Every politician who is a threat to the system, when they get the power to do something they suddenly flip. Why is that??
Sure, in some cases when they hear the arguments they change their minds; but it seems that it is extremely easy to make any politician to flip sides and behave. It is naive to just assume that it is always a result of lying politicians and whatever other stereotypes you are more comfortable with than questioning whether the system is so corrupt that it has working control over politicians who threaten the soft spots.
Hoover used the FBI to blackmail; the CIA has done it as well; political parties use it on their members to some degree as well. I'm confident we have psychological profiles of our leaders and not just all the foreign ones; I bet that info gets abused as well.
Automation and technology isn't going to bring us new powers of "persuasion"; it's going to make old ones more effective and widespread. The NSA doesn't need to do this, they can just get facebook to give them access to their system and maybe throw a tax break their way to add some features... if they are not already doing this now.
Strawman. Obviously everything said can be applied to everybody around the world; however, the bill of rights does NOT give you rights. You have alienable rights as a human being... does that remind you of something?? oh, the mission statement of the founders...
They also state clearly that you have rights NOT listed in the document; their omission in no way concluding you do not have those rights. Nearly every amendment is phrased clearly as a limitation upon government infringing upon your rights; which you always have, and by imposing those enumerated government limits shall not be infringed upon. The courts and the people guide the direction and if the reps function, they eventually make the more permanent limitations; such as the civil rights movement's amendment.
The document does not define that government's limitations ONLY exist within it's borders. That is the false reasoning being used today when Obama kills Americans in another country; I'm stretching a little but it's still relevant. They use the wartime crap as an exception because obviously, you can't give Nazi their rights and follow the process with any chance to survive war with them. We are not at war with the planet so that excuse can't be used (but they are.) War almost by definition is the lack of laws, rules, civility so despite us having limits on it; those are not because we are civil or the game has rules; it's a practical matter for survival, actual and political. (Politics and war doesn't have much logic to it; it's a human thing.)
Digitally signed receipts do not exist yet-- somehow everybody is happy to move to the fluffy clouds while being reasonably fearful of the internet (they are not the same thing in the mind of the consumer.) If people resisted more we could get digital receipts!
If they revoke your account you would have proof of purchase for an item and with some laws in place you could get access to your content even if you were banned from the service. Sure, they'd fight like hell and some customers would screw them with requests for DVDs of all their stuff... plus they'd have to device DRM schemes to give out copies for customers demanding them. Naturally, we'd have troubles passing laws making it work just like real items so errors like that 1984 one still don't loophole trash your book... like anybody would mail back the physical book because amazon made a mistake. the digital one should be the same but without strong regulations and a government that isn't totally corrupt... forget it.
Better to compare that against the CO2 in the atmosphere because most of it is Nitrogen. It's the ratio of the gasses that matters most not the total weight, air head. Even then why should 1 contributing factor have to be over 1% to care about it? My personal contributions are nothing but combined with billions of other people we get the over population created problems we have today.
I find it odd these people vote, their vote doesn't count for anything significant; using their own reasoning they shouldn't ever vote (laying aside all the failed democracy issues.)
Just baiting people and throwing around labels; put in nerd or label some nutcase a nerd to get the nerds all worked up and maybe get the stupid people in on the thing... Maybe there are motives behind that like resentment of nerds or some feeling for more conformity... It's one thing to bait people and another to mislabel with a possible attempt to confuse slower people.
As far as the BS about conventions-- that is a problem anywhere those guys can get away with it; those situations are a magnet for those types. I would say nerd culture is better than most the others and those conventions may have 1% be "bad apples" but that the actual proportion of the non-attending members who are like them is probably within rounding error of 0.0%.
As far as some upset crazy shooting people in the USA... again... I don't even bother, it's not even really news. People have feelings, thoughts at moments of their lives which are every bit as dark and as bad as these crazy people; the difference is they have the mental health (or culturally conditioned self control) to NOT act on it or take it seriously. I find it sad that anything is made of people having similar feelings to whatever nutcase is in the news; what is the problem is the difference between the nut and the sane people who have the same ideas; namely, the mental illness.
Sadly, we are not allowed to know his medical history, a lot of these nuts are on legal drugs but not many families ever disclose such information afterward. Plus when they do, the media doesn't make an issue of it... can't upset the sponsors.)
Many games I see are really just movies with some interaction pulled from a 1st person shooter engine. They have something to loose by people seeing the videos because you've already played the game a millions times with a different story and/or look. If I see somebody play it, I don't need to play the game because while it might be good what makes it good isn't really the game mechanics itself; which hardly change...
Nintendo on the other hand, they have the same story, same look, few movies. It's all about the game play experience. Mario has been quite creative with the elements and the well paced and rewarding level designs despite it being just another Mario game with the same basic mechanics of the others. Seeing it isn't giving away anything-- experiencing it is the whole point. Nintendo therefore, should be the least concerned about this.
The challenges of the levels ARE the game with Nintendo. It is like getting good at a sport and wanting to play the sport; not new outfit on the same old opponent who has new story about why we are having a rematch (which is what the other games do.)
I get more new experiences from PLAYING Nintendo so I buy them; just as other people who play...say tennis, still play tennis even though "everything" is the same. One should expect this from a 100+ year old game card company. Think of all the games of poker and solitaire that continue to be played... Then think that Nintendo's goals may have been to create digital versions of those card games you keep playing - except they can charge you each new poker game you play. Not sure I'm being clear on this, but I think there is a different perspective behind them which is what differentiates them (which will likely fade away if they don't actively maintain it.)
It's better they chuck some of it and stick with a few good bits. The encryption can be trashed as far as I care; that can be another group's problem. We need proxy caching and you can't do it with encryption and be secure.
The reason we can't move like before isn't the committee, it's that we now have a global system built around it and a great deal of investment in it. In the 90s it was all new; low risk, low impact. Today, there is a vast territory claimed and set; when you make new things you can't destroy all you've gained and unless you have a killer app (like the web was) people will not be motivated to make drastic changes.
DNSSEC is a great example of not having much motivation to do the pain in the ass it creates; furthermore, it doesn't completely solve a problem we all are that worried about. They may have made it quickly but people are not using it. IPv6 is long past due and here we sit... (at least we don't have a huge movement of IPv4 deniers saying it's not full and if it is, it wasn't our fault.)
I'm just arguing based upon actually reading about the man and expanding my understanding instead of just calling him names and demonizing him mindlessly. The world is not black and white. Learn some history.
