Personally, I'd trust a newspaper over blatant assertions by an activist site any day.
What are you smoking? And where can I get some?
To suggest that a newspaper, or for that matter any "press" source should be considered unbiased is is patently... foolish.
I challenge you, or any other reader to name a truly unbiased source for this or for news in general! At best you'll find sources that listen to "both sides"... But remember, these media "balanced" news outlets choose who they will interview/cite to represent these sides. And that is BIAS my friends.
CNN - Biased
FOX - Biased
ABC - Biased
CBS - Biased
NBC - Biased
BBC - Biased
Times (london) - biased
NYTimes - Biased
WSJ - Biased
WashPost - Biased
WashTimes - Biased
SticksvilleDaily - Guess
You may prefer a particular bias. But there IS bias.
But the PROBLEM with the interweb, when compared to those ancient "libraries" is that every other "book" on the interweb is pornographic. Of course I figure most/.ers dont really mind that...
Or it could just be that his writing has gone downhill so far that the publisher is trying desperately to put together something that makes sense. R.J. wouldn't be the first author to lose it as he aged and even a great publisher can't cover it up forever.
Above is right on. R.J. is milking the series for all he cn get. If there was ever a gameplan or logical ending, he has long since thrown it out. As long as we keep buying it, the soap-opera will continue.
The question is not "Will this end in my lifetime?" but rather "Will he finish it in his?"
This Book might have been helpful for the dearly departed geek.
Even paranoids have enemies. They really are out to get you. Remember this as you stab them all in the back.
Just a thought... if the company prepared a report naming you (by name) as a security risk, you might have grounds for a libel lawsuit... IANAL, but in the US, folks do sue and win for much less.Sue the security firm for libel and fraud. Sue your employer for wrongful termination. It's the American way!
In the case of the GPL, the losses are nothing, since nothing was paid,
Wrong!
If someone takes my GPL'd code and includes it in their program, my loss is the loss of royalties or contract programing revenue that I would have recieved if they had approached me. If someone uses my code without permission, and if they receive money for the resulting work, either directly or by embedding my code in some other product (router OS for example), then something HAS been PAID and damages are real.
The fact that I distribute my code under the GPL does not prevent me from distributing it under some other License. I retain Ownership of my code, and I can permit its use under whatever terms I like. I could sell Microsoft or Linksys or whoever a seperate license to code that I also released via GPL.
If M$ or Linksys etc. don't want to come to me and seek terms for the use of my code, and if I have already released via GPL, well then they can release via GPL themselves and no problem. If they do neither, then it falls to me to file the lawsuit.
Problem with Japan to Mainland Asia Tunnel/bridge is that part of the world is earthquake prone. Even if they built it, you'd have to have a deathwish to use it.
I found the post to be very insightful, but there is one thing I must disagree with: "I suspect that The world preferd the Isolationist America of 1906 or 1936 to the Gulliver Unchained of 2003."
This is plainly not true.
Perhaps I overstated my case a bit... but not as much I think. Certainly the Arab states are resentful of American foreign policy. Any American foreign policy. (Why? Because we are infidels. Infidels arend supposed to have any influence anyplace, but especially not in Arabia.)
Western Euroupe likes the US when the US does what it is told, and when you think about it, that makes sense. France resents that the US had to come over and liberate its ass, and Germany doesn't like it when the US preaches about "tolerance"... (Not that the US tolerance record is that great BTW, but Germany has a particularly black mark on its record)
The problem for these nations is that the USA, at least militarily, can do just about anything it wants... Gulliver Unchained... and they simply can't. It is not happenstance that The large European Nations want to unify into a supernation; free trade is not the only factor. It is not happenstance that France and Germany are trying to plant the seeds for a European Defense Force... You should view it as an Army of Europe.
The big problem was that he withdrew the US from the international arena; especially the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
You overstate your case here. Bush's response to the Palestinian problem pre 9/11 was a simple reaction to the collapse of the talks in 2000. Lest we forget, Clinton, desperate to repair his legacy with a foreign policy victory, managed to convince Sharon to offer Arafat a Palestinian State with a capital in Jerusalem. Basically everything he had asked for. And Arafat refused. And then the recent "troubles" began.
Bush, by his inaction was giving Israel a degree of freedom to act to resolve this themselves. The Palestinians had rejected American involvement, and the Israelis did not appreciate the American Hand of Restraint in the wake of renewed violence.
