The problem still lies within the fact that most Americans are not willing to become involved with politics nowadays.
The problem doesn't lie with the victims, it lies with the perpatrators. The ones who conciously attempt to keep most americans away from understanding the issues.
And still it would not be terrorism -- even an unjust war is not terrorism, and a just one is not insurance against it either.
Is terrorism even a useful word. Terrorism can only be about them, never us. No matter who you are.
They are terrorism, we are counter terrorism. It's always been that way, it will always be that way, it tells us about the actions intention, but not anything about "positive" or "negative" which is how it's always used.
And just in time to be run over my Michael Moore racing up to sign you on to his organization.
Really, what does the Michael Moore reference add at this point. It's too played out to be funny, and it has no intellectual content.
I mean, it's pretty sad when politicians still use this weak ass reply, but us non-politicians are supposed to be serious about the topic, or move on to something that is fresh and funny.
At least upgrade your retort to be about Nancy Pelosi.
The social and behavioral sciences should be seriously studied, not only for their intrinsic interest, but so that the student can be made quite aware of exactly how little they have to say about the problems of man and society that really matter. --Noam Chomsky
if you don't like it then tell us some specifics on why you don't like it!
1. The faded icons on the sidebar look like any html template look you'd find on a website. They don't look nice, just cheesy. 2. It's brighter, which for some reason gets on my nerves. I like being able to fade into the lull of the old colors. 3. It looks like any other blog. I like to pretend that Slashdot isn't just a blog, but a professional website full of incompetent writers.
We will all get used to it, but it sucks. It didn't need to be changed. Weeeee.
Re:Not unique to open source
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This isn't unique to open source. How many times has Microsoft told us to upgrade because of the enhanced security in the latest version of Windows?
This isn't unique to large software companies.
Anyone who has worked in a software company for any ammount of time knows this. Software has bugs. The difference with open source is they may already be fixed in CVS. A lot of times in other companies it's a new problem and will be fixed in months.
We're trying to tell you, be happy. It's fixed. It'll be out soon. We care.
Because we are portrayed as the white, Christian west, the source of all the woe in the Middle East.
Okay, let's see why they say they hate us.
What about the reservoir of support? Well, it's not hard to find out what that is. One of the good things that has happened since September 11 is that some of the press and some of the discussion has begun to open up to some of these things. The best one to my knowledge is the Wall Street Journal which right away began to run, within a couple of days, serious reports, searching serious reports, on the reasons why the people of the region, even though they hate bin Laden and despise everything he is doing, nevertheless support him in many ways and even regard him as the conscience of Islam, as one said. Now the Wall Street Journal and others, they are not surveying public opinion. They are surveying the opinion of their friends: bankers, professionals, international lawyers, businessmen tied to the United States, people who they interview in MacDonalds restaurant, which is an elegant restaurant there, wearing fancy American clothes. That's the people they are interviewing because they want to find out what their attitudes are. And their attitudes are very explicit and very clear and in many ways consonant with the message of bin Laden and others. They are very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they know it even if we don't want to. And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year. The US has been providing the overwhelming economic, military, and diplomatic support for it, and still does. And they know that and they don't like it. Especially when that is paired with US policy towards Iraq, towards the Iraqi civilian society which is getting destroyed. Ok, those are the reasons roughly. And when bin Laden gives those reasons, people recognize it and support it.
Now that's not the way people here like to think about it, at least educated liberal opinion. They like the following line which has been all over the press, mostly from left liberals, incidentally. I have not done a real study but I think right wing opinion has generally been more honest. But if you look at say at the New York Times at the first op-ed they ran by Ronald Steel, serious left liberal intellectual. He asks Why do they hate us? This is the same day, I think, that the Wall Street Journal was running the survey on why they hate us. So he says "They hate us because we champion a new world order of capitalism, individualism, secularism, and democracy that should be the norm everywhere." That's why they hate us. The same day the Wall Street Journal is surveying the opinions of bankers, professionals, international lawyers and saying `look, we hate you because you are blocking democracy, you are preventing economic development, you are supporting brutal regimes, terrorist regimes and you are doing these horrible things in the region.' A couple days later, Anthony Lewis, way out on the left, explained that the terrorist seek only "apocalyptic nihilism," nothing more and nothing we do matters. The only consequence of our actions, he says, that could be harmful is that it makes it harder for Arabs to join in the coalition's anti-terrorism effort. But beyond that, everything we do is irrelevant.
