trust not in them with politics or economics... Reagan and Thatcher
Oddly enough, economics is the thing I'd trust both of them with the most. If you look at the policies before them, like price and wage freezes, FBI investigations of the size of sandwiches on airplanes, and insanely high tax rates, they seem very reasonable.
Economics, the only science where ethics and morality are thrown out the window.
So you throw out scientific conclusions because they don't fit your moral ideology. That explains a lot about your post.
I dislike with most of what Regan and Thacher did (just as I do with almost all politicians), but I have to agree that without them the economies of both countries would be much worse.
Suddenly the burden of proof falls to the injured party and all the "big bad company" has to do is have some form of plausible denyability.
The fact that the company lied is awful, and the fact that our court system is based more on lobbying and lawyer psudo-logic than justice is a travesty. But the burden of proof thing is one thing that is still done right. It doesn't make a difference if it's a single individual, or (to use your loaded term) a "big bad company", everyone is innocent until proven guilty - period.
As someone who pirated both Casablanca and Citizen Kane in college, I must protest!
On a more serious note, why on earth are those movies not in the public domain? Citizen Kane was made before my parents were born, the creator has been dead for over two decades, and I'm supposed to pay to be allowed to see his work?!?!? You might as well say that I owe Fox money every time I quote Futurama!
You're assuming that this is a government work - it isn't. This is a group of private citizens who are trying to get a government job. Public speeches of (for example) senator Clinton, while she's acting as part of her job as senator (or ones made in public places), would be public domain. Speeches she makes in private (like to the AARP, at a symposium, etc) are not.
It's not a religious lobby, it's the primary pro-Israeli lobbying group in the US. AIPAC includes Jews and non-Jews, and some Jews support Israel's policies and others oppose them. Quit trying to pretend they're the same thing.
What makes the Israeli one special?
It's not so special, it just happened to be the one that was relevant to the discussion.
Why claim the Pro-Israeli is more influencial than [a] the opposing lobby and [b] America's own private interests?
Because it is more influential than the other lobbies you listed, and almost any other lobby. And just because America comes first doesn't mean that the threat of being seen as anti-semitic won't scare congresscritters into changing their vote.
throwing money at a political figure contributes damn little to his chances of being elected
So? At the very least it gets their attention, and you have a better chance to explain your side. Plus, the anti-antisemitism worry probably is a stronger motivator anyway.
neglect... of your own national interests for the sake of foreign ones - I daresay you won't get elected no matter how much money is backing you up.
Right, voting for what you believe is right rather than voting for what will make you look good is the way to win elections. Ha, good one!
In any case, the Wikipedia link above quotes a well-regarded source:
The Economist magazine claimed AIPAC's political power is one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel. "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right."[30] The Economist also says that AIPAC's claim to represent Jewish opinion in the US is not without question, and that AIPAC is often too willing to "close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias" when people question whether AIPAC's "passing more than a hundred bits of pro-Israel legislation a year" "is a good thing." I'd never read this before, and they hit my main points exactly.
If my actions made it any easier for you to protect yourself, lessened the harm that befell you, or let you safely drop your guard a bit, I'm acting in order to raise the chances that you'll survive - meaning that I'm defending you.
Have I gained any defense value? Am I now more defended that I was with my first sword? No.
The situations aren't that similar:
First, if you had five guys with two swords, and were given another, that would add to your defense. If America gives Israel jet fighters and tanks, it now has more money for soldiers and AK-47s.
Second, if you're planning on buying a sword, and I give you one instead, I've still contributed. The fact that you could do it on your own makes no difference.
Since US arms are not fundamentally superios technology-wise to Israeli-made ones, you have no case.
If I buy you dinner, even if it isn't any better than the one you would have eaten anyway, I've still helped to feed you. I'm sorry, but while you've made some points, there's no logic to your argument that I "have no case".
I never said it was run by one, just influenced by one. What do you think lobbyists do, throw money at politicians and not expect to influence them?
Where was your Jewish lobby then?
Just to be very clear, it's an Israeli lobby, not a Jewish one.
And to answer your question: all over, but not as organized. Zionism didn't even start until the late 19th century, and WWII atrocities both increased support for Zionism and give them the political capital to pull off the recreation of Israel. Now there's a group with with a fairly homogeneous agenda and a government with the power to organize and focus their efforts, like trying to keep good relations with the most powerful government on Earth.
America is pro-Israel because America gains something substantial from being pro-Israel.
Like what?
I utterly love the "It's their fault!" line, one that notorious dictators of the past used it as their platform to get into power.
