Because when your life is in danger, you don't play around with toys that are not 100% effective at stopping your opponent. Mace is just such a toy (does mace work on people doped-up on crack or meth? No, it does not).
How about tasers? Oh wait, those didn't stop Rodney King. Whoops, what now?
And why would you be enough of a fool to walk through this neighborhood? At night? With jewelry?
WHY SHOULDN'T YOU BE ABLE TO? Since when should you have to live in fear of people in a particular neighborhood? What the hell kind of society is that???
You're an idiot. The law protects your right to walk through such neighborhoods wearing as much jewelry as you can carry. Why should *you* have to go out of *your* way to avoid some neighborhood, just because it has a crime problem? THE CRIME PROBLEM IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM, IT IS THE PROBLEM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OF THE POLICE'S FAILURE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
But in the meantime, you will require some means of self-defense.
I suggested banning pistols. A knife is a great idea. I never suggested banning them, because you can't massacare with one.
Wrong. (and this is from a Socialist website, no less! So I'm sure you'll love it)
I support knives used for what they should be, I just can't see a pistol a good weapon to be carrying around because of its mass murder potential.
Pistols as a means of mass-murder? That's entirely laughable. Shows what you know about guns... Keep talking, your ignorance will show you for who you really are.
You can kill maybe a dozen people with a pistol, assuming some of the bullets in your 8 or 10 round clip ricochet and kill more people than you intended. That's rather rare though.
Regardless, that's hardly mass-murder when compared to the power of WMD's. Or, for that matter, ruthlessly-dangerous totalitarian politicians, like Hitler (killed 6m Jews), George W. Bush (killed how many Americans by going to war, and how many foreigners have died because of him?), Stalin (killed 20m Soviets), and Chairman Mao (killed 35m Chinese intellectuals during the "Great Leap Forward").
A knife, mace, etc is good. I just cant see the pistol.
Why not? You said it's more-dangerous than a knife (this statement actually depends on your distance from the weapon holder. If you are within trapping range, i.e. you can grab the person, a knife is actually more dangerous, because a gun can only hurt you out of one end; a knife hurts you on 1 or 2 entire edges of the weapon).
When your life is in danger, are you going to play around and hope your annoyance-spray will save you? Or are you going to use your legally-justifiable right to use sufficient and at least equal force to prevent harm to yourself against your attacker in self-defense (and if they're coming at you with a knife, that's a deadly weapon, meaning you have the right to also use a deadly weapon, e.g. a handgun)?
A knife is certainly a deadly weapon, if you're close enough to the person. But if not, it's effectively worthless. I've studied martial arts for years -- believe me, I know my non-firearm weapons very well (and I know firearms well enough).
Given the choice between a 9mm or a.45 and a 6" knife to bring to a life-threatening fight, believe me, I'll happily bring a.45, every time (and my martial arts skills, should the area be too crowded for a gun or knife, or if my opponent is too close or if I get disarmed (if that happens, then I would want the knife - but my scenario asked me to choose between a gun and a knife...)).
It's people like you that prevent the common citizen from defending themselves when the police aren't around. Why you would make innocent people subject to the brutal force of the criminal element defies reason or logic -- then again, defying reason and logic is typical liberal thought (typical conservative thought too, but I digress).
That list includes the Slippery Slope fallacy, which although it is *technically*, in *absolute* terms, a fallacy, it fails to apply historical reasoning.
For example, your Social Security Number was never meant to be used as a personal identifier when it was created during FDR's socialist reign in the 1930s. Today, the SSN is used to get a job, to file your taxes, even to buy a goddamn cellphone -- all because the people who run these programs want to personally-identify you. Yet, the SS card itself originally had a statement printed on it which read "Not for ID".
The slippery-slope argument -- which in theory would be a logical fallacy -- was that the SSN's use would be expanded to beyond the purposes of collecting Social Security. And you know what? What would've then been deemed a "logical fallacy" has actually proven correct, in fact.
I've seen the other logical fallacies before. Chances are, you're thinking of "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief" - that the great-grandparent *believes* the government is murdering people, but can't confirm it.
Again, this logical fallacy fails to contain historical reasoning. The U.S. government has murdered Americans before (if by no other example than via the death penalty), and it will kill again.
Could be "Appeal to Fear" though. Then again, with Bush in office, he has every right and reason to be afraid! (and yes, with that, I've made the "logical fallacies" of "Personal Attack" and maybe "Two Wrongs Make a Right". Boo fucking hoo; the latter is a logical fallacy, yes, but the former is not. Personal attacks have nothing to do with logic and are almost never intended to. They have everything to do with making the other guy look bad. I suppose Bush doesn't need the help though. "Appeal to Ridicule" would be another one I've committed here; again, ridicule has nothing to do with being an actual, logical, factual argument, and I never say such things as though they are serious, logical arguments. I just feel like ripping somebody a new asshole, that's all).
He's pointing out that just because you haven't heard of [insert action] occurring, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Additionally, just because the government doesn't talk about [insert action], doesn't mean that it does not also occur.
If Americans don't like it (and you can be sure that collectively, we won't), then Americans won't buy it.
If Americans don't buy it, then the producer doesn't make money. If the producer doesn't make money, the producer goes out of business. This is the market punishing those producers which a people, collectively, do not like. Welcome to Econ 101.
It's useful to me, considering I've been tossing around the idea of attempting to write my own a nav. system (even if I currently have only a basic CS undergrad's understanding of routing algorithms and no knowledge of GIS at all, nor any idea where I can find free maps which have road names included (the USGS doesn't seem to be much help))...
But that's me. I like technical articles on a site oriented towards technical people; maybe that's just weird though...
This one is more than sufficiently-nerdy and geeky enough and expensive enough to easily warrant a/. front page, IMO.
I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government....except that the U.S. federal government is regulating said corporation such that they are required to screen passengers.
This way we prevent shooting massacares and save the children while still allowing hunting and the like. Seriously, what's the point of a pistol but for injuring people? Why use a pistol when you could use a rifle, except for concealment?
You obviously know nothing about self-defense.
Please, go wear a load of expensive jewelry and walk through a low-income (and probably predominantly-black) neighborhood at night. Do not carry any guns, knives, or anything else which may be a weapon. The law *should* protect you from violence and robbery, right?
