Absolutely. That has always been my contention. The only difference is that we can react differently to the same provocation. Non-humans have a fixed set of responses, unless trained to do otherwise. And even then they will not deviate from that training, unless they resort back to their "natural" instinct. They can't decide on their own how to respond. Or so it seems. On the other hand, humans can. Though most do act predictably(instinctively), we have that variable that doesn't seem to exist in other life forms. That's my claim to free will that supposedly makes us different. A parasite invariably kills its host. Humans do so consciously, by choosing to act instinctively, thus pollution, greed, war continue to go on. I feel we have to choice not to. Maybe we don't. All life forms exist to reproduce. It is the most basic of all instincts. And it explains virtually everything we do. The Animal Planet channel explains human behavior every bit as well as the most famous of all philosophers including Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, any of them. All this carries on to how we react to unpleasant speech. I'm claiming that these are instinctive reactions. But humans claim to be different, more advanced than animals. That they have a choice how to react. Well, to me, they have yet to prove it. If we do, then obviously we choose to act instinctively, and I believe this is so. Therefore I believe we make laws to protect certain instincts, like national borders as a way to protect natural xenophobia(it's no different than a dog marking its territory), and to negate others, like sex(but here again, it's really just the alpha male asserting its authority, only he is allowed to mate. So maybe it's not negation after all).
Now, despite my rants on the absolute sovereignty of the individual, I do recognize that we really are talking chimps, and that's what makes certain laws necessary(kind of funny, chimps ruling over other chimps, but again, totally natural, I guess). We most assuredly live under the rule of might makes right. It is the way of this physical universe. For now it can't be any other way until we discover some method that each individual can protect himself from another. But if we are to truly advance, we must do just that, recognize that all people must be allowed to express anything they want, and prove that we have the free will not to react with suppression or violence.
God, you must think I'm some kind of Holocaust denier or something like that.
Not at all, but you did seem to be trivializing it a bit. But while I'm on that subject, I do believe we are giving to much attention to that holocaust at the expense of others, much more grievous. And now we use it to justify other atrocities. However, that's the subject of another thread.
...Sure you could do it, but it isn't exactly fair, since the orders came from upstairs.
If one is aware of the crimes of their employer, they do have an obligation to, at the very least, refuse to support them, by quitting if necessary, but preferably by bringing it up to the proper authorities. "Just following orders" does not justify anything. If the losers in a war can't use that excuse, then we shouldn't allow the winners to, either.
The question is which party the law should protect.
To me there is no question. The law should protect against physical violence. But the law has proven to be quite feeble, and I believe, misdirected(which contributes to its weakness). (dreamland)We need a physical means to make it literally impossible for an individual to assault another. For speech, earplugs are sufficient. For pictures, blinders will do. Both the TV and radio have an off switch. But the hard part is touch. How can we neutralize the real weapons? All of them, including the hand? When we can accomplish that, all will be well.(/dreamland)
The power companies are unlikely to promote it. Until some laws were passed(reinvigorates my faith in government...to an extent), there was quite a bit of trouble getting it set up and connected to the grid(about half way down the page). And I finally found out the name, "net metering". Spread the word.
You cannot be more wrong. What one considers offensive is very relative. Nobody has any right to tell me what's so offensive that I can't say it. Free will has everything to do with it. I don't care what kind of speech provokes you. If you react violently to speech, then you alone responsible for the violence, whether you are Willaim F. Buckley or an inarticulate moron. It cannot be any other way. If you have a free will, you have a choice not to react violently to speech. You must prosecute the violence, never the speech, no matter what. This is an absolute. If you can't control yourself then you are an animal. You must admit that you have no free will. If I kill someone because their speech offended me, then by your guildlines, I would have the right to do just that, and you could not bring me up on charges. I would be free to commit all sorts of crimes against those who have "offended" me, just like the Islamists who reacted violently against the cartoons. If I threaten to kill somebody, they have the right to protect themselves from the actual attack, by putting a guard at the door or whatever. But the mere threat is nothing but speech, which is absolutely meaningless without the act. Speech can only considered a weapon by those who wish to control it. To them it's a weapon to be used to subjugate others to their will.
