I prefer digital (computer) storage rather than writing it down. I guess the main reason is because it is easier to access. When I need a password or something, I just open up the "text" document and then just copy&paste, or just read it off quickly. With a notepad, I have to look around for it and type everything out by hand.
On top of that, paper documents are harder to duplicate (although I guess you can just photocopy it regularly--say once a year). With a computer copy, you can just store it in multiple locations/computers/disks/whatever. I haven't done this yet but I might even be confident enough to store my gpg encrypted password file on the internet that is easily accessible by "knowledgeable" people (i.e. crackers, hackers, geeks, etc.) I'm too scared to do this now but that possibility is there if server-based systems become the norm in 10 years.
In addition, paper is more risky.
What if there is a fire*?
What if your friend/neighbour/agent steals your pad? I imagine you keep it close to your computer and what is some dude who is using your computer (say your neighbour's daughter) comes and takes it?
Now, most of these are worst case, 'evil rules', scenarios but those are the cases we must worry about. After all, if nothing bad ever happened, why even care about your passwords in the first place?
So, in summary, I think digital means is the way to go. Your technique is old-school:) and is less convenient. I'm just wondering how many people use the paper copy method and how many use the computer document method? hmm...
(* Sounds like an extreme situation but you have to consider these things. I mean, if your house burns down, which 1% of the houses probably do, then how are you going to get back the passwords? You CAN reconstitute it by calling up the bank to reset the password, contacting a website to change the password, etc but how long is this going to take? This goes for anything. For instance, if you keep records on paper (say your financial budget history over the last 5 years) then there is a possibly of losing it to fire)
I don't think anyone should seriously equate, even in an analogous manner, the environmental issues to the threat faced by fascism. If anything, the fascists were strong and dominant where we still have a lot of control over environmental policies. Blaming the actions of the left during the rise in Nazism is kind of shortsighted given that the Nazis were killing off all the leftists in Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, etc. The fact that the soft "liberals" considered Communism to be a greater threat than Nazism kind of didn't help matters.
As far as nuclear energy is concerned, here is the main reason why leftists cannot really endorse it outright:
What are you going to do with the nuclear waste?
Already, you have countries like USA and Japan trying to unload their nuclear waste onto other, usually poorer, countries. This is particularly a problem for Japan since it has shortage of land (whereas USA can just dump it into some mine/bury it and hope the clueless citizens don't say anything eg. Nevada).
If you support nuclear plants, you are basically shifting a modern problem to the future. The amount of nuclear waste generated now is negligible but if nuclear plants replace other forms of energy, then the waste will actually be a serious problem.
Lastly, nuclear plants are too expensive and problematic. Many countries have had problems with them. As an Ontarian (Ontario, Canada), I can refer you to the nuclear plants in Pickering, Ontario, which are way overbudget by several billions with no hope of managing them.
I think leftists should endorse the following sources (in order): geothermal, solar, and wind. Hydro should be a last resort.
Having said all this, I'm just talking about nuclear fission. Fusion is another story (fusion may be ok)...
If you are spend too much time on the internet, like me:), you must have hundreads of passwords for all sorts of things including message boards, websites, e-mail accounts, etc. How do you guys store your passwords? Do you use any software tools?
Presently, I just keep them in a big file:( that is encrypted via gpg. Unfortunately it is sitting on my computer, which is connected to a network (i.e. internet) so it is very unsafe. Do you guys do anything to secure your passwords? Do you store it on a CD-ROM/floppy/whatever and keep it off the computer?
Just wondering what you guys do with your passwords... Oh, one more thing, I have a horrible memory so I HAVE to store them somewhere:(
Comparing the 1kg to 10million kg is kind of misleading. Yes, it DOES give an idea of the differences. However, everything will boil down to economic costs. If 1 kg of fusion costs way more than 10million kg of fossil fuel, fusion would have a hard time taking off*. The "size" and quantity don't really indicate anything. For instance, 1 gram of gold typically costs way more to mine than 50 grams of silver. Clearly you cannot compare 1 gram of silver to 1g or gold. Similarly, 1kg of fusion source cannot be directly compared to 1 kg of fossil fuel.
Obviously I'm ignoring the environmental costs. Fusion would be FAR more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.
(* Let's not get into the case of where fossil fuels are depleting and hence costs will skyrocket in the future (oil prices are expected to skyrocket over the next 15 years))
I don't think think a single plane was even shot down. So you think that is a good enough justification to start a war? What's the next country you are going to invade? North Korea? They have been shooting at you (or your allies) for decades...
