I just know that I will never kill, nor participate in any way that will result in killing someone.
Millions have been saved from work, slave, and concentration camps because most of us are not like you.
That alone makes me a pretty useless solider.
Some of us have true compassion for humanity and the courage to stand up and fight. Others hide cowardice in a cloak of morality and relativism and so ignore preventable suffering and grave injustice. Which one are you?
Oh, because he misstated when he visited Texas after a natural disaster in a debate?
I was with you, at least in principle, until this statement. Gore didn't "misstate", he lied. That is, of course, unless you are willing to say that all of the things that were not true said by the current administration were simply "misstatements."
You have to step back and see the world for what it is and people for what they are. Gore told some lies. Now, there is no way that he intended to claim to have invented the Internet, but he was certainly trying to exagerate his role, and so stumbled over the line.
Honest people should just go to the other extreme: be so honest as to almost be ridiculous. Gore pushed the envelope the other way trying to claim things, and fell over the cliff a couple times. He made a bone-headed statement about the Internet (and about the Texas flood waters). Why can't his supporters simply admit that, and still be his supporters? Is America that partisan?
I have no idea why so many people are willing to defend their politician of choice as if they are perfect. Only one person in human history is alledged to be perfect, and he was nailed to a cross for it (or so the story goes).
but only if you agree to be angry at Kennedy for not actually putting together any rockets.
I don't recall JFK (or his familiy or representatives after his death) ever once claiming he invented rocketry, space flight, or anything like that. Everyone says he provided motivation to the nation (hard to argue that point) and economic and political support (hard to argue that point).
If someone can provide a quote of JFK or any of his representatives saying anything like "I took the initiative in inventing <any part of the space programme>", I'll apologize.
Until then, Al Gore screwed up. Speaking of strange things he said that weren't true, am I the only one that watched the series of debates where he claimed outrageous things like walking in flood waters in Texas (he never did, and his representatives had to apologize for that and other things)? I think the media let him off pretty easy.
All history now but, in my opinion, Gore was a fine politician, probably a good, details-oriented manager, but he had some unexplainable tendancy to lie about trivial things (I heard a TV show at the time explaining some mental reason to do with self-image).
(And please, please, no responses comparing him to "the other guy", who I offered no opinion about. The most insulting and weak form of defense is "but at least he's better than the other choice...")
The amount of people that use P2P software is quite significant and growing.
Like so many things, its not the thing itself, but how it's used. Consider:
1. P2P software can be used for perfectly legal purposes, or infringing purposes.
2. Cars can be used to go to work, or smuggle drugs
3. Guns can be used for personal defense, shooting sports, hunting, or to commit crimes and kill people
4. Speech can be used to inform or slander
5. Knives can be used to cook or kill people
P2P use is growing, and that is good for ISPs. My favorite P2P program is Skype, which I use for all sorts of communications, including to the PSTN (using SkypeOut). As far as I know, everything I do is legal.
It is not good business, however, to facilitate the commission of a crime. The main problem for the industry as a whole is how to promote the legal use of new technologies (such as P2P) while preventing illegal use.
Market is great, but to just let the market decide without any governance is [foolhardy].
Governance is great, but who is governing? I support regulation in theory, but not in practice; I tend not to trust the regulators to be objective and fair arbitors.
The free-market is a horrible method of capitol allocation - but it happens to be the best we know. Worldwide, privatized industries perform better than their state-owned predecessors. People may not like it, but its true, and proven over and over again.
I certainly don't trust regulation to popular vote - tyranny of the majority, group-think, and all that. So, in adsense of regulation, the market seems to work.
In fact, most monopoly conditions and competition perversions are, in fact, due to government. Look at official protections and barriers to entry. Government does not solve the problem - it IS the problem. Just look at what happened to airfares and phone bills when their respective industries were deregulated (hint: consumers got a better deal).
for instance USA has the largest collections of the ones called nuclear bombs.
Untrue. Russia has, by far, the most Nuclear warheads. You can add up all the world's nuclear powers (US, Britian, France, China), and you still don't equal the number of warheads in Russia. US has 10,000, and Russia has 18,000, if memory serves.
I think this is a good example of the demonizing of America that is so popular these days. I'm an American in Europe, and here it is amazing how igorant the European media and population are about America. Sure, America has done plenty to be upset about (I'm not too happy with an awful lot right now), but the amount of disinformation is breathtaking.
I think it is completely in-context to point out that this may not even be a subject if Dow were not American. A Q Khan arms up the world's rogue nations with Nuclear weapons, and gets a full pardon by his government. Russia supplied (illegally) GPS jammers to Iraq. Then let's talk about Chairman Mao: we don't even blink when the Chinese talk about that mass murderer like a hero. Were was his justice?
