No one is going to be 100% effective 100% of the day.
On the other hand, have you ever tried telling this to a manager or executive? Even in physically demanding jobs such as assembly lines, companies have spent millions (billions?) on how to squeeze out another tenth of a percentage of work out of people. Most likely, they spend more money that they would compensate for, and in the long run this has a negative affect on the worker, which lowers their productivity even further than it would have been otherwise.
Basically, you are giving the slack argument, and there is something to it, but the majority of managers and executives have their heads so far up their arses that they can't see it.
On yet another hand, dealing with spam is not pleasant. Yes, it is a break from real work but it is such a nuisance that it probably frustrates most people a lot more than real work issues.
And now I forget whose point I'm defending? And I don't care anymore. Forget it. You're both right.
Just look at all the options for Political Orientation: Anarchism Anarcho-capitalism Anarc ho-communism Anti-communism Authoritarianism Ca pitalism Classic definition of republic Classical liberalism Communism Conservatism Corporatocrac y Democracy Democratic socialism Green Fascism Federalism Leftism Li beralism Libertarianism Libertarian socialism Marxism Meritocracy Minarchism Monar chy Nationalism National Socialism Oligarchy Post-Communism Radical centrism Republicanism Socialism Stalinism Tot alitarianism Theocracy Other
Guns are like elections. I don't believe they do any good, but I'd prefer they remain legal.
Personally, I think citizens should be allowed to own any weapon that their countries' police/military/junta is allowed to have.
But you know, maybe it is a good idea to have them registered, and to keep them out of the hands of convicted felons? (Even if I have little to zero faith in our criminal justice system.)
The problem with guns is people think they can protect themselves with them when they are more likely to shoot a friend or family member. On the other hand, I don't think it would be a bad thing if a higher percentage of the population were armed. I just wish that the liberals weren't so gun shy. If more of them had guns and were prepaired to use them I wouldn't worry about a coup, marshall law, or suspension of posse comitatus. Not that I really worry about it. One can only worry about it if one has an idea of what to do about it. No, that's not true either. Just have to deal with it if it happens.
Maybe the Canadians would help us out? Supposidly they have a well armed militia.
Oh baby, what a place to be In the service of the bourgeoisie Where can my believers be I wanna jump into the endless sea
in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism"
Not to be a dictionary fascist, but I think a better term would be "collective punishment."
It doesn't officially happen to US Citizens by US Law Enforcement (I imagine there are unofficial uses of it. But I digress.) It is banned by the geneva conention, but it is repeatedly used by a country that receives a lot of US Foreign aid that I'm thinking of in particular.
I think it was used in most Latin American countries at one time or another in the past 20-30 years too.
I remember when I was in grade school, seeing protestors protesting President Carter and the Shaw, and seeing them being arrested. I thought that it must be illegal to boo the president. One time in grade school there was an assembly and the principal came up to speak, and a bunch of people booed, maybe half the school. People got in trouble for that. I'm not sure if this incident happened before my seeing the protestors arrested on the TV or after, but I connected the two.
My main problem with Air America radio is they can't seem to go two minutes without talking about how liberal they are.
What I'd really like to see is a political talk radio show where the host does not use the terms "liberal" or "conservative" or left, right or generalizes about "Democrats vs Republicans" and any caller who uses such terms is given a BZZZZZ and disconnected.
Another problem I have with Air America is that Al Franken is a putz, and he just isn't that funny, at least not on his talk show.
Randi Rhodes is OK, but even she tends to divide everything into Democrats and Republicans, to the point of contradicting a caller who described Code Pink as non-partisan. I don't know of the rest of the country, but where I live the front of the Code Pink T-Shirts say "What Would Emma Do" and a picture of Emma Goldman. She isn't exactly an icon for the Democratic party.
IMO the real irony of "political correctness" is that the liberal neo-cons seem so much more obsessed with being "politicaly correct" than the people they criticize.
For instance, any disagreement with the current regime or foreign policy (past or pressent) is anti-american. Another is any disagreement with military conduct, even criticizing military strategy, is said to be not "supporting the troops."
Personally I don't care of it is GWB or Hillary that wants to tatoo 666 on my forehead.