This is because you have yet to hit America's favorite disease: Hypercapitalism (a.k.a. "predatory capitalism" or "looting capitalism"). Under Hypercapitalism, all money or property obtained (i.e. earned, defrauded or outrightly stolen) by a businessman is entirely his.
That would be anarcho-capitalism. Nobody outside of the crazy devoted followers of Ayn Rand (a.k.a. "Randroids"; people who follow the cult-building novelist of the 1960s/1970s) and Murray Rothbard (a major Austrian economist) would advocate such a system -- not even the economically far-right Libertarian Party.
What you are describing -- in fraud and stolen money/property -- is theft, pure and simple. Once theft becomes legal, anarchy reigns. No reasonable society will allow such theft to be legal, ever.
And when instances of it do occur -- as under the current Bush administration where Enron and Halliburton are concerned -- that is not capitalism by any means. That is "crony capitalism," in which government agents (like Bush and Cheney) perform work which favors the economic well-being of certain people or businesses (e.g. the defense industry, the oil industry, etc.).
Crony capitalism is the government stealing from everybody (via taxation) and giving tax money to some politician's business buddies or passing laws which favor those businesses (like the DMCA, for the recording and movie industries). It is, in fact, similar to fascism.
It is due to our large federal government, heavy taxation (which allows the government to spend more and grow as a result, and therefore spend more on a politician's business friends amidst an ever-growing list of increasingly-vague budget items), and pork-barreling legislators that we have the problem of crony capitalism, and the current Presidential administration shows off the problem better than any in recent memory (then again, I'm a youthful 20-something).
AFAIK, the use of gold as a standard is because that was historically one of the first universally-accepted pieces of metal used in exchange for goods/services. Why?
Because gold is soft and easily-melted into other shapes (coins, rings, etc.), doesn't break down easily, and it looks pretty.:) And besides, some people, prior to 20th-century dentistry, used gold teeth as replacements for their regular, rotted teeth...
But as gold is a relatively-scarce commodity, it's expensive. Because of this, it takes only a small amount of gold to represent a large amount of goods/services. This would make it convenient to carry around gold, because you wouldn't need much for most purchases. That would be my most-reasonable guess.
True, other things are worth in practical terms in the event of an economic collapse (steel and rubber, as you suggest, or gasoline, as in Road Warrior). And in such a case, perhaps those do become currency, despite their relative bulkiness and inconvenience (consider the case of prison inmates using cigarettes as a means of currency).
But generally, I think gold is just a metal whose cultural view dictates that it be used as a currency. There's some history hiding in there, I'm just not sure where or what...
I think something that is mistaken is that the U.S. currency is unbacked. U.S. dollars are backed by oil. All OPEC oil must be bought/traded in U.S. dollars. Nixon shifted the dollar from being backed by gold to being backed by oil because gold reserves couldn't keep up with U.S. growth.
Got a URL to back that up?
Last I checked, the U.S. uses a floating, fiat currency, the amount of which is regulated by the Federal Reserve (and is very loosely-targeted to adjust with the slow rise in market prices, i.e. inflation, although, Greenspan & Co. do not *officially* do inflation-targeting like other central banks do) and minted by the Treasury.
This allows our currency itself to be traded like a good, i.e. in foreign-exchange markets...
That's a good point about the beginning of the gold standard's actual earlier replacement in 1922... I don't recall learning that in-class, but now that you mention it, I remember that being mentioned once by somebody else whose historical knowledge I greatly respect...
Interesting points all in all.:)
3. There are more important things to worry about.
Privacy isn't important? I disagree entirely.
I mean, the elimination of privacy has only killed tens of millions of people in Red China (during the "Great Leap Forward," in which 35 million intellectuals were murdered by the government), Nazi Germany (6m Jews, dontcha know?), Soviet Russia (via the KGB, who the hell knows), and pre-March 2003 Saddam-run Iraq (people tortured and murdered via the use of national ID cards). All of these murderous acts were carried out during the 20th century, and all were made far-easier by the fact that those governments knew where their citizens lived, and in most cases, required their citizens to give their "papers, please."
But privacy isn't important, compared to other issues? It's only the key to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Considering the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers anonymously, that suggests that they knew this. Why don't you?
If you don't care about privacy, then move to Britain and get the hell out of my more-free country. I will take my chances with the terrorists and accept that all life incurs some level of risk rather than continue worrying about a the statistically most-safe mode of transportation being used as a weapon.
(on the issue of statistics, here's a question for you: how many people have died on American soil in the last 10 years due to terrorist attacks? Answer: about 3,600. How many people will die *this year alone* due to auto accidents? 40,000. How many will die *this year* as a result of smoking? 430,000. How many children will die *this year* due to drowning in swimming pools? 4,000. Yeah, I'd say those are just *slightly* more-pressing problems, even if they are relatively innocent-looking.)
Terrorism is a serious problem, no doubt, and we should kick ass all over the place in foreign countries where we've determined they are hiding -- Afghanistan was a great start, though Iraq was very poorly-researched. And domestically, with a warrant and *solid* evidence, they should be smacked-down here too. But not at the collective expense of privacy or Constitutional rights. If the public wants to stop terrorists, they must act on their own to help law enforcement do so, rather than letting law enforcement invade our homes, persons, and papers and thereby destroying the 4th Amendment (as the PATRIOT Act has effectively done).
Ultimately, the war on terror will not be won by law enforcement, it will be won by the citizens -- just like how the FBI couldn't stop the Unabomber for some 22 years, until his brother came forth and reported him... That's the way things work in a free society, and if you don't like that, too bad.
Although my own political beliefs tell me that Socialism (a nicer word for Communism) is better for the majority, my human nature to compete asks me to move toward Capitalism in order to better myself financially; this issue will plague us for generations.
Just to clarify... By strict economic definition:
* Capitalism = ownership of money/property by one or more private individuals, absent (or mostly-absent) government intervention * Socialism = ownership of money/property by the government, as a sort of trust granted by the citizens to the government * Communism = ownership of money/property by the collective public-at-large, absent (or mostly-absent) government intervention
Pure capitalism and pure communism, in actuality, have more in-common with anarchy than any sort of government control.
Under capitalism, nobody has the right to walk on your land. Under socialism, the government tells you whether you have the right to walk on a piece of land. Under communism, anybody can walk anywhere because everybody has the same right to the land as anybody else does.
Pure capitalism has never existed (although the U.S. was closest to it at the nation's founding), nor has pure communism has ever existed either.
