Since states would have a hard time enforcing legislation to deny certain types of couples marriage (mostly interracial), they created licenses as a way to allow local officials the opportunity to exercise the extralegal power to deny specific marriages arbitrarily.
I'm not a fan of the religious right, but I think governments should keep their nose out of marriage completely.
It's funny to point out a specific instance of "raiding," since it has been a constant from the beginning of the taxation of the "privilege" of supporting your life i.e. employment (that's the legal basis for the SS tax).
Since it is a tax, it goes directly into the General Fund. Always has. The General Fund is spent throughout the year on general items. Surpluses are not, and never have been, put into any protective account.
What happens with the surpluses is that Treasury Bonds are deposited into the "trust fund." That's like me starting an account, depositing a $X, withdrawing $X, depositing a note saying I'll pay $X at Y% interest, spending the money I withdrew, and then claiming I still had not only the money, but that the account would bear interest!
That's it, an in-depth analysis of how the "Trust Fund" works. I'm sure that there are (completely uninformed) people who will claim the above is a lie. They would be straight-up wrong.
Now we ask how Treasury Bonds are redeemed. Easy! Borrowing or raising taxes, that's it! Normally, bonds actually bring in some money when they are sold. This isn't even the case with the bonds put into the "Trust Fund," because they're exchanged with revenues derived from something other than their sale.
So, the question becomes not "When will the Trust Fund expire," but instead "When do we have to start tapping the Trust Fund?" The expiration date doesn't mean jack, because the necessity of taxing or borrowing begins the second tapping the "Trust Fund" is necessary.
What's all this mean? First, SS is a Ponzi scheme as a result of a complete lack of investment. It is and always has been paid out of those paying in. Second, it is based on the unlawful conversion of absolute rights into privileges i.e. the right to the fruit of one's labors. When you own an object, you have the right and the liberty to use it. If someone takes it from you, you still have the right to use it, but your liberty has been taken away. Third, it has created the ability of the government to build a database that can be used to track and profile nearly every man, woman, and child in the US, using numbers that they need to show to access an increasing number of vital services.
To paraphrase Ol' Ben, those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Those who support Social Security are lying to themselves calling themselves Americans. It is probably the most un-American institution beside the income tax.
Only in circumstances where subjective value doesn't come into play in the definition. Lots of things aren't black and white. This just isn't one of those things.
I wasn't arguing over whether the attack was moral or not, whether it was good or evil (or any number of other subjective questions). Those would be arguments of black/white pertaining to questions that are neither.
As I responded to another reply to this same comment, my first was in haste and the consequences not thought through. I agree completely that my first comment was wrong regarding changing the fillibuster rule.
Thank you for your very well put comment though.:)
Actually yes, it does. Something is either a civilian or a military target. That designation may change, but only one applies at any given time. It is the center of the US war machine, and is thus one of the most high-profile military targets that the US possesses.
It does not serve any civil functions. Even though it is staffed mainly by civilians, it is entirely military in its purpose.
Actually, on further consideration, I have to agree that fillibusters are good. It simply further stalls the working of the US government. That in itself is a good thing. Thank you for a post that helped me understand an error in my thinking.:)
I think that buried in your somewhat confusing post is agreement with the reasoning that a valid argument should be laid on the table if one is to be found. If a judge is going to use the Constitution for toilet paper, that would be a valid reason to oppose their confirmation, would it not? I wasn't opposing opposition to confirmations, just the way the filibuster rules have been used recently to indefinitely delay confirmation without clearly stating a valid reason (even a specific ideological reason) for the opposition.
The best thing that can happen does not always happen. It was simply a hopeful statement. I am aware of the hurdles ahead of this case before being ultimately decided.
I wasn't aware of either of those. Both are good if what you say is true.
It's not that I support Shrublet and his neocons, but filibustering appointments because of political grudges is ludicrous. There's either a valid reason to keep someone out of office or there's not. If there's a valid reason, it should be laid out on the table. If there's not, suck it up, your party lost, try harder next election.
Can't steal because it involves violating someone's rights.
Can't murder because it involves violating someone's rights.
Can't have sex with children because it is an abuse of the obligations of authority.
Can't attack people on the street because it involves violating someone's rights.
Decent laws are written with protecting rights in mind. These laws are wholely separate from laws written with preventing the "offending of polite sensibilities."
