If you don't care what Verizon and AT&T are going to do with the spectrum once its free, then the solution to all of these problems was to do what the broadcasters and the viewers wanted in the first place: Nothing.
Practically nobody directly affected by the change wanted it, if the government is going to mandate it so they can sell off the spectrum to some private corporations to do who-gives-a-shit, then they have a responsibility to make it go smoothly.
Yeah, and if you applied a year ago and got your coupon, you then discovered there were no converters to be had and then the coupon expired and then you're on a wait list to get a new one but now the program has dried up.
And yeah, God forbid that after reading the classifieds, hoofing it around in the day to try to find a job, a poor person would find the time in their hectic schedule to watch TV.
What about all of the stations who have spent tons of money and time gearing up for the switch? In my city (Denver) we have a large new tower built for broadcasting HD, and part of the promise to the residents of the area was that after the switch happened the old towers (and associated problems with them broadcasting) would go away. If you let this linger another year or two they are kind of screwed.
Well it's not like they aren't allowed to broadcast digitally (many already are), or turn off their analog broadcasts, whenever they want. Feb 17th is merely the date for mandatory shut down of the analog broadcast. If the stations aren't doing so now then that's because, just as has been the case since the mandatory switch was first proposed, they don't want to.
You just can't decide at the last moment to pull the rug out from under what is a useful technical move forward. There has to be some continuity between what government says will happen and what actually happens, or all dissolves to chaos as government promises are further devalued.
You mean like the promise that this government-mandated change won't screw over poor people by letting them get cheap converters? Yeah, it'd sure be a shame if government promises were devalued further.
exactly! i am counted toward that - i received two coupons, but they were both expired by the time converter boxes started showing up in my market. isn't there some way to account for those?
Same here. I'm pretty sure that the money for an expired coupon goes back into the pool, but that doesn't mean you get dibs on a replacement, and now you can't get one at all.
It was a reality the second the first coupon was given away. Those smart enough to get in on in the last year are fine, now those who didn't are starting to whine. I don't even need my two, but picked them up anyways.
What does "smart" have to do with it when you have a coupon in hand, but no store in a 45 minute drive has converters?
And by the time converters show up, your coupon has expired?
And then you try to get another coupon, but the program is out of funding so no more coupon for you?
Or are you talking about how "smart" you were to take two coupons that some poor family could have used?
The switch was already supposed to happen years ago, but they delayed things back then for the same reason. Should we delay forever and waste a huge amount of spectrum on an ancient broadcasting mechanism?
And to what great use are Verizon and AT&T putting this spectrum? Assuming I'm not a customer of either, how is this better for me? Especially if I don't have cable or a coupon...
I think the program is out of money because a lot of people who don't even need coupons are getting them - my guess is that probably half of the people at least do not understand that if they have cable they don't need a different box.
Probably true, but I think people also underestimate the number of homes who use antennae. In any event, a lot of people who do need the converter couldn't get one before their coupon expired because the only stores that had them in stock were the ones that weren't honoring the coupons.
There's still more than a month til the switch, time enough to sort out who really needs help and help them.
'Some people are under the impression that if they sign up for a donor card that will include donating their brain for research. But it won't,' says Breen. 'Donor cards are about donating organs for transplant, not for medical science.'"
Well to be honest, I have always kinda hoped that having my donor card would mean they might transplant my brain...
So the jist of this article is several semi-permanent chatrooms have been identified where proto-terrorists gather to recruit and discuss strategy, and they want to take these down??!!!
That's perverse. Why on earth would you want to take out honeypots that your foes are kind enough to set up for you?
Because it's ruining our anti-terrorist propaganda!
Check out this blog post on explodeyourfacebook.com by user RowdiJihadi309: "Nov 12, 2008
Current mood: Depressed.:(
I was supposed to go practice building explosives with Ahmed today, but I woke up today feeling like what's the point, you know? We've built like two tiny bombs since I started going, and we haven't even blown up anything yet, because all Ahmed does is talk about how the other terror bloggers have it out for him and are talking trash (watch this post show up on his blog!) and then once he calms down all he wants to do is watch funny youtube videos. Which are funny (have you seen the one where the guy gets beat up by a deer? So awesome!) but really it gets old and he gets really defensive when you ask him when you're going to start building bombs.
So I woke up in an apathetic mood, and then right after I fed her Mittens got sick on the floor and gave the saddest meow I'd ever heard. That pretty much killed any motivation I had left. She's barfed like ten times since then, something's wrong but the vet is closed today. Now I'm just sitting here blogging and listening to her alternate between throwing up and crying. Which is how I feel on the inside now. Mittens is like a reflection of my soul.
