What do you mean, "along with the Christian god"? In a strict discussion of ID, no god is discussed at all; the creating entity is left unspecified.
The not-so-hypothetical you're discussing is a case where ID is used as pretense for Christian Creationism. Which happens all the time -- but that doesn't make ID into Christian Creationism.
They're both wrong and harmful ideas, and one is frequently used as a pretense for the other, but that's still no excuse for conflating them.
IDers harmless? twisting reality, littering the minds of young people with regrets about their body, creating racism towards people of different sexual behaviour is harmless???
You're talking about (many) religious Creationists, not IDers. There's a huge amount of overlap between the sets, but they're not one and the same. I'm being precise in my definitions; those who believe in Intelligent Design as they choose to strictly define it when defending it against charges of being religion in disguise do not, on account of that belief, do all the other miscellany you're accusing them of. They do all that miscellany as a result of other beliefs (which, incidentally, are also responsible for encouraging them to hold their belief in Intelligent Design).
It's misused that way on a frequent basis, yes. I'll even grant that the folks who came up with it intended for it to be misused that way.
Just because something is frequently misused doesn't mean that that thing has no valid use; it just means you should be suspicious when you see someone trying to apply it.
The net effect of large-scale market forces (and an across-the-board significant change in the cost of hiring employees is indeed within that category) is within the realm of macroeconomics. I may have no control over economic forces -- but I can understand them, at least on a large scale. (I can't predict what a given individual or employer will do, but I can model on a large scale what consumers or employers will do as a whole). In a vacuum (which is to say, no other regulatory changes or other external forces operating simultaneously), macroeconomics provides a strong framework for evaluating overall outcomes associated with a change.
Obviously, the real world isn't so neat and clean -- but to not only imagine but to wholeheartedly expect some simultaneous set of actions to counteract these forces so strongly that the probability of the result clearly predicted by theory occurring is "slim to none" is foolhardy. The Invisible Hand doesn't work quite the way theory would predict in the real world (because theory requires that everyone be fully informed and fully rational in all decisions they make) -- but on a large enough scale to smooth out the imperfections, it does well enough.
Because there's no bloody point to debating with people who defend the indefensible; they're internally justifying their preexisting beliefs, as opposed to attempting to come up with an argument appreciable by those who don't share those preexisting beliefs. People with the understanding to see what their position looks like from the outside and to attempt to reduce it to what can be externally defended, on the other hand, are people with whom one can have an intelligent discussion on the topic, and whom one might sway or learn from.
(Granted, the preexisting beliefsets are not necessarily uninteresting in and of themselves -- but I already have a field of study and a time-consuming hobby; I can't afford the commitment to dive into another topic on the level it would take to be truly proficient [which would also require learning a great deal of history -- a worthy topic, but again, a massive commitment]. I know some people who are, though, and it is indeed very interesting to listen to and learn when).
Yeees, that's why I said that what I was describing was the strict, minimalist version of ID -- and I certainly used the word "claims" with respect to ID as a non-religious position.
Further, I never claimed that this version was very commonly espoused, but it's certainly the most defensible -- and thus, from my perspective, the most interesting.
Can you explain the difference for those of us who aren't experts in four thousand year old texts?
Google for '"thou shalt not kill" murder'; some nuanced discussions are available. See this one for an example. That said, the general distinction is that while "thou shalt not kill" implies that no killing is acceptable, it's pretty much undisputed that the original Hebrew word did not apply to, for instance, killing in the course of a just war.
You're misstating Intelligent Design -- it's not quite the same thing as Christian Creationism, at least in its minimalist form. ID claims not to be a strictly Christian (or otherwise religion-centric) position, or otherwise indicative of any particular "old book" to be used in determining how the universe came about; instead, it argues (quite strictly) that probability is so firmly against the universe ending up the way it is now that some entity (with the individual entity being unspecified) must have taken actions encouraging it to be created as it did (with the actions also being unspecified). Anything beyond that is not Intelligent Design, but ID+something else. (Intelligent Design in this base form is quite vulnerable to many-universes theory in combination with the anthropic principal, and I've used that argument successfully in discussion with an intellectually honest opponent).