How about freedom for everyone, including stupid assholes that call themselves conservative?
Those that would give up essential liberty for illusions of safety deserve neither.
Maybe he does deserve neither.
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
I fear totalitarianism from Hillary just as much from the shrub.
Should we now be made criminals for learning knowledge or thinking up ideas? This could only happen in the fascist US of A really; I'm so glad I don't live there.
Are you an ex-pat, or a "foreigner" ?
oops, I was going to say something like "Those sound like the words of a thought criminal."
Anyway, I hope that people that are fed up with the gob'ment don't leave.
Insert movie quote:
"That's it. Go ahead and run. Run home and cry to mama. Me! I'm through runnin'. I say we stay here and fight it out!"
The Republicans have been taken over by liberals who are often refered to as neo-cons. Having control of House, Senate, and the executive branch only increases their incompetence. (Very likely we would see something similar with the Democrats in control of all three.)
That's why I'm certain that "small-government" will always be a pipe-dream in America.
Maybe it will only become a reality after the feds piss off enough people that we see actual succession again. Our country is too big anyway. We should separate into three different countries: West coast, East Coast, and flyover territory?
(Is it illegal to ponder if sessesion would be a good thing?)
I used to be a Republican. It makes me sick that they don't practice what they preach about small government. (Which is why I'm not a Democrat.)
Now, killing thousands of people in Iraq is far worse than not letting me watch DVDs on Linux.
I'm pretty sure Clinton is also responsible for killing thousands of people in Iraq as well.
Do liberatarians have guts to recognize copyright is an artificial restriction imposed by the government?
Well, Libertarians (The party is a little different than the ideology IMO) like most other significant groups, have varrying opinion. I don't recall copyright to be one of their main issues of contention. Just doing a quick search of Badnarik's website I found this.
I'd also like to throw in my two cents on what I believe is a related issue: copyrights and patents. I recognize the importance of copyrights and patents. However, I think we should stop referring to them as property. They are not property. Property, by definition, is scarce, in the same sense that economists use that word. Ideas are not scarce. Therefore, ideas are not property. The term "intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms.
The purpose of copyright and patent should be to reward those who innovate, not to award copyright holders control over the implementation of those ideas as if they were property.
Toward that end, I'd like to see a change in the LP's platform that reflects something along the following lines: Copyrights and patents should only reward the innovator. They are not property and should not be transferrable. Only the innovator should collect royalties. It makes no sense for a small-time programmer to invent DOS, only to have Bill Gates buy it for $50,000 and then make millions off because of his government-granted monopoly via copyright. Instead, the innovator should be considered the permanent holder of the copyright or patent (until it runs out under law), and anyone who wants to use it may do so provided they pay a royalty. No patent or copyright holder should be permitted to withhold the use of an idea from someone else who is willing to pay a royalty to use it or sell a product based on it.
I have no problem with the innovator collecting $50,000 from Bill Gates. I have no problem with Bill Gates making lots of money off it. But I do have a major problem with Bill Gates being able to exclude anyone else from selling DOS, when he didn't even invent DOS in the first place. That's not the legitimate purpose of copyright, in my opinion.
Free markets depend on people competing to deliver products to the marketplace. When copyrights and patents amount to being primarily government-sponsored monopolies, it's time to redraw the line.
Speaking for myself, but still as a L/libertarian, I would say that the extension of copyright is wrong, and that the government should not be involved in copyright infringement cases beyond administrating civil suits. I also believe that non-profit infringement is wrong, but for the most part frivilous.
Oh, and off topic, but I was looking for something of yours to reply to because I created a poll based on one of your comments. I thought you might find it interesting.
Well, since you asked, I took the liberty of creating a poll over at misterpoll. I used checkboxes, so you may check as many, or as little, as you wish.
That's no fun! I want assinine extreme examples! Please help!
Well, I could try to tie this in with my theory that John Kerry is the Anti-Christ, but if that theory was true, then he should have won.
Then again, the popular vote means nothing. The real election is when the electoral college meets. It is unlikely, but still technically possible that they could elect Kerry.