User comments:
1. TrrrGrrl9721 OMG sick kitty is so sad! Now I'm depressed too.:( "
And it goes on.
How can we possibly maintain the image that evil terrorists are scheming and plotting against us and that we need the government to fight them if the populace can read posts like the above?
My original point is that it is far easier to exploit human emotions when religion is used as a rallying cry. "Onward Christian Soldiers" anyone? "Jihad"? "Fight for Freedom"? "War on Terror"? The same people who are vulnerable to being exploited emotionally are the same people who are vulnerable to religious influence.
Except the largest massacres in human history were conducted without religion as the rallying cry.
And no, I'm not blaming the philosophies that were used as rallying cries in those cases.
I'm saying the reasoning that says it's easier to exploit the religious, and more wars and deaths happen as a result, is historically inaccurate and simply wrong.
This, as it happens, is very near to the point that I intended to make myself. When placing blame, it doesn't really matter whether the leader was genuinely religious/atheistic or just using such rhetoric to incite the masses. What matters is whether religious or anti-religious rhetoric has historically been more successful at inciting violence. Obviously there is some blame on both sides, but I think you'll find that far more people have been killed because they didn't follow the "right" religion than have been killed because they weren't atheist, from the perspective of those actually doing the killing. It appears to me that shared beliefs, particularly subjective or irrational ones, are much more effective at inspiring the masses toward war than any shared lack of belief could ever be.
I don't think we're that near, because my point is that blaming either religion or atheism or communism or socialism or nationalism is foolish, since those are not the causes of the deaths, they are merely tools, and the nature of the tool doesn't seem to make much difference. Replace Communism with Catholicism, and Stalin would have been a butcher just the same. Replace Catholicism with Nationalism and the Crusaders would have still ridden.
There something busted in your reasoning when you conclude that more people have been killed due to religion when the largest massacres in human history were perpetrated by non-religious organizations (admittedly the Nazis were at least cooperative with Protestantism in the beginning since it helped fuel anti-semitism, but that was largely abandoned later). Stop talking in terms of blaming religion vs atheism, since whatever the causes of those massacres, atheism did not help prevent them because even atheists do believe in things, even though those things aren't Gods, and these beliefs have demonstrably been abused to employ people in the murder of billions.
The religious, non-religious, or political philosophies of the masses are not the problem. Trying to blame deaths on those philosophies, in order to discover which is "the most dangerous" is foolish and misses the point.
My entire point was that since we have no way of knowing his true intent (maybe pure, maybe malicious, no one can know), all we can judge is his actions... which were shit.
Glad to see you continue to stubbornly ignore the actions that revealed intentions opposite to what you assume, and refuse to even acknowledge the context of the action you find so deplorable. It really makes your conclusion "all we can judge is his actions... which were shit" seem well-reasoned and intelligent.
Maybe, but at least if I get my way, the world doesn't go to shit. If you get your way, the world still goes to shit, just not quite as fast. Now that's what I'd call an utterly useless philosophy: actually condoning things getting worse, just because things could be worse yet. Brilliant!
No, your way GUARANTEES the world goes to shit, because your stubborn refusal to compromise means you will NEVER accomplish ANYTHING to stop it from going to shit! By refusing to accept the nature of reality for the sake of your philosophical purity, you have deliberately abandoned practicality, and thus efficacy. That means the ones trying to make everything go to shit are left unhindered. Since you cannot bring about change, they get to decide what change occurs.
You just feel better about yourself because you didn't cause it directly. Because you didn't condone it getting worse. That means NOTHING to me. Nor should it to anyone who actually cares about the state of the world.
Or let me put it this way: "Your way" would have had Obama vote against a massive bill because of one clause, though the bill would have passed anyway, and failing to approve all the other things in the bill because of that one clause would have looked bad. At best, nothing at all changes, at worst he loses and McCain takes office and keeps the same DoJ that handed Bush all his superpowers -- people whose intent we know, which was to continue down the path to shit. My way: Obama votes for the bill, having already showed he was against that one clause by trying to remove it, and gets elected. He stocks the DoJ with lawyers who are on record stating that the President does not have the Constitutional authorities that the previous DoJ has grabbed, and his OLC pick is on record stating that the purpose of the OLC is to tell the President "no" when he wants to go outside the law. Oh yeah, I'm sure you think that doesn't mean anything and maybe they'll 180, but are you honestly going to tell me that this isn't better than keeping the same thugs who we know favor expanding executive power without limit?
