Administration?
Most countries are signatories to one or more copyright treaties that commit them to recognizing and protecting international copyrights. They are therefore more or less prohibited from allowing the explicit breach of copyright declared in this PR release.
But who is responsible for enforcing copyright in an occupied country? Palestine has been recognized by the UN as an occupied territory, with Israel as the occupying power. With little real power, is the Palestinian Authority still supposed to enforce copyright restrictions? Or is that for Israel to do?
The same situation would apply, I assume, in Iraq. America is the occupying power, so I would think the same criteria should apply as in the Israel/Palestine situation. There is no true Iraqi government to enforce copyright, but on the other hand it seems a bit absurd to think that American laws should govern Iraq.
Interesting situation....
The fun bit would be to use a distro that tries as hard as possible to mimic Windows (Lycoris, Lindows...) and see if people notice the difference once their computers reboot.... :)
Perhaps originally, but the armed forces and national guard of today is made up of volunteer citizen soldiers.
Your post doesn't really conflict with mine. My argument is that rather than serving as a guarantee of universal freedoms regarding firearm use, the 2nd amendment mandates a well-armed national guard.
Perhaps I should have been more precise in my earlier comments. I have absolutely nothing against guns for hunting. Much of my family uses guns for hunting, and there is no reason to prohibit competent trained hunters from using guns in hunting.
Handguns, on the other hand, have absolutely no place whatsoever in the hands of civilians. I have yet to hear a single compelling argument justifying why civilians need to carry handguns. Or, for that matter, to carry guns at all except when hunting. Concerns about preserving liberty can justify civilian possession of firearms, but not their use or carriage in public generally.
But sadly, the gun use in this country comes largely from citizens assaulting fellow citizens.
Perhaps a better statement would be this:
And that doesn't even begin to address accidental deaths that could have been prevented by better safety measures (storing ammo and guns separately, locking weapons properly, etc).
Simply put, guns can be extremely dangerous, and as such do require some degree of regulation. I think biometric safety devices might be a good place to start. Perhaps all new guns could have fingerprint sensors so that only the owner can active the weapon. Legitimate use is allowed, but it becomes much more difficult for the gun to be fired inadvertently, and it becomes more difficult for stolen guns to be used in crimes.
And here I thought this country was based on things like freedom and justice. It was based on capitalism and nationalism like everyting before it, huh?
Well, yes, and yes. The U.S. was definitely founded by people with a firm belief in freedom and justice. But the founders were a mixed lot, and social baggage doesn't go away easily. So, yes, capitalism and nationalism did play a part in the foundation of the U.S.
What does the Bill of Rights do for us? Does it grant us freedom or does it supply laws and rules and guidelines for us to follow?
Believe it or not, some of the founders believed more in the latter interpretation than in the former. Some in fact fought hard against a Bill of Rights, specifically because having one would infer that the people have the rights in the Bill, and none others!
I will acknowledge that my personal belief on this issue may in fact conflict with some of our early leaders. Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of your quoted philosophy - that citizens should routinely rebel against the government. But sadly, the gun use in this country comes largely from citizens assaulting fellow citizens. Hardly the ideals espoused by Jefferson.
I think we need to continue a public discussion on the 2nd Amendment and on gun regulation in general. Too often people on all sides get caught up in the emotions of the topic, and fail to properly communicate their arguments and fail to read the Constitution. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue intelligently with someone who has a different interpretation. Honestly, it makes me think hard about why I believe what I believe!
I do believe that we must safeguard our rights. Whenever those rights start to endanger the public safety, we're in trouble no matter what - either dangerous insecurity abounds or overzealous laws trample liberty. The goal which we must strive towards is that elusive middle ground where liberty is protected and prized, while reasonable security measures are performed in a sensitive manner.
Of the approaches to gun control that I've heard about so far, I like Howard Dean's the best. I got the chance to talk to him when he came to my town in Iowa. It boiled down to this 1) we need to regulate gun use to prevent violence; 2) the degree to which guns affect people varies widely from state to state; 3) the states should enact laws that allow gun ownership, but regulate to the degree required to combat local gun violence.
Not a perfect plan, but at least it's a place to start the conversation. What do you think?
Socialist policy enacted via a democracy is just and fair, and as voluntary as any law can be. You assume incorrectly that a socialist society has dictator(s) at its head. Stalin and Mao did far more damage in perpetuating this misconception than McCarthy ever could.