Right now, hating America, whether with or without reason, is popular. I get hit with all sorts of stereotypes here. But, above all, my favorite thing is that, once my European friends learn that I am well traveled, well read, and have a pretty informed view of the world, they are completely unable to comprend those qualities from an American. So they label me as an a-typical American just to get around having to examine the problems with their own beliefs.
Listen to Savage Nation once in a while (for as long as you can stand it) to find someone you can really label 'radical.'
Want a Democratic majority in this country? Make all Republicans listen to Mike Savage for a solid 4 hours. 90% of Republicans would think "THIS GUY is on my side?" and switch sides.
(No I'm not kidding. How many Republicans really agree with those talk-radio whack-jobs?)
Of course, I could also make 90% of Democrats become Republicans by making them listen to Air America for a day. You think the ring-wing guys are paraniod tin-foil hatters? Listen to Air America for a while.
That's the beautiful thing about American politics: I can choose either major party and be guaranteed to be in horrible company.
Something fantastic may happen in a couple days on this issue: there may be massive electronic vote fraud in several states, and yet Bush will lose anyway!
Why is there this consensus opinion that vote fraud will benifit Republicans? I see it as more likely to benifit Democrats, or at least be carried out by them. Two reasons:
1. The only Presedential election that most scholars agree was decided by fraud was Kennedy over Nixon. Illinios, under Democratic leadership, engaged in massive and widespread fraud. Another interesting point is that the Republican Nixon, against advise, conceded for the good of the nation. Would that happen today, or would the lawyers take over?
2. There is already evidence of fraud in Democrat voter registration drives. Fake names are my favorite. I think the desire to engage in fraud is transparent when the party comes out against showing ID to vote. "Yes, I'm Daffy Duck, here to vote." "Uhm, yeah, can I see some ID." "INTIMIDATION!" Give me a break...
BTW, I'm not a Republican, but their charges of fraud resonate with me by simple observation.
A president who says that a defeated, underdeveloped nation on the other side of the earth is a threat to the superpower know as the United States... is a demagogue.
So Afghanistan was not a threat? I'm sorry, they harbored Osama bin Laden, supported him, protected him, and I was a eye witness in New York on 9/11. That "defeated, underdeveloped" nation was certainly a threat to us. I am only disappointed we waited until after an attack to realize that. I prefer to take the fight to them before they attack us than wait until they do for some sort of proof that they are dangerous.
A president who calls his opponent 'wavering' and 'waffling' when that opponents positions have been steadfast... is a demagogue.
Since I am against the death penalty, I am pretty ashamed of John Kerry's waffling on that subject. He used to be against it, then it became a political liability. He has changed his stance to be against it, except for terrorists, where he is for it. That is not wavering... how?
I do think his explanation for his Iraq war actions is consistent, but I think that consistency is new. Perhaps it was always consistent in his head (the debate convinced me of that), but only a bitter partisan ignoring the real world thinks his positions are potrayed consistently by his own campaign or supporters. Putting him up as the anti-Iraq war candidate is dishonest (and he doesn't claim that, but some do).
I have actually heard Kerry's own supports claim that John Kerry knew that Saddam was not a threat. Kerry says in no uncertain terms that Saddam WAS a threat to the US. The disagreement between him and Bush was/is on how to deal with the threat.
After dishonest thing that is killing me where I live is people saying you should vote against Bush because he's against gay marringe. SO IS JOHN KERRY. Are people really so blinded by party loyalty they think their guy is always right, and the other guy is always wrong?
I'm British. I would vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. I am no Bush fan, but supported the Iraq war
Kerry supported the war as well, and believed Saddam had WMD. He thought the situation was serious. Here are some relevant Kerry quotes:
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation....And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
Unfortunately, popular votes do not elect a president; Electoral College votes do.
Why is it "Unfortunate"? Small states would not have much of a voice without this system. CA, TX, FL, and NY would decide elections, and all those farmers without a coast (feeding the rest of us) wouldn't matter.
I like the Republic/Federal system that we use, as opposed to actual Democracy. I am firmly against the Tyranny of the Majority that Democracy can cause (watch what happens in Iraq if they use an actual Democracy), and I believe that the minorities need representation (be they minorities of race, gender, or geography).
with a little luck, Republicans will implode, leading to a Democratic landslide in 2008
Wouldn't that only be good if the Democrats had a good candidate, and Republicans had a bad one? What if the Democrats nominated [insert-favorite-historical-villian-here]? Blind loyalty to a party is not something to be proud of.
You should look at the record, values, vision, and plan of each candidate and decide based on that. You are voting for a person, not for a party or against another person.
And everyone whose job is better should vote for him?
Only do that if you want Bush to win in an absolute landslide. We could replace the "Bush" and "Kerry" levers with a simple questions: "Is you inflation-adjusted income higher now that in 2001," and, of course, require honest answers.