I'm talking about a world wide network. NPR is a radio station (no video, live internet feeds, etc). If I'm not mistaken, it is not 24hrs either (I don't listen to NPR BTW--I'm in Canada). Also, it doesn't really have many journalists, or stuff like that. In addition, it is US-centric whereas I'm talking about world-oriented...
I'm talking about something massive... on par with CNN, BBC World, etc... 24hrs a day... reporting from all corners of the earth... live... real-time... uncensored...
I actually have some ideas in my head. If I ever become rich:) I'm going to try some of these ideas. The internet provides a nice framework to accomplish my desires...
I was not sugesting genocide though. Just leveling cities as an example to other cites, and killing those closely related to rebels so they can't rebel without risking the lives of their whole family. Basicly a submit or die campain, similar to the roman policy for conquering cities.
What you are advocating IS genocide and crimes against humanity. What the Romans did would be considered crimes against humanity. Of course, when the Romans were around it was tolerated just like slavery was but not now...
One problem with a system of non-intervention is not all states will follow your plan, and you can't make them as that goes against your plan in itself.
Non-intervention is based on home country only. It doesn't matter what other countries do unless they directly threaten...
Many of the US's worst blunders happeded durring the cold war, when they had the clear and present danger of the USSR. They supplied and trained Bin Laden because they could not afford to let the USSR gain military inroads into the middle east. The middle eastern contries can't sell oil to anyone if they're siezed by the USSR.
USSR did influence some of the Middle Eastern countries. Who was supplying weapons to the Middle East?
In any case, it doesn't matter who controls the resources because of capitalism. The Middle Eastern countries need to sell their oil. They can't just sit on it...
If you look at WW2, Britain would have fallen to Germany without US aid, and then africa and probably both the middle east and russia.
I don't want to get into WWII because there wouldn't even have been one if USA, France and Britain didn't slap massive reparations on Germany.... Also, Germany basically lost the war even before USA actually sent troops. Contrary to US propaganda, Nazi Germany wouldn't have taken over anything signficant. It couldn't even defeat USSR (couldn't even control Moscow) so I don't know how you expect them to control the Middle East, Africa, and Asia...
No, I think you are wrong... the WMD WAS the main reason. As I said, you cannot just say "I want to remove Saddam". Perhaps you are getting confused because the Bush administration kept switching the reasons. At one time it was democracy, then freedom, then kurds, then terrorists, then...
I'm not 100% sure but I don't think Congress would have voted for war based on the UN resolution. The US govt generally ignores the UN. I can't think of the last time USA did anything major, let alone war, based on a UN resolution. Rather, what typically happens is that they use it to support their views--but it is never the reason for declaring war...
heh... I guess you must be a desired target market:) My family never got that many calls... In any case, there aren't too many people with feelings as you. If it were, no one would use direct marketing (this is just like saying how if no one responded, clicked, etc the spam that you get in your e-mail, the spammers would be out of business)...
I think I follow the Iraqi situation more closely than you do.... just wait for the draft. Already, one division(?) was reassigned from South Korea to Iraq. I think this is the first time in over 20 years that some troops were moved away from South Korea, which USA considers high priority...
Most media organizations are tools of the government. It's worse in USA than in many other "free" countries IMO...
I don't think you will ever get a media outlet that presents the truth unless it were independently controlled and universal. That is to say, I think what we need is a media organization that has no home base. It just works thorughout the world with no loyalty or profits from any particular area. What we need is a World News Network... an open-source news network sounds good to me:)
How many people here think they are on this list? How about other blacklists held by agents?
I have a feeling that I'm on some blacklist cuz... well... I post openly on slashdot with my real name:)... It wouldn't surprise me if the CIA or some other domestic agency scans slashdot on a regular basis. People who are technically inclinded, even though unemployed:( and without money, are always a greater danger to the government than anyone else...
You are basically suggesting genocide.. I don't know if you realize that or not... Anyway...
My solution would be as follows. I could write pages upon pages on this but I'll keep in short and succint (hopefully). HEre is what USA needs to do:
1. Stop imperialism: USA has been messing in other countries since WWII. It has basically inherited imperial Britain's role. Invading other countries, overthrowing goverments, propping up tyrants, etc, is no the way to go. It might work in the long term but ultimately it will fail. With respect to terrorism, this basically means end support of the Middle Eastern countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.
