I'm just pointing out that privacy isn't a huge concern until the state "erodes".
...Until it's too late, in other words.
You are a short-sighted fool, who apparently thinks that "freedom" means lining up behind Dear Leader and saluting upon command.
Your rule of thumb is full of shit and your point about Alex Jones is not valid. Alex is safe precisely because he does speak out. If he were to wind up dead with a bullet in his head people would scream bloody murder, and the obvious corollary to your argument would be proven for many people: "OMG, he was telling the truth all along!" Somehow, I suspect you'd find a way to dismiss it all as a wacky conspiracy theory.
The irony is that those who speak out against tyranny are safer than those who cower. To silence the brave is to prove their accusations. I think that's what the OP was trying to say -- once you're at a point where people are oppressing themselves for fear of the secret police, it's too late. What you're apparently too weak-minded to understand is that we're heading in that direction, and some of us -- patriots -- are trying to stop the slide into totalitarianism.
I'm glad you're not American. We have enough bozos like you who think just because they've gunned down brown people for Uncle Sam that makes them a patriot. I'll take Alex Jones over the likes of you any day.
Actually, this might be a pathetic attempt by a wounded AG to appeal to the Democrats, knowing that many of them are in the pockets of the Hollywood elite (the RIAA/MPAA).
This is the type of thing that makes me wish we had a strong third party with different views on copyright. Right now, it's like the insanity of the war on drugs. You have one side that tough on drugs because it's politically smart and the other side is fucking frothing at the mouth because they're fascists. Where's the sanity?
Really folks, there is utterly no information here except that some filter somewhere blocked one page on Boingboing's website.
Two points:
1. There shouldn't be any filtering software. If you have children you wish to protect by keeping them ignorant, go to the store and buy some filtering software. Don't censor everyone's connection.
2. The "one" page that was blocked was boing boing's home page (check that graphic again). It's fair to assume subsequent pages were also blocked.
At least the people of Boston have a chance to throw the bums out in the next election. If you're encountering censorship by a cable company given a legal monopoly to "serve" a certain region, you have virtually no recourse unless such a thing was specifically planned for and written into the contract. I know that my city has no control over my cable provider's rates, allowing them to jack prices through the roof. I don't know if there is similar deregulation in the case of censorship, but I wouldn't be surprised.
In the end it's best to have as many choices as possible. So far as I know, having municipal wireless does not preclude the existance of DSL and cable providers.
I hate Big Brother just as much as the next guy, but incidents like these make me wonder if perhaps installing HDTV video cameras in all public areas, might make for a slightly safer environment.
No offense, but what is it with you people? Are you unaware of how video cameras work? Do you think they emit some sort crime-prevention rays or something? I honestly don't understand the obsession with allow the state to monitor everything, as if that will help somehow. Most CCTVs are not monitored live and in no way resemble the cool technology you see in the movies. Clearly, this guy was crazy and didn't care if he got shot repeatedly, so why the hell would he care if he was caught on video tape? If they could have monitored him realtime, would they have even had the weaponry to take him out? Most campus security guards are rent-a-cops without much training or heavy artillery.
...Honestly, I don't get it. Sometimes I think people who suggest this sort of constant monitoring just want to see the video tapes played on the news so they can see faceless strangers crumple as they are shot. I'm not accusing you of that, but you just wrote a whole post about how video cameras somehow magically increase security, after a tragic scenario that obviously would not have been prevented with a million CCTVs. To me, this is just a peeping-tom obsession, similar to craning your neck to look at car-wrecks. I don't see how you could reasonably make a case that video cameras would help anything other than to satiate our basest urges. Sure, we could employ millions of people sitting in front of huge banks of screens watching/recording everything the powers that be determine to be of value, but then why not just rename ourselves the Soviet States of America and be done with it. There's a certain price to freedom. You can't have it both ways.
I'm hoping for peace, too. It just doesn't seem to be in the cards. Why let Big Brother make you into a scared little child who needs protecting by the all-powerful state? Why not carry a weapon yourself, for protection of your person and those around you. It wasn't too long ago that carrying rifles around was the social norm. If you went on a long journey without one people thought you were acting irresponsibly. Now it's the opposite.
It occurs to me that incidents like this help the state more than anybody. The asshole who did this is dead. His victims are dead or suffering. There's no obvious motive, and even if it was something like jealousy or anger it really doesn't explain his actions. Maybe I'm a nut but I am suspicious, especially since there's huge, Constitution-hanging-in-the-balance testimony scheduled for tomorrow and a regime of fascist zealots in control of the country. Events like this only serve the powers that be. They get to look compassionate while tightening the screws on what little liberty we have left while the populace is shell-shocked and pliant. Good thing there's no rational explanation for this sort of senseless violence *cough-MKULTRA-cough*.
Excellent point. Talk about the scam of the century. Is there no one in Washington with the balls to stand up the cable companies?
I'm currently experiencing blinding, piercing rage at Comcast. First they "traded" Time-Warner for all of the subscribers in the Twin Cities (for some other city) and the next thing they did was jack up their prices for high-speed internet-only subscribers by 18 dollars a month. Unless I can talk them down I'm going to go with DSL -- no matter how shitty it is -- simply out of sheer spite (and the whole blinding, piercing rage thing).
These ISPs are out of control. They're abusing the system every single way they can think of (Network Neutrality might be a necessary evil), and no one seems to be able to stop them. I think city-run wireless might be our only defense because it makes the ISPs howl with pain at the very idea of competition. Can somebody tell me with a straight face that this is what capitalism is supposed to look like?
Sorry, not buying it. Why can't grandma pony up 40 bucks, especially since she gets a fat social security check every month? Instead of your demagogic misdirection, how 'bout you face facts: The government is subsidizing mind control devices in order to ensure the passivity of the populace.
(As a person who hates TV and doesn't own one, it really pisses me off that my tax dollars are being spent on this boondoggle. Fortunately, the avarice of the convert-makers will ensure that the device costs far more than 40 dollars.)
You want demagoguery? How about this: The government should send a check for 40 dollars to every single cigarette smoker to account for increased prices (because of lawsuits & taxes). Or maybe the government should send 40 grand to Coca-cola for every soda/pop machine that is removed from our schools because of those uppity parents' groups.
Your demagogic judo misses a very salient point: TV is bad for you. It's bad for your mind, your body and your soul. Why is the government subsidizing something that, by almost all accounts, is detrimental to our health? Children spend 44.5 hours per week in front of screens -- as much time as I spend at my job -- and the government is not only unconcerned they're funding this? Don't you see something wrong here?
The posters who mentioned Bread & Circuses are right on. This is about pacifying the population. If we didn't have TV to numb our brains people might start to wake up to all the nefarious shit going on around us. Ideally, TV would be an excellent medium to tackle these social ills, but the mega-media-corps rarely seem to do so, especially when their own bottom line is at risk.
Instead, we will all continue working all day, going home to veg for a few hours and then waking up and doing it again... and with our softened brains we'll never have time to ponder why a highly-advanced country like ours works so much, yet has so little to show for it (besides bigscreen TVs). With American Idol on we'll never deduce that the rich are stealing from us through inflation, real-estate boom & busts, taxes and other financial trickery that make it possible for the middle classes' earning power to actually decline over the last 30 years despite the rich getting fantastically richer.
We are being FUCKED. But most people are too hypnotized to notice.
Personally, I think that your assertion that animals are unintelligent is pretty well shot...