Both our ways result in things "getting worse" via the law getting passed, because there was no option on the table to prevent that. My way then causes things to get better -- yes, it's true that sometimes in reality things must get worse before they can get better. Your way, by doing nothing and accomplishing nothing, hands power to those who are ready and willing to make things worse as fast as possible.
Your way loses.
Any way that ignores practical reality loses.
I'm sick of high-minded, idealistic, completely useless and deliberately unrealistic philosophies. We need results in the real world. Obama is going to get them. Whatever whack job satisfies your desire for an uncompromising and thus ineffective leader would not and could not. Go campaign for him and tell yourself how you're not making things worse, while the rest of us worry about getting things done.
Find me a bill which contains nothing wrong. Did you miss that this was a gigantic bill, and that he did actually try to remove the bad part? Did you know that a lot of that bill was actually pretty decent and important stuff? And that just like how you can take his "Yes" vote to mean he specifically supports the telecom immunity clause even though he fought specifically against it, any of his opponents could have taken a "No" vote to mean he specifically did not support any other portion of the bill.
You say his actions are exonerated by his votes before the crucial one, but it could just as easily be a deception to conceal his true intentions. We have no way of knowing what his intent truly was on that bill, all we know is his actions... which supported it.
I didn't say he was exonerated, I said I was disappointed in it. I'm not a pure idealist who thinks I won't or shouldn't ever be disappointed in an elected official.
We do know his actions, which is that first he tried to filibuster, then he voted to remove the immunity clause, and then that when that failed, he voted for the bill in total knowing it was destined to pass anyway. What I'm asking is why are you ignoring some of those actions. If actions reveal intent, why does a failed vote for an amendment not matter and a vote for a bill guaranteed to pass does matter? The vote for the amendment was aimed specifically at the part of the bill that we find onerous, so why is that vote not crucial to the issue at hand? I just don't get this "one thing I disagree with means nothing else matters" point of view. It seems guaranteed to mean nobody can live up to the standard, and could never accomplish anything in the attempt.
Oh and LOL at deception. Yeah, and all his DoJ picks (actions matter right?), starting years before an Obama Presidency was even considered, wrote papers and editorials criticizing the expansion of executive power, all in preparation for deceiving America. Sounds like if he really wanted to deceive us he should have voted against the bill he knew was going to pass anyway, so he could have fooled you too!
Not making a meaningless gesture would've been something like not voting on the bill... at least he would've done no harm, then.
Voting against a bill you know is going to pass, not altering the outcome of reality, is the essence of meaningless! A protest vote is a meaningless gesture!
And he'd have done no harm... unless it cost him the nomination or the election, and we were free to experience the harm of a continuation of Bush policies. But at least he would have stood up for principle, right? Sorry but that's just not good enough for me any more. I want results. Like real-live affects-reality not-just-a-brave-stand-for-principles results. And your never-compromise philosophy is guaranteed never to produce them, and by extension allows others to chose what the results will be. So maybe you feel good about yourself, but the world still goes to shit. I soundly reject that utterly useless philosophy.
Precisely. GP post is an absolute load of nonsense, and of course fails to cite any sources for his/her diatribe.
Well, it's not *absolute* nonsense, there is a valid point being made even if it goes to far in actually blaming atheism. And he shouldn't really have to cite sources for the deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
The majority of "atheist"-caused deaths which are presumably being referred to were motivated by a desire to obtain and maintain political and social control, not to 'eradicate religion' because of its ideological conflict with atheism. The fact that the perpetrators were from ideologies which were also atheistic does not mean that any of those deaths are attributable to atheism.
The majority of all deaths ever were motivated by a desire for power, control, land, resources. Philosophy, religious or political, is used as a justification or a method to gain the support of the people being sent to war. I mean you don't think the Crusades were really about Christianity, even though that's what the Kings told the knights and the footmen? Was the Inquisition really about weeding out heresy, or was it about wielding terror as a method of social control?
All those leaders I mentioned self-identified as atheists, and persecuted the religious, and slew millions in the names of their political philosophies. We are all wise enough to realize that this truly was in name only, and that their true motivations were to acquire and hold power.
Yet not in the cases where the leaders self-identified as religious?
That's the valid point being made. Religion doesn't cause war any more than non-religion does. Lust for power causes war, and that's a trait that is not unique to any philosophy. As proven by the fact that the many of the largest body counts of the last century, the largest body counts of human history, belonged to those of non-religious philosophies. And it wasn't their philosophy that was the problem!
I'm sorry, but if you think doing evil because it's politically convenient is acceptable, then we have no common ground to speak to. Evil is evil.
