What does being independent mean in a country with only two parties (that matter)? In the end, you will end up voting for one of these two anyway (especially given that no other party, other than possibly the Green Party and maybe the Libertarian Party, run candidates in all states). I think when people say that they are REpublican or Democrat, that's what they mean--they have already made up their mind.
On a different note, do keep in mind that people who are ideologically driven, or are away from the center/moderate area, will vote for vote the "same" parties all the time. For example, if I was living in USA, I would vote for the the Green Party all the time (unless I'm trying to block someone from coming to power, in which case I might vote Democrat--but this is only extreme cases (even Bush doesn't qualify)).
To sum all this up... so you say you are independent? ok. But how much do you want to bet that you'll vote Republican or Democrat? The problem is the SYSTEM.
How? What is in the US system that prevents military coups? I don't think there is anything. The only reason USA hasn't had military coups is because there haven't been a huge civil unrest. USA is a young country (yes 200+ years is young) and so nothing crazy has happened. Also, USA is fairly isolated from other countries (only Canada and Mexico anywhere near it) so no one has attempted to overthrow the government (kind of like how CIA overthrows other goverments).
Having said that, USA, in some sense, did have a coup. It was called the Civil War. There was almost a revolt at that time.
I don't see anything in the US system to prevent coups. Some military commander can simply go up to the President and say "I want you out of here" and that's the end of hte presidency. Hasn't happened but I don't see why it cannot happen.
I think two parties seems to be the equilibrium position.
I completely disagree with your view, and your equilibrium theory.
I don't think there is such a thing as equilibrium. You can't say 2 parties are at equilibrium any more than 4 parties. The flaw with USA stems from its SYSTEM. The US system is severely flawed. There is no other way to look at it. This is why I prefer the British style system (eg. Canada, Isreal, India, etc).
To see how bad the US system is, just look at history. There were HUGE periods where ONE PARTY ruled. After USA was founded, the Democratic-Republican Party (modern day Democratic Party) elected the president and controlled everything for something like 50 years. Its competition, the Federalist Party, was very weak and I don't think ever elected a president. The same thing happened later on. Before the modern day Republican Party was formed, there wasn't really much competition.
If anything, I claim that USA was controlled by one party throughout its whole life (with bits here and there). Even now, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are pretty much the same party if you look at its econopolitical issues (eg. imperialism, war, welfare, human rights--both parties are almost identical in these things). They might say different things but they never implement any of their "promises". For example, the Democratic Party claims to support workers yet they are in bed with corporations. The Republican Party claims to shrink goverment yet is often reponsible for running massive deficit (hence increasing debt), increasing government bureaucracy, often by increasing the military, and so forth. If some alien from another planet came and looked at Democrat or Republican governments after elected to power, the alien would have a hard time distinguishing them. This is why some on the far-right call the Democratic and Republican parties the War Party, while some on the far-left call them the Corporate Party.
It is my theory that after a few more terrorist attacks in USA (seems inevitable based on the path USA has taken), the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will merge into one party. And USA will end up as it was in the 1700's or 1800's, ruled by one party with others not mattering much. There might be revolution at that point and I hope some revolutionary creates a system that facilitates more parties. The current system discriminates heavily in favour of one party or two party nation.
The worst thing about all that is.... he is going to be re-elected. All Bush needs to get re-elected is another terrorist "threat" of some sort. Don't worry. The neocons are cooking up threats (supposedly Syria is almost an imminent threat) and the disinformation against Saudi Arabia is going to ramp up soon...
The peaceful Martians who have been watching events on earth finally found the rover that penetrated their home planet defenses (too busy watching earth meant that they missed it all this time). The Martians have been unhappy with violent humans on earth. So they destroyed several previous probes that were thought to be a threat (from Britain, and Japan). Disturbed by US imperialism on earth, the Martians mistook the scientific probe as a military probe. Needless to say, the probe has been destroyed beyone recognization.
I'm sorry about being the bearer of bad news...
Hey, look on the bright side, rumour has it that the Martians don't know about the other lander that is supposed to land on Saturday. That just might survive.
Oh one last thing, could you guys stop calling the Martians green people? Apart from the fact they are not people, they are not green either. Informed sources tell me that the Martians are a transparent clear-like being.
ok here are some links... I didn't spend much time so there isn't much... but it should give you an idea. As I mentioned earlier, it is harder to find stuff fore the present day (90's and 2000's), not because they are less corrupt, but because the information only comes out after a while. Some of these stories may be duplicates--I didn't spend time weeding them out...
DISCLAIMER: I have not checked the sources. I am hoping that none of this is fabricated information. Questionable sources are marked with (Q)
Yes, I think you are lumping fascism (such as Nazism) and Stalinism together because they are both extreme authoratarian (totalitarian). In that sense, they are similar (HitlerStalin; SSKGB; AxisUSSR; political opponents->death; etc). But they were very different. If they were as similar as you imply, they would have formed an alliance and attempted to take over the world.
As far as Mussolini, just because members supposedly came from leftist groups, or that the word comes from union doesn't change things. What matters is the ultimate deeds and underlying philosophies that drive someone. For example, the far-right (say fascists) might be anti-war. The left-wing might be anti-war too. So both of them support the same position (opposition to war). However the underlying reasons are totally different. Fascists are against war because they don't want to lose their "kind" in a war that does not benefit them (eg. don't want to lose "whites" in a war that hardly benefits "whites"). Progressives and other leftists might be against the war because they are compassionate, and just don't like to see people dying (regardless of ethnicity, country, religion, etc). One can hardly lump these together--the underlying philosophies are vastly different.
