I may not like what repressive regimes do, but I don't believe the US has any right to tell them what to do anyway. Penalize them, sure. But we shouldn't be messing around in foreign countries when we can't even keep our own house in order.
That being said, this bill is an incredibly BAD idea. All this would do is have foreign companies step in to fill the void when US companies have to close up shop. How exactly is that going to help? Will having a warm and fuzzy feeling about it?
Compared to what the companies are doing here, ON OUR OWN SOIL, why the hell should we even care what they're doing in other countries?
I've got a brilliant idea. How about we pass a few laws prohibiting these companies from participating in mass secret survellance on our populace. Or how about prohibiting communications tampering on networks. And let's put a big penalty on any officials/people doing so of an all expense paid trip to GITMO.
On a related note, I would rather have those plans out in the open. There's too much financial incentive for someone to sell "secret" plans to interested parties, and then you don't know who has them and what they intend to do with them.
If the crux of your security is based on someone not knowing about a special back door or passageway, it is only a matter of time before it fails. Either through espionage, spying, or sheer luck, someone out there will find out your secret and then you will be pHukkk0RRzzzd.
After watching a year of our TV programming, would any advanced civilization want to get within 100 light years of us?
All kidding aside, an advanced civilization would easily be able to watch and monitor us without us knowing about it. They would only bother contacting us if they thought it was worthwhile to do so, and right now it probably isn't.
Assuming that they are even looking for us and have happened into our neighborhood over the past half-century or so. Even an advanced race would need time to explore and study planets as it went along. And that's assuming some interstellar wars didn't break out between civilizations to slow down the spread. Or rebellions. Or anything else of that nature.
There are still issues an advanced race could come across that would slow them down.
Face it, at this stage of the game we are planet-locked and we have limited tools with which to explore our own solar system in any detail, let alone other star systems. We know squat about what's out there.
Incorrect. Aside from water vapor, carbon dioxide has the largest radiative forcing of the green house gases in our atmosphere. The others, in order, are methane, nitrous oxide, and CFC-12. To add to this, the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is quite long, unlike gases sucha as methane.
"The amount of CO2 re release into the atmosphere is pathetic compared to the other gases - a mere 0.28%"
Incorrect. CO2 currently makes up over 72% of greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic sources.
"The hottest years on record predate the industrial revolution."
Of course they do. How could they not, given the IR started 250 years ago? If you're going to bring up the argument of "natural cycle", you're still mssing the point. At best, we are merely contributing to change that, on the whole, we haven't really prepared for.
"There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one)"
And obviously you haven't even performed a rudimentary review of the (quite large) amount of data collected on the climate. You could start by reading the IPCC report, which summarily dismisses you claims.
As far as solar activity goes, again, you need to read more. NASA is currently collecting terabytes of solar data. If the sun so much as burps, we'd know about it. According to the IPCC report, solar activity levels have not contributed to the current climate change.
You are, of course, free to bury your head in the sand or ignore the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate. Frankly, I'm more inclined to listen the people who study climate than some idle slashdotter.
But to make you happy, I'll just say that all this climate crap is a worldwide group of scientists operating in collusion in a multi-national scheme to bilk world governments out of billions of dollars for their own personal profit.
You're not seeing ocean level rise because most of the ice is still land-locked. Even worst case scenarios only have ocean levels rising catastrophically over the course of centuries. The ice at the north pole has almost no impact on ocean levels as it's already in the ocean.
The biggest short term impact of northern cap melting away is albedo. The caps radiate away a far amount of energy because of the snow and ice. Less snow and ice, means more darker surfaces which means more energy is retained. This becomes a feedback loop that rapidly (relatively speaking) ends up warming the northern hemisphere.
You're writing like you don't understand how significant even small changes in global temperatures can have large impacts. Do yourself a favor and read the IPCC reports. Better yet, go enroll yourself in a university and major in climatology. Then you will understand exactly how much energy a 1 degree rise in temperature world-wide can have, and why it should be a concern.