What "evil" did he do, other than not make a meaningless gesture? The bill was going to pass anyway. If it's evil to not make a pointless gesture, then why wasn't his pointless gesture of voting for the amendment to remove immunity good?
But yes, I doubt we have much common ground to speak to, since your uncompromising stance against compromises based in political reality means that no candidate you support could ever accomplish anything but meaningless gestures (as if they could get elected in the first place). I would like someone who can actually get something done. I mean God bless Russ Feingold, but I wouldn't want the man to be President.
The only indicator we have as to whether Obama will fulfill his promises is his past performance... and his past performance is shit.
Well I think that the stated opinions of Bush's DoJ picks were pretty well indicative of their future actions, and Obama's are a 180 degree change from that. Also while I'm not happy with the telecom vote, I don't see the performance as 'shit'. 'Shit' would be the ones who fought the amendment, and pushed for immunity in the first place. But again, it's the lack of distinction here that is exactly why I don't see anything useful coming from your point of view.
I think it was more a case of "we don't need no stinking warrants anymore". An institutional mindset assuming that "we're at war" automatically removes all constitutional protections; not unexpected if you look back in history at the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, or the mass detention of natural born (but of foreign origin) citizens during WW II.
I definitely see that, the whole philosophy of our executive branch for the last eight years has been "We're the good guys, so whatever we do is automatically good", but I see the progression of arrogance as follows:
1) Decide suspect is a Bad Guy. 2) Try to find probable cause to get a warrant. 3) Fail. 4) Conclude warrant requirement is getting in the way of catching Bad Guys. 5) Begin wiretap.
Right! Like the warrantless wiretaps, which Obama has done everything in his power to punish. Wait, what's that you say? He actually voted to help some of the perpetrators of that crime get away with it? Damn! Guess he's not really trying to help us out after all.
As The Who so insightfully said in 1971: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
He threatened to filibuster, but couldn't get enough support from other dems, he voted for the amendment to remove the telecom immunity, but it failed, and finally when it was obvious that the bill was going to pass with the immunity provision intact, he voted for it to deny his opponents "Obama opposes fighting terror" ammunition. There was lots of other things in that bill, you see, and a tough election coming up. Unfortunate, as he said himself at the time, but it may have helped him get into a position where he can stack the DoJ with lawyers who vocally oppose expanding executive power, I think that's a net win.
So Bush and his lawyers actively supported the policy, Obama fought it but gave in to political reality. If that's your level of distinction, where that makes them "the same", well, there's no help for you. Go support whatever fringe candidate who you feel embraces all your ideals, will never get elected, and even if elected would never enact any useful policy due to an inability to compromise. I'll take practical, useful change that can actually gets done, thanks.
Not that I'm completely without unrealistic ideals... I still hold out hope than an Obama DoJ could go after the telcos since after all the bill only protected them from civil liability. I won't be holding my breath though.
Remember all you folks who argued for greater presidential powers: Every power you gave Bush is a power Obama now has. And ditto for you Obama fans who will be arguing the same in the next few years for your guy. Eventually there will be someone you don't like in office.
Well I'm an Obama fan because his own and his chosen DoJ team's stances have been strongly at odds with the Bush DoJ's "creative" interpretation of the Constitution. So even though the guy I like is in office, I'll be hoping for and arguing for a reduction in executive power, thank you very much.
Oh and I'm not expecting any miracles on that account, but I am confident that the worst abuses of Bush's executive power will not be continued.
What if all the information they had about them was that lonely wikipedia page? I dont think the judge would consider it as evidence...
Too true, lol. Personally I've always maintained that their failure to seek warrants was ipso facto proof that they didn't have any decent evidence. Why would you take the risk of circumventing the law when the FISA court is ready and willing to retro-actively rubber stamp your warrant, unless you know you don't have enough to satisfy even the rubber stamper?
I think it has more to do with standing. These people know that they had been wiretapped (apparently the feds accidentally gave them a copy of the call logs, lol). The EFF doesn't know who has been wiretapped, I'm not sure they have direct proof that anybody has been, so their case is much more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
I've already promised other people that I would have my brain cryogenically frozen so that I can be resurrected at some point in the future
Ah, you must be a Cobol programmer.
If you don't care what Verizon and AT&T are going to do with the spectrum once its free, then the solution to all of these problems was to do what the broadcasters and the viewers wanted in the first place: Nothing.
Practically nobody directly affected by the change wanted it, if the government is going to mandate it so they can sell off the spectrum to some private corporations to do who-gives-a-shit, then they have a responsibility to make it go smoothly.