Not only that, it reflects poorly on the grandparent poster's own intelligence. It's like when someone in a forum tries to insult someone and misspells "idiot" in the process.
To take a page from Douglass Adams, I think humans would be lucky to make it in the "Top 5 Most Intelligent" on the planet. Elephants, dolphins, cats, parakeets, whales, etc. -- they all seem quite intelligent to me. And they don't have to destroy their ecosystem in a short term orgy of profit-lust in order to survive. Sure, they don't build massive steel structures like we do.... but then again, why would they want to?
Humans are definitely tops in other categories, though, including Most Powerful and Most Violent.
As for the crack about the "most secure nation on Earth," maybe you missed all the news stories for years after 9/11 about how most of our highest value targets (power plants, water treatment, etc, etc) are still completely open and vulnerable to attack.
Oh really? So I could walk into a nuclear power plant today, or 3 years ago, with no problem? Is that a fact? That means I should have no problem carrying out my devious plan to put LSD in the water supply because, as you say, water treatment facilities are "completely open." Somehow I suspect you'll stick with your theory even though part of it has been proven false.
Some other poster mentioned something about "conspiracy theorists" (a pejorative phrase akin to me call you a "boot-licking, fascist tool") working backwards from their preconceived notions in an attempt to prove their hypothesis. But isn't the reverse true as well? There are a lot of people who don't want to contend with the idea that the government either let 9/11 happen, or had a hand in creating it simply because the idea is so offensive to everything we hold dear. So people assume that the 9/11 Truthers are "crazies" and work backwards from that. Both sides are guilty of this action.
By the way, it's noteworthy to point out that the official story (the government's version of events on 9/11) is also a conspiracy theory in that it's unproven, and it involves a conspiracy -- 19 hijackers conspired to fly planes into buildings, presumably with Osama bin Laden playing the role of the maniacal genius mastermind hiding in a cave somewhere, pulling strings, and manipulating people in a brilliant plan to destroy the United States while setting up a pan-Islamic Caliphate. I wonder if Bin Laden laughs insanely while stroking a cat like Ernst Blofield.
Quite frankly, both the truthers' and the governments' versions of events sound like something Hollywood dreamed up.
I certainly don't have time to listen to 100 bad tunes to find one good one.
This is an excellent point and it's been bothering me for years. I actually used to listen to dozens of bands to try and find a good one. I've found a lot of gems, but had to wade through a lot of stinkers to do so. (I would download the entire SXSW bittorrent compilation and start wading through. The keeper ratio was approximately 10 (bad) to 1 (good) overall.
What we need is a Digg (or/.-style moderation) for music. On a track-by-track basis. Digg has a music section, but that's for music news, and MySpace has shitloads of bands, but it's not good for aggregating the good tunes from the bad (and it's slow, ugly and full of useless crap). Last.fm is closest to this ideal, but they're still more about tracking listening habits and they haven't added too many ways for unknown bands to get heard. They do have a label/artist signup section and some free downloads, but it's not integrated into the site very well yet. Garageband.com is good for finding cool tunes as well, but writing reviews can be a real chore.
I'm hoping for improvement here, but in the meantime, I'd really like to see a simple, clean site in the style of digg that allows people to vote either yay or nay for songs (which could easily be listened to via a simple Flash interface). Songs could be categorized individually by genre (meaning a band is not restricted to one style) and popular songs make the home page. Popular does not equal good, so people would have the chance to drill down to genres they like, and block songs from bands that they know suck (and vice versa, like a karma bonus for bands that rule).
Anybody want to make this? You'll make millions of dollars. I can't code for shit or I'd do it. It's not even a unique or novel idea. I'm kinda surprised that it hasn't been done yet. Is there a problem I'm not aware of here?
Fuck the majors, this should be a resource for up and coming bands and listeners who want to find good bands without having to listen to all the crappy ones. Oh, and the songs should be downloadable, too. MP3, FLAC or Ogg format. I know that my band would submit our music to such a site in a heartbeat.
It's going on six years since the USA PATRIOT Act. Can't somebody, somewhere, think of something new and original to post for once?
You're kidding, right? It's the slashdot echo chamber that prevents alternate views from being heard. There are plenty of people who have made very astute arguments concerning revolution, Reichstag Fires and secret cabals ruling us from behind the scenes but these posts are almost always modded into oblivion (as this post most likely will be).
Face it, dude. People just don't want to hear the truth. They would much rather close their eyes and go "Lalalalalalaaaa" instead of facing the awful truth. They would much rather argue back and forth about what Clinton did or how dumb Bush is. Blah blah blah.
The truth is that we're in the midst of a slow-motion fascist takeover by a shadowy elite whose ancestors planned the downfall of America from its inception. They were called "Royalists" back in the day, and they've had many names since, but the intent has always been the same: Subjugation. A free and powerful nation has always been a threat to them. Not because they love the crown, or because they love fascism. I admit, I call them "fascists" because it's a useful shorthand, but the truth is they have no motivation other than power itself. Fascism is merely means to an end.
How did this come to be? Well, there has always -- ALWAYS -- been a ruling elite on planet Earth. Whether it was kings, emperors, nobles, merchants, bankers, or warriors there has always been a ruling class. We have one now. They rule because they are rich. But two hundred years ago, America represented a threat to them simply because we were not under their control. Well, now we are. They tricked us into adopting the Federal Reserve, they bought their way into our politics and they infiltrated our business community and our military at every level (but especially the top). America has become just another one of their assets, a corporation with a board of directors (Congress) and a CEO (President) and the Global Elite are the shareholders. They've worked together behind the scenes to remake the system in their image. Outwardly, things look relatively the same, but within our... "their" government, the Elite have their people holding every important lever of power and they've endeavored to rewire our government so that it works for them, rather than for us.
I suppose I sound half-mad to many of you. But I wonder how many of you who are planning on shouting me down realize that you're acting on impulses planted in your mind by our dear, corporate-controlled media to make you think a certain way. It's so easy to silence your opposition when all you have to do is mutter the magic words and people stop thinking. In fact, I'll do it for you. "Conspiracy Theorist." There. Now you can safely ignore whatever I've said and go back to watching TV and surfing the internet for the latest trinkets that you've been brainwashed into thinking you need to buy. Enjoy.
The smartest thing the elite ever did was decide to rule from the shadows. They use visible servants as puppets (Bush) so that if the ax ever falls, it falls on the puppet's neck. Meanwhile, the puppet-master remains not only alive, but completely unseen. In fact, I don't even know who they are. I wish I could point those of you who believe that revolution is the answer in the right direction, but the insanely frustrating truth is that we don't even know who truly rules us. Obviously, it's not Bush. He's too stupid to do anything other than photo ops and speechifying. But there are hints out there. Money seems to be the key. It's the ideal method of control and it gives unlimited power to those can coin it and regulate its usage. As such, my recommendation is to look to the bankers and the blue-blooded families who control the largest banks. You've heard the names: Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg, but I bet you know very little about them.
As i said, if your money is backed by something else, the value of money itself disappears in the collective consciousness, this means that when things start to go bad, people want their Gold back, and the whole financial system crashes which brings the society in a "Great Depression". The whole monetary and financial system is based around trust from the people in the value of their currency, call it manipulation if you will, but unless you find a better way to trade goods, it is by far the best system for everyone.
