The is no doubt a direct result of intense lobbying by representatives of Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner et al. Don't think for a second that this type of spend directed at a specific industry happens unless those folks are doing some heavy-duty knob-polishing.
It's sad that it's that easy for our government to spend BILLIONS of our money with that little oversight, process, or public input or debate. People really deserve the type of government they receive.
That's certainly one tremendously biased way to look at it. Another way, of course, is that all people, not just the rich, would have more money in their pockets with less government, and the freedom to choose the health care and retirement plans that are most appropriate for their individual situations. The current assumption is that people don't have the discipline or intelligence to save for themselves, so the government should do it for them. That's a gross impingement on personal and financial freedom, bordering on the unconstitutional.
The Libertarians will never hold a significant amount of power because most of the public rejects their pro-drug legalization plank, as current generations have been conditioned that drugs == bad. I suspect that may be changing, however, as most of the public also disagrees with the vast corporate welfare being undertaken by the last and current administrations.
I mean, you can't really top this, that guy knows so well the issues he's tackling, he probably knows what's good for you better than you do on a few issues!
Careful now. I know a lot of people are still in the throes of post-inauguration orgasm afterglow, but that's really a very dangerous train of thought. NO GOVERNMENT can be trusted that they know what's better for you, than you do -- ever. Some of the most evil and destructive regimes in the history of the human civilization have suggested exactly the same thing in order to take and maintain absolute power.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and see how things proceed over the next year or two. To suggest that this administration is fundamentally different than any of the others after only five days in office is dangerously naive.
It also helps to know that only the absolute minimum is spent on non-productive stuff like defence.
Sadly true . . . why would you waste money on defense if you knew that the USA, Europe's favorite whipping boy, would bail you out of any real military mess that came along?
Agreed. Let's also not forget about those complaining about poor people in rural America finding comfort in their churches and exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
No one is complaining about Bush's private communications with his family and friends, which is presumably what Obama will continue to use his Blackberry for.
Careful now. That is precisely the argument which was made for Governor Sarah Palin having / using a Yahoo account when it was hacked last year. In addition to mostly "family and friends" emails, she had a few (albeit harmless) emails related to official business in there.
No one's arguing whether or not Obama should be allowed to carry on conversations with family and friends. The issue is that whether he can be trusted, WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, to refrain from using a personal device to conduct official business. I doubt that it's even possible to completely separate the two, as a lot of "friends" are now part of the administration.
More applicable than math or reading? I think not. This is about as important as "self esteem" training, and would be about as successful.
It's parents' responsibility to teach kids ethics and morality, not the government's. Government should NEVER play a role in indoctrinating young people on what is right and wrong -- such a system is rife with the potential for abuse. Hitler tried the same thing with the Hitler Youth program.
Moreover, you can't "force" someone to learn to have good morals and ethics. The fact that large groups of the population think this might be a good idea is troubling.
So supposedly, the sacred right to bear arms is there to keep the government in line
Not supposedly. See Iraq, where recently a group of well-armed citizens made life miserable for an occupying power.
Lemme see, the Bushies did:
I would remind you that many of those things (e.g., the Iraq war and the Patriot Act) were backed by bipartisan legislation, and that we've had a Democratic House and Senate since 2006.
If you think only Republicans want and do all of the things in your laundry list, you're dangerously naive.
Obama's own website stated that he wanted to require high schools kids to do community service, until the statement was replaced with a "sanitized" version of the text after the election.
Yeah -- let's REQUIRE high schools kids to do menial crap that's approved by the Federal government. Sure sounds like servitude to me.
I find this call by Obama and Rahm Emanuel towards "national service" very troubling. His constant call for "sacrifice" and "serving" gets me worried.
Especially when the guy calling for "sacrifice" lived in a million dollar house, wears $2k suits (yet tells college graduates not to "chase" these things), went to Harvard and Columbia U, and sends his kids to private school. A little too disengenuous and "do as I say, not as I do" for me.
I agree with charitable work and contributions -- just not through coersion. The conservative Republicans may need to learn that you can't legislate morality, but apparantly so do the liberal Democrats.
Fair enough. I completely respect negotiating compensation and abiding by that contract. In the real world, if I negotiate a great deal for myself at a software company, good for me. Let's say the software company doesn't do well, though, even if it's not because of my performance AT ALL, and the boss comes to me and says, "We can't afford to pay you what you make now, or to keep your benefits at the same level. You either have to take a paycut or we'll be forced to shut down." I have two options: I can agree to take a paycut (and if I'm savvy, perhaps negotiate a better deal for myself if / when things turn around down the road), or go work somewhere else. Pretty simple.
Why should unionized labor be treated any differently? Sure, they have legal right to receive their negotiated contract wage and benefits schedules -- just like everyone else. But don't refuse to adapt to financial reality and come with hands outstretched for my tax dollars when your jobs don't exist anymore -- that's just insulting.
I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive.
It's offensive because it assumes I can't negotiate a good deal for myself and need someone else's help to do so. My personal experience in my career has clearly shown me that this is not the case.
