Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
You gotta be friggin kidding me. Terrorist rights vs. American rights? What about Human Rights? You are aware that treaties the United States enters into are the supreme law of the land?
What if you were a "terrorist" turned in by your neighbor because he was upset about a deal over some goats 10 years ago? Would you be worried about American rights or Terrorist rights? AS MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
I don't know, I always see the ACLU defending unpopular causes, such as the right of the KKK to hold a rally, or a person to freely practice their locally unpopular religion such as Wicca or Judaism. Hel, they even did a lawsuit to prevent Rush Limbaugh's medical records from being released for his court case.
But lets talk about your open ballot idea. I am sure its such a great idea, dictators all over the world will adopt it....Oh wait a minute, they already have.
Pol Pot would be proud!
We already have it. It's called a party registration. In almost any state, in order to vote, you declare a party affiliation. Just like Card Check, after that all ballots are secret.
Do you honestly think Unions have not/will not strong arm their will upon others? They have in my life time!
I've heard this meme several times, and I think it's a crock of shit. I've worked in two unionized places in my lifetime, and I've never heard seen any of these horror anecdotes. I worked in a metal shop and in a Meijers, and those people worked just as hard, if not harder, than any other place I worked at. And the 'shop leader' was just another worker. Occasionally we had a vote on things. All this Tony Soprano mobster stuff is frankly BS.
I am going to use any influence I have
What influence does a union rep have over non-unionized employees? Exactly none! What is he going to do to you? Glare at you?
How exactly have unions strong-armed you? What power do they have over you? Are they going to fire you?
And do call it an App Store (or something similar if that's too (tm) Apple). Let 'em find out that stuff is free after they've seen something they like.
Is this nothing but your personal theory? What is this based on? When did this distinction come about? In other words, what is the history of these terms?
To me, in an ideal world, people would have more power. Personally, I am more in favor of direct democracy. I would like to see a system where people actually voted on laws themselves, even propose them. But I think that would take a major cultural shift -- we would have to do the direct democracy thing in schools, from kindergarten up... Jefferson had the idea of a constitutional convention every 20 years, about the length of a generation. That might sound scary at first ( "What if they got it wrong?"), but once it became a way of life, I think people would truly understand that it was a country of, by, and for the people, and they would feel truly empowered, and therefore they would take the interest and participate in government, and in the convention. If they got it wrong, then we would fix it in 20 years. As long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony, too...
I few the modern corporate system as basically fuedalism -- you say that the corporation only influences your work life, but the government reaches into every aspect. I see the balance of power differently. I can call my representatives and get a response. I can't get a hold of CEOs the same way. Hell, I could run for senate or congress myself, and actually stand a chance of being elected! There's a less likely chance of me becoming a CEO. We don't live in a system where people have a family farm to rely on anymore. Your whole livelihood basically depends on your job. Your retirement, housing, health insurance, everything, depends on your employment. I think, if the problem is that corporations are taking power through government, then we should fight back through government. If we limit the power of government, that would leave a power vacuum that the corporations would happily step into. I understand the concern about the people in charge being those who are charismatic enough to get elected, but we are actually voting on them, and we have the opportunity to kick them out at regular intervals. We don't have that influence over who runs our corporations.
... I'm definitely pro-small government (especially at the federal level), although these days that wouldn't actually make me a Republican (by most people's definition), would it?
I think you raise an interesting point -- I think most middle-of-the-road conservatives, or those who have left the Republican party, are pretty much in line with you. But since they've left, what remains for the Republican party are right-wing evangelicals, extreme libertarians or corporatists. I think once someone comes along who can revive the Republican party, you will see a rebirth of it, and it will be more middle of the road.
And my point is that the media should be digging at least a little bit below the stage persona - if all we do is vote for the persona, what we'll keep on ending up with is the best actor as our leader. The internet does help with this, but the media shouldn't just be able to shrug it off as "well, we're just showing what we see" - look harder!!
Well, I think it's just problem with the scale of our society and democracy. We don't live in a tribe where you or I might actually see W speaking regularly; we can only witness him on television most of the time. And the press can only broadcast his public appearances; they can't play a white-house meeting. Sure, they can type up a transcript or write-up of it, but there's a problem with the human perceptual system. It doesn't matter how much writing you read about what Bush is like; the moment he steps up on the podium and flubs a delivery, that overrides any abstract reading a viewer may have done about him. Visuals are more powerful than words.