And stop confusing climatology with meteorology. The climate doesn't shift over the course of a week. The changes people are concerned about will be happening over the coming decades and centuries. We only have a hope of preparing for it if we start early.
A slight correction. The purpose of the US military WAS the protection and defense of the US. However that hasn't been the case for quite some time.
It took about 50 years of subtle and some not so subtle changes, but now the US military/government has an almost blank check for wars with anyone or anything some small group of people deem a threat. All they need to do is cite some "intelligence report" that only "they know about", and suddenly you got congress and media whisking everyone off into some ludicrous war with ulterior goals.
We're supposed to avoid wars, not instigate them. We're supposed to protect our borders, not invade others.
On the bright side though, we won't be doing it for much longer. With the dollar dropping like a rock and the national debt skyrocketing all we'll be ale to afford to do in 20 years is pay social security and the interest on our debt.
Actually, I was thinking that since hydrogen becomes super-conductive at high pressures at room temperature this would be one way to achieve a room temp super conductor. Or possibly apply this with the salene (SiH4?) compound from the other day and have higher temperature super conductors.
The president and 20 year long friend of Ron Paul defended him. Ron Paul has also written a treatise about how to eliminate racism, which seems rather odd for someone who would be a racist.
Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute ARE NOT FRIENDS of Paul. You will find that they have been attacking Paul almost non-stop. Lew Rockwell was fired I believe. It was Lew and pals who orchestrated The New Republic release. Not exactly something you do to someone you support.
As far as your "extensive ties" go, I can find no such evidence other than some PO blogs and people thinking that Ron Paul supports them. There was one story in the USA Daily, but it was retracted on the basis that they could not find any credible sources to back it up. Other than that there doesn't appear to be any credible information.
The John Birch Society support Paul for his constitutional views. Other than one speech he gave (on constitutional principles no less), I don't find any other ties to the group. The same with the league of the south. They support him because of his views on the Constitution and states right.
I do not see any PAC money coming from these groups. Nor do I see Ron Paul actively endorsing or supporting these groups either. I don't see it in his congressional record, and certainly not in his public record. You would think that if what your saying is true, the mainstream media would have picked it up and utterly destroyed him with it.
But I suppose you want to make a leap from some of the crazies supporting Ron Paul to Ron Paul being a crazy himself. o_0
The only thing I've managed to find with any racism at all has been the newsletters. Everything else has been word-of-mouth or unsubstantiated, uncorraborative stories. How about something from real source or news outlet.
But since your so keen on on political wrong-doings and such, try this site http://www.judicialwatch.org/. Obama has quite a record. Another one for more recent statements is factcheck.org.
The US has been doing much worse and for far longer. You haven't included thebest parts of the US in thee Middle East.
Iran used to be a DEMOCRATIC nation, one of the first to do so. But they didn't want to bend over for the US. So the US supported the overthrow of that government to put the Shah into power. The Shah was a ruthless dictator who was sort of like Saddam, only less cuddly.
When the people finally rose up against the Shah and took back their country, they made it very clear that the US was not welcome. Well, we can't have that now can we? So we helped put yet another ruthless dictator into power, Saddam Hussein. We gave Saddam military support and weapons to help fight a proxy war for us with Iran. That was quite a bloody mess. And that eventually lead Kuwait and the Iraq wars. More death and destruction.
Don't worry, the US still has Iran beat in regards to the killing people. They're amateurs compared to the US.
If you think the Iranians dislike their government, they dislike the US a whole lot more. If one thing can be said for the Middle East, its that they have long memories. We've been screwing over that area of the world for the better part of a century now, and I think it is easy to see that the remember all to well the actions of our past.
Foreign policy is a major driver, and gives them plenty of desperate-nothing-left-to-live-for types to recruit. Although, the occasional certifiably insane nut job helps.