2. Picking the lesser of the two evils leads to allying with the devil. I don't need to comment much because everyone knows about it. Usama bin Laden would not be where he is without the CIA. Stick to a clear moral path, which is actually much easier than people think. If you support democracy for example, you stick with that. Don't go propping up and supplying weapons to dictatorships. And so forth.
3. Practice non-intervention. Do not get involved in other countries' affairs. What another country does is their problem (assuming that it doesn't directly impact USA). If the Middle Eastern countries want to practice theocracy that's their problem. Don't sell weapons to one side or another. Just stay out of it.
4. Protect the borders and mainland USA. If USA needs to post more border guards, or improve the immigration system, or clean up smuggling, or whatever, do it. Instead of spending billions on the military, USA should be protecting itself. You should be able to do this without switching to a police state (although this would be hte most difficult of my recommendations IMO).
5. Use the tools of capitalism. I'm not a capitalist but even I have to admit that USA is better at capitalism than imperliasm, fascism, or anything else. This essentially means that you use capitalism to acheive your goals. For instance, instead of propping up tyrannies in Kuwait for oil, just buy the oil on the open market. The middle Eastern countries have to sell the oil to someone and USA can still get in on the action using capitalistic elements. USA has some of the biggest corporations and huge amount of capital so buying stuff, investing in companies, etc will be much better in the long term, than sending the military or the CIA to reinforce the tyrants.
Anyway, that provides a rough view of vision. I might be missing a few things but that's the general idea. Basically, go with non-intervention and dump the imperialism favoured by the modern elite.
I just love these modern McCarthyites. So let me get this straight. You think McCarthyism wasn't so bad because there were Soviet spies? Hello? Did it not occur to you that there have been spies in all countries throughout all time? I mean, there are probably a ton of Chinese spies in USA right now so what are you saying? Let's start attacking the Chinese because there are spies? How about all these Isreali spies? Shall we start attacking the Jews?
In addition, most of the people McCarthy attacked were NOT working in sensitive posts. He was primarily attacking teachers and Hollywood and stuff like that.
Furthermore, I'm surprised a McCarthyite like you would even bring up the first reason. After all, McCarthy went down because he accused the US military of having communists. With your reasoning, McCarthy attacking the military should have been his greatest triumph. After all, if there are tons of spies running around as you suggest, what better place to catch them than in a sensitive military institution? Instead, it led to his downfall because the spy problem was no worse than at any time, and McCarthy wasn't even after spies. Your history looks weak because you need some understanding. McCarthy wasn't attacking spies; he was attacking communists! Obviously you don't know the difference...
This isn't really a Bush thing, although Bush is definitely the dumbest president I know of (since WWII). Rather, it is more about authoratarians vs libertarians. Most of the politicians and the elites are authoratarians--this includes the Democrats. Even if Bush leaves, the struggle will still happen. After all, didn't Kerry vote for the Patriot Act and the Iraqi war...
The fact that Bush is dumb might actually be a good thing in a weird convoluted way. Since he is dumb, he can't do as much damage as he could have. A smarter, more sinister person (say someone like Nixon) would have abused the system far more...
It's OK to investigate people to determine whether they're innocent.
No one is complaining about investigations. What people, like me, have a problem with are detentions, arrests, jailings, etc without any trial and without due course.
Your position is apparently that we should just wait until some more terrorist incidents occur and then convene a grand jury for an investigation -- possibly leading someday to an indictment.
hmm... I guess you don't care about the legal system at all. You just threw away the legal system with your stance. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything to you anymore huh? I have a feeling that you will fail, since you are basically calling for a re-write of the US Constitution. Even hardcore conservatives and superhawks won't do that...
"Patriot Act II" hasn't been passed. So it isn't THAT bad yet.
USA will officially switch to totalitarianism when Patriot Act II is passed (right now, I don't consider it totalitarian). The reason, and it is an important one, is that Patriot Act II basically strips a lot of liberties for US CITIZENS! Right now, most of the violated are non-citizens (illegal immigrants, tourists, student visas, etc). Once citizens are under the same laws, then the government has total control. Right now, most Americans can still get away with little govt control.
lol You actually believe that? Even conservatives know that nothing will change in 5 weeks. The US forces will still be there for years; US soldiers and Iraqi civilians will still die for years; USA will still pay billions (mostly recycled to US corporations); etc.