I think it's been drummed into a LOT of people's heads that staying home is bad - even if you're not really sure who you want in or what they're going to do - your responsibility is to get out there and vote! So what you do is you vote for the guy who's made the best impression (through the media), who might possibly somehow one day in a brighter future potentially make you proud of your country. In other words, we vote based on emotion, instead of on policy. It's too bad that civic responsibility has been dumbed down that much - the way I see it, it's your responsibility to get informed, and only then should you vote...
I think voting on emotion has been true since the time of the founding fathers. From what I've read, 'newspapers' back then were the worst kind of political tabloids. And *that was the only "information" people had available*. So if the founding fathers thought that that was good enough for democracy, we're in a much better situation by far. We have access to real, factual, balanced, if not unbiased, information.
As far as not people not voting -- I think "I don't want either of these guys" is a reasonable response. We should have something more democratic, like IRV, where 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates actually stand a chance. More people would vote. Also, in Italy and Australia, they fine people who don't vote. Voter turnout is somewhere in the 90% range. Is that big government? Well, "big government" of, by, and for the people.
ike I said, I'm pro-small-government, and I'd rather see people out there looking to reduce the bureaucracy instead of sending trillions (!) of dollars direct from government to industry. That's not a capitalist policy at all (corporatist, maybe?) - and it certainly doesn't make Obama a centrist in my mind. It may make him a big business guy as well as a big government guy, which may move him closer to some Republicans, but it doesn't move him any more centrally towards me!
I think I see better where your coming from now... you are a true capitalist -- let 'em fail! ( Right? )
I guess the reason that I don't embrace that philosophy more fully is because it seems to me that the big corporations -- international coporations, big banks, big insurance, are so strong that
I'd have to agree with you on the first point. I would rather see those reforms before term limits. The problem I have with using elections as a form of term limit is that most of the time the incumbent gets re-elected because the person voting recognizes the name on the ballot. Plus part of the reason for having a term limit on the President is to avoid the slippery slope towards "president for life".
I agree. That's a problem with the electorate. In an ideal world, elections would serve as term limits, because a voter would inform themself and vote accordingly. But in the real world, name recognition, which being in office, and therefore in the media, wins the day. Sucks.
I'm of the opinion that the founding fathers didn't have career politicians in mind when they were setting up our government. I'd rather less career politicians and more elected officials who want to get elected, accomplish something and then go back to being private citizens.
I've heard that too. I'm divided on this also; if they didn't want career politicians, why didn't they make term limits? Surely they could have thought of that one. I think more they wanted 'part-time' politicians -- serve in government for a few months, and go back to the farm for a few months, repeat until 80 if so inclined.
To me, what's more important is representation -- the returning home to catch hell from the people -- than the term limits. I prefer the flip-flopping politician who does whatever his/her constituents tell him, than to somebody who has an agenda, or mission, to go in there and get something done. I think someone who serves a long time, and has seen fads come and go, is more likely to express the will of the constituency, rather than a term-limited politician who's on a personal mission to have an accomplishment on the record before they're out.
Furthermore, I think also we happen to live in a much more complex society, so having a professional politician might not be a bad thing in this day and age. Someone who has their own knowledge, and basically understands things like telecommunications, energy, the environment, and science, would rely less on lobbyists, who a lot of times, have expertise that an office holder doesn't. I'm in favor of democracy, but I don't think that just anybody is capable of writing an energy bill that has the right balance of science, world politics, and environmental concerns. The more a career politicians is able to grok all this on their own, the less they will rely on lobbyists, who will be put up by special interests.
The thing is, it's not just that the Republicans reached out to the swing vote, it's that they somehow get branded as the fringe element. Maybe the Dems are just better at branding?
It sounds like you and I are on the opposite ends of the spectrum so here's my take on it, for what it's worth. I think we have been ruled center right starting since the time of Reagan. Clinton was not a liberal. It's been the party of corporations and free trade since about 1980. This is not a situation that helps the average American ( having access to cheaper goods is not a plus when at the same time your company is cutting your pension, your benefits, and outsourcing your position. Who cares if Chinese workers are wealthier? ) . Most Americans are pretty much in the middle, if not a little to the left. Since the 'ruling coalition' for the US for the past 30 years, those left out by the corporatist agenda has widened to include the middle, not just the left and far left. So, yes, it really is a fact that the middle is excluded by the current incarnation of the Republican party, and the Democratic party is really a Big Tent party. Look and the Blue Dog democrats. For Christ's sake, we have conservative democrats in Congress! How many "Liberal Republicans" do we have? None! The whole itself is ridiculous, an oxymoron!