I would say more but the post is written by a child not mature enough to discuss the issue.
Sure, government can fund things without providing whole services but even the education they do provide is competing with private schools; they don't outlaw those. No monopoly; which again, doesn't apply to government which is always a monopoly.
The next step people often forget to think about is what happens when you fund something with gov money. You have accountability (real or lip service) and regulations that are necessary. Most private schools would not like vouchers. When they have to treat everybody equally it will not be so great for them. Then you have the whole religion issue where they can't give money to fund religious indoctrination of children; which is one reason many people go private (in my state most the private schools under perform but the faithful have no problem believing their schools are superior... or that the lesser education is not as important than brainwashing their children into not thinking for themselves.) I've been to private school, BTW.
Charters are the current fad. They do not perform any better on average and cost a great deal more money-- this is despite their ability to chuck all the kids they don't like! You'd think they would average out better given that HUGE advantage they have over public accept-anybody school.
As far as the invisible hand of the false god; the market... that is BS. Wake up to reality. Consumers do not have much say or care much - the impact is there but it is not absolute. Look at how Americans screwed their own economy with the rise of Walmart and other corps who ruined everything - it doesn't take much indirection and the consumer will fuck themselves over eagerly. It also has the problems of a direct democracy where only a few people can be experts and nobody can keep up with all the issues going on so people couldn't run anything larger than a single person could run (and while holding another job, having a life etc.) I don't buy a huge list of things but I can't keep up with all the boycotts. Then you apply this to education where parents do not know jack shit about education and the majority doesn't even care enough to get involved like they should be doing (remember, most people have both parents working and more combined hours than in the past; the time constraints alone are a problem.)
So, that private school going to open early so the poor kids who DO NOT EAT at home can get breakfast? nah, they don't allow those people in the school. Voucher schools can add fees on top of the gov money to do away with that... unless you regulate them; then they take in the minimum amount which is likely not enough.
Educators in most states are required to take continuing education themselves. Depends on how the program is run how well that works. The private colleges cater to the teachers the best with lots of pure BS courses that let you off the hook. I know educators. I even taught a course for them which surprised some because it wasn't a BS course like they expected; they made a mistake of not going to a private college. Don't know how bright they were, you don't take a course on robotics and computers in education and think it will be a joke... Like those courses on multiculturalism where they just go around town eating ethnic food (I'm not kidding, that is a course! not at my less prestigious public university but the fancy private college down the street.)
As far as latest education research-- teachers are the worst at learning new things! They are extremely set in their ways. I think it has to be a result of conditioning; they spend decades doing similar things that work well enough for them so it should naturally be hard to get them to change. Even if your great new thing works well, it may not work well for the individual teacher or the subject matter or the demographics. Sure, fire them and get a new sucker who is into the new fads and you might not end up any better for years while they get broken into the job. Although they can have advantages, educational fads do come and go. Some have bad
She can't outsource American citizens and make things appear better; that is, other than deporting a bunch of people... which was probably in her campaign platform. (No, I'm not saying that would help the country but it would be consistent reasoning.)
So... did HP rob the pensions yet?
How can anybody let her get away saying such extreme BS like that? Corporations and capitalists LOVE to fire employees. That is point of the game; to pay as little as possible and get as much for the shareholders as possible. They ONLY hire people out of extreme necessity and as soon as it's possible they fire people. They aim low as possible in every nation they reside in. That is just good business. They resent having to pay anybody because that is overhead taking away from their profit margins.
Same can be said with TV. TV makes people stupid but a tiny bit of it is informative and constructive... so it's good! We need that 1% so we can excuse something we like. McDonalds has healthy food! I got a yogurt with my big mac, fries, and sugar water.
Didn't we just have something on/. about how it is harder to READ in a linear normal fashion because people are skimming online all the time and it's impacting how our brains work to the point of diminishing reading skills (that is, conventional reading skills.)
There is plenty about delayed gratification problems and it's trends. Then if you get into video editing, they have reduced the attention span down to 2.5 seconds when it used to be higher (just watch an old film and count the cuts and transitions vs a new film.)
It used to perform well and it was government run and unionized. It is not a monopoly, that is idiotic; you don't have competing governments... except in war.
Measurements are the whole problem and most people don't realize that IS the problem. You'd think/. readers would have some experience implementing hair brained schemes in software that they'd realize the folly of simplistic systems that are static and rigid. Especially when they manage humans; who can find ways to out smart such things with ease.
The biggest problem is the Republicans adopting education as an issue. I'm not kidding or being partisan. With the shift towards education since the 60s, somewhere around the late 70s polls showed voters (a minority but the only people who matter) were more concerned about education than other issues. The increase in the relative importance of education made the Republicans adopt the issue instead of not putting much effort into it. The Dems had the issue but didn't do much with it before that time either. The war began between the two parties marketing BS policies and BS statistics as education became the political football and our children are the collateral damage.
Just because you were educated does not make you an expert on education, just like getting dental work done does not make you an expert on dentistry! I don't consider myself an expert; however, I am technically one. I have many times the experience of any politician or most Americans who thanks to education policy of the 80s onward are completely confident of their complete ignorance. Yes, the ignorant confidence of Americans is actually a cultural shift partially fed by education initiatives started in the 80s; when for some odd reason they were concerned about lack of confidence. (If you don't know something you shouldn't be confident about it.) We also don't know the difference between opinions and facts... nuanced things like expert opinion are pointless if you can't discriminate between fact and opinion. The TV reporters can't either. They report facts against poll data... 20% say 5 is greater than 12! begin the shouting match.
The culture is fucked up; but we can't talk about all the other huge factors; arguably, the larger ones. You can only do so much from just 1 position, the other legs of the table need to be there too.
Just a look at the U.N. education data (try http://www.gapminder.org/) and you will see 3rd world nations rising HUGE amounts. As everybody gets to the top, the relative differences are smaller and rankings should fluctuate more as it takes so little to decide between them. The spread is much smaller now. The difference between 1st place and 20th place is small.
Then you have metrics; that was just the distribution of the results and how it's glossed over completely, with metrics you have measurement issues like the demographics (does the top nation only test the top students?) what things you measure and how those differ (sometimes the test changes) and lastly, what should they know? If you teach concepts in math at a young age (which can include calculus and algebra) without technical drudgery until they are older (and better able to sit still) you are going to do poorly when the measurement expects you to learn in a certain prescribed order.