[As an aside... as an American... I saw on TV the celebrations in Gaza City and the West Bank at the WTC (9/11/1) attack. IMO, the proper US policy toward the conflict should be the unilateral napalming of Gaza and the West Bank. If a Tax Increase would ensure more dead and wounded, I would GLADLY PAY.]
The other big pull back after the Bush election was from the Kyoto treaty... This was not a surprise for anyone here. Americans hate being told what they MUST do... and in my experience, Libertarians alone detest this more than Republicans. Republicans see this as a poorly disguised attempt to put a chain around Gulliver.
The real critique came when Bush decided to invade Iraq. The reason people generally opposed this in Europe is (I assume) that Saddam had made no real aggressive moves, and thus the US/UK conducted an unprovoked aggression against Iraq.
Saddam had been making trouble for US and UK no-fly enforcers for over 10 years... and who can blame him (If Canada and Mexico Were enforcing no-flys over the US (don't laugh), we'd be pissed too).
Bush (HW) stopped short of toppling Saddam to preserve a hard won Arab/Muslim consensus and alliance. Clinton squandered that victory; by the time Bush (W) came along, there was no real working alliance in the region... Clinton should have acted decisively when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors. Instead he fucked around in his office. Literally. Pre-9/11 Bush (W) sought to preserve the status quo.
Post 9/11, the status quo was unacceptable. No-flys and trade embargos were going to continue for the foreseeable future. US foreign policy could tolerate Saddam's sons no more than Saddam. France and others were helping Saddam turn food-for-oil into money. The plight of regular Iraqis was worse every day... WMDs were a pretense to do w
The 'War on Terror' cannot be won by capturing anyone! You can only 'win' by solving the problems that only serve to create more and more terrorists.
Almost all modern terrorism is due to US foreign policy. It is not because terrorists "hate freedom". That is, franky an extremely naive view of the world, seperating people into blank and white views of "good" and "bad".
Pardon my lumping your statement with one of the replies, but they are along the same lines....
Exactly what problems do you think are available to be solved in Iraq and the rest of the middle east? I suppose we could turn the Germans loose and let them exterminate the Jews... let them finish the job. And I suppose that we could all bow to Mecca... even the athiests among us... My point is that the problems in that part of the world are not available to be solved, or at least not solvable by any means that would satisfy a squeemish slashdotter.
Perhaps you believe that poverty is the problem? Certainly the American and European Press has been trumpeting this for a couple of years; perhaps you've bought that line? Poverty has never been "solved" anyplace. In Socialist Euroupe, and even in the United States, millions are fed and housed by the government, but this does not prevent people from being poor or impoverished. Poverty cannot be "solved"... at best it can be somewhat reduced or mitigated, and then only by a constitutional government (IE a government run according to rules rather than according to whim).
The US, or Euroupe can not solve "poverty" by simply giving out free food... such solutions breed resentment and create havoc when that aid is withdrawn. OTOH, the people in that part of the world seem resistant to the establishment of any sort of constitutional government.
Give an Iraqui a fish, and he eats for a day, teach an Iraqui to Fish and eats for the rest of his life (or until the UN bans fishing in his river). But the Itaqui insurgency resents our fish, and is uninterested in learning how to fish... Do you see the problem?
As for American foreign policy, the problem many Europeans, Chicoms, and Arabs have with it is that it exists. I suspect that The world preferd the Isolationist America of 1906 or 1936 to the Gulliver Unchained of 2003. Sleeping America came when called and could be counted upon to kill however many Germans were required... Problem is that Sleeping America did not return to sleep after 1945, and has been acting in what it views as its own self interest ever since.
If the Saudi Monarchy was toppled tomorrow, do you believe that anything better would replace it? Would it be in the US interest to see that Monarchy toppled today? Would it be in Euroupe's interest?
The problem in the middle east, with Arabs and Muslimsand all others is that there is a widely held belief that "terrorism" is a legitimate, and even laudable form of political expression. I see no solution to this.
Give a muslim some fire and he'll be warm for a day. Dip him in pork grease and light him on fire, and he'll be warm for all eternity.
Although in the article, they mainly focus on Texas, it's pretty clear that the whole system is being gamed and gamed hardest by the Republicans.
OK, I'll bite... The system is being gamed and has been gamed for as long as there has been a system to game. The article makes this clear, as would even a casual study of history.
The Facist Republicans are EVIL for gaming the system at every opportunity as are the the Stalinist Democrats for doing the same whenever they can. But you are correct when you observe that the Republicans are winning just now.