As a side note, even the Nazi party was called some Worker's Party (don't remember but something like Deutche Worker's Party or something). But it had very little to do with the typical Communist Worker's Parties. Would you claim they are the same just based on that?
ok it wasn't exactly like a typical car chase. The car was chasing a train. It had tension. Something seriously lacking in modern day car chase scenes like Matrix Reloaded.
I admit that Ronin is great. As someone below says, it has good sound (although I don't have a good tv or a sound system). Ronin, if I remember correctly, has the ACTUAL sounds of the cars. Most films have fake sounds (fake in the sense that the sounds aren't necessarily from the car that they are driving; the sounds may be generic). Ronin used real sound from the car engine.
French Connection is better than Ronin, as a film. Not sure about the chase scene but the films don't compare...
True sci-fi fans watch Star Trek because it's good sci-fi.
Star Trek is NOT good sci-fi. You hate Babylon 5 but that's more a true sci-fi show than Star Trek. Star Trek is a poor man's sci-fi show. Simple, not thoughtful, action oriented, and very little science. You found 5 episodes of Babylon 5 boring. ok fine. But find me 5 episodes of Star Trek that are better.
The fact that you hate Babylon 5, Contact, and 2001:ASO makes me think you are not even a sci-fi fan. No offense but you are probably the type of fan who thinks Terminator 3 was the best sci-fi film.
Maybe you've been too busy looking for points to hate, but Starfleet is a -military- organization and, as such, have a rank system.
This is based on speculation but I imagine that you would have a more egalitarian society in the future. I mean, so far in the future yet same organization as now. On top of that, are you sure Starfleet is a military organization? I think most of the ships you see in the series are civilian vehicles. Aren't they for exploration (i.e. scientific ships)? The vast majority of the episodes are exploratory rather than militaristic.
The Federation of Planets, however, is a democracy. Maybe you should spend a little more time paying attention, rather than glancing at it and proclaiming it "garbage", eh?
You may be right about democracy but from what I have seen (admittedly not much; mostly ST:TNG) it's not clear to me. Yes, it's a federation but is it really democracy? Seems like earth has too much power but I could be wrong.
Not that it matters, since it was clearly stated in First Contact that "material gain is no longer the driving force" behind humans' actions. Monetary systems are the primary cause of "classes" in a society. When those systems are abandoned in favor of "doing something because it's the right thing to do", those classes cease to exist.
In the sense of a lack of money, you are right. But just based on the ship hierarchy it seems that it is a classist society. If so then you would see the poor.
As far as organized criminals are concerned, it was my mistake. I shouldn't have said that. Some of the "bad guys" in Star Trek are the future mafia.
I personally do not give a damn about there being no "homeless" or "organized" criminals in a TV show because I watch it to *ESCAPE* the real world, not to see a forecast of a possible future.
If you are escaping the real world, why are you watching sci-fi? Why not watch fantasy?
Oh, and by the way, "Solaris" is a boring, bland movie, both in its original and remake versions - give me "Dark Star", "Blade Runner" or an episode of Trek (not Enterprise) any day of the week.
I admit that Solaris is VERY boring. However, it is thought provoking...far more so than Star Trek.
I don't know anything about these online music stores. If they use the same format, and if they can be re-sold (are you allowed to re-sell?) then there might be room for arbitrage.
Let's admit it: Star Trek sucks. True sci-fi fans will only watch it for fun. Most Star Trek fans are casual mainstream fans who are not into sci-fi. Shows like Babylon 5 were 100x better.
And worst of all... the Star Trek films. Man, they suck really badly. No true sci-fi fan would be caught watching them over Contact, 2001:ASO, Solaris, or the few other sci-fi movies.
Also, Star Trek society is very authoratarian society. Has anyone noticed how doctors or engineers are below commanders? Yep, Star Trek is a classist society taken to the extreme. Modern world is 100x better (even for the suffering) than Star Trek. Star Trek is also fake in that sense it does not show the downside of humanity (eg. homeless, organized criminals, etc)--yes these people will exist in the future (if it is a classist society like Star Trek). On top of all that, how come most aliens are humanoids and behave just like humans? It's almost as if aliens didn't even exist?
There is actually a 2 dimentional system. Check it out: it's called Political Compass. Take the test and see how you place yourself. It is the most accurate system I have found on the web.
I actually support the Political Compass system. I always recommend others to follow it too (BTW, what's your "results"? don't tell me if you don't want to).
My point is that liberalism is more compatible with libertarianism. If what I say is correct, another way to looking is that you would see FAR MORE people/parties/etc on the bottom-left quadrant of Political Compass than bottom-right. Also, you would see parties/people/etc on the left that are further down (i.e. extreme libertarian) than on the right. You would see this if you look at the following charts (scroll down to the chart):
If you go by the charts, you'll note that most libertarians are left, and left tends to be even more extremist libertarian than right. Of course, these charts may or may not be biased and it doesn't have enough sample points. One can argue that the chart is inconclusive since you also get extreme authoratarian on the left (like Stalin), and it might even seem that there are more extreme libertarians and extreme authoratarians on the left (which kind of erases everything out).
No organization is designed to be rogue. Someone with power would always want to control it and hence these organizations aren't designed to be rogue. Some branch of the goverment is always supposed to control these organizations. In the Canadian case, I think it is the solicitor-general but I'm not sure (someone correct me if I'm wrong). One just needs to look at other notorious spy agencies like the SS and KGB to see that they were actually supposed to be controlled by people at one time. It's just that they "acquire" their rogueness over time. Especially if left to their own will. In the case of USA, for example, Iran-Contra was supposedly not approved by President Ronald Reagan. Yet here you have the CIA facilitating some illegal activity without the support or knowledge of the President of USA.
