This video shows around fifteen of his drawings, and is IMO much more interesting than the interview itself. There was no depth to it--it was basically him saying, "Yeah, this happens. I let people study me and they're not sure what's going on." The art he's putting out varies, but as you say the high-quality stuff is pretty amazing.
Your belief that fast food contains no real food is a bit misguided, anyway. Do you believe EVERYTHING you read? Do you have power crystals laying around? Christ..
If he had actually read about them, he would know that you NEVER, EVER leave power crystals just lying around! Someone could lose an island!
Yes, and years ought to be counted solely in days! The month and week are extraneous units kept around only for historical reasons and have no real value!
If the course of the future goes anywhere except for straight to Start Trek land, your statement is false. The odds of the future going straight to Star Trek land are very, very small.
One of the differences between the two is that Obama had virtually no record to speak of. Ron Paul has a long and consistent history of voting based on the same principles he talks about in the debates. I have no doubt that he would continue to act based on principle.
He's the only one of the whole bunch who would, upon getting into office, put an end to the abuses of executive power that have been built up over the preceding decades, and you can bet that he would use his status to push for the repeal of bad laws (such as the PATRIOT Act) in the Congress.
Think what you like about his views, there is no one as consistent or as apolitical as Ron Paul. You can see this in the debates--other candidates spend the majority of their time giving bullshit examples of how they voted for X which created Y jobs, and Go USA. Paul, despite having the most consistent record, rarely points to it, instead explaining why and how things should be done differently. That's how every campaign ought to run.
Somehow a body that causes you pain and discomfort one month out of the week is worse than a body that causes you pain and discomfort 12 times a day without ever letting up
Both good ideas, and not enough even when combined to fix the deficit problem (though halving the military budget is by far the most significant chunk). The reality is that we need to make a number of sizeable cuts almost across the board in addition to raising taxes. The Ds will never agree to meaningfully shrink social programs, and the Rs will never agree to meaningfully shrink defense programs or raise taxes.
This is a monetarily solvable problem. The NYT created a Budget Puzzle and the University of Maryland has a similar exercise. I prefer the layout of the older NYT one, as it lets you juggle the numbers all on one page, but the projected shortfall has grown by $200B since then.
The hard part is to get people to agree on what to cut. Those exercises can be a great teaching tool. The NYT one lets you share your results, too. Or at least it used to...can't seem to find the option now.
We do still vote them in. If a large enough percentage of their constituency says, "vote this way and I will vote you out," they will very likely change their tune. It works very well in the House and less so in the senate, though it is still effective. Public pressure is the best tool that the public possesses.
Civil disobedience is not ignoring the law. Civil disobedience is flagrantly and publicly violating the law with the full knowledge of and the willingness to accept the consequences of doing so. This is why demonstrations are most often done en masse--one guy publicly violating the law is a nutjob or a nuisance; several hundred create a spectacle that is much harder to ignore, strengthening the demonstrators' chances to land in the spotlight and hopefully find widespread support for their cause.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that downloading stuff for free that you must legally pay for is an act of civil disobedience. It isn't. It is only ignoring the law. For it to become civil disobedience you would have to sit with your laptop on the courthouse steps with a sign saying, "I am downloading MGM's entire library and not paying them one red cent," preferably in the company of a few dozen others doing the same thing.
In actuality, I do support, vote and promote third parties. Let me finish the quote you started:
Give me a third party with the size and principles to actually change the course of government and I'll care more about what happens in the final round of elections.
I have voted third party when possible ever since the first time I visited the polls. None of the national candidates had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but it wasn't for my lack of effort--and I mean talking with people about them and funding the candidacies, not just casting a vote. My post was in response to news of the hacked results an election where only one of the Two Blessed Candidates could have won. Yeah, the hacking itself is actually important to be aware of. My point was that I'll be a lot more concerned with the integrity and outcome of the final election when there's integrity present to be concerned about: in the form of a candidate who isn't just another cog in the American political machine.
On a related note, your attitude is a contributor to why we haven't (not "can't"--who's defeatist now?) escaped the duopoly. You had a chance to engage someone who you perceived was a non-voter and perhaps to add another voice to the growing dissent. Instead you chose to be sarcastic and belittling. Now, it is The Internet, and few people really intend to have meaningful interactions on it and perhaps you'd act differently in person, but there are far too many people who look down on those who are unfamiliar with or uneducated when it comes to third parties, preferring to call them "sheeple" and bemoan how stupid they are instead of attempting to engage them in conversation and have a chance at getting them to (re)consider the path to third party viability. You will never see a candidate act that way, because they know it hurts the cause instead of helping. I wish more folks who are aware of the issue were also aware of how to generate interest and goodwill.