But, if you're going to become a racist (like Theo did) especially if you have a large Muslim population, then there is a pretty good chance you're going to rub a crazy the wrong way. We have things like that happen here, but we don't call it terrorism. We call it murder. Last I checked, even our friendly neighborhood KKK isn't classified as a a terrorist organization, despite their colorful views.
The Spanish attack you are referring to had nothing to do with Middle East terrorists. It was Basque separatists. Totally different reasons and completely unrelated. I'm not even sure why included it.
The UK is a Middle East terrorist target because their hands are just as dirty as ours in that region. They were a staunch ally, and the terrorists know it.
Ron Paul didn't say anything about foreign policy being the only cause of terrorism worldwide. He said that the biggest driver for terrorism from the MIDDLE EAST against the US is our foreign policy, which if you ever researched it is pretty damn appalling.
You may also want to do some reading on the causes of terrorism, aside from the Middle Eastern variety. The blue pill the media is feeding certainly doesn't discuss the underlying reasons, nor real solutions on how to address it.
Well, you can do that now and let the people and the states handle the situation. Or you can wait a few years until the lobbyiest buy the laws that will allow them to do so.
Ron Paul WANTS corporations to be held accountable. The laws governing corporations are re-goddamn-diculous. The reason why corporations have so much power is because of the laws. If corporations were made to be as responsible for their actions as the average citizen, you would see a drastic change in how things work. Imagine being able to charge an electric company for extortion, for example. If a corporation is abusing its niche within a state, then the state should be able punish said corporations as it sees fit. If the corporation withdraws, then someone will step in to takes it's place.
And how the hell do you think he would firesale the government? He talks about reduction, not elimination. Whatever he does has to be approved by congress. How about you stop and think for a minute.
Ron Paul is a very smart guy. He knows he can't just cut the government. He knows he can't balance the budget in the first year. Their are obstacles and challenges. Like all candidates, he is stating what he would like to do and work towards, not what is actually going to happen. Stop taking the blue pill for a second, and take a real hard look at our country. We are not well.
Nothing in his congressional record, personal life, nor his medical practice leads one iota of credence to the newsletters. In fact, it's just the opposite.
Would the president of the NAACP back someone like you just described? Of course not. Would someone that you just described deliver babies for free to African American and Hispanic families that were too poor to afford it? No.
He was running a full time medical practice and left the newsletters in care of people he thought he could trust. That was a mistake, as there were those who had a different agenda. At least he admitted he had been careless, unlike MOST of our elected officials (Iraq War).
His actions speak a lot louder than the words written by some assholes who had a vendetta. Here's a challenge for you. I want you to find one, just one instance where an action in his personal, medical, or political life shows paranoid racism. You won't find one.
He's not a libertarian. He's a constitutionalist. There is a difference.
They were widely discredited because they were written by the ghostwriter, not Ron Paul. The ghostwriter (and friends), as it turns out, had an agenda against Ron Paul. The letters were written to discredit Paul.
The letters were real and I never stated anything to the contrary. All I said is that their contents had been discredited. As in, Ron Paul's views are not contained in therein. The New Republic did actually have forgeries that were supposedly released letters, but they were not. However, the other letters did exist.
As far as not noticing sooner, here's the deal. When Paul left congress to return to his practice, he left some people he thought he could trust in charge. I'm not sure if you know how much work goes into a Ob/gyn practice, but I can assure it consumes a lot of time and effort.
He found out about what was happening by a third party. He was not receiving the letters. Since he had a full-time+ job, he wasn't exactly keeping tabs on everything that was happening. By the time he realized what was going on, there was little he could do.
Later, it emerged that the people who had orchestrated this did so in effort to discredit Paul for personal gain. One of the people responsible was actually planning to run in Paul's congressional district and wanted to make sure he had plenty of ammo in case Paul wanted to get back into politics. The ploy failed miserably, since Paul was very well known in the area (one would hardly expect a crazed racist to deliver babies for free to poor mexican and african american families).
Since that incident, the letters have been brought up occasionally and are quickly dismissed.