The greatest mistake of the Cold War by pro-capitalists was to mistakenly refer to "socialism" as "communism" (that is, Soviet Russia, China, N. Korea, Vietnam, and so on, are not, in fact, communist, they are Socialist (it was even in the Soviet's full national name! USSR = "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics") -- despite the dogma espoused during the anti-communist hysteria of the 1930s-1980s).
I personally am very strongly Capitalist; yet, I am actually more-opposed to socialism than communism, due to the oppressive power that only a supposedly-trustworthy, strong central government can have (just look at the current U.S. government!)...
Communism and socialism fail for the same reason however -- a failure to harness the greed and desire for power inherent in every human being that has ever lived (including those who claim to be free of those influences).
Thus far, the only economic system to take advantage of those traits is capitalism, and as a result, the yearly GDP growth of relatively-capitalist countries almost-invariably outpaces that of relatively-socialist countries. It is no coincidence...
IAAEM ("I am an Economics minor", but a CS major), and I took Monetary Policy last semester.
The Fed is a partly-public, partly-private entity which acts as a central bank capable of making loans to banks. It is basically a "banker's bank."
As a quasi-private insititution, the Fed is not funded by taxpayer money. It has to fund itself like any other business. The Fed does so mainly via a process known as "open-market operations." This is the process by which the Fed buys and sells bonds to the government and the public at-large. But the Fed also charges an interest rate to banks, called the "Discount Rate," at which banks may borrow money from the Fed (not to be confused with the "Federal Funds" rate, which is the interest rate at which banks may borrow money between themselves and which is closely-watched as an indication of inflationary trends).
As a quasi-public institution, the Fed is subject to some governmental oversight and initiates policies with a governmental-size effect (primarily interest rate changes, as you might have been reading in the news lately). But too much government control would mean that the Fed wouldn't have as much power to control inflation (for instance, a politician who wants to pay for a pork-barrel project might demand the Fed print more money to pay for it. An increase in money supply leads to an increase in inflation, by definition), hence, the Fed is given some power to tell the government "hands-off!"
That said, the Fed has not been *fully* audited since around 1920, at the latest. Presently, the law surrounding the Fed states that most of the Fed may be audited, but for the sake of maintaining some deliberate market instability, certain key areas may not be audited.
In essence, you've got the right idea -- all these various loans and interest "create" money. It admittedly looks like voodoo, but it actually does work.
Whether we should use a fiat currency (so that we can print money at-will) or a currency backed by something tangible (read: gold) is more a matter of opinion, the latter of which is often-touted by gold bugs and libertarians. Bear in mind that we used to be on the Gold Standard until Richard Nixon took us off of it in (IIRC) 1969...
Personally, I can sympathize with the tangibility of a gold-backed currency, but a fiat currency gives us more far-more flexibility to control inflation and thus stabilize the economy as a whole without having a seriously-detrimental effect from this market-manipulation by the govn't. It's one of the few trade-offs of govn't power I'm willing to accept...
The gold standard would only be useful if our govn't were to become unstable and/or dissolve, and I don't see either scenario occurring anytime soon, seeing as we have the only government in the world which has yet - in the 227 years this nation has existed - to default on a loan made to it (this is why T-Bonds are considered "a sure thing" - the govn't has never failed to pay them back. Commensurate with their practically-nonexistent risk though, they also have very little reward).
On that note, the fact that I hadn't heard about it (not that I've heard about everything, but something like this seems like a rather *huge* thing to cover up. Even so, there's too much news for which I simply haven't time anymore to read/watch/digest, although I try) suggests a problem in the communication between the people making the claim and the people -- like me -- who are interested in hearing about it (regardless of the truth of the claim, at least in my case).
With that in mind, boycotts would be more effective if more people hear about it, and in Coke's case, if the paramilitary claim is true, IMO that's something that would be universally-condemned. International boycotts could (and if true, should) be organized, just as international protests against the war in Iraq were staged (and while those were unfortunately ineffective at the time, today increasingly-more Americans see that the protestors were right)...
That said, because the demand for Coke is nearly-constant ("inelastic," to use the $5 economic term), it'd be hard to get people to stop buying Coke on ethical issues alone, I think. Still, there *are* major alternatives - Pepsi, RC, and store brands being the obvious choices. The trick is getting people to care about corporate-funded paramilitary death squads, and doing that requires informing them that the problem even exists.:-/
Corporate ethics are a relatively-popular issue these days. Make the point known to Coke shareholders - at least, those who would rather not support corporate paramilitary-hiring.
I'm drinking Diet Coke (ironically) as I write this, but mostly for the small-but-useful caffeine hit it has. I'll keep the issue in mind next time I'm buying soda; I mean, I could just as happily drink Diet Pepsi... (I already have a problem w/ Coke for other reasons, but in that case I'm even-more disgusted with Illinois' famously-corrupt politics, and, apparently, judicial system).
I guess my point in all this is that while corporations which globalize -- which is the trend, of course -- will increase their insulation from the poor performances of any singular market (e.g. if Americans boycott Coke for some reason, Coke still has Asia, Europe, etc.), there is simultaneously no reason why boycotts cannot also globalize and creep into those same markets. Especially now, with the Internet making communication so cheap and efficient.:)
The boycotts may require better management to compete against the corps on a global scale, but I believe it's still entirely-possible to do it -- again, just like the anti-war demonstrators did during Bush Jr.'s illegal and stupid second "Avenge Daddy!" war in Iraq.
Business controls the supply, the consumers control the demand. Businesses exercise their control all the time; so should consumers...
Governments may be inept and corrupt but at least we can vote them out. Corporations, on the other hand, are amoral and in many cases completely unaccountable to the public, especially when they control things that do not have traditional "competitive" forces at play.
I stopped reading there.
You mean to say that boycotts don't work? Tell that to the blacks who shut down various businesses in the south during the civil rights movement of the mid-1900s by boycotting them. And if the public is interested enough, a boycott will work against *any* company -- monopoly or not, for no company can survive without a revenue stream, and a revenue stream cannot be generated without customers.
STFU and go back to your economically-challenged cave from whence you originated.
How much do you value the time you have to spend shopping and preparing your food? How much do you value the annoyance of cooking (presuming you don't enjoy it)?
There are more things to consider than just money - regardless what the economists, even the Nobel-laureates, may spew.