"...Disappears into the collective consciousness"? I didn't know economic theory had so much to do with Jungian thought.:-) You're correct in your analysis of the public reaction to money's transience, but you seem completely unaware that fiat currency only makes things worse. Instead, we're just betting on some future economic performance. Between the bondage of treasury bonds and the crippling debt of the national debt we are basically a nation of slaves. The bankers own our future and our present productivity and no matter how hard we work we'll never be able to get out of debt because the system was designed to enslave us in debt. The only good part about this scenario is that with fiat currency the money is completely imaginary. Perhaps the best thing to do to get on the gold standard would be to tell the bankers to go fuck themselves and stop any interest payments on the national debt. See how they like that.
By the way, there is a way to eliminate inflation, trade goods and yet not have to worry about a banking crisis: Abolish the Federal Reserve, move to a gold standard and make Fractional Reserve banking illegal.
Inflation does not diminish purchase power in the long term, since salaries are supposed to adjust themselves to the inflation, now if the salaries don't, then, indeed, you have a problem. But this has nothing to do with inflation or the monetary system, it's a direct cause of lack of social protection.
It definitely does diminish purchasing power long term. When my parents were young they were able to afford a rent or mortgage without too much trouble, but for my generation it's been much more of a struggle. Many of my friends are still living at home with their parents, and it's not because they love their parents so much; it's because it's economically impossible to move out. You simply cannot pay for rent in my city with a low-paying job. If you're making 10 bucks an hour or less, you're screwed. This is what inflation does. Whereas my parents could get an apartment for 50 bucks a month it would now be a miracle to find one for 500 a month. Meanwhile, wages have not risen at a comparable rates. College, on the other hand, costs so much that it will soon be equivalent to taking out a mortgage for those of us not born of rich parents. We are definitely getting squeezed. I think this process is largely masked by the rise of computer technology. Computers, at least, keep getting cheaper and more powerful. When that growth eventually slows we're going to wake up and realize that we're nothing more than techno-serfs, working for the new nobility -- the banking class and their acolytes.
By the way, I'm a student in Economics, mastering in finance, so I'll soon become a banker, and believe me, my vision of the world is far from being "monetarist, greedy and no social protection", I'd give 45% of my income any day if it can guarantee that the people that were born without my luck get medi-care and some form of guaranteed living income. But this doesn't change the fact that going back to a Gold standard is 1) Impossible, 2) Quite Stupid and 3) will in no way guarantee that the labor class will live a better life (actually it will probably be the opposite since interest rates and inflation are one of the natural economic safeguards when things go bad).
Indeed, as I said, they abolished the gold standard in the 70s, and it was, as i said, because the demand for dollars was so high that keeping such large gold reserves became impossible...
Exactly as I said. They wanted to have more dollars in circulation without having the gold to back it up. You seem to think there are altruistic reasons for this... What, pray tell, would they be? I only see excuses for manipulating the currency markets to their benefit.
And inflation can continue infinitely, as it has been doing for the past 60 years, as you said in your first post, money is symbolic, so whether theres a 0 more or less doesn't change the game much...
What are you talking about?! An extra zero on the end most definitely matters for some people. Especially those who don't get all that newly inflated money. It's a great deal for those whom the money was created, but not so much for those with very little money. All they get is reduced purchasing power. That means they're even more fucked than they were when they were just poor. I can't believe you're missing this really obvious stuff. You seem to think the money masters are benevolent, but they are business men, not saints. I think you've been duped.
The reason why FDR had to confiscate all gold is exactly because the gold standard was a bad idea! When Economic downturns arise, people get scared and ask to convert their money, destroying the whole financial system... You have to impose the idea that symbolic money has worth in itself in order for the financial system to work, when people know their money represents another asset in gold, you risk great depressions all over again...
Gold standards are a bad idea for bankers because without a gold standard they can easily hide their financial trickery. A gold standard makes it more difficult to hide manipulation and inflate currency. If you are aligned with this elite group I can understand why you think the GS is bad, but for the rest of us it's a good thing because it means we don't have to continually invest our money in order for it to hold its value. You said yourself that continual inflation is bad, but you seem willing to accept it without question. I'm sure the bankers appreciate your misplaced faith, but you don't seem to realize that a depression is still very much a risk without a gold standard in effect. In fact, it is probably more likely because faith in the system has to be "imposed" as you say, instead of residing intrinsically in the value of gold. Since money is merely symbolic that is a huge drawback as far as public trust goes. Your variable rate system will doom us all.
Yes, they could, just raise the interest rate, and it's done. Oh, but then of course there that little trade-off between inflation and employment thing. And of course an economy without inflation would mean an economy where Aggregate demand remains the same, since inflation after all is the result of a growing demand for liquid money, with an ever increasing economy, that would result in generalized poverty... GREAT idea!
Your linked article even says that the Phillips Curve has largely been discredited, and that economists that do use it are known to fudge their numbers to get it to work. So basically, that means they're making it up as they go along. GREAT idea! Then you can just embrace the status quo and shrug your shoulders if something goes wrong. Color me unimpressed.
Why would anyone want inflation? This means that people _have_ to keep investing their capital in order not to lose money... It would be much easier for everyone if inflation didn't exist...
Ah, you're far too trusting. Yes, inflation is bad for everyone, but those who know about it and control it are able to minimize the damage, or even benefit from it.
Think of it like a game of King of the Hill. Pouring icy water on the slopes hurts everyone, but it hurts those at the bottom the most because they don't have their footing yet. The people at the top of the hill are already in a good position, so they are able to use the discord caused by the icy water to their advantage. Obviously, inflation is icy water in this analogy. The rich knew it would sting, but they also knew it would hurt the poor the most because the poor don't have any extra money left over for investments, stock portfolios and the like. When you're struggling to make ends meet creeping inflation is the least of your worries, but it will still hurt you in the long run.
[insert inaccurate history lesson]
Your history lesson is a complete joke. You seem unaware that, first off, the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Milton Friedman is one among those questioning the Fed's role in that debacle. And then, as the country languished in agony, the Fed and its instruments in government, including Roosevelt, used the moment to get us off the Gold Standard. Why? So he could use inflation to stimulate the economy!! In fact, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, which confiscated every American's gold! Read up on it if you don't believe me. It's referenced in the second linked article. Also, as that article makes clear, it wasn't until 1971 that the gold standard was totally banished, but that was just so we could keep inflating the money supply.
Now, noone in the world has the gold standard anymore, so if the US would bring back the gold standard, either the dollar would fluctuate like a madman with the course of Gold or basically anyone in the world would be freely allowed to arbitrage over the Dollar/Gold deal.
Because our economy is basically ruined already trying to bring back the gold standard without adequate control would indeed result in chaos. But allowing runaway inflation to continue indefinitely is also insane. I say we make the painful fix for our children's sake.
Hmmm, how exactly again is inflation government theft? Inflation comes from an increased demand of liquid money from the private sector... The government doesn't win a penny out of it...
Well, technically, the private bankers are the thieves; they're just using the government as the bagman. However, your definition of inflation is incorrect. I think you're thinking of liquidity or something else. Here's a simple definition from Wiki:
"In mainstream economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of pric
Also, the Fed's main goal is to push growth while maintaining inflation to a decent level, so you attack inflation then attack the government's agency which tries to keep that same inflation under control?
Their stated goal is reducing inflation. They are lying. It's that simple. If they really wanted to end inflation they would be able to do so within a few days, I imagine. After all, they are the ones managing our economy, right? Inflation is their goal. They often say they're trying to "reign in" inflation or "keep it under control" but they never talk about ending it. They would never want to end it; it's not in their interests.