The current "crisis" in gerrymandering highlights the power of one of the forgotten units of government... namely the State legislature(s). Due to the national reach of the American Media, people's perception of the importance of State Government has declined. For most state offices (other than Governor usually), people tend to vote a party line. God forbid they learn about the candidates and their positions! God forbid they read a newspaper! If Peter Jennings or Bill O'Reilly doesn't cover it, it isn't important.
Personally, I attribute the whole problem to the dumbingdown of America America. The current lowest common denominator is the pre-digested coverage on the 24-hr news channels. Sad, isn't it?
Blame the Republicans or the Democrats if you lack imagination. Blame yourself if you don't know the same of your state representative. Blame your neighbors if they didn't vote on the '02 elections because "they don't matter". Blame your friends who aren't even registered to vote.
And there was me thinking that 'minorities' referred to minority groups within the population, whether they be economic, ethnic or political groups.
Indeed! And your definition is noted. And I expect any population would contain "minorities" of one kind or another. I expect that Vermont contains meaningful numbers of Talls and Shorts and Smellys and Democrats and Republicans and Libertatians and Greens and Slashdotters, etc.
But brotherscrim asserts in his original post that Vermont lacks "minorities". By your definition and our mutual understanding thusfar, his statement makes no sense. Now we can accept that brotherscrim really is dumb enough to believe such nonsense (I do not), or we can accept that he meant something else...
So what "minorities" do NYC and DC have that Vermont has almost none of? Vermont has plenty of poor people, old people, etc... but they "almost no" BLACK PEOPLE. To be fair, Vermont has "almost no" "Hispanic" people either, but this doesn't impact my analysis. Brotherscrim has suggests that the lack of BLACK PEOPLE is more important in explaining Vermont's low crime rate than its concealed weapon law.
areas predominantly populated by minority groups
If an area is predominantly populated by "minority groups", then by definition (of predominant), there is no majority group. Without a majority, minority recognition is redundant. Your text should "areas populated by groups", though that too approaches redundancy... how about "areas populated"?
YOUR use of minority here is inconsistent with the all-encompassing definition you gave. Instead you use it as a code-word. Fortunately, you break it down for us later as "black, latin american, vietnamese". Later you get more specific and refer to "ethnic minorities", but somehow I doubt you refer to Polish and Swedish and French minorities. This statement is a giveaway : "The inner city population is almost entirely composed of ethnic minorities whereas the suburbs are predominantly white".
White. What exactly do you mean by that? I have no experience with UK cities or UK wordspin, but in the US, when "Ethnic minorities" is contrasted with "white", it is understood that the "minorities" in question must be "non-white" or even "dark"... its as plain as black and white... SO, I assume that you are saying that in the UK, your cities are populated by BLACK PEOPLE...
This isn't a link between crime and ethnic groups, but between crime and low income inner city populations.
I agree. But brotherscrim brought in BLACK PEOPLE as an apparent cause of crime. He may be mistaken, or misinformed (or just plain stupid for not realizing how clearly he communicated), but the view he expressed is racist.
This is a situation which is never going to improve if whenever anyone draws attention to it people such as yourself start screaming racist at them.
He did not lament the poverty of BLACK PEOPLE, but he enumerated them as a cause of crime. Had he done otherwise, I would have remained silent else offered positive contribution. Race is a red herring in the gun control & crime debates (IMHO). Ignoring racism will not make it go away.
My sense of what he 'said' was that the presence of minorities who are poor
First of all, despite your not being the original poster, thank you for troubling to clarify what YOU mean by minorities. I'll go over that farther down.
Let us look a bit closer at what you think brotherscrim said
minorities who are poor
and what he did say
poor & minority
Note that poor and minority are enumerated separately as distinct groups. This is extremely relevant. Each is separately implicated in criminality. As brotherscrim points out, it is the lack of poor people AND "minorities" (black people) in Vermont rather than the abundance of concealed firearms that leads to the low crime rate.
back to what you think he said...
minorities who are poor and/or discriminated against is a likely indicator that some crime rates will be higher. And you have offered nothing to refute that.
And he offered nothing to prove it. Both our comments thus far have been woefully long in wind and short in statistics and studies. So has yours. It's the Slashdot way!
Now to your own commentary...
In the case of NY/Chicago etc the minorities are African Americans, in LA, South Americans, in London, Albanians, in Cabramatta (Sydney, Australia), Vietnamese, In Eastern Europe, Romanies.