As just one example, I disagree with a lot of the Bush/Cheney years (you've got a good list going in your post), but quite frankly I've read enough interviews with both men to know that Bush isn't as stupid as people perceive him to be and Cheney isn't as diabolical - in fact, based on those who broke with that administration, Bush is the hard-nosed no-nonsense guy, while Cheney is a straight-shooter (literally sometimes;) but also a much smoother consensus-builder by nature (why he was chosen VP in the first place). So I ask you, how did their images get switched around so thoroughly in the public perception if it wasn't the media?
I'll take your word for it that that's how Bush and Cheney are in private, but people have a public persona that's not simply a creation of the media. Both Nixon and Gore are said to be very warm and personable in person, but put them in front of a camera, and they come off stiff as a board. It's not the media's fault; that's just how they appear on stage.
Look, when Bush gets up and speaks in public, he mixes up his words, more than an average person does. That's his stage persona. That makes him look dumb; I'm sorry, that's just a fact. Yes, the media covered that, and they can't show whitehouse meetings where he's laying down the law. But it's not the press corps who cause Bush to misspeak. His dad did it a lot too, I think there must be a genetic component.
And unless things turn around spectacularly pretty soon, they'll be saying "This is bullshit" again through the next election cycle. They left in droves (past tense), but they didn't all of a sudden give up on their country or their principles. Obama's overdoing the spending, overdoing the apologies, and proving to be far less centralist/consensus building/corruption free than his words promised... I'm gonna go ahead and forecast the filibuster will be back next election cycle (which I think will be healthy).
The thing is, they didn't vote for Obama only because they were fed up with Republicans; they voted for Obama because they *also* wanted Obama. If they were simply unhappy with Republicans, they would have just stayed home and not voted. So if Obama doesn't live up to their expectations, that's not sufficient to get them voting Republican again; Republicans have to offer them something. And right now the field looks pretty bleak. If your party has Sarah Palin as a major contender, you're in trouble:)
BTW I think Obama is straight down the middle centrist. For God's sake, he's got Wall Street Bankers trying to steer us out of financial crisis. If he
I don't disagree with you, but to me, lobbying and campaign finance reform are necessities; while I wouldn't mind not seeing term limits in my lifetime. I think the former is much more of a threat to democracy than the later.
I guess I kind of go both ways on this. One side of me says, we already have term limits for all elected officials: they're called elections. I have a problem with telling people "the person you want to vote for is ineligible to serve, because they're served for too long." Seems undemocratic. If the people want him/her, they should be able to vote them in, even if they're 100 years old.
You play a member of the Missouri National Guard who has to give up his job and not see his wife or two young children for five tours, so you can go to a country where the people who live there don't want you, and you get to drive around, waiting for an IED to kill or cripple you.
To a fifteen your old boy, this might sound awesome. "Later, babe, you're crimping my style. I'm gonna go drive around Iraq until I get blown up or something."
After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question.
What a surprise, another conservative who wants Democrats to take complete ownership of the mess Bush made. And which group is it that claims to espouse personal responsibility? I forget how easily I'm confused by this -- "We want the *other* guys to be personally responsible, not/us/".
What I would like to see passed are term limits for ALL elected officials. Maybe even a term limit for the Supreme Court. Or maybe not a limit, maybe make their appointment last 12 years and then they're done.
Without a base of power, expertise, and fundraising, fresh-face candidates are going to be *more* reliant on special interest campaign funding and lobbyist expertise, when they have the opportunity to go for a seat held by an establishment person. The longer you're there, the more power and independence you have.
You don't see freshmen being able to pass great bills that help the common person. Nobody owes them any favors. Sucks, but sucks less.
I'm not gonna be some MSM conspiracy kook here, but seriously - you really think that 48% or whatever of Americans are anti-intellectual xenophobic racist apes? Citation needed!
The deal is, most folks are reliable for their party affiliation, and don't need to be courted. So then, in order to win an election, you have to get the swing vote, which is the extremists in the party. For too long, Republicans have more and more desperately courted the swing vote -- end-times evangelicals, racists, libertarians, etc. The more middle-of-the-roaders they lost, the more they needed the swing vote. Instead of coming to the center, they chose to go out to the far reaches.