It would be consistent with ID, for instance, for me to state that our universe reached its present state via general laws of cause and effect, but with physical constants intentionally tweaked (either as a once-off or via an iterative process) with an eye to permitting life. There are circumstances (ie. our universe being a simulation) where such tweaking of constants is feasible.
Getting back towards topic -- IDers are generally fairly harmless, except when they try to corrupt widely used educational materials and/or laws to support their positions. Scientologists may operate on a smaller scale -- but their impact on victims' lives is unquestionably far more severe than that of those who support (strictly) Intelligent Design (as opposed to one of the Creationist religions which benefits from concessions made under the Intelligent Design banner -- in that situation, impact is obviously case-by-case).
This is only true, if your paycheck would increase if none of these were mandatory, necessary or otherwise required.
What do you think the chances of that happening are?
I think we can all agree the likelihood of that is slim to none.
If "you all" consists of the set of folks who weren't paying attention during your economics courses, sure. It depends, see.
If my current employer, and only my current employer, could get out of paying for unemployment as part of hiring me -- of course they'd do that, and keep the money, because market rate for my work (the part of market rate I take home, that is) would be the same; the amount I could get from competing enterprises would be no different. (This wouldn't apply if I were uniquely skilled, or if both I and all other applicants were able to bluff them up to their actual pain point -- but neither of these is the case in the Real World).
But if every possible employer could do that same thing, it would mean that when a company is deciding how much it's worth to them to have a hotshot ${EMPLOYEE_TYPE} on staff, they would be competing against other potential employers on an even fiscal keel -- so failing to adjust offered take-home pay would be to disadvantage oneself in the job market just as much as is the case with a company which lowballs salary by present standards already.
Maybe I spoke too soon -- your argument is cohesive again. (Supporting the kind of tragedy that is the bloodshed between Sunni and Shi'a is abhorrent to me; I think I shut down somewhat at that point).
What you're clearly opposed to is not Islam, but Islamism. I agree with you in the rightness of that opposition, but disagree with the implicit presumption that all or even most Muslims are Islamists. Moreover, only a small subset of Islamists are willing to use violence to achieve their goals -- but part of the effect on the "war on terror" has been to radically increase that subpopulation.
Radical Islamists are indeed a significant threat to freedom of the populations on whom they would oppose Sharia law -- and they're not infrequently recognized as such by those populations, even when Islam is the prevailing religion. (There are Christian extremists who have likewise said that enforcing the morality given them by their religion is an appropriate use of government, but thankfully those have much less sway; if they had the might to enforce their views, as radical Islamists right now too often do, the situation would be just as bad).
As for the claim that there has been no reformation within Islam, there are two distinct, active reform movements: Interpretation-based Islam and Progressive Islam. Both of these are strongly supportive of human rights, tolerance and nonviolence (although homosexuality is still controversial within them). Not all Muslims are the extremists you paint them as.
That said, liberal thought tends to prosper best when peace and prosperity is the rule. Bringing war and poverty (or even fear of war) drives populations towards fundamentalism -- and the fundamentalist Islamic movement and those who are political Islamists are not entirely unlinked. The "War on Terror" thus has a great deal of ability to severely retard the gradual social change which -- excluding those cases where political Islamism is forcibly spread via armed conflict -- would eventually render these concerns moot.