The New Republic (thanks to submission by said ghostwriter and friends) once again brought up the letters. The president of the NAACP came out in defense of Ron Paul, as once again his actions in his personal life, medical practice, and political records clearly show he is anything but racist.
You don't need to take my word for it though. You can research the timeline yourself and draw your own conclusions. But my guess is that if you have the support of the NAACP president, you're probably not a racist.
He wants to create competing currencies using "the gold standard", which is a pretty decent idea. Trying to outright replace a fiat currency would be devastating on a global scale and he is well aware of that fact.
He is not protectionist either. If you would read his website instead of parroting what the media tells you, you'll see it is quite the opposite.
As far as social programs, he is fully aware of how many people have become dependent on the system. Again, read his website. The favors phasing out the social programs over time in favor of state or private programs. It is not and should not be the role of the federal government to determine how people are taken care of, as you end up with a huge sub-optimal mess. One needs to look no further than the ballooning social security and Medicare/Medicaid programs to see that our country will be bankrupt in the near future trying to keep them afloat.
But don't take my word for it. Go to the government accountability office's website and look up David Walker (the comptroller). Take a look at the financial forecasts based on our current rate of spending. The social programs by themselves have the potential to bankrupt our country in a couple of decades.
Right now, the social programs in the US budget make up the bulk of spending. This is closely followed by defense spending. If you combine defense and social programs, you ALREADY EXCEED THE REVENUE by a good margin. So what do you cut?
By keeping troop levels the same and just pulling them home, you can save about a half trillion dollars or more. That's a pretty good start. McCain is hot and heavy about pork, but that makes up about 1 or 2 percent of the spending. Good to cut, and one of the few things Paul agrees with him on. After that, you have to start hunting around for cuts. The social programs like Social security would need about 30 years to 40 years to phase out.
Ron Paul isn't going to throw people out on the street. Some of his ideas will take decades to develop. But at least he is trying unlike other candidates who just want to give you more of the same.
Ron Paul wasn't even in congress when those newsletters were written. He had gone back to his practice in Texas. Those letters WERE written by a ghostwriter, and have been widely discredited. When Ron Paul finally saw what was going on, he fired the people responsible. He has admitted that it was his fault the letters were published without appropriate oversight.
I'm also pretty sure Ron Paul wouldn't be endorsed by the NAACP if they thought those letters contained even a hint of truth.
If you're looking for modern bigotry, try McCain. He had some lovely things to say about people from the Middle East, including some things he said at the South Carolina debate.
Most of those questions are easily answered by going to his website. But here is what you would find.
1.Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Yes he does believe the current amount illegal immigration is a problem. He wants to end birthright citizenship and not give welfare support to illegal immigrants. As part of his plan of bringing the troops home, he wants to add support to our currently very understaffed border patrol operations. A better description can be found on the issues section of his website.
2.Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
No. At least not with the US in its current state. See the website.
3. In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
That is not what he implied at all. What he was talking about was the reasons WHY we were attacked. The CIA describes this as blowback. He was contesting that 9/11 has been consistently portrayed as an unprovoked attack, which is simply not true. He also contests the claim that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, which is again simply not true.
If the majority of Americans were aware of our foreign policy in the region for the last 60 years, they would suddenly look at 9/11 and other such attacks in a completely different light. There have been many books and studies published on this, some even from former CIA officials about just how badly we've screwed over the Middle East. And they all agree: We had it coming. You can't overthrow governments and support blood-thirsty dictators who oppress the population and expect the people to actually like you afterwards.
Seriously, read up on the history of the US in the Middle East.
4. Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
Absolutely not. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, which means everyone is equal and every citizen has the right to vote.
5. What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
He supports the 2nd amendment. More details about this belief are on his website.
6. Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
Yes he does, and makes no bones about it. He wants the cut as much as he can. Of course, that's an uphill battle but if anyone has the will to do it is Ron Paul. More details on his website.
7. How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil? He hates our dependence on foreign oil. He wants to stop subsidizing the industry and removing roadblocks for alternative fuel research. More details are on his website.
