There are, as you have pointed out, some social aspects to marriage. These aspects fall into the realm of law, not religion. One of the more important ones has to do with legal rights of the partner. Imagine for a second that God forbid you get into a car accident, your spouse is injured. At the hospital the staff deny you the right to make legal life-altering decisions or even visit with your spouse. Imagine how you would feel if someone said "but all you had to do was go to a lawyer and get a document for a living will, power of attorney, etc." and carry it around with you EVERY DAY for the rest of your life?
Here's what I wanna know: if the person at the hospital tells the doctors "I'm her husband", do they ask for any sort of proof, or do they just take your word for it? Can you just point to the ring on your finger and get them to assume that the two of you are married to each other?
Here's the quote: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. "
Bush has said in a speech that Kerry wants to have the US pass a "global test" in order to defend ourselves. He has done his best to give people the impression that Kerry will allow the international community to veto any foreign policy decision we make.
Well, I can see an agreement being required before you are allowed to use Blizzard's online multiplayer service, unless it is stated somewhere on the outside of the box that access to blizzard.net is included with the purchase of the game. However, it's not reasonable to require an agreement before they'll allow you to use the copy of the software that you own.
Basically, it comes down to the concept of consideration. It's required on both sides for a contract to be binding.
Well, except with software in the US, apparently.
I think the only thing that could get this fixed is to release some software with an EULA with terms that state that the user assumes all responsibility for the actions of the software, then make the software spread viruses. If the EULA is binding, the customer is completely legally responsible for the damage it does. That might get things changed.
I've never been able to get anywhere on Freenet except the default menu page. No other link or button has taken me to the page it's supposed to take me.
I'm afraid that you'd get plenty of press over how "confusing" the ballot would be, given what happened in Florida. I mean, some people can't even figure out which candidate they like best, let alone which they'd prefer over which other candidates.
Only way to do that is to change the voting system (I prefer approval voting myself). Start at the local level; it would be easiest to institute an approval voting system in your home town. Enough places do this, you get people wanting to institute it at the county level, then state, then nationally.
If you ever watch or listen to any of the conservative mouthpieces, you'll notice that they are all distributing the same message at the same time - Rush Limbaugh is saying the same thing as Fox News, is saying the same thing as Bush and company, etc. Usually down to the exact same phrases.
It's what Hitler said once - you tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough, and people will believe it.
Maybe you weren't paying attention when he said he already went to the lowest echelons of the job market (fast food places and Walmart) and _still_ can't get a job.
That's my point, sure people cared about them before, but they had more pressing concerns.
If by "more pressing concerns" you mean being killed by Pinkerton's strikebreaker goons, or losing a limb in the machinery of your bosses factory. People were striking a good while before the Great Depression. Bosses routinely had union leaders killed to keep the others in line. It wasn't until the Great Depression and Hoover's complete disregard to the problems of the working man that enough people got together to actually change things.
I'm not talking about the way things were before the industrial revolution. I'm talking about the way things were after it, and before the Great Depression. People cared a great deal about changing things - well, all but the rich, who were benefitting from the harsh conditions the poor lived under. It took such a huge crash as the Great Depression to prove once and for all that letting the rich run roughshod over everybody else wasn't the best way to do things.
The reforms that both Roosevelts pushed, it could be argued, were not a result of a revolution of the poor, but of the better off middle class. They were now well enough off that things like health and safety were more important.
They were just as important before. It's just that they gained enough money and clout that they could do something about it.
If concentration of wealth is so important and is leading us to impending revolution, then how did we live through the "Guilded Age" in the US when income inequality was MUCH MUCH greater than it is now.
You're wrong about the income inequality being far worse then than it is now. CEOs often make around 4000 times that of the median salary for the company.
And after the Guilded Age, we did have a revolution. A relatively bloodless one (if you don't consider the Great Depression part of it), but one where we instituted several "socialist" policies (minimum wage, safety standards for workplaces, Social Security, electrification of the countryside, etc).
Most of the rich saw it as a betrayal by FDR, who was from old money. But I think he knew that without some serious reforms, there would be a real revolution, similar to that in Russia.
Eliminating all income inequality also means the elemination of all economic incentives (read: elimination of capitialsm), which is not at all what the FF had in mind.
Who said anything about eliminating all income inequality? I believe that the complaint was merely about the current insane gap between rich and poor. Again, look to the current salaries of CEOs, who make more in a day than most people make in a year.
I'm sure you'd agree that there are people who are two times, ten times, even fifty times as smart, hard working, etc as other people (fifty times is pushing it). But thousands, or even millions of times smarter and hard working? Gimme a break.
The USA, in isolation, is a relatively free market -- with relatively little government intervention (compare to, say, China). So is Japan, Canada, and the rest of the West.
I would take Japan off that list. They have a great many cartels just within the country.
You've fallen for the myth that keeps getting pushed on all of us.
Newsflash: there is no such thing as a free market.
There are tons and tons of restrictions in the market that keep it from being "free" (what that really means is anarchistic). From insanely high trade barriers in Japan, to slave labor in China, to even the basic rules governing property ownership in the US, the market is governed by rules. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the courts or the police - possession would be the entirety of the law, and that would be determined by who had the most and biggest guns.
So stop buying into the myth that there's such a thing as a free market.
Somehow the idea of people losing jobs because of it, as well as paying higher prices (which hurts most those very people the law is supposed to help) doesn't seem to cross their minds.