BTW it think barak obama might have had his scream moment today (lets hope one of many)
Quoting Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X to define Keith Ellison's views is like quoting Richard M. Stallman to define my views -- I've taken actions which support his organization where we have goals in common, but by no means do I support his more radical policies (or believe that they have a prayer of a chance of taking place in the Real World, even with my support of his organization as a whole). As such, you're throwing a bunch of irrelevant BS into this conversation. I don't care what Malcolm X believes; if I'm deciding whether to vote for Keith Ellison, I care what Keith Ellison believes. As for the source you've quoted, its description of the Million Man March as a "hate fest" is sufficient for me to consider it irreparably biased.
FYI the folks "we" (by this i mean the non muslim world) are fighting is islam. islam is not a religion it is a manifestation of fascism. There is no moderate islam since there has been no reformation movement. Religions do not dictate interest rates on loans or have detiled political systems (the caliphate). The iraq war is incredibly succesful in one regard and that is sunnis and shites hate each other even more..
Demonstrably false. The Catholic church traditionally forbid usury (lending with interest, or, later, excessive interest) as a sin; would you claim that Catholicism is not a religion? In any event, what is it that makes interest rates exempt from the scope of a legitimate religion's moral code (while such mundanities as diet are fair game)? It strikes me as an awfully arbitrary distinction. Moderate islamists demonstrably exist. See Azar Nafisi, Bassam Tibi, Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, and others.
I think this thread is over: I can argue with reasonable people, but the kind of twisted worldview necessary to believe your own claims is alien to me.
thats what i have been saying since the beginning a fringe of the democratic party are the islamic radicals we are at war with. I'm glad we finally agree.
I've conceded no such thing; as my parent post made more explicit, the individual you held up as an example is in no way a "islamic radical". (The point I have made is that even if such existed, you've got some despicable fringe elements on your side too, so who the fuck cares?)
I suspec barak hussein obama is the same as a (self proclaimed ) former muslim who hides his middle name, i suspect he will say anything to appeal to the base which elects him in the primary.
As you say, Obama is "self proclaimed" inasmuch as he makes no effort to hide his background; it's discussed to various degrees in both of his books. As such, however, the same source material you use to describe him as a "former muslim" can also be used to paint a more accurate picture. Suffice to say that Obama is (and has ever been) about as Muslim as going to a gay bar makes me homosexual -- which is to say, not at all. Even if that were untrue, however -- what's your point? The folks we're at war with are radicals who use their religion for justification rather than understanding, and it's that radicalism in general (rather than the religion in particular) that makes them dangerous.
As for your suspicions, you're welcome to them. Obama has a significant political career behind him (despite much of it being at the state level), and his present actions are consistent with his history -- and all of the above are consistent with his stated values. That consistency is much better than what Clinton has, and good enough for me.
read the link with the new nation of islam congressman elected from Michigan. At least part of the democratic party are islamic radicals.
Everyone has their radical fringe. You've got Coulter and Phelps; need I say more?
That said, this fellow isn't radical at all -- even per your own link. Can you honestly believe that someone so far separated from the ideas held by the extremists of their faith as to be willing to support abortion and gay rights would be supportive of those who wish his nation ill?
anti war groups like moveon.org, dialykos and code pink oppose "the war" all of it. i have never seen end the war in iraq it is always end the war in iraq and afganistan.
Uhh... huh. "The war" is singular, and if you ask just about any American what it refers to in the present political context, there's no question that it's Iraq specifically. If they said that they want to end all "war", or "the wars", that would make sense; as it is, I think you're making a stretch.
In any event, we're not running a bunch of bloggers for President. Hopefully, we're running Obama -- and he's well behind the war in Afghanistan.
the anti war groups which have clout in the democratic party want the US out both countries.
Last I remember hearing Obama's position, he was arguing that we need to increase troop levels in Afghanistan -- but then, I don't listen much to these "anti-war groups" you speak of.
Misdirection. The hunger-and-poverty thing was just an example of how we and people we disagree with can agree on things, with neither of us being incorrect in our position or acting against our own best interests.
The corellary is that both the Democrats and Al Qaeda can want the US out of Iraq, and -- enemies though we may be -- both groups can be simultaneously right.