I don't want the right to negotiate the individual terms of my employment taken away from me because a group of people gave a political party money to help them win an election. That's what's offensive.
Some people say it's the men who have walked on the moon. Personally, though, I think that probably the most elite club out there consists of those who have summited all 14 8000m peaks. An even smaller group would be those who have done it without supplemental oxygen.
Use that money to give cash payouts to the teachers (not the schools) whose kids have the greatest degree of improvement in their region, with "improvement" defined as a conrete metric. Here in Baltimore, for example, the city has a graduation rate of approximately 40%, and our literacy rate is also very low. Stupid investments in "broadband" and "computers" won't help these kids, but highly incented teachers just might. The teachers' unions would never stand for it (in fact they'd label it discriminatory), but you need highly skilled, motivated people to reach these kids on a one-on-one basis. If cash can attract the best folks for the job, I say go for it. They've tried everything else here for decades, including paying the students themselves for good grades, and nothing has worked.
More stats for ya -- you're absolutely correct. "Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,200 permits for any reason." Oh yeah, add Baltimore to your list, please -- if the drug dealers weren't shooting each other here, they'd be stabbing each other instead.
But given that the effective fire power of the United States is many billions of times greater than it was at the end of the 18th century, which particular colonial power are you so concerned about?
Washington.
And how is an armed militia of geriatrics going to help in this coming war?
See Iraq, where recently a group of determined citizens made life particularly uncomfortable for its occupiers with small arms and improvised explosives. In a worst-case scenario, it's not quite as simple for a jack-booted thug to terrorize the locals into submitting to the government's will if anyone -- even Grandma -- might be armed. And given that the government has already violated the 2nd Amendment during a natural disaster -- one of those times when guns are needed the most -- you'll have to excuse those of us who believe that Washington is full of shit when they say they support the 2nd Amendment. Instead, they'd really would LOVE to take guns away from the citizenry in order to make us easier to control.
Slashdot Mirror
The is no doubt a direct result of intense lobbying by representatives of Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner et al. Don't think for a second that this type of spend directed at a specific industry happens unless those folks are doing some heavy-duty knob-polishing.
It's sad that it's that easy for our government to spend BILLIONS of our money with that little oversight, process, or public input or debate. People really deserve the type of government they receive.
That's certainly one tremendously biased way to look at it. Another way, of course, is that all people, not just the rich, would have more money in their pockets with less government, and the freedom to choose the health care and retirement plans that are most appropriate for their individual situations. The current assumption is that people don't have the discipline or intelligence to save for themselves, so the government should do it for them. That's a gross impingement on personal and financial freedom, bordering on the unconstitutional.
The Libertarians will never hold a significant amount of power because most of the public rejects their pro-drug legalization plank, as current generations have been conditioned that drugs == bad. I suspect that may be changing, however, as most of the public also disagrees with the vast corporate welfare being undertaken by the last and current administrations.
I mean, you can't really top this, that guy knows so well the issues he's tackling, he probably knows what's good for you better than you do on a few issues!
Careful now. I know a lot of people are still in the throes of post-inauguration orgasm afterglow, but that's really a very dangerous train of thought. NO GOVERNMENT can be trusted that they know what's better for you, than you do -- ever. Some of the most evil and destructive regimes in the history of the human civilization have suggested exactly the same thing in order to take and maintain absolute power.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and see how things proceed over the next year or two. To suggest that this administration is fundamentally different than any of the others after only five days in office is dangerously naive.
It also helps to know that only the absolute minimum is spent on non-productive stuff like defence.
Sadly true . . . why would you waste money on defense if you knew that the USA, Europe's favorite whipping boy, would bail you out of any real military mess that came along?
Don't forget about Tom Daschle, either. He's married to Linda Hall, the mother of all lobbyists.
Agreed. Let's also not forget about those complaining about poor people in rural America finding comfort in their churches and exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
Obviously, if you want a balanced budget, you have to vote for those willing to raise taxes along with increased spending
Why not vote for a those willing to cut both taxes and spending (e.g., Libertarians)?
No one is complaining about Bush's private communications with his family and friends, which is presumably what Obama will continue to use his Blackberry for.
Careful now. That is precisely the argument which was made for Governor Sarah Palin having / using a Yahoo account when it was hacked last year. In addition to mostly "family and friends" emails, she had a few (albeit harmless) emails related to official business in there.
No one's arguing whether or not Obama should be allowed to carry on conversations with family and friends. The issue is that whether he can be trusted, WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, to refrain from using a personal device to conduct official business. I doubt that it's even possible to completely separate the two, as a lot of "friends" are now part of the administration.
More applicable than math or reading? I think not. This is about as important as "self esteem" training, and would be about as successful.
It's parents' responsibility to teach kids ethics and morality, not the government's. Government should NEVER play a role in indoctrinating young people on what is right and wrong -- such a system is rife with the potential for abuse. Hitler tried the same thing with the Hitler Youth program.