8. Is healthcare a right? Ron Paul believes we should have freedom of choice in healthcare, which we don't have. Government involvement has caused many problems, including jacked rates. That being said, he does not believe it is the federal government's responsibility to provide nationwide healthcare; it should be left to the states or the people (like the Constitution says). He also wants to phase out Medicare and Medicaid, but that will take awhile.
9. Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
Ron Paul strongly disagrees with this.
Like I said, more information is available from the campaign website and/or various discussion groups. www.ronpaul2008.com
Alan Greenspan and Robert Barro are just two very notable figures who endorse the gold standard as a basis for competing currencies. Read their treatise on the matter before criticizing. Their arguments (from the 60s 70s and 80s) are quite persuasive, since we are seeing today exactly what they predicted would happen with the fiat system.
Create a stable competing currency. At least something that will hold it's value. Right now, despite whatever gains people thought they achieved during the past 5 years, because of the dollar drop they didn't make out nearly as well as they think they did. As the dollar continues to plummet (and it will thanks to the Fed), countries are going to switch to a different currency and dump dollars. When that happens, our dollar is going to fall even further. In fact, several nations have already voiced their intention to switch to th Euro as opposed to the dollar for their international transactions.
Ron Paul is not advocating a cold switch. He is advocating a competing currency. In my opinion, the sooner the better since the dollar has already lost so much of it's value.
Except that you do have market distortion, control, and manipulation with paper currency. For example, you cannot "print" more gold. But the FED seems quite adept and printing more dollars.
You cannot arbitrarily inflate or deflate gold. Pegging the currency to gold wold keep prices fairly stable as opposed to the Fed pile driving interest rates, printing more cash, and sending the dollar through the floor.
To add to this, the Fed isn't even federal. It's private. So you have these large central banks which have no oversight influencing and determining monetary policy.
Besides, he doesn't want to suddenly switch back to commodity backed currency. That would create insanity, like it did when we went of the standard back in the 70s. He wants to create competing currencies, which I think would be an excellent idea. Over time, the stability would probably win people over in long run.
As far as him not understanding economics, unless you have an advanced degree on the subject you should probably keep quiet. Ron Paul has studied economics quite extensively. And if Wall Street big wigs are agreeing with his ideas, then perhaps they know something that you do not.
How many times have we seen people bitch about the state of civil liberties in this country? How many time have we seen people complain about corporate interests and lobbiests? How many times have people bitched about Bush, Cheney, war propoganda, and ridiculous spending of our government? How many times have people bitched about the Consititution being eviscerated?
Finally, we get a candidate who has a 20 year voting record on fiscal responsibility and supporting thee cconstitution and what is the response from slashdot? Ron Paul is kook.
Huh? Why? He supports the Constitution. He supports balanced budgets. He wants to get rid of government waste. He wants to get rid of lobbiests. He wants to repeal the PATRIOT and the Protect America acts. He wants to reinstate Habeaus Corpus. He wants to do just about every freakin' think that the Slashdot crowd has been bitching about for the past 7 years and somehow he is a kook?
He doesn't believe in regulating the internet and is endorsed by the NTU as the person who would actually reduce taxes, cut spending, and balance the budget. Ron Paul even has a sign on his desk that says "Don't steal. The government hates competition.".
He's pro-life. So what? He believes that the federal government has no say in it. He's not convinced of evolution. So what? He doesn't believe the government should be mandating what should be taught. He's not convinced of global warming? So what? He doesn't believe it's the federal governments responsibility to do what state regulations should cover (see EPA vs. California).
He also actually understands the world community. Anyone who thinks that terrorists attack us for our freedoms have drank the kool-aid. The US has been screwing the Middle East over for the better part of a century. We've overthrown democratic governments. We've supported ruthless dictators. I mean for heaven's sake we are the ones who supported and trained Osama bin Laden.