Mediocre is just fine. As long as most people are in the middle of the bell curve and that is "mediocre" which is enough for most jobs, then what is the big deal? We actually have much bigger problems than education that are not being solved. What good is it to have plenty of decent IT workers when industry will claim otherwise simply so they can suppress wage increases or perhaps they just want the best in the world and refuse to make do with mediocre? Even if that mediocre is better than the planet, they still can want more and for less. (In which case who says your top people will stay in the country? Especially when it is not going to be the best place for them to live? We've got a lot of brains here because they moved here and stayed here; so far.)
If you want to work at McDonalds, move to the EU where they make at least $20 and hour; with better healthcare. Middle income profession? Move to Canada, they make more than Americans + better healthcare + it's still a democracy.
The education system here for the most part, isn't so bad that it prohibits upward mobility for most students - IF THEY WORK AT IT. The culture will do them more harm than the education system. When kids get tried as pedophiles or jailed for nothing or shot or...TV...games...food...legal drugs...consumerism... not to mention available JOBS... doesn't matter how good you teach them; they have bigger problems...
There is nothing wrong with a non-college educated half illiterate person doing construction work at a decent wage; or whatever - not every job requires the education and none should pay so little the economy is borked- which is what is happening among other things.
1) RomneyCare is better than nothing. Besides the irony has been enjoyable. It won't be called ObamaCare for long some already are dodging the label now people are waking up. It still sucks but the free market anarchy we had was worse. Again, it still sucks!
2) Bush didn't care about Osama. Publicly said so. 2002. Then did more later; that is, more to STOP doing anything about it, even to the point it was a legitimate criticism in the 2004 election. Then after that, he retasked the CIA/etc away from the little work they were still doing. Look it up. If anything, they didn't want to take out the symbol of their most effective propaganda ever. It's one thing to be half-assed and it's another to do what they did (or stopped doing in this case.)
3) Many of the Democrats lost their seats since then. Many are still around too... and they should totally have been booted for trusting Bush but gerrymandering...
The budget is done for the coming year. 1st year of Obama it was the previous government's budget. Bailouts included in that. Also, a huge chunk of the debt is simply interest on the existing debt. Since the debt grows continually forever... even if it doesn't grow the interest makes it grow... Every president is going to set a record; including Clinton who fixed the deficit but NOT the debt. BTW, when he did, Greenspan was right out there telling everybody we needed more debt quick! They wouldn't have paid off much debt since "The Great Wizard of Econ" said not to, pay no attention to the bankers behind the curtain.
Obama is more than a disappointment; he is just the other side of the coin... with just a sliver of real difference between him and McCain or Romney. The class war continues to be lost while people fight over splitting hairs. BTW, the class war never ends, it's the longest running war in human history and longevity is rooted in human nature.
Sorry friend, McVeigh was no coward. If he was so cowardly, he wouldn't have taken the risks he did in the first place and he wouldn't have been as easily caught. He was so anti gov he didn't have plates on the car and if he had any sense or fear he'd have not let such things make him stand out so easily. Besides, given his motives, he was trying to inspire a revolution which if at all successful would have given him an outlet to do more "cowardly" insurgent tactics. He didn't cry like a baby when they executed him. BTW, his military training was in explosives. Was he supposed to charge the building with a rifle?
Stop calling people using their tactical advantages cowards. The American Revolution was quite cowardly and broke the rules of war of the time. If they had honorably followed the rules of war they would have lost big time. Seriously, how stupidly "courageous" do you have to be to stand up in firing lines at close range and shoot at each other like it was some kind of sport?
Flying killer robots are cowardly; on a whole other level beyond McVeigh but that is ok?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1) "the people" is a phrasing which is a little vague but often means a group or groups not individuals; usually "person" is used for individuals (see rest of document.)
2) Militia is how it starts out- people forget that part. In context, it doesn't look like they are literally saying let people have small pop guns for hunting and feeling manly or giving cowards false security. They wrote things to be open for interpretation shifts over time rather than having to redo it frequently. Also, they didn't win the revolution because some people had guns; they acquired more weapons than what was on hand at the start.
3) The constitution is not the bible. The clever part being the patch system; which is where Amendments come in.
4) Mistakes were made, prohibition for example, slavery for another. Thinking "Arms" does jack today is laughable. Other nations handle the issue better.
Free training and access to serious guns and weapons in many controlled safe ways is possible; others do it sanely without a full time military, why can't we? Some nations make everybody get military training; which makes an insurgency extremely effective later on and those work well against bigger opponents. It needs updating for fighting machines... except most governments see that as a holy grail of control. The idea individuals can do shit is idiotic; it takes large numbers working towards a common goal - which is the proper mode of thinking here. When stuff gets so bad you have a mass resistance you need the groundwork laid for an effective insurgency; and insurgents can steal and smuggle but they need something to grab and know how to use it. Poorly defended armory bunkers is one approach... where it would take 100 people to capture it for example. Chipping weapons makes this difficult not to mention the huge profits extorting money from the buyers long term (tanks etc too; interesting they don't have preventive measures on those.)
DFL primaries seem to function but the GOP ones are largely rigged. I have also observed primary cheating (and it's legal.)
Say you get your honest candidate in or your 3rd party person gets into 1 of the two parties. If your person gets to run, then you have not only the other side and likely the press against them (because the press defends the established parties) but you have some of their own party working against them; especially the corrupt elements of their own party.
Ultimately, you can and I often do blame the public, which is an argument that applies to everybody in every form of tyranny. It's one thing to rise up against a dictator and quite another to wake up against The Brave New World. Modern mass-control methods (when you start learning about them) makes one wonder if democracy is even possible in the future... you don't need to fool everybody all the time, just a majority... and getting people to NOT vote and give up is just 1 technique out of a continually growing list of techniques.
The voting process itself has a massively huge impact; the only hope is to get good voting systems in place. We have nothing of the kind. It would be a miracle to use the broken system against the entrenched powers to repair itself long enough for it to begin to function again.
All that said, all democracies fall into despotism-- that is just the natural life cycle. Sadly, we live during the end of our short-lived one. It's the people who are responsible for that as well; which is why fixes don't really work - once the disease spreads you are only buying time. Sorry to be realistic.
That is odd, I thought FOX News, CNN, MSNBC were all putting on shows with entertaining gossip, talking heads with poor track records (but good ratinings) and other infotainment BS? Why would I bother to READ anything Glen Greenwald writes when I can turn in simple minded entertaining tripe that will not depress me?