"Minorities" is an overbroad term used mainly in a sophistic manner to try to appear sympathetic to "everyone who might be downtrodden" when actually referring to specific groups. When Londoner's mean Albanians in a positive way, they'll say "Albanians", when they mean it in a negative way the closet racists will say "minorities". Whether in London or America or elsewhere, when you hear "minorities", you are expected to read between the lines. (BTW, I take your word about Albanians in London, my first hand experience is limited to North America.)
brotherscrim used NYC & DC as his example. When he said "minorities" he meant BLACK PEOPLE. He took the trouble to respond to me but never refuted this point.
Minorities don't cause crime. Oppression leaves few alternatives to crime for some people either as survival or in fighting back.
The presence of "minorities" is not the cause of crime, but you'll sure be willing to provide excuses for crimes they might commit in spite of this.
You respond (to blatant flamebait BTW) and you still don't clarify what you mean by minorities. You DO mean BLACK PEOPLE right?
Perhaps you meant Men (there are fewer Men than Women on Earth you know), or Irish?
who are by and large poorer and more discriminated against
Rich people are a minority. Are they discriminated against? Once again, I'm almost certain that you are refering to BLACK PEOPLE. Why are you afraid to say it?
You took the essence of what I said and turned it on its head
Actually, I took what you said; I read between the lines like you wanted, and drew a different conclusion. When you say minorities, you don't mean Republicans or Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives or Greens or Libertarians or Talls or Shorts or Fats or Skinnys or Smellys or Slashdoters... you mean BLACK PEOPLE. You use the term "minorities" to sound sophisticated. Instead, you engage in sophistry.
You want people to realize that Vermont and NYC are not comparable because NYC has more (minorities) BLACK PEOPLE. Right?
You call me an Alarmist Jackass. Perhaps I am... but you sir are a racist. You believe that "minorities" cause crime. Shame.
Um... which parts of Vermont have you been to? Vermont has no Industry to speak of, and therefore very few wealthy executive types. Moreover, it is so far out of the way that even wealthy types that want to commute usually can't. Affluent? No.
low population state
Can't argue with that.
damn near poor... free
So if we kill all of the poor people, there won't be crime? Interesting. If I run for President on that, will all of the slashdotters vote for me?
damn near... minority free
So everyone in Vermont always agree with everyone else, and everyone is EXACTLY the same. All elections are unanimous and... wait
BY GOD! You mean that there aren't any BLACK PEOPLE in Vermont? And of course we all know that BLACK PEOPLE cause all the crime. And since BLACK PEOPLE are always poor, without BLACK PEOPLE, Vermonters must be RICH! NOW I understand.
Maybe this can be your crazy science idea? I know some Howard Dean supporters (with Confederate Flags on their trucks) who would love to help you find proof.
Also, it seems to me that if you go so far as to purchase the product, you're going to be hard pressed to show how you were harmed by an unsolicited email.
I think you missed the point here.
1) The plan in question is being carried out by a Government, not by you or me or some random geek.... In case anyone slept through civics or government class back in school, let me educate you: The government is a big organization with great coercive powers over everyone on its "turf", kind of like a gang, or "the mob". They make money via a protection racket; they agree to protect you from Hitler, Stalin, Sharon, Arafat, Hussein, Arab Terrorists, Thieves, Murderers, and (the companies care about this one) Fraud, but only if you do EXACTLY what they tell you to, and pay them as much protection money (taxes) as they demand. The GOVERNMENT is going to tell the credit card companies to close some accounts to avoid broken kneecaps, charges of aiding and abetting, a destroyed public image, or all of the above.
2) The bulk emails sent out are already in violation of the law. Many jurisdictions require valid list removal options and reply-to addresses. The purchase serves only to identify the spammer through his accounts and whatnot.
3) V/MC is probably breaking numerous laws if they knowingly complete transactions solicited in an illegal manner. Usually they will use the "Ebay" "we didn't know" defense to avoid liability, therefore, the purpose of these GOVERNMENT actions would be to make sure that they (V/MC/DISC/AMEX) officially "know".
4) The purpose of this activity is not to bring charges, but rather to compel and coerce V/MC etc. into using their various merchant agreements for the public good.
5) Finally, maybe a few prosecutions wouldn't be a bad thing after all. First we freeze the assets of the spammer and the company being illegally advertised, then we send in some goons to collect "evidence"... and well, you know the rest.
V/MC and the others will cooperate. They have no choice.