Quite frankly, if you want to intellectually combat a Capitalist society, attacking inflation (natural phenomenon), the Fed (which tries to keep the integrity of the monetary market) and banks (which have by far more contributed to lowering crimes then any other agency/sector/social reform), I'm afraid you'll only make a fool of yourself.
Inflation is not natural. Inflation is not gravity or a rainbow or the weak nuclear force. Inflation is a flaw in a man-made system. In the Fed's case, I believe it to be an intentional flaw, that they deliberately avoid correcting. If you're operating on the gold standard there really isn't much inflation, because the gold supply remains relatively constant, mostly because we've already found and extracted most of it. Given that, the Fed looks to be responsible for inflation, especially since they were instrumental in getting us off the gold standard in the first place.
Speaking of making a fool of yourself, you're saying that banks have lowered crime?!!!! WTF are you smoking and where can I get a pound of it? Please provide a source for this wacky assertion.
By the way, "crime" is interesting because crime is defined by those in power. Those in power are rich. Thus, the rich decide what is a crime and what is not. Whereas a poor black kid from the streets will get 10 years for dealing illegal drugs, the rich fuckheads who sent us to war in Iraq will likely never see the inside of jail cell. What about that crime? What about war crimes? What about the crime of inflation, since inflation is government theft?
So, who got a check from the government last year to make up for all the money you lost to inflation? Anyone?
Whenever topics like this come up all the libertarians, fascist/corporatists and foaming-at-the-mouth capitalists come out of the woodwork to say that "anybody can make it in America!" even though none of them have been poor, black, suffering from disease and fleeing from hurricanes while still succeeding in business. Hey, I like kool-aid, too, but this is total horseshit. Let me be absolutely clear:
THE RICH "CREATE" POVERTY. Clear enough? Without rich people actively trying to fuck over poor people we wouldn't have the income disparity that we presently have. To see it in action, all you have to do is look at the Republican party and their collaborators in big business. They try their best to cut taxes for the rich and slash spending on social programs, no matter what the human cost. The Democrats help by increasing federal spending to obscene levels thereby necessitating increased taxation. We get fucked from both ends, like a double-sided dildo.
As amusing as it is to read white-bread, middle-class slashdotters talking about how easy it is for anybody in America to become a captain of industry, I feel compelled to take a shit on your Capitalism Cake. Fascism is alive and well in this country, which should be no surprise to anyone who knows what Fascism is: Corporatism. Basically, it's the merger of the state and big business. Fascism is the governmental system that is most favorable to business, bar none. Big Business is fascist not because they believe in Hitler's aryan fantasies but because they stand to gain from a government hopelessly devoted to improving market conditions for greedy multinationals.
The income gap is not a new thing because greed is as old as humanity. There is no such thing as being "rich enough." There is only MORE. More money, more power, more disparity. And how do you really know that you're rich unless somebody else is poor? How can you really enjoy being wealthy unless you have servants? The rich mindset is dead set on creating inequity because the rich benefit from it, and like I said, there is no limit to their desires.
This is aided, abetted and made possible by the Federal Reserve System. Each year the Fed increases the money supply, and each year money becomes worth less and less. That's the problem with fiat currency. Since it's not backed by gold the dollar bill has no intrinsic worth. It is just paper. Since it's just paper/electrons it can be created with a flick of the wrist. And so it is. When that money is created, who gets it? You? Does the government/private industry send you a check each year to account for inflation? No, the money is simply stolen from you by those who create it: The bankers. Bankers are the Kings of Capitalism. They are the new aristocracy, the ruling class that maintains control with an iron fist. They control the corporations and our government.
But this system, which appears impossibly strong from the outside, is actually rotting from within. Things are falling apart. If there was a run on the banks our economy would collapse into a pit that would make the Great Depression look like a tea party. That's because of the deposits vs. cash-on-hand ratio. Banks are able to create money simply by making loans. How? Well, they don't really have your money in the vault, you know. For each dollar you put in your savings account the bank is able to lend 10 dollars out because bankers have figured out that they only need to keep 10% of their total deposits on hand at any given time. (I'd like to have a 9x or 10x multiplier on my wealth. Maybe I should start a bank and screw you people over! It's the American way!) The Fed backs them in case of a run, but they don't have the money either. The money doesn't exist. It's imaginary. It's not backed by anything
But they do know with certainty that it is an experiment. Ergo, there is a damn good reason to believe it is fake or a set-up or non-lethal or, generally, "OK". This is very much like all those people who stand idly by as a magician's female assistant is sawed in half. But they're not standing idly by as someone is sawed in half. They are actually doing it, and that person is screaming.
But the Milgram experiment is rigged so that they never consciously decide to kill. It happens because they start off with something that seems unobjectionable then incrementally increase it until it becomes murder. It's not an experiment about willingness to kill, it's about how far much pressure authority figures can exert to make ordinary people do things that those people themselves find abhorrent. Guess what! Authority figures use the same tricks to get their minions to do their bidding. Politicians, religious zealots, cult leaders, military psychos... they all bring you into the fold slowly. They don't show the fucking death camps to the fresh recruits; that's just stupid. They gauge peoples' reactions and select the ones who seem most likely to react favorably to their evil plans/actions. Then they slowly twist the dupes into the evil stew and make it look as if they were acting of their own will all along. If Milgram is rigged, then so is life.
Performing the experiment on people to innoculate them against it (which I think is what you advocate) is extreme. How many of the participants would 'kill' again if put back in the same situation? None, barring the genuinely twisted.
Putting them in twice would be stupid and a waste. But "innoculating" everyone is a great idea, especially if everybody has to go through it at a certain age -- a rite of passage. I could see Milgram's Obedience Study being the Kobayashi Maru of future generations; I think it's a brilliant idea. And a very teachable moment since 60% would fail it.
You're implying that people should have to live with the worst they are capable of, regardless of whether they would naturally do it. The first part is mostly correct. I think that people should be aware of the worst that they are capable of, if they would in fact actually do it. Then it's something that can be dealt with and corrected.
I'm sure the guilt of knowing that you're a potential murderer is not pleasant. But I'm also sure the pain that person could potentially cause is far greater. Do you think that the guilt Milgram's subjects felt has anything on the suffering the relatives of a murder victim go through?
I think, given humans' penchant for putting on uniform and killing other humans, that we should be VERY aware of our own moral blindspots so that we are better able to resist urges and pressures when the time comes. It's a cheesy statement, but "knowing is half the battle." And the battle within our own minds is the most important.
Of course, in the original experiment the people were eventually told "it's okay, it was just a simulation"... but they may still have felt a deep guilt for a short time, and were probably very emotionall conflicted during the experiment. I've watched some of the footage of the experiment, and it is quite interesting and somewhat scary at times. Some subjects end up begging to the "research authority" to let the experiment end, because they are worried about killing the actor. The anguish and concern in the subjects is quite obvious. (It is also quite scary how many of them continued zapping the actor, even after all their protests, simply because someone in a lab coat kept repeating "please continue with the experiment protocol".)
Exactly. These are people who willingly -- without forceful coercion -- shocked a person to death BEFORE finding out it was an experiment. My considered, rational and scientific opinion of these people is: Fuck'em. I have no pity for a person who just killed (in their mind) another human being because some dude in a labcoat told them to.
You seem to think there's unethical behavior involved in Milgram's experiment. I disagree. It's just an experiment. Instead, the darkness is inside the subjects doing the dirty deeds. All the experiment does is dredge up that evil and lay it bare before all. The subject should be joyful that they didn't kill anybody since they so clearly would have. The only patholiogical part of Milgram's experiment lay deep in the minds and souls of those who flipped the switch.