Economists would call yours a rational decision in choosing between your time and your money. As you place a higher value on your time than money where preparing meals is concerned, you prefer not to prepare your own meals (at least all the time. I don't either, BTW, but if I'm not being wine-and-dined by my company, then I do prefer to make my own).
You're right that there's more to consider than just money, and any *good* economist will tell you that. Some things/activities aren't monetarily-tangible (love for your children or spouse, for example, will often exceed one's lifetime earnings in terms of what one might be willing to spend on them), although the vast majority of things/activities can be represented by some amount of money (i.e. some amount of goods/services that could be obtained or is given up in exchange for some amount of time).
As an intern, I am a college student/budding full-time employee. As such, I have neither much time nor much money, although I am much more monetarily-rich now than I was at the beginning of the summer. This growth of my income has, BTW, made me realize how much I value my time, now that my time is scarce.
But where making my lunch in the morning is concerned? That's 5 min. of time during a part of the day (7-8AM) when I'm not going to be doing anything else fun/interesting/income-earning besides driving anyway; i.e., I'm not going to be out partying with friends or seeing family again at that time of day. So my time like that in the early morning is really not that valuable to me... Hence, I make my lunches in the early morning, but not at 7PM at night.
I do purchase my groceries after work, including my lunch food I prepare. But I do that as part of purchasing a basket of other foods, so, since it's part of a routine I'm doing anyway, that time is allocated generally towards "getting food," which I have to do during the week whether I like it or not, unless there's some way to live without eating... Again, that time is not very valuable to me.
Note that I don't buy said food or prepare it on Friday nights, Saturday, or Sunday because my time on those days is very valuable to me; that is time during which I allocate towards hanging out with friends, getting drunk, playing games, meeting women, etc..
Speaking of women, I'm told that chicks dig guys who can cook. I don't know much about cooking, but for the chick aspect (as well as personal financial reasons), I'm learning. Thus, cooking is a sometimes-valuable use of my time, because it can lead, sooner or later, to getting laid -- something I place a VERY high priority on.;)
Economics owns you, whether you realize it or not, believe it or not, like it or not...
That's funny. You know the money they buy your lunch with every day?
Had you been paid that money instead as salary, you could've pocketed most of that money and used the remainder to make a lunch for yourself, saving yourself money in the long-run.
Instead, you've bought your boss' clever ploy to make you feel like you're getting something-for-nothing, hook, line, and sinker. I know, because as an intern this summer, I've been wine-and-dined to hell and back, and while it definitely *feels* luxurious, I know I could've been paid more had I not been given so many of the attraction perks I've had.
Nobel prizewinning PhD economist, Milton Friedman, is still correct: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
"the nutjobs who almost-universally are one or more of the following:
* Islamic fundamentalists * from an Arab country * of Arab ethnicity"
Mine is more-specific than yours...
Like it or not, the large majority of terrorists in the U.S. fit the above description. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were exceptions to the above, being white Christian nutjobs.
We can do one of the following, analyzing performance vs. security in theoretical terms:
* search everybody -- highest security (100%), lowest performance (due to lack of filtering -- i.e. discrimination (horrors!) -- strictness) * search people randomly -- faster, but weaker security ( 100%), allows some terrorists through while providing the nice feeling of non-discrimination * search those people who fit the profile of the people we are looking for -- faster still, but possibly even weaker security ( 100% since the McVeigh-like exceptions will not be found), although it does tend to catch those who are most-likely to commit acts of terrorism. This is the most-efficient route, besides no searching at all
Think of security screening in terms of search engines. If Google didn't discriminate between "Slashdot" and "slshdot", you'd wind up getting results for pages which have more misspellings (in the second case) than otherwise would be normal (i the first case), which is thus potentially a less-reliable, worsely-written webpage than you *could* be finding.
OTOH, you promote greater breadth of knowledge if you're willing to look past such misspellings and read for content -- but you also run a higher risk receiving bum information.
Same goes with security screening -- with greater liberty comes greater risk. Personally, I'm willing to take that risk, but if we must do screening, I would prefer that those people who fit the profile of the enemy be screened first.
Posted by simoniker on Wednesday July 14, @09:21PM from the bad-dudes-vs.-dragon-ninja dept.
ajs writes "On July 13, Microsoft announced that they would be re-stating their revenues for the last 3 years. This sent a shock-wave through their stock price, but early analysis seems to indicate that it's not that big a deal (the end-result is the same for a given contract, but it will be counted toward a different month). But then the really bad news hit. Ambulance chasers are taking this opportunity to punish Microsoft for reporting the change and the resulting drop in price. Microsoft is doing well, but can they weather major class action law suits without harming the business? How have other technology companies dealt with this sort of suit?"
I think CNN reported that Jet Li showed up, jabbed the guy in the throat, kicked him in the balls, broke his neck, and then did a Big Impressive Jump-Spinning Side-Kick Of Doom to knock the guy out of a second-story window onto a series of sharp spikes on a fence below, impaling the attacker through the right-side of his skull, through his chest, and through his ass.
Children were momentarily horrified, one proclaiming "it's just like DBZ!", then promptly returned to working insanely-hard math problems.;-)
Check into what the vast majority of police organizations think of concealed weapons...
It really doesn't matter what police depts collectively think (nevermind that the "vast majority" of cops do not in fact oppose concealed-carry), the fact of the matter is that concealed-carry rights have decreased crime in virtually every case in the U.S.
If somebody feels the need to be able to defend themselves -- however paranoid that may seem to you -- it is not your place to tell him/her he cannot do so anymore than you have the right to take away his or her right to smoke weed or have gay sex or practice some religion, because until he has the gun pointed at you or he has not taken standard gun-safety precautions (like safetying the firearm when not in use), he is of no threat to you.
Wish I had mod points. You put it perfectly, in a wonderfully-similar style as Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence where he laid out the King's transgressions.
You may add to your list the following:
* He supports laws which violate the Second Amendment. [e.g. the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban] * He supports the arrest and incarceration of those accused of a crime without giving them a trial as required by the Constitution. [in Gitmo. Fortunately, the Supreme Court recently smacked him for doing it.] * He has attempted to merge church and state. [particularly in schools] * He has instituted taxes upon the consumers of particular industries so as to aid those industries in their commerce. [e.g. the steel tariffs, although thankfully, they have been reduced from their original level]
I'm sure there's others too if I sat around and thought about it long enough...
Slashdot Mirror
Mace, etc. Why use a lethal weapon.