Ah yes, The Theory.
You see, contrary to what "common wisdom" says, inflation actually _drops_ when the minimum wage is raised. It has every time it's happened. Want to know why?
Say you're company owner A. You know that the minimum wage increase will cut into your profits. Now, you could raise your prices to cover the loss.
But wait! Company owner B is watching, and knows that if you raise your prices and he keeps his the same, he'll steal your marketshare, meaning your profits will drop.
So, company owner A leaves his prices alone, and takes the hit to his bottom line, because a little less profit is better than a lot less profit.
Then it becomes a question of "Good vs Evil". A good person would want to help the poor of the world, even if it reduces his own income. Someone who harms others to benefit himself is what we call "evil".
I can't think of any sane person who would call someone evil for killing in self defense.
Thought you might want to check this site out:
www.conceptualguerilla.com
It's a site for people looking to combat the cheap-labor conservatives' rhetoric effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
The same should be true of businesses.
Nah, it's a deliberate deception.
Here's the quote: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. "
Bush has said in a speech that Kerry wants to have the US pass a "global test" in order to defend ourselves. He has done his best to give people the impression that Kerry will allow the international community to veto any foreign policy decision we make.
Well, I can see an agreement being required before you are allowed to use Blizzard's online multiplayer service, unless it is stated somewhere on the outside of the box that access to blizzard.net is included with the purchase of the game. However, it's not reasonable to require an agreement before they'll allow you to use the copy of the software that you own.
Basically, it comes down to the concept of consideration. It's required on both sides for a contract to be binding.
Well, except with software in the US, apparently.
I think the only thing that could get this fixed is to release some software with an EULA with terms that state that the user assumes all responsibility for the actions of the software, then make the software spread viruses. If the EULA is binding, the customer is completely legally responsible for the damage it does. That might get things changed.
I've never been able to get anywhere on Freenet except the default menu page. No other link or button has taken me to the page it's supposed to take me.
If they can fix that, maybe I'll start using it.
Yeah. Obviously, the 2.5 million jobs we lost have nothing to do with it whatsoever.
I'm afraid that you'd get plenty of press over how "confusing" the ballot would be, given what happened in Florida. I mean, some people can't even figure out which candidate they like best, let alone which they'd prefer over which other candidates.
Only way to do that is to change the voting system (I prefer approval voting myself). Start at the local level; it would be easiest to institute an approval voting system in your home town. Enough places do this, you get people wanting to institute it at the county level, then state, then nationally.
It's the Republican Echo Chamber.
If you ever watch or listen to any of the conservative mouthpieces, you'll notice that they are all distributing the same message at the same time - Rush Limbaugh is saying the same thing as Fox News, is saying the same thing as Bush and company, etc. Usually down to the exact same phrases.
It's what Hitler said once - you tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough, and people will believe it.
Maybe you weren't paying attention when he said he already went to the lowest echelons of the job market (fast food places and Walmart) and _still_ can't get a job.
I'm not talking about the way things were before the industrial revolution. I'm talking about the way things were after it, and before the Great Depression. People cared a great deal about changing things - well, all but the rich, who were benefitting from the harsh conditions the poor lived under. It took such a huge crash as the Great Depression to prove once and for all that letting the rich run roughshod over everybody else wasn't the best way to do things.
And after the Guilded Age, we did have a revolution. A relatively bloodless one (if you don't consider the Great Depression part of it), but one where we instituted several "socialist" policies (minimum wage, safety standards for workplaces, Social Security, electrification of the countryside, etc).
Most of the rich saw it as a betrayal by FDR, who was from old money. But I think he knew that without some serious reforms, there would be a real revolution, similar to that in Russia. Who said anything about eliminating all income inequality? I believe that the complaint was merely about the current insane gap between rich and poor. Again, look to the current salaries of CEOs, who make more in a day than most people make in a year.
I'm sure you'd agree that there are people who are two times, ten times, even fifty times as smart, hard working, etc as other people (fifty times is pushing it). But thousands, or even millions of times smarter and hard working? Gimme a break.
The president is the single most concentrated position of power in the United States. And somehow he has no influence in his party?!
Newsflash: there is no such thing as a free market.
There are tons and tons of restrictions in the market that keep it from being "free" (what that really means is anarchistic). From insanely high trade barriers in Japan, to slave labor in China, to even the basic rules governing property ownership in the US, the market is governed by rules. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the courts or the police - possession would be the entirety of the law, and that would be determined by who had the most and biggest guns.
So stop buying into the myth that there's such a thing as a free market.
You see, contrary to what "common wisdom" says, inflation actually _drops_ when the minimum wage is raised. It has every time it's happened. Want to know why?
Say you're company owner A. You know that the minimum wage increase will cut into your profits. Now, you could raise your prices to cover the loss.
But wait! Company owner B is watching, and knows that if you raise your prices and he keeps his the same, he'll steal your marketshare, meaning your profits will drop.
So, company owner A leaves his prices alone, and takes the hit to his bottom line, because a little less profit is better than a lot less profit.
Most employees at Walmart don't have health insurance.
Case in point as to why anonymity is important, even if you're an upstanding law-abiding citizen.
Thought you might want to check this site out: www.conceptualguerilla.com It's a site for people looking to combat the cheap-labor conservatives' rhetoric effectively.
Actually, it's had several billion years of new wealth rained down on it from that big glowing thing called the sun.