And according the results, approximately 60% of the population would have done it.
Though the pain was simulated, the emotional repercussions to the subjects were real. Some may have felt a guilt that continued well after the experiment. ("I know it was just an experiment... but if it had have been real I would have acted the same way... does that make me a bad person?")
Come on people, quit the fussin' and the fightin'. Put aside your differences. It's clear, that sex.com belongs to all of us, like the environment or the national debt. You see, sex.com is part of our heritage. It's the domain that is connected to every single one of us -- after all, who among us would be here if our parents didn't have sex? (okay, Cowboy Neal is a test tube baby, but the rest of us were created during sex)
Don't you see? Sex.com is our birthright! It's a national treasure. It is a god among TLDs. That's why I think we should make it public domain and put a wiki up there so we can all teach and share what we've learned about sex. Like the future, sex.com belongs to the children. The next time somebody mentions sex.com, think of the children!
I hear this constantly when I say that we need to quit placing blame and start getting to work.
Ummm... maybe that's because it's ridiculous to say we shouldn't point fingers. Here's my take on your "let's all quit pointing fingers and work together" crap:
"We need to get past all of these allegations about who shot up what liquor store, and who claimed that there were guns when there weren't and who shot which clerk and all that. Can't we all just work together to rebuild the liquor store rather than pointing fingers over who killed whom?"
Can you see where I'm going with this? "Let's not point fingers" is something guilty people say when they want to avoid responsibility for their actions. We can't and shouldn't just ignore culpability any more than we should let robbers and murders just help rebuild the stores they shot up (ignoring the human cost that can never be rebuilt) and make a lot of money off the rebuilding efforts in the process. No. There has to be punishment. Funny how conservative types are all Law and Order and "tough on crime" until it turns out that they are the criminals. Then suddenly, they turn into liberals who want forgiveness and "oh, they just made a mistake" etc. Do you think Bush would pardon a liquor store robber who murdered someone if he offered to rebuild the store? Why does Bush get a free pass? The rank hypocrisy boils my blood.
If you want to fix Iraq, the first thing you have to do is remove the people who caused the problem in the first place. The simultaneous impeachment and conviction of Bush & Cheney is a good place to start. Then the healing can begin.
Again, I ask, where am I SUPPORTING any of what the government is doing?
Blind obedience to the government is tacit support.
The rest of your post is just regurgitation. You seem to be avoiding taking a firm position (flip-flopper!) because you know I will nail your balls to the wall when you do. Good luck with that.
I just have to pick on you for this one, though:
but until you get some evidence that it's without warrants, then it's merely a conspiracy theory
Aahhahaaaa!! Your ignorance is perfect shield for your argument, isn't it? Hahahaaaaa. You fool, the Bush administration has admitted on numerous occasions that they monitored people without warrants. They even tried to ram a bill through Congress that would make the program legal -- obviously this would not be necessary if the program already was legal.
And this is my favorite part of your Kerry-esque tap-dance routine:
Now, if someone presents some actual evidence, then it's a different story...we DON'T need to make up accusations of wrongdoing when we have enough evidence to actually investigate.
So is there evidence or isn't there? I guess with your head stuck so deep in the sand you wouldn't know. That's the whole point, though, isn't it? Me and several other posters have provided you with tons of evidence, but it's clear from your posts that you've studiously avoided reading any of them. Either that or your comprehension skills are so incredibly low that you shouldn't be able to string 2 sentences together. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it's clear that your ignorance is actually stupidity -- that is, "willful ignorance." I hope you will actually read my links this time. The fate of our nation depends on people waking up to the malfeasance infesting Washington.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a short-sighted fool, who apparently thinks that "freedom" means lining up behind Dear Leader and saluting upon command.
Your rule of thumb is full of shit and your point about Alex Jones is not valid. Alex is safe precisely because he does speak out. If he were to wind up dead with a bullet in his head people would scream bloody murder, and the obvious corollary to your argument would be proven for many people: "OMG, he was telling the truth all along!" Somehow, I suspect you'd find a way to dismiss it all as a wacky conspiracy theory.
The irony is that those who speak out against tyranny are safer than those who cower. To silence the brave is to prove their accusations. I think that's what the OP was trying to say -- once you're at a point where people are oppressing themselves for fear of the secret police, it's too late. What you're apparently too weak-minded to understand is that we're heading in that direction, and some of us -- patriots -- are trying to stop the slide into totalitarianism.
I'm glad you're not American. We have enough bozos like you who think just because they've gunned down brown people for Uncle Sam that makes them a patriot. I'll take Alex Jones over the likes of you any day.
This is the type of thing that makes me wish we had a strong third party with different views on copyright. Right now, it's like the insanity of the war on drugs. You have one side that tough on drugs because it's politically smart and the other side is fucking frothing at the mouth because they're fascists. Where's the sanity?
Two points:
1. There shouldn't be any filtering software. If you have children you wish to protect by keeping them ignorant, go to the store and buy some filtering software. Don't censor everyone's connection.
2. The "one" page that was blocked was boing boing's home page (check that graphic again). It's fair to assume subsequent pages were also blocked.
At least the people of Boston have a chance to throw the bums out in the next election. If you're encountering censorship by a cable company given a legal monopoly to "serve" a certain region, you have virtually no recourse unless such a thing was specifically planned for and written into the contract. I know that my city has no control over my cable provider's rates, allowing them to jack prices through the roof. I don't know if there is similar deregulation in the case of censorship, but I wouldn't be surprised.
In the end it's best to have as many choices as possible. So far as I know, having municipal wireless does not preclude the existance of DSL and cable providers.
No offense, but what is it with you people? Are you unaware of how video cameras work? Do you think they emit some sort crime-prevention rays or something? I honestly don't understand the obsession with allow the state to monitor everything, as if that will help somehow. Most CCTVs are not monitored live and in no way resemble the cool technology you see in the movies. Clearly, this guy was crazy and didn't care if he got shot repeatedly, so why the hell would he care if he was caught on video tape? If they could have monitored him realtime, would they have even had the weaponry to take him out? Most campus security guards are rent-a-cops without much training or heavy artillery.
I'm hoping for peace, too. It just doesn't seem to be in the cards. Why let Big Brother make you into a scared little child who needs protecting by the all-powerful state? Why not carry a weapon yourself, for protection of your person and those around you. It wasn't too long ago that carrying rifles around was the social norm. If you went on a long journey without one people thought you were acting irresponsibly. Now it's the opposite.
It occurs to me that incidents like this help the state more than anybody. The asshole who did this is dead. His victims are dead or suffering. There's no obvious motive, and even if it was something like jealousy or anger it really doesn't explain his actions. Maybe I'm a nut but I am suspicious, especially since there's huge, Constitution-hanging-in-the-balance testimony scheduled for tomorrow and a regime of fascist zealots in control of the country. Events like this only serve the powers that be. They get to look compassionate while tightening the screws on what little liberty we have left while the populace is shell-shocked and pliant. Good thing there's no rational explanation for this sort of senseless violence *cough-MKULTRA-cough*.
I'm currently experiencing blinding, piercing rage at Comcast. First they "traded" Time-Warner for all of the subscribers in the Twin Cities (for some other city) and the next thing they did was jack up their prices for high-speed internet-only subscribers by 18 dollars a month. Unless I can talk them down I'm going to go with DSL -- no matter how shitty it is -- simply out of sheer spite (and the whole blinding, piercing rage thing).