High profits and high ratings come from being ALL SHOW. I think you have him confused with most the media.
The ONLY reason Greenwald makes a living competing against the infotainment industry is because he has actually done his job. Which BTW, a large part of it is getting out the news to as many people as he can. People wanting some real news about things that actually matter go to him in great enough numbers he can make a living; an idealistic type like him wants readership more for spreading the news than for merely increased profit. It does little good to dump news in ways that people don't get it; it's irresponsible and defeats the point.
Spreading out leaks and structuring them so the PR spin/coverups become evident is a whole level above just good journalism.
As far as leaking things that harm the US; well that is really what a free press is all about! Leaders kill plenty of people in more ways that people realize but that is OK?? They always justify their actions with time-tested rhetoric that people are so conditioned to that it hardly needs repeating. What we need is people bringing up the 4th estate as being every bit as justified as the other branches of government for the loss of life for "high minded ideals" (doesn't that phrase always seem empty or sarcastic? things are exploited so much the words lose meaning.)
Yeah and those laws didn't work. So we continue to do the same thing... definition of crazy. Some people are fuck ups and it is their right to be an example to others. Let them do what they want; however, since a big part of the problem is the inability to UNDO a 1 or 2 time mistake you tax it and put out plenty of warnings and treatment programs.
Alcohol does more harm than anything. STILL. The Police State probably does most the rest.
Me, I would have government provide everything for free. People like to say how government can't do business etc. and how it harms the market etc. Well, if that is so true... how come nobody is for having the government entirely kill the black market by getting into it? Go to a gov clinic, get put into a padded room and shoot up whatever you like, safely as possible. No restrictions. As soon as you limit it too much you create a black market (and the people lobbying for limitations are likely connected to cartels...) Also while taxing is OK to fund stuff-- over taxing is also a potential problem and I am confident without taxes it would STILL be much cheaper than what is spent on prohibition and we don't have any direct tax funding today's mess.
There are so many solutions to try out but we can't seriously do anything except what doesn't work.
Money buys government. Our votes are symbolic; ignoring the cheating games keeping people distracted, it's a choice between a flavor of corruption.
One is faster than the other but it depends on the flavor in what way. Some issues 1 side can do faster on the guise of compromise and something extremely unpopular just causes a switch out later and a different set of things can be done until revisiting it again--- after voters forget... they only have about a 1 year memory and on big issues you only need to wait about 8 years; on bigger things it only takes a generation to change.
Why buy votes? The system is easy to rig because the weak point is controlling the available options.
Regulatory capture. You don't even need the common situation (like FCC today) you can do it by offering great jobs AFTER, nobody can stop that short of laws limiting their employment later (and that of their spouse and kids.)
Use the pawns you own in gov and other powers to force politicians or better yet, to manipulate them. Such as showing them those nutty threat assessments (which were designed for experts to filter and summarize not for politicians to read because the things are nearly as ridiculous as alien or zombie threats.) The power of the staffers is incredible! Load those up and you can push politicians around without them knowing it.
Power and influence too great undermines any system you can devise. The ONLY solution is to limit power and it's influence over governance. Branches of government help, term limits kind of (but not really, plenty of corrupt people waiting and effective honest people are RARE,) and the taboo thing in the USA, limiting private influence... which ultimately means income caps.
Then you have the professional Roman Army that helped collapse that empire... A drafted one makes it harder for the powerful to be immune.
They usually have backups where it is possible; notice they said 4 but only need 3.
Given how many people thought Star Trek was too slow (helping produce the modern abomination) you want them to spend EXTRA time explaining all the spares and reserves are gone? (they do sometimes mention reserve and backups) Given the whole point of it was to push the plot forward it wouldn't matter if they have 50 spares because they'd all have to fail to create the crisis.
It was almost as if the USA was already imploding and just needed a nudge...
Authoritarians have weaknesses. And the USA is an authoritarian society. People living a culture are also limited in their ability to self-reflect; in addition, Americans live in a bubble already (it's so bad that it's pretty much a global impression of Americans. The stereotype is not unfounded. )
No leader realizes they are too authoritarian; many tricks to manipulate their character flaws works on societies as well. Maintaining control (aka "Order" or even a custom definition of "Peace") is of the up most importance to the authoritarian. Ultimately, it is their own insecurity that they can not handle which causes them to go to great lengths to compensate by attempting to control as much as they can. The psychology is not unknown. You can manipulate these types based upon their flaws. Add to their fear of insecurity etc; the more their core flaw is hit the greater the defensive mechanisms will be.
You can probably think of people who on their own little scale fit some of this. It's not unlike many psychological flaws where people show their flaws by their over compensation for them. Like a gay man in denial can be extremely anti-gay, having to try as hard as their doubt/fear -- the more fearful, the stronger the compensation. You can make them stand out by seeding doubts in their mind and they will respond with more defensive behaviors until they stand out from normal people as an extremist or even as somebody in self-denial. For a control freak, this isn't hard to do - if they are not already illustrating the traits clearly for people to pick up on... You just have to make them see how much is out of order and how much that is a threat to their feeling of security.
When you have a SOCIETY which is authoritarian and as a result their leaders are also (usually worse than the population) a lot of the same tactics work. A general may not start out with the flaws, they will develop them from their experience/job. These are mental conditions, not genetic diseases. Generals foster the well known stereotype of them being paranoid because their environment produces it, not to mention it also tends to filter out the type of people least susceptible by the process they are hired/created. Leaders have a high susceptibility as well; although, I would guess a statesman politician would be one of the least susceptible types of people... So it's more a function of the environment; of which culture plays a really big role.
This is why when you have an amendment for free peaceful assembly which is every bit as strongly worded as free speech, the society allows it to be trampled upon in the name of "order" far more than it does free speech, which has less impact on the insecurity weakness. (But it can push buttons so you use speech to decide who to spy on and monitor... and it's not so much the crazies actually shooting and bombing, it's the ones saying things that actually could change the culture towards more chaos.. )
Chaos, the ultimate threat... eventually, democracy is too chaotic and it has to be controlled or forbidden. If you've been paying attention, that has already been done.
No, I'm not an anarchist. I don't read their stuff; but I'm sure the articulate ones do a great job pointing these things out. You need to listen to the intelligent people saying things that are uncomfortable, that is where you'll find the truth - one person simply lacks perspective to grasp reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Every politician who is a threat to the system, when they get the power to do something they suddenly flip. Why is that??