Who's saying it's anyone's fault? And their fault for what? All I've suggested is that there's a disparity in the way American and the rest of the world view Israel, and that it might partly be caused by politics. Where did I blame them, and for what?
It still does so for a reason called "American Interests".
That's fine, but if I keep you from being killed just so you'll live long enough to pay back the money you owe me, I'm still defending you. It doesn't matter why I do it, I'm still doing it.
I think you're mixing the words "good" and "democracy" together. Democracy might be a good system, but that doesn't mean that every good idea about government is a basic part of democracy. No system is perfect, and people have (for example) democratically passed laws in favor of slavery.
I guess I'm just saying that a good system can still lead to bad consequences. That's probably why there are so few pure democracies - most countries try to fix some of the rough spots with constitutions, charters, etc.
I was going for number five: "to support... in the face of criticism".
What the US does is "give" them money that can only be used to buy AMERICAN-MADE arms, thus entering a mutually-beneficial pact where one side gains arms and the other brings jobs home.
Which has the same economic effect as buying the arms from American companies and giving them to Israel. That's contributing to the defense of Israel. If they just wanted to make jobs, they'd buy stuff and then melt it down again.
Israel does not depend on US arms either.
Who cares. That fact has no relevance.
the UN has, for most of its history, been skewed in favor of arab (sic) interests.
Most of the rest of the world sees the UN as neutral, passing resolutions against Israel, Palestine, Iraq, etc, in a fairly balanced way; while the US is often seen as exceedingly pro-Israel, vetoing the resolutions against Israel alone. All I did way try to describe some possible influences that would account for this difference.
Rest assured, the US gets SOMETHING back, otherwise it would not be pushing good green taxpayer dollars down that hole. It simply isn't US dollars. It's the milk.
Yes, the representatives that voted for it are more likely to be voted for by a pro-Israeli public. They're using their power in government to gain votes, just like when they pass most other laws.
So is the case of the US either lending or giving money to other countries. It does so for a reason, and that reason is not being out of pocket just as the reason for me buying milk is not ending up with a dollar less. It's an unavoidable side-effect. What we term "the cost".
You have a seriously messed-up view of economics. If a store gave you $3 for milk, and then you traded the money back to them for a gallon of milk, the store just lost a gallon of milk - end of story. It might get advertising (the way coupons work), good publicity, or some other advantage, but in that isolated exchange, it didn't gain anything material.
You misunderstand business.
I don't think so. You obviously slept through Econ 101.
Actually he's contributed a great deal to the discussion - he's a perfect example of the knee-jerk response you'll get from many Americans. It doesn't matter that I was listing facts that might influence other people's opinions, anything that might put Israel in a bad light must be shouted down.
And also, he doesn't distinguish between Jews and Israelis. Imagine criticizing Taiwan's government and being labeled as anti-Buddhist - it would prevent any real discussion of Taiwan-Chinese issues and make progress in that area almost impossible.
Why should a democracy allow... a group with the declared aim to destroy that democracy?
If the people chose to end the democracy, then the democratic thing to do is to end it. Otherwise it's no longer a democracy anyway, because the people aren't allowed to make the choice!
Every freedom hast limits and has to have limits.
Yes, that's the old "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose" bit. But this kind of thing says that if I even talk about swinging my fist (in any way), you should react as if I hit you.
If that's what you advocate, that fine, but you're no longer advocating a free society.
If you're against patents/copyrights in general, or DRM in general, then that another discussion. But just in case you aren't, here's some differences for GMOs vs music tracks, plus some other info:
1. There aren't any backup/transfer-to-iPod issues with plants.
2. Plants make copies on their own, and preventing GMOs from spreading uncontrolled is a big issue for environmentalists. This kind of thing was seen as a way to be responsible/get eco-nuts off they backs. If it can't reproduce, then it can't escape and muck up the biosphere.
3. Many crops are already sterile, because of hybridization. You cross two strains of corn, and the second generation will give you huge harvests, but the third won't produce good plants at all. This is an unavoidable side-effect of the process, so there's no good argument against it. But you can't economically create hybridized soybeans (it's like artificially inseminating a gnat), so some people saw this as a way to give products that use different techniques equal protection.
4. Some people think that anything grown on their land is theirs, period, even if they signed a contract saying that they would grow it only one year and then make sure that any seeds not harvested would be destroyed. This has already lead to numerous court battles, so, yes, piracy is a big concern. Plus, it opens the company up to liability if some farmer releases the crop into the wild (as in part 2) and they had a way to prevent it, but didn't use it.