The state can abuse you and steal from you, granted, but if you keep your head down and do whatever they say, you'll be largely safe. Sure totallitarian states can be a little irrational with suspected criminals, but I used it only as an example.
A little irrational!?? Were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam(I could go on forever with this list) "a little irrational"?? You seem to be a "little" unaware of how ubusive the state can, and has become. I tend to think that you are "a little authoritarian" in your beliefs. You are too willing to abdicate your autonomy as an individual. Even worse you are too willing to take mine. To put it simply, that is unacceptable.
That's for people already in the US. You're not in until they let you in. The constitution does not apply outside the fortress walls or at the gate. And it's losing its clout on the inside also. The majority is pretty much letting the government do as it pleases. In effect letting the constitution slowly(or not so slowly lately) die of attrition. Personally, I'm simply staying away until the hysteria dies down and the people recover their senses. I know it's inconvenient, but I kind of wish others would do the same.
You seem to be equating speech with action. Nothing could be further apart from each other. If you insist that speech incites violence, then that would eliminate the concept of free will. All are welcome to ignore the speech and go on their merry ways. If they stop and get violent with the speakers, then they alone are responsible for the violence, not the speakers. And so absent of free will you have no right to punish either side. They are incapable of doing otherwise. If burning crosses causes physical property damage, then it obviously is not merely speech. Speech is not violence. Violent acts are violence. Don't confuse the two. Freedom to offend must be held sacred. If you don't like something, then turn away. That's the only legitimate choice you have. Otherwise you must admit that free will does not exist amongst humans any more than animals.
If you give the state ultimate powere, no-one will steal from you, or abuse you...
Except the state.
You could argue that people can look after themselves, that they could be informed about these affairs, but in practice, that is simply unfeasable.
Again you negate free will. It is not unfeasible. It's merely inconvenient. And we wouldn't want that now, would we? I never said it would be easy. But transparency is necessary. Slip-ups will be more easily forgiven if nobody tries to cover it up.
Personally, I think Bush has dug himself in over his head.
Bush has done nothing but follow orders. He's the PR guy, not the policy maker. He is inconsequential. He's an unfunny Max Headroom. He will walk away from this without a care in the world. Confident that his daddy will always be able to him out of prison, where he belongs, right there with Saddam.
...which is that the War on Terror is meant to provide freedoms for the US...
To believe there is anything legitimate about this "War on Terror" requires a level of naiveté and/or indoctrination beyond conception. First off, a "War on Terror" would require action against ALL terrorism, not the one sided one being practiced now. And actually, the US/Europe has been and still are, of course, playing, supplying, and provoking both sides. You seem to believe that "our" side doesn't practice terrorism. "Our" terrorists are only exercising their "right to self defense" while killing women and children. Much more than the other side has ever killed in such a short time period. This war is anything but legitimate, and deserves no support or secrecy. It deserves nothing but worldwide condemnation. It is absolutely, positively despicable, contemptible, and all other similar words that describe such a thing. But I can't disagree that it IS good business. The arms merchants and the oil industry are doing absolutely fantastic.
And if they demand the key? If I bring a safe into the country, they're going to want to see inside or it stays at the impound, no? Convince 51% of the voters that freedom and privacy are good things, and you just might get some. Otherwise it ain't gonna happen, because now they believe that only terrorists want those things.
Well, you still seem to equate credibility with size. I thought size didn't matter, but not everyone agrees, apparently. I would like to think that sometimes the "small timers" work a little harder at getting the facts straight. The big boys have business matters to consider. The facts could be, let's saaay...a little inconvenient for those interests.