Even pro-Kerry economists say that income has increased. See story here. The argument is "not by much" and "the income gap is widening." No one at all seriously claims average household income has gone down over the past four years.
Kerry has the reasonable position "We can do better." I agree. But no purpose is served by misleading anyone or stating false "facts."
I don't know why this made me think of this, but my dad spent is career in the Boiler Maker's Union. From job to job, he was in the same Local his entire career. (btw, that was back when "trade union" meant something, and it took some qualifications to get in, and people took pride in their work, and a union stamp meant "quality," not "I'll strike if I don't get a raise, and I don't care if I bankrupt your business").
Smart me and all my smart IT buddies insulted unions in the 1990's. The "old way" of doing things. We were living in the "new economy" (whatever that "new economy" was supposed to mean). This might be one of those (many, many) cases where us young guys should have shut our mouths and listened to what the old guys were telling us.
The only thing they don't do is count towards the damn numbers our government is trying to pass off on us as "getting better".
A great deal of economic performance is based on re-enforcing physcology (just ask any socio-economist). If people believe the economy is good, it is. If they don't, it isn't. A smart economist with a lot more grey hair than me told me in 2001 that we would be in a recession as soon as we thought we were, and out at the same time.
In other words, what if I could wave a wand and make every CEO think the economy is in great shape and all his competitors are expanding? They would all start hiring, pumping money into the economy (through the workforce) and the economy does get better. Every central banker on the planet knows the economic differences you make just by jawboning.
Another tibbit is that there is a great deal of evidence that all the anti-offshoring talk caused more offshoring. The reason is that businesses that weren't doing it much or at all started believing it was mainstream and all their competitors were doing it (why else would there be so much protest?). That made them ramp up their own offshoring programs as a competitive response. Simply sayings things can make them true.
Being publically optimistic about the economy isn't just politics - it really does help the economy. John Kerry really does hurt the economy by talking it down. If hiring managers don't "feel good" about where we are going, they don't hire.
(for the record, I don't support either Bush or Kerry).
we definitely need to displace bush no matter what
That is the thinking that puts true radicals in power. Putin is reinstating the USSR because "we must defeat Chechens no matter what." The US Electoral system is based on voting for candidates, not against them. If we don't remember that, we risk the continued race to the bottom the two parties have us on.
What about the nonsense "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush?" I know of several people that are so ticked that Nader may not be allowed on their state ballot, that they are going to march to the polls and vote Bush if Nader isn't a choice. I hope Democrats doing the most un-democratic thing imaginable (trying to deny ballot access) backfires.
And, if Kerry wins because people voted against Bush, would he really have a mandate?
No. In our system, you march to the polls and vote in support of someone. I plan to march to the poll on election day and pull the leaver in support of the candidate I favor the most.
Gore still won Florida in 2000 despite the 2.5% nader vote
Actually, all but one of the total media recounts showed that Bush, in fact, won. The one media recount method that showed Gore winning was very suspicious and required awarding Gore many suspect ballots.
I didn't vote Bush in 2000, and I'm not voting Bush in 2004, but saying he didn't win shows ignorance of both the system and the facts. The media recount (that took place well after the election) shows that Bush would have won even if an entire state-wide recount was allowed to proceed.
Also, the Supreme Court DID NOT award Bush the election, as so many claim. They narrowly ruled on a particular issue, and the result was the count stopping, and Bush winning. I know it is hard to see the difference, but there is an important difference. The Supreme Court ruled on a matter of law, they did appoint the President.
I know many undecides who are leaning toward Bush (ick). Why? They see dishonesty elsewhere. Even if you think Bush is dishonest, that means that everyone is being dishonest, so why not go with the known evil? The opposition (including myself) must hold ourselves to a higher standard unless we admit we are no better.
The unfair federal tax burden right now is FICA, not Federal Income Tax.
I actually wish we would just do away with the entire Social Security system. But, if we can't do that, how can we take steps to make it fair?
Right now, both contributions and benifits are capped. You don't pay after about $82k of income, and your benifits are capped based on that. I like the fact that it is completly even across all incomes (that is fair, because 10% of $10 is well less than 10% of $50k, so everyone pays a proportional share based on their means. "From each according to their ability.." in that sense). If the goal really is some grand retirement system, why don't we remove the caps on contributions and payments?
Or, like I said, do away with it entirely and do everything we can to encourage private accounts like 401(k)s. When encouraging private accounts, lets not forget education, to not have a repeat of Enron (where employees were putting all their retirement into a single stock, with management encouraging them all the way).
Bush deceived the nation, and he lied to the world.
On the history channel, I saw that only like four presidents have ever actually lied, and the current President isn't one of them. For this purpose, lied was defined as "saying something known at the time to be false." For instance, if I tell my wife the milk in the fridge isn't spoiled, and I really believe it to be true, and she discovers it is, in fact, spoiled, I really didn't lie to her. I made a mistake.