Do you think a non-interventionist foreign policy is crazy? Do you think that saber rattling and bombing threats are a more effective means of negotiation than diplomacy? Do you really think the US can AFFORD its current aggressive foreign policy?
How many of you know that according to the GAO, that this country will be bankrupt in (best case scenario) a couple of decades?
There is actually an honest politician with a completely consistent record of supporting the Constitution and sound principles that actually echo what slashdotters as a whole have been complaining about and all you can say is he is crazy. Has everyone swallowed the blue-pill?
I would like to see a well reasoned argument as to why he is a kook. If you disagree on some of his platform, then fine. But that does not make him a kook.
Other than Ron Paul, name one candidate who has voted or would vote against the war in Iraq. Name one candidate who is willing to bring the troops home. Name one candidate who understands the monetary policy behind a fiat currency and WHY the Fed is destroying our currency. Name another candidate who has actually followed through to uphold the oath of office. Name another candidate that does NOT have lobbiests in his campaign. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against pork. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against giving congressional raises. Name another candidate that actually returns unused funds back to the budget at the end of the year. Name another candidate that REFUESES to use any FEC funds because he believes that taxpayer dollars should not be used for campaigning.
Ron Paul has been the candidate you've been asking for. And yet he is a kook. Only on slashdot.
"as long as my constituional rights don't get outright trampled on, I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them."
What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is it that congress, and the populace aren't trying to solve the freakin' problem?
Why don't people ever stop and ask the question: Why are they so pissed off at us? What have we done to deserve this? If they did, people might actually discover that the terrorist, as well as much of the Middle East, are angry for legitimate reasons.
They're pissed off because of 60 years of brutal US foreign policy in the Middle East. We've overthrown democratic governments. We've installed bloody dictators. We've supported terrorism, and even had proxy wars fought by our "puppets". The Shah of Iran, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein were all funded and supported by the US. We turned a blind eye or even supported their atrocities as long as they were serving US purposes.
This isn't conspiracy theory. It's well documented. Several former CIA experts have written multiple books on this, and the blowback we've been seeing (like 9/11). Our foreign policy there basically amounts to an "the ends justify the means" campaign. It definitely puts all of this in a quite different light once you start researching our history in the region.
What's really sad is that we have not learned our lessons either, as once again we are supporting yet another military dictator to achieve our goals.
They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we've been screwing them over for the better part of a century. Terrorist attacks are a symptom of the problem, and that problem is our aggression and foreign policy.
If you want the threat of terrorism to go down, it's simple. Get out. Leave them alone. Get our bases out the region. Stop supporting murderous dictators like Saddam and the Shah. Stop trying to overthrow their governments. Let them try to figure it out themselves, and stop trying to shove our ideas down their throats. Stop terrorizing them with threats of embargoes and bombings.
Seriously, if another country did half the crap to us as we have done to the Middle East we'd be pretty damned pissed off too.
Our galaxy is over 100,000 light years in diameter. We barely started listening to the universe.
In fact, there are few installations that could detect an "unnatural" signal against the background radiation unless it was generated very close by (in galactic measure), or was specifically directed at us with enough power. As I'm sure others will mention, any advanced civilization capable of SOME space travel would be using mainly directed transmissions which would severely limit our chances of detecting them unless by chance we were somehow in the path.
And then, of course, there is a travel time.
You're also equating life with "intelligent life capable of generating detectable transmissions". Life could be quite prevalent, but intelligent life less so. Then there is also the chance that a civilization arose and fell long before humans ever walked the earth.
Then, for the tin foil hatters out there, an advanced civilization may be monitoring us or even participating. A civilization sufficiently advanced will have abilities indistinguishable from magic and all that.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for day. Teach a man to phish, and he eats for the rest of his life.
All joking aside, $200 of rice will feed them sure enough. But that is merely treating the symptom. It always has.
Indeed, it seems a lot of the times that's what happens. People see a problem but they don't fix it. Instead they treat the symptoms of the problem.