But it's still a civil case, even in the USA right?
There's a reason US movie releases start with an "FBI Warning": The US has both civil and criminal copyright infringement; the latter applies (among other situations) if the infringed material is exchanged for anything of value (explicitly including other pirated works). A prosecutor could argue that taking actions which infringe copyright as part of one's job duties constitutes infringing copyright in exchange for something of value (one's paycheck). I'm not a lawyer (just a hobbyist), so I'm not much inclined to speculate on how such a case would turn out -- but again, it's not worth the risk.
Also, a civil case could easily name both the corporation and the directly responsible individuals within it -- so banking on the company to take the hit exclusively is not a good idea.
If this were WWII and the nazis and japanese were praising one parties policies over anothers like this, people would have reacted differently. These days it seems people cant see the obvious.
No, you're seeing "the obvious" in places where it isn't.
If A is my enemy, and A opposes B, does that mean I should support B? Not necessarily, and certainly not categorically. The terrorists are against poverty and hunger, too; is that to say we should try to make the common people of their countries as poor and hungry as possible? [1]
I don't care about the terrorists' interests; I care about my own. Opposing something just because someone else supports it or visa-versa is stupid in the extreme.
[1] - While those blowing up infrastructure in Iraq are obviously acting against the peoples' best interests, some of the organizations behind terrorism have significant arms doing charitable work within their countries. Is that to say that these organizations' (para)military actions are in any way less objectionable or legitimate as targets? Of course not; it's just to say that when overriding priorities do not conflict [as they so severely do], poverty and hunger are something everyone can agree is a Bad Thing.
Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.
Last I knew, the conservatives in America were pretty badly split on this issue -- and I followed it reasonably closely. I believe that the parent is implying that neoconservatives are one subset of the set of conservatives who did not take the position you describe.
That said, I think there are more charitable motivations which could be assigned to the positions in question, so I'm not inclined to give the parent's suggestions presumptive validity.
There's no question, though, that the branch of conservatives we've seen in power recently (personified principally by GW) is not the same variety we used to have.
Old conservatives were fiscally conservative and wanted a small, limited government tightly bound by constitutional protections. Bush and friends are not fiscally conservative in the least, and do everything they can to expand the government's power.
You may not agree with the word "neoconservative", but can you at least grant that both sets of "conservative" ideologies I've described exist, and that the difference between them is substantive?
Some arbitrary random person might not come along, but if it's worth money (and if it's important, it's worth money, right?), you sure can pay someone to.
Namesys (the company behind ReiserFS) is still around even without Hans. You ask "why isn't that happening with ReiserFS" -- but the business behind ReiserFS hasn't even gone away in the first place!
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean, "along with the Christian god"? In a strict discussion of ID, no god is discussed at all; the creating entity is left unspecified.
The not-so-hypothetical you're discussing is a case where ID is used as pretense for Christian Creationism. Which happens all the time -- but that doesn't make ID into Christian Creationism.
They're both wrong and harmful ideas, and one is frequently used as a pretense for the other, but that's still no excuse for conflating them.
You're talking about (many) religious Creationists, not IDers. There's a huge amount of overlap between the sets, but they're not one and the same. I'm being precise in my definitions; those who believe in Intelligent Design as they choose to strictly define it when defending it against charges of being religion in disguise do not, on account of that belief, do all the other miscellany you're accusing them of. They do all that miscellany as a result of other beliefs (which, incidentally, are also responsible for encouraging them to hold their belief in Intelligent Design).
It's misused that way on a frequent basis, yes. I'll even grant that the folks who came up with it intended for it to be misused that way.
Just because something is frequently misused doesn't mean that that thing has no valid use; it just means you should be suspicious when you see someone trying to apply it.