I think two of the ones that actually lied are Clinton and Nixon. I forget the other two (but maybe someone else can fill in). I do believe they are well before the 1950's.
So while many of us may not like W, it's no use calling him a liar, because no one can find where he said something he knew for certain at the time he said it to be false. And if you know this, and still call him a liar, shame on you for being dishonest by calling someone else dishonest.
As an aside, I saw Hillary Clinton on Larry King. Larry tried to get her to say that W lied about WMD in Iraq. Her response? That she and her husband both believed that Iraq had WMD; Congress believed it; the CIA believed it. She refused to say that Bush had deliberatly lied, because she and the former President both knew he hadn't.
Re:Courage of their Convictions?
on
Fabian Pascal Reacts
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm sorry, but to dismiss someone (and their arguments) as cowardly because they use a screen name or user account is to ignore the substance of their remarks.
Is he entirely wrong? Hiding behind the screen name - and I do hide, you will not find my real name, address, and phone number in my/. journal - removes some accountability. As soon as you remove accountability, people will do and say things they wouldn't if they were accountable.
I do write articles in print media under my real name. I check facts, think things through, cite sources, interview experts, and all the other sorts of things you do when your reputation is on the line (accountability). During the course of this research, I discover that I don't know everything, and the quality of the articles is much higher because of the research (and the research happens to a large extent because of accountability).
Now, here on Slashdot, I am free to say whatever comes to mind, as we all are. How many things have been stated as absolute fact that a quick bit of research would show are false? How many people would shoot off at the mouth with so little thought if the comments would be associated with them, personally, throughout their life?
Being able to speak anonyously is a good thing for political reasons (dissonants in China and the Middle East don't enjoy the same freedoms we do in the West, so I don't fault them for remaining anonymous or using aliases in commentary). However, any time someone is speaking anonymously, what's wrong with being a bit more suspicious of what they say?
In the US, everyone seems to agree that there is an uneven distribution of wealth. Whether or not the distribution is impropoer is a matter of some debate.
The basic idea of the "American dream" is that if you work hard, make the right decisions, do the right things, and live a good life, you will do better that others. Its the incentive the capitalist system is built on (the so-called "good greed").
If someone creates vast wealth, they should be vastly wealthy. The question in some of these cases is: are the people making these enormous sums the ones creating the wealth, or are they leeches on past success? We can all name some incredably wealthy people who most agree deserve the wealth, and other incredably wealthy people who seem to have lucked up (won the lottery, inheritance, landed a good CEO job, lucked up and got hired by one of the startups that "made it").
Again, everyone knows that wealth distribution is uneven, but whether or not it is proper is another thing.
To make another point, the US has a much higher GDP per-capita than most of the world. Its higher than Canada, higher than the EU-15, higher than the EU-25 (of course). The standard of living in the US is high compared with other G8 members, health care is very good. Rich people from around the world send their family to US based hosiptals instead of using their home-country medical systems. While the US certainly needs to address some problems (and I agree there are wealth distribution issues, but I probably disagree with you on the causes), the US is doing something right.
Atheists don't believe in gods just like you don't believe that you are a part of the Matrix (TM) even though you can't prove that the Matrix doesn't exist.
I've experience deja vu. That feeling is associated with the Matrix. Therefore, the Matrix is real.
No, I'm not being cute, I'm making a point. Many religious leaders claim there belief comes from an internal feeling. Research has been done, and those feelings are, indeed, real, and Cat Scans and MRIs show certain activity. The origin of those feelings is a matter of some debate, but people really do feel uplifted, enlightened, happy, etc. The studies have advanced far enough that researches can use stimulus to induce the religious feeling in people on a fairly repeatable basis. Looks to be some chemical release triggered by situational settings.
Anyway, facsinating stuff. Imagine learning that Deja Vu isn't proof of the Matrix, but just some chemical reaction in the brain. Then what would happen to organized religion?
As any philosopher can tell you, proving a negative in most situations is not possible. That is why the burden of proof is generally on those on the positive side of an argument.
For instance, let's say I claim that I can fly. You claim I cannot. I ask you to prove that I can not fly, or else you must accept that I can. There is no way for you to prove I can't fly. You can even push me off a building, and, if I survive (no matter how injured), I can simply claim that I choose not to fly, but I could have.
Of course, just because I choose not to prove that I can fly, does not mean that I cannot, in fact, fly. Its just that for my claim to have merit, I must be prepared to prove it. In other words, those who believe something are free to believe as they wish, proof or no, but those who want others to believe as they do should be prepared to provide proof.
(None of this was, per se, about religion, just addressing the parent and his "prove a negative" request)
You realize that is false, right? Looking at a cross section of wages for the past 100 years in the US, wages have risen. They have even risen in the past 5 years. 100 years of manufacturing outsourcing, tech outsourcing, immigration, etc, etc, and wages still posted gains. I cannot find a single time in the past 100 years were the 10-year moving average for wages sank.