.45 and a 6" knife to bring to a life-threatening fight, believe me, I'll happily bring a .45, every time (and my martial arts skills, should the area be too crowded for a gun or knife, or if my opponent is too close or if I get disarmed (if that happens, then I would want the knife - but my scenario asked me to choose between a gun and a knife...)).
Because when your life is in danger, you don't play around with toys that are not 100% effective at stopping your opponent. Mace is just such a toy (does mace work on people doped-up on crack or meth? No, it does not).
How about tasers? Oh wait, those didn't stop Rodney King. Whoops, what now?
And why would you be enough of a fool to walk through this neighborhood? At night? With jewelry?
WHY SHOULDN'T YOU BE ABLE TO? Since when should you have to live in fear of people in a particular neighborhood? What the hell kind of society is that???
You're an idiot. The law protects your right to walk through such neighborhoods wearing as much jewelry as you can carry. Why should *you* have to go out of *your* way to avoid some neighborhood, just because it has a crime problem? THE CRIME PROBLEM IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM, IT IS THE PROBLEM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OF THE POLICE'S FAILURE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
But in the meantime, you will require some means of self-defense.
I suggested banning pistols. A knife is a great idea. I never suggested banning them, because you can't massacare with one.
Wrong. (and this is from a Socialist website, no less! So I'm sure you'll love it)
I support knives used for what they should be, I just can't see a pistol a good weapon to be carrying around because of its mass murder potential.
Pistols as a means of mass-murder? That's entirely laughable. Shows what you know about guns... Keep talking, your ignorance will show you for who you really are.
You can kill maybe a dozen people with a pistol, assuming some of the bullets in your 8 or 10 round clip ricochet and kill more people than you intended. That's rather rare though.
Regardless, that's hardly mass-murder when compared to the power of WMD's. Or, for that matter, ruthlessly-dangerous totalitarian politicians, like Hitler (killed 6m Jews), George W. Bush (killed how many Americans by going to war, and how many foreigners have died because of him?), Stalin (killed 20m Soviets), and Chairman Mao (killed 35m Chinese intellectuals during the "Great Leap Forward").
A knife, mace, etc is good. I just cant see the pistol.
Why not? You said it's more-dangerous than a knife (this statement actually depends on your distance from the weapon holder. If you are within trapping range, i.e. you can grab the person, a knife is actually more dangerous, because a gun can only hurt you out of one end; a knife hurts you on 1 or 2 entire edges of the weapon).
When your life is in danger, are you going to play around and hope your annoyance-spray will save you? Or are you going to use your legally-justifiable right to use sufficient and at least equal force to prevent harm to yourself against your attacker in self-defense (and if they're coming at you with a knife, that's a deadly weapon, meaning you have the right to also use a deadly weapon, e.g. a handgun)?
A knife is certainly a deadly weapon, if you're close enough to the person. But if not, it's effectively worthless. I've studied martial arts for years -- believe me, I know my non-firearm weapons very well (and I know firearms well enough).
Given the choice between a 9mm or a
It's people like you that prevent the common citizen from defending themselves when the police aren't around. Why you would make innocent people subject to the brutal force of the criminal element defies reason or logic -- then again, defying reason and logic is typical liberal thought (typical conservative thought too, but I digress).
That list includes the Slippery Slope fallacy, which although it is *technically*, in *absolute* terms, a fallacy, it fails to apply historical reasoning.
For example, your Social Security Number was never meant to be used as a personal identifier when it was created during FDR's socialist reign in the 1930s. Today, the SSN is used to get a job, to file your taxes, even to buy a goddamn cellphone -- all because the people who run these programs want to personally-identify you. Yet, the SS card itself originally had a statement printed on it which read "Not for ID".
The slippery-slope argument -- which in theory would be a logical fallacy -- was that the SSN's use would be expanded to beyond the purposes of collecting Social Security. And you know what? What would've then been deemed a "logical fallacy" has actually proven correct, in fact.
I've seen the other logical fallacies before. Chances are, you're thinking of "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief" - that the great-grandparent *believes* the government is murdering people, but can't confirm it.
Again, this logical fallacy fails to contain historical reasoning. The U.S. government has murdered Americans before (if by no other example than via the death penalty), and it will kill again.
Could be "Appeal to Fear" though. Then again, with Bush in office, he has every right and reason to be afraid! (and yes, with that, I've made the "logical fallacies" of "Personal Attack" and maybe "Two Wrongs Make a Right". Boo fucking hoo; the latter is a logical fallacy, yes, but the former is not. Personal attacks have nothing to do with logic and are almost never intended to. They have everything to do with making the other guy look bad. I suppose Bush doesn't need the help though. "Appeal to Ridicule" would be another one I've committed here; again, ridicule has nothing to do with being an actual, logical, factual argument, and I never say such things as though they are serious, logical arguments. I just feel like ripping somebody a new asshole, that's all).
He's pointing out that just because you haven't heard of [insert action] occurring, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Additionally, just because the government doesn't talk about [insert action], doesn't mean that it does not also occur.
killjoe makes a credible argument.
Let somebody release such a game.
If Americans don't like it (and you can be sure that collectively, we won't), then Americans won't buy it.
If Americans don't buy it, then the producer doesn't make money. If the producer doesn't make money, the producer goes out of business. This is the market punishing those producers which a people, collectively, do not like. Welcome to Econ 101.
Let the free-market sort out such producers.
It's useful to me, considering I've been tossing around the idea of attempting to write my own a nav. system (even if I currently have only a basic CS undergrad's understanding of routing algorithms and no knowledge of GIS at all, nor any idea where I can find free maps which have road names included (the USGS doesn't seem to be much help))...
/. front page, IMO.
But that's me. I like technical articles on a site oriented towards technical people; maybe that's just weird though...
This one is more than sufficiently-nerdy and geeky enough and expensive enough to easily warrant a
I support Gilmore, but it looks like a gray area to me (IANAL). An airline is a corporation, not a government. ...except that the U.S. federal government is regulating said corporation such that they are required to screen passengers.
This way we prevent shooting massacares and save the children while still allowing hunting and the like. Seriously, what's the point of a pistol but for injuring people? Why use a pistol when you could use a rifle, except for concealment?
You obviously know nothing about self-defense.
Please, go wear a load of expensive jewelry and walk through a low-income (and probably predominantly-black) neighborhood at night. Do not carry any guns, knives, or anything else which may be a weapon. The law *should* protect you from violence and robbery, right?