The case for government involvement in marriage was originally made because of sensibilities. Marriage licenses were created to de facto ban interracial marriages. They couldn't make them illegal, but they could deny licenses for any number of reasons.
Personally, I'm against marriage licenses. It's an unconstitutional incursion into what is otherwise a personal religious ceremony between two people.
It's actually a crime for clergy to perform a marriage ceremony without the two individuals being licensed to marry. That's truly sad, and should offend the sensibilities of any person who believes in the religious sanctity of marriage.
The best thing that could happen now is for this to be appealed to the Supreme Court, to have them grant certiorari, and to find along the same lines as they did in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.
It's about time that it's been determined that "public morality" does not extend past public places. Then again, there has been much absurdity in both laws and judicial decisions for as long as there have been laws and judicial decisions.
Hopefully this is the start of a trend that will continue. The major "if" is who GWB will put on the Court after Rehnquist retires/dies. However, with what the Democrats have been doing regarding nominations to any post call into question whether anyone could possibly be confirmed onto the Court. We might just have a vacancy forever, because if the Democrats can do it, so can the Republicans if a Democrat wins in 2008.:)
As I said in another post, if you took the "old power" perspective, the US revolutionaries were terrorists. They are called patriots now simply because they won.
I was surprised too. Normally there are a lot of US apologists on board who will defend US action while condemning like action by the enemies of the US.
The other reply to your comment has a fine comparison of collateral damage.
My basic purpose is simply to apply the same terms equally to both sides. Depending on your point of view, that either makes both sides legitimate, or both side illegitimate. If both sides are legitimate in their endeavors, diplomacy is called for without lies or propaganda. If both sides are illegitimate, exposure is the best policy, as it will help bring pressure to bear on both sides to cease hostilities.
In all war, at least one party is wrong. There is always an aggressor. In most wars, both parties are wrong, as they both agrescommit agressions without either admitting their responsibility (or they bring out their apologists to explain away responsibility).
Staffing a military installation with civilians is like using human shields. It's not an excuse to take a target off the table. It's like Saddam building hospitals and schools next to military installations.
Pure and unadulterated terrorism, you would be correct. Those were attacks on non-military targets. The people who ordered those attacks should have been charged with war crimes and hung, including Harry Truman.
Basically what you're asking is, do I fit the Slashdot stereotype?
The answer is both yes and no, and you didn't get all that from my post. You're about 50-50, but that's easy based on the laws of averages for the readership of Slashdot. You'll have to be a lot more specific about who I "am" before your post-analysis will be lent any more credence than simple guessing.
It's also funny that you choose to post such material anonymously.
1) I am not under 20. I leave it to your imagination to guess how far away from that number I am, since you probably won't believe me anyway.
2) I am predominately "white," though darker than most of the other "whites" I know. I'll leave it to your imagination which color other than "white" I tend toward.
3) I have 2 blue-collar, divorced parents. I have known both poverty and comfort.
4) I assume this is based on your assumption that I am very young. Most of the very young suffer from some form of angst or another, or are assumed to. Then again, most people in US society suffer from angst in one form or another, so this is nothing more than a red herring. The ad hominem at the end was a nice touch.
5) You're right that I don't like Bush. That's an easy one to infer. Harder (but not terribly difficult) would be to tell who I support. Cultures of people, just like cultures of bacteria, grow sour when they are allowed to overrun their environment. That applies to US and non-US cultures alike. I tend not to like cultures, I tend to like certain people who come predominately from a couple different cultures. I make no attempt to hide the fact that I prefer to pick and choose those things I like rather than taking something wholesale that will probably have rotten parts in it. Saying I likes anime is like saying I likes sitcoms. I can find shows in both categories that I like, just like I can find country and rap songs that I like. It doesn't mean I don't still find the categories to be overwhelmingly crap (which I do). Bzzzzz! Try again.
Maybe you can be as upfront, but judging from the fact that you posted anonymously, I doubt it.
Okay, I agree with the defining of the WTC attacks as terrorist. That's why I addressed only the Pentagon attack in my comments. I apologize if their was confusion. The WTC attacks are textbook terrorism.
I would agree that the use of unoccupied planes would have lent more military legitimacy to their attack on the Pentagon. However, from the point of view of attempting what amounts to a mass-scale criminal endeavour, eluding prior capture would be high on the list of priorities (much higher than any consideration for civilian casualties, which is only a consideration here for the sake of argument).