I disagree. There is a real difference, and a big one, between the collectivist tendencies of Democrats and the individualist tendencies of Republicans. I think the corporatist tendencies of both parties (one more overt than the other), their propensity for ignoring the debt problem, and the aforementioned concentration of central power is more important than these differences, but that doesn't make the differences meaningless.
Yes, I lean libertarian, though I reserve the right to disagree with them too. I am not an anarcho-libertarian. I am aware that the state serves a purpose. If you do not see that the state is overstepping its bounds in at least some ways, and that it is a continuing trend, then you are blind. People will disagree on the specifics, naturally, but I'd be surprised if many in the Slashdot crowd see all of the "security measures" taken in the US as anything but intrusive. TSA, warrantless wiretapping, the likelihood of domestic drones, and secret prisons are all pretty unpopular in decreasing order of degree. You don't have to be an anarchist to say that the emperor has outgrown his clothes.
I make myself aware of the current third party options, and I support the ones I like both monetarily and by spreading awareness of them. Even the ones that don't suit me but may suit someone I am talking with I will bring up.
I recognize that having a third party--any third party--big enough to challenge the duopoly is a good thing and in my opinion a necessity for the well-being of the country. Given the chance to vote for an R or a D or an X, where X is any third party candidate with sizable support, I will vote for X. If no third party with sizable support exists, then I will vote for my preferred third party candidate. I will not vote against my interests, but I put the long-term health of the political system (and therefore the country) ahead of some policies from a viable outsider that I disagree with.
By the time it comes down to actually voting for one of two "viable" candidates, the statist agenda is bound to be fulfilled. There are meaningful differences between Republican and Democrat, but on the whole they will both tend to do things that increase the role of federal government in our everyday lives and insidiously undermine our rights.
Give me a third party with the size and principles to actually change the course of government and I'll care more about what happens in the final round of elections.
Ron Paul, with all due respect, hasn't really been paying much attention to the changes in the world economy over the last couple of decades. Yes, we could possibly have gone back to the gold standard in the early 1980s (after the Hunt Bros attempt to corner the markets during the ~1980 gold price bubble was over with.) But that was three decades ago, and you can't get back there again.
He no longer advocates a return to the gold standard. Or, perhaps more accurately, he desires a return to the gold standard, but what he has pushed for more recently is to declare gold (and likely other precious metals) to be legal tender, so that gold can be used as an alternative currency in the US. I suspect his reasons for doing so are in part because he recognizes that a full-on return is impossible at the moment, and in part because having gold present in everyone's consciousness would act as a check on further inflation of the money supply. It's harder for the Fed to pull shenanigans like creating $16T out of nothing when people can see the dollar price for something remain roughly the same while the price in gold drops by 25%, as would have happened over the past year.
Your first step is by far the most difficult, and quite possibly insurmountable. It's like saying "First, we need the warp drive." Star-hopping and intergalactic civilization follows naturally given that first highly implausible step.
A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery.
So, no, there is no point to it from the perspective of a concerned parent. A concerned big brother, on the other hand...
Most Christians are not members of Westboro Baptist, nor are they anything like them. Your final assertion, and your tendency to paint all Christians, indeed all religions, with such a broad brush shows how little effort you put into understanding any of it. It's not quite a straw man, since there really are people out there like the ones you describe, but it's awfully close and it's awfully disingenuous. It's also exactly the same thing that the vocal fundie minority which you despise so much does.
I only need one example to invalidate your assertions about all Christians, and this one is topical. Ron Paul is a Christian, and a very conservative one at that. He is one of the creators of this bill even though he personally despises the use drugs. Where is his thirst for blood and power? Where is his hatred of all the drug-using heathens? Why is someone who must in your mind start a jihad instead trying to end one that has lasted most of a century, and grant personal freedom in the bargain?
You are simply the mirror-image of the target of your hatred, and I believe that you are sadly incapable of truly understanding that.
Those two statements are indeed different in theory. I have yet to encounter a difference when dealing with real live atheists. I am more interested in practice than in theory.
Slashdot Mirror
This is more newsowrthy than, say, Steve Jobs stepping down.
Yet Steve stepping down got a whole "real" article all to itself.
And here you are, spending the majority of your post talking about that other thing in this thing's article.