If you don't believe me, wait and see what happens in a few months. Everything will still be the same... the only difference would be symbolic. Now you would have some Iraqi puppet...
The reason we went into Iraq was simply to depose Saddam Hussein. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't a better or worse reason to be in Iraq, it's just the way it is.
I think it's you who is wrong... or maybe you are starting to come up with excuses now than every other past reason (WMDs, democracy, terrorists, etc) are falling apart. Bush never went to war in order to take out Saddam Hussein. Taking out heads of states just because you want to is against international norms and it might be against the US Constitution too. What did Congress vote on? Certainly not on taking out Saddam. Rather they voted because of an imminent threat from WMDs and violation of UN resolutions (those are my words--they clearly used similar although non-identical words). If you don't believe me, go and do more research or check out the media reports around the time that Congress debated.
The US President just cannot invade another country to kill a person because he/she feels like it. They have to have a reason, however bogus. If the US president actually invaded without reason, I'm sure the US military would refuse.
Every single war, by any country, has to have a reason. The reasons may be bogus but it must be there. At a minimum, this is required to keep the military from refusing to fight and hence overthrowing the government. It hasn't happened in USA but it must be there. The soldiers are not cannon fodder (although some think so) and they certainly wouldn't be fighting just because the leader has some personal issues with another.
Fox News is in a tough situation now though. A lot of the conservatives, particularly the Christian Right, are supposedly becoming disillusioned with the war. Since conservatives are their main audience, I wonder what Fox is going to do? Are they going to stick with the Bush administration or not? It would be funny if Fox starts flip-flopping on all their positions they held over the last 2 years...
It really doesn't matter, though. We could find the worlds largest stockpile of WMD in Iraq and people like you would still refuse to admit that this war was justified and necessary.
Don't worry... you and your buddies are still looking for WMD in Iraq. I think USA is still spending around $1 billion per year in Iraq searching for WMD. This is down from when David Kay was around (around $1billion per month) but you just might find WMDs in 150 years... you know, maybe you'll find some naturally occurring uranium somewhere;)
If you don't what a WMD is, it is not worth debating. If you still haven't got this through your head, even after David Kay (the pro-invasion inspector) says there may not be, you probably never will understand reality...
It's not the people... rather it's the goverment. The US government is one of the top spenders in propaganda and disinformation. I think the only other country that spends more (in real dollars) is China (but China controls everything in their country and heavily influences their neighbours). The amount of money spent on CIA, think-tanks, lobby groups, media specialists, PR personnel, agents, etc is astounding. I am pretty sure it is a multi-billion dollar industry. You can't find any proof though, since it is all masked.
The vast majority of humans (in any country) are apolitical or cluless (sometimes known as sheep:( ). So the government initiates propaganda campaigns to brainwash the clueless. I hate to say it but I suspect that this will likely be the case until society is drastically altered (which won't happen for hundreads of years:( ). Since people are apolitical (i.e. not interested on politics) they are easily manipulated. This is just like how a person that is not tech-savvy can be sold a terrible computer for $2000 by a salesperson. People who are not interested in something or knowledgeable in an area can--and will--always be manipulated. It is easier to get someone to jump off a cliff in the name of their country than it is to get them to see the truth...
If you want to know about propaganda, you can check out Noam Chomsky's famous work on it: Manufacturing Consent (if you don't want to buy it, search the web or your library or something--usually you can find it around). If you want to understand how governments manipulate people, you can also read up on how Nazi Germany influenced the populace, or how USSR influenced others, or how the CIA manipulates people, and so forth. Just for the record, Nazi Germany is generally considered to be the expert propagandists. Nearly all govenrment entities and personnel, right from the modern day CIA, to the past KGB, to your infamous-3rd-world-dictator are influenced by them. You can also check out some recent stuff like how the Clinton Administration whitewashed the Waco incident (an amazing use of propaganda to mask the mass murder of civilians by the US government). And so on. Believe me, it's easier to notice propaganda at work than anything else the government does--but you have to keep a close eye...
Slashdot Mirror
:) Must be a fan of brand names huh?
:) and is less convenient. I'm just wondering how many people use the paper copy method and how many use the computer document method? hmm...
I prefer digital (computer) storage rather than writing it down. I guess the main reason is because it is easier to access. When I need a password or something, I just open up the "text" document and then just copy&paste, or just read it off quickly. With a notepad, I have to look around for it and type everything out by hand.
