I don't know if I would want to go to a state prision for nine years (maybe less) for a couple of million dollars. I mean, think of all the unsolicited advances one is bound to receive in the shower or other areas from guys doing multiple life sentences for murder. If it were a federal crime, however, life in prison would probably be a bit easier (from what I've heard, federal prisons are better run). I guess everyone has a different threshold of pain.
1. Just have people bid for their desired positions--acknowledge the fact that money controls politics, not ideas. Stop beating around the bush with the current system.
2. Have a lottery during each election cycle in which citizens/residents are randomly chosen for positions. (Those chosen would, of course, have the option of declining). People don't understand elections, but they sure understand lotteries. This system would get a wide swath of Americans involved in politics. They probably could perform just as well (or poorly) as the current "professionals."
3. Go the Platonic route. Periodically measure everyone's intelligence (method to be determined). Offer government positions to those with the highest levels of intelligence. Witness the rise of NerD Nation!
Illegal downloading does not necessarily represent lost sales but a new source of income for media companies. As the RIAA has demonstrated, prosecuting downloaders is a lucrative business, particularly when targeting those who do not have the means to take recourse (several thousand dollars minus legal expenses for each case = nice profit). I don't think media companies sincerely want illegal downloading to go away given their immense legal advantages.
The growing dominance of the "Evangelical Christians" in the Republican Party could create a future backlash. If Bush and his cohorts go overboard on the moral issues agenda, it could alienate many of the traditional/secular conservatives. Perhaps, a third-party (libertarians or other) would capitalize on this gap, hurting the Republican party in the long run. In some ways, I think this is what happened to the Democratic Party during the past decade. Clinton shifted the Democratic Party agenda to the right (who dismantled welfare?), leaving the left flank unguarded. Then, in 2000, Nader ran and captured a small but ultimately important number of the liberal left vote. Ever since, the Democratic Party has been in shambles.
It will be interesting to see if Bush can cover the growing number of bases in his next term. (Not that he has to worry about running again).
It is pointless to analyze the political motives of Osama Bin Ladin. Perhaps his claim to end terrorist attacke if the West withdrew from Arab territories is sincere or perhaps it is just a political bluff. The truth of the matter is that neither side is going to admit they're at fault. Both Bush and Kerry are crying the war on terrorism will be won by the US. Osama bin Ladin is doing the same. Basically, leaders on both sides are planning and perpetrating the war and -surprise surprise- the general public on both sides is paying the price (Western and Muslim lives). It's a familiar pattern that happens in just about every war.
--I have been studying wars quite a bit lately. The absurd nature of war depicted in Catch 22 is closer to the truth then most people think.
Marriage should be one of many legal status options for couples. With high rates of divorces and remarriage, it is clear that the traditional practice of marriage has eroded in our post-industrial society. Furthermore, when marriages end, there are many legal issues such as custody, property, etc that need to be resolved. I would submit that part of the problem is the lack of choice: people either remain single, live together as "boyfriend-girlfriend", or get married (the only legally recognized status for a couple). People sometimes get married even if they are not totally serious about the relationship. It might make sense to offer some lower legal status options for those couples living together but not ready to enter a full-fledge marriage (I am thinking of the system in Sweden and other Nordic countries), leaving marriage for the diehard couples. Personally, I think marriage and other legal statuses should be open to all despite sexual preference, but I am definitely an exception in the US.
The Republicans have used a number of tactics to dissuade voters, particularly African Americans and minorities, from going to the polls. Some examples include advertising the wrong date in flyers, posting election "monitors" outside polling stations, and offering various bribes. Just recently , the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee (my home state) plead guilty to jamming the phones of a Democrat-run "Get out the vote" effort in the 2002 mid-term elections. http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20040729/REPOSITORY/407290322/1043/NEWS01/. He was also an active leader in Bush re-election campaign.
Although I have bashed on the Republicans, the Democrats can be just as corrupt. They will undoubtedly have their own people at the polls to intimidate voters.
Soon, everyone will need a lawyer to exercise one's right to vote. Amen for American Democracy!