This video shows around fifteen of his drawings, and is IMO much more interesting than the interview itself. There was no depth to it--it was basically him saying, "Yeah, this happens. I let people study me and they're not sure what's going on." The art he's putting out varies, but as you say the high-quality stuff is pretty amazing.
Your belief that fast food contains no real food is a bit misguided, anyway. Do you believe EVERYTHING you read? Do you have power crystals laying around? Christ..
If he had actually read about them, he would know that you NEVER, EVER leave power crystals just lying around! Someone could lose an island!
Yes, and years ought to be counted solely in days! The month and week are extraneous units kept around only for historical reasons and have no real value!
[Unification] will happen to language eventually
If the course of the future goes anywhere except for straight to Start Trek land, your statement is false. The odds of the future going straight to Star Trek land are very, very small.
And then use the corn to make Cheetos and kill 2 birds.
With one stoner?
One of the differences between the two is that Obama had virtually no record to speak of. Ron Paul has a long and consistent history of voting based on the same principles he talks about in the debates. I have no doubt that he would continue to act based on principle.
He's the only one of the whole bunch who would, upon getting into office, put an end to the abuses of executive power that have been built up over the preceding decades, and you can bet that he would use his status to push for the repeal of bad laws (such as the PATRIOT Act) in the Congress.
Think what you like about his views, there is no one as consistent or as apolitical as Ron Paul. You can see this in the debates--other candidates spend the majority of their time giving bullshit examples of how they voted for X which created Y jobs, and Go USA. Paul, despite having the most consistent record, rarely points to it, instead explaining why and how things should be done differently. That's how every campaign ought to run.
Somehow a body that causes you pain and discomfort one month out of the week is worse than a body that causes you pain and discomfort 12 times a day without ever letting up
Wait...what?
Both good ideas, and not enough even when combined to fix the deficit problem (though halving the military budget is by far the most significant chunk). The reality is that we need to make a number of sizeable cuts almost across the board in addition to raising taxes. The Ds will never agree to meaningfully shrink social programs, and the Rs will never agree to meaningfully shrink defense programs or raise taxes.
This is a monetarily solvable problem. The NYT created a Budget Puzzle and the University of Maryland has a similar exercise. I prefer the layout of the older NYT one, as it lets you juggle the numbers all on one page, but the projected shortfall has grown by $200B since then.
The hard part is to get people to agree on what to cut. Those exercises can be a great teaching tool. The NYT one lets you share your results, too. Or at least it used to...can't seem to find the option now.
We do still vote them in. If a large enough percentage of their constituency says, "vote this way and I will vote you out," they will very likely change their tune. It works very well in the House and less so in the senate, though it is still effective. Public pressure is the best tool that the public possesses.
Civil disobedience is not ignoring the law. Civil disobedience is flagrantly and publicly violating the law with the full knowledge of and the willingness to accept the consequences of doing so. This is why demonstrations are most often done en masse--one guy publicly violating the law is a nutjob or a nuisance; several hundred create a spectacle that is much harder to ignore, strengthening the demonstrators' chances to land in the spotlight and hopefully find widespread support for their cause.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that downloading stuff for free that you must legally pay for is an act of civil disobedience. It isn't. It is only ignoring the law. For it to become civil disobedience you would have to sit with your laptop on the courthouse steps with a sign saying, "I am downloading MGM's entire library and not paying them one red cent," preferably in the company of a few dozen others doing the same thing.
Sure you can! Somebody's gotta be in the 1%!
Don't sweat it. Like I said, it's the internet!
In actuality, I do support, vote and promote third parties. Let me finish the quote you started:
Give me a third party with the size and principles to actually change the course of government and I'll care more about what happens in the final round of elections.
I have voted third party when possible ever since the first time I visited the polls. None of the national candidates had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but it wasn't for my lack of effort--and I mean talking with people about them and funding the candidacies, not just casting a vote. My post was in response to news of the hacked results an election where only one of the Two Blessed Candidates could have won. Yeah, the hacking itself is actually important to be aware of. My point was that I'll be a lot more concerned with the integrity and outcome of the final election when there's integrity present to be concerned about: in the form of a candidate who isn't just another cog in the American political machine.
On a related note, your attitude is a contributor to why we haven't (not "can't"--who's defeatist now?) escaped the duopoly. You had a chance to engage someone who you perceived was a non-voter and perhaps to add another voice to the growing dissent. Instead you chose to be sarcastic and belittling. Now, it is The Internet, and few people really intend to have meaningful interactions on it and perhaps you'd act differently in person, but there are far too many people who look down on those who are unfamiliar with or uneducated when it comes to third parties, preferring to call them "sheeple" and bemoan how stupid they are instead of attempting to engage them in conversation and have a chance at getting them to (re)consider the path to third party viability. You will never see a candidate act that way, because they know it hurts the cause instead of helping. I wish more folks who are aware of the issue were also aware of how to generate interest and goodwill.