On top of that, paper documents are harder to duplicate (although I guess you can just photocopy it regularly--say once a year). With a computer copy, you can just store it in multiple locations/computers/disks/whatever. I haven't done this yet but I might even be confident enough to store my gpg encrypted password file on the internet that is easily accessible by "knowledgeable" people (i.e. crackers, hackers, geeks, etc.) I'm too scared to do this now but that possibility is there if server-based systems become the norm in 10 years.
In addition, paper is more risky.
What if there is a fire*?
What if your friend/neighbour/agent steals your pad? I imagine you keep it close to your computer and what is some dude who is using your computer (say your neighbour's daughter) comes and takes it?
Now, most of these are worst case, 'evil rules', scenarios but those are the cases we must worry about. After all, if nothing bad ever happened, why even care about your passwords in the first place?
So, in summary, I think digital means is the way to go. Your technique is old-school
(* Sounds like an extreme situation but you have to consider these things. I mean, if your house burns down, which 1% of the houses probably do, then how are you going to get back the passwords? You CAN reconstitute it by calling up the bank to reset the password, contacting a website to change the password, etc but how long is this going to take? This goes for anything. For instance, if you keep records on paper (say your financial budget history over the last 5 years) then there is a possibly of losing it to fire)
I don't think anyone should seriously equate, even in an analogous manner, the environmental issues to the threat faced by fascism. If anything, the fascists were strong and dominant where we still have a lot of control over environmental policies. Blaming the actions of the left during the rise in Nazism is kind of shortsighted given that the Nazis were killing off all the leftists in Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, etc. The fact that the soft "liberals" considered Communism to be a greater threat than Nazism kind of didn't help matters.
As far as nuclear energy is concerned, here is the main reason why leftists cannot really endorse it outright:
What are you going to do with the nuclear waste?
Already, you have countries like USA and Japan trying to unload their nuclear waste onto other, usually poorer, countries. This is particularly a problem for Japan since it has shortage of land (whereas USA can just dump it into some mine/bury it and hope the clueless citizens don't say anything eg. Nevada).
If you support nuclear plants, you are basically shifting a modern problem to the future. The amount of nuclear waste generated now is negligible but if nuclear plants replace other forms of energy, then the waste will actually be a serious problem.
Lastly, nuclear plants are too expensive and problematic. Many countries have had problems with them. As an Ontarian (Ontario, Canada), I can refer you to the nuclear plants in Pickering, Ontario, which are way overbudget by several billions with no hope of managing them.
I think leftists should endorse the following sources (in order): geothermal, solar, and wind. Hydro should be a last resort.
Having said all this, I'm just talking about nuclear fission. Fusion is another story (fusion may be ok)...
If you are spend too much time on the internet, like me :), you must have hundreads of passwords for all sorts of things including message boards, websites, e-mail accounts, etc. How do you guys store your passwords? Do you use any software tools?
:( that is encrypted via gpg. Unfortunately it is sitting on my computer, which is connected to a network (i.e. internet) so it is very unsafe. Do you guys do anything to secure your passwords? Do you store it on a CD-ROM/floppy/whatever and keep it off the computer?
:(
Presently, I just keep them in a big file
Just wondering what you guys do with your passwords... Oh, one more thing, I have a horrible memory so I HAVE to store them somewhere
Comparing the 1kg to 10million kg is kind of misleading. Yes, it DOES give an idea of the differences. However, everything will boil down to economic costs. If 1 kg of fusion costs way more than 10million kg of fossil fuel, fusion would have a hard time taking off*. The "size" and quantity don't really indicate anything. For instance, 1 gram of gold typically costs way more to mine than 50 grams of silver. Clearly you cannot compare 1 gram of silver to 1g or gold. Similarly, 1kg of fusion source cannot be directly compared to 1 kg of fossil fuel.
Obviously I'm ignoring the environmental costs. Fusion would be FAR more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.
(* Let's not get into the case of where fossil fuels are depleting and hence costs will skyrocket in the future (oil prices are expected to skyrocket over the next 15 years))
I don't think think a single plane was even shot down. So you think that is a good enough justification to start a war? What's the next country you are going to invade? North Korea? They have been shooting at you (or your allies) for decades...