If you compare the middle class person of 1950 to someone at the 20-th percentile today (in other words, the top of "poor"), the person today is better off in all measurable ways. Better health care, better education, indoor plumbing, better sanitation, better food, and higher wages.
(As a thought in socioeconomics, consider that, although the modern day "top of poor" man is better off in all measureable ways than the 1950 middle-class man, the 1950 middle-class man was happier and felt better off. People judge their position compared with others, not in absolute terms.)
Slashdot Mirror
Millions have been saved from work, slave, and concentration camps because most of us are not like you.
That alone makes me a pretty useless solider.
Some of us have true compassion for humanity and the courage to stand up and fight. Others hide cowardice in a cloak of morality and relativism and so ignore preventable suffering and grave injustice. Which one are you?
I was with you, at least in principle, until this statement. Gore didn't "misstate", he lied. That is, of course, unless you are willing to say that all of the things that were not true said by the current administration were simply "misstatements."
You have to step back and see the world for what it is and people for what they are. Gore told some lies. Now, there is no way that he intended to claim to have invented the Internet, but he was certainly trying to exagerate his role, and so stumbled over the line.
Honest people should just go to the other extreme: be so honest as to almost be ridiculous. Gore pushed the envelope the other way trying to claim things, and fell over the cliff a couple times. He made a bone-headed statement about the Internet (and about the Texas flood waters). Why can't his supporters simply admit that, and still be his supporters? Is America that partisan?
I have no idea why so many people are willing to defend their politician of choice as if they are perfect. Only one person in human history is alledged to be perfect, and he was nailed to a cross for it (or so the story goes).
I don't recall JFK (or his familiy or representatives after his death) ever once claiming he invented rocketry, space flight, or anything like that. Everyone says he provided motivation to the nation (hard to argue that point) and economic and political support (hard to argue that point).
If someone can provide a quote of JFK or any of his representatives saying anything like "I took the initiative in inventing <any part of the space programme>", I'll apologize.
Until then, Al Gore screwed up. Speaking of strange things he said that weren't true, am I the only one that watched the series of debates where he claimed outrageous things like walking in flood waters in Texas (he never did, and his representatives had to apologize for that and other things)? I think the media let him off pretty easy.
All history now but, in my opinion, Gore was a fine politician, probably a good, details-oriented manager, but he had some unexplainable tendancy to lie about trivial things (I heard a TV show at the time explaining some mental reason to do with self-image).
(And please, please, no responses comparing him to "the other guy", who I offered no opinion about. The most insulting and weak form of defense is "but at least he's better than the other choice...")
I prefer old Star Trek: where all aliens speak English, and alien chicks are always hot and ready to go!
Jim Kirk didn't need some fancy Space Router to get an intergalactic connection... if you know what I mean... *wink*
<quagmire>
90 seconds of weightlessness to join... thanks about 60 more than I need.... aaalllll riiiigghhhhttt....
</quagmire>
Like so many things, its not the thing itself, but how it's used. Consider:
1. P2P software can be used for perfectly legal purposes, or infringing purposes.
2. Cars can be used to go to work, or smuggle drugs
3. Guns can be used for personal defense, shooting sports, hunting, or to commit crimes and kill people
4. Speech can be used to inform or slander
5. Knives can be used to cook or kill people
P2P use is growing, and that is good for ISPs. My favorite P2P program is Skype, which I use for all sorts of communications, including to the PSTN (using SkypeOut). As far as I know, everything I do is legal.
It is not good business, however, to facilitate the commission of a crime. The main problem for the industry as a whole is how to promote the legal use of new technologies (such as P2P) while preventing illegal use.
Governance is great, but who is governing? I support regulation in theory, but not in practice; I tend not to trust the regulators to be objective and fair arbitors.
The free-market is a horrible method of capitol allocation - but it happens to be the best we know. Worldwide, privatized industries perform better than their state-owned predecessors. People may not like it, but its true, and proven over and over again.
I certainly don't trust regulation to popular vote - tyranny of the majority, group-think, and all that. So, in adsense of regulation, the market seems to work.
In fact, most monopoly conditions and competition perversions are, in fact, due to government. Look at official protections and barriers to entry. Government does not solve the problem - it IS the problem. Just look at what happened to airfares and phone bills when their respective industries were deregulated (hint: consumers got a better deal).
Untrue. Russia has, by far, the most Nuclear warheads. You can add up all the world's nuclear powers (US, Britian, France, China), and you still don't equal the number of warheads in Russia. US has 10,000, and Russia has 18,000, if memory serves.