Moreover, you can't "force" someone to learn to have good morals and ethics. The fact that large groups of the population think this might be a good idea is troubling.
So supposedly, the sacred right to bear arms is there to keep the government in line
Not supposedly. See Iraq, where recently a group of well-armed citizens made life miserable for an occupying power.
Lemme see, the Bushies did:
I would remind you that many of those things (e.g., the Iraq war and the Patriot Act) were backed by bipartisan legislation, and that we've had a Democratic House and Senate since 2006.
If you think only Republicans want and do all of the things in your laundry list, you're dangerously naive.
Obama's own website stated that he wanted to require high schools kids to do community service, until the statement was replaced with a "sanitized" version of the text after the election.
Yeah -- let's REQUIRE high schools kids to do menial crap that's approved by the Federal government. Sure sounds like servitude to me.
I find this call by Obama and Rahm Emanuel towards "national service" very troubling. His constant call for "sacrifice" and "serving" gets me worried.
Especially when the guy calling for "sacrifice" lived in a million dollar house, wears $2k suits (yet tells college graduates not to "chase" these things), went to Harvard and Columbia U, and sends his kids to private school. A little too disengenuous and "do as I say, not as I do" for me.
I agree with charitable work and contributions -- just not through coersion. The conservative Republicans may need to learn that you can't legislate morality, but apparantly so do the liberal Democrats.
Yeah, I'm sure everyone else is really jealous of a state facing a $41 billion budget deficit over the next 18 months. Economic expansion, indeed -- CA's government is the laughing stock of the nation.
What California (and everyone other state, Federal, and local government) needs to do is STOP figuring out endless new ways to spend OUR money.
"Fixing" TV energy consumption is NOT what they need to be focused on right now.
It's OK: their code goes something like this:
while (1)
{
status = GetRadarInfo();
if (status = 1)
LaunchMissiles();
}
Uh oh.
That's 222 miles. I thought I loved fast food, but man, you rock!
Perhaps, but funny how that only applies to one party here on Slashdot.
Fair enough. I completely respect negotiating compensation and abiding by that contract. In the real world, if I negotiate a great deal for myself at a software company, good for me. Let's say the software company doesn't do well, though, even if it's not because of my performance AT ALL, and the boss comes to me and says, "We can't afford to pay you what you make now, or to keep your benefits at the same level. You either have to take a paycut or we'll be forced to shut down." I have two options: I can agree to take a paycut (and if I'm savvy, perhaps negotiate a better deal for myself if / when things turn around down the road), or go work somewhere else. Pretty simple.
Why should unionized labor be treated any differently? Sure, they have legal right to receive their negotiated contract wage and benefits schedules -- just like everyone else. But don't refuse to adapt to financial reality and come with hands outstretched for my tax dollars when your jobs don't exist anymore -- that's just insulting.
Clearly, you've never lived in Maryland.
I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive.
It's offensive because it assumes I can't negotiate a good deal for myself and need someone else's help to do so. My personal experience in my career has clearly shown me that this is not the case.
I don't want the right to negotiate the individual terms of my employment taken away from me because a group of people gave a political party money to help them win an election. That's what's offensive.
Some people say it's the men who have walked on the moon. Personally, though, I think that probably the most elite club out there consists of those who have summited all 14 8000m peaks. An even smaller group would be those who have done it without supplemental oxygen.
. . . as if millions of Folding@Home and Seti@Home clients suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
The submitter's assertion to the contrary is a deliberate lie
Don't mistake ignorance for malevolence. ;-)
Use that money to give cash payouts to the teachers (not the schools) whose kids have the greatest degree of improvement in their region, with "improvement" defined as a conrete metric. Here in Baltimore, for example, the city has a graduation rate of approximately 40%, and our literacy rate is also very low. Stupid investments in "broadband" and "computers" won't help these kids, but highly incented teachers just might. The teachers' unions would never stand for it (in fact they'd label it discriminatory), but you need highly skilled, motivated people to reach these kids on a one-on-one basis. If cash can attract the best folks for the job, I say go for it. They've tried everything else here for decades, including paying the students themselves for good grades, and nothing has worked.
More stats for ya -- you're absolutely correct. "Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,200 permits for any reason." Oh yeah, add Baltimore to your list, please -- if the drug dealers weren't shooting each other here, they'd be stabbing each other instead.
But given that the effective fire power of the United States is many billions of times greater than it was at the end of the 18th century, which particular colonial power are you so concerned about?
Washington.
And how is an armed militia of geriatrics going to help in this coming war?
See Iraq, where recently a group of determined citizens made life particularly uncomfortable for its occupiers with small arms and improvised explosives. In a worst-case scenario, it's not quite as simple for a jack-booted thug to terrorize the locals into submitting to the government's will if anyone -- even Grandma -- might be armed. And given that the government has already violated the 2nd Amendment during a natural disaster -- one of those times when guns are needed the most -- you'll have to excuse those of us who believe that Washington is full of shit when they say they support the 2nd Amendment. Instead, they'd really would LOVE to take guns away from the citizenry in order to make us easier to control.