By the way, CSIS doesn't like it if you talk about war-driving.
What's war-driving? Anyway, CSIS probably already monitors me due to my harsh criticism of USA, Canada, and others.
The main problem with right wing parties, which you touched on, is that they do tend to be more against the minorities for various reasons (e.g. homosexuals), this is an aspect I find very distasteful in itself. However if you drop the bigotry then that might actually be a side I could claim to lean to.
I don't think you can just ignore that "bigotry". That is one the reasons conservatism rarely supports liberties. I'm not saying YOU are a bigot or that all conservatives are. However the ideology lends itself to it.
It's not as if conservatives are evil, or bad, or whatever. It's just that their beliefs lead to undesired (from a liberal point of view) effects. For example, the reason conservatives are against homosexuals is because of religion. If you are religious, you are on the right. And if you are on the right, you likely won't support equality for homosexuals since religious texts claims that homosexuals are inferior (or some such thing).
In any case, the enemy of freedom is totalitarianism. Both conservatives and liberals will oppose that to the death...
I think you are a conservative or a centrist/moderate (eg. center-right). Just for reference, I'm on the far-left. We will likely disagree on 90% of the issues but we are getting along well here:)
Actually, I think you are confusing it (although I'm not helping by introducing libertarian issues). Liberalism is different from libertarianism. Libertarianism is the one that is in favour of liberties (and is the enemy of authoratarianism, the most extreme form of which is totalitarianism). Libertarians can be both left and right. Most Americans who call themselves Libertarians are actually from the right wing (libertarian-right). People who call themselves anarchists (at least in the tradional leftist sense) are left-wing libertarians. Liberalism, on the other hand, is the one that is left wing.
So liberalism and left-wing go together, while conservatism and right-wing go together. Liberatarianism on the other hand can be both left and right.
Generally, liberalism is more compatible with libertarianism than conservatism is (although it doesn't have to be). For example, people who are liberals are more progressive and hence are in favour of legalization of drugs, in favour of prostitution, etc. Most of the things that liberatarians take for granted is due to the left wing, even though many libertarians on the right support it. For example, the Libertarian Party of USA support legalization of drugs, supports homosexuality, is against jailing people without trial, etc. However, if any of those policies were to be implemented, it will most likely be due to the left wing and liberalism.
Even though liberalism (and the left wing) is responsible for most of the present liberties (check history for who is responsible for equality for women and non-whites; abolishment of slavery; universal human rights; etc), it is also at times the one that suppresses liberties. This happens because the left-wing, while in favour of liberties, is also in favour of government intervention. Excessive government intervention is the cause of the loss of liberties.
Anyway getting back on topic, I said Tony Blair doesn't seem like a liberal. He may be authoratarian but my point is more about liberal ideals. For instance, liberals are generally anti-war. Not always but generally are. Tony Blair, who is supposed to be a liberal, is supporting a largely unpopular war. That is not generally liberalism. He is also shunning international humanitarian organizations (like the UN) in favour of unilateralism. That is not the hallmark of liberalism. If anything, liberalism is what calls for bodies like UN. On top of all that, liberals generally will not support detaining people without trial (whether citizen or not, within the country or not, criminal or not). It's not clear to me what Tony Blair's position is but it seems that he supports mass dentions without trial (eg. Guantanomo Bay).
So, it seems that Tony Blair is neither a liberal nor a libertarian--at least on international issues.
I'm not really sure how liberal Blair and his government is. I'm not from Britain so I only see stuff from far. But it seems that Blair might even be a conservative in many aspects. The war in Iraq is an example. His opinion of Guantanomo Bay and holding people without trial seems purposely vague. Does he support what is happening in Guantanomo Bay or not? I know he is getting his own people (i.e. Britons) out of there and being prosecuted by Britain. But how about the whole concept of it? The Iraqi mess implies he is not a liberal either. For instance, he does not seem to support an election, and is instead supporting the US system of going with hand-picked causus system.
I don't know about the Blunkett dude. Never even heard of him in my life. I'll let you worry about him;)
I might be biased since I'm a leftist but I still think that left-leaning governments are better on liberties. This is not to say that one should blindly follow them. There are bad governments on both sides (one just needs to look at USSR and China, which are supposedly left-leaning). However, overall, I think left-leaning ones are better. It is almost automatic why that is so. Liberal ideology simply meshes well with liberties than conservative ideology. Consider the following. Left leaning parties are the ones that always defend non-citizens. This is a key test for liberty. Left leaning parties generally do not support large scale monitoring of protestors. Right wing ones generally want limitations (for example, Toronto actually wanted protestors to get an order before they protest). Left leaning ones are the only ones that support legalization of drugs. Or giving equality to homosexuals. Both of these are good tests for liberty. Freedom of speech is another good test (although everyone claims to support it).
Britain may not be great but can you be sure it would have been better under a right wing government? I have a feeling that it would have been even worse. I would imagine that right wing governments will support things like ID cards, jailing "criminals" without charge, treating non-citizens as inferior (ie. no laws apply to them), etc.
So, I still think left-leaning ones are better. You just need to look at the last 50 years of ONE COUNTRY. Having said that, all governments can be totalitarian. I don't advocate blindly following one just because it is left-leaning.
I am seriously looking to move to another country that will let me live my life without feeling watched all the time, and without feeling that I am enjoying the good stuff because we are fucking half of the world up the ass. Unfortunately I have not found anywhere yet.