I'm talking about a world wide network. NPR is a radio station (no video, live internet feeds, etc). If I'm not mistaken, it is not 24hrs either (I don't listen to NPR BTW--I'm in Canada). Also, it doesn't really have many journalists, or stuff like that. In addition, it is US-centric whereas I'm talking about world-oriented...
:) I'm going to try some of these ideas. The internet provides a nice framework to accomplish my desires...
I'm talking about something massive... on par with CNN, BBC World, etc... 24hrs a day... reporting from all corners of the earth... live... real-time... uncensored...
I actually have some ideas in my head. If I ever become rich
Then why are you here? Shouldn't you be hanging with your conservative buddies over at National Review, or American Conservative, or maybe Fox News?
Oh wait... could it just be that science is a field of the liberals, like arts is? my bad... you must feel lonely...
I was not sugesting genocide though. Just leveling cities as an example to other cites, and killing those closely related to rebels so they can't rebel without risking the lives of their whole family. Basicly a submit or die campain, similar to the roman policy for conquering cities.
What you are advocating IS genocide and crimes against humanity. What the Romans did would be considered crimes against humanity. Of course, when the Romans were around it was tolerated just like slavery was but not now...
One problem with a system of non-intervention is not all states will follow your plan, and you can't make them as that goes against your plan in itself.
Non-intervention is based on home country only. It doesn't matter what other countries do unless they directly threaten...
Many of the US's worst blunders happeded durring the cold war, when they had the clear and present danger of the USSR. They supplied and trained Bin Laden because they could not afford to let the USSR gain military inroads into the middle east. The middle eastern contries can't sell oil to anyone if they're siezed by the USSR.
USSR did influence some of the Middle Eastern countries. Who was supplying weapons to the Middle East?
In any case, it doesn't matter who controls the resources because of capitalism. The Middle Eastern countries need to sell their oil. They can't just sit on it...
If you look at WW2, Britain would have fallen to Germany without US aid, and then africa and probably both the middle east and russia.
I don't want to get into WWII because there wouldn't even have been one if USA, France and Britain didn't slap massive reparations on Germany.... Also, Germany basically lost the war even before USA actually sent troops. Contrary to US propaganda, Nazi Germany wouldn't have taken over anything signficant. It couldn't even defeat USSR (couldn't even control Moscow) so I don't know how you expect them to control the Middle East, Africa, and Asia...
No, I think you are wrong... the WMD WAS the main reason. As I said, you cannot just say "I want to remove Saddam". Perhaps you are getting confused because the Bush administration kept switching the reasons. At one time it was democracy, then freedom, then kurds, then terrorists, then ...
I'm not 100% sure but I don't think Congress would have voted for war based on the UN resolution. The US govt generally ignores the UN. I can't think of the last time USA did anything major, let alone war, based on a UN resolution. Rather, what typically happens is that they use it to support their views--but it is never the reason for declaring war...
heh... I guess you must be a desired target market :) My family never got that many calls... In any case, there aren't too many people with feelings as you. If it were, no one would use direct marketing (this is just like saying how if no one responded, clicked, etc the spam that you get in your e-mail, the spammers would be out of business)...
I think I follow the Iraqi situation more closely than you do.... just wait for the draft. Already, one division(?) was reassigned from South Korea to Iraq. I think this is the first time in over 20 years that some troops were moved away from South Korea, which USA considers high priority...
Most media organizations are tools of the government. It's worse in USA than in many other "free" countries IMO...
:)
I don't think you will ever get a media outlet that presents the truth unless it were independently controlled and universal. That is to say, I think what we need is a media organization that has no home base. It just works thorughout the world with no loyalty or profits from any particular area. What we need is a World News Network... an open-source news network sounds good to me
How many people here think they are on this list? How about other blacklists held by agents?
:) ... It wouldn't surprise me if the CIA or some other domestic agency scans slashdot on a regular basis. People who are technically inclinded, even though unemployed :( and without money, are always a greater danger to the government than anyone else...
I have a feeling that I'm on some blacklist cuz... well... I post openly on slashdot with my real name
You are basically suggesting genocide.. I don't know if you realize that or not... Anyway...
My solution would be as follows. I could write pages upon pages on this but I'll keep in short and succint (hopefully). HEre is what USA needs to do:
1. Stop imperialism: USA has been messing in other countries since WWII. It has basically inherited imperial Britain's role. Invading other countries, overthrowing goverments, propping up tyrants, etc, is no the way to go. It might work in the long term but ultimately it will fail. With respect to terrorism, this basically means end support of the Middle Eastern countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.