I think this is a good example of the demonizing of America that is so popular these days. I'm an American in Europe, and here it is amazing how igorant the European media and population are about America. Sure, America has done plenty to be upset about (I'm not too happy with an awful lot right now), but the amount of disinformation is breathtaking.
I think it is completely in-context to point out that this may not even be a subject if Dow were not American. A Q Khan arms up the world's rogue nations with Nuclear weapons, and gets a full pardon by his government. Russia supplied (illegally) GPS jammers to Iraq. Then let's talk about Chairman Mao: we don't even blink when the Chinese talk about that mass murderer like a hero. Were was his justice?
Right now, hating America, whether with or without reason, is popular. I get hit with all sorts of stereotypes here. But, above all, my favorite thing is that, once my European friends learn that I am well traveled, well read, and have a pretty informed view of the world, they are completely unable to comprend those qualities from an American. So they label me as an a-typical American just to get around having to examine the problems with their own beliefs.
Want a Democratic majority in this country? Make all Republicans listen to Mike Savage for a solid 4 hours. 90% of Republicans would think "THIS GUY is on my side?" and switch sides.
(No I'm not kidding. How many Republicans really agree with those talk-radio whack-jobs?)
Of course, I could also make 90% of Democrats become Republicans by making them listen to Air America for a day. You think the ring-wing guys are paraniod tin-foil hatters? Listen to Air America for a while.
That's the beautiful thing about American politics: I can choose either major party and be guaranteed to be in horrible company.
Why is there this consensus opinion that vote fraud will benifit Republicans? I see it as more likely to benifit Democrats, or at least be carried out by them. Two reasons:
1. The only Presedential election that most scholars agree was decided by fraud was Kennedy over Nixon. Illinios, under Democratic leadership, engaged in massive and widespread fraud. Another interesting point is that the Republican Nixon, against advise, conceded for the good of the nation. Would that happen today, or would the lawyers take over?
2. There is already evidence of fraud in Democrat voter registration drives. Fake names are my favorite. I think the desire to engage in fraud is transparent when the party comes out against showing ID to vote. "Yes, I'm Daffy Duck, here to vote." "Uhm, yeah, can I see some ID." "INTIMIDATION!" Give me a break...
BTW, I'm not a Republican, but their charges of fraud resonate with me by simple observation.
So Afghanistan was not a threat? I'm sorry, they harbored Osama bin Laden, supported him, protected him, and I was a eye witness in New York on 9/11. That "defeated, underdeveloped" nation was certainly a threat to us. I am only disappointed we waited until after an attack to realize that. I prefer to take the fight to them before they attack us than wait until they do for some sort of proof that they are dangerous.
A president who calls his opponent 'wavering' and 'waffling' when that opponents positions have been steadfast... is a demagogue.
Since I am against the death penalty, I am pretty ashamed of John Kerry's waffling on that subject. He used to be against it, then it became a political liability. He has changed his stance to be against it, except for terrorists, where he is for it. That is not wavering... how?
I do think his explanation for his Iraq war actions is consistent, but I think that consistency is new. Perhaps it was always consistent in his head (the debate convinced me of that), but only a bitter partisan ignoring the real world thinks his positions are potrayed consistently by his own campaign or supporters. Putting him up as the anti-Iraq war candidate is dishonest (and he doesn't claim that, but some do).
I have actually heard Kerry's own supports claim that John Kerry knew that Saddam was not a threat. Kerry says in no uncertain terms that Saddam WAS a threat to the US. The disagreement between him and Bush was/is on how to deal with the threat.
After dishonest thing that is killing me where I live is people saying you should vote against Bush because he's against gay marringe. SO IS JOHN KERRY. Are people really so blinded by party loyalty they think their guy is always right, and the other guy is always wrong?
Kerry supported the war as well, and believed Saddam had WMD. He thought the situation was serious. Here are some relevant Kerry quotes:
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
Why is it "Unfortunate"? Small states would not have much of a voice without this system. CA, TX, FL, and NY would decide elections, and all those farmers without a coast (feeding the rest of us) wouldn't matter.
I like the Republic/Federal system that we use, as opposed to actual Democracy. I am firmly against the Tyranny of the Majority that Democracy can cause (watch what happens in Iraq if they use an actual Democracy), and I believe that the minorities need representation (be they minorities of race, gender, or geography).
with a little luck, Republicans will implode, leading to a Democratic landslide in 2008
Wouldn't that only be good if the Democrats had a good candidate, and Republicans had a bad one? What if the Democrats nominated [insert-favorite-historical-villian-here]? Blind loyalty to a party is not something to be proud of.
You should look at the record, values, vision, and plan of each candidate and decide based on that. You are voting for a person, not for a party or against another person.
Only do that if you want Bush to win in an absolute landslide. We could replace the "Bush" and "Kerry" levers with a simple questions: "Is you inflation-adjusted income higher now that in 2001," and, of course, require honest answers.