There's a reason why regular folk are leaving the Republican party in droves. Joe Sixpack Republican really was left behind by his party. In the past 8 years, there was some point -- and it was different for every person -- perhaps hurricane Katrina, perhaps the Global War on Terror, perhaps the ridiculous federal spending ( not that Democrats are better, but they don't promote themselves as fiscal conservatives ), perhaps the banking deregulation, where the regular midwest Republican said, "This is bullshit, I'm voting for Obama."
Can you expound a little bit? Doesn't it show that the mind is capable of doing something that a Turing machine can't? Namely 'perceiving' the incompleteness theorem itself?
Quantum computers are Turing reducible. It doesn't matter if your computer is classical or quantum, they can still only solve the same kinds of problems. This goes for the brain as well.
Doesn't Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem show that the mind is not a Turing machine?
So my thinking was that the only reason Oracle would have to keep Java or MySQL alive would be to challenge.NET, or the ASP + MSSQL stack. But, if they're not competing with MS, what reasons would they have to do either of that?
You're overlooking several things. First, gold is a metal. Metal currencies are better than other 'precious' things, because they can be melted down, recast, and almost endlessly. Gemstones are pretty, but the have problems as currency. For one, they can shatter, or break, and can't be repaired, which destroys value. If I want to trade 1/2 of my ruby with you, there's not an easy to do that. I can cut up a piece of gold almost endlessly and I don't ruin its value as gold.
It's a pretty metal that doesn't tarnish or corrode, and it's relatively rare. It's an element, so it can't break down chemically. Silver and copper are also valuable elemental metals, but silver tarnishes, and copper corrodes.
Why not hoard a commodity whose price is more stable?
Which commodity are you recommending here?
What's more portable, has better liquidity, or has better value density? What doesn't corrode or rot? You can take a piece of gold to any pawn shop or jeweler and get money for it -- try doing that with wheat or oil.
I'm amazed that in this day and age there are still people who think gold has inherent value and will suddenly be the default currency when everything goes Max Max Real Soon Now.
I'm surprised you didn't know that gold has been the most valuable commodity to any society that could get their hands on it. Why has gold been a universal currency for the past 5,000 years? Gold was valuable to the Incas, who had no connection to the east or west, until they were conquered by the Spanish.
What commodity is more easily transportable and has a better value density? Why is the word for 'money' or 'coin' or 'value' in many languages literally 'gold'? What do people take with them when they have to flee a country? What do people put in their safe deposit box? Why were ancient treasures filled with gold? Why does Fort Knox hold a bunch of gold? Why did kingdoms and governments use gold to back their paper currency -- which really does have no inherent value -- with gold, until very recently? If it truly has no inherent value, how come it's never completely lost its value, unlike paper currency, or tulip bulbs?
The answer is, gold is probably the closet thing we'll have to a perfect currency. It's malleable, divisible, and meltable -- unlike precious stones -- which means you can pay in exact change, and take your small denominations of gold, melt it down, and create a single unit out of it. It can't be arbitrarily multiplied, as a currency can -- no hyper inflation, unless we perfect the art of alchemy. Human beings are genuinely tickled by it's color -- it's used in jewelry and decoration, literal representations of value. It's pretty, unlike, say, lead. It doesn't corrode, like copper or iron. It won't rot, and can't be eaten, like wheat or rice. It can't be 'used up', like paper, especially printed paper ( currency) or toilet paper. It's not toxic and it won't spill, like oil. It's got a good value density -- Would you rather trade a 1 ounce gold coin ( value ~$1,000 ) or 1 ton of rice ( value ~$1,000) for something? And, it actually does have industrial applications, in electronics.It has inherent value as a medium of exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
You gotta be friggin kidding me. Terrorist rights vs. American rights? What about Human Rights? You are aware that treaties the United States enters into are the supreme law of the land?
What if you were a "terrorist" turned in by your neighbor because he was upset about a deal over some goats 10 years ago? Would you be worried about American rights or Terrorist rights? AS MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
I don't know, I always see the ACLU defending unpopular causes, such as the right of the KKK to hold a rally, or a person to freely practice their locally unpopular religion such as Wicca or Judaism. Hel, they even did a lawsuit to prevent Rush Limbaugh's medical records from being released for his court case.