Well, you know, that's got the advantage of being sort of comforting. It makes you feel good about yourself, and how wonderful you are. It enables us to evade the consequences of our actions. It has a couple of defects. One is it is at to
Well, we may have a justifiable horror of chemical munitions, but it was never in question that Iraq had had them. The question was whether they still had them, in contravention to the agreement ending hostilities in the first Gulf War, and whether they were still developing new ones.
We supported Saddam while he used chemical munitions against Iran. I don't quite understand what justifiable means there.
They were not a threat to us, even if they were there. Even if he had chemical weapons, they would have been very uneffective after such a long time.
There's no doubt that Hussein's regime, by any reasonable standard, was evil.
That we supported during their worst atrocities...
It is posssible that Sadaam had a covert WMD program, which moved its stocks and equipment to a third country, Syria as some have suggested.
Or it's also possible the inspectors worked to a large degree, there was no realistic WMD program. There were old mostly useless chemical weapons still in hiding.
Saddam was quite content being a tyrant without taking large parts of land anymore. (Kind of hard with the sanctions decimating your population.).
I mean. What is there to see about this?
We act like it's some great illusion, but we've had sanctions on the country and inspectors since the gulf war. US invading now is simply a statement that we should have overthown him then, and built permanant military bases in Iraq.
If the USA only wanted the oil, we could have just bought it from Saddam and let him continue to murder his own people at will.
Buying oil, and controling oil are two different things.
[Former National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew] Brzezinski recently pointed out that victory and control in Iraq would give the US what he called critical leverage over Asian and European economies, so the US will have its hand on the spigot. I mean it already does to a substantial extent but this will be much greater. In fact, back in the 1940s the Middle East was described as a stupendous source of strategic power, the most strategically important area in the world, and the US remained an oil exporter into the 1970s but still pursued the same policies. You have got to control that massive resource, it is a source of world control. If the US or UK were to shift to renewable energy it would still stick to the same policies. It doesn't really need...I mean it does use the oil but it has other sources and the oil goes on the market anyway so it doesn't matter. But control over it does matter. And the profit from it also matters, and having bases there that allow you to organize the region in your own interests, of course that matters.
Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?
Do remember that Socrates was over 70 at the time, and there were no dentists. We have no idea of his health, but it probably wasn't excellent. He may well have had arthritis. And transportation was by walking or by riding in unsprung vehicles. (Travel and travail were the same word up through the 19th century in English.)
Possibly when he looked at the alternatives, a painless death that was similar in appearance to going to sleep appeared the best alternative...and it was something which he probably couldn't put off much longer anyway. And, if he did escape, there would be the problem of re-establishing himself in a new location...with news of his conviction behind him.
I appreciate the response, I really didn't expect to get anything well thought out, people like you make intelligent discussions possible.
That being said, I bolded a section. I agree with what you are saying, except that if that was indeed the case. If this was an issue of alternatives, then all of his arguments given would have not made any sense whatsoever.
By escaping Socrates would confirm the jury's opinion of him as a bad influence on the young; one who breaks the law is not one who influences the young positively.
If something like this would matter to you (as much as I beileve it shouldn't), then the issue certainly wouldn't be alternatives.
If we say that those are all Plato's words, then it's irrelevant as well.
Certainly I understand your premise, but the rest of Crito suddenly doesn't make any sense at all if we accept it.
"Shareholders" is just another word for "owners". If you owned a business, website, whatever, wouldn't you feel that you should be the one to decide how to run it?
No. The people who work at the business, website, or whatever should be the ones who decide how to run it.
If polluting increases profit, the market dictates you pollute.
There isn't a week that goes by when there isn't some revelation that a company has broken the rules for a profit motive.