There is always Antartica. Too cold for most governments. A place where penguins outnumber humans. Truly a free place;)
If you think that's the case, then you should "donate" said computer to one of your "friends".
Substitute "friends" with "people you hate" and "donate" with "incriminate" and you get the idea..
hehe:) An ingenious plan;) What better way to defeat enemies than by giving them free computers?;)... Although I would probably just sell it on ebay and let some poor soul (who doesn't know anything about computers) let the government monitor their whole life...
Seriously though, I doubt they would bother installing that stuff, to easy to detect and they have much more efficent options (ring ring, this is Carnivore calling!).
Carnivore is overrated. From what little I understand of it, Carnivore just monitores data. This is very inefficient. A virus or something, in contrast, can be used to selectively minitor something. Instead of looking at raw packets or something, a virus can simply look at (say) everything going out on port 21 (ftp). Or a virus can log the programs you run most frequently. And so forth.
In any case, I don't think people will know. Clearly non-geeks would have no idea of any of this (they can't even tell what a trojan horse is). I consider myself a geek but even I wouldn't know if a program I'm running is a trojan horse (unless it does something nasty like deleting files, using up too much CPU relative to expected usage, or something). I won't really know if a keylogger is installed. Will you? Would you know if a keylogger is installed on your machine? How about some virus that tracks what programs you use?
Most viruses, worms, etc that you run into are easily detectible by a geek. The reason is because they are malicious. They do things that you expect: destroy some files, read the hard drive like crazy, try contacting another machine, etc. A similar program designed by the government will not exhibit those characteristics. It will be quiet, probably using up very little CPU. It might not even show up as a process or thread (depends). It won't destroy anything. And so forth. I think you will have a hard time telling if such a thing is installed by the government.
One thing is for sure, if you do get the equipment back and you are well, the tin foil hat type, you may want to change the NIC card, as the MAC address would be perfect information if they really wanted to spy on you!!:D
I AM a tin-foil-hat type. I'm on the far left and I'm quite familiar with what the governments of Germany, USSR, USA, and France did to "dissidents". One just needs to look at what the FBI and CIA did to Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists. I would be changing more than the NIC card. I'm dumping the whole computer:)
If I have time, I'll try finding some proof. I was just basing that on my impression. If you look at organized criminals from the 20's to the 90's, they always had FBI agents working for them. There were many cases where the Italian mafia bought out many FBI agents. I just remember reading about that in news, books, etc. I don't have any proof off the top of my head but I'll see if I can find some examples.
I'm pretty sure I can find evidence of sizeable infiltration of the FBI by the Italian mafia (in the 70's). In particular, I remember reading that Las Vagas was built entirely by the Italian mafia. Before they showed up, it was town in the middle of nowhere. This would have required significant help from the FBI. I'm also sure I can find some stuff where earlier gangsters, including Al Capone, infiltrating the FBI. I'm not sure about modern day (simply because these stories only come out after a while). If I have time, I'll dig up some stuff.
All this is speculation since it is all secret and no one is saying anything but anyway... Canadian goverment was culpable in the Mahed Arar (sp?) case. They were the ones that gave "evidence" to the US officials. It seems that the Canadian government knew what was going on. The apartment records (or whatever it was) was likely from CSIS or RCMP (unless US operatives is operating in Canada illegally--possible but unlikely in this case).
With the other recent case, it was supposedly CSIS that sent the information to Syrian authorities. This resulted in the person being apprehended at the Iraqi border. If CSIS had a problem, it should get the RCMP to arrest him when he came to Canada. Sending information to another country and letting them do their dirty work is just plain wrong.
As I said before, I think CSIS has gone rogue. I really don't think the Solicitor General (or whoever is responsible for CSIS) really controls it. I think this will become evident as more and more of these "situations" occur.
I don't see anything that you linked to that refutes my view. The Secret Service is supposed to protect national interests only. Originally this meant currency and some politicians (especially the US president). Everything else was acquired recently. I don't have any evidence off the top of my head (I don't track SS) but if you go with this message here, it seems they acquired many of their new powers in 1984.
So I don't know what your point is. Do you really believe that the SS is supposed to be responsible for computer fraud, etc? I don't think so--and you haven't shown anything to the contrary. SS is supposed to be responsible for national defense only.
I agree that Nazism had some socialist ideals, especially when it came to the state taking care of Aryans. However, you cannot say that Nazism is leftist based on that alone. If anything, the VAST MAJORITY of Nazi ideology is right wing. That's why modern right wingers support it (while leftists don't).
You also cannot say Mussolini is a leftist because he was one before (I never heard of that before but I'll take your word on that). What matters is their actions and results, not what they were. I mean, if you were a liberal 20 years ago but are a conservative now, you are a conservative. There is no point calling you a liberal. Extending this view, neoconservatives (who are the ones who control USA right now), are actually conservatives (even though some of them were Trotskyites).
Slashdot Mirror
What does being independent mean in a country with only two parties (that matter)? In the end, you will end up voting for one of these two anyway (especially given that no other party, other than possibly the Green Party and maybe the Libertarian Party, run candidates in all states). I think when people say that they are REpublican or Democrat, that's what they mean--they have already made up their mind.
On a different note, do keep in mind that people who are ideologically driven, or are away from the center/moderate area, will vote for vote the "same" parties all the time. For example, if I was living in USA, I would vote for the the Green Party all the time (unless I'm trying to block someone from coming to power, in which case I might vote Democrat--but this is only extreme cases (even Bush doesn't qualify)).