Democrat, Republican, you know that makes no difference. Both parties are falling all over each other to be like the other. The Middle East policies that he pushes are a big problem. His view of the situation is way too heavily(?) biased to bring about any kind of real balance. He will do what he can to bury the truth, fitting right in with the Bush regime(I call it that for lack of a better name. Bush is a puppet). I will go so far as to call him an outright racist. That he supports terrorism. His participation in writing the Patriot Act, as mentioned in my previous post. His loyalties are not with the US, much less with others not in his group. He may be bringing home the bacon for Connecticut, but he's no good for the country or even the planet in general as a whole. I believe his interests lie elsewhere, with one particular group at the expense of the rest. I don't like him one bit. As far as his other domestic policies are concerned, he simply is representing his own special interests, like most others. So I'm sure he's reasonably popular in his state, politics being local and all that. But he has far too much influence on unrelated matters. Like Rostenkowski did for the people of Chicago. He had way too much power on Ways and Means. But he was great for Chicago. If he didn't get caught, he would have had the job for life. I can only hope that the people see his real agenda and get him out. I believe some people have. That's why he's in trouble with the party. And he's certainly not the kind of non-aligned candidate that I'm looking for. You may as well vote for David Duke. Even I would prefer mantaining the status quo over him. If he were in power, the Midde East wars would be far more extensive. What's left of the constitution would be up in smoke(something which far too many people would applaud and might happen anyway). He's a war monger of the worst kind. He must go.
Al Gore lost an election because he was not popular.
Well, that's generally how elections are determined. He also picked an extremist for a running mate. He really blew it there. It was as if he threw the election(And I'm fairly convinced that the dems didn't really want it in '04 either.). While I curse those who voted for Bush, I definitely thank them for keeping Lieberman out. Remember, he not only voted for the Patriot Act, he helped to write it! I very much doubt his loyalties, and I hope he gets thrown out of Washington completely. I consider him a dangerous radical. Given his druthers, he would vaporize the Constitution to protect his real constituents. He demonstrated that after 9/11. I will never figure out who Gore sold his soul to for him to pick such a person.
...that there is simply no chance for a honest one to get elected.
Sure there is...all it takes is a majority of votes. The corruption is in the voters. They are the ones more influenced by big spenders and promises of the pot of gold. The politicians are simply following their lead.
You will only get competant leaders if you look for ACTUAL Leaders...
That has been my point in all my rants. Even after looking for them, you still have to vote for them. They can't get in any other way, big money or no.
It's already being done in some states. I forget the official name. When you generate more than you use, the meter runs backwards. Been around for a few years now.
And that's why we call it the criminal justice system. That's just what it is.
It's just the system that is messed up...
It wouldn't be if we were to do something about it, like, for instance, stop re-electing crooked politicians. 99% percent of the voters think things are just fine. So if you want any changes, you all know where to start.
Solar energy is yet expensive...consume half of what they do now...
Oh jeeze. So now we'll have to flush four times to get everything to go down. Instead of us doing the sacrificing, how about telling the corporations to sacrifice a little profit? In reality, the resources are nearly infinite. All we do is move them around and combine them with others. Our management of them is the problem. Our present business models create the need for shortages and "crises". Let's work on that to see where we really stand. We're still trying to sell refrigerators to the Eskimos.
Our story resembles more and more with some Age of Empires game where we start on an island, burn out everything there is to burn over there, and then have no more resources to build transporting ships.
I will never equate the rights of the state to the rights of the individual. An individual generally has no authority over another. If we are to grant the state or individual any such authority, then we must demand absolute transparency to avoid the possibility of abuse. That includes into the private lives of those who set policy. If they want the job, then they must accept the conditions. Secrecy here cannot and must not be tolerated.
In a society that is growing ever more anti-authoritarian, the government has less and less power over the people.
That pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme in the 50s. Even during the civil rights movements, the federal government has been granted ever more authority, though in that case, I would say in a good way. Ever since Reagan, however, it has been shown that society has grown much more authoritarian. And that includes Clinton. He was no freedom lover. He too, had to cater to the authoritarian aspects of society to win their votes. More and more people are saying that the Bill of Rights grants too much freedom. Very sad.
No offence intended, but the view that the government is majorly censoring our media is considered extreme.
Not allowing the news to photogragh the the coffins coming back from the wars is one example of government censorship. It is pure manipulation of public opinion. Denying information to the news is extreme censorship. And if it does leak out, the government seeks to prosecute. Too much remains classified. Mostly to avoid embarrassment, and worse, to avoid revelation of possible criminal intent. To "protect the privacy of the families" is as phoney as it gets. Censorship is there to protect the interests of the corporations, and of course, the government's power. Some of those people are getting away with murder. We have a right to see and know what happened.
Now I can accept that this is not the government's fault. And I'll grant that mass-madia puts business interests ahead of all else. We used to have rules about responsibility to the community. That all went out the window in the 80s, and actually never really existed to a large extent. But at least is codified into law at one time. We grant this authority and "privacy". We can and should take it away. But now the masses are brainwashed into believing all this secrecy is needed to protect our freedoms. No, it's needed to protect entrenched interests. No tin hat needed to see that. Nothing conspiratorial about it. It's how power works, no matter where you are. So, in reality, it's our own fault.
The more moderate you are in your beliefs, the less you'll feel the need to make your voice heard.
I'll go along with that. When everybody agrees with you, there isn't much to talk about beyond the weather and your arthritis.
I never heard O'Riley say it. I don't watch him often enough. I can only take about 2 minutes of him, and I only catch glimpses while I'm flipping through channels during commercials. Well, ok, I admit it. He is a bit of a train wreck, and you know, I can never turn away from a good train wreck. Ratings genius, I say. No, it was from a cartoon show I used to watch, somewhere between '62 and '66, and O'Riley is ripping it off.
uuuuOOOHH!(Hoo Ah?) I don't know how to type grunts. So much for that.
Same thing. My rant goes for any goods or services that we purchase from anybody. Make it a buyer's market and your problems will be solved. Besides, since the words "Cell Phones" were in the subject of the summary, I'm not entirely off-topic.
Yeah, like using the market as a tool to allow the paying customers to set such conditions. Like everything else, the demand is what makes the rules. And nobody demanded better. So, here we are...riding the Springfield Monorail.
You always have the choice to do without entirely. Even without cell phones, life will go on. You wouldn't be so young to not know how things were before they existed, are you? Everybody accepted high prices and bad service and now you all are paying for it. I don't pay to recieve calls where I live, and I never will. Hell, I'll use a CB if I need to. If the Americans didn't accept those conditions, it wouldn't have happened. If you want good service at a reasonable price, don't settle for anything less. Now you're stuck. I feel so very sorry...
...you should always throw in some boring old moderate sites as well.
Most indubitably. (Damn, I wish I could remember who always said that.)
One of my big complaints about TV mass media...
It's all good. We have the aforementioned options now. Let the TV go nuts. Remember, their job is whack us over the head with distraction. But I don't want them to go away. "Pégame si quieres, pero no me dejes" I really enjoy the mindless chatter sometimes. Even FOX can come up with the occasional profundity.
Our posts are becoming shorter. Let's see if we can get them down to a couple of grunts and save Slashdot some disk space:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, I thought we were animals.
...Sure you could do it, but it isn't exactly fair, since the orders came from upstairs.
