Somehow, I don't think your "rough justice" is a solution to this area of discourse.
No, nor do I. I don't think I ever posed it as a "solution" or anything like it - but rather as an extreme example of the issue raised by the original (grand(..))-parent.
I don't think that excusing all bad behavior due to past injustices is much of a solution, either. Should everyone be punished instead? I do think that there are a lot of government policies that have exacerbated the situation.
No matter what the big-picture direction should be, there should be an effort to apply quick and fair punishment for predators - but of course this has to be supported at a grass roots level. Residents must be motivated to clean up their own communities - and they will generally get the support they need to do it. Imposing it from the top-down just creates more enmity.
It would be nice if we could start by eliminating the black market for drugs. Drug laws are enforced unfairly, and don't work as a deterrent for hard-core users, anyway.
Not so cool when it's a 14 year old black kid being tortured and beaten to death, is it, chump? Lynch mobs aren't new, sexy, or modern.
No, although you are grossly mischaracterizing the racist lynch mobs of the old south, which were never conducted in daylight on the streets, but under cover of darkness in hoods, like typical criminal behavior.
It's also not too cool when it's 5 year old black kids getting gunned down by stray bullets because one of the local thugs is out on bail after his 10th arrest, with his first one from three years ago still in appeals.
fix our poor justice laws first to be able to PUNISH criminals SWIFTLY
Reminds me of a scene from one of Robert Heinlein's novels - I forget which one.
There were a bunch of people on Mars waiting for an elevator - apparently a very long wait. So this noob from Earth shows up - and he cuts in line! No tolerance for anti-social behavior on Mars, so immediatly someone complains, a jury is quickly convened, witnesses attest to having seen the guy break in line, and he is found guilty and summarily executed.
Sure, swift punishment - and no appeals.
Ok, so maybe the punishment was a little harsh - but on Mars, air is NOT free.
If they see that Massachusetts hasn't collapsed into moral ruin, then they'll accept it in New York, then Maryland, then... maybe Virginia?
Don't hold your breath. If you're not gay and don't live in Virginia, you may not know that they recently passed a draconian anti-gay law that goes further into meddling in private affairs than anything else I've even heard proposed. The law states in part:
"a civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited."
It would also void in Virginia any such arrangement entered into any other state or jurisdiction.
Why? You're either overly sensitive or reading something into the parent comment that was not there. There was nothing about WHO is at greater risk or WHY.
AIDS is, indeed on the rise in minority women, especially in sub-saharan Africa. The prevalent theory is that the culture in the region encourages multiple sexual partners within a small circle (see Why AIDS is worse in Africa for more on this.
Why not study it like they do the AIDS virus? That is, it's obvious that certain behavior will greatly increase the risk of infection, and some, based on location and lifestyle (OS) have very little chance of infection at all.
...Or was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable.
*****
It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II, any more than the enslavement of 4 million blacks brought Civil War in 1861.
Ok, I've read enough. Obviously a manifesto and advocating the creation of a "People's Republic of the US". No, thanks.
Actually, to be fair, Roosevelt started the doctrine that troops could be deployed by the president without congress' approval. He did ask congress about sending the fleet around the globe, but was rejected. Well, he decided he could deploy them anyway. When they got half-way around the world and ran out of money, he went back to congress with "Well, how about some money to bring the fleet back?". Of course it was approved.
Truman presided over the first major armed conflict that did not involve a declaration of war, by convening a UN security council meeting and immediately committing troops to the conflict. This after the secretary of state declaring the Korea really did not fall into the US's "sphere of protection" in the east-asian region.
Truman also first got the country involved in Vietnam, after the French got over their heads in the conflict and asked the US for help. By 1954, 80% of the war costs were borne the the US.
Vietnam became a major conflict during Johnson's administration, as he reinstated the draft and dramatically increased the commitment of troops.
WWII was the last US conflict that involved a formal declaration of war by congress. IMHO, it should not be OK for a president to commit troops to ANY conflict outside of our own borders without a declaration of war from congress. Don't expect ANY president to follow this doctrine.
The Eisenhower quote is interesting, as he was the last president that recognized deploying troops without congressional authority was not intended by the constitution. He was the LAST president to recognize this (and probably always will be).
Copyright was not created in a time of giants of publishing. When copyright first arrived, it was more about individual creative people, for whom a copyright of even 20 years would grant them sufficient income.
Bzzzt. Sorry, wrong. When copyright started it was ALL ABOUT the rich and powerful maintaining their monopoly over a resource. Writers could give a rip about "protection" - they didn't make a living writing, anyway. They just wanted their ideas to be read.