It happens every day, of every week, of every year. I see it in my own dealings as an employee.
Profit is the only goal. Every action concerns itself with profit, at the expense of whatever it happens to be.
It's not purposely to hurt us. It just doesn't matter that it does.
Don't forget the indoctrination of us as children.
- The obligation that people feel to one another goes back to the very beginning of human history, as a natural, spontaneous act in human relations. Obligation to government, however, is not natural. It must be taught to every generation.
Who can teach this lesson of obligation with more authority than the great Plato? Plato has long been one of the gods of modern culture, his reputation that of an awesome mind and a brilliant writer of dialogue, his work the greatest of the Great Books. Shrewdly, Plato puts his ideas about obligation in the mouth of Socrates. Socrates left no writings that we know of, so he can be used to say whatever Plato wants. And Plato could have no better spokesman than a wise, gentle old man who was put to death by the government of Athens in 399 B.C. for speaking his mind. Any words coming from such a man will be especially persuasive.
But they are Plato's words, Plato's ideas. All we know of Socrates is what Plato tells us. Or, what we read in the recollections of another contemporary, Xenophon. Or what we can believe about him from reading Aristophanes's spoof on his friend Socrates, in his play The Clouds.
So we can't know for sure what Socrates really said to his friend Crito, who visited him in jail, after he had been condemned to death. But we do know what Plato has him say in the dialogue Crito (written many years after Socrates's execution), which has been impressed on the minds of countless generations, down to the present day, with deadly effect. Plato's ideas have become pan of the onhodoxy of the nation, absorbed into the national bloodstream and reproduced in ordinary conversations and on bumper stickers. ("Love it or leave it"-summing up Plato's idea of obligation.)
Plato's message is presented appealingly by a man calmly facing death, whose courage disarms any possible skepticism. It is made even more appealing by the fact that it follows another dialogue, the Apology, in which (according to Plato), Socrates addresses the jury in an eloquent defense of free speech, saying those famous words: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Plato then unashamedly (lesson one in intellectual bullying: speak with utter confidence) presents us with some unexamined ideas. Having established Socrates's credentials as a manyr for independent thought , he proceeds in the Crito to put on Socrates's tongue an argument for blind obedience to government.
It is hardly a dialogue, although Plato is famous for dialogue and the "Socratic method" is based on teaching through dialogue. Poor Crito , who visits Socrates in prison to persuade him to let his friends plan his escape, is vinually tongue-tied. He is reduced to saying, to every one of Socrates's little speeches: "Yes . . . of course . . . clearly... I agree. . . Yes . . . I think that you are right. . . . True." And Socrates is going on and on, like the good trouper that he is, saying Plato's lines, making Plato's argument. We know the ideas are Plato's because in his well- known and much bigger dialogue the Republic he makes an even more extended case for a totalitarian state.
To Crito's offer of escape, Socrates replies: I must obey the law. True, he says, Athens has committed an injustice by ordering him to die for speaking his mind (he seems slightly annoyed at this!), but if he complained about this injustice, Athens could rightly say: "We brought you into the world, we raised you, we educated you, we gave you and every other citizen a share of all the good things we could."
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, there's probably more viewers of the O'Reilly Report
It's the factor, and it's losing ratings like crazy ever since Keith Olberman decided to stand up for what he (we) beileve in.
TLDR
The problem still lies within the fact that most Americans are not willing to become involved with politics nowadays.
The problem doesn't lie with the victims, it lies with the perpatrators. The ones who conciously attempt to keep most americans away from understanding the issues.
We are all responsible to fix it.
So you want millions of uninformed uncaring citizens to start determining national policy?
How exactly is that different from 90% of voters voting on "qualities" and not "issues"?
Who cares about those blimey orc players, when do we get Harlequinns!?
Make sure you watch root of all evil. Clips.
e isme d&search=atheismt %20of%20all%20evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Q4DCtd2ac&search=ath
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3PqdCHBT_rU&mode=relat
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BSiLSwFK9UE&search=roo
It's an excellent movie.