These ISPs are out of control. They're abusing the system every single way they can think of (Network Neutrality might be a necessary evil), and no one seems to be able to stop them. I think city-run wireless might be our only defense because it makes the ISPs howl with pain at the very idea of competition. Can somebody tell me with a straight face that this is what capitalism is supposed to look like?
No, thank you for effectively conceding all of my points.
Sorry, not buying it. Why can't grandma pony up 40 bucks, especially since she gets a fat social security check every month? Instead of your demagogic misdirection, how 'bout you face facts: The government is subsidizing mind control devices in order to ensure the passivity of the populace.
(As a person who hates TV and doesn't own one, it really pisses me off that my tax dollars are being spent on this boondoggle. Fortunately, the avarice of the convert-makers will ensure that the device costs far more than 40 dollars.)
You want demagoguery? How about this: The government should send a check for 40 dollars to every single cigarette smoker to account for increased prices (because of lawsuits & taxes). Or maybe the government should send 40 grand to Coca-cola for every soda/pop machine that is removed from our schools because of those uppity parents' groups.
Your demagogic judo misses a very salient point: TV is bad for you. It's bad for your mind, your body and your soul. Why is the government subsidizing something that, by almost all accounts, is detrimental to our health? Children spend 44.5 hours per week in front of screens -- as much time as I spend at my job -- and the government is not only unconcerned they're funding this? Don't you see something wrong here?
The posters who mentioned Bread & Circuses are right on. This is about pacifying the population. If we didn't have TV to numb our brains people might start to wake up to all the nefarious shit going on around us. Ideally, TV would be an excellent medium to tackle these social ills, but the mega-media-corps rarely seem to do so, especially when their own bottom line is at risk.
Instead, we will all continue working all day, going home to veg for a few hours and then waking up and doing it again... and with our softened brains we'll never have time to ponder why a highly-advanced country like ours works so much, yet has so little to show for it (besides bigscreen TVs). With American Idol on we'll never deduce that the rich are stealing from us through inflation, real-estate boom & busts, taxes and other financial trickery that make it possible for the middle classes' earning power to actually decline over the last 30 years despite the rich getting fantastically richer.
We are being FUCKED. But most people are too hypnotized to notice.
Not only that, it reflects poorly on the grandparent poster's own intelligence. It's like when someone in a forum tries to insult someone and misspells "idiot" in the process.
To take a page from Douglass Adams, I think humans would be lucky to make it in the "Top 5 Most Intelligent" on the planet. Elephants, dolphins, cats, parakeets, whales, etc. -- they all seem quite intelligent to me. And they don't have to destroy their ecosystem in a short term orgy of profit-lust in order to survive. Sure, they don't build massive steel structures like we do.... but then again, why would they want to?
Humans are definitely tops in other categories, though, including Most Powerful and Most Violent.
No, they might have a visa or a green card. We're only concerned about Unidentified Flying Illegal Aliens. Big difference.
Oh really? So I could walk into a nuclear power plant today, or 3 years ago, with no problem? Is that a fact? That means I should have no problem carrying out my devious plan to put LSD in the water supply because, as you say, water treatment facilities are "completely open." Somehow I suspect you'll stick with your theory even though part of it has been proven false.
Some other poster mentioned something about "conspiracy theorists" (a pejorative phrase akin to me call you a "boot-licking, fascist tool") working backwards from their preconceived notions in an attempt to prove their hypothesis. But isn't the reverse true as well? There are a lot of people who don't want to contend with the idea that the government either let 9/11 happen, or had a hand in creating it simply because the idea is so offensive to everything we hold dear. So people assume that the 9/11 Truthers are "crazies" and work backwards from that. Both sides are guilty of this action.
By the way, it's noteworthy to point out that the official story (the government's version of events on 9/11) is also a conspiracy theory in that it's unproven, and it involves a conspiracy -- 19 hijackers conspired to fly planes into buildings, presumably with Osama bin Laden playing the role of the maniacal genius mastermind hiding in a cave somewhere, pulling strings, and manipulating people in a brilliant plan to destroy the United States while setting up a pan-Islamic Caliphate. I wonder if Bin Laden laughs insanely while stroking a cat like Ernst Blofield.
Quite frankly, both the truthers' and the governments' versions of events sound like something Hollywood dreamed up.
This is an excellent point and it's been bothering me for years. I actually used to listen to dozens of bands to try and find a good one. I've found a lot of gems, but had to wade through a lot of stinkers to do so. (I would download the entire SXSW bittorrent compilation and start wading through. The keeper ratio was approximately 10 (bad) to 1 (good) overall.
What we need is a Digg (or /.-style moderation) for music. On a track-by-track basis. Digg has a music section, but that's for music news, and MySpace has shitloads of bands, but it's not good for aggregating the good tunes from the bad (and it's slow, ugly and full of useless crap). Last.fm is closest to this ideal, but they're still more about tracking listening habits and they haven't added too many ways for unknown bands to get heard. They do have a label/artist signup section and some free downloads, but it's not integrated into the site very well yet. Garageband.com is good for finding cool tunes as well, but writing reviews can be a real chore.
I'm hoping for improvement here, but in the meantime, I'd really like to see a simple, clean site in the style of digg that allows people to vote either yay or nay for songs (which could easily be listened to via a simple Flash interface). Songs could be categorized individually by genre (meaning a band is not restricted to one style) and popular songs make the home page. Popular does not equal good, so people would have the chance to drill down to genres they like, and block songs from bands that they know suck (and vice versa, like a karma bonus for bands that rule).
Anybody want to make this? You'll make millions of dollars. I can't code for shit or I'd do it. It's not even a unique or novel idea. I'm kinda surprised that it hasn't been done yet. Is there a problem I'm not aware of here?
Fuck the majors, this should be a resource for up and coming bands and listeners who want to find good bands without having to listen to all the crappy ones. Oh, and the songs should be downloadable, too. MP3, FLAC or Ogg format. I know that my band would submit our music to such a site in a heartbeat.
You're kidding, right? It's the slashdot echo chamber that prevents alternate views from being heard. There are plenty of people who have made very astute arguments concerning revolution, Reichstag Fires and secret cabals ruling us from behind the scenes but these posts are almost always modded into oblivion (as this post most likely will be).
Face it, dude. People just don't want to hear the truth. They would much rather close their eyes and go "Lalalalalalaaaa" instead of facing the awful truth. They would much rather argue back and forth about what Clinton did or how dumb Bush is. Blah blah blah.
The truth is that we're in the midst of a slow-motion fascist takeover by a shadowy elite whose ancestors planned the downfall of America from its inception. They were called "Royalists" back in the day, and they've had many names since, but the intent has always been the same: Subjugation. A free and powerful nation has always been a threat to them. Not because they love the crown, or because they love fascism. I admit, I call them "fascists" because it's a useful shorthand, but the truth is they have no motivation other than power itself. Fascism is merely means to an end.
How did this come to be? Well, there has always -- ALWAYS -- been a ruling elite on planet Earth. Whether it was kings, emperors, nobles, merchants, bankers, or warriors there has always been a ruling class. We have one now. They rule because they are rich. But two hundred years ago, America represented a threat to them simply because we were not under their control. Well, now we are. They tricked us into adopting the Federal Reserve, they bought their way into our politics and they infiltrated our business community and our military at every level (but especially the top). America has become just another one of their assets, a corporation with a board of directors (Congress) and a CEO (President) and the Global Elite are the shareholders. They've worked together behind the scenes to remake the system in their image. Outwardly, things look relatively the same, but within our... "their" government, the Elite have their people holding every important lever of power and they've endeavored to rewire our government so that it works for them, rather than for us.