...I'd like to say that it's been fun :)
Absolutely. That has always been my contention. The only difference is that we can react differently to the same provocation. Non-humans have a fixed set of responses, unless trained to do otherwise. And even then they will not deviate from that training, unless they resort back to their "natural" instinct. They can't decide on their own how to respond. Or so it seems. On the other hand, humans can. Though most do act predictably(instinctively), we have that variable that doesn't seem to exist in other life forms. That's my claim to free will that supposedly makes us different. A parasite invariably kills its host. Humans do so consciously, by choosing to act instinctively, thus pollution, greed, war continue to go on. I feel we have to choice not to. Maybe we don't. All life forms exist to reproduce. It is the most basic of all instincts. And it explains virtually everything we do. The Animal Planet channel explains human behavior every bit as well as the most famous of all philosophers including Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, any of them. All this carries on to how we react to unpleasant speech. I'm claiming that these are instinctive reactions. But humans claim to be different, more advanced than animals. That they have a choice how to react. Well, to me, they have yet to prove it. If we do, then obviously we choose to act instinctively, and I believe this is so. Therefore I believe we make laws to protect certain instincts, like national borders as a way to protect natural xenophobia(it's no different than a dog marking its territory), and to negate others, like sex(but here again, it's really just the alpha male asserting its authority, only he is allowed to mate. So maybe it's not negation after all).
Now, despite my rants on the absolute sovereignty of the individual, I do recognize that we really are talking chimps, and that's what makes certain laws necessary(kind of funny, chimps ruling over other chimps, but again, totally natural, I guess). We most assuredly live under the rule of might makes right. It is the way of this physical universe. For now it can't be any other way until we discover some method that each individual can protect himself from another. But if we are to truly advance, we must do just that, recognize that all people must be allowed to express anything they want, and prove that we have the free will not to react with suppression or violence.
God, you must think I'm some kind of Holocaust denier or something like that.
Not at all, but you did seem to be trivializing it a bit. But while I'm on that subject, I do believe we are giving to much attention to that holocaust at the expense of others, much more grievous. And now we use it to justify other atrocities. However, that's the subject of another thread.
If one is aware of the crimes of their employer, they do have an obligation to, at the very least, refuse to support them, by quitting if necessary, but preferably by bringing it up to the proper authorities. "Just following orders" does not justify anything. If the losers in a war can't use that excuse, then we shouldn't allow the winners to, either.
The question is which party the law should protect.
To me there is no question. The law should protect against physical violence. But the law has proven to be quite feeble, and I believe, misdirected(which contributes to its weakness). (dreamland)We need a physical means to make it literally impossible for an individual to assault another. For speech, earplugs are sufficient. For pictures, blinders will do. Both the TV and radio have an off switch. But the hard part is touch. How can we neutralize the real weapons? All of them, including the hand? When we can accomplish that, all will be well.(/dreamland)
I can't agree more.
The power companies are unlikely to promote it. Until some laws were passed(reinvigorates my faith in government...to an extent), there was quite a bit of trouble getting it set up and connected to the grid(about half way down the page). And I finally found out the name, "net metering". Spread the word.
until Vista 3.11 for workgroups come out.
Free will has nothing to do with it.
You cannot be more wrong. What one considers offensive is very relative. Nobody has any right to tell me what's so offensive that I can't say it. Free will has everything to do with it. I don't care what kind of speech provokes you. If you react violently to speech, then you alone responsible for the violence, whether you are Willaim F. Buckley or an inarticulate moron. It cannot be any other way. If you have a free will, you have a choice not to react violently to speech. You must prosecute the violence, never the speech, no matter what. This is an absolute. If you can't control yourself then you are an animal. You must admit that you have no free will. If I kill someone because their speech offended me, then by your guildlines, I would have the right to do just that, and you could not bring me up on charges. I would be free to commit all sorts of crimes against those who have "offended" me, just like the Islamists who reacted violently against the cartoons. If I threaten to kill somebody, they have the right to protect themselves from the actual attack, by putting a guard at the door or whatever. But the mere threat is nothing but speech, which is absolutely meaningless without the act. Speech can only considered a weapon by those who wish to control it. To them it's a weapon to be used to subjugate others to their will.