Please, for your sake, go try it. I dare you.
This is because you have yet to hit America's favorite disease: Hypercapitalism (a.k.a. "predatory capitalism" or "looting capitalism"). Under Hypercapitalism, all money or property obtained (i.e. earned, defrauded or outrightly stolen) by a businessman is entirely his.
," in which government agents (like Bush and Cheney) perform work which favors the economic well-being of certain people or businesses (e.g. the defense industry, the oil industry, etc.).
That would be anarcho-capitalism. Nobody outside of the crazy devoted followers of Ayn Rand (a.k.a. "Randroids"; people who follow the cult-building novelist of the 1960s/1970s) and Murray Rothbard (a major Austrian economist) would advocate such a system -- not even the economically far-right Libertarian Party.
What you are describing -- in fraud and stolen money/property -- is theft, pure and simple. Once theft becomes legal, anarchy reigns. No reasonable society will allow such theft to be legal, ever.
And when instances of it do occur -- as under the current Bush administration where Enron and Halliburton are concerned -- that is not capitalism by any means. That is "crony capitalism
Crony capitalism is the government stealing from everybody (via taxation) and giving tax money to some politician's business buddies or passing laws which favor those businesses (like the DMCA, for the recording and movie industries). It is, in fact, similar to fascism.
It is due to our large federal government, heavy taxation (which allows the government to spend more and grow as a result, and therefore spend more on a politician's business friends amidst an ever-growing list of increasingly-vague budget items), and pork-barreling legislators that we have the problem of crony capitalism, and the current Presidential administration shows off the problem better than any in recent memory (then again, I'm a youthful 20-something).
AFAIK, the use of gold as a standard is because that was historically one of the first universally-accepted pieces of metal used in exchange for goods/services. Why?
:) And besides, some people, prior to 20th-century dentistry, used gold teeth as replacements for their regular, rotted teeth...
Because gold is soft and easily-melted into other shapes (coins, rings, etc.), doesn't break down easily, and it looks pretty.
But as gold is a relatively-scarce commodity, it's expensive. Because of this, it takes only a small amount of gold to represent a large amount of goods/services. This would make it convenient to carry around gold, because you wouldn't need much for most purchases. That would be my most-reasonable guess.
True, other things are worth in practical terms in the event of an economic collapse (steel and rubber, as you suggest, or gasoline, as in Road Warrior). And in such a case, perhaps those do become currency, despite their relative bulkiness and inconvenience (consider the case of prison inmates using cigarettes as a means of currency).
But generally, I think gold is just a metal whose cultural view dictates that it be used as a currency. There's some history hiding in there, I'm just not sure where or what...
I think something that is mistaken is that the U.S. currency is unbacked. U.S. dollars are backed by oil. All OPEC oil must be bought/traded in U.S. dollars. Nixon shifted the dollar from being backed by gold to being backed by oil because gold reserves couldn't keep up with U.S. growth.
Got a URL to back that up?
Last I checked, the U.S. uses a floating, fiat currency, the amount of which is regulated by the Federal Reserve (and is very loosely-targeted to adjust with the slow rise in market prices, i.e. inflation, although, Greenspan & Co. do not *officially* do inflation-targeting like other central banks do) and minted by the Treasury.
This allows our currency itself to be traded like a good, i.e. in foreign-exchange markets...
That's a good point about the beginning of the gold standard's actual earlier replacement in 1922... I don't recall learning that in-class, but now that you mention it, I remember that being mentioned once by somebody else whose historical knowledge I greatly respect... Interesting points all in all. :)
3. There are more important things to worry about.
Privacy isn't important? I disagree entirely.
I mean, the elimination of privacy has only killed tens of millions of people in Red China (during the "Great Leap Forward," in which 35 million intellectuals were murdered by the government), Nazi Germany (6m Jews, dontcha know?), Soviet Russia (via the KGB, who the hell knows), and pre-March 2003 Saddam-run Iraq (people tortured and murdered via the use of national ID cards). All of these murderous acts were carried out during the 20th century, and all were made far-easier by the fact that those governments knew where their citizens lived, and in most cases, required their citizens to give their "papers, please."
But privacy isn't important, compared to other issues? It's only the key to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Considering the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers anonymously, that suggests that they knew this. Why don't you?
If you don't care about privacy, then move to Britain and get the hell out of my more-free country. I will take my chances with the terrorists and accept that all life incurs some level of risk rather than continue worrying about a the statistically most-safe mode of transportation being used as a weapon.
(on the issue of statistics, here's a question for you: how many people have died on American soil in the last 10 years due to terrorist attacks? Answer: about 3,600. How many people will die *this year alone* due to auto accidents? 40,000. How many will die *this year* as a result of smoking? 430,000. How many children will die *this year* due to drowning in swimming pools? 4,000. Yeah, I'd say those are just *slightly* more-pressing problems, even if they are relatively innocent-looking.)
Terrorism is a serious problem, no doubt, and we should kick ass all over the place in foreign countries where we've determined they are hiding -- Afghanistan was a great start, though Iraq was very poorly-researched. And domestically, with a warrant and *solid* evidence, they should be smacked-down here too. But not at the collective expense of privacy or Constitutional rights. If the public wants to stop terrorists, they must act on their own to help law enforcement do so, rather than letting law enforcement invade our homes, persons, and papers and thereby destroying the 4th Amendment (as the PATRIOT Act has effectively done).
Ultimately, the war on terror will not be won by law enforcement, it will be won by the citizens -- just like how the FBI couldn't stop the Unabomber for some 22 years, until his brother came forth and reported him... That's the way things work in a free society, and if you don't like that, too bad.
Although my own political beliefs tell me that Socialism (a nicer word for Communism) is better for the majority, my human nature to compete asks me to move toward Capitalism in order to better myself financially; this issue will plague us for generations.
Just to clarify... By strict economic definition:
* Capitalism = ownership of money/property by one or more private individuals, absent (or mostly-absent) government intervention
* Socialism = ownership of money/property by the government, as a sort of trust granted by the citizens to the government
* Communism = ownership of money/property by the collective public-at-large, absent (or mostly-absent) government intervention
Pure capitalism and pure communism, in actuality, have more in-common with anarchy than any sort of government control.