Now why would that be? The answer is, of course, profit. There is far more money to be made from treating symptoms than solving problems. Just look at the government. We've got the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and let's not forget our most recent addition to the family, the war on terror. All of which were started with good intentions (the road to hell and all that), but not a single one of them address the underlying problems.
The OLPC project is actually a step in the right direction. Helping people help themselves works out a lot better than providing a constant crutch that people grow reliant on.
And that, Mr. Dvorak, is the problem with $200 dollars worth of rice. When it runs out, they'll need $200 more. That doesn't fix the problem, it only temporarily addresses the symptom.
Slashdot Mirror
I may not like what repressive regimes do, but I don't believe the US has any right to tell them what to do anyway. Penalize them, sure. But we shouldn't be messing around in foreign countries when we can't even keep our own house in order.
That being said, this bill is an incredibly BAD idea. All this would do is have foreign companies step in to fill the void when US companies have to close up shop. How exactly is that going to help? Will having a warm and fuzzy feeling about it?
Compared to what the companies are doing here, ON OUR OWN SOIL, why the hell should we even care what they're doing in other countries?
I've got a brilliant idea. How about we pass a few laws prohibiting these companies from participating in mass secret survellance on our populace. Or how about prohibiting communications tampering on networks. And let's put a big penalty on any officials/people doing so of an all expense paid trip to GITMO.
What the hell is wrong with this country?
~X~
On a related note, I would rather have those plans out in the open. There's too much financial incentive for someone to sell "secret" plans to interested parties, and then you don't know who has them and what they intend to do with them.
If the crux of your security is based on someone not knowing about a special back door or passageway, it is only a matter of time before it fails. Either through espionage, spying, or sheer luck, someone out there will find out your secret and then you will be pHukkk0RRzzzd.
~X~
After watching a year of our TV programming, would any advanced civilization want to get within 100 light years of us?
All kidding aside, an advanced civilization would easily be able to watch and monitor us without us knowing about it. They would only bother contacting us if they thought it was worthwhile to do so, and right now it probably isn't.
Assuming that they are even looking for us and have happened into our neighborhood over the past half-century or so. Even an advanced race would need time to explore and study planets as it went along. And that's assuming some interstellar wars didn't break out between civilizations to slow down the spread. Or rebellions. Or anything else of that nature.
There are still issues an advanced race could come across that would slow them down.
Face it, at this stage of the game we are planet-locked and we have limited tools with which to explore our own solar system in any detail, let alone other star systems. We know squat about what's out there.
~X~
"CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas"
Incorrect. Aside from water vapor, carbon dioxide has the largest radiative forcing of the green house gases in our atmosphere. The others, in order, are methane, nitrous oxide, and CFC-12. To add to this, the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is quite long, unlike gases sucha as methane.
"The amount of CO2 re release into the atmosphere is pathetic compared to the other gases - a mere 0.28%"
Incorrect. CO2 currently makes up over 72% of greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic sources.
"The hottest years on record predate the industrial revolution."
Of course they do. How could they not, given the IR started 250 years ago? If you're going to bring up the argument of "natural cycle", you're still mssing the point. At best, we are merely contributing to change that, on the whole, we haven't really prepared for.
"There are a number of other factors such as the above that you can't/don't give an explaination for (solar activity being one)"
And obviously you haven't even performed a rudimentary review of the (quite large) amount of data collected on the climate. You could start by reading the IPCC report, which summarily dismisses you claims.
As far as solar activity goes, again, you need to read more. NASA is currently collecting terabytes of solar data. If the sun so much as burps, we'd know about it. According to the IPCC report, solar activity levels have not contributed to the current climate change.
You are, of course, free to bury your head in the sand or ignore the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate. Frankly, I'm more inclined to listen the people who study climate than some idle slashdotter.
But to make you happy, I'll just say that all this climate crap is a worldwide group of scientists operating in collusion in a multi-national scheme to bilk world governments out of billions of dollars for their own personal profit.