I suppose I sound half-mad to many of you. But I wonder how many of you who are planning on shouting me down realize that you're acting on impulses planted in your mind by our dear, corporate-controlled media to make you think a certain way. It's so easy to silence your opposition when all you have to do is mutter the magic words and people stop thinking. In fact, I'll do it for you. "Conspiracy Theorist." There. Now you can safely ignore whatever I've said and go back to watching TV and surfing the internet for the latest trinkets that you've been brainwashed into thinking you need to buy. Enjoy.
The smartest thing the elite ever did was decide to rule from the shadows. They use visible servants as puppets (Bush) so that if the ax ever falls, it falls on the puppet's neck. Meanwhile, the puppet-master remains not only alive, but completely unseen. In fact, I don't even know who they are. I wish I could point those of you who believe that revolution is the answer in the right direction, but the insanely frustrating truth is that we don't even know who truly rules us. Obviously, it's not Bush. He's too stupid to do anything other than photo ops and speechifying. But there are hints out there. Money seems to be the key. It's the ideal method of control and it gives unlimited power to those can coin it and regulate its usage. As such, my recommendation is to look to the bankers and the blue-blooded families who control the largest banks. You've heard the names: Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg, but I bet you know very little about them.
I have some ideas for revealing our secre
"...Disappears into the collective consciousness"? I didn't know economic theory had so much to do with Jungian thought. :-) You're correct in your analysis of the public reaction to money's transience, but you seem completely unaware that fiat currency only makes things worse. Instead, we're just betting on some future economic performance. Between the bondage of treasury bonds and the crippling debt of the national debt we are basically a nation of slaves. The bankers own our future and our present productivity and no matter how hard we work we'll never be able to get out of debt because the system was designed to enslave us in debt. The only good part about this scenario is that with fiat currency the money is completely imaginary. Perhaps the best thing to do to get on the gold standard would be to tell the bankers to go fuck themselves and stop any interest payments on the national debt. See how they like that.
By the way, there is a way to eliminate inflation, trade goods and yet not have to worry about a banking crisis: Abolish the Federal Reserve, move to a gold standard and make Fractional Reserve banking illegal.
It definitely does diminish purchasing power long term. When my parents were young they were able to afford a rent or mortgage without too much trouble, but for my generation it's been much more of a struggle. Many of my friends are still living at home with their parents, and it's not because they love their parents so much; it's because it's economically impossible to move out. You simply cannot pay for rent in my city with a low-paying job. If you're making 10 bucks an hour or less, you're screwed. This is what inflation does. Whereas my parents could get an apartment for 50 bucks a month it would now be a miracle to find one for 500 a month. Meanwhile, wages have not risen at a comparable rates. College, on the other hand, costs so much that it will soon be equivalent to taking out a mortgage for those of us not born of rich parents. We are definitely getting squeezed. I think this process is largely masked by the rise of computer technology. Computers, at least, keep getting cheaper and more powerful. When that growth eventually slows we're going to wake up and realize that we're nothing more than techno-serfs, working for the new nobility -- the banking class and their acolytes.
Well no wonder
Exactly as I said. They wanted to have more dollars in circulation without having the gold to back it up. You seem to think there are altruistic reasons for this... What, pray tell, would they be? I only see excuses for manipulating the currency markets to their benefit.
What are you talking about?! An extra zero on the end most definitely matters for some people. Especially those who don't get all that newly inflated money. It's a great deal for those whom the money was created, but not so much for those with very little money. All they get is reduced purchasing power. That means they're even more fucked than they were when they were just poor. I can't believe you're missing this really obvious stuff. You seem to think the money masters are benevolent, but they are business men, not saints. I think you've been duped.
Gold standards are a bad idea for bankers because without a gold standard they can easily hide their financial trickery. A gold standard makes it more difficult to hide manipulation and inflate currency. If you are aligned with this elite group I can understand why you think the GS is bad, but for the rest of us it's a good thing because it means we don't have to continually invest our money in order for it to hold its value. You said yourself that continual inflation is bad, but you seem willing to accept it without question. I'm sure the bankers appreciate your misplaced faith, but you don't seem to realize that a depression is still very much a risk without a gold standard in effect. In fact, it is probably more likely because faith in the system has to be "imposed" as you say, instead of residing intrinsically in the value of gold. Since money is merely symbolic that is a huge drawback as far as public trust goes. Your variable rate system will doom us all.
Your linked article even says that the Phillips Curve has largely been discredited, and that economists that do use it are known to fudge their numbers to get it to work. So basically, that means they're making it up as they go along. GREAT idea! Then you can just embrace the status quo and shrug your shoulders if something goes wrong. Color me unimpressed.
Ah, you're far too trusting. Yes, inflation is bad for everyone, but those who know about it and control it are able to minimize the damage, or even benefit from it.
Think of it like a game of King of the Hill. Pouring icy water on the slopes hurts everyone, but it hurts those at the bottom the most because they don't have their footing yet. The people at the top of the hill are already in a good position, so they are able to use the discord caused by the icy water to their advantage. Obviously, inflation is icy water in this analogy. The rich knew it would sting, but they also knew it would hurt the poor the most because the poor don't have any extra money left over for investments, stock portfolios and the like. When you're struggling to make ends meet creeping inflation is the least of your worries, but it will still hurt you in the long run.
[insert inaccurate history lesson]
Your history lesson is a complete joke. You seem unaware that, first off, the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Milton Friedman is one among those questioning the Fed's role in that debacle. And then, as the country languished in agony, the Fed and its instruments in government, including Roosevelt, used the moment to get us off the Gold Standard. Why? So he could use inflation to stimulate the economy!! In fact, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, which confiscated every American's gold! Read up on it if you don't believe me. It's referenced in the second linked article. Also, as that article makes clear, it wasn't until 1971 that the gold standard was totally banished, but that was just so we could keep inflating the money supply.
Because our economy is basically ruined already trying to bring back the gold standard without adequate control would indeed result in chaos. But allowing runaway inflation to continue indefinitely is also insane. I say we make the painful fix for our children's sake.
Well, technically, the private bankers are the thieves; they're just using the government as the bagman. However, your definition of inflation is incorrect. I think you're thinking of liquidity or something else. Here's a simple definition from Wiki:
"In mainstream economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of pric
Their stated goal is reducing inflation. They are lying. It's that simple. If they really wanted to end inflation they would be able to do so within a few days, I imagine. After all, they are the ones managing our economy, right? Inflation is their goal. They often say they're trying to "reign in" inflation or "keep it under control" but they never talk about ending it. They would never want to end it; it's not in their interests.
Inflation is not natural. Inflation is not gravity or a rainbow or the weak nuclear force. Inflation is a flaw in a man-made system. In the Fed's case, I believe it to be an intentional flaw, that they deliberately avoid correcting. If you're operating on the gold standard there really isn't much inflation, because the gold supply remains relatively constant, mostly because we've already found and extracted most of it. Given that, the Fed looks to be responsible for inflation, especially since they were instrumental in getting us off the gold standard in the first place.
Speaking of making a fool of yourself, you're saying that banks have lowered crime?!!!! WTF are you smoking and where can I get a pound of it? Please provide a source for this wacky assertion.