Yeah, and if you applied a year ago and got your coupon, you then discovered there were no converters to be had and then the coupon expired and then you're on a wait list to get a new one but now the program has dried up.
And yeah, God forbid that after reading the classifieds, hoofing it around in the day to try to find a job, a poor person would find the time in their hectic schedule to watch TV.
What about all of the stations who have spent tons of money and time gearing up for the switch? In my city (Denver) we have a large new tower built for broadcasting HD, and part of the promise to the residents of the area was that after the switch happened the old towers (and associated problems with them broadcasting) would go away. If you let this linger another year or two they are kind of screwed.
Well it's not like they aren't allowed to broadcast digitally (many already are), or turn off their analog broadcasts, whenever they want. Feb 17th is merely the date for mandatory shut down of the analog broadcast. If the stations aren't doing so now then that's because, just as has been the case since the mandatory switch was first proposed, they don't want to.
You just can't decide at the last moment to pull the rug out from under what is a useful technical move forward. There has to be some continuity between what government says will happen and what actually happens, or all dissolves to chaos as government promises are further devalued.
You mean like the promise that this government-mandated change won't screw over poor people by letting them get cheap converters? Yeah, it'd sure be a shame if government promises were devalued further.
exactly! i am counted toward that - i received two coupons, but they were both expired by the time converter boxes started showing up in my market. isn't there some way to account for those?
Same here. I'm pretty sure that the money for an expired coupon goes back into the pool, but that doesn't mean you get dibs on a replacement, and now you can't get one at all.
It was a reality the second the first coupon was given away. Those smart enough to get in on in the last year are fine, now those who didn't are starting to whine. I don't even need my two, but picked them up anyways.
What does "smart" have to do with it when you have a coupon in hand, but no store in a 45 minute drive has converters?
And by the time converters show up, your coupon has expired?
And then you try to get another coupon, but the program is out of funding so no more coupon for you?
Or are you talking about how "smart" you were to take two coupons that some poor family could have used?
The switch was already supposed to happen years ago, but they delayed things back then for the same reason. Should we delay forever and waste a huge amount of spectrum on an ancient broadcasting mechanism?
And to what great use are Verizon and AT&T putting this spectrum? Assuming I'm not a customer of either, how is this better for me? Especially if I don't have cable or a coupon...
I think the program is out of money because a lot of people who don't even need coupons are getting them - my guess is that probably half of the people at least do not understand that if they have cable they don't need a different box.
Probably true, but I think people also underestimate the number of homes who use antennae. In any event, a lot of people who do need the converter couldn't get one before their coupon expired because the only stores that had them in stock were the ones that weren't honoring the coupons.
There's still more than a month til the switch, time enough to sort out who really needs help and help them.
A month is like an instant in government time.
'Some people are under the impression that if they sign up for a donor card that will include donating their brain for research. But it won't,' says Breen. 'Donor cards are about donating organs for transplant, not for medical science.'"
Well to be honest, I have always kinda hoped that having my donor card would mean they might transplant my brain...
What, like some NPC that follows you around and rags on you when you miss?
Like that fucking dog from Duck Hunt.
Ahead of its time, apparently!
No I thought, "I understand QWERTY and even DVORAK keyboards, but why the hell would anyone want three E keys?"
Don't be silly, it's not three 'E' keys, that's just the name.
It's got 101 'E' keys!
I guess it's for some species of monkeys.
Terrorists have persistent habit of breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide.
Well we're trying to cure them of that habit. ;)
So the jist of this article is several semi-permanent chatrooms have been identified where proto-terrorists gather to recruit and discuss strategy, and they want to take these down??!!!
That's perverse. Why on earth would you want to take out honeypots that your foes are kind enough to set up for you?
Because it's ruining our anti-terrorist propaganda!
Check out this blog post on explodeyourfacebook.com by user RowdiJihadi309:
"Nov 12, 2008
Current mood: Depressed. :(
I was supposed to go practice building explosives with Ahmed today, but I woke up today feeling like what's the point, you know? We've built like two tiny bombs since I started going, and we haven't even blown up anything yet, because all Ahmed does is talk about how the other terror bloggers have it out for him and are talking trash (watch this post show up on his blog!) and then once he calms down all he wants to do is watch funny youtube videos. Which are funny (have you seen the one where the guy gets beat up by a deer? So awesome!) but really it gets old and he gets really defensive when you ask him when you're going to start building bombs.