You can find a brief history of copyright at musicjournal
That means that nobody is ever going to ask Mr. Bush where the WMD are, where Osama is, how many have to die, did you really do coke at Camp David, and why the hell aren't we doing anything about the Sudan, Iran, or North Korea?
Except that it's not a blog. A blog has links for readers to post comments, send email, often has links to other emails and blogs, and is responsive to feedback.
Moore's site is just a list of rants. It's a marketing site.
Oh, ok. Nothing to worry about, then. In fact, no point in having a high-paid "Linux strategist" on the payroll - get rid of that guy, it's a waste of shareholder profits.
Stephen Stills played with the band a few times, and he called it "the best garage band in the world".
The only trouble the band ever had was when they signed a record contract (yep, Arista). They got completely screwed and were pretty much bankrupted by it. Eventually they cut a deal by making a couple of live albums and got out of the contract.
There are lots of bands trying to do "the Grateful Dead" thing, and avoid record contracts, just do lots of touring and shows and put out an album when they can pay the studio/distribution etc. themselves. Phish and DMB come to mind, but there are plent of others.
Ok, it's actually a list of producers that are associated with RIAA. It's probably the longer of the the 2 lists, too, but at least it's a place to start.
Wrong. Fetal stem cells aren't being banned; they're partially differentiated anyway, so they're no better than adult stem cells. It's embryonic stem cells we are concerned about.
Then it seems to me that the moral delimma is an even greater issue. Presumably, the way to get new lines is to get some sperm and egg donations, perform some invitro fertilization, then harvest the resulting embryos. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, IANAMB.)
The argument is that you have created a person (a unique human individal), and you are going to experiment on it.
Personally, I don't agree with that. An embryo, undifferentiated, in no way viable, should not be considered a protected entity. But I do understand the view point that this is "creating human life in order to destroy it". And for many people it is morally wrong. I don't really think it's a religious issue. Few people would support performing medical experiments on human beings. But from a certain perspective, this crosses the line into that territory.
So I think Bush made a reasonable compromise in order to provide funding that was not available before, knowing that he was under pressure to not provide funding for any kind of stem cell research.
To me, the funds should be available without those restrictions, but everybody's taxes are being used to provide the funding, so I see the need for compromise. And calling it a "ban on stem cell research" is disingeneous political posturing, and not conducive to an honest debate. The issue, I think, is that research facilities using federal funds for stem cell research are banned from creating new embryos.
Funny how everybody keeps calling it a ban when it is, in fact, new funding for stem cell research (there was none before), but with certain restrictions.
The only restriction is that you can't use any newly conceived/aborted fetal material for the research. That is, the stem cell lines already being used are ok, but it's not ok to create new embryos (this is conception, whether invitro or natural is immaterial), then harvest them for stem cells.
This is *NOT* a strictly religious issue, it is a moral one. Life is created for research everyday, but there may be some moral question about whether it's OK to create HUMAN life and use it for research.
Personally, I think it's OK in this instance to allow material from abortion clinics to be used, but it's still a debatable issue. Some folks would say that if you start with that, soon you'll be maturing humans artificially, then harvesting their organs for transplants.
I *don't* think it's OK to go too far with this, though. For instance, I think it would be abhorrant to clone a baby at birth, then lobotomize the clone but keep it healthy so you have spare parts in case they're needed later.
Because maybe you have a modern ATI graphics card? Since you have to recompile and customize your kernel, agp modules, X modules, etc. to get working anyway, you might as well go with Gentoo, which actually is a little easier.
This is pretty off-topic, anyway. It's a waste of time to point out the long-standing relationship between labor unions and organized crime, it's been proven enough times. Even Howard Dean has acknowledged this, if you need a non- "right-wing" source to confirm it for you.
The point is that any hierarchical organization is susceptible to corruption, and the labor unions ended up exploiting the workers just like the corporations they were fighting. Does government regulation help any? Maybe. But it's now gone too far. Over-regulation of every industry and market is hurting the economy overall. How many businesses keep their employees intentionally under 50 to avoid falling under additional regulation? More than a few. How many never got started because the regulatory barriers were too high? Plenty.
Reducing these regulations would not return us to the "slave labor" days of the industrial revolution. These workers came from an agricultural economy, and if you don't thing running a farm takes long hours of hard work, you've never done it yourself.
If anything, reducing federal regulations in force today would free up vast funds currently spent complying with these regulations, allow more flexibility for workers and businesses, and provide a more level playing field for small businesses to compete.
Check the YRO section of/. and see how many stories about this corporation or that corporate lobby group demanding laws to protect thier industry from competition (or obsolesence!). They've been doing this for years, under the radar, and this government/corporation partnership stifles competition and hurts the consumer.
In other words, we need *LESS* federal regulation, not *MORE*, just like Badnarik says.