Sure, in some cases when they hear the arguments they change their minds; but it seems that it is extremely easy to make any politician to flip sides and behave. It is naive to just assume that it is always a result of lying politicians and whatever other stereotypes you are more comfortable with than questioning whether the system is so corrupt that it has working control over politicians who threaten the soft spots.
Hoover used the FBI to blackmail; the CIA has done it as well; political parties use it on their members to some degree as well. I'm confident we have psychological profiles of our leaders and not just all the foreign ones; I bet that info gets abused as well.
Automation and technology isn't going to bring us new powers of "persuasion"; it's going to make old ones more effective and widespread. The NSA doesn't need to do this, they can just get facebook to give them access to their system and maybe throw a tax break their way to add some features... if they are not already doing this now.
Strawman. Obviously everything said can be applied to everybody around the world; however, the bill of rights does NOT give you rights. You have alienable rights as a human being... does that remind you of something?? oh, the mission statement of the founders...
They also state clearly that you have rights NOT listed in the document; their omission in no way concluding you do not have those rights. Nearly every amendment is phrased clearly as a limitation upon government infringing upon your rights; which you always have, and by imposing those enumerated government limits shall not be infringed upon. The courts and the people guide the direction and if the reps function, they eventually make the more permanent limitations; such as the civil rights movement's amendment.
The document does not define that government's limitations ONLY exist within it's borders. That is the false reasoning being used today when Obama kills Americans in another country; I'm stretching a little but it's still relevant. They use the wartime crap as an exception because obviously, you can't give Nazi their rights and follow the process with any chance to survive war with them. We are not at war with the planet so that excuse can't be used (but they are.) War almost by definition is the lack of laws, rules, civility so despite us having limits on it; those are not because we are civil or the game has rules; it's a practical matter for survival, actual and political. (Politics and war doesn't have much logic to it; it's a human thing.)
Digitally signed receipts do not exist yet-- somehow everybody is happy to move to the fluffy clouds while being reasonably fearful of the internet (they are not the same thing in the mind of the consumer.) If people resisted more we could get digital receipts!
If they revoke your account you would have proof of purchase for an item and with some laws in place you could get access to your content even if you were banned from the service. Sure, they'd fight like hell and some customers would screw them with requests for DVDs of all their stuff... plus they'd have to device DRM schemes to give out copies for customers demanding them. Naturally, we'd have troubles passing laws making it work just like real items so errors like that 1984 one still don't loophole trash your book... like anybody would mail back the physical book because amazon made a mistake. the digital one should be the same but without strong regulations and a government that isn't totally corrupt... forget it.
Better to compare that against the CO2 in the atmosphere because most of it is Nitrogen. It's the ratio of the gasses that matters most not the total weight, air head. Even then why should 1 contributing factor have to be over 1% to care about it? My personal contributions are nothing but combined with billions of other people we get the over population created problems we have today.
I find it odd these people vote, their vote doesn't count for anything significant; using their own reasoning they shouldn't ever vote (laying aside all the failed democracy issues.)
Just baiting people and throwing around labels; put in nerd or label some nutcase a nerd to get the nerds all worked up and maybe get the stupid people in on the thing... Maybe there are motives behind that like resentment of nerds or some feeling for more conformity... It's one thing to bait people and another to mislabel with a possible attempt to confuse slower people.
As far as the BS about conventions-- that is a problem anywhere those guys can get away with it; those situations are a magnet for those types. I would say nerd culture is better than most the others and those conventions may have 1% be "bad apples" but that the actual proportion of the non-attending members who are like them is probably within rounding error of 0.0%.
As far as some upset crazy shooting people in the USA... again... I don't even bother, it's not even really news. People have feelings, thoughts at moments of their lives which are every bit as dark and as bad as these crazy people; the difference is they have the mental health (or culturally conditioned self control) to NOT act on it or take it seriously. I find it sad that anything is made of people having similar feelings to whatever nutcase is in the news; what is the problem is the difference between the nut and the sane people who have the same ideas; namely, the mental illness.
Sadly, we are not allowed to know his medical history, a lot of these nuts are on legal drugs but not many families ever disclose such information afterward. Plus when they do, the media doesn't make an issue of it... can't upset the sponsors.)
Many games I see are really just movies with some interaction pulled from a 1st person shooter engine. They have something to loose by people seeing the videos because you've already played the game a millions times with a different story and/or look. If I see somebody play it, I don't need to play the game because while it might be good what makes it good isn't really the game mechanics itself; which hardly change...
Nintendo on the other hand, they have the same story, same look, few movies. It's all about the game play experience. Mario has been quite creative with the elements and the well paced and rewarding level designs despite it being just another Mario game with the same basic mechanics of the others. Seeing it isn't giving away anything-- experiencing it is the whole point. Nintendo therefore, should be the least concerned about this.
The challenges of the levels ARE the game with Nintendo. It is like getting good at a sport and wanting to play the sport; not new outfit on the same old opponent who has new story about why we are having a rematch (which is what the other games do.)
I get more new experiences from PLAYING Nintendo so I buy them; just as other people who play ...say tennis, still play tennis even though "everything" is the same. One should expect this from a 100+ year old game card company. Think of all the games of poker and solitaire that continue to be played... Then think that Nintendo's goals may have been to create digital versions of those card games you keep playing - except they can charge you each new poker game you play. Not sure I'm being clear on this, but I think there is a different perspective behind them which is what differentiates them (which will likely fade away if they don't actively maintain it.)
It's better they chuck some of it and stick with a few good bits. The encryption can be trashed as far as I care; that can be another group's problem. We need proxy caching and you can't do it with encryption and be secure.
The reason we can't move like before isn't the committee, it's that we now have a global system built around it and a great deal of investment in it. In the 90s it was all new; low risk, low impact. Today, there is a vast territory claimed and set; when you make new things you can't destroy all you've gained and unless you have a killer app (like the web was) people will not be motivated to make drastic changes.
DNSSEC is a great example of not having much motivation to do the pain in the ass it creates; furthermore, it doesn't completely solve a problem we all are that worried about. They may have made it quickly but people are not using it. IPv6 is long past due and here we sit... (at least we don't have a huge movement of IPv4 deniers saying it's not full and if it is, it wasn't our fault.)
I'm just arguing based upon actually reading about the man and expanding my understanding instead of just calling him names and demonizing him mindlessly. The world is not black and white. Learn some history.
I would say more but the post is written by a child not mature enough to discuss the issue.