#1) Technically this isn't a war as congress has yet to declare war.
It's a war to the Iraqis. I don't think the technical merits have much meaning when you're being bombed.
And still it would not be terrorism -- even an unjust war is not terrorism, and a just one is not insurance against it either.
Is terrorism even a useful word. Terrorism can only be about them, never us. No matter who you are.
They are terrorism, we are counter terrorism. It's always been that way, it will always be that way, it tells us about the actions intention, but not anything about "positive" or "negative" which is how it's always used.
And just in time to be run over my Michael Moore racing up to sign you on to his organization.
Really, what does the Michael Moore reference add at this point. It's too played out to be funny, and it has no intellectual content.
I mean, it's pretty sad when politicians still use this weak ass reply, but us non-politicians are supposed to be serious about the topic, or move on to something that is fresh and funny.
At least upgrade your retort to be about Nancy Pelosi.
It can't end, because it never started. It doesn't even make sense to talk about being at war with "Terror" when Terror is just an abstract concept.
The first war on terror or the second? I'm getting confused.
War on Terror
The social and behavioral sciences should be seriously studied, not only for their intrinsic interest, but so that the student can be made quite aware of exactly how little they have to say about the problems of man and society that really matter.
--Noam Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon/ seems to fit that bill quite nicely
if you don't like it then tell us some specifics on why you don't like it!
1. The faded icons on the sidebar look like any html template look you'd find on a website. They don't look nice, just cheesy.
2. It's brighter, which for some reason gets on my nerves. I like being able to fade into the lull of the old colors.
3. It looks like any other blog. I like to pretend that Slashdot isn't just a blog, but a professional website full of incompetent writers.
We will all get used to it, but it sucks. It didn't need to be changed. Weeeee.
This isn't unique to open source. How many times has Microsoft told us to upgrade because of the enhanced security in the latest version of Windows?
This isn't unique to large software companies.
Anyone who has worked in a software company for any ammount of time knows this. Software has bugs. The difference with open source is they may already be fixed in CVS. A lot of times in other companies it's a new problem and will be fixed in months.
We're trying to tell you, be happy. It's fixed. It'll be out soon. We care.
Why do they hate us? -
Because we are portrayed as the white, Christian west, the source of all the woe in the Middle East.
Okay, let's see why they say they hate us.
What about the reservoir of support? Well, it's not hard to find out what that is. One of the good things that has happened since September 11 is that some of the press and some of the discussion has begun to open up to some of these things. The best one to my knowledge is the Wall Street Journal which right away began to run, within a couple of days, serious reports, searching serious reports, on the reasons why the people of the region, even though they hate bin Laden and despise everything he is doing, nevertheless support him in many ways and even regard him as the conscience of Islam, as one said. Now the Wall Street Journal and others, they are not surveying public opinion. They are surveying the opinion of their friends: bankers, professionals, international lawyers, businessmen tied to the United States, people who they interview in MacDonalds restaurant, which is an elegant restaurant there, wearing fancy American clothes. That's the people they are interviewing because they want to find out what their attitudes are. And their attitudes are very explicit and very clear and in many ways consonant with the message of bin Laden and others. They are very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they know it even if we don't want to. And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year. The US has been providing the overwhelming economic, military, and diplomatic support for it, and still does. And they know that and they don't like it. Especially when that is paired with US policy towards Iraq, towards the Iraqi civilian society which is getting destroyed. Ok, those are the reasons roughly. And when bin Laden gives those reasons, people recognize it and support it.
Now that's not the way people here like to think about it, at least educated liberal opinion. They like the following line which has been all over the press, mostly from left liberals, incidentally. I have not done a real study but I think right wing opinion has generally been more honest. But if you look at say at the New York Times at the first op-ed they ran by Ronald Steel, serious left liberal intellectual. He asks Why do they hate us? This is the same day, I think, that the Wall Street Journal was running the survey on why they hate us. So he says "They hate us because we champion a new world order of capitalism, individualism, secularism, and democracy that should be the norm everywhere." That's why they hate us. The same day the Wall Street Journal is surveying the opinions of bankers, professionals, international lawyers and saying `look, we hate you because you are blocking democracy, you are preventing economic development, you are supporting brutal regimes, terrorist regimes and you are doing these horrible things in the region.' A couple days later, Anthony Lewis, way out on the left, explained that the terrorist seek only "apocalyptic nihilism," nothing more and nothing we do matters. The only consequence of our actions, he says, that could be harmful is that it makes it harder for Arabs to join in the coalition's anti-terrorism effort. But beyond that, everything we do is irrelevant.