The state can abuse you and steal from you, granted, but if you keep your head down and do whatever they say, you'll be largely safe. Sure totallitarian states can be a little irrational with suspected criminals, but I used it only as an example.
A little irrational!?? Were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam(I could go on forever with this list) "a little irrational"?? You seem to be a "little" unaware of how ubusive the state can, and has become. I tend to think that you are "a little authoritarian" in your beliefs. You are too willing to abdicate your autonomy as an individual. Even worse you are too willing to take mine. To put it simply, that is unacceptable.
That's for people already in the US. You're not in until they let you in. The constitution does not apply outside the fortress walls or at the gate. And it's losing its clout on the inside also. The majority is pretty much letting the government do as it pleases. In effect letting the constitution slowly(or not so slowly lately) die of attrition. Personally, I'm simply staying away until the hysteria dies down and the people recover their senses. I know it's inconvenient, but I kind of wish others would do the same.
...only the guests are high-profile politicians instead of trailer park crack whores...
You mean... there's a difference?
(In my best Johnny Carson voice): I did not know that.
You seem to be equating speech with action. Nothing could be further apart from each other. If you insist that speech incites violence, then that would eliminate the concept of free will. All are welcome to ignore the speech and go on their merry ways. If they stop and get violent with the speakers, then they alone are responsible for the violence, not the speakers. And so absent of free will you have no right to punish either side. They are incapable of doing otherwise. If burning crosses causes physical property damage, then it obviously is not merely speech. Speech is not violence. Violent acts are violence. Don't confuse the two. Freedom to offend must be held sacred. If you don't like something, then turn away. That's the only legitimate choice you have. Otherwise you must admit that free will does not exist amongst humans any more than animals.
...which is that the War on Terror is meant to provide freedoms for the US...
If you give the state ultimate powere, no-one will steal from you, or abuse you...
Except the state.
You could argue that people can look after themselves, that they could be informed about these affairs, but in practice, that is simply unfeasable.
Again you negate free will. It is not unfeasible. It's merely inconvenient. And we wouldn't want that now, would we? I never said it would be easy. But transparency is necessary. Slip-ups will be more easily forgiven if nobody tries to cover it up.
Personally, I think Bush has dug himself in over his head.
Bush has done nothing but follow orders. He's the PR guy, not the policy maker. He is inconsequential. He's an unfunny Max Headroom. He will walk away from this without a care in the world. Confident that his daddy will always be able to him out of prison, where he belongs, right there with Saddam.
To believe there is anything legitimate about this "War on Terror" requires a level of naiveté and/or indoctrination beyond conception. First off, a "War on Terror" would require action against ALL terrorism, not the one sided one being practiced now. And actually, the US/Europe has been and still are, of course, playing, supplying, and provoking both sides. You seem to believe that "our" side doesn't practice terrorism. "Our" terrorists are only exercising their "right to self defense" while killing women and children. Much more than the other side has ever killed in such a short time period. This war is anything but legitimate, and deserves no support or secrecy. It deserves nothing but worldwide condemnation. It is absolutely, positively despicable, contemptible, and all other similar words that describe such a thing. But I can't disagree that it IS good business. The arms merchants and the oil industry are doing absolutely fantastic.
And no, your post was not too long.
And if they demand the key? If I bring a safe into the country, they're going to want to see inside or it stays at the impound, no? Convince 51% of the voters that freedom and privacy are good things, and you just might get some. Otherwise it ain't gonna happen, because now they believe that only terrorists want those things.
Just make it useful. Now the spammers will probably use some IP law to prevent this "unauthorized" use of their copyrighted material.
Well, you still seem to equate credibility with size. I thought size didn't matter, but not everyone agrees, apparently. I would like to think that sometimes the "small timers" work a little harder at getting the facts straight. The big boys have business matters to consider. The facts could be, let's saaay...a little inconvenient for those interests.