Sure, government can fund things without providing whole services but even the education they do provide is competing with private schools; they don't outlaw those. No monopoly; which again, doesn't apply to government which is always a monopoly.
The next step people often forget to think about is what happens when you fund something with gov money. You have accountability (real or lip service) and regulations that are necessary. Most private schools would not like vouchers. When they have to treat everybody equally it will not be so great for them. Then you have the whole religion issue where they can't give money to fund religious indoctrination of children; which is one reason many people go private (in my state most the private schools under perform but the faithful have no problem believing their schools are superior... or that the lesser education is not as important than brainwashing their children into not thinking for themselves.) I've been to private school, BTW.
Charters are the current fad. They do not perform any better on average and cost a great deal more money-- this is despite their ability to chuck all the kids they don't like! You'd think they would average out better given that HUGE advantage they have over public accept-anybody school.
As far as the invisible hand of the false god; the market... that is BS. Wake up to reality. Consumers do not have much say or care much - the impact is there but it is not absolute. Look at how Americans screwed their own economy with the rise of Walmart and other corps who ruined everything - it doesn't take much indirection and the consumer will fuck themselves over eagerly. It also has the problems of a direct democracy where only a few people can be experts and nobody can keep up with all the issues going on so people couldn't run anything larger than a single person could run (and while holding another job, having a life etc.) I don't buy a huge list of things but I can't keep up with all the boycotts. Then you apply this to education where parents do not know jack shit about education and the majority doesn't even care enough to get involved like they should be doing (remember, most people have both parents working and more combined hours than in the past; the time constraints alone are a problem.)
So, that private school going to open early so the poor kids who DO NOT EAT at home can get breakfast? nah, they don't allow those people in the school. Voucher schools can add fees on top of the gov money to do away with that... unless you regulate them; then they take in the minimum amount which is likely not enough.
Educators in most states are required to take continuing education themselves. Depends on how the program is run how well that works. The private colleges cater to the teachers the best with lots of pure BS courses that let you off the hook. I know educators. I even taught a course for them which surprised some because it wasn't a BS course like they expected; they made a mistake of not going to a private college. Don't know how bright they were, you don't take a course on robotics and computers in education and think it will be a joke... Like those courses on multiculturalism where they just go around town eating ethnic food (I'm not kidding, that is a course! not at my less prestigious public university but the fancy private college down the street.)
As far as latest education research-- teachers are the worst at learning new things! They are extremely set in their ways. I think it has to be a result of conditioning; they spend decades doing similar things that work well enough for them so it should naturally be hard to get them to change. Even if your great new thing works well, it may not work well for the individual teacher or the subject matter or the demographics. Sure, fire them and get a new sucker who is into the new fads and you might not end up any better for years while they get broken into the job. Although they can have advantages, educational fads do come and go. Some have bad
Give a student Office 365 and they are prepared for a job, TEACH a student how to use computers and they will be prepared their whole career.
She can't outsource American citizens and make things appear better; that is, other than deporting a bunch of people... which was probably in her campaign platform. (No, I'm not saying that would help the country but it would be consistent reasoning.)
So... did HP rob the pensions yet?
How can anybody let her get away saying such extreme BS like that? Corporations and capitalists LOVE to fire employees. That is point of the game; to pay as little as possible and get as much for the shareholders as possible. They ONLY hire people out of extreme necessity and as soon as it's possible they fire people. They aim low as possible in every nation they reside in. That is just good business. They resent having to pay anybody because that is overhead taking away from their profit margins.
Best post ever!
Same can be said with TV. TV makes people stupid but a tiny bit of it is informative and constructive... so it's good! We need that 1% so we can excuse something we like. McDonalds has healthy food! I got a yogurt with my big mac, fries, and sugar water.
Didn't we just have something on /. about how it is harder to READ in a linear normal fashion because people are skimming online all the time and it's impacting how our brains work to the point of diminishing reading skills (that is, conventional reading skills.)
There is plenty about delayed gratification problems and it's trends. Then if you get into video editing, they have reduced the attention span down to 2.5 seconds when it used to be higher (just watch an old film and count the cuts and transitions vs a new film.)
It's a Brave New World.
It used to perform well and it was government run and unionized. It is not a monopoly, that is idiotic; you don't have competing governments... except in war.
Measurements are the whole problem and most people don't realize that IS the problem. You'd think /. readers would have some experience implementing hair brained schemes in software that they'd realize the folly of simplistic systems that are static and rigid. Especially when they manage humans; who can find ways to out smart such things with ease.
The biggest problem is the Republicans adopting education as an issue. I'm not kidding or being partisan. With the shift towards education since the 60s, somewhere around the late 70s polls showed voters (a minority but the only people who matter) were more concerned about education than other issues. The increase in the relative importance of education made the Republicans adopt the issue instead of not putting much effort into it. The Dems had the issue but didn't do much with it before that time either. The war began between the two parties marketing BS policies and BS statistics as education became the political football and our children are the collateral damage.
Just because you were educated does not make you an expert on education, just like getting dental work done does not make you an expert on dentistry! I don't consider myself an expert; however, I am technically one. I have many times the experience of any politician or most Americans who thanks to education policy of the 80s onward are completely confident of their complete ignorance. Yes, the ignorant confidence of Americans is actually a cultural shift partially fed by education initiatives started in the 80s; when for some odd reason they were concerned about lack of confidence. (If you don't know something you shouldn't be confident about it.) We also don't know the difference between opinions and facts... nuanced things like expert opinion are pointless if you can't discriminate between fact and opinion. The TV reporters can't either. They report facts against poll data... 20% say 5 is greater than 12! begin the shouting match.
The culture is fucked up; but we can't talk about all the other huge factors; arguably, the larger ones. You can only do so much from just 1 position, the other legs of the table need to be there too.
Just a look at the U.N. education data (try http://www.gapminder.org/) and you will see 3rd world nations rising HUGE amounts. As everybody gets to the top, the relative differences are smaller and rankings should fluctuate more as it takes so little to decide between them. The spread is much smaller now. The difference between 1st place and 20th place is small.
Then you have metrics; that was just the distribution of the results and how it's glossed over completely, with metrics you have measurement issues like the demographics (does the top nation only test the top students?) what things you measure and how those differ (sometimes the test changes) and lastly, what should they know? If you teach concepts in math at a young age (which can include calculus and algebra) without technical drudgery until they are older (and better able to sit still) you are going to do poorly when the measurement expects you to learn in a certain prescribed order.