Speak for yourself, buddy =)
I disagree. There is a real difference, and a big one, between the collectivist tendencies of Democrats and the individualist tendencies of Republicans. I think the corporatist tendencies of both parties (one more overt than the other), their propensity for ignoring the debt problem, and the aforementioned concentration of central power is more important than these differences, but that doesn't make the differences meaningless.
Yes, I lean libertarian, though I reserve the right to disagree with them too. I am not an anarcho-libertarian. I am aware that the state serves a purpose. If you do not see that the state is overstepping its bounds in at least some ways, and that it is a continuing trend, then you are blind. People will disagree on the specifics, naturally, but I'd be surprised if many in the Slashdot crowd see all of the "security measures" taken in the US as anything but intrusive. TSA, warrantless wiretapping, the likelihood of domestic drones, and secret prisons are all pretty unpopular in decreasing order of degree. You don't have to be an anarchist to say that the emperor has outgrown his clothes.
To respond to you and several others,
I make myself aware of the current third party options, and I support the ones I like both monetarily and by spreading awareness of them. Even the ones that don't suit me but may suit someone I am talking with I will bring up.
I recognize that having a third party--any third party--big enough to challenge the duopoly is a good thing and in my opinion a necessity for the well-being of the country. Given the chance to vote for an R or a D or an X, where X is any third party candidate with sizable support, I will vote for X. If no third party with sizable support exists, then I will vote for my preferred third party candidate. I will not vote against my interests, but I put the long-term health of the political system (and therefore the country) ahead of some policies from a viable outsider that I disagree with.
By the time it comes down to actually voting for one of two "viable" candidates, the statist agenda is bound to be fulfilled. There are meaningful differences between Republican and Democrat, but on the whole they will both tend to do things that increase the role of federal government in our everyday lives and insidiously undermine our rights.
Give me a third party with the size and principles to actually change the course of government and I'll care more about what happens in the final round of elections.
Ron Paul, with all due respect, hasn't really been paying much attention to the changes in the world economy over the last couple of decades. Yes, we could possibly have gone back to the gold standard in the early 1980s (after the Hunt Bros attempt to corner the markets during the ~1980 gold price bubble was over with.) But that was three decades ago, and you can't get back there again.
He no longer advocates a return to the gold standard. Or, perhaps more accurately, he desires a return to the gold standard, but what he has pushed for more recently is to declare gold (and likely other precious metals) to be legal tender, so that gold can be used as an alternative currency in the US. I suspect his reasons for doing so are in part because he recognizes that a full-on return is impossible at the moment, and in part because having gold present in everyone's consciousness would act as a check on further inflation of the money supply. It's harder for the Fed to pull shenanigans like creating $16T out of nothing when people can see the dollar price for something remain roughly the same while the price in gold drops by 25%, as would have happened over the past year.
Soon as we find a Neanderthal skeleton on the moon I'll be convinced of their superiority.
I won't. That just means they were too stupid to get back to Earth.
Your first step is by far the most difficult, and quite possibly insurmountable. It's like saying "First, we need the warp drive." Star-hopping and intergalactic civilization follows naturally given that first highly implausible step.
A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery.
So, no, there is no point to it from the perspective of a concerned parent. A concerned big brother, on the other hand...
Most Christians are not members of Westboro Baptist, nor are they anything like them. Your final assertion, and your tendency to paint all Christians, indeed all religions, with such a broad brush shows how little effort you put into understanding any of it. It's not quite a straw man, since there really are people out there like the ones you describe, but it's awfully close and it's awfully disingenuous. It's also exactly the same thing that the vocal fundie minority which you despise so much does.
I only need one example to invalidate your assertions about all Christians, and this one is topical. Ron Paul is a Christian, and a very conservative one at that. He is one of the creators of this bill even though he personally despises the use drugs. Where is his thirst for blood and power? Where is his hatred of all the drug-using heathens? Why is someone who must in your mind start a jihad instead trying to end one that has lasted most of a century, and grant personal freedom in the bargain?
You are simply the mirror-image of the target of your hatred, and I believe that you are sadly incapable of truly understanding that.
Those two statements are indeed different in theory. I have yet to encounter a difference when dealing with real live atheists. I am more interested in practice than in theory.