But lets talk about your open ballot idea. I am sure its such a great idea, dictators all over the world will adopt it....Oh wait a minute, they already have. Pol Pot would be proud!
We already have it. It's called a party registration. In almost any state, in order to vote, you declare a party affiliation. Just like Card Check, after that all ballots are secret.
Do you honestly think Unions have not/will not strong arm their will upon others? They have in my life time!
I've heard this meme several times, and I think it's a crock of shit. I've worked in two unionized places in my lifetime, and I've never heard seen any of these horror anecdotes. I worked in a metal shop and in a Meijers, and those people worked just as hard, if not harder, than any other place I worked at. And the 'shop leader' was just another worker. Occasionally we had a vote on things. All this Tony Soprano mobster stuff is frankly BS.
I am going to use any influence I have
What influence does a union rep have over non-unionized employees? Exactly none! What is he going to do to you? Glare at you?
How exactly have unions strong-armed you? What power do they have over you? Are they going to fire you?
And do call it an App Store (or something similar if that's too (tm) Apple). Let 'em find out that stuff is free after they've seen something they like.
App Kiosk?
The astonishing thing about The Ribbon in Office 2007 is how quickly and easily this fundamental change in the Office UI took hold.
Can you explain to us open-source theoreticians why the Ribbon is such a great thing?
Er, you mean force workers into Unions to control them using a open ballot system.
Can you explain exactly how this is bad? I've heard these meme several times and I'm tempted to call bullshit.
Do you belong to a political party? Are you aware that your affiliation is an open ballot? Does your political party 'control' you?
Is this nothing but your personal theory? What is this based on? When did this distinction come about? In other words, what is the history of these terms?
To me, in an ideal world, people would have more power. Personally, I am more in favor of direct democracy. I would like to see a system where people actually voted on laws themselves, even propose them. But I think that would take a major cultural shift -- we would have to do the direct democracy thing in schools, from kindergarten up... Jefferson had the idea of a constitutional convention every 20 years, about the length of a generation. That might sound scary at first ( "What if they got it wrong?"), but once it became a way of life, I think people would truly understand that it was a country of, by, and for the people, and they would feel truly empowered, and therefore they would take the interest and participate in government, and in the convention. If they got it wrong, then we would fix it in 20 years. As long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony, too...
I few the modern corporate system as basically fuedalism -- you say that the corporation only influences your work life, but the government reaches into every aspect. I see the balance of power differently. I can call my representatives and get a response. I can't get a hold of CEOs the same way. Hell, I could run for senate or congress myself, and actually stand a chance of being elected! There's a less likely chance of me becoming a CEO. We don't live in a system where people have a family farm to rely on anymore. Your whole livelihood basically depends on your job. Your retirement, housing, health insurance, everything, depends on your employment. I think, if the problem is that corporations are taking power through government, then we should fight back through government. If we limit the power of government, that would leave a power vacuum that the corporations would happily step into. I understand the concern about the people in charge being those who are charismatic enough to get elected, but we are actually voting on them, and we have the opportunity to kick them out at regular intervals. We don't have that influence over who runs our corporations.
... I'm definitely pro-small government (especially at the federal level), although these days that wouldn't actually make me a Republican (by most people's definition), would it?
I think you raise an interesting point -- I think most middle-of-the-road conservatives, or those who have left the Republican party, are pretty much in line with you. But since they've left, what remains for the Republican party are right-wing evangelicals, extreme libertarians or corporatists. I think once someone comes along who can revive the Republican party, you will see a rebirth of it, and it will be more middle of the road.
And my point is that the media should be digging at least a little bit below the stage persona - if all we do is vote for the persona, what we'll keep on ending up with is the best actor as our leader. The internet does help with this, but the media shouldn't just be able to shrug it off as "well, we're just showing what we see" - look harder!!
Well, I think it's just problem with the scale of our society and democracy. We don't live in a tribe where you or I might actually see W speaking regularly; we can only witness him on television most of the time. And the press can only broadcast his public appearances; they can't play a white-house meeting. Sure, they can type up a transcript or write-up of it, but there's a problem with the human perceptual system. It doesn't matter how much writing you read about what Bush is like; the moment he steps up on the podium and flubs a delivery, that overrides any abstract reading a viewer may have done about him. Visuals are more powerful than words.