I hope it is a short-term fad. I am sick of my roommates waking me up at 3am while they swear at the computer. "What? That's f#$king impossible!" They also rarely leave their room nowadays (except to go the casino). I am sure they make some money, but they have invested a lot of time in their newfound "hobby." Ah, a new generation of hardcore gamblers.
Where's a good activist judge when you need one? Electronic voting, as it's currently implemented, is obviously flawed and will likely disenfranchise many voters. Since the executive and legislative powers seem entirely incapable and unwilling to intervene, court intervention appears to be the last hope. Sure, there's been a lot of talk recently about courts overstepping their constitutional boundaries, but who else is defending it to begin with? From my pessimistic perspective, the judicial branch is the last stronghold of sensibility in the American government (there are, of course, some exceptions). It's an unfortunate situation (the endless flow of lawsuits), but it seems like the only way to make significant changes for the better (occasionally for the worse) in our country.
Gerrymandering and single-seat districts are the biggest barriers to third parties gaining significant representation. One of my professors recently suggested that it could be argued that this system violates the First and Fourteenth Amendements (limits free speech, discriminates against certain individuals). I am no legal expert, but it seems plausible. Just a matter of getting the Supreme Court to agree.
Just a correction. The UK has single-seat, first-past-the-post districts just like here in the US. In fact, the US modeled this part of its electoral system after the UK. There has been some talk in the UK of moving to a proportional system, but the current system is very beneficial for the Labor Party. Sound familiar?
I can just imagine it now. COPS, the TV show, filming police officers pulling over a suspicious vehciles driving around an upperclass neighborhood. They approach the car and find two males, one's holding a laptop. They start yelling "close the fucking laptop" and the two men freeze in terror. One guy unwittingly opens his door and starts moving when one of the officers pulls him out and tackles him to the ground. "Your pasty white ass is going to jail, boy!" The other man quickly surrenders as the other officer rushes the car. Back-up arrives. The two distraught men are man-handled as they are shoved into the hood of the police cruiser. One officer turns to the camera. "Yeah, these wardrivers. A real menance to society. We're just doing our job--taking criminals off the street."
I'm going to the debate tonight (my organization is a co-sponsor). As others have already mentioned, Nader won't be there, although he's coming to Ithaca tomorrow night for a campaign stop (8PM, State Theater). C-SPAN is definitely taping the event, but I am not sure when they will air it.
After seeing the past two televised debates between the major candidates, I am looking forward to some different political perspectives. There should also be many "interesting" people in attendence (people you can only find at a university). Personally, I am definitely on the left but have yet to decide which third party to support (although I am leaning towards the Green Party based on their platform). I just received my absentee ballot yesterday, so I need someone to write in.
I am no expert on building democracies (I don't think any such experts exist), but I think it is a bit naive to think that an external force can go into a country and install a fully functional democracy, particularly after a devastating war. I seem to remember Bush himself was opposed to "nation building" prior to 9/11. Realistically, it will probably take decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to a stable democracy comparable to those in the West. But I predict that the US will become weary and leave before the project is complete. I think a more cost-effective method would involve boosting foreign aid efforts to developing areas. Not throwing money at failed states, but improving the lives of people through well-managed programs. The $200 billion dollars spent the war could have "bought" many friends in the Middle East and other areas of the world. Perhaps the Peace Corp could have been expanded, so that people around the world could see Americans providing help rather than killing "dark people." Once people obtain a basic standard of living and education, then there is a foundation for democracy. A strong civil society is absolutely essential.
I don't know about other people, but great views don't compensate for great cultural experiences. When living in Europe last year, I saw many amazing landscapes, but my fondest memories are of my interactions with interesting people. For example, sledding with a group of Czech kids in a small village near the Austrian border. Or walking around the streets of Bergen late one night with a Norwegian stoner (a "dark-side" tour of Norway). Not exactly activities advertised in a brochure, but fun and insightful. I saw many groups of other tourists taking countless pictures, and I always wondered why people go to another country only to see it through a viewfinder. Do these people really look at their pictures back home and say, "Wow, that was amazing!" I don't know, perhaps they do. In this case, virtual tourism would be well suited for them (it reminds me a bit of Total Recall). I am definitely more of the anthropological type.