Anyway, if you have any other ideas/concerns, let me know.:)
1. Israel has a western culture and a western religion. For comparison, Iran has a very different culture, a less well-known religion and funny skin colors. On top of that, historical abuses (WWII, middle ages) of Jewish people means that they have a bit of a sympathy vote. Plus there's the antisemitism angle, for which there's no Palestinian equivalent.
2. Given that the US has a high concentration of Christians, there are plenty of wackos here that think that Israel's rebirth is part of God's plan. Supporting Israel for some of them is tantamount to obeying God's commandments and hastening the day of Christ's return. Since Middle Eastern Muslims generally don't like Israel, they must be allied with the Anti-Christ/Satan.
3. Israel runs a massive lobby to keep US politician pro-Israel. (I might be wrong, but I've heard it described as the largest and most well funded political lobby in the US.)
By contrast Europe has had more contact with Muslims, tends to be more secular, and without the UN veto and military dominance, there's less reason to put political pressure on the EU. That's the main reason Americans have a positive impression of Israel, just like they see Great Britain and Australia, while the rest of the world ranks Iran and Israel down at the bottom, below North Korea.
This all does sound reasonable, but as someone who works in a crop analytics lab:
the terminator gene embedded in these plants
No commercially available crop has ever had any type of terminator technology in it. In fact, the Wikipedia even mentions that the company I work for has pledged to never use it in commertial products. There's no way that bees could be "starved out" by the minute fraction of a percent of fields that are used for research.
With no ability to reproduce, the plant may be expending energy that would have gone into food for the bees somewhere else
That's true for some techniques, but only for ones that prevent seeds from forming at all. Plants with those genes do produce seeds (that's usually what they're being grown for) just like their unaltered cousins, the seeds just aren't viable. Men who've had vasectomies and women who've had their tubes tied still have the same sex drive, but if they lose their gametes they generally lose interest.
On the other hand, your suggestion of of doing research on captive bee colonies sounds like a good idea.
If you can come up with a reason why not wearing a seatbelt could be beneficial, then I might well change my opinion, at least for tha[t] specific case
Delivering papers? I delivered several hundred papers a day when I was in college, and the usual method would be to stop at one block, grab the papers and deliver them, and then move to the next block. To follow the law exactly, you'd have to use your seatblet, your hazard lights, and never jaywalk - which would possible, but very inconvenient. Plus at 15 mph on roads that have at most one other moving vehicle, that's just stupid.
And that's the problem, you can't think of every exception ahead of time.
What the fuck does does have to do with online gambling or this law at all?
Both bills were passed by the same group of people. He isn't changing the subject, he's just expanding the scope from one specific bill passed by the House to several bills passed by the House. Showing a pattern of behavior is a basic, necessary part of many types of argument.
Oh, damn. I didn't read the "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on my way in. Sorry, guys.
Ultimately, your hobbies take a back seat to the well-being of humanity and your community.
According to my Hippie to English Dictionary, you're suggesting that if you can get just over 50% of people to dislike something, it can be made illegal.
Those are the sacrifices you make as an individual when you agree to accept the protection and benefits that come from living in a society.
And environmental degredation is a sacrifice you made when you decided to join civilization. But apparently your choice of what gets sacrificed is more important than my choice, even though I'm the person most directly affected.
I must be a commie, huh?
Not necesarily. But from your tone, you are a collectivist.
I love my Aveo (stick shift), it's great for one person, and gets insane gas milage. On the other hand, if I ever have a family, I'm going to get a bigger car. And on top of that, I'm likely to end up getting a pickup at some point so that I can plow snow and help people move. As far as I know, there aren't a lot of minivans or pickups that get 30 mi/gal.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, economics is the thing I'd trust both of them with the most. If you look at the policies before them, like price and wage freezes, FBI investigations of the size of sandwiches on airplanes, and insanely high tax rates, they seem very reasonable.
Economics, the only science where ethics and morality are thrown out the window.
So you throw out scientific conclusions because they don't fit your moral ideology. That explains a lot about your post.
I dislike with most of what Regan and Thacher did (just as I do with almost all politicians), but I have to agree that without them the economies of both countries would be much worse.
The fact that the company lied is awful, and the fact that our court system is based more on lobbying and lawyer psudo-logic than justice is a travesty. But the burden of proof thing is one thing that is still done right. It doesn't make a difference if it's a single individual, or (to use your loaded term) a "big bad company", everyone is innocent until proven guilty - period.
On a more serious note, why on earth are those movies not in the public domain? Citizen Kane was made before my parents were born, the creator has been dead for over two decades, and I'm supposed to pay to be allowed to see his work?!?!? You might as well say that I owe Fox money every time I quote Futurama!