I think it's been drummed into a LOT of people's heads that staying home is bad - even if you're not really sure who you want in or what they're going to do - your responsibility is to get out there and vote! So what you do is you vote for the guy who's made the best impression (through the media), who might possibly somehow one day in a brighter future potentially make you proud of your country. In other words, we vote based on emotion, instead of on policy. It's too bad that civic responsibility has been dumbed down that much - the way I see it, it's your responsibility to get informed, and only then should you vote ...
I think voting on emotion has been true since the time of the founding fathers. From what I've read, 'newspapers' back then were the worst kind of political tabloids. And *that was the only "information" people had available*. So if the founding fathers thought that that was good enough for democracy, we're in a much better situation by far. We have access to real, factual, balanced, if not unbiased, information.
As far as not people not voting -- I think "I don't want either of these guys" is a reasonable response. We should have something more democratic, like IRV, where 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates actually stand a chance. More people would vote. Also, in Italy and Australia, they fine people who don't vote. Voter turnout is somewhere in the 90% range. Is that big government? Well, "big government" of, by, and for the people.
ike I said, I'm pro-small-government, and I'd rather see people out there looking to reduce the bureaucracy instead of sending trillions (!) of dollars direct from government to industry. That's not a capitalist policy at all (corporatist, maybe?) - and it certainly doesn't make Obama a centrist in my mind. It may make him a big business guy as well as a big government guy, which may move him closer to some Republicans, but it doesn't move him any more centrally towards me!
I think I see better where your coming from now... you are a true capitalist -- let 'em fail! ( Right? )
I guess the reason that I don't embrace that philosophy more fully is because it seems to me that the big corporations -- international coporations, big banks, big insurance, are so strong that
I'd have to agree with you on the first point. I would rather see those reforms before term limits. The problem I have with using elections as a form of term limit is that most of the time the incumbent gets re-elected because the person voting recognizes the name on the ballot. Plus part of the reason for having a term limit on the President is to avoid the slippery slope towards "president for life".
I agree. That's a problem with the electorate. In an ideal world, elections would serve as term limits, because a voter would inform themself and vote accordingly. But in the real world, name recognition, which being in office, and therefore in the media, wins the day. Sucks.
I'm of the opinion that the founding fathers didn't have career politicians in mind when they were setting up our government. I'd rather less career politicians and more elected officials who want to get elected, accomplish something and then go back to being private citizens.
I've heard that too. I'm divided on this also; if they didn't want career politicians, why didn't they make term limits? Surely they could have thought of that one. I think more they wanted 'part-time' politicians -- serve in government for a few months, and go back to the farm for a few months, repeat until 80 if so inclined.
To me, what's more important is representation -- the returning home to catch hell from the people -- than the term limits. I prefer the flip-flopping politician who does whatever his/her constituents tell him, than to somebody who has an agenda, or mission, to go in there and get something done. I think someone who serves a long time, and has seen fads come and go, is more likely to express the will of the constituency, rather than a term-limited politician who's on a personal mission to have an accomplishment on the record before they're out.
Furthermore, I think also we happen to live in a much more complex society, so having a professional politician might not be a bad thing in this day and age. Someone who has their own knowledge, and basically understands things like telecommunications, energy, the environment, and science, would rely less on lobbyists, who a lot of times, have expertise that an office holder doesn't. I'm in favor of democracy, but I don't think that just anybody is capable of writing an energy bill that has the right balance of science, world politics, and environmental concerns. The more a career politicians is able to grok all this on their own, the less they will rely on lobbyists, who will be put up by special interests.
The thing is, it's not just that the Republicans reached out to the swing vote, it's that they somehow get branded as the fringe element. Maybe the Dems are just better at branding?
It sounds like you and I are on the opposite ends of the spectrum so here's my take on it, for what it's worth. I think we have been ruled center right starting since the time of Reagan. Clinton was not a liberal. It's been the party of corporations and free trade since about 1980. This is not a situation that helps the average American ( having access to cheaper goods is not a plus when at the same time your company is cutting your pension, your benefits, and outsourcing your position. Who cares if Chinese workers are wealthier? ) . Most Americans are pretty much in the middle, if not a little to the left. Since the 'ruling coalition' for the US for the past 30 years, those left out by the corporatist agenda has widened to include the middle, not just the left and far left. So, yes, it really is a fact that the middle is excluded by the current incarnation of the Republican party, and the Democratic party is really a Big Tent party. Look and the Blue Dog democrats. For Christ's sake, we have conservative democrats in Congress! How many "Liberal Republicans" do we have? None! The whole itself is ridiculous, an oxymoron!