Under capitalism, nobody has the right to walk on your land. Under socialism, the government tells you whether you have the right to walk on a piece of land. Under communism, anybody can walk anywhere because everybody has the same right to the land as anybody else does.
Pure capitalism has never existed (although the U.S. was closest to it at the nation's founding), nor has pure communism has ever existed either.
The greatest mistake of the Cold War by pro-capitalists was to mistakenly refer to "socialism" as "communism" (that is, Soviet Russia, China, N. Korea, Vietnam, and so on, are not, in fact, communist, they are Socialist (it was even in the Soviet's full national name! USSR = "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics") -- despite the dogma espoused during the anti-communist hysteria of the 1930s-1980s).
I personally am very strongly Capitalist; yet, I am actually more-opposed to socialism than communism, due to the oppressive power that only a supposedly-trustworthy, strong central government can have (just look at the current U.S. government!)...
Communism and socialism fail for the same reason however -- a failure to harness the greed and desire for power inherent in every human being that has ever lived (including those who claim to be free of those influences).
Thus far, the only economic system to take advantage of those traits is capitalism, and as a result, the yearly GDP growth of relatively-capitalist countries almost-invariably outpaces that of relatively-socialist countries. It is no coincidence...
...but I'm too lazy.
IAAEM ("I am an Economics minor", but a CS major), and I took Monetary Policy last semester.
The Fed is a partly-public, partly-private entity which acts as a central bank capable of making loans to banks. It is basically a "banker's bank."
As a quasi-private insititution, the Fed is not funded by taxpayer money. It has to fund itself like any other business. The Fed does so mainly via a process known as "open-market operations." This is the process by which the Fed buys and sells bonds to the government and the public at-large. But the Fed also charges an interest rate to banks, called the "Discount Rate," at which banks may borrow money from the Fed (not to be confused with the "Federal Funds" rate, which is the interest rate at which banks may borrow money between themselves and which is closely-watched as an indication of inflationary trends).
As a quasi-public institution, the Fed is subject to some governmental oversight and initiates policies with a governmental-size effect (primarily interest rate changes, as you might have been reading in the news lately). But too much government control would mean that the Fed wouldn't have as much power to control inflation (for instance, a politician who wants to pay for a pork-barrel project might demand the Fed print more money to pay for it. An increase in money supply leads to an increase in inflation, by definition), hence, the Fed is given some power to tell the government "hands-off!"
That said, the Fed has not been *fully* audited since around 1920, at the latest. Presently, the law surrounding the Fed states that most of the Fed may be audited, but for the sake of maintaining some deliberate market instability, certain key areas may not be audited.
In essence, you've got the right idea -- all these various loans and interest "create" money. It admittedly looks like voodoo, but it actually does work.
Whether we should use a fiat currency (so that we can print money at-will) or a currency backed by something tangible (read: gold) is more a matter of opinion, the latter of which is often-touted by gold bugs and libertarians. Bear in mind that we used to be on the Gold Standard until Richard Nixon took us off of it in (IIRC) 1969...
Personally, I can sympathize with the tangibility of a gold-backed currency, but a fiat currency gives us more far-more flexibility to control inflation and thus stabilize the economy as a whole without having a seriously-detrimental effect from this market-manipulation by the govn't. It's one of the few trade-offs of govn't power I'm willing to accept...
The gold standard would only be useful if our govn't were to become unstable and/or dissolve, and I don't see either scenario occurring anytime soon, seeing as we have the only government in the world which has yet - in the 227 years this nation has existed - to default on a loan made to it (this is why T-Bonds are considered "a sure thing" - the govn't has never failed to pay them back. Commensurate with their practically-nonexistent risk though, they also have very little reward).
I wasn't aware of the alleged Coca-Cola-paramilitary connection, but it's an interesting (and scary) one.
:-/
:)
Thanks for the heads-up.
On that note, the fact that I hadn't heard about it (not that I've heard about everything, but something like this seems like a rather *huge* thing to cover up. Even so, there's too much news for which I simply haven't time anymore to read/watch/digest, although I try) suggests a problem in the communication between the people making the claim and the people -- like me -- who are interested in hearing about it (regardless of the truth of the claim, at least in my case).
With that in mind, boycotts would be more effective if more people hear about it, and in Coke's case, if the paramilitary claim is true, IMO that's something that would be universally-condemned. International boycotts could (and if true, should) be organized, just as international protests against the war in Iraq were staged (and while those were unfortunately ineffective at the time, today increasingly-more Americans see that the protestors were right)...
That said, because the demand for Coke is nearly-constant ("inelastic," to use the $5 economic term), it'd be hard to get people to stop buying Coke on ethical issues alone, I think. Still, there *are* major alternatives - Pepsi, RC, and store brands being the obvious choices. The trick is getting people to care about corporate-funded paramilitary death squads, and doing that requires informing them that the problem even exists.
Corporate ethics are a relatively-popular issue these days. Make the point known to Coke shareholders - at least, those who would rather not support corporate paramilitary-hiring.
I'm drinking Diet Coke (ironically) as I write this, but mostly for the small-but-useful caffeine hit it has. I'll keep the issue in mind next time I'm buying soda; I mean, I could just as happily drink Diet Pepsi... (I already have a problem w/ Coke for other reasons, but in that case I'm even-more disgusted with Illinois' famously-corrupt politics, and, apparently, judicial system).
I guess my point in all this is that while corporations which globalize -- which is the trend, of course -- will increase their insulation from the poor performances of any singular market (e.g. if Americans boycott Coke for some reason, Coke still has Asia, Europe, etc.), there is simultaneously no reason why boycotts cannot also globalize and creep into those same markets. Especially now, with the Internet making communication so cheap and efficient.
The boycotts may require better management to compete against the corps on a global scale, but I believe it's still entirely-possible to do it -- again, just like the anti-war demonstrators did during Bush Jr.'s illegal and stupid second "Avenge Daddy!" war in Iraq.
Business controls the supply, the consumers control the demand. Businesses exercise their control all the time; so should consumers...
Governments may be inept and corrupt but at least we can vote them out. Corporations, on the other hand, are amoral and in many cases completely unaccountable to the public, especially when they control things that do not have traditional "competitive" forces at play.
I stopped reading there.
You mean to say that boycotts don't work? Tell that to the blacks who shut down various businesses in the south during the civil rights movement of the mid-1900s by boycotting them. And if the public is interested enough, a boycott will work against *any* company -- monopoly or not, for no company can survive without a revenue stream, and a revenue stream cannot be generated without customers.