To sum all this up... so you say you are independent? ok. But how much do you want to bet that you'll vote Republican or Democrat? The problem is the SYSTEM.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How? What is in the US system that prevents military coups? I don't think there is anything. The only reason USA hasn't had military coups is because there haven't been a huge civil unrest. USA is a young country (yes 200+ years is young) and so nothing crazy has happened. Also, USA is fairly isolated from other countries (only Canada and Mexico anywhere near it) so no one has attempted to overthrow the government (kind of like how CIA overthrows other goverments).
Having said that, USA, in some sense, did have a coup. It was called the Civil War. There was almost a revolt at that time.
I don't see anything in the US system to prevent coups. Some military commander can simply go up to the President and say "I want you out of here" and that's the end of hte presidency. Hasn't happened but I don't see why it cannot happen.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think two parties seems to be the equilibrium position.
I completely disagree with your view, and your equilibrium theory.
I don't think there is such a thing as equilibrium. You can't say 2 parties are at equilibrium any more than 4 parties. The flaw with USA stems from its SYSTEM. The US system is severely flawed. There is no other way to look at it. This is why I prefer the British style system (eg. Canada, Isreal, India, etc).
To see how bad the US system is, just look at history. There were HUGE periods where ONE PARTY ruled. After USA was founded, the Democratic-Republican Party (modern day Democratic Party) elected the president and controlled everything for something like 50 years. Its competition, the Federalist Party, was very weak and I don't think ever elected a president. The same thing happened later on. Before the modern day Republican Party was formed, there wasn't really much competition.
If anything, I claim that USA was controlled by one party throughout its whole life (with bits here and there). Even now, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are pretty much the same party if you look at its econopolitical issues (eg. imperialism, war, welfare, human rights--both parties are almost identical in these things). They might say different things but they never implement any of their "promises". For example, the Democratic Party claims to support workers yet they are in bed with corporations. The Republican Party claims to shrink goverment yet is often reponsible for running massive deficit (hence increasing debt), increasing government bureaucracy, often by increasing the military, and so forth. If some alien from another planet came and looked at Democrat or Republican governments after elected to power, the alien would have a hard time distinguishing them. This is why some on the far-right call the Democratic and Republican parties the War Party, while some on the far-left call them the Corporate Party.
It is my theory that after a few more terrorist attacks in USA (seems inevitable based on the path USA has taken), the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will merge into one party. And USA will end up as it was in the 1700's or 1800's, ruled by one party with others not mattering much. There might be revolution at that point and I hope some revolutionary creates a system that facilitates more parties. The current system discriminates heavily in favour of one party or two party nation.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree... I think the flaw in USA is due to the system. The whole equilibrium argument makes no sense.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The worst thing about all that is.... he is going to be re-elected. All Bush needs to get re-elected is another terrorist "threat" of some sort. Don't worry. The neocons are cooking up threats (supposedly Syria is almost an imminent threat) and the disinformation against Saudi Arabia is going to ramp up soon...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The peaceful Martians who have been watching events on earth finally found the rover that penetrated their home planet defenses (too busy watching earth meant that they missed it all this time). The Martians have been unhappy with violent humans on earth. So they destroyed several previous probes that were thought to be a threat (from Britain, and Japan). Disturbed by US imperialism on earth, the Martians mistook the scientific probe as a military probe. Needless to say, the probe has been destroyed beyone recognization.
I'm sorry about being the bearer of bad news... Hey, look on the bright side, rumour has it that the Martians don't know about the other lander that is supposed to land on Saturday. That just might survive.
Oh one last thing, could you guys stop calling the Martians green people? Apart from the fact they are not people, they are not green either. Informed sources tell me that the Martians are a transparent clear-like being.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
ok here are some links... I didn't spend much time so there isn't much... but it should give you an idea. As I mentioned earlier, it is harder to find stuff fore the present day (90's and 2000's), not because they are less corrupt, but because the information only comes out after a while. Some of these stories may be duplicates--I didn't spend time weeding them out...
....05.04.00
;)
DISCLAIMER: I have not checked the sources. I am hoping that none of this is fabricated information. Questionable sources are marked with (Q)
Hoover's F.B.I. and the Mafia: Case of Bad Bedfellows Grows
J Edgar Hoover (Q)
Black Mass: The Irish Mob, The FBI and A Devil's Deal
Deadly Alliance: The FBI's Secret Partnership With the Mob
FBI Protection Of Informants Condemned In Mob Ruling
FBI Corruption & The Justice Department
Round Up The Usual Suspects (Q)
The Government-Criminal Connection - Part Three (Q)
Armed Conflict in America (Q) (blatantly biased against the left-wing... just read the quoted article in the middle of the page)
Ruling due on FBI link to mob: Immunity offer claim at center of decision.
Funny story, Bush blocks mob investigation (read the 2nd story): Bush Invokes Executive Privilege in Mob-FBI Case
Anyway I hope that provides A LITTLE BIT of the FBI corruption.
BTW, what the hell is a dot head? Does this mean that you work for the FBI? Did I just blow your cover?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What did FDR do?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes, I think you are lumping fascism (such as Nazism) and Stalinism together because they are both extreme authoratarian (totalitarian). In that sense, they are similar (HitlerStalin; SSKGB; AxisUSSR; political opponents->death; etc). But they were very different. If they were as similar as you imply, they would have formed an alliance and attempted to take over the world.