The net effect of large-scale market forces (and an across-the-board significant change in the cost of hiring employees is indeed within that category) is within the realm of macroeconomics. I may have no control over economic forces -- but I can understand them, at least on a large scale. (I can't predict what a given individual or employer will do, but I can model on a large scale what consumers or employers will do as a whole). In a vacuum (which is to say, no other regulatory changes or other external forces operating simultaneously), macroeconomics provides a strong framework for evaluating overall outcomes associated with a change.
Obviously, the real world isn't so neat and clean -- but to not only imagine but to wholeheartedly expect some simultaneous set of actions to counteract these forces so strongly that the probability of the result clearly predicted by theory occurring is "slim to none" is foolhardy. The Invisible Hand doesn't work quite the way theory would predict in the real world (because theory requires that everyone be fully informed and fully rational in all decisions they make) -- but on a large enough scale to smooth out the imperfections, it does well enough.
Boo for proofing only after hitting "submit".
Because there's no bloody point to debating with people who defend the indefensible; they're internally justifying their preexisting beliefs, as opposed to attempting to come up with an argument appreciable by those who don't share those preexisting beliefs. People with the understanding to see what their position looks like from the outside and to attempt to reduce it to what can be externally defended, on the other hand, are people with whom one can have an intelligent discussion on the topic, and whom one might sway or learn from.
(Granted, the preexisting beliefsets are not necessarily uninteresting in and of themselves -- but I already have a field of study and a time-consuming hobby; I can't afford the commitment to dive into another topic on the level it would take to be truly proficient [which would also require learning a great deal of history -- a worthy topic, but again, a massive commitment]. I know some people who are, though, and it is indeed very interesting to listen to and learn when).
Yeees, that's why I said that what I was describing was the strict, minimalist version of ID -- and I certainly used the word "claims" with respect to ID as a non-religious position.
Further, I never claimed that this version was very commonly espoused, but it's certainly the most defensible -- and thus, from my perspective, the most interesting.
You're misstating Intelligent Design -- it's not quite the same thing as Christian Creationism, at least in its minimalist form. ID claims not to be a strictly Christian (or otherwise religion-centric) position, or otherwise indicative of any particular "old book" to be used in determining how the universe came about; instead, it argues (quite strictly) that probability is so firmly against the universe ending up the way it is now that some entity (with the individual entity being unspecified) must have taken actions encouraging it to be created as it did (with the actions also being unspecified). Anything beyond that is not Intelligent Design, but ID+something else. (Intelligent Design in this base form is quite vulnerable to many-universes theory in combination with the anthropic principal, and I've used that argument successfully in discussion with an intellectually honest opponent).
It would be consistent with ID, for instance, for me to state that our universe reached its present state via general laws of cause and effect, but with physical constants intentionally tweaked (either as a once-off or via an iterative process) with an eye to permitting life. There are circumstances (ie. our universe being a simulation) where such tweaking of constants is feasible.
Getting back towards topic -- IDers are generally fairly harmless, except when they try to corrupt widely used educational materials and/or laws to support their positions. Scientologists may operate on a smaller scale -- but their impact on victims' lives is unquestionably far more severe than that of those who support (strictly) Intelligent Design (as opposed to one of the Creationist religions which benefits from concessions made under the Intelligent Design banner -- in that situation, impact is obviously case-by-case).
The original word was closer to "murder".
Ya know, this seems appropriate.
(Seriously. You're welcome to your opinions, but economics is a science).
If my current employer, and only my current employer, could get out of paying for unemployment as part of hiring me -- of course they'd do that, and keep the money, because market rate for my work (the part of market rate I take home, that is) would be the same; the amount I could get from competing enterprises would be no different. (This wouldn't apply if I were uniquely skilled, or if both I and all other applicants were able to bluff them up to their actual pain point -- but neither of these is the case in the Real World).
But if every possible employer could do that same thing, it would mean that when a company is deciding how much it's worth to them to have a hotshot ${EMPLOYEE_TYPE} on staff, they would be competing against other potential employers on an even fiscal keel -- so failing to adjust offered take-home pay would be to disadvantage oneself in the job market just as much as is the case with a company which lowballs salary by present standards already.