As just one example, I disagree with a lot of the Bush/Cheney years (you've got a good list going in your post), but quite frankly I've read enough interviews with both men to know that Bush isn't as stupid as people perceive him to be and Cheney isn't as diabolical - in fact, based on those who broke with that administration, Bush is the hard-nosed no-nonsense guy, while Cheney is a straight-shooter (literally sometimes ;) but also a much smoother consensus-builder by nature (why he was chosen VP in the first place). So I ask you, how did their images get switched around so thoroughly in the public perception if it wasn't the media?
I'll take your word for it that that's how Bush and Cheney are in private, but people have a public persona that's not simply a creation of the media. Both Nixon and Gore are said to be very warm and personable in person, but put them in front of a camera, and they come off stiff as a board. It's not the media's fault; that's just how they appear on stage.
Look, when Bush gets up and speaks in public, he mixes up his words, more than an average person does. That's his stage persona. That makes him look dumb; I'm sorry, that's just a fact. Yes, the media covered that, and they can't show whitehouse meetings where he's laying down the law. But it's not the press corps who cause Bush to misspeak. His dad did it a lot too, I think there must be a genetic component.
And unless things turn around spectacularly pretty soon, they'll be saying "This is bullshit" again through the next election cycle. They left in droves (past tense), but they didn't all of a sudden give up on their country or their principles. Obama's overdoing the spending, overdoing the apologies, and proving to be far less centralist/consensus building/corruption free than his words promised ... I'm gonna go ahead and forecast the filibuster will be back next election cycle (which I think will be healthy).
The thing is, they didn't vote for Obama only because they were fed up with Republicans; they voted for Obama because they *also* wanted Obama. If they were simply unhappy with Republicans, they would have just stayed home and not voted. So if Obama doesn't live up to their expectations, that's not sufficient to get them voting Republican again; Republicans have to offer them something. And right now the field looks pretty bleak. If your party has Sarah Palin as a major contender, you're in trouble :)
BTW I think Obama is straight down the middle centrist. For God's sake, he's got Wall Street Bankers trying to steer us out of financial crisis. If he
I don't disagree with you, but to me, lobbying and campaign finance reform are necessities; while I wouldn't mind not seeing term limits in my lifetime. I think the former is much more of a threat to democracy than the later.
I guess I kind of go both ways on this. One side of me says, we already have term limits for all elected officials: they're called elections. I have a problem with telling people "the person you want to vote for is ineligible to serve, because they're served for too long." Seems undemocratic. If the people want him/her, they should be able to vote them in, even if they're 100 years old.
You play a member of the Missouri National Guard who has to give up his job and not see his wife or two young children for five tours, so you can go to a country where the people who live there don't want you, and you get to drive around, waiting for an IED to kill or cripple you.
To a fifteen your old boy, this might sound awesome. "Later, babe, you're crimping my style. I'm gonna go drive around Iraq until I get blown up or something."
After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question.
What a surprise, another conservative who wants Democrats to take complete ownership of the mess Bush made. And which group is it that claims to espouse personal responsibility? I forget how easily I'm confused by this -- "We want the *other* guys to be personally responsible, not /us/".
What I would like to see passed are term limits for ALL elected officials. Maybe even a term limit for the Supreme Court. Or maybe not a limit, maybe make their appointment last 12 years and then they're done.
Without a base of power, expertise, and fundraising, fresh-face candidates are going to be *more* reliant on special interest campaign funding and lobbyist expertise, when they have the opportunity to go for a seat held by an establishment person. The longer you're there, the more power and independence you have.
You don't see freshmen being able to pass great bills that help the common person. Nobody owes them any favors. Sucks, but sucks less.
I'm not gonna be some MSM conspiracy kook here, but seriously - you really think that 48% or whatever of Americans are anti-intellectual xenophobic racist apes? Citation needed!
The deal is, most folks are reliable for their party affiliation, and don't need to be courted. So then, in order to win an election, you have to get the swing vote, which is the extremists in the party. For too long, Republicans have more and more desperately courted the swing vote -- end-times evangelicals, racists, libertarians, etc. The more middle-of-the-roaders they lost, the more they needed the swing vote. Instead of coming to the center, they chose to go out to the far reaches.