No, you're thinking of labor unions. Every time in history there has not been labor unions, or, worse, there were regulations against labor unions, it always ended up in slave-like conditions. No labor unions = slave labor 100% of the time.
I find it incredible the way people complain about decreasing regulation as if it's going to turn everybody into a sweatshop slave. These days you have to be 18 to even have a paper route - kids have absolutely no chance of developing any kind of work ethic or managing money until they are 16.
Around here it is very difficult to find dependable workers. If they can't make $50K right away working in an air conditioned office, they'd rather sit at home and collect whatever handouts they can get. If the economy is in such a slump, how come we can't find anybody to show up for work for more than 2 days in a row?
Forget minimum wage. Even the McDonalds is paying $2 over the minimum for burger flippers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, nor do I. I don't think I ever posed it as a "solution" or anything like it - but rather as an extreme example of the issue raised by the original (grand(..))-parent.
I don't think that excusing all bad behavior due to past injustices is much of a solution, either. Should everyone be punished instead? I do think that there are a lot of government policies that have exacerbated the situation.
No matter what the big-picture direction should be, there should be an effort to apply quick and fair punishment for predators - but of course this has to be supported at a grass roots level. Residents must be motivated to clean up their own communities - and they will generally get the support they need to do it. Imposing it from the top-down just creates more enmity.
It would be nice if we could start by eliminating the black market for drugs. Drug laws are enforced unfairly, and don't work as a deterrent for hard-core users, anyway.
You know Harry, trying to talk like the guys on AM radio will not make you sound intelligent.
No, although you are grossly mischaracterizing the racist lynch mobs of the old south, which were never conducted in daylight on the streets, but under cover of darkness in hoods, like typical criminal behavior.
It's also not too cool when it's 5 year old black kids getting gunned down by stray bullets because one of the local thugs is out on bail after his 10th arrest, with his first one from three years ago still in appeals.
Reminds me of a scene from one of Robert Heinlein's novels - I forget which one.
There were a bunch of people on Mars waiting for an elevator - apparently a very long wait. So this noob from Earth shows up - and he cuts in line! No tolerance for anti-social behavior on Mars, so immediatly someone complains, a jury is quickly convened, witnesses attest to having seen the guy break in line, and he is found guilty and summarily executed.
Sure, swift punishment - and no appeals.
Ok, so maybe the punishment was a little harsh - but on Mars, air is NOT free.
Don't hold your breath. If you're not gay and don't live in Virginia, you may not know that they recently passed a draconian anti-gay law that goes further into meddling in private affairs than anything else I've even heard proposed. The law states in part:
"a civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited."
It would also void in Virginia any such arrangement entered into any other state or jurisdiction.
Why? You're either overly sensitive or reading something into the parent comment that was not there. There was nothing about WHO is at greater risk or WHY.
AIDS is, indeed on the rise in minority women, especially in sub-saharan Africa. The prevalent theory is that the culture in the region encourages multiple sexual partners within a small circle (see Why AIDS is worse in Africa for more on this.
And you've now offended me.
Why not study it like they do the AIDS virus? That is, it's obvious that certain behavior will greatly increase the risk of infection, and some, based on location and lifestyle (OS) have very little chance of infection at all.
Ok, let's check it out:
Ok, I've read enough. Obviously a manifesto and advocating the creation of a "People's Republic of the US". No, thanks.
Truman presided over the first major armed conflict that did not involve a declaration of war, by convening a UN security council meeting and immediately committing troops to the conflict. This after the secretary of state declaring the Korea really did not fall into the US's "sphere of protection" in the east-asian region.
Truman also first got the country involved in Vietnam, after the French got over their heads in the conflict and asked the US for help. By 1954, 80% of the war costs were borne the the US.
Vietnam became a major conflict during Johnson's administration, as he reinstated the draft and dramatically increased the commitment of troops.
WWII was the last US conflict that involved a formal declaration of war by congress. IMHO, it should not be OK for a president to commit troops to ANY conflict outside of our own borders without a declaration of war from congress. Don't expect ANY president to follow this doctrine.
The Eisenhower quote is interesting, as he was the last president that recognized deploying troops without congressional authority was not intended by the constitution. He was the LAST president to recognize this (and probably always will be).
Bzzzt. Sorry, wrong. When copyright started it was ALL ABOUT the rich and powerful maintaining their monopoly over a resource. Writers could give a rip about "protection" - they didn't make a living writing, anyway. They just wanted their ideas to be read.
You can find a brief history of copyright at musicjournal
For a thorough history on copyright, check out Cultural Economics
Or even "Are you still beating your wife?"
Moore's site is just a list of rants. It's a marketing site.