Even pro-Kerry economists say that income has increased. See story here. The argument is "not by much" and "the income gap is widening." No one at all seriously claims average household income has gone down over the past four years.
Kerry has the reasonable position "We can do better." I agree. But no purpose is served by misleading anyone or stating false "facts."
I don't know why this made me think of this, but my dad spent is career in the Boiler Maker's Union. From job to job, he was in the same Local his entire career. (btw, that was back when "trade union" meant something, and it took some qualifications to get in, and people took pride in their work, and a union stamp meant "quality," not "I'll strike if I don't get a raise, and I don't care if I bankrupt your business").
Smart me and all my smart IT buddies insulted unions in the 1990's. The "old way" of doing things. We were living in the "new economy" (whatever that "new economy" was supposed to mean). This might be one of those (many, many) cases where us young guys should have shut our mouths and listened to what the old guys were telling us.
A great deal of economic performance is based on re-enforcing physcology (just ask any socio-economist). If people believe the economy is good, it is. If they don't, it isn't. A smart economist with a lot more grey hair than me told me in 2001 that we would be in a recession as soon as we thought we were, and out at the same time.
In other words, what if I could wave a wand and make every CEO think the economy is in great shape and all his competitors are expanding? They would all start hiring, pumping money into the economy (through the workforce) and the economy does get better. Every central banker on the planet knows the economic differences you make just by jawboning.
Another tibbit is that there is a great deal of evidence that all the anti-offshoring talk caused more offshoring. The reason is that businesses that weren't doing it much or at all started believing it was mainstream and all their competitors were doing it (why else would there be so much protest?). That made them ramp up their own offshoring programs as a competitive response. Simply sayings things can make them true.
Being publically optimistic about the economy isn't just politics - it really does help the economy. John Kerry really does hurt the economy by talking it down. If hiring managers don't "feel good" about where we are going, they don't hire.
(for the record, I don't support either Bush or Kerry).
That is the thinking that puts true radicals in power. Putin is reinstating the USSR because "we must defeat Chechens no matter what." The US Electoral system is based on voting for candidates, not against them. If we don't remember that, we risk the continued race to the bottom the two parties have us on.
What about the nonsense "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush?" I know of several people that are so ticked that Nader may not be allowed on their state ballot, that they are going to march to the polls and vote Bush if Nader isn't a choice. I hope Democrats doing the most un-democratic thing imaginable (trying to deny ballot access) backfires.
And, if Kerry wins because people voted against Bush, would he really have a mandate?
No. In our system, you march to the polls and vote in support of someone. I plan to march to the poll on election day and pull the leaver in support of the candidate I favor the most.
Actually, all but one of the total media recounts showed that Bush, in fact, won. The one media recount method that showed Gore winning was very suspicious and required awarding Gore many suspect ballots.
I didn't vote Bush in 2000, and I'm not voting Bush in 2004, but saying he didn't win shows ignorance of both the system and the facts. The media recount (that took place well after the election) shows that Bush would have won even if an entire state-wide recount was allowed to proceed.
Also, the Supreme Court DID NOT award Bush the election, as so many claim. They narrowly ruled on a particular issue, and the result was the count stopping, and Bush winning. I know it is hard to see the difference, but there is an important difference. The Supreme Court ruled on a matter of law, they did appoint the President.
I know many undecides who are leaning toward Bush (ick). Why? They see dishonesty elsewhere. Even if you think Bush is dishonest, that means that everyone is being dishonest, so why not go with the known evil? The opposition (including myself) must hold ourselves to a higher standard unless we admit we are no better.
I actually wish we would just do away with the entire Social Security system. But, if we can't do that, how can we take steps to make it fair?
Right now, both contributions and benifits are capped. You don't pay after about $82k of income, and your benifits are capped based on that. I like the fact that it is completly even across all incomes (that is fair, because 10% of $10 is well less than 10% of $50k, so everyone pays a proportional share based on their means. "From each according to their ability.." in that sense). If the goal really is some grand retirement system, why don't we remove the caps on contributions and payments?
Or, like I said, do away with it entirely and do everything we can to encourage private accounts like 401(k)s. When encouraging private accounts, lets not forget education, to not have a repeat of Enron (where employees were putting all their retirement into a single stock, with management encouraging them all the way).
On the history channel, I saw that only like four presidents have ever actually lied, and the current President isn't one of them. For this purpose, lied was defined as "saying something known at the time to be false." For instance, if I tell my wife the milk in the fridge isn't spoiled, and I really believe it to be true, and she discovers it is, in fact, spoiled, I really didn't lie to her. I made a mistake.
I think two of the ones that actually lied are Clinton and Nixon. I forget the other two (but maybe someone else can fill in). I do believe they are well before the 1950's.