Firts, I wouldn't think that buying or leasing would ever be considered a viable option simply because their mode of operation is to do more with less. Buying/leasing & fueling aircraft is extraordinarily expensive in terms of something you plan to blow up. Nations with lots of money can afford to do that, but smaller organizations would have a hard time keeping up. Suicide bombing is something done on the cheap. Chartering planes would have another problem. You have to deal directly with a chartering company, the pilot, and must have a legitimate flight plan before ever getting near the plane. What believable reason could a dozen Middle Eastern "students" use to charter a plane without arousing major suspicion? Several of them raised enough suspicion at the airport to begin with (though not enough to have kept them off the plane at that point appartently).
Without arguing the merits of the case for Afghanistan harboring terrorists (of which there is good argument for and against), I would contend that harboring a group that committed such acts would be de facto state sponsoring. Knowing something is happening, looking the other way, and protecting the group from the consequences when they're found out is about as close to state sponsoring as you can get without receiving funding for you attacks as well.
It's funny that the US looks the other way in regard to Saudi Arabia. It is the same thing as Afghanistan looking the other way in regard to Al Qaeda, and shows how little the leadership in the US really cares for those they are supposed to serve (the public).
I would partly agree with your statement regarding the unification of the Islamic countries being a gaping hole in the logic of a "nation" of Islam. I would disagree in that the political boundaries really would mean nothing as far as religious fundamentalism goes. I think they are almost completely disregarded except to the extent that they need to be for the practical purpose of moving between them without being caught.
Ah, projection of anger. Gotta love it. The ultimate lack of personal responsibility. That would be my impression of the root of the problem as well: nobody is willing to take responsibility for their actions. In an escalation, each act of aggression is always made out to be the fault of the "enemy," and the progpagandists on each side quickly bury any legitimate arguments made by their enemies in a mountain of lies, misdirection, and half-truths.
Slashdot Mirror
Since states would have a hard time enforcing legislation to deny certain types of couples marriage (mostly interracial), they created licenses as a way to allow local officials the opportunity to exercise the extralegal power to deny specific marriages arbitrarily.
I'm not a fan of the religious right, but I think governments should keep their nose out of marriage completely.
It's funny to point out a specific instance of "raiding," since it has been a constant from the beginning of the taxation of the "privilege" of supporting your life i.e. employment (that's the legal basis for the SS tax).
Since it is a tax, it goes directly into the General Fund. Always has. The General Fund is spent throughout the year on general items. Surpluses are not, and never have been, put into any protective account.
What happens with the surpluses is that Treasury Bonds are deposited into the "trust fund." That's like me starting an account, depositing a $X, withdrawing $X, depositing a note saying I'll pay $X at Y% interest, spending the money I withdrew, and then claiming I still had not only the money, but that the account would bear interest!
That's it, an in-depth analysis of how the "Trust Fund" works. I'm sure that there are (completely uninformed) people who will claim the above is a lie. They would be straight-up wrong.
Now we ask how Treasury Bonds are redeemed. Easy! Borrowing or raising taxes, that's it! Normally, bonds actually bring in some money when they are sold. This isn't even the case with the bonds put into the "Trust Fund," because they're exchanged with revenues derived from something other than their sale.
So, the question becomes not "When will the Trust Fund expire," but instead "When do we have to start tapping the Trust Fund?" The expiration date doesn't mean jack, because the necessity of taxing or borrowing begins the second tapping the "Trust Fund" is necessary.
What's all this mean? First, SS is a Ponzi scheme as a result of a complete lack of investment. It is and always has been paid out of those paying in. Second, it is based on the unlawful conversion of absolute rights into privileges i.e. the right to the fruit of one's labors. When you own an object, you have the right and the liberty to use it. If someone takes it from you, you still have the right to use it, but your liberty has been taken away. Third, it has created the ability of the government to build a database that can be used to track and profile nearly every man, woman, and child in the US, using numbers that they need to show to access an increasing number of vital services.
To paraphrase Ol' Ben, those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Those who support Social Security are lying to themselves calling themselves Americans. It is probably the most un-American institution beside the income tax.
I bet most US citizens couldn't define sovereignty without resorting to a dictionary.
What I don't understand is why they think this will stop determined people from patching.
What's to stop a legitimate copy from downloading a patch, and then setting up a torrent or (insert your favorite P2P protocol here)?
The only people this will affect are those who don't update anyway.
From the context of the sentence, it could only logically be the latter. The wording certainly was screwed up though.