There's a reason why regular folk are leaving the Republican party in droves. Joe Sixpack Republican really was left behind by his party. In the past 8 years, there was some point -- and it was different for every person -- perhaps hurricane Katrina, perhaps the Global War on Terror, perhaps the ridiculous federal spending ( not that Democrats are better, but they don't promote themselves as fiscal conservatives ), perhaps the banking deregulation, where the regular midwest Republican said, "This is bullshit, I'm voting for Obama."
Also note that Specter was a Democrat originally, and changed party affiliations in 1965.
Can you expound a little bit? Doesn't it show that the mind is capable of doing something that a Turing machine can't? Namely 'perceiving' the incompleteness theorem itself?
Quantum computers are Turing reducible. It doesn't matter if your computer is classical or quantum, they can still only solve the same kinds of problems. This goes for the brain as well.
Doesn't Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem show that the mind is not a Turing machine?
So my thinking was that the only reason Oracle would have to keep Java or MySQL alive would be to challenge .NET, or the ASP + MSSQL stack. But, if they're not competing with MS, what reasons would they have to do either of that?
Since you're an Oracle Employee: Do you see Orcale using Java and MySQL as a threat, or check, against Microsoft?
Because it's pretty. That's about it.
You're overlooking several things. First, gold is a metal. Metal currencies are better than other 'precious' things, because they can be melted down, recast, and almost endlessly. Gemstones are pretty, but the have problems as currency. For one, they can shatter, or break, and can't be repaired, which destroys value. If I want to trade 1/2 of my ruby with you, there's not an easy to do that. I can cut up a piece of gold almost endlessly and I don't ruin its value as gold.
It's a pretty metal that doesn't tarnish or corrode, and it's relatively rare. It's an element, so it can't break down chemically. Silver and copper are also valuable elemental metals, but silver tarnishes, and copper corrodes.
If a person make a living by charging for sex, and has sex with you for free, they are not a hooker?
Why not hoard a commodity whose price is more stable?
Which commodity are you recommending here? What's more portable, has better liquidity, or has better value density? What doesn't corrode or rot? You can take a piece of gold to any pawn shop or jeweler and get money for it -- try doing that with wheat or oil.
I'm amazed that in this day and age there are still people who think gold has inherent value and will suddenly be the default currency when everything goes Max Max Real Soon Now.
I'm surprised you didn't know that gold has been the most valuable commodity to any society that could get their hands on it. Why has gold been a universal currency for the past 5,000 years? Gold was valuable to the Incas, who had no connection to the east or west, until they were conquered by the Spanish.
What commodity is more easily transportable and has a better value density? Why is the word for 'money' or 'coin' or 'value' in many languages literally 'gold'? What do people take with them when they have to flee a country? What do people put in their safe deposit box? Why were ancient treasures filled with gold? Why does Fort Knox hold a bunch of gold? Why did kingdoms and governments use gold to back their paper currency -- which really does have no inherent value -- with gold, until very recently? If it truly has no inherent value, how come it's never completely lost its value, unlike paper currency, or tulip bulbs?
The answer is, gold is probably the closet thing we'll have to a perfect currency. It's malleable, divisible, and meltable -- unlike precious stones -- which means you can pay in exact change, and take your small denominations of gold, melt it down, and create a single unit out of it. It can't be arbitrarily multiplied, as a currency can -- no hyper inflation, unless we perfect the art of alchemy. Human beings are genuinely tickled by it's color -- it's used in jewelry and decoration, literal representations of value. It's pretty, unlike, say, lead. It doesn't corrode, like copper or iron. It won't rot, and can't be eaten, like wheat or rice. It can't be 'used up', like paper, especially printed paper ( currency) or toilet paper. It's not toxic and it won't spill, like oil. It's got a good value density -- Would you rather trade a 1 ounce gold coin ( value ~$1,000 ) or 1 ton of rice ( value ~$1,000) for something? And, it actually does have industrial applications, in electronics.It has inherent value as a medium of exchange.
What commodity would you recommend?
If Linux has reached the world of hundred year old assaying firms, and Swiss vaults buried in mountains, can final world domination be too far away?"
Yeah, we just need a few nuclear exchanges. Linux and roaches, FTW!