So while many of us may not like W, it's no use calling him a liar, because no one can find where he said something he knew for certain at the time he said it to be false. And if you know this, and still call him a liar, shame on you for being dishonest by calling someone else dishonest.
As an aside, I saw Hillary Clinton on Larry King. Larry tried to get her to say that W lied about WMD in Iraq. Her response? That she and her husband both believed that Iraq had WMD; Congress believed it; the CIA believed it. She refused to say that Bush had deliberatly lied, because she and the former President both knew he hadn't.
Is he entirely wrong? Hiding behind the screen name - and I do hide, you will not find my real name, address, and phone number in my /. journal - removes some accountability. As soon as you remove accountability, people will do and say things they wouldn't if they were accountable.
I do write articles in print media under my real name. I check facts, think things through, cite sources, interview experts, and all the other sorts of things you do when your reputation is on the line (accountability). During the course of this research, I discover that I don't know everything, and the quality of the articles is much higher because of the research (and the research happens to a large extent because of accountability).
Now, here on Slashdot, I am free to say whatever comes to mind, as we all are. How many things have been stated as absolute fact that a quick bit of research would show are false? How many people would shoot off at the mouth with so little thought if the comments would be associated with them, personally, throughout their life?
Being able to speak anonyously is a good thing for political reasons (dissonants in China and the Middle East don't enjoy the same freedoms we do in the West, so I don't fault them for remaining anonymous or using aliases in commentary). However, any time someone is speaking anonymously, what's wrong with being a bit more suspicious of what they say?
In the US, everyone seems to agree that there is an uneven distribution of wealth. Whether or not the distribution is impropoer is a matter of some debate.
The basic idea of the "American dream" is that if you work hard, make the right decisions, do the right things, and live a good life, you will do better that others. Its the incentive the capitalist system is built on (the so-called "good greed").
If someone creates vast wealth, they should be vastly wealthy. The question in some of these cases is: are the people making these enormous sums the ones creating the wealth, or are they leeches on past success? We can all name some incredably wealthy people who most agree deserve the wealth, and other incredably wealthy people who seem to have lucked up (won the lottery, inheritance, landed a good CEO job, lucked up and got hired by one of the startups that "made it").
Again, everyone knows that wealth distribution is uneven, but whether or not it is proper is another thing.
To make another point, the US has a much higher GDP per-capita than most of the world. Its higher than Canada, higher than the EU-15, higher than the EU-25 (of course). The standard of living in the US is high compared with other G8 members, health care is very good. Rich people from around the world send their family to US based hosiptals instead of using their home-country medical systems. While the US certainly needs to address some problems (and I agree there are wealth distribution issues, but I probably disagree with you on the causes), the US is doing something right.
I've experience deja vu. That feeling is associated with the Matrix. Therefore, the Matrix is real.
No, I'm not being cute, I'm making a point. Many religious leaders claim there belief comes from an internal feeling. Research has been done, and those feelings are, indeed, real, and Cat Scans and MRIs show certain activity. The origin of those feelings is a matter of some debate, but people really do feel uplifted, enlightened, happy, etc. The studies have advanced far enough that researches can use stimulus to induce the religious feeling in people on a fairly repeatable basis. Looks to be some chemical release triggered by situational settings.
Anyway, facsinating stuff. Imagine learning that Deja Vu isn't proof of the Matrix, but just some chemical reaction in the brain. Then what would happen to organized religion?
As any philosopher can tell you, proving a negative in most situations is not possible. That is why the burden of proof is generally on those on the positive side of an argument.
For instance, let's say I claim that I can fly. You claim I cannot. I ask you to prove that I can not fly, or else you must accept that I can. There is no way for you to prove I can't fly. You can even push me off a building, and, if I survive (no matter how injured), I can simply claim that I choose not to fly, but I could have.
Of course, just because I choose not to prove that I can fly, does not mean that I cannot, in fact, fly. Its just that for my claim to have merit, I must be prepared to prove it. In other words, those who believe something are free to believe as they wish, proof or no, but those who want others to believe as they do should be prepared to provide proof.
(None of this was, per se, about religion, just addressing the parent and his "prove a negative" request)
You realize that is false, right? Looking at a cross section of wages for the past 100 years in the US, wages have risen. They have even risen in the past 5 years. 100 years of manufacturing outsourcing, tech outsourcing, immigration, etc, etc, and wages still posted gains. I cannot find a single time in the past 100 years were the 10-year moving average for wages sank.
If you compare the middle class person of 1950 to someone at the 20-th percentile today (in other words, the top of "poor"), the person today is better off in all measurable ways. Better health care, better education, indoor plumbing, better sanitation, better food, and higher wages.
(As a thought in socioeconomics, consider that, although the modern day "top of poor" man is better off in all measureable ways than the 1950 middle-class man, the 1950 middle-class man was happier and felt better off. People judge their position compared with others, not in absolute terms.)