2. Picking the lesser of the two evils leads to allying with the devil. I don't need to comment much because everyone knows about it. Usama bin Laden would not be where he is without the CIA. Stick to a clear moral path, which is actually much easier than people think. If you support democracy for example, you stick with that. Don't go propping up and supplying weapons to dictatorships. And so forth.
3. Practice non-intervention. Do not get involved in other countries' affairs. What another country does is their problem (assuming that it doesn't directly impact USA). If the Middle Eastern countries want to practice theocracy that's their problem. Don't sell weapons to one side or another. Just stay out of it.
4. Protect the borders and mainland USA. If USA needs to post more border guards, or improve the immigration system, or clean up smuggling, or whatever, do it. Instead of spending billions on the military, USA should be protecting itself. You should be able to do this without switching to a police state (although this would be hte most difficult of my recommendations IMO).
5. Use the tools of capitalism. I'm not a capitalist but even I have to admit that USA is better at capitalism than imperliasm, fascism, or anything else. This essentially means that you use capitalism to acheive your goals. For instance, instead of propping up tyrannies in Kuwait for oil, just buy the oil on the open market. The middle Eastern countries have to sell the oil to someone and USA can still get in on the action using capitalistic elements. USA has some of the biggest corporations and huge amount of capital so buying stuff, investing in companies, etc will be much better in the long term, than sending the military or the CIA to reinforce the tyrants.
Anyway, that provides a rough view of vision. I might be missing a few things but that's the general idea. Basically, go with non-intervention and dump the imperialism favoured by the modern elite.
Do you seriously think this is similar to Pearl Harbour?
Did USA declare war? Did USA mobilize for war? etc...
I suggest that you lay off the historical examples or study them more closely...
I just love these modern McCarthyites. So let me get this straight. You think McCarthyism wasn't so bad because there were Soviet spies? Hello? Did it not occur to you that there have been spies in all countries throughout all time? I mean, there are probably a ton of Chinese spies in USA right now so what are you saying? Let's start attacking the Chinese because there are spies? How about all these Isreali spies? Shall we start attacking the Jews?
In addition, most of the people McCarthy attacked were NOT working in sensitive posts. He was primarily attacking teachers and Hollywood and stuff like that.
Furthermore, I'm surprised a McCarthyite like you would even bring up the first reason. After all, McCarthy went down because he accused the US military of having communists. With your reasoning, McCarthy attacking the military should have been his greatest triumph. After all, if there are tons of spies running around as you suggest, what better place to catch them than in a sensitive military institution? Instead, it led to his downfall because the spy problem was no worse than at any time, and McCarthy wasn't even after spies. Your history looks weak because you need some understanding. McCarthy wasn't attacking spies; he was attacking communists! Obviously you don't know the difference...
This isn't really a Bush thing, although Bush is definitely the dumbest president I know of (since WWII). Rather, it is more about authoratarians vs libertarians. Most of the politicians and the elites are authoratarians--this includes the Democrats. Even if Bush leaves, the struggle will still happen. After all, didn't Kerry vote for the Patriot Act and the Iraqi war...
The fact that Bush is dumb might actually be a good thing in a weird convoluted way. Since he is dumb, he can't do as much damage as he could have. A smarter, more sinister person (say someone like Nixon) would have abused the system far more...
It's OK to investigate people to determine whether they're innocent.
No one is complaining about investigations. What people, like me, have a problem with are detentions, arrests, jailings, etc without any trial and without due course.
Your position is apparently that we should just wait until some more terrorist incidents occur and then convene a grand jury for an investigation -- possibly leading someday to an indictment.
hmm... I guess you don't care about the legal system at all. You just threw away the legal system with your stance. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything to you anymore huh? I have a feeling that you will fail, since you are basically calling for a re-write of the US Constitution. Even hardcore conservatives and superhawks won't do that...
"Patriot Act II" hasn't been passed. So it isn't THAT bad yet.
USA will officially switch to totalitarianism when Patriot Act II is passed (right now, I don't consider it totalitarian). The reason, and it is an important one, is that Patriot Act II basically strips a lot of liberties for US CITIZENS! Right now, most of the violated are non-citizens (illegal immigrants, tourists, student visas, etc). Once citizens are under the same laws, then the government has total control. Right now, most Americans can still get away with little govt control.
lol You actually believe that? Even conservatives know that nothing will change in 5 weeks. The US forces will still be there for years; US soldiers and Iraqi civilians will still die for years; USA will still pay billions (mostly recycled to US corporations); etc.