You're assuming that this is a government work - it isn't. This is a group of private citizens who are trying to get a government job. Public speeches of (for example) senator Clinton, while she's acting as part of her job as senator (or ones made in public places), would be public domain. Speeches she makes in private (like to the AARP, at a symposium, etc) are not.
It's not a religious lobby, it's the primary pro-Israeli lobbying group in the US. AIPAC includes Jews and non-Jews, and some Jews support Israel's policies and others oppose them. Quit trying to pretend they're the same thing.
What makes the Israeli one special?
It's not so special, it just happened to be the one that was relevant to the discussion.
Why claim the Pro-Israeli is more influencial than [a] the opposing lobby and [b] America's own private interests?
Because it is more influential than the other lobbies you listed, and almost any other lobby. And just because America comes first doesn't mean that the threat of being seen as anti-semitic won't scare congresscritters into changing their vote.
throwing money at a political figure contributes damn little to his chances of being elected
So? At the very least it gets their attention, and you have a better chance to explain your side. Plus, the anti-antisemitism worry probably is a stronger motivator anyway.
neglect ... of your own national interests for the sake of foreign ones - I daresay you won't get elected no matter how much money is backing you up.
Right, voting for what you believe is right rather than voting for what will make you look good is the way to win elections. Ha, good one!
In any case, the Wikipedia link above quotes a well-regarded source:
The Economist magazine claimed AIPAC's political power is one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel. "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right."[30] The Economist also says that AIPAC's claim to represent Jewish opinion in the US is not without question, and that AIPAC is often too willing to "close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias" when people question whether AIPAC's "passing more than a hundred bits of pro-Israel legislation a year" "is a good thing." I'd never read this before, and they hit my main points exactly.If my actions made it any easier for you to protect yourself, lessened the harm that befell you, or let you safely drop your guard a bit, I'm acting in order to raise the chances that you'll survive - meaning that I'm defending you.
The situations aren't that similar:
First, if you had five guys with two swords, and were given another, that would add to your defense. If America gives Israel jet fighters and tanks, it now has more money for soldiers and AK-47s.
Second, if you're planning on buying a sword, and I give you one instead, I've still contributed. The fact that you could do it on your own makes no difference.
Since US arms are not fundamentally superios technology-wise to Israeli-made ones, you have no case.
If I buy you dinner, even if it isn't any better than the one you would have eaten anyway, I've still helped to feed you. I'm sorry, but while you've made some points, there's no logic to your argument that I "have no case".
I never said it was run by one, just influenced by one. What do you think lobbyists do, throw money at politicians and not expect to influence them?
Where was your Jewish lobby then?
Just to be very clear, it's an Israeli lobby, not a Jewish one.
And to answer your question: all over, but not as organized. Zionism didn't even start until the late 19th century, and WWII atrocities both increased support for Zionism and give them the political capital to pull off the recreation of Israel. Now there's a group with with a fairly homogeneous agenda and a government with the power to organize and focus their efforts, like trying to keep good relations with the most powerful government on Earth.
America is pro-Israel because America gains something substantial from being pro-Israel.
Like what?
I utterly love the "It's their fault!" line, one that notorious dictators of the past used it as their platform to get into power.
Who's saying it's anyone's fault? And their fault for what? All I've suggested is that there's a disparity in the way American and the rest of the world view Israel, and that it might partly be caused by politics. Where did I blame them, and for what?
That's fine, but if I keep you from being killed just so you'll live long enough to pay back the money you owe me, I'm still defending you. It doesn't matter why I do it, I'm still doing it.
I guess I'm just saying that a good system can still lead to bad consequences. That's probably why there are so few pure democracies - most countries try to fix some of the rough spots with constitutions, charters, etc.
I was going for number five: "to support ... in the face of criticism".
What the US does is "give" them money that can only be used to buy AMERICAN-MADE arms, thus entering a mutually-beneficial pact where one side gains arms and the other brings jobs home.
Which has the same economic effect as buying the arms from American companies and giving them to Israel. That's contributing to the defense of Israel. If they just wanted to make jobs, they'd buy stuff and then melt it down again.
Israel does not depend on US arms either.
Who cares. That fact has no relevance.
the UN has, for most of its history, been skewed in favor of arab (sic) interests.
Most of the rest of the world sees the UN as neutral, passing resolutions against Israel, Palestine, Iraq, etc, in a fairly balanced way; while the US is often seen as exceedingly pro-Israel, vetoing the resolutions against Israel alone. All I did way try to describe some possible influences that would account for this difference.