So I woke up in an apathetic mood, and then right after I fed her Mittens got sick on the floor and gave the saddest meow I'd ever heard. That pretty much killed any motivation I had left. She's barfed like ten times since then, something's wrong but the vet is closed today. Now I'm just sitting here blogging and listening to her alternate between throwing up and crying. Which is how I feel on the inside now. Mittens is like a reflection of my soul.
User comments:
1. TrrrGrrl9721 :(
OMG sick kitty is so sad! Now I'm depressed too.
"
And it goes on.
How can we possibly maintain the image that evil terrorists are scheming and plotting against us and that we need the government to fight them if the populace can read posts like the above?
My original point is that it is far easier to exploit human emotions when religion is used as a rallying cry. "Onward Christian Soldiers" anyone? "Jihad"? "Fight for Freedom"? "War on Terror"? The same people who are vulnerable to being exploited emotionally are the same people who are vulnerable to religious influence.
Except the largest massacres in human history were conducted without religion as the rallying cry.
And no, I'm not blaming the philosophies that were used as rallying cries in those cases.
I'm saying the reasoning that says it's easier to exploit the religious, and more wars and deaths happen as a result, is historically inaccurate and simply wrong.
This, as it happens, is very near to the point that I intended to make myself. When placing blame, it doesn't really matter whether the leader was genuinely religious/atheistic or just using such rhetoric to incite the masses. What matters is whether religious or anti-religious rhetoric has historically been more successful at inciting violence. Obviously there is some blame on both sides, but I think you'll find that far more people have been killed because they didn't follow the "right" religion than have been killed because they weren't atheist, from the perspective of those actually doing the killing. It appears to me that shared beliefs, particularly subjective or irrational ones, are much more effective at inspiring the masses toward war than any shared lack of belief could ever be.
I don't think we're that near, because my point is that blaming either religion or atheism or communism or socialism or nationalism is foolish, since those are not the causes of the deaths, they are merely tools, and the nature of the tool doesn't seem to make much difference. Replace Communism with Catholicism, and Stalin would have been a butcher just the same. Replace Catholicism with Nationalism and the Crusaders would have still ridden.
There something busted in your reasoning when you conclude that more people have been killed due to religion when the largest massacres in human history were perpetrated by non-religious organizations (admittedly the Nazis were at least cooperative with Protestantism in the beginning since it helped fuel anti-semitism, but that was largely abandoned later). Stop talking in terms of blaming religion vs atheism, since whatever the causes of those massacres, atheism did not help prevent them because even atheists do believe in things, even though those things aren't Gods, and these beliefs have demonstrably been abused to employ people in the murder of billions.
The religious, non-religious, or political philosophies of the masses are not the problem. Trying to blame deaths on those philosophies, in order to discover which is "the most dangerous" is foolish and misses the point.
I have gworn kids, it it's THEIR planet you're fucking up.
Man, I feel for you, gworn are a real pain to raise. But when did it become their planet? Did the Gworn Council finally defeat the Illuminati?
My entire point was that since we have no way of knowing his true intent (maybe pure, maybe malicious, no one can know), all we can judge is his actions... which were shit.
Glad to see you continue to stubbornly ignore the actions that revealed intentions opposite to what you assume, and refuse to even acknowledge the context of the action you find so deplorable. It really makes your conclusion "all we can judge is his actions... which were shit" seem well-reasoned and intelligent.
Maybe, but at least if I get my way, the world doesn't go to shit. If you get your way, the world still goes to shit, just not quite as fast. Now that's what I'd call an utterly useless philosophy: actually condoning things getting worse, just because things could be worse yet. Brilliant!
No, your way GUARANTEES the world goes to shit, because your stubborn refusal to compromise means you will NEVER accomplish ANYTHING to stop it from going to shit! By refusing to accept the nature of reality for the sake of your philosophical purity, you have deliberately abandoned practicality, and thus efficacy. That means the ones trying to make everything go to shit are left unhindered. Since you cannot bring about change, they get to decide what change occurs.
You just feel better about yourself because you didn't cause it directly. Because you didn't condone it getting worse. That means NOTHING to me. Nor should it to anyone who actually cares about the state of the world.
Or let me put it this way: "Your way" would have had Obama vote against a massive bill because of one clause, though the bill would have passed anyway, and failing to approve all the other things in the bill because of that one clause would have looked bad. At best, nothing at all changes, at worst he loses and McCain takes office and keeps the same DoJ that handed Bush all his superpowers -- people whose intent we know, which was to continue down the path to shit. My way: Obama votes for the bill, having already showed he was against that one clause by trying to remove it, and gets elected. He stocks the DoJ with lawyers who are on record stating that the President does not have the Constitutional authorities that the previous DoJ has grabbed, and his OLC pick is on record stating that the purpose of the OLC is to tell the President "no" when he wants to go outside the law. Oh yeah, I'm sure you think that doesn't mean anything and maybe they'll 180, but are you honestly going to tell me that this isn't better than keeping the same thugs who we know favor expanding executive power without limit?