Well, you know, that's got the advantage of being sort of comforting. It makes you feel good about yourself, and how wonderful you are. It enables us to evade the consequences of our actions. It has a couple of defects. One is it is at to
Well, we may have a justifiable horror of chemical munitions, but it was never in question that Iraq had had them. The question was whether they still had them, in contravention to the agreement ending hostilities in the first Gulf War, and whether they were still developing new ones.
We supported Saddam while he used chemical munitions against Iran. I don't quite understand what justifiable means there.
They were not a threat to us, even if they were there. Even if he had chemical weapons, they would have been very uneffective after such a long time.
There's no doubt that Hussein's regime, by any reasonable standard, was evil.
That we supported during their worst atrocities...
It is posssible that Sadaam had a covert WMD program, which moved its stocks and equipment to a third country, Syria as some have suggested.
Or it's also possible the inspectors worked to a large degree, there was no realistic WMD program. There were old mostly useless chemical weapons still in hiding.
Saddam was quite content being a tyrant without taking large parts of land anymore. (Kind of hard with the sanctions decimating your population.).
I mean. What is there to see about this?
We act like it's some great illusion, but we've had sanctions on the country and inspectors since the gulf war. US invading now is simply a statement that we should have overthown him then, and built permanant military bases in Iraq.
Simple concept really.
If the USA only wanted the oil, we could have just bought it from Saddam and let him continue to murder his own people at will.
Buying oil, and controling oil are two different things.
[Former National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew] Brzezinski recently pointed out that victory and control in Iraq would give the US what he called critical leverage over Asian and European economies, so the US will have its hand on the spigot. I mean it already does to a substantial extent but this will be much greater. In fact, back in the 1940s the Middle East was described as a stupendous source of strategic power, the most strategically important area in the world, and the US remained an oil exporter into the 1970s but still pursued the same policies. You have got to control that massive resource, it is a source of world control. If the US or UK were to shift to renewable energy it would still stick to the same policies. It doesn't really need...I mean it does use the oil but it has other sources and the oil goes on the market anyway so it doesn't matter. But control over it does matter. And the profit from it also matters, and having bases there that allow you to organize the region in your own interests, of course that matters.
The WMDs had been used extensively during the Iran-Iraq war.
The WMDs had been used extensively, with our support, during the Iran-Iraq war
Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?
Road to Guantanamo
Great movie.
More info at
Channel 4's site on Road to Guantanamo
Redhat fails to install cvs and vim-enhanced in its "server" config
I know! Not having vim enchanced is just crazy.
great call, fanterm is awesome, thank you.
Do remember that Socrates was over 70 at the time, and there were no dentists. We have no idea of his health, but it probably wasn't excellent. He may well have had arthritis. And transportation was by walking or by riding in unsprung vehicles. (Travel and travail were the same word up through the 19th century in English.)
Possibly when he looked at the alternatives, a painless death that was similar in appearance to going to sleep appeared the best alternative...and it was something which he probably couldn't put off much longer anyway. And, if he did escape, there would be the problem of re-establishing himself in a new location...with news of his conviction behind him.
I appreciate the response, I really didn't expect to get anything well thought out, people like you make intelligent discussions possible.
That being said, I bolded a section. I agree with what you are saying, except that if that was indeed the case. If this was an issue of alternatives, then all of his arguments given would have not made any sense whatsoever.
By escaping Socrates would confirm the jury's opinion of him as a bad influence on the young; one who breaks the law is not one who influences the young positively.