About this frivolous.
I'm serious. You can file for anything you want to, but these folks are going to get slapped down hard when they actually come before a judge.
What you're clearly opposed to is not Islam, but Islamism. I agree with you in the rightness of that opposition, but disagree with the implicit presumption that all or even most Muslims are Islamists. Moreover, only a small subset of Islamists are willing to use violence to achieve their goals -- but part of the effect on the "war on terror" has been to radically increase that subpopulation.
Radical Islamists are indeed a significant threat to freedom of the populations on whom they would oppose Sharia law -- and they're not infrequently recognized as such by those populations, even when Islam is the prevailing religion. (There are Christian extremists who have likewise said that enforcing the morality given them by their religion is an appropriate use of government, but thankfully those have much less sway; if they had the might to enforce their views, as radical Islamists right now too often do, the situation would be just as bad).
As for the claim that there has been no reformation within Islam, there are two distinct, active reform movements: Interpretation-based Islam and Progressive Islam. Both of these are strongly supportive of human rights, tolerance and nonviolence (although homosexuality is still controversial within them). Not all Muslims are the extremists you paint them as.
That said, liberal thought tends to prosper best when peace and prosperity is the rule. Bringing war and poverty (or even fear of war) drives populations towards fundamentalism -- and the fundamentalist Islamic movement and those who are political Islamists are not entirely unlinked. The "War on Terror" thus has a great deal of ability to severely retard the gradual social change which -- excluding those cases where political Islamism is forcibly spread via armed conflict -- would eventually render these concerns moot.Would you really rather have Clinton?
Quoting Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X to define Keith Ellison's views is like quoting Richard M. Stallman to define my views -- I've taken actions which support his organization where we have goals in common, but by no means do I support his more radical policies (or believe that they have a prayer of a chance of taking place in the Real World, even with my support of his organization as a whole). As such, you're throwing a bunch of irrelevant BS into this conversation. I don't care what Malcolm X believes; if I'm deciding whether to vote for Keith Ellison, I care what Keith Ellison believes. As for the source you've quoted, its description of the Million Man March as a "hate fest" is sufficient for me to consider it irreparably biased.
Demonstrably false. The Catholic church traditionally forbid usury (lending with interest, or, later, excessive interest) as a sin; would you claim that Catholicism is not a religion? In any event, what is it that makes interest rates exempt from the scope of a legitimate religion's moral code (while such mundanities as diet are fair game)? It strikes me as an awfully arbitrary distinction. Moderate islamists demonstrably exist. See Azar Nafisi, Bassam Tibi, Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, and others.
I think this thread is over: I can argue with reasonable people, but the kind of twisted worldview necessary to believe your own claims is alien to me.
(I find today's xkcd rather fitting, by the way).I've conceded no such thing; as my parent post made more explicit, the individual you held up as an example is in no way a "islamic radical". (The point I have made is that even if such existed, you've got some despicable fringe elements on your side too, so who the fuck cares?)
As you say, Obama is "self proclaimed" inasmuch as he makes no effort to hide his background; it's discussed to various degrees in both of his books. As such, however, the same source material you use to describe him as a "former muslim" can also be used to paint a more accurate picture. Suffice to say that Obama is (and has ever been) about as Muslim as going to a gay bar makes me homosexual -- which is to say, not at all. Even if that were untrue, however -- what's your point? The folks we're at war with are radicals who use their religion for justification rather than understanding, and it's that radicalism in general (rather than the religion in particular) that makes them dangerous.
As for your suspicions, you're welcome to them. Obama has a significant political career behind him (despite much of it being at the state level), and his present actions are consistent with his history -- and all of the above are consistent with his stated values. That consistency is much better than what Clinton has, and good enough for me.