Democrat, Republican, you know that makes no difference. Both parties are falling all over each other to be like the other. The Middle East policies that he pushes are a big problem. His view of the situation is way too heavily(?) biased to bring about any kind of real balance. He will do what he can to bury the truth, fitting right in with the Bush regime(I call it that for lack of a better name. Bush is a puppet). I will go so far as to call him an outright racist. That he supports terrorism. His participation in writing the Patriot Act, as mentioned in my previous post. His loyalties are not with the US, much less with others not in his group. He may be bringing home the bacon for Connecticut, but he's no good for the country or even the planet in general as a whole. I believe his interests lie elsewhere, with one particular group at the expense of the rest. I don't like him one bit. As far as his other domestic policies are concerned, he simply is representing his own special interests, like most others. So I'm sure he's reasonably popular in his state, politics being local and all that. But he has far too much influence on unrelated matters. Like Rostenkowski did for the people of Chicago. He had way too much power on Ways and Means. But he was great for Chicago. If he didn't get caught, he would have had the job for life. I can only hope that the people see his real agenda and get him out. I believe some people have. That's why he's in trouble with the party. And he's certainly not the kind of non-aligned candidate that I'm looking for. You may as well vote for David Duke. Even I would prefer mantaining the status quo over him. If he were in power, the Midde East wars would be far more extensive. What's left of the constitution would be up in smoke(something which far too many people would applaud and might happen anyway). He's a war monger of the worst kind. He must go.
Heh, You've never been to "Reagan Country".
Al Gore lost an election because he was not popular.
...that there is simply no chance for a honest one to get elected.
Well, that's generally how elections are determined. He also picked an extremist for a running mate. He really blew it there. It was as if he threw the election(And I'm fairly convinced that the dems didn't really want it in '04 either.). While I curse those who voted for Bush, I definitely thank them for keeping Lieberman out. Remember, he not only voted for the Patriot Act, he helped to write it! I very much doubt his loyalties, and I hope he gets thrown out of Washington completely. I consider him a dangerous radical. Given his druthers, he would vaporize the Constitution to protect his real constituents. He demonstrated that after 9/11. I will never figure out who Gore sold his soul to for him to pick such a person.
Sure there is...all it takes is a majority of votes. The corruption is in the voters. They are the ones more influenced by big spenders and promises of the pot of gold. The politicians are simply following their lead.
You will only get competant leaders if you look for ACTUAL Leaders...
That has been my point in all my rants. Even after looking for them, you still have to vote for them. They can't get in any other way, big money or no.
It's already being done in some states. I forget the official name. When you generate more than you use, the meter runs backwards. Been around for a few years now.
Yeah, well, that bowl had better be pretty deep too. There are few things worse than the unexpected "touch" of cold porcelain in the morning.
And that's why we call it the criminal justice system. That's just what it is.
It's just the system that is messed up...
It wouldn't be if we were to do something about it, like, for instance, stop re-electing crooked politicians. 99% percent of the voters think things are just fine. So if you want any changes, you all know where to start.
So the Denver news is now a reliable source of information? Let's see some Washington Post or NYT article being linked to.
Yeah, them damn hicks out west don't know squat. Now then, care to explain what makes an eastern paper more credible?
Solar energy is yet expensive...consume half of what they do now...
Oh jeeze. So now we'll have to flush four times to get everything to go down. Instead of us doing the sacrificing, how about telling the corporations to sacrifice a little profit? In reality, the resources are nearly infinite. All we do is move them around and combine them with others. Our management of them is the problem. Our present business models create the need for shortages and "crises". Let's work on that to see where we really stand. We're still trying to sell refrigerators to the Eskimos.
Our story resembles more and more with some Age of Empires game where we start on an island, burn out everything there is to burn over there, and then have no more resources to build transporting ships.
Ok, and that too.