Military planners need to learn some basics in international security theory. Any attempts by the US or another state to exercise total dominance in space is clearly not going to be acceptable to others (particularly other major players). In essence, a new arms race will emerge to militarize space. If such a race were to occur, the US would likely enjoy some short-lived advantages, but other countries are catching up (American power has been in relative decline for several decades now). American hubris is the greatest weakness.
I thought I would point out that there is a similar debate occurring at Cornell on October 6th. It will include both David Cobb and Michael Badnarik as well as the candidates for the Socialist and Constitutional Parties, Walt Brown and Michael Peroutka respectively. Nader was invited but has not given an official response (although I've heard he'll be in upstate New York at the time and could show up). Anyway, the event is being covered by C-SPAN and some regional networks, so there could be some real TV coverage (both locally and nationally). These candidates are not really going to impact the national election, but it's nice to hear some different political viewpoints.
Tauzin had no campaign because he had no real opponent (I think there was an independent candidate). This is not unusual in Congressional races. I don't have 2002 numbers, but in 2000, 99% of incumbents were re-elected, largely because they had built huge coffers that could not be matched by opponents. Given that 95% of candidates who spend the most win, most potential opponents are discouraged from running if they don't have the money. You have to pay to play under the current system, and I think the only real solution will be to institute a "clean" money system similar to those found in Maine and Arizona at the federal level (no easy feat).
It's my impression that the AOL, Yahoo, and friends are taking advantage of the situation in Congress now. While new legislation may stop the annoying Viagra and Porn SPAM, it might also legitimize corporate-sponsored SPAM. I guess it's not surprising when the corporate lobbyists are sitting around the table with Congressional leaders drafting the legislation. Corporations also fund campaigns: Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) received $8,000 from AOL, $5,500 from Microsoft, $1,000 from Yahoo, and so on during his last election (2002, opensecrets.org). Just another example of corporate distortion in American politics. Complain hard and loud now or else we lose.
Ah GTA3. I always get frustrated when cars blatantly swerve in front of me. I hit my desk and swear at the computer. Now, when I drive, I have less patience for poor drivers. "You didn't just cut me off, you stupid mother&@#$er!. Wait until I get my Uzi." Wait...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I've heard of the UK being referred to as the 51st state of America.
I don't know if I would want to go to a state prision for nine years (maybe less) for a couple of million dollars. I mean, think of all the unsolicited advances one is bound to receive in the shower or other areas from guys doing multiple life sentences for murder. If it were a federal crime, however, life in prison would probably be a bit easier (from what I've heard, federal prisons are better run). I guess everyone has a different threshold of pain.
1. Just have people bid for their desired positions--acknowledge the fact that money controls politics, not ideas. Stop beating around the bush with the current system.
2. Have a lottery during each election cycle in which citizens/residents are randomly chosen for positions. (Those chosen would, of course, have the option of declining). People don't understand elections, but they sure understand lotteries. This system would get a wide swath of Americans involved in politics. They probably could perform just as well (or poorly) as the current "professionals."
3. Go the Platonic route. Periodically measure everyone's intelligence (method to be determined). Offer government positions to those with the highest levels of intelligence. Witness the rise of NerD Nation!
And I'm spent.
"We don't have to protect the environment - the Second Coming is at hand."
- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration
I hope Jesus gets here quick because my feet are getting soggy.
Illegal downloading does not necessarily represent lost sales but a new source of income for media companies. As the RIAA has demonstrated, prosecuting downloaders is a lucrative business, particularly when targeting those who do not have the means to take recourse (several thousand dollars minus legal expenses for each case = nice profit). I don't think media companies sincerely want illegal downloading to go away given their immense legal advantages.
It will be interesting to see if Bush can cover the growing number of bases in his next term. (Not that he has to worry about running again).