Both our ways result in things "getting worse" via the law getting passed, because there was no option on the table to prevent that. My way then causes things to get better -- yes, it's true that sometimes in reality things must get worse before they can get better. Your way, by doing nothing and accomplishing nothing, hands power to those who are ready and willing to make things worse as fast as possible.
Your way loses.
Any way that ignores practical reality loses.
I'm sick of high-minded, idealistic, completely useless and deliberately unrealistic philosophies. We need results in the real world. Obama is going to get them. Whatever whack job satisfies your desire for an uncompromising and thus ineffective leader would not and could not. Go campaign for him and tell yourself how you're not making things worse, while the rest of us worry about getting things done.
He voted for something that was wrong.
Find me a bill which contains nothing wrong. Did you miss that this was a gigantic bill, and that he did actually try to remove the bad part? Did you know that a lot of that bill was actually pretty decent and important stuff? And that just like how you can take his "Yes" vote to mean he specifically supports the telecom immunity clause even though he fought specifically against it, any of his opponents could have taken a "No" vote to mean he specifically did not support any other portion of the bill.
You say his actions are exonerated by his votes before the crucial one, but it could just as easily be a deception to conceal his true intentions. We have no way of knowing what his intent truly was on that bill, all we know is his actions... which supported it.
I didn't say he was exonerated, I said I was disappointed in it. I'm not a pure idealist who thinks I won't or shouldn't ever be disappointed in an elected official.
We do know his actions, which is that first he tried to filibuster, then he voted to remove the immunity clause, and then that when that failed, he voted for the bill in total knowing it was destined to pass anyway. What I'm asking is why are you ignoring some of those actions. If actions reveal intent, why does a failed vote for an amendment not matter and a vote for a bill guaranteed to pass does matter? The vote for the amendment was aimed specifically at the part of the bill that we find onerous, so why is that vote not crucial to the issue at hand? I just don't get this "one thing I disagree with means nothing else matters" point of view. It seems guaranteed to mean nobody can live up to the standard, and could never accomplish anything in the attempt.
Oh and LOL at deception. Yeah, and all his DoJ picks (actions matter right?), starting years before an Obama Presidency was even considered, wrote papers and editorials criticizing the expansion of executive power, all in preparation for deceiving America. Sounds like if he really wanted to deceive us he should have voted against the bill he knew was going to pass anyway, so he could have fooled you too!
Not making a meaningless gesture would've been something like not voting on the bill... at least he would've done no harm, then.
Voting against a bill you know is going to pass, not altering the outcome of reality, is the essence of meaningless! A protest vote is a meaningless gesture!
And he'd have done no harm... unless it cost him the nomination or the election, and we were free to experience the harm of a continuation of Bush policies. But at least he would have stood up for principle, right? Sorry but that's just not good enough for me any more. I want results. Like real-live affects-reality not-just-a-brave-stand-for-principles results. And your never-compromise philosophy is guaranteed never to produce them, and by extension allows others to chose what the results will be. So maybe you feel good about yourself, but the world still goes to shit. I soundly reject that utterly useless philosophy.
We all worship the God of Abraham. Jesus said to worship this God. It's the same God even if there are disagreements about Him.
Oh and the last Christian prophet was of course John the Baptist. ;)
Precisely. GP post is an absolute load of nonsense, and of course fails to cite any sources for his/her diatribe.
Well, it's not *absolute* nonsense, there is a valid point being made even if it goes to far in actually blaming atheism. And he shouldn't really have to cite sources for the deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
The majority of "atheist"-caused deaths which are presumably being referred to were motivated by a desire to obtain and maintain political and social control, not to 'eradicate religion' because of its ideological conflict with atheism. The fact that the perpetrators were from ideologies which were also atheistic does not mean that any of those deaths are attributable to atheism.
The majority of all deaths ever were motivated by a desire for power, control, land, resources. Philosophy, religious or political, is used as a justification or a method to gain the support of the people being sent to war. I mean you don't think the Crusades were really about Christianity, even though that's what the Kings told the knights and the footmen? Was the Inquisition really about weeding out heresy, or was it about wielding terror as a method of social control?
All those leaders I mentioned self-identified as atheists, and persecuted the religious, and slew millions in the names of their political philosophies. We are all wise enough to realize that this truly was in name only, and that their true motivations were to acquire and hold power.