If you don't believe me, wait and see what happens in a few months. Everything will still be the same... the only difference would be symbolic. Now you would have some Iraqi puppet...
The reason we went into Iraq was simply to depose Saddam Hussein. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't a better or worse reason to be in Iraq, it's just the way it is.
I think it's you who is wrong... or maybe you are starting to come up with excuses now than every other past reason (WMDs, democracy, terrorists, etc) are falling apart. Bush never went to war in order to take out Saddam Hussein. Taking out heads of states just because you want to is against international norms and it might be against the US Constitution too. What did Congress vote on? Certainly not on taking out Saddam. Rather they voted because of an imminent threat from WMDs and violation of UN resolutions (those are my words--they clearly used similar although non-identical words). If you don't believe me, go and do more research or check out the media reports around the time that Congress debated.
The US President just cannot invade another country to kill a person because he/she feels like it. They have to have a reason, however bogus. If the US president actually invaded without reason, I'm sure the US military would refuse.
Every single war, by any country, has to have a reason. The reasons may be bogus but it must be there. At a minimum, this is required to keep the military from refusing to fight and hence overthrowing the government. It hasn't happened in USA but it must be there. The soldiers are not cannon fodder (although some think so) and they certainly wouldn't be fighting just because the leader has some personal issues with another.
Not really... these are the so-called swing voters. In fact, political parties care more about these guys* than anyone else.
(* NOTE: parties will claim to care about everyone. However, swing voters, who are mostly unaware of anything in the world, are who they prize).
Fox News is in a tough situation now though. A lot of the conservatives, particularly the Christian Right, are supposedly becoming disillusioned with the war. Since conservatives are their main audience, I wonder what Fox is going to do? Are they going to stick with the Bush administration or not? It would be funny if Fox starts flip-flopping on all their positions they held over the last 2 years...
It really doesn't matter, though. We could find the worlds largest stockpile of WMD in Iraq and people like you would still refuse to admit that this war was justified and necessary.
;)
Don't worry... you and your buddies are still looking for WMD in Iraq. I think USA is still spending around $1 billion per year in Iraq searching for WMD. This is down from when David Kay was around (around $1billion per month) but you just might find WMDs in 150 years... you know, maybe you'll find some naturally occurring uranium somewhere
If you don't what a WMD is, it is not worth debating. If you still haven't got this through your head, even after David Kay (the pro-invasion inspector) says there may not be, you probably never will understand reality...
It's not the people... rather it's the goverment. The US government is one of the top spenders in propaganda and disinformation. I think the only other country that spends more (in real dollars) is China (but China controls everything in their country and heavily influences their neighbours). The amount of money spent on CIA, think-tanks, lobby groups, media specialists, PR personnel, agents, etc is astounding. I am pretty sure it is a multi-billion dollar industry. You can't find any proof though, since it is all masked.
:( ). So the government initiates propaganda campaigns to brainwash the clueless. I hate to say it but I suspect that this will likely be the case until society is drastically altered (which won't happen for hundreads of years :( ). Since people are apolitical (i.e. not interested on politics) they are easily manipulated. This is just like how a person that is not tech-savvy can be sold a terrible computer for $2000 by a salesperson. People who are not interested in something or knowledgeable in an area can--and will--always be manipulated. It is easier to get someone to jump off a cliff in the name of their country than it is to get them to see the truth...
The vast majority of humans (in any country) are apolitical or cluless (sometimes known as sheep
If you want to know about propaganda, you can check out Noam Chomsky's famous work on it: Manufacturing Consent (if you don't want to buy it, search the web or your library or something--usually you can find it around). If you want to understand how governments manipulate people, you can also read up on how Nazi Germany influenced the populace, or how USSR influenced others, or how the CIA manipulates people, and so forth. Just for the record, Nazi Germany is generally considered to be the expert propagandists. Nearly all govenrment entities and personnel, right from the modern day CIA, to the past KGB, to your infamous-3rd-world-dictator are influenced by them. You can also check out some recent stuff like how the Clinton Administration whitewashed the Waco incident (an amazing use of propaganda to mask the mass murder of civilians by the US government). And so on. Believe me, it's easier to notice propaganda at work than anything else the government does--but you have to keep a close eye...