It is pointless to analyze the political motives of Osama Bin Ladin. Perhaps his claim to end terrorist attacke if the West withdrew from Arab territories is sincere or perhaps it is just a political bluff. The truth of the matter is that neither side is going to admit they're at fault. Both Bush and Kerry are crying the war on terrorism will be won by the US. Osama bin Ladin is doing the same. Basically, leaders on both sides are planning and perpetrating the war and -surprise surprise- the general public on both sides is paying the price (Western and Muslim lives). It's a familiar pattern that happens in just about every war. --I have been studying wars quite a bit lately. The absurd nature of war depicted in Catch 22 is closer to the truth then most people think.
Marriage should be one of many legal status options for couples. With high rates of divorces and remarriage, it is clear that the traditional practice of marriage has eroded in our post-industrial society. Furthermore, when marriages end, there are many legal issues such as custody, property, etc that need to be resolved. I would submit that part of the problem is the lack of choice: people either remain single, live together as "boyfriend-girlfriend", or get married (the only legally recognized status for a couple). People sometimes get married even if they are not totally serious about the relationship. It might make sense to offer some lower legal status options for those couples living together but not ready to enter a full-fledge marriage (I am thinking of the system in Sweden and other Nordic countries), leaving marriage for the diehard couples. Personally, I think marriage and other legal statuses should be open to all despite sexual preference, but I am definitely an exception in the US.
Although I have bashed on the Republicans, the Democrats can be just as corrupt. They will undoubtedly have their own people at the polls to intimidate voters.
Soon, everyone will need a lawyer to exercise one's right to vote. Amen for American Democracy!
I hope it is a short-term fad. I am sick of my roommates waking me up at 3am while they swear at the computer. "What? That's f#$king impossible!" They also rarely leave their room nowadays (except to go the casino). I am sure they make some money, but they have invested a lot of time in their newfound "hobby." Ah, a new generation of hardcore gamblers.
Where's a good activist judge when you need one? Electronic voting, as it's currently implemented, is obviously flawed and will likely disenfranchise many voters. Since the executive and legislative powers seem entirely incapable and unwilling to intervene, court intervention appears to be the last hope. Sure, there's been a lot of talk recently about courts overstepping their constitutional boundaries, but who else is defending it to begin with? From my pessimistic perspective, the judicial branch is the last stronghold of sensibility in the American government (there are, of course, some exceptions). It's an unfortunate situation (the endless flow of lawsuits), but it seems like the only way to make significant changes for the better (occasionally for the worse) in our country.
Gerrymandering and single-seat districts are the biggest barriers to third parties gaining significant representation. One of my professors recently suggested that it could be argued that this system violates the First and Fourteenth Amendements (limits free speech, discriminates against certain individuals). I am no legal expert, but it seems plausible. Just a matter of getting the Supreme Court to agree.
Just a correction. The UK has single-seat, first-past-the-post districts just like here in the US. In fact, the US modeled this part of its electoral system after the UK. There has been some talk in the UK of moving to a proportional system, but the current system is very beneficial for the Labor Party. Sound familiar?
I can just imagine it now. COPS, the TV show, filming police officers pulling over a suspicious vehciles driving around an upperclass neighborhood. They approach the car and find two males, one's holding a laptop. They start yelling "close the fucking laptop" and the two men freeze in terror. One guy unwittingly opens his door and starts moving when one of the officers pulls him out and tackles him to the ground. "Your pasty white ass is going to jail, boy!" The other man quickly surrenders as the other officer rushes the car. Back-up arrives. The two distraught men are man-handled as they are shoved into the hood of the police cruiser. One officer turns to the camera. "Yeah, these wardrivers. A real menance to society. We're just doing our job--taking criminals off the street."
I'm going to the debate tonight (my organization is a co-sponsor). As others have already mentioned, Nader won't be there, although he's coming to Ithaca tomorrow night for a campaign stop (8PM, State Theater). C-SPAN is definitely taping the event, but I am not sure when they will air it. After seeing the past two televised debates between the major candidates, I am looking forward to some different political perspectives. There should also be many "interesting" people in attendence (people you can only find at a university). Personally, I am definitely on the left but have yet to decide which third party to support (although I am leaning towards the Green Party based on their platform). I just received my absentee ballot yesterday, so I need someone to write in.