STFU and go back to your economically-challenged cave from whence you originated.
How much do you value the time you have to spend shopping and preparing your food? How much do you value the annoyance of cooking (presuming you don't enjoy it)?
;)
There are more things to consider than just money - regardless what the economists, even the Nobel-laureates, may spew.
Economists would call yours a rational decision in choosing between your time and your money. As you place a higher value on your time than money where preparing meals is concerned, you prefer not to prepare your own meals (at least all the time. I don't either, BTW, but if I'm not being wine-and-dined by my company, then I do prefer to make my own).
You're right that there's more to consider than just money, and any *good* economist will tell you that. Some things/activities aren't monetarily-tangible (love for your children or spouse, for example, will often exceed one's lifetime earnings in terms of what one might be willing to spend on them), although the vast majority of things/activities can be represented by some amount of money (i.e. some amount of goods/services that could be obtained or is given up in exchange for some amount of time).
As an intern, I am a college student/budding full-time employee. As such, I have neither much time nor much money, although I am much more monetarily-rich now than I was at the beginning of the summer. This growth of my income has, BTW, made me realize how much I value my time, now that my time is scarce.
But where making my lunch in the morning is concerned? That's 5 min. of time during a part of the day (7-8AM) when I'm not going to be doing anything else fun/interesting/income-earning besides driving anyway; i.e., I'm not going to be out partying with friends or seeing family again at that time of day. So my time like that in the early morning is really not that valuable to me... Hence, I make my lunches in the early morning, but not at 7PM at night.
I do purchase my groceries after work, including my lunch food I prepare. But I do that as part of purchasing a basket of other foods, so, since it's part of a routine I'm doing anyway, that time is allocated generally towards "getting food," which I have to do during the week whether I like it or not, unless there's some way to live without eating... Again, that time is not very valuable to me.
Note that I don't buy said food or prepare it on Friday nights, Saturday, or Sunday because my time on those days is very valuable to me; that is time during which I allocate towards hanging out with friends, getting drunk, playing games, meeting women, etc..
Speaking of women, I'm told that chicks dig guys who can cook. I don't know much about cooking, but for the chick aspect (as well as personal financial reasons), I'm learning. Thus, cooking is a sometimes-valuable use of my time, because it can lead, sooner or later, to getting laid -- something I place a VERY high priority on.
Economics owns you, whether you realize it or not, believe it or not, like it or not...
That's funny. You know the money they buy your lunch with every day?
Had you been paid that money instead as salary, you could've pocketed most of that money and used the remainder to make a lunch for yourself, saving yourself money in the long-run.
Instead, you've bought your boss' clever ploy to make you feel like you're getting something-for-nothing, hook, line, and sinker. I know, because as an intern this summer, I've been wine-and-dined to hell and back, and while it definitely *feels* luxurious, I know I could've been paid more had I not been given so many of the attraction perks I've had.
Nobel prizewinning PhD economist, Milton Friedman, is still correct: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Better still:
"the nutjobs who almost-universally are one or more of the following:
* Islamic fundamentalists
* from an Arab country
* of Arab ethnicity"
Mine is more-specific than yours...
Like it or not, the large majority of terrorists in the U.S. fit the above description. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were exceptions to the above, being white Christian nutjobs.
We can do one of the following, analyzing performance vs. security in theoretical terms:
* search everybody -- highest security (100%), lowest performance (due to lack of filtering -- i.e. discrimination (horrors!) -- strictness)
* search people randomly -- faster, but weaker security ( 100%), allows some terrorists through while providing the nice feeling of non-discrimination
* search those people who fit the profile of the people we are looking for -- faster still, but possibly even weaker security ( 100% since the McVeigh-like exceptions will not be found), although it does tend to catch those who are most-likely to commit acts of terrorism. This is the most-efficient route, besides no searching at all
Think of security screening in terms of search engines. If Google didn't discriminate between "Slashdot" and "slshdot", you'd wind up getting results for pages which have more misspellings (in the second case) than otherwise would be normal (i the first case), which is thus potentially a less-reliable, worsely-written webpage than you *could* be finding.
OTOH, you promote greater breadth of knowledge if you're willing to look past such misspellings and read for content -- but you also run a higher risk receiving bum information.
Same goes with security screening -- with greater liberty comes greater risk. Personally, I'm willing to take that risk, but if we must do screening, I would prefer that those people who fit the profile of the enemy be screened first.
Too broad; too all-encompassing. Try again.
Think "sample of a population"...
Hmmm, how would
I think CNN reported that Jet Li showed up, jabbed the guy in the throat, kicked him in the balls, broke his neck, and then did a Big Impressive Jump-Spinning Side-Kick Of Doom to knock the guy out of a second-story window onto a series of sharp spikes on a fence below, impaling the attacker through the right-side of his skull, through his chest, and through his ass.
;-)
Children were momentarily horrified, one proclaiming "it's just like DBZ!", then promptly returned to working insanely-hard math problems.
Check into what the vast majority of police organizations think of concealed weapons...
It really doesn't matter what police depts collectively think (nevermind that the "vast majority" of cops do not in fact oppose concealed-carry), the fact of the matter is that concealed-carry rights have decreased crime in virtually every case in the U.S.
If somebody feels the need to be able to defend themselves -- however paranoid that may seem to you -- it is not your place to tell him/her he cannot do so anymore than you have the right to take away his or her right to smoke weed or have gay sex or practice some religion, because until he has the gun pointed at you or he has not taken standard gun-safety precautions (like safetying the firearm when not in use), he is of no threat to you.
I suggest you go live in gunless Japan and let your children get slashed to death by some deranged psycho with a knife while the teachers stand unarmed and helpless to do anything.
Wish I had mod points. You put it perfectly, in a wonderfully-similar style as Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence where he laid out the King's transgressions.
You may add to your list the following:
* He supports laws which violate the Second Amendment. [e.g. the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban]
* He supports the arrest and incarceration of those accused of a crime without giving them a trial as required by the Constitution. [in Gitmo. Fortunately, the Supreme Court recently smacked him for doing it.]
* He has attempted to merge church and state. [particularly in schools]
* He has instituted taxes upon the consumers of particular industries so as to aid those industries in their commerce. [e.g. the steel tariffs, although thankfully, they have been reduced from their original level]
I'm sure there's others too if I sat around and thought about it long enough...