Yes, the representatives that voted for it are more likely to be voted for by a pro-Israeli public. They're using their power in government to gain votes, just like when they pass most other laws.
So is the case of the US either lending or giving money to other countries. It does so for a reason, and that reason is not being out of pocket just as the reason for me buying milk is not ending up with a dollar less. It's an unavoidable side-effect. What we term "the cost".
You have a seriously messed-up view of economics. If a store gave you $3 for milk, and then you traded the money back to them for a gallon of milk, the store just lost a gallon of milk - end of story. It might get advertising (the way coupons work), good publicity, or some other advantage, but in that isolated exchange, it didn't gain anything material.
You misunderstand business.
I don't think so. You obviously slept through Econ 101.
And also, he doesn't distinguish between Jews and Israelis. Imagine criticizing Taiwan's government and being labeled as anti-Buddhist - it would prevent any real discussion of Taiwan-Chinese issues and make progress in that area almost impossible.
If the people chose to end the democracy, then the democratic thing to do is to end it. Otherwise it's no longer a democracy anyway, because the people aren't allowed to make the choice!
Every freedom hast limits and has to have limits.
Yes, that's the old "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose" bit. But this kind of thing says that if I even talk about swinging my fist (in any way), you should react as if I hit you.
If that's what you advocate, that fine, but you're no longer advocating a free society.
1. There aren't any backup/transfer-to-iPod issues with plants.
2. Plants make copies on their own, and preventing GMOs from spreading uncontrolled is a big issue for environmentalists. This kind of thing was seen as a way to be responsible/get eco-nuts off they backs. If it can't reproduce, then it can't escape and muck up the biosphere.
3. Many crops are already sterile, because of hybridization. You cross two strains of corn, and the second generation will give you huge harvests, but the third won't produce good plants at all. This is an unavoidable side-effect of the process, so there's no good argument against it. But you can't economically create hybridized soybeans (it's like artificially inseminating a gnat), so some people saw this as a way to give products that use different techniques equal protection.
4. Some people think that anything grown on their land is theirs, period, even if they signed a contract saying that they would grow it only one year and then make sure that any seeds not harvested would be destroyed. This has already lead to numerous court battles, so, yes, piracy is a big concern. Plus, it opens the company up to liability if some farmer releases the crop into the wild (as in part 2) and they had a way to prevent it, but didn't use it.
Anyway, if you have any other ideas/concerns, let me know. :)
1. Israel has a western culture and a western religion. For comparison, Iran has a very different culture, a less well-known religion and funny skin colors. On top of that, historical abuses (WWII, middle ages) of Jewish people means that they have a bit of a sympathy vote. Plus there's the antisemitism angle, for which there's no Palestinian equivalent.
2. Given that the US has a high concentration of Christians, there are plenty of wackos here that think that Israel's rebirth is part of God's plan. Supporting Israel for some of them is tantamount to obeying God's commandments and hastening the day of Christ's return. Since Middle Eastern Muslims generally don't like Israel, they must be allied with the Anti-Christ/Satan.
3. Israel runs a massive lobby to keep US politician pro-Israel. (I might be wrong, but I've heard it described as the largest and most well funded political lobby in the US.)
By contrast Europe has had more contact with Muslims, tends to be more secular, and without the UN veto and military dominance, there's less reason to put political pressure on the EU. That's the main reason Americans have a positive impression of Israel, just like they see Great Britain and Australia, while the rest of the world ranks Iran and Israel down at the bottom, below North Korea.
the terminator gene embedded in these plants
No commercially available crop has ever had any type of terminator technology in it. In fact, the Wikipedia even mentions that the company I work for has pledged to never use it in commertial products. There's no way that bees could be "starved out" by the minute fraction of a percent of fields that are used for research.
With no ability to reproduce, the plant may be expending energy that would have gone into food for the bees somewhere else
That's true for some techniques, but only for ones that prevent seeds from forming at all. Plants with those genes do produce seeds (that's usually what they're being grown for) just like their unaltered cousins, the seeds just aren't viable. Men who've had vasectomies and women who've had their tubes tied still have the same sex drive, but if they lose their gametes they generally lose interest.
On the other hand, your suggestion of of doing research on captive bee colonies sounds like a good idea.
And that's the problem, you can't think of every exception ahead of time.
By that logic, we should outlaw rock climbing, unsafe sex, and steak knives. Plenty of people need medical attention because of those things as well.
Oh, damn. I didn't read the "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on my way in. Sorry, guys.
So with all due respect, go jump in a lake.
Quite rude, but very funny.