I suppose it is possible that George W Bush is the second coming of Jesus, but that he had amnesia, but was programmed to regain his memories when his secretary of state retires. So now that he is at his full "second coming" powers, he will use them to first destroy Mars, and Venus, in a nifty light show kinda like they have at the planetarium. But then he gets overconfident and destroys the sun forgetting that we kinda need it.
I wonder if many republicans are thinking that maybe they shouldn't have voted for Bush, due to what appears to be lack of confidence even within his cabinet...
As others have already pointed out, change in cabinet is not uncommon at the start of a second term.
The same thing happened with Clinton apparently.
But then, I'm an anarchist, and I think Clinton was a lying bastard, scum of the earth.... err, I didn't care for him much either.
Re:What his Resignation Speech should have been
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 1
Well, I didn't think the article would have been accepted if I had said that, or that he felt humiliated when he was forced to lie to the United Nations.
So I went with "the rumor mill has other ideas" instead.
Re:What his Resignation Speech should have been
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 1
That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. (Saddam Hussein) is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
On the other hand, appointing someone like Paul Wolfowitz to the job, will signal a continuation and even escalation of a unilateralist, force-based foreign policy that was pretty much dictated by the Pentagon for the last four years anyway.
Dictated by the Pentagon?
OK, I've got to dig up some sources on this but weren't there a lot of high level generals that were critical of the current administration's adventure in Iraq?
If not over the question of to invade or not to invade, but of the conduct?
Wasn't there at least one general forced to retire from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
At the very least, wasn't it recommended that we go in with more troops? To say nothing about better resources for them, and true international support.
Maybe I'm thinking historically, or at least what I was taught in history class, was that Secretary of State was the top cabinet position. Maybe most prestigious would be a better way to put it.
Slashdot Mirror
Mexico? all my e-mails tell me to go to Canada!
Hey Friend!
I can tell you the best place to go to get those "special pills" is actually in Mexico.
Convient shopping right across the border.
I'm talking about Bun-Bun's Black Market Viagra.
Buy our viagra or a cute little bunny rabbit will cut your throat!
ka-klick!
No one is going to be 100% effective 100% of the day.
On the other hand, have you ever tried telling this to a manager or executive? Even in physically demanding jobs such as assembly lines, companies have spent millions (billions?) on how to squeeze out another tenth of a percentage of work out of people. Most likely, they spend more money that they would compensate for, and in the long run this has a negative affect on the worker, which lowers their productivity even further than it would have been otherwise.
Basically, you are giving the slack argument, and there is something to it, but the majority of managers and executives have their heads so far up their arses that they can't see it.
On yet another hand, dealing with spam is not pleasant. Yes, it is a break from real work but it is such a nuisance that it probably frustrates most people a lot more than real work issues.
And now I forget whose point I'm defending?
And I don't care anymore.
Forget it.
You're both right.
In a lot of companies you don't have any choice of which email client to use.
You ever try to use Lotus Notes?
Gods is it a pain in the ass to use.
You pretty much have to do everything with the mouse.
Wow!
c ho-communisma pitalismc yi beralismr chyt alitarianism
That's detailed.
Just look at all the options for Political Orientation:
Anarchism
Anarcho-capitalism
Anar
Anti-communism
Authoritarianism
C
Classic definition of republic
Classical liberalism
Communism
Conservatism
Corporatocra
Democracy
Democratic socialism
Green
Fascism
Federalism
Leftism
L
Libertarianism
Libertarian socialism
Marxism
Meritocracy
Minarchism
Mona
Nationalism
National Socialism
Oligarchy
Post-Communism
Radical centrism
Republicanism
Socialism
Stalinism
To
Theocracy
Other
hm.... they are missing the Whigs.
The anarchist view about gun control:
Guns are like elections. I don't believe they do any good, but I'd prefer they remain legal.
Personally, I think citizens should be allowed to own any weapon that their countries' police/military/junta is allowed to have.
But you know, maybe it is a good idea to have them registered, and to keep them out of the hands of convicted felons? (Even if I have little to zero faith in our criminal justice system.)