No true socialism could be anything but a democracy. The USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea, and all their ilk are and were totalitarianist states. They were not socialist.
Socialism takes power away from the people and puts it into the hands of the rulers, the State.
A socialist democracy does this no more nor less than any other democracy.
The Bible verse most applicable to socialism is the one that includes "Render unto Caesar", because that is what socialism is all about
No, my young AC, socialism is about loving one's neighbor as oneself. It is about ensuring that all people have enough to eat, a place to live, and access to health care. It is about guaranteeing that compassion, not greed, prevails. I wasn't kidding - read Acts.
Try again, my cynical AC, try again. Capitalism is the law of the wild let loose on civilization.
It is democracy that says "Let the people decide their own destiny." Capitalism can harm democracy by allowing the rich to overwhelm the political decision-making process.
Other than insulting my intelligence, what point are you trying to make?
I've quoted my sources and made a coherent argument to defend my position. Perhaps you could do the same?
And just who were the founding fathers? Empirialists?
No, they were a mixed bunch of aristocrats and farmers, many of them slave-holders; rebels who had just shot their way to freedom from the world's greatest superpower through a combination of luck, perserverence, and homefield advantage.
They recognized that the security of their new-born nation was still very much at risk, and they realized that it was necessary to maintain a well-regulated, well-armed citizen army to guard against future attacks, both domestic and foreign.
Rather than insult my intelligence with your posts, why don't you try to defend your position. The wording of the constitution holds up my interpretation much more readily than yours. Here it is again:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
If you want to know what real socialism looks like, read the Acts of the Apostles, not the Communist Manifesto.
When I say that I'm a socialist, I'm saying I work for a nation of social justice, universal access to health care, where the people have the power. I don't believe that all capitalism is bad, nor do I believe that the government should control all aspects of your life. But, I do believe it is wrong for massive transnational corporations to usurp the role of government.
I believe that laws are necessary and that it is right and proper for many aspects of life to be either regulated or provided by the government. You disagree? OK, that's fine. Just don't forget about the police, firefighters, road construction workers, public health officials and facilities, train lines, airlines, telecommunications infrastructure, research funding, arts facilities, armed forces, parks, and water treatment facilities that are provided or heavily subsidized via the public coffers. And that's just in the U.S., a country that for decades has been scared of the term "socialism."
As the scandals in corporate America have so vividly demonstrated, Adam Smith's invisible hand does not guide our economy and our nation into the idealistic self-regulating paradise that proponents of pure capitalism would have us believe. Capitalism is not diametrically opposed to socialism.
Democratic socialism is the check against greed and corruption. It says, "Let the people decide their own destiny." It acknowledges that left unchecked, big businesses will underpay employees, pay little regard to the environment, and give little thought to the public good. We realize that certain aspects of life cannot be adequately provided by the market, and that it is the role of goverment to ensure that those aspects (health care, a safety net against starvation and homelessness, police and fire protection, social services....) are provided to the people who are the very base of that nation.
Communism was an excuse for totalitarians to highjack socialism and gut it of democracy. Capitalism is an excuse for the rich and powerful to replace a democracy with an oligarchy of the elite. The best part is that the capitalists have conned most people into believing that they (the people) are really the beneficiaries of this corporate power-grubbing!
So debate all you like. Just know what those terms mean when you use them.
This is the most ambiguous amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights, and one more subject to interpretation than almost any other section in the U.S. Constitution. Many might agree with your revolutionary interpretation. Including some of the Founding Fathers. But an equally valid (and I believe more socially reasonable) interpretation is this:
The 2nd amendment was designed primarily to ensure the national security of the United States of America. In order to ensure national security, the states must maintain a well-regulated militia. Any such militia must be well-armed. In the citizen-militias most common in the early U.S., militia members will likely keep their arms with them at home, for use whenever needed to ensure the national security of the U.S. (for instance during the British invasion in the War of 1812).
By this interpretation, the following conclusion can be drawn:
But so many people focus on left vs right that it's easy to forget the model of political philosophies as a circle. As your example points out, it seems that many of our issues show where the ends of the circle join together!
Let's stick together and put our action where are mouths are:
MoveOn.org
EFF.org
There are a few of us down here who believe in social justice, minimum & maximum wage, universal health care, and balanced budgets.
Our illustrious president just does a good job of hiding us in the closet any time company comes to visit...