I am no expert on building democracies (I don't think any such experts exist), but I think it is a bit naive to think that an external force can go into a country and install a fully functional democracy, particularly after a devastating war. I seem to remember Bush himself was opposed to "nation building" prior to 9/11. Realistically, it will probably take decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to a stable democracy comparable to those in the West. But I predict that the US will become weary and leave before the project is complete. I think a more cost-effective method would involve boosting foreign aid efforts to developing areas. Not throwing money at failed states, but improving the lives of people through well-managed programs. The $200 billion dollars spent the war could have "bought" many friends in the Middle East and other areas of the world. Perhaps the Peace Corp could have been expanded, so that people around the world could see Americans providing help rather than killing "dark people." Once people obtain a basic standard of living and education, then there is a foundation for democracy. A strong civil society is absolutely essential.
I don't know about other people, but great views don't compensate for great cultural experiences. When living in Europe last year, I saw many amazing landscapes, but my fondest memories are of my interactions with interesting people. For example, sledding with a group of Czech kids in a small village near the Austrian border. Or walking around the streets of Bergen late one night with a Norwegian stoner (a "dark-side" tour of Norway). Not exactly activities advertised in a brochure, but fun and insightful. I saw many groups of other tourists taking countless pictures, and I always wondered why people go to another country only to see it through a viewfinder. Do these people really look at their pictures back home and say, "Wow, that was amazing!" I don't know, perhaps they do. In this case, virtual tourism would be well suited for them (it reminds me a bit of Total Recall). I am definitely more of the anthropological type.
Military planners need to learn some basics in international security theory. Any attempts by the US or another state to exercise total dominance in space is clearly not going to be acceptable to others (particularly other major players). In essence, a new arms race will emerge to militarize space. If such a race were to occur, the US would likely enjoy some short-lived advantages, but other countries are catching up (American power has been in relative decline for several decades now). American hubris is the greatest weakness.
I thought I would point out that there is a similar debate occurring at Cornell on October 6th. It will include both David Cobb and Michael Badnarik as well as the candidates for the Socialist and Constitutional Parties, Walt Brown and Michael Peroutka respectively. Nader was invited but has not given an official response (although I've heard he'll be in upstate New York at the time and could show up). Anyway, the event is being covered by C-SPAN and some regional networks, so there could be some real TV coverage (both locally and nationally). These candidates are not really going to impact the national election, but it's nice to hear some different political viewpoints.
Tauzin had no campaign because he had no real opponent (I think there was an independent candidate). This is not unusual in Congressional races. I don't have 2002 numbers, but in 2000, 99% of incumbents were re-elected, largely because they had built huge coffers that could not be matched by opponents. Given that 95% of candidates who spend the most win, most potential opponents are discouraged from running if they don't have the money. You have to pay to play under the current system, and I think the only real solution will be to institute a "clean" money system similar to those found in Maine and Arizona at the federal level (no easy feat).
It's my impression that the AOL, Yahoo, and friends are taking advantage of the situation in Congress now. While new legislation may stop the annoying Viagra and Porn SPAM, it might also legitimize corporate-sponsored SPAM. I guess it's not surprising when the corporate lobbyists are sitting around the table with Congressional leaders drafting the legislation. Corporations also fund campaigns: Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) received $8,000 from AOL, $5,500 from Microsoft, $1,000 from Yahoo, and so on during his last election (2002, opensecrets.org). Just another example of corporate distortion in American politics. Complain hard and loud now or else we lose.
Ah GTA3. I always get frustrated when cars blatantly swerve in front of me. I hit my desk and swear at the computer. Now, when I drive, I have less patience for poor drivers.
"You didn't just cut me off, you stupid mother&@#$er!. Wait until I get my Uzi." Wait...