As far as Mussolini, just because members supposedly came from leftist groups, or that the word comes from union doesn't change things. What matters is the ultimate deeds and underlying philosophies that drive someone. For example, the far-right (say fascists) might be anti-war. The left-wing might be anti-war too. So both of them support the same position (opposition to war). However the underlying reasons are totally different. Fascists are against war because they don't want to lose their "kind" in a war that does not benefit them (eg. don't want to lose "whites" in a war that hardly benefits "whites"). Progressives and other leftists might be against the war because they are compassionate, and just don't like to see people dying (regardless of ethnicity, country, religion, etc). One can hardly lump these together--the underlying philosophies are vastly different.
As a side note, even the Nazi party was called some Worker's Party (don't remember but something like Deutche Worker's Party or something). But it had very little to do with the typical Communist Worker's Parties. Would you claim they are the same just based on that?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
ok it wasn't exactly like a typical car chase. The car was chasing a train. It had tension. Something seriously lacking in modern day car chase scenes like Matrix Reloaded.
I admit that Ronin is great. As someone below says, it has good sound (although I don't have a good tv or a sound system). Ronin, if I remember correctly, has the ACTUAL sounds of the cars. Most films have fake sounds (fake in the sense that the sounds aren't necessarily from the car that they are driving; the sounds may be generic). Ronin used real sound from the car engine.
French Connection is better than Ronin, as a film. Not sure about the chase scene but the films don't compare...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
True sci-fi fans watch Star Trek because it's good sci-fi.
Star Trek is NOT good sci-fi. You hate Babylon 5 but that's more a true sci-fi show than Star Trek. Star Trek is a poor man's sci-fi show. Simple, not thoughtful, action oriented, and very little science. You found 5 episodes of Babylon 5 boring. ok fine. But find me 5 episodes of Star Trek that are better.
The fact that you hate Babylon 5, Contact, and 2001:ASO makes me think you are not even a sci-fi fan. No offense but you are probably the type of fan who thinks Terminator 3 was the best sci-fi film.
Maybe you've been too busy looking for points to hate, but Starfleet is a -military- organization and, as such, have a rank system.
This is based on speculation but I imagine that you would have a more egalitarian society in the future. I mean, so far in the future yet same organization as now. On top of that, are you sure Starfleet is a military organization? I think most of the ships you see in the series are civilian vehicles. Aren't they for exploration (i.e. scientific ships)? The vast majority of the episodes are exploratory rather than militaristic.
The Federation of Planets, however, is a democracy. Maybe you should spend a little more time paying attention, rather than glancing at it and proclaiming it "garbage", eh?
You may be right about democracy but from what I have seen (admittedly not much; mostly ST:TNG) it's not clear to me. Yes, it's a federation but is it really democracy? Seems like earth has too much power but I could be wrong.
Not that it matters, since it was clearly stated in First Contact that "material gain is no longer the driving force" behind humans' actions. Monetary systems are the primary cause of "classes" in a society. When those systems are abandoned in favor of "doing something because it's the right thing to do", those classes cease to exist.
In the sense of a lack of money, you are right. But just based on the ship hierarchy it seems that it is a classist society. If so then you would see the poor.
As far as organized criminals are concerned, it was my mistake. I shouldn't have said that. Some of the "bad guys" in Star Trek are the future mafia.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I personally do not give a damn about there being no "homeless" or "organized" criminals in a TV show because I watch it to *ESCAPE* the real world, not to see a forecast of a possible future.
:) ).
If you are escaping the real world, why are you watching sci-fi? Why not watch fantasy?
Oh, and by the way, "Solaris" is a boring, bland movie, both in its original and remake versions - give me "Dark Star", "Blade Runner" or an episode of Trek (not Enterprise) any day of the week.
I admit that Solaris is VERY boring. However, it is thought provoking...far more so than Star Trek.
Star Trek is a poorman's sci-fi (no offense
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know anything about these online music stores. If they use the same format, and if they can be re-sold (are you allowed to re-sell?) then there might be room for arbitrage.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Let's admit it: Star Trek sucks. True sci-fi fans will only watch it for fun. Most Star Trek fans are casual mainstream fans who are not into sci-fi. Shows like Babylon 5 were 100x better.
And worst of all... the Star Trek films. Man, they suck really badly. No true sci-fi fan would be caught watching them over Contact, 2001:ASO, Solaris, or the few other sci-fi movies.
Also, Star Trek society is very authoratarian society. Has anyone noticed how doctors or engineers are below commanders? Yep, Star Trek is a classist society taken to the extreme. Modern world is 100x better (even for the suffering) than Star Trek. Star Trek is also fake in that sense it does not show the downside of humanity (eg. homeless, organized criminals, etc)--yes these people will exist in the future (if it is a classist society like Star Trek). On top of all that, how come most aliens are humanoids and behave just like humans? It's almost as if aliens didn't even exist?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is actually a 2 dimentional system. Check it out: it's called Political Compass. Take the test and see how you place yourself. It is the most accurate system I have found on the web.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I actually support the Political Compass system. I always recommend others to follow it too (BTW, what's your "results"? don't tell me if you don't want to).
My point is that liberalism is more compatible with libertarianism. If what I say is correct, another way to looking is that you would see FAR MORE people/parties/etc on the bottom-left quadrant of Political Compass than bottom-right. Also, you would see parties/people/etc on the left that are further down (i.e. extreme libertarian) than on the right. You would see this if you look at the following charts (scroll down to the chart):
Britain
USA
Composers
Famous people
If you go by the charts, you'll note that most libertarians are left, and left tends to be even more extremist libertarian than right. Of course, these charts may or may not be biased and it doesn't have enough sample points. One can argue that the chart is inconclusive since you also get extreme authoratarian on the left (like Stalin), and it might even seem that there are more extreme libertarians and extreme authoratarians on the left (which kind of erases everything out).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
They were designed to be 'rogue' from day one.