Mediocre is just fine. As long as most people are in the middle of the bell curve and that is "mediocre" which is enough for most jobs, then what is the big deal? We actually have much bigger problems than education that are not being solved. What good is it to have plenty of decent IT workers when industry will claim otherwise simply so they can suppress wage increases or perhaps they just want the best in the world and refuse to make do with mediocre? Even if that mediocre is better than the planet, they still can want more and for less. (In which case who says your top people will stay in the country? Especially when it is not going to be the best place for them to live? We've got a lot of brains here because they moved here and stayed here; so far.)
If you want to work at McDonalds, move to the EU where they make at least $20 and hour; with better healthcare. Middle income profession? Move to Canada, they make more than Americans + better healthcare + it's still a democracy.
The education system here for the most part, isn't so bad that it prohibits upward mobility for most students - IF THEY WORK AT IT. The culture will do them more harm than the education system. When kids get tried as pedophiles or jailed for nothing or shot or ...TV...games...food...legal drugs...consumerism... not to mention available JOBS... doesn't matter how good you teach them; they have bigger problems...
There is nothing wrong with a non-college educated half illiterate person doing construction work at a decent wage; or whatever - not every job requires the education and none should pay so little the economy is borked- which is what is happening among other things.
Yeah, that good STEM degree will make life wonderful and easy for sure! http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...
1) RomneyCare is better than nothing. Besides the irony has been enjoyable. It won't be called ObamaCare for long some already are dodging the label now people are waking up. It still sucks but the free market anarchy we had was worse. Again, it still sucks!
2) Bush didn't care about Osama. Publicly said so. 2002. Then did more later; that is, more to STOP doing anything about it, even to the point it was a legitimate criticism in the 2004 election. Then after that, he retasked the CIA/etc away from the little work they were still doing. Look it up. If anything, they didn't want to take out the symbol of their most effective propaganda ever. It's one thing to be half-assed and it's another to do what they did (or stopped doing in this case.)
3) Many of the Democrats lost their seats since then. Many are still around too... and they should totally have been booted for trusting Bush but gerrymandering...
The budget is done for the coming year. 1st year of Obama it was the previous government's budget. Bailouts included in that. Also, a huge chunk of the debt is simply interest on the existing debt. Since the debt grows continually forever... even if it doesn't grow the interest makes it grow... Every president is going to set a record; including Clinton who fixed the deficit but NOT the debt. BTW, when he did, Greenspan was right out there telling everybody we needed more debt quick! They wouldn't have paid off much debt since "The Great Wizard of Econ" said not to, pay no attention to the bankers behind the curtain.
Obama is more than a disappointment; he is just the other side of the coin... with just a sliver of real difference between him and McCain or Romney. The class war continues to be lost while people fight over splitting hairs. BTW, the class war never ends, it's the longest running war in human history and longevity is rooted in human nature.
Sorry friend, McVeigh was no coward. If he was so cowardly, he wouldn't have taken the risks he did in the first place and he wouldn't have been as easily caught. He was so anti gov he didn't have plates on the car and if he had any sense or fear he'd have not let such things make him stand out so easily. Besides, given his motives, he was trying to inspire a revolution which if at all successful would have given him an outlet to do more "cowardly" insurgent tactics. He didn't cry like a baby when they executed him. BTW, his military training was in explosives. Was he supposed to charge the building with a rifle?
Stop calling people using their tactical advantages cowards. The American Revolution was quite cowardly and broke the rules of war of the time. If they had honorably followed the rules of war they would have lost big time. Seriously, how stupidly "courageous" do you have to be to stand up in firing lines at close range and shoot at each other like it was some kind of sport?
Flying killer robots are cowardly; on a whole other level beyond McVeigh but that is ok?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1) "the people" is a phrasing which is a little vague but often means a group or groups not individuals; usually "person" is used for individuals (see rest of document.)
2) Militia is how it starts out- people forget that part. In context, it doesn't look like they are literally saying let people have small pop guns for hunting and feeling manly or giving cowards false security. They wrote things to be open for interpretation shifts over time rather than having to redo it frequently. Also, they didn't win the revolution because some people had guns; they acquired more weapons than what was on hand at the start.
3) The constitution is not the bible. The clever part being the patch system; which is where Amendments come in.
4) Mistakes were made, prohibition for example, slavery for another. Thinking "Arms" does jack today is laughable. Other nations handle the issue better.
Free training and access to serious guns and weapons in many controlled safe ways is possible; others do it sanely without a full time military, why can't we? Some nations make everybody get military training; which makes an insurgency extremely effective later on and those work well against bigger opponents. It needs updating for fighting machines... except most governments see that as a holy grail of control. The idea individuals can do shit is idiotic; it takes large numbers working towards a common goal - which is the proper mode of thinking here. When stuff gets so bad you have a mass resistance you need the groundwork laid for an effective insurgency; and insurgents can steal and smuggle but they need something to grab and know how to use it. Poorly defended armory bunkers is one approach... where it would take 100 people to capture it for example. Chipping weapons makes this difficult not to mention the huge profits extorting money from the buyers long term (tanks etc too; interesting they don't have preventive measures on those.)
DFL primaries seem to function but the GOP ones are largely rigged. I have also observed primary cheating (and it's legal.)
Say you get your honest candidate in or your 3rd party person gets into 1 of the two parties. If your person gets to run, then you have not only the other side and likely the press against them (because the press defends the established parties) but you have some of their own party working against them; especially the corrupt elements of their own party.
Ultimately, you can and I often do blame the public, which is an argument that applies to everybody in every form of tyranny. It's one thing to rise up against a dictator and quite another to wake up against The Brave New World. Modern mass-control methods (when you start learning about them) makes one wonder if democracy is even possible in the future... you don't need to fool everybody all the time, just a majority... and getting people to NOT vote and give up is just 1 technique out of a continually growing list of techniques.
The voting process itself has a massively huge impact; the only hope is to get good voting systems in place. We have nothing of the kind. It would be a miracle to use the broken system against the entrenched powers to repair itself long enough for it to begin to function again.
All that said, all democracies fall into despotism-- that is just the natural life cycle. Sadly, we live during the end of our short-lived one. It's the people who are responsible for that as well; which is why fixes don't really work - once the disease spreads you are only buying time. Sorry to be realistic.
That is odd, I thought FOX News, CNN, MSNBC were all putting on shows with entertaining gossip, talking heads with poor track records (but good ratinings) and other infotainment BS? Why would I bother to READ anything Glen Greenwald writes when I can turn in simple minded entertaining tripe that will not depress me?