If something like this would matter to you (as much as I beileve it shouldn't), then the issue certainly wouldn't be alternatives.
If we say that those are all Plato's words, then it's irrelevant as well.
Certainly I understand your premise, but the rest of Crito suddenly doesn't make any sense at all if we accept it.
"Shareholders" is just another word for "owners". If you owned a business, website, whatever, wouldn't you feel that you should be the one to decide how to run it?
No. The people who work at the business, website, or whatever should be the ones who decide how to run it.
If polluting increases profit, the market dictates you pollute.
There isn't a week that goes by when there isn't some revelation that a company has broken the rules for a profit motive.
It happens every day, of every week, of every year. I see it in my own dealings as an employee.
Profit is the only goal. Every action concerns itself with profit, at the expense of whatever it happens to be.
It's not purposely to hurt us. It just doesn't matter that it does.
That's all well and good for you to think, but investors have real money involved, and Google has real obligations towards them.
And that was my point. Why are your obligations to the actual people not real? To the community not real?
To rights. To privacy. To honest dealings.
Those are all just as real, yet the only obligation that is paramount is to the shareholders. Which is wrong.
Willful (and extremely unpatriotic) ignorance.
... I agree. . . Yes . . . I think that you are right. . . . True." And Socrates is going on and on, like the good trouper that he is, saying Plato's lines, making Plato's argument. We know the ideas are Plato's because in his well- known and much bigger dialogue the Republic he makes an even more extended case for a totalitarian state.
Don't forget the indoctrination of us as children.
- The obligation that people feel to one another goes back to the very beginning of human history, as a natural, spontaneous act in human relations. Obligation to government, however, is not natural. It must be taught to every generation.
Who can teach this lesson of obligation with more authority than the great Plato? Plato has long been one of the gods of modern culture, his reputation that of an awesome mind and a brilliant writer of dialogue, his work the greatest of the Great Books. Shrewdly, Plato puts his ideas about obligation in the mouth of Socrates. Socrates left no writings that we know of, so he can be used to say whatever Plato wants. And Plato could have no better spokesman than a wise, gentle old man who was put to death by the government of Athens in 399 B.C. for speaking his mind. Any words coming from such a man will be especially persuasive.
But they are Plato's words, Plato's ideas. All we know of Socrates is what Plato tells us. Or, what we read in the recollections of another contemporary, Xenophon. Or what we can believe about him from reading Aristophanes's spoof on his friend Socrates, in his play The Clouds.
So we can't know for sure what Socrates really said to his friend Crito, who visited him in jail, after he had been condemned to death. But we do know what Plato has him say in the dialogue Crito (written many years after Socrates's execution), which has been impressed on the minds of countless generations, down to the present day, with deadly effect. Plato's ideas have become pan of the onhodoxy of the nation, absorbed into the national bloodstream and reproduced in ordinary conversations and on bumper stickers. ("Love it or leave it"-summing up Plato's idea of obligation.)
Plato's message is presented appealingly by a man calmly facing death, whose courage disarms any possible skepticism. It is made even more appealing by the fact that it follows another dialogue, the Apology, in which (according to Plato), Socrates addresses the jury in an eloquent defense of free speech, saying those famous words: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Plato then unashamedly (lesson one in intellectual bullying: speak with utter confidence) presents us with some unexamined ideas. Having established Socrates's credentials as a manyr for independent thought , he proceeds in the Crito to put on Socrates's tongue an argument for blind obedience to government.
It is hardly a dialogue, although Plato is famous for dialogue and the "Socratic method" is based on teaching through dialogue. Poor Crito , who visits Socrates in prison to persuade him to let his friends plan his escape, is vinually tongue-tied. He is reduced to saying, to every one of Socrates's little speeches: "Yes . . . of course . . . clearly
To Crito's offer of escape, Socrates replies: I must obey the law. True, he says, Athens has committed an injustice by ordering him to die for speaking his mind (he seems slightly annoyed at this!), but if he complained about this injustice, Athens could rightly say: "We brought you into the world, we raised you, we educated you, we gave you and every other citizen a share of all the good things we could."