No organization is designed to be rogue. Someone with power would always want to control it and hence these organizations aren't designed to be rogue. Some branch of the goverment is always supposed to control these organizations. In the Canadian case, I think it is the solicitor-general but I'm not sure (someone correct me if I'm wrong). One just needs to look at other notorious spy agencies like the SS and KGB to see that they were actually supposed to be controlled by people at one time. It's just that they "acquire" their rogueness over time. Especially if left to their own will. In the case of USA, for example, Iran-Contra was supposedly not approved by President Ronald Reagan. Yet here you have the CIA facilitating some illegal activity without the support or knowledge of the President of USA.
By the way, CSIS doesn't like it if you talk about war-driving.
What's war-driving? Anyway, CSIS probably already monitors me due to my harsh criticism of USA, Canada, and others.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The main problem with right wing parties, which you touched on, is that they do tend to be more against the minorities for various reasons (e.g. homosexuals), this is an aspect I find very distasteful in itself. However if you drop the bigotry then that might actually be a side I could claim to lean to.
:)
I don't think you can just ignore that "bigotry". That is one the reasons conservatism rarely supports liberties. I'm not saying YOU are a bigot or that all conservatives are. However the ideology lends itself to it.
It's not as if conservatives are evil, or bad, or whatever. It's just that their beliefs lead to undesired (from a liberal point of view) effects. For example, the reason conservatives are against homosexuals is because of religion. If you are religious, you are on the right. And if you are on the right, you likely won't support equality for homosexuals since religious texts claims that homosexuals are inferior (or some such thing).
In any case, the enemy of freedom is totalitarianism. Both conservatives and liberals will oppose that to the death...
I think you are a conservative or a centrist/moderate (eg. center-right). Just for reference, I'm on the far-left. We will likely disagree on 90% of the issues but we are getting along well here
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually, I think you are confusing it (although I'm not helping by introducing libertarian issues). Liberalism is different from libertarianism. Libertarianism is the one that is in favour of liberties (and is the enemy of authoratarianism, the most extreme form of which is totalitarianism). Libertarians can be both left and right. Most Americans who call themselves Libertarians are actually from the right wing (libertarian-right). People who call themselves anarchists (at least in the tradional leftist sense) are left-wing libertarians. Liberalism, on the other hand, is the one that is left wing.
So liberalism and left-wing go together, while conservatism and right-wing go together. Liberatarianism on the other hand can be both left and right.
Generally, liberalism is more compatible with libertarianism than conservatism is (although it doesn't have to be). For example, people who are liberals are more progressive and hence are in favour of legalization of drugs, in favour of prostitution, etc. Most of the things that liberatarians take for granted is due to the left wing, even though many libertarians on the right support it. For example, the Libertarian Party of USA support legalization of drugs, supports homosexuality, is against jailing people without trial, etc. However, if any of those policies were to be implemented, it will most likely be due to the left wing and liberalism.
Even though liberalism (and the left wing) is responsible for most of the present liberties (check history for who is responsible for equality for women and non-whites; abolishment of slavery; universal human rights; etc), it is also at times the one that suppresses liberties. This happens because the left-wing, while in favour of liberties, is also in favour of government intervention. Excessive government intervention is the cause of the loss of liberties.
Anyway getting back on topic, I said Tony Blair doesn't seem like a liberal. He may be authoratarian but my point is more about liberal ideals. For instance, liberals are generally anti-war. Not always but generally are. Tony Blair, who is supposed to be a liberal, is supporting a largely unpopular war. That is not generally liberalism. He is also shunning international humanitarian organizations (like the UN) in favour of unilateralism. That is not the hallmark of liberalism. If anything, liberalism is what calls for bodies like UN. On top of all that, liberals generally will not support detaining people without trial (whether citizen or not, within the country or not, criminal or not). It's not clear to me what Tony Blair's position is but it seems that he supports mass dentions without trial (eg. Guantanomo Bay).
So, it seems that Tony Blair is neither a liberal nor a libertarian--at least on international issues.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not really sure how liberal Blair and his government is. I'm not from Britain so I only see stuff from far. But it seems that Blair might even be a conservative in many aspects. The war in Iraq is an example. His opinion of Guantanomo Bay and holding people without trial seems purposely vague. Does he support what is happening in Guantanomo Bay or not? I know he is getting his own people (i.e. Britons) out of there and being prosecuted by Britain. But how about the whole concept of it? The Iraqi mess implies he is not a liberal either. For instance, he does not seem to support an election, and is instead supporting the US system of going with hand-picked causus system.
;)
;)
I don't know about the Blunkett dude. Never even heard of him in my life. I'll let you worry about him
I might be biased since I'm a leftist but I still think that left-leaning governments are better on liberties. This is not to say that one should blindly follow them. There are bad governments on both sides (one just needs to look at USSR and China, which are supposedly left-leaning). However, overall, I think left-leaning ones are better. It is almost automatic why that is so. Liberal ideology simply meshes well with liberties than conservative ideology. Consider the following. Left leaning parties are the ones that always defend non-citizens. This is a key test for liberty. Left leaning parties generally do not support large scale monitoring of protestors. Right wing ones generally want limitations (for example, Toronto actually wanted protestors to get an order before they protest). Left leaning ones are the only ones that support legalization of drugs. Or giving equality to homosexuals. Both of these are good tests for liberty. Freedom of speech is another good test (although everyone claims to support it).