And no, you will never look at your government the same way again.
No, it's a law thing. Individuals are exempt from notification if the only data processed
are for personal, domestic and household affairs (including recreational
purposes).
The operational term in the above "legal" citation is IF. IF you meet the criteria, then and only then are you exempt. But meeting the criteria requires not only that you be a "private citizen", but also that you not be using your PC for particular purposes.
Maybe I, (and the parent poster) am just a libertarian crackpot, but how do YOU figure they are going to determine what you are using your computer for?
Sounds like some leftist franks (that's surrendermonkeys for all you "yanks" in the crowd) have been filling you with trust_the_government euphoria. Nothing wrong with that of course, but selective blindness is at least as dangerous as FUD.
Until Lucas changes his mind and decides once more to make the last trilogy
Let's hope not! Given the state of Political Correctness in America, Han Solo would have to be a woman, and Princess Leia would have to he his lesbian lover.
And if you think this is funny or that I'm trolling, read this first.
Slashdot Mirror
To suggest that a newspaper, or for that matter any "press" source should be considered unbiased is is patently... foolish.
I challenge you, or any other reader to name a truly unbiased source for this or for news in general! At best you'll find sources that listen to "both sides"... But remember, these media "balanced" news outlets choose who they will interview/cite to represent these sides. And that is BIAS my friends.
CNN - Biased
FOX - Biased
ABC - Biased
CBS - Biased
NBC - Biased
BBC - Biased
Times (london) - biased
NYTimes - Biased
WSJ - Biased
WashPost - Biased
WashTimes - Biased
SticksvilleDaily - Guess
You may prefer a particular bias. But there IS bias.
Oh! So that's what those are for! I bet using one of those would lower my electric bill too?!
One hopes that they will "make an example" of her.
But the PROBLEM with the interweb, when compared to those ancient "libraries" is that every other "book" on the interweb is pornographic. Of course I figure most /.ers dont really mind that...
Or it could just be that his writing has gone downhill so far that the publisher is trying desperately to put together something that makes sense. R.J. wouldn't be the first author to lose it as he aged and even a great publisher can't cover it up forever.
Above is right on. R.J. is milking the series for all he cn get. If there was ever a gameplan or logical ending, he has long since thrown it out. As long as we keep buying it, the soap-opera will continue.
The question is not "Will this end in my lifetime?" but rather "Will he finish it in his?"
This Book might have been helpful for the dearly departed geek.
Even paranoids have enemies. They really are out to get you. Remember this as you stab them all in the back.
Just a thought... if the company prepared a report naming you (by name) as a security risk, you might have grounds for a libel lawsuit... IANAL, but in the US, folks do sue and win for much less.Sue the security firm for libel and fraud. Sue your employer for wrongful termination. It's the American way!
If someone takes my GPL'd code and includes it in their program, my loss is the loss of royalties or contract programing revenue that I would have recieved if they had approached me. If someone uses my code without permission, and if they receive money for the resulting work, either directly or by embedding my code in some other product (router OS for example), then something HAS been PAID and damages are real.
The fact that I distribute my code under the GPL does not prevent me from distributing it under some other License. I retain Ownership of my code, and I can permit its use under whatever terms I like. I could sell Microsoft or Linksys or whoever a seperate license to code that I also released via GPL.
If M$ or Linksys etc. don't want to come to me and seek terms for the use of my code, and if I have already released via GPL, well then they can release via GPL themselves and no problem. If they do neither, then it falls to me to file the lawsuit.
Not that I have code to GPL...
As for who is most deserving of a donation, I for one (like the original poster) would rather give to the USO than to the local Bum on the street.
As they say... Give a bum a buck and he drinks day, Teach a bum to brew, and he'll still be a bum.
Problem with Japan to Mainland Asia Tunnel/bridge is that part of the world is earthquake prone. Even if they built it, you'd have to have a deathwish to use it.
Perhaps I overstated my case a bit... but not as much I think. Certainly the Arab states are resentful of American foreign policy. Any American foreign policy. (Why? Because we are infidels. Infidels arend supposed to have any influence anyplace, but especially not in Arabia.)
Western Euroupe likes the US when the US does what it is told, and when you think about it, that makes sense. France resents that the US had to come over and liberate its ass, and Germany doesn't like it when the US preaches about "tolerance"... (Not that the US tolerance record is that great BTW, but Germany has a particularly black mark on its record)
The problem for these nations is that the USA, at least militarily, can do just about anything it wants... Gulliver Unchained... and they simply can't. It is not happenstance that The large European Nations want to unify into a supernation; free trade is not the only factor. It is not happenstance that France and Germany are trying to plant the seeds for a European Defense Force... You should view it as an Army of Europe.