High profits and high ratings come from being ALL SHOW. I think you have him confused with most the media.
The ONLY reason Greenwald makes a living competing against the infotainment industry is because he has actually done his job. Which BTW, a large part of it is getting out the news to as many people as he can. People wanting some real news about things that actually matter go to him in great enough numbers he can make a living; an idealistic type like him wants readership more for spreading the news than for merely increased profit. It does little good to dump news in ways that people don't get it; it's irresponsible and defeats the point.
Spreading out leaks and structuring them so the PR spin/coverups become evident is a whole level above just good journalism.
As far as leaking things that harm the US; well that is really what a free press is all about! Leaders kill plenty of people in more ways that people realize but that is OK?? They always justify their actions with time-tested rhetoric that people are so conditioned to that it hardly needs repeating. What we need is people bringing up the 4th estate as being every bit as justified as the other branches of government for the loss of life for "high minded ideals" (doesn't that phrase always seem empty or sarcastic? things are exploited so much the words lose meaning.)
Yeah and those laws didn't work. So we continue to do the same thing... definition of crazy.
Some people are fuck ups and it is their right to be an example to others. Let them do what they want; however, since a big part of the problem is the inability to UNDO a 1 or 2 time mistake you tax it and put out plenty of warnings and treatment programs.
Alcohol does more harm than anything. STILL. The Police State probably does most the rest.
Me, I would have government provide everything for free. People like to say how government can't do business etc. and how it harms the market etc. Well, if that is so true... how come nobody is for having the government entirely kill the black market by getting into it? Go to a gov clinic, get put into a padded room and shoot up whatever you like, safely as possible. No restrictions. As soon as you limit it too much you create a black market (and the people lobbying for limitations are likely connected to cartels...) Also while taxing is OK to fund stuff-- over taxing is also a potential problem and I am confident without taxes it would STILL be much cheaper than what is spent on prohibition and we don't have any direct tax funding today's mess.
There are so many solutions to try out but we can't seriously do anything except what doesn't work.
Money buys government. Our votes are symbolic; ignoring the cheating games keeping people distracted, it's a choice between a flavor of corruption.
One is faster than the other but it depends on the flavor in what way. Some issues 1 side can do faster on the guise of compromise and something extremely unpopular just causes a switch out later and a different set of things can be done until revisiting it again--- after voters forget... they only have about a 1 year memory and on big issues you only need to wait about 8 years; on bigger things it only takes a generation to change.
Why buy votes? The system is easy to rig because the weak point is controlling the available options.
Regulatory capture. You don't even need the common situation (like FCC today) you can do it by offering great jobs AFTER, nobody can stop that short of laws limiting their employment later (and that of their spouse and kids.)
Use the pawns you own in gov and other powers to force politicians or better yet, to manipulate them. Such as showing them those nutty threat assessments (which were designed for experts to filter and summarize not for politicians to read because the things are nearly as ridiculous as alien or zombie threats.) The power of the staffers is incredible! Load those up and you can push politicians around without them knowing it.
Power and influence too great undermines any system you can devise. The ONLY solution is to limit power and it's influence over governance. Branches of government help, term limits kind of (but not really, plenty of corrupt people waiting and effective honest people are RARE,) and the taboo thing in the USA, limiting private influence... which ultimately means income caps.
Then you have the professional Roman Army that helped collapse that empire... A drafted one makes it harder for the powerful to be immune.
They usually have backups where it is possible; notice they said 4 but only need 3.
Given how many people thought Star Trek was too slow (helping produce the modern abomination) you want them to spend EXTRA time explaining all the spares and reserves are gone? (they do sometimes mention reserve and backups) Given the whole point of it was to push the plot forward it wouldn't matter if they have 50 spares because they'd all have to fail to create the crisis.
It was almost as if the USA was already imploding and just needed a nudge...
Authoritarians have weaknesses. And the USA is an authoritarian society. People living a culture are also limited in their ability to self-reflect; in addition, Americans live in a bubble already (it's so bad that it's pretty much a global impression of Americans. The stereotype is not unfounded. )
No leader realizes they are too authoritarian; many tricks to manipulate their character flaws works on societies as well. Maintaining control (aka "Order" or even a custom definition of "Peace") is of the up most importance to the authoritarian. Ultimately, it is their own insecurity that they can not handle which causes them to go to great lengths to compensate by attempting to control as much as they can. The psychology is not unknown. You can manipulate these types based upon their flaws. Add to their fear of insecurity etc; the more their core flaw is hit the greater the defensive mechanisms will be.
You can probably think of people who on their own little scale fit some of this. It's not unlike many psychological flaws where people show their flaws by their over compensation for them. Like a gay man in denial can be extremely anti-gay, having to try as hard as their doubt/fear -- the more fearful, the stronger the compensation. You can make them stand out by seeding doubts in their mind and they will respond with more defensive behaviors until they stand out from normal people as an extremist or even as somebody in self-denial. For a control freak, this isn't hard to do - if they are not already illustrating the traits clearly for people to pick up on... You just have to make them see how much is out of order and how much that is a threat to their feeling of security.
When you have a SOCIETY which is authoritarian and as a result their leaders are also (usually worse than the population) a lot of the same tactics work. A general may not start out with the flaws, they will develop them from their experience/job. These are mental conditions, not genetic diseases. Generals foster the well known stereotype of them being paranoid because their environment produces it, not to mention it also tends to filter out the type of people least susceptible by the process they are hired/created. Leaders have a high susceptibility as well; although, I would guess a statesman politician would be one of the least susceptible types of people... So it's more a function of the environment; of which culture plays a really big role.
This is why when you have an amendment for free peaceful assembly which is every bit as strongly worded as free speech, the society allows it to be trampled upon in the name of "order" far more than it does free speech, which has less impact on the insecurity weakness. (But it can push buttons so you use speech to decide who to spy on and monitor... and it's not so much the crazies actually shooting and bombing, it's the ones saying things that actually could change the culture towards more chaos.. )
Chaos, the ultimate threat... eventually, democracy is too chaotic and it has to be controlled or forbidden. If you've been paying attention, that has already been done.
No, I'm not an anarchist. I don't read their stuff; but I'm sure the articulate ones do a great job pointing these things out. You need to listen to the intelligent people saying things that are uncomfortable, that is where you'll find the truth - one person simply lacks perspective to grasp reality.
That actor who played Captain America needs to play Snowden!