By the way, "crime" is interesting because crime is defined by those in power. Those in power are rich. Thus, the rich decide what is a crime and what is not. Whereas a poor black kid from the streets will get 10 years for dealing illegal drugs, the rich fuckheads who sent us to war in Iraq will likely never see the inside of jail cell. What about that crime? What about war crimes? What about the crime of inflation, since inflation is government theft?
Whenever topics like this come up all the libertarians, fascist/corporatists and foaming-at-the-mouth capitalists come out of the woodwork to say that "anybody can make it in America!" even though none of them have been poor, black, suffering from disease and fleeing from hurricanes while still succeeding in business. Hey, I like kool-aid, too, but this is total horseshit. Let me be absolutely clear:
THE RICH "CREATE" POVERTY. Clear enough? Without rich people actively trying to fuck over poor people we wouldn't have the income disparity that we presently have. To see it in action, all you have to do is look at the Republican party and their collaborators in big business. They try their best to cut taxes for the rich and slash spending on social programs, no matter what the human cost. The Democrats help by increasing federal spending to obscene levels thereby necessitating increased taxation. We get fucked from both ends, like a double-sided dildo.
As amusing as it is to read white-bread, middle-class slashdotters talking about how easy it is for anybody in America to become a captain of industry, I feel compelled to take a shit on your Capitalism Cake. Fascism is alive and well in this country, which should be no surprise to anyone who knows what Fascism is: Corporatism. Basically, it's the merger of the state and big business. Fascism is the governmental system that is most favorable to business, bar none. Big Business is fascist not because they believe in Hitler's aryan fantasies but because they stand to gain from a government hopelessly devoted to improving market conditions for greedy multinationals.
The income gap is not a new thing because greed is as old as humanity. There is no such thing as being "rich enough." There is only MORE. More money, more power, more disparity. And how do you really know that you're rich unless somebody else is poor? How can you really enjoy being wealthy unless you have servants? The rich mindset is dead set on creating inequity because the rich benefit from it, and like I said, there is no limit to their desires.
This is aided, abetted and made possible by the Federal Reserve System. Each year the Fed increases the money supply, and each year money becomes worth less and less. That's the problem with fiat currency. Since it's not backed by gold the dollar bill has no intrinsic worth. It is just paper. Since it's just paper/electrons it can be created with a flick of the wrist. And so it is. When that money is created, who gets it? You? Does the government/private industry send you a check each year to account for inflation? No, the money is simply stolen from you by those who create it: The bankers. Bankers are the Kings of Capitalism. They are the new aristocracy, the ruling class that maintains control with an iron fist. They control the corporations and our government.
But this system, which appears impossibly strong from the outside, is actually rotting from within. Things are falling apart. If there was a run on the banks our economy would collapse into a pit that would make the Great Depression look like a tea party. That's because of the deposits vs. cash-on-hand ratio. Banks are able to create money simply by making loans. How? Well, they don't really have your money in the vault, you know. For each dollar you put in your savings account the bank is able to lend 10 dollars out because bankers have figured out that they only need to keep 10% of their total deposits on hand at any given time. (I'd like to have a 9x or 10x multiplier on my wealth. Maybe I should start a bank and screw you people over! It's the American way!) The Fed backs them in case of a run, but they don't have the money either. The money doesn't exist. It's imaginary. It's not backed by anything
Isn't it better to be sure?
When in doubt, don't saw someone in half.
Putting them in twice would be stupid and a waste. But "innoculating" everyone is a great idea, especially if everybody has to go through it at a certain age -- a rite of passage. I could see Milgram's Obedience Study being the Kobayashi Maru of future generations; I think it's a brilliant idea. And a very teachable moment since 60% would fail it.
I'm sure the guilt of knowing that you're a potential murderer is not pleasant. But I'm also sure the pain that person could potentially cause is far greater. Do you think that the guilt Milgram's subjects felt has anything on the suffering the relatives of a murder victim go through?
I think, given humans' penchant for putting on uniform and killing other humans, that we should be VERY aware of our own moral blindspots so that we are better able to resist urges and pressures when the time comes. It's a cheesy statement, but "knowing is half the battle." And the battle within our own minds is the most important.
You seem to think there's unethical behavior involved in Milgram's experiment. I disagree. It's just an experiment. Instead, the darkness is inside the subjects doing the dirty deeds. All the experiment does is dredge up that evil and lay it bare before all. The subject should be joyful that they didn't kill anybody since they so clearly would have. The only patholiogical part of Milgram's experiment lay deep in the minds and souls of those who flipped the switch.
And according the results, approximately 60% of the population would have done it.
Though the pain was simulated, the emotional repercussions to the subjects were real. Some may have felt a guilt that continued well after the experiment. ("I know it was just an experiment... but if it had have been real I would have acted the same way... does that make me a bad person?")Yes.
Don't you see? Sex.com is our birthright! It's a national treasure. It is a god among TLDs. That's why I think we should make it public domain and put a wiki up there so we can all teach and share what we've learned about sex. Like the future, sex.com belongs to the children. The next time somebody mentions sex.com, think of the children!
Uhh... wait a sec...
Ummm... maybe that's because it's ridiculous to say we shouldn't point fingers. Here's my take on your "let's all quit pointing fingers and work together" crap:
"We need to get past all of these allegations about who shot up what liquor store, and who claimed that there were guns when there weren't and who shot which clerk and all that. Can't we all just work together to rebuild the liquor store rather than pointing fingers over who killed whom?"
Can you see where I'm going with this? "Let's not point fingers" is something guilty people say when they want to avoid responsibility for their actions. We can't and shouldn't just ignore culpability any more than we should let robbers and murders just help rebuild the stores they shot up (ignoring the human cost that can never be rebuilt) and make a lot of money off the rebuilding efforts in the process. No. There has to be punishment. Funny how conservative types are all Law and Order and "tough on crime" until it turns out that they are the criminals. Then suddenly, they turn into liberals who want forgiveness and "oh, they just made a mistake" etc. Do you think Bush would pardon a liquor store robber who murdered someone if he offered to rebuild the store? Why does Bush get a free pass? The rank hypocrisy boils my blood.
If you want to fix Iraq, the first thing you have to do is remove the people who caused the problem in the first place. The simultaneous impeachment and conviction of Bush & Cheney is a good place to start. Then the healing can begin.
Blind obedience to the government is tacit support.
The rest of your post is just regurgitation. You seem to be avoiding taking a firm position (flip-flopper!) because you know I will nail your balls to the wall when you do. Good luck with that.
I just have to pick on you for this one, though:
but until you get some evidence that it's without warrants, then it's merely a conspiracy theory
Aahhahaaaa!! Your ignorance is perfect shield for your argument, isn't it? Hahahaaaaa. You fool, the Bush administration has admitted on numerous occasions that they monitored people without warrants. They even tried to ram a bill through Congress that would make the program legal -- obviously this would not be necessary if the program already was legal.
And this is my favorite part of your Kerry-esque tap-dance routine:
Now, if someone presents some actual evidence, then it's a different story...we DON'T need to make up accusations of wrongdoing when we have enough evidence to actually investigate.
So is there evidence or isn't there? I guess with your head stuck so deep in the sand you wouldn't know. That's the whole point, though, isn't it? Me and several other posters have provided you with tons of evidence, but it's clear from your posts that you've studiously avoided reading any of them. Either that or your comprehension skills are so incredibly low that you shouldn't be able to string 2 sentences together. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it's clear that your ignorance is actually stupidity -- that is, "willful ignorance." I hope you will actually read my links this time. The fate of our nation depends on people waking up to the malfeasance infesting Washington.