The big problem was that he withdrew the US from the international arena; especially the Israeli-Palestine conflict. You overstate your case here. Bush's response to the Palestinian problem pre 9/11 was a simple reaction to the collapse of the talks in 2000. Lest we forget, Clinton, desperate to repair his legacy with a foreign policy victory, managed to convince Sharon to offer Arafat a Palestinian State with a capital in Jerusalem. Basically everything he had asked for. And Arafat refused. And then the recent "troubles" began.
Bush, by his inaction was giving Israel a degree of freedom to act to resolve this themselves. The Palestinians had rejected American involvement, and the Israelis did not appreciate the American Hand of Restraint in the wake of renewed violence.
[As an aside... as an American... I saw on TV the celebrations in Gaza City and the West Bank at the WTC (9/11/1) attack. IMO, the proper US policy toward the conflict should be the unilateral napalming of Gaza and the West Bank. If a Tax Increase would ensure more dead and wounded, I would GLADLY PAY.]
The other big pull back after the Bush election was from the Kyoto treaty... This was not a surprise for anyone here. Americans hate being told what they MUST do... and in my experience, Libertarians alone detest this more than Republicans. Republicans see this as a poorly disguised attempt to put a chain around Gulliver.
Saddam had been making trouble for US and UK no-fly enforcers for over 10 years... and who can blame him (If Canada and Mexico Were enforcing no-flys over the US (don't laugh), we'd be pissed too).
Bush (HW) stopped short of toppling Saddam to preserve a hard won Arab/Muslim consensus and alliance. Clinton squandered that victory; by the time Bush (W) came along, there was no real working alliance in the region... Clinton should have acted decisively when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors. Instead he fucked around in his office. Literally. Pre-9/11 Bush (W) sought to preserve the status quo. Post 9/11, the status quo was unacceptable. No-flys and trade embargos were going to continue for the foreseeable future. US foreign policy could tolerate Saddam's sons no more than Saddam. France and others were helping Saddam turn food-for-oil into money. The plight of regular Iraqis was worse every day... WMDs were a pretense to do w
Exactly what problems do you think are available to be solved in Iraq and the rest of the middle east? I suppose we could turn the Germans loose and let them exterminate the Jews... let them finish the job. And I suppose that we could all bow to Mecca... even the athiests among us... My point is that the problems in that part of the world are not available to be solved, or at least not solvable by any means that would satisfy a squeemish slashdotter.
Perhaps you believe that poverty is the problem? Certainly the American and European Press has been trumpeting this for a couple of years; perhaps you've bought that line? Poverty has never been "solved" anyplace. In Socialist Euroupe, and even in the United States, millions are fed and housed by the government, but this does not prevent people from being poor or impoverished. Poverty cannot be "solved"... at best it can be somewhat reduced or mitigated, and then only by a constitutional government (IE a government run according to rules rather than according to whim).
The US, or Euroupe can not solve "poverty" by simply giving out free food... such solutions breed resentment and create havoc when that aid is withdrawn. OTOH, the people in that part of the world seem resistant to the establishment of any sort of constitutional government.
Give an Iraqui a fish, and he eats for a day, teach an Iraqui to Fish and eats for the rest of his life (or until the UN bans fishing in his river). But the Itaqui insurgency resents our fish, and is uninterested in learning how to fish... Do you see the problem?
As for American foreign policy, the problem many Europeans, Chicoms, and Arabs have with it is that it exists. I suspect that The world preferd the Isolationist America of 1906 or 1936 to the Gulliver Unchained of 2003. Sleeping America came when called and could be counted upon to kill however many Germans were required... Problem is that Sleeping America did not return to sleep after 1945, and has been acting in what it views as its own self interest ever since.
If the Saudi Monarchy was toppled tomorrow, do you believe that anything better would replace it? Would it be in the US interest to see that Monarchy toppled today? Would it be in Euroupe's interest?
The problem in the middle east, with Arabs and Muslimsand all others is that there is a widely held belief that "terrorism" is a legitimate, and even laudable form of political expression. I see no solution to this.
New Hampshire is also a nice Sales-Tax-Free place to shop... or mail order outlets located in NH.