Only in circumstances where subjective value doesn't come into play in the definition. Lots of things aren't black and white. This just isn't one of those things.
I wasn't arguing over whether the attack was moral or not, whether it was good or evil (or any number of other subjective questions). Those would be arguments of black/white pertaining to questions that are neither.
As I responded to another reply to this same comment, my first was in haste and the consequences not thought through. I agree completely that my first comment was wrong regarding changing the fillibuster rule.
:)
Thank you for your very well put comment though.
Of course, they have to have something to complain about. It directs attention away from more important issues.
Actually yes, it does. Something is either a civilian or a military target. That designation may change, but only one applies at any given time. It is the center of the US war machine, and is thus one of the most high-profile military targets that the US possesses.
It does not serve any civil functions. Even though it is staffed mainly by civilians, it is entirely military in its purpose.
Actually, on further consideration, I have to agree that fillibusters are good. It simply further stalls the working of the US government. That in itself is a good thing. Thank you for a post that helped me understand an error in my thinking. :)
I think that buried in your somewhat confusing post is agreement with the reasoning that a valid argument should be laid on the table if one is to be found. If a judge is going to use the Constitution for toilet paper, that would be a valid reason to oppose their confirmation, would it not? I wasn't opposing opposition to confirmations, just the way the filibuster rules have been used recently to indefinitely delay confirmation without clearly stating a valid reason (even a specific ideological reason) for the opposition.
The best thing that can happen does not always happen. It was simply a hopeful statement. I am aware of the hurdles ahead of this case before being ultimately decided.
I wasn't aware of either of those. Both are good if what you say is true.
It's not that I support Shrublet and his neocons, but filibustering appointments because of political grudges is ludicrous. There's either a valid reason to keep someone out of office or there's not. If there's a valid reason, it should be laid out on the table. If there's not, suck it up, your party lost, try harder next election.
Can't steal because it involves violating someone's rights.
Can't murder because it involves violating someone's rights.
Can't have sex with children because it is an abuse of the obligations of authority.
Can't attack people on the street because it involves violating someone's rights.
Decent laws are written with protecting rights in mind. These laws are wholely separate from laws written with preventing the "offending of polite sensibilities."
The case for government involvement in marriage was originally made because of sensibilities. Marriage licenses were created to de facto ban interracial marriages. They couldn't make them illegal, but they could deny licenses for any number of reasons.
Personally, I'm against marriage licenses. It's an unconstitutional incursion into what is otherwise a personal religious ceremony between two people.
It's actually a crime for clergy to perform a marriage ceremony without the two individuals being licensed to marry. That's truly sad, and should offend the sensibilities of any person who believes in the religious sanctity of marriage.
You can't telly Shrublet anything. He already knows everything he needs to. After all, he was ordained by God, at least to hear him tell it.
The best thing that could happen now is for this to be appealed to the Supreme Court, to have them grant certiorari, and to find along the same lines as they did in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.
:)
It's about time that it's been determined that "public morality" does not extend past public places. Then again, there has been much absurdity in both laws and judicial decisions for as long as there have been laws and judicial decisions.
Hopefully this is the start of a trend that will continue. The major "if" is who GWB will put on the Court after Rehnquist retires/dies. However, with what the Democrats have been doing regarding nominations to any post call into question whether anyone could possibly be confirmed onto the Court. We might just have a vacancy forever, because if the Democrats can do it, so can the Republicans if a Democrat wins in 2008.
As I said in another post, if you took the "old power" perspective, the US revolutionaries were terrorists. They are called patriots now simply because they won.
Yes, and the Pentagon is a military target. Staffing it with civilians doesn't make it any less a legitimate military target.
I was surprised too. Normally there are a lot of US apologists on board who will defend US action while condemning like action by the enemies of the US.
The other reply to your comment has a fine comparison of collateral damage.
My basic purpose is simply to apply the same terms equally to both sides. Depending on your point of view, that either makes both sides legitimate, or both side illegitimate. If both sides are legitimate in their endeavors, diplomacy is called for without lies or propaganda. If both sides are illegitimate, exposure is the best policy, as it will help bring pressure to bear on both sides to cease hostilities.
In all war, at least one party is wrong. There is always an aggressor. In most wars, both parties are wrong, as they both agrescommit agressions without either admitting their responsibility (or they bring out their apologists to explain away responsibility).