The problem with guns is people think they can protect themselves with them when they are more likely to shoot a friend or family member. On the other hand, I don't think it would be a bad thing if a higher percentage of the population were armed. I just wish that the liberals weren't so gun shy. If more of them had guns and were prepaired to use them I wouldn't worry about a coup, marshall law, or suspension of posse comitatus. Not that I really worry about it. One can only worry about it if one has an idea of what to do about it. No, that's not true either. Just have to deal with it if it happens.
Maybe the Canadians would help us out?
Supposidly they have a well armed militia.
Oh baby, what a place to be
In the service of the bourgeoisie
Where can my believers be
I wanna jump into the endless sea
in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism"
Not to be a dictionary fascist, but I think a better term would be "collective punishment."
It doesn't officially happen to US Citizens by US Law Enforcement (I imagine there are unofficial uses of it. But I digress.) It is banned by the geneva conention, but it is repeatedly used by a country that receives a lot of US Foreign aid that I'm thinking of in particular.
I think it was used in most Latin American countries at one time or another in the past 20-30 years too.
I remember when I was in grade school, seeing protestors protesting President Carter and the Shaw, and seeing them being arrested. I thought that it must be illegal to boo the president. One time in grade school there was an assembly and the principal came up to speak, and a bunch of people booed, maybe half the school. People got in trouble for that. I'm not sure if this incident happened before my seeing the protestors arrested on the TV or after, but I connected the two.
Federal laws supercede state laws, and state laws in turn supercede local/municipal laws.
City says that you need a permit to freely assemble.
People freely assemble anyway.
Police indiscriminately, and liberally use peperspray against people assembled people.
People successful sue the city for violation of constitutional rights.
maybe that's why there is such a big push for "tort reform."
My main problem with Air America radio is they can't seem to go two minutes without talking about how liberal they are.
What I'd really like to see is a political talk radio show where the host does not use the terms "liberal" or "conservative" or left, right or generalizes about "Democrats vs Republicans" and any caller who uses such terms is given a BZZZZZ and disconnected.
Another problem I have with Air America is that Al Franken is a putz, and he just isn't that funny, at least not on his talk show.
Randi Rhodes is OK, but even she tends to divide everything into Democrats and Republicans, to the point of contradicting a caller who described Code Pink as non-partisan. I don't know of the rest of the country, but where I live the front of the Code Pink T-Shirts say "What Would Emma Do" and a picture of Emma Goldman. She isn't exactly an icon for the Democratic party.
IMO the real irony of "political correctness" is that the liberal neo-cons seem so much more obsessed with being "politicaly correct" than the people they criticize.
For instance, any disagreement with the current regime or foreign policy (past or pressent) is anti-american.
Another is any disagreement with military conduct, even criticizing military strategy, is said to be not "supporting the troops."
Personally I don't care of it is GWB or Hillary that wants to tatoo 666 on my forehead.
How about freedom for everyone, including stupid assholes that call themselves conservative?
Those that would give up essential liberty for illusions of safety deserve neither.
Maybe he does deserve neither.
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
I fear totalitarianism from Hillary just as much from the shrub.
May I be the first to say, "if you don't like it, LEAVE!!!" :)
"That's it. Go ahead and run. Run home and cry to mama. Me! I'm through runnin'. I say we stay here and fight it out!"
(It is kinda lonely being a "conservative" against GWB.)
(GWB, and anyone who supports him, is a stupid liberal IMO.)
Should we now be made criminals for learning knowledge or thinking up ideas? This could only happen in the fascist US of A really; I'm so glad I don't live there.
Are you an ex-pat, or a "foreigner" ?
oops, I was going to say something like "Those sound like the words of a thought criminal."
Anyway, I hope that people that are fed up with the gob'ment don't leave.
Insert movie quote:
"That's it. Go ahead and run. Run home and cry to mama. Me! I'm through runnin'. I say we stay here and fight it out!"
Excuse me, but would you be interested in a fake rolex watch?
If not I'll kindly go away for about 5 minutes and then knock on your door again.
wash rinse repeat
I suppose people could bring up NAFTA, but if it doesn't apply to getting cheaper prescription drugs, then it will not apply to p2p.