Britain may not be great but can you be sure it would have been better under a right wing government? I have a feeling that it would have been even worse. I would imagine that right wing governments will support things like ID cards, jailing "criminals" without charge, treating non-citizens as inferior (ie. no laws apply to them), etc.
So, I still think left-leaning ones are better. You just need to look at the last 50 years of ONE COUNTRY. Having said that, all governments can be totalitarian. I don't advocate blindly following one just because it is left-leaning.
I am seriously looking to move to another country that will let me live my life without feeling watched all the time, and without feeling that I am enjoying the good stuff because we are fucking half of the world up the ass. Unfortunately I have not found anywhere yet.
There is always Antartica. Too cold for most governments. A place where penguins outnumber humans. Truly a free place
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you think that's the case, then you should "donate" said computer to one of your "friends". Substitute "friends" with "people you hate" and "donate" with "incriminate" and you get the idea..
:) An ingenious plan ;) What better way to defeat enemies than by giving them free computers? ;) ... Although I would probably just sell it on ebay and let some poor soul (who doesn't know anything about computers) let the government monitor their whole life...
:D
:)
hehe
Seriously though, I doubt they would bother installing that stuff, to easy to detect and they have much more efficent options (ring ring, this is Carnivore calling!).
Carnivore is overrated. From what little I understand of it, Carnivore just monitores data. This is very inefficient. A virus or something, in contrast, can be used to selectively minitor something. Instead of looking at raw packets or something, a virus can simply look at (say) everything going out on port 21 (ftp). Or a virus can log the programs you run most frequently. And so forth.
In any case, I don't think people will know. Clearly non-geeks would have no idea of any of this (they can't even tell what a trojan horse is). I consider myself a geek but even I wouldn't know if a program I'm running is a trojan horse (unless it does something nasty like deleting files, using up too much CPU relative to expected usage, or something). I won't really know if a keylogger is installed. Will you? Would you know if a keylogger is installed on your machine? How about some virus that tracks what programs you use?
Most viruses, worms, etc that you run into are easily detectible by a geek. The reason is because they are malicious. They do things that you expect: destroy some files, read the hard drive like crazy, try contacting another machine, etc. A similar program designed by the government will not exhibit those characteristics. It will be quiet, probably using up very little CPU. It might not even show up as a process or thread (depends). It won't destroy anything. And so forth. I think you will have a hard time telling if such a thing is installed by the government.
One thing is for sure, if you do get the equipment back and you are well, the tin foil hat type, you may want to change the NIC card, as the MAC address would be perfect information if they really wanted to spy on you!!
I AM a tin-foil-hat type. I'm on the far left and I'm quite familiar with what the governments of Germany, USSR, USA, and France did to "dissidents". One just needs to look at what the FBI and CIA did to Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists. I would be changing more than the NIC card. I'm dumping the whole computer
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If I have time, I'll try finding some proof. I was just basing that on my impression. If you look at organized criminals from the 20's to the 90's, they always had FBI agents working for them. There were many cases where the Italian mafia bought out many FBI agents. I just remember reading about that in news, books, etc. I don't have any proof off the top of my head but I'll see if I can find some examples.
I'm pretty sure I can find evidence of sizeable infiltration of the FBI by the Italian mafia (in the 70's). In particular, I remember reading that Las Vagas was built entirely by the Italian mafia. Before they showed up, it was town in the middle of nowhere. This would have required significant help from the FBI. I'm also sure I can find some stuff where earlier gangsters, including Al Capone, infiltrating the FBI. I'm not sure about modern day (simply because these stories only come out after a while). If I have time, I'll dig up some stuff.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
All this is speculation since it is all secret and no one is saying anything but anyway... Canadian goverment was culpable in the Mahed Arar (sp?) case. They were the ones that gave "evidence" to the US officials. It seems that the Canadian government knew what was going on. The apartment records (or whatever it was) was likely from CSIS or RCMP (unless US operatives is operating in Canada illegally--possible but unlikely in this case).
With the other recent case, it was supposedly CSIS that sent the information to Syrian authorities. This resulted in the person being apprehended at the Iraqi border. If CSIS had a problem, it should get the RCMP to arrest him when he came to Canada. Sending information to another country and letting them do their dirty work is just plain wrong.
As I said before, I think CSIS has gone rogue. I really don't think the Solicitor General (or whoever is responsible for CSIS) really controls it. I think this will become evident as more and more of these "situations" occur.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't see anything that you linked to that refutes my view. The Secret Service is supposed to protect national interests only. Originally this meant currency and some politicians (especially the US president). Everything else was acquired recently. I don't have any evidence off the top of my head (I don't track SS) but if you go with this message here, it seems they acquired many of their new powers in 1984.
So I don't know what your point is. Do you really believe that the SS is supposed to be responsible for computer fraud, etc? I don't think so--and you haven't shown anything to the contrary. SS is supposed to be responsible for national defense only.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree that Nazism had some socialist ideals, especially when it came to the state taking care of Aryans. However, you cannot say that Nazism is leftist based on that alone. If anything, the VAST MAJORITY of Nazi ideology is right wing. That's why modern right wingers support it (while leftists don't).
You also cannot say Mussolini is a leftist because he was one before (I never heard of that before but I'll take your word on that). What matters is their actions and results, not what they were. I mean, if you were a liberal 20 years ago but are a conservative now, you are a conservative. There is no point calling you a liberal. Extending this view, neoconservatives (who are the ones who control USA right now), are actually conservatives (even though some of them were Trotskyites).
Sivaram Velauthapillai