Staffing a military installation with civilians is like using human shields. It's not an excuse to take a target off the table. It's like Saddam building hospitals and schools next to military installations.
Next?
Pure and unadulterated terrorism, you would be correct. Those were attacks on non-military targets. The people who ordered those attacks should have been charged with war crimes and hung, including Harry Truman.
That's funny.
Basically what you're asking is, do I fit the Slashdot stereotype?
The answer is both yes and no, and you didn't get all that from my post. You're about 50-50, but that's easy based on the laws of averages for the readership of Slashdot. You'll have to be a lot more specific about who I "am" before your post-analysis will be lent any more credence than simple guessing.
It's also funny that you choose to post such material anonymously.
1) I am not under 20. I leave it to your imagination to guess how far away from that number I am, since you probably won't believe me anyway.
2) I am predominately "white," though darker than most of the other "whites" I know. I'll leave it to your imagination which color other than "white" I tend toward.
3) I have 2 blue-collar, divorced parents. I have known both poverty and comfort.
4) I assume this is based on your assumption that I am very young. Most of the very young suffer from some form of angst or another, or are assumed to. Then again, most people in US society suffer from angst in one form or another, so this is nothing more than a red herring. The ad hominem at the end was a nice touch.
5) You're right that I don't like Bush. That's an easy one to infer. Harder (but not terribly difficult) would be to tell who I support. Cultures of people, just like cultures of bacteria, grow sour when they are allowed to overrun their environment. That applies to US and non-US cultures alike. I tend not to like cultures, I tend to like certain people who come predominately from a couple different cultures. I make no attempt to hide the fact that I prefer to pick and choose those things I like rather than taking something wholesale that will probably have rotten parts in it. Saying I likes anime is like saying I likes sitcoms. I can find shows in both categories that I like, just like I can find country and rap songs that I like. It doesn't mean I don't still find the categories to be overwhelmingly crap (which I do). Bzzzzz! Try again.
Maybe you can be as upfront, but judging from the fact that you posted anonymously, I doubt it.
Okay, I agree with the defining of the WTC attacks as terrorist. That's why I addressed only the Pentagon attack in my comments. I apologize if their was confusion. The WTC attacks are textbook terrorism.
I would agree that the use of unoccupied planes would have lent more military legitimacy to their attack on the Pentagon. However, from the point of view of attempting what amounts to a mass-scale criminal endeavour, eluding prior capture would be high on the list of priorities (much higher than any consideration for civilian casualties, which is only a consideration here for the sake of argument).
Firts, I wouldn't think that buying or leasing would ever be considered a viable option simply because their mode of operation is to do more with less. Buying/leasing & fueling aircraft is extraordinarily expensive in terms of something you plan to blow up. Nations with lots of money can afford to do that, but smaller organizations would have a hard time keeping up. Suicide bombing is something done on the cheap. Chartering planes would have another problem. You have to deal directly with a chartering company, the pilot, and must have a legitimate flight plan before ever getting near the plane. What believable reason could a dozen Middle Eastern "students" use to charter a plane without arousing major suspicion? Several of them raised enough suspicion at the airport to begin with (though not enough to have kept them off the plane at that point appartently).
Without arguing the merits of the case for Afghanistan harboring terrorists (of which there is good argument for and against), I would contend that harboring a group that committed such acts would be de facto state sponsoring. Knowing something is happening, looking the other way, and protecting the group from the consequences when they're found out is about as close to state sponsoring as you can get without receiving funding for you attacks as well.
It's funny that the US looks the other way in regard to Saudi Arabia. It is the same thing as Afghanistan looking the other way in regard to Al Qaeda, and shows how little the leadership in the US really cares for those they are supposed to serve (the public).
I would partly agree with your statement regarding the unification of the Islamic countries being a gaping hole in the logic of a "nation" of Islam. I would disagree in that the political boundaries really would mean nothing as far as religious fundamentalism goes. I think they are almost completely disregarded except to the extent that they need to be for the practical purpose of moving between them without being caught.
Ah, projection of anger. Gotta love it. The ultimate lack of personal responsibility. That would be my impression of the root of the problem as well: nobody is willing to take responsibility for their actions. In an escalation, each act of aggression is always made out to be the fault of the "enemy," and the progpagandists on each side quickly bury any legitimate arguments made by their enemies in a mountain of lies, misdirection, and half-truths.
Heh, attending Yale and Harvard doesn't necessarily make a redneck any less of a redneck. :)