The Facist Republicans are EVIL for gaming the system at every opportunity as are the the Stalinist Democrats for doing the same whenever they can. But you are correct when you observe that the Republicans are winning just now.
The current "crisis" in gerrymandering highlights the power of one of the forgotten units of government... namely the State legislature(s). Due to the national reach of the American Media, people's perception of the importance of State Government has declined. For most state offices (other than Governor usually), people tend to vote a party line. God forbid they learn about the candidates and their positions! God forbid they read a newspaper! If Peter Jennings or Bill O'Reilly doesn't cover it, it isn't important.
Personally, I attribute the whole problem to the dumbing down of America America. The current lowest common denominator is the pre-digested coverage on the 24-hr news channels. Sad, isn't it?
Blame the Republicans or the Democrats if you lack imagination. Blame yourself if you don't know the same of your state representative. Blame your neighbors if they didn't vote on the '02 elections because "they don't matter". Blame your friends who aren't even registered to vote.
Or just Blame Canada.
Not that I've noticed. Neither his initial post nor his follow-up were indicative of poor grammar. You are grasping at straws.
But brotherscrim asserts in his original post that Vermont lacks "minorities". By your definition and our mutual understanding thusfar, his statement makes no sense. Now we can accept that brotherscrim really is dumb enough to believe such nonsense (I do not), or we can accept that he meant something else...
So what "minorities" do NYC and DC have that Vermont has almost none of? Vermont has plenty of poor people, old people, etc... but they "almost no" BLACK PEOPLE. To be fair, Vermont has "almost no" "Hispanic" people either, but this doesn't impact my analysis. Brotherscrim has suggests that the lack of BLACK PEOPLE is more important in explaining Vermont's low crime rate than its concealed weapon law.
If an area is predominantly populated by "minority groups", then by definition (of predominant), there is no majority group. Without a majority, minority recognition is redundant. Your text should "areas populated by groups", though that too approaches redundancy... how about "areas populated"?
YOUR use of minority here is inconsistent with the all-encompassing definition you gave. Instead you use it as a code-word. Fortunately, you break it down for us later as "black, latin american, vietnamese". Later you get more specific and refer to "ethnic minorities", but somehow I doubt you refer to Polish and Swedish and French minorities. This statement is a giveaway : "The inner city population is almost entirely composed of ethnic minorities whereas the suburbs are predominantly white".
White. What exactly do you mean by that? I have no experience with UK cities or UK wordspin, but in the US, when "Ethnic minorities" is contrasted with "white", it is understood that the "minorities" in question must be "non-white" or even "dark"... its as plain as black and white... SO, I assume that you are saying that in the UK, your cities are populated by BLACK PEOPLE...
I agree. But brotherscrim brought in BLACK PEOPLE as an apparent cause of crime. He may be mistaken, or misinformed (or just plain stupid for not realizing how clearly he communicated), but the view he expressed is racist.
He did not lament the poverty of BLACK PEOPLE, but he enumerated them as a cause of crime. Had he done otherwise, I would have remained silent else offered positive contribution. Race is a red herring in the gun control & crime debates (IMHO). Ignoring racism will not make it go away.
My sense of what he 'said' was that the presence of minorities who are poor
First of all, despite your not being the original poster, thank you for troubling to clarify what YOU mean by minorities. I'll go over that farther down.
Let us look a bit closer at what you think brotherscrim said
minorities who are poor
and what he did say
poor & minority
Note that poor and minority are enumerated separately as distinct groups. This is extremely relevant. Each is separately implicated in criminality. As brotherscrim points out, it is the lack of poor people AND "minorities" (black people) in Vermont rather than the abundance of concealed firearms that leads to the low crime rate.
back to what you think he said...
minorities who are poor and/or discriminated against is a likely indicator that some crime rates will be higher. And you have offered nothing to refute that.
And he offered nothing to prove it. Both our comments thus far have been woefully long in wind and short in statistics and studies. So has yours. It's the Slashdot way!
Now to your own commentary...
In the case of NY/Chicago etc the minorities are African Americans, in LA, South Americans, in London, Albanians, in Cabramatta (Sydney, Australia), Vietnamese, In Eastern Europe, Romanies.
"Minorities" is an overbroad term used mainly in a sophistic manner to try to appear sympathetic to "everyone who might be downtrodden" when actually referring to specific groups. When Londoner's mean Albanians in a positive way, they'll say "Albanians", when they mean it in a negative way the closet racists will say "minorities". Whether in London or America or elsewhere, when you hear "minorities", you are expected to read between the lines. (BTW, I take your word about Albanians in London, my first hand experience is limited to North America.)
brotherscrim used NYC & DC as his example. When he said "minorities" he meant BLACK PEOPLE. He took the trouble to respond to me but never refuted this point.