The Republicans have been taken over by liberals who are often refered to as neo-cons. Having control of House, Senate, and the executive branch only increases their incompetence. (Very likely we would see something similar with the Democrats in control of all three.)
That's why I'm certain that "small-government" will always be a pipe-dream in America.
Maybe it will only become a reality after the feds piss off enough people that we see actual succession again. Our country is too big anyway. We should separate into three different countries: West coast, East Coast, and flyover territory?
(Is it illegal to ponder if sessesion would be a good thing?)
I used to be a Republican.
It makes me sick that they don't practice what they preach about small government.
(Which is why I'm not a Democrat.)
I'm pretty sure Clinton is also responsible for killing thousands of people in Iraq as well.
Do liberatarians have guts to recognize copyright is an artificial restriction imposed by the government?
Well, Libertarians (The party is a little different than the ideology IMO) like most other significant groups, have varrying opinion. I don't recall copyright to be one of their main issues of contention. Just doing a quick search of Badnarik's website I found this.
Speaking for myself, but still as a L/libertarian, I would say that the extension of copyright is wrong, and that the government should not be involved in copyright infringement cases beyond administrating civil suits. I also believe that non-profit infringement is wrong, but for the most part frivilous.
Oh, and off topic, but I was looking for something of yours to reply to because I created a poll based on one of your comments. I thought you might find it interesting.
Well, since you asked, I took the liberty of creating a poll over at misterpoll.
I used checkboxes, so you may check as many, or as little, as you wish.
Share and enjoy!
That's no fun! I want assinine extreme examples! Please help!
Well, I could try to tie this in with my theory that John Kerry is the Anti-Christ, but if that theory was true, then he should have won.
Then again, the popular vote means nothing. The real election is when the electoral college meets. It is unlikely, but still technically possible that they could elect Kerry.
I suppose it is possible that George W Bush is the second coming of Jesus, but that he had amnesia, but was programmed to regain his memories when his secretary of state retires. So now that he is at his full "second coming" powers, he will use them to first destroy Mars, and Venus, in a nifty light show kinda like they have at the planetarium. But then he gets overconfident and destroys the sun forgetting that we kinda need it.
Does that work for you?
I wonder if many republicans are thinking that maybe they shouldn't have voted for Bush, due to what appears to be lack of confidence even within his cabinet...
As others have already pointed out, change in cabinet is not uncommon at the start of a second term.
The same thing happened with Clinton apparently.
But then, I'm an anarchist, and I think Clinton was a lying bastard, scum of the earth.... err, I didn't care for him much either.
Well, I didn't think the article would have been accepted if I had said that, or that he felt humiliated when he was forced to lie to the United Nations.
So I went with "the rumor mill has other ideas" instead.
I found this earlier today:
If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the staff laughing in the background when the announcer recites their slogan: "Fair and Balanced!"
Well, the marketing department decided not to go with the new slogan:
"From the company that created the legal decision that it is not illegal to lie on the news."
On the other hand, appointing someone like Paul Wolfowitz to the job, will signal a continuation and even escalation of a unilateralist, force-based foreign policy that was pretty much dictated by the Pentagon for the last four years anyway.
h n_ M._Shalikashvilii .phtml?title=Opera tion_Iraqi_Freedom:_Military_and_Political_Dissent n er als-Warn-Bush24sep02.htmw s/nw/war16e_20041016.htm
Dictated by the Pentagon?
OK, I've got to dig up some sources on this but weren't there a lot of high level generals that were critical of the current administration's adventure in Iraq?
If not over the question of to invade or not to invade, but of the conduct?
Wasn't there at least one general forced to retire from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
At the very least, wasn't it recommended that we go in with more troops? To say nothing about better resources for them, and true international support.
Links from quick search:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Jo
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wik
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Retired-Ge
http://www.freep.com/ne
Also, I'm thinking in terms of the Presidential Succession:
- The Vice President
- Speaker of the House
- President pro tempore of the Senate
- Secretary of State
Secretary of State is the first Cabinet position that could take over the presidency if the shit really hit the fan.I hope he attached an audio book version to the letter.
More likely an audio singing telegram.
Be careful what you wish for.