Yet not in the cases where the leaders self-identified as religious?
That's the valid point being made. Religion doesn't cause war any more than non-religion does. Lust for power causes war, and that's a trait that is not unique to any philosophy. As proven by the fact that the many of the largest body counts of the last century, the largest body counts of human history, belonged to those of non-religious philosophies. And it wasn't their philosophy that was the problem!
I'm sorry, but if you think doing evil because it's politically convenient is acceptable, then we have no common ground to speak to. Evil is evil.
What "evil" did he do, other than not make a meaningless gesture? The bill was going to pass anyway. If it's evil to not make a pointless gesture, then why wasn't his pointless gesture of voting for the amendment to remove immunity good?
But yes, I doubt we have much common ground to speak to, since your uncompromising stance against compromises based in political reality means that no candidate you support could ever accomplish anything but meaningless gestures (as if they could get elected in the first place). I would like someone who can actually get something done. I mean God bless Russ Feingold, but I wouldn't want the man to be President.
The only indicator we have as to whether Obama will fulfill his promises is his past performance... and his past performance is shit.
Well I think that the stated opinions of Bush's DoJ picks were pretty well indicative of their future actions, and Obama's are a 180 degree change from that. Also while I'm not happy with the telecom vote, I don't see the performance as 'shit'. 'Shit' would be the ones who fought the amendment, and pushed for immunity in the first place. But again, it's the lack of distinction here that is exactly why I don't see anything useful coming from your point of view.
I think it was more a case of "we don't need no stinking warrants anymore". An institutional mindset assuming that "we're at war" automatically removes all constitutional protections; not unexpected if you look back in history at the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, or the mass detention of natural born (but of foreign origin) citizens during WW II.
I definitely see that, the whole philosophy of our executive branch for the last eight years has been "We're the good guys, so whatever we do is automatically good", but I see the progression of arrogance as follows:
1) Decide suspect is a Bad Guy.
2) Try to find probable cause to get a warrant.
3) Fail.
4) Conclude warrant requirement is getting in the way of catching Bad Guys.
5) Begin wiretap.
Right! Like the warrantless wiretaps, which Obama has done everything in his power to punish. Wait, what's that you say? He actually voted to help some of the perpetrators of that crime get away with it? Damn! Guess he's not really trying to help us out after all.
As The Who so insightfully said in 1971: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
He threatened to filibuster, but couldn't get enough support from other dems, he voted for the amendment to remove the telecom immunity, but it failed, and finally when it was obvious that the bill was going to pass with the immunity provision intact, he voted for it to deny his opponents "Obama opposes fighting terror" ammunition. There was lots of other things in that bill, you see, and a tough election coming up. Unfortunate, as he said himself at the time, but it may have helped him get into a position where he can stack the DoJ with lawyers who vocally oppose expanding executive power, I think that's a net win.
So Bush and his lawyers actively supported the policy, Obama fought it but gave in to political reality. If that's your level of distinction, where that makes them "the same", well, there's no help for you. Go support whatever fringe candidate who you feel embraces all your ideals, will never get elected, and even if elected would never enact any useful policy due to an inability to compromise. I'll take practical, useful change that can actually gets done, thanks.
Not that I'm completely without unrealistic ideals... I still hold out hope than an Obama DoJ could go after the telcos since after all the bill only protected them from civil liability. I won't be holding my breath though.
Remember all you folks who argued for greater presidential powers: Every power you gave Bush is a power Obama now has. And ditto for you Obama fans who will be arguing the same in the next few years for your guy. Eventually there will be someone you don't like in office.
Well I'm an Obama fan because his own and his chosen DoJ team's stances have been strongly at odds with the Bush DoJ's "creative" interpretation of the Constitution. So even though the guy I like is in office, I'll be hoping for and arguing for a reduction in executive power, thank you very much.
Oh and I'm not expecting any miracles on that account, but I am confident that the worst abuses of Bush's executive power will not be continued.
What if all the information they had about them was that lonely wikipedia page? I dont think the judge would consider it as evidence...
Too true, lol. Personally I've always maintained that their failure to seek warrants was ipso facto proof that they didn't have any decent evidence. Why would you take the risk of circumventing the law when the FISA court is ready and willing to retro-actively rubber stamp your warrant, unless you know you don't have enough to satisfy even the rubber stamper?
I think it has more to do with standing. These people know that they had been wiretapped (apparently the feds accidentally gave them a copy of the call logs, lol). The EFF doesn't know who has been wiretapped, I'm not sure they have direct proof that anybody has been, so their case is much more difficult.