I will never equate the rights of the state to the rights of the individual. An individual generally has no authority over another. If we are to grant the state or individual any such authority, then we must demand absolute transparency to avoid the possibility of abuse. That includes into the private lives of those who set policy. If they want the job, then they must accept the conditions. Secrecy here cannot and must not be tolerated.
In a society that is growing ever more anti-authoritarian, the government has less and less power over the people.
That pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme in the 50s. Even during the civil rights movements, the federal government has been granted ever more authority, though in that case, I would say in a good way. Ever since Reagan, however, it has been shown that society has grown much more authoritarian. And that includes Clinton. He was no freedom lover. He too, had to cater to the authoritarian aspects of society to win their votes. More and more people are saying that the Bill of Rights grants too much freedom. Very sad.
No offence intended, but the view that the government is majorly censoring our media is considered extreme.
Not allowing the news to photogragh the the coffins coming back from the wars is one example of government censorship. It is pure manipulation of public opinion. Denying information to the news is extreme censorship. And if it does leak out, the government seeks to prosecute. Too much remains classified. Mostly to avoid embarrassment, and worse, to avoid revelation of possible criminal intent. To "protect the privacy of the families" is as phoney as it gets. Censorship is there to protect the interests of the corporations, and of course, the government's power. Some of those people are getting away with murder. We have a right to see and know what happened.
Now I can accept that this is not the government's fault. And I'll grant that mass-madia puts business interests ahead of all else. We used to have rules about responsibility to the community. That all went out the window in the 80s, and actually never really existed to a large extent. But at least is codified into law at one time. We grant this authority and "privacy". We can and should take it away. But now the masses are brainwashed into believing all this secrecy is needed to protect our freedoms. No, it's needed to protect entrenched interests. No tin hat needed to see that. Nothing conspiratorial about it. It's how power works, no matter where you are. So, in reality, it's our own fault.
The more moderate you are in your beliefs, the less you'll feel the need to make your voice heard.
I'll go along with that. When everybody agrees with you, there isn't much to talk about beyond the weather and your arthritis.
I never heard O'Riley say it. I don't watch him often enough. I can only take about 2 minutes of him, and I only catch glimpses while I'm flipping through channels during commercials. Well, ok, I admit it. He is a bit of a train wreck, and you know, I can never turn away from a good train wreck. Ratings genius, I say. No, it was from a cartoon show I used to watch, somewhere between '62 and '66, and O'Riley is ripping it off.
uuuuOOOHH!(Hoo Ah?) I don't know how to type grunts. So much for that.
Same thing. My rant goes for any goods or services that we purchase from anybody. Make it a buyer's market and your problems will be solved. Besides, since the words "Cell Phones" were in the subject of the summary, I'm not entirely off-topic.
Clearly, something must be done!
Yeah, like using the market as a tool to allow the paying customers to set such conditions. Like everything else, the demand is what makes the rules. And nobody demanded better. So, here we are...riding the Springfield Monorail.
You always have the choice to do without entirely. Even without cell phones, life will go on. You wouldn't be so young to not know how things were before they existed, are you? Everybody accepted high prices and bad service and now you all are paying for it. I don't pay to recieve calls where I live, and I never will. Hell, I'll use a CB if I need to. If the Americans didn't accept those conditions, it wouldn't have happened. If you want good service at a reasonable price, don't settle for anything less. Now you're stuck. I feel so very sorry...
...you should always throw in some boring old moderate sites as well.
:-)
Most indubitably. (Damn, I wish I could remember who always said that.)
One of my big complaints about TV mass media...
It's all good. We have the aforementioned options now. Let the TV go nuts. Remember, their job is whack us over the head with distraction. But I don't want them to go away. "Pégame si quieres, pero no me dejes" I really enjoy the mindless chatter sometimes. Even FOX can come up with the occasional profundity.
Our posts are becoming shorter. Let's see if we can get them down to a couple of grunts and save Slashdot some disk space
The 60s is dead. In fact it never happened. Every trace was wiped out in the 80s.