And my son absolutely loves the movie, and has watched it many times (he *bought* the dvd).
Of course, he's 14 and really into skateboarding, so consider the source.
Oh, ok. Nothing to worry about, then. In fact, no point in having a high-paid "Linux strategist" on the payroll - get rid of that guy, it's a waste of shareholder profits.
The only trouble the band ever had was when they signed a record contract (yep, Arista). They got completely screwed and were pretty much bankrupted by it. Eventually they cut a deal by making a couple of live albums and got out of the contract.
There are lots of bands trying to do "the Grateful Dead" thing, and avoid record contracts, just do lots of touring and shows and put out an album when they can pay the studio/distribution etc. themselves. Phish and DMB come to mind, but there are plent of others.
Ok, here's the list: RIAA Membership
Ok, it's actually a list of producers that are associated with RIAA. It's probably the longer of the the 2 lists, too, but at least it's a place to start.
Then it seems to me that the moral delimma is an even greater issue. Presumably, the way to get new lines is to get some sperm and egg donations, perform some invitro fertilization, then harvest the resulting embryos. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, IANAMB.)
The argument is that you have created a person (a unique human individal), and you are going to experiment on it.
Personally, I don't agree with that. An embryo, undifferentiated, in no way viable, should not be considered a protected entity. But I do understand the view point that this is "creating human life in order to destroy it". And for many people it is morally wrong. I don't really think it's a religious issue. Few people would support performing medical experiments on human beings. But from a certain perspective, this crosses the line into that territory.
So I think Bush made a reasonable compromise in order to provide funding that was not available before, knowing that he was under pressure to not provide funding for any kind of stem cell research.
To me, the funds should be available without those restrictions, but everybody's taxes are being used to provide the funding, so I see the need for compromise. And calling it a "ban on stem cell research" is disingeneous political posturing, and not conducive to an honest debate. The issue, I think, is that research facilities using federal funds for stem cell research are banned from creating new embryos.
The only restriction is that you can't use any newly conceived/aborted fetal material for the research. That is, the stem cell lines already being used are ok, but it's not ok to create new embryos (this is conception, whether invitro or natural is immaterial), then harvest them for stem cells.
This is *NOT* a strictly religious issue, it is a moral one. Life is created for research everyday, but there may be some moral question about whether it's OK to create HUMAN life and use it for research.
Personally, I think it's OK in this instance to allow material from abortion clinics to be used, but it's still a debatable issue. Some folks would say that if you start with that, soon you'll be maturing humans artificially, then harvesting their organs for transplants.
I *don't* think it's OK to go too far with this, though. For instance, I think it would be abhorrant to clone a baby at birth, then lobotomize the clone but keep it healthy so you have spare parts in case they're needed later.
Because maybe you have a modern ATI graphics card? Since you have to recompile and customize your kernel, agp modules, X modules, etc. to get working anyway, you might as well go with Gentoo, which actually is a little easier.
The point is that any hierarchical organization is susceptible to corruption, and the labor unions ended up exploiting the workers just like the corporations they were fighting. Does government regulation help any? Maybe. But it's now gone too far. Over-regulation of every industry and market is hurting the economy overall. How many businesses keep their employees intentionally under 50 to avoid falling under additional regulation? More than a few. How many never got started because the regulatory barriers were too high? Plenty.
Reducing these regulations would not return us to the "slave labor" days of the industrial revolution. These workers came from an agricultural economy, and if you don't thing running a farm takes long hours of hard work, you've never done it yourself.
If anything, reducing federal regulations in force today would free up vast funds currently spent complying with these regulations, allow more flexibility for workers and businesses, and provide a more level playing field for small businesses to compete.
Check the YRO section of /. and see how many stories about this corporation or that corporate lobby group demanding laws to protect thier industry from competition (or obsolesence!). They've been doing this for years, under the radar, and this government/corporation partnership stifles competition and hurts the consumer.
In other words, we need *LESS* federal regulation, not *MORE*, just like Badnarik says.
I guess a lie as good as the truth sometimes huh?
Al Franken, is that you?
Actual link about union violence #1
Actual link about union violence #2
Actual link about union violence #3
Actual link about union violence #4
Liar.
Ahhh... Nostalgia.
Of course, these days it's the labor unions breaking people's legs because they DON'T want to organize, or dare to cross a picket line.
You are ignoring the evidence.
Around here it is very difficult to find dependable workers. If they can't make $50K right away working in an air conditioned office, they'd rather sit at home and collect whatever handouts they can get. If the economy is in such a slump, how come we can't find anybody to show up for work for more than 2 days in a row?
Forget minimum wage. Even the McDonalds is paying $2 over the minimum for burger flippers.