Everyone has their radical fringe. You've got Coulter and Phelps; need I say more?
That said, this fellow isn't radical at all -- even per your own link. Can you honestly believe that someone so far separated from the ideas held by the extremists of their faith as to be willing to support abortion and gay rights would be supportive of those who wish his nation ill?
Uhh... huh. "The war" is singular, and if you ask just about any American what it refers to in the present political context, there's no question that it's Iraq specifically. If they said that they want to end all "war", or "the wars", that would make sense; as it is, I think you're making a stretch.
In any event, we're not running a bunch of bloggers for President. Hopefully, we're running Obama -- and he's well behind the war in Afghanistan.
Huh?
Which idea?
Last I remember hearing Obama's position, he was arguing that we need to increase troop levels in Afghanistan -- but then, I don't listen much to these "anti-war groups" you speak of.
Misdirection. The hunger-and-poverty thing was just an example of how we and people we disagree with can agree on things, with neither of us being incorrect in our position or acting against our own best interests.
The corellary is that both the Democrats and Al Qaeda can want the US out of Iraq, and -- enemies though we may be -- both groups can be simultaneously right.
There's a reason US movie releases start with an "FBI Warning": The US has both civil and criminal copyright infringement; the latter applies (among other situations) if the infringed material is exchanged for anything of value (explicitly including other pirated works). A prosecutor could argue that taking actions which infringe copyright as part of one's job duties constitutes infringing copyright in exchange for something of value (one's paycheck). I'm not a lawyer (just a hobbyist), so I'm not much inclined to speculate on how such a case would turn out -- but again, it's not worth the risk.
Also, a civil case could easily name both the corporation and the directly responsible individuals within it -- so banking on the company to take the hit exclusively is not a good idea.
If this were WWII and the nazis and japanese were praising one parties policies over anothers like this, people would have reacted differently. These days it seems people cant see the obvious.
No, you're seeing "the obvious" in places where it isn't.
If A is my enemy, and A opposes B, does that mean I should support B? Not necessarily, and certainly not categorically. The terrorists are against poverty and hunger, too; is that to say we should try to make the common people of their countries as poor and hungry as possible? [1]
I don't care about the terrorists' interests; I care about my own. Opposing something just because someone else supports it or visa-versa is stupid in the extreme.
[1] - While those blowing up infrastructure in Iraq are obviously acting against the peoples' best interests, some of the organizations behind terrorism have significant arms doing charitable work within their countries. Is that to say that these organizations' (para)military actions are in any way less objectionable or legitimate as targets? Of course not; it's just to say that when overriding priorities do not conflict [as they so severely do], poverty and hunger are something everyone can agree is a Bad Thing.
Last I knew, the conservatives in America were pretty badly split on this issue -- and I followed it reasonably closely. I believe that the parent is implying that neoconservatives are one subset of the set of conservatives who did not take the position you describe.
That said, I think there are more charitable motivations which could be assigned to the positions in question, so I'm not inclined to give the parent's suggestions presumptive validity.
There's no question, though, that the branch of conservatives we've seen in power recently (personified principally by GW) is not the same variety we used to have.
Old conservatives were fiscally conservative and wanted a small, limited government tightly bound by constitutional protections. Bush and friends are not fiscally conservative in the least, and do everything they can to expand the government's power.
You may not agree with the word "neoconservative", but can you at least grant that both sets of "conservative" ideologies I've described exist, and that the difference between them is substantive?
It's not a matter of whether it's good; it's a matter of whether it's maintained.
(That said, I don't consider ReiserFS a good filesystem on the technical merits either -- I've lost far too much data).
Some arbitrary random person might not come along, but if it's worth money (and if it's important, it's worth money, right?), you sure can pay someone to.
Namesys (the company behind ReiserFS) is still around even without Hans. You ask "why isn't that happening with ReiserFS" -- but the business behind ReiserFS hasn't even gone away in the first place!