Minorities don't cause crime. Oppression leaves few alternatives to crime for some people either as survival or in fighting back.
The presence of "minorities" is not the cause of crime, but you'll sure be willing to provide excuses for crimes they might commit in spite of this.
Interesting...
Nice, me pointing out that minorities
You respond (to blatant flamebait BTW) and you still don't clarify what you mean by minorities. You DO mean BLACK PEOPLE right?
Perhaps you meant Men (there are fewer Men than Women on Earth you know), or Irish?
who are by and large poorer and more discriminated against
Rich people are a minority. Are they discriminated against? Once again, I'm almost certain that you are refering to BLACK PEOPLE. Why are you afraid to say it?
You took the essence of what I said and turned it on its head
Actually, I took what you said; I read between the lines like you wanted, and drew a different conclusion. When you say minorities, you don't mean Republicans or Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives or Greens or Libertarians or Talls or Shorts or Fats or Skinnys or Smellys or Slashdoters... you mean BLACK PEOPLE. You use the term "minorities" to sound sophisticated. Instead, you engage in sophistry.
You want people to realize that Vermont and NYC are not comparable because NYC has more (minorities) BLACK PEOPLE. Right?
You call me an Alarmist Jackass. Perhaps I am... but you sir are a racist. You believe that "minorities" cause crime. Shame.
-----goodbye karma---
right, the fact that Vermont - an affluent
Um... which parts of Vermont have you been to? Vermont has no Industry to speak of, and therefore very few wealthy executive types. Moreover, it is so far out of the way that even wealthy types that want to commute usually can't. Affluent? No.
low population state
Can't argue with that.
damn near poor... free
So if we kill all of the poor people, there won't be crime? Interesting. If I run for President on that, will all of the slashdotters vote for me?
damn near... minority free
So everyone in Vermont always agree with everyone else, and everyone is EXACTLY the same. All elections are unanimous and... wait
BY GOD! You mean that there aren't any BLACK PEOPLE in Vermont? And of course we all know that BLACK PEOPLE cause all the crime. And since BLACK PEOPLE are always poor, without BLACK PEOPLE, Vermonters must be RICH! NOW I understand.
Maybe this can be your crazy science idea? I know some Howard Dean supporters (with Confederate Flags on their trucks) who would love to help you find proof.
But personally, I think that you are a RACIST.
And now the word is out...
Some clarification IS needed as to what exactly constitutes "longstanding" here.
I think you missed the point here.
1) The plan in question is being carried out by a Government, not by you or me or some random geek.
2) The bulk emails sent out are already in violation of the law. Many jurisdictions require valid list removal options and reply-to addresses. The purchase serves only to identify the spammer through his accounts and whatnot.
3) V/MC is probably breaking numerous laws if they knowingly complete transactions solicited in an illegal manner. Usually they will use the "Ebay" "we didn't know" defense to avoid liability, therefore, the purpose of these GOVERNMENT actions would be to make sure that they (V/MC/DISC/AMEX) officially "know".
4) The purpose of this activity is not to bring charges, but rather to compel and coerce V/MC etc. into using their various merchant agreements for the public good.
5) Finally, maybe a few prosecutions wouldn't be a bad thing after all. First we freeze the assets of the spammer and the company being illegally advertised, then we send in some goons to collect "evidence"... and well, you know the rest.
V/MC and the others will cooperate. They have no choice.
And no, you will never look at your government the same way again.
The operational term in the above "legal" citation is IF. IF you meet the criteria, then and only then are you exempt. But meeting the criteria requires not only that you be a "private citizen", but also that you not be using your PC for particular purposes.
Maybe I, (and the parent poster) am just a libertarian crackpot, but how do YOU figure they are going to determine what you are using your computer for?
Sounds like some leftist franks (that's surrendermonkeys for all you "yanks" in the crowd) have been filling you with trust_the_government euphoria. Nothing wrong with that of course, but selective blindness is at least as dangerous as FUD.
Until Lucas changes his mind and decides once more to make the last trilogy
Let's hope not! Given the state of Political Correctness in America, Han Solo would have to be a woman, and Princess Leia would have to he his lesbian lover.
And if you think this is funny or that I'm trolling, read this first.