Tin foil hats are available at the door.
~X~
You're not seeing ocean level rise because most of the ice is still land-locked. Even worst case scenarios only have ocean levels rising catastrophically over the course of centuries. The ice at the north pole has almost no impact on ocean levels as it's already in the ocean.
The biggest short term impact of northern cap melting away is albedo. The caps radiate away a far amount of energy because of the snow and ice. Less snow and ice, means more darker surfaces which means more energy is retained. This becomes a feedback loop that rapidly (relatively speaking) ends up warming the northern hemisphere.
You're writing like you don't understand how significant even small changes in global temperatures can have large impacts. Do yourself a favor and read the IPCC reports. Better yet, go enroll yourself in a university and major in climatology. Then you will understand exactly how much energy a 1 degree rise in temperature world-wide can have, and why it should be a concern.
And stop confusing climatology with meteorology. The climate doesn't shift over the course of a week. The changes people are concerned about will be happening over the coming decades and centuries. We only have a hope of preparing for it if we start early.
~X~
A slight correction. The purpose of the US military WAS the protection and defense of the US. However that hasn't been the case for quite some time.
It took about 50 years of subtle and some not so subtle changes, but now the US military/government has an almost blank check for wars with anyone or anything some small group of people deem a threat. All they need to do is cite some "intelligence report" that only "they know about", and suddenly you got congress and media whisking everyone off into some ludicrous war with ulterior goals.
We're supposed to avoid wars, not instigate them. We're supposed to protect our borders, not invade others.
On the bright side though, we won't be doing it for much longer. With the dollar dropping like a rock and the national debt skyrocketing all we'll be ale to afford to do in 20 years is pay social security and the interest on our debt.
~X~
If you were starving, you wouldn't give a shit about whether what you're eating had a nervous system or not.
Morality is what people have when they aren't faced with a crisis.
~X~
Or push the old lady into traffic. Damn bluehairs. ~X~
Actually, I was thinking that since hydrogen becomes super-conductive at high pressures at room temperature this would be one way to achieve a room temp super conductor. Or possibly apply this with the salene (SiH4?) compound from the other day and have higher temperature super conductors.
~X~
No, but the radiation would turn you into a melty creature. ~X~
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844
The president and 20 year long friend of Ron Paul defended him. Ron Paul has also written a treatise about how to eliminate racism, which seems rather odd for someone who would be a racist.
Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute ARE NOT FRIENDS of Paul. You will find that they have been attacking Paul almost non-stop. Lew Rockwell was fired I believe. It was Lew and pals who orchestrated The New Republic release. Not exactly something you do to someone you support.
As far as your "extensive ties" go, I can find no such evidence other than some PO blogs and people thinking that Ron Paul supports them. There was one story in the USA Daily, but it was retracted on the basis that they could not find any credible sources to back it up. Other than that there doesn't appear to be any credible information.
The John Birch Society support Paul for his constitutional views. Other than one speech he gave (on constitutional principles no less), I don't find any other ties to the group. The same with the league of the south. They support him because of his views on the Constitution and states right.
I do not see any PAC money coming from these groups. Nor do I see Ron Paul actively endorsing or supporting these groups either. I don't see it in his congressional record, and certainly not in his public record. You would think that if what your saying is true, the mainstream media would have picked it up and utterly destroyed him with it.
But I suppose you want to make a leap from some of the crazies supporting Ron Paul to Ron Paul being a crazy himself. o_0
The only thing I've managed to find with any racism at all has been the newsletters. Everything else has been word-of-mouth or unsubstantiated, uncorraborative stories. How about something from real source or news outlet.
But since your so keen on on political wrong-doings and such, try this site http://www.judicialwatch.org/. Obama has quite a record. Another one for more recent statements is factcheck.org.
~X~
The US has been doing much worse and for far longer. You haven't included thebest parts of the US in thee Middle East.
Iran used to be a DEMOCRATIC nation, one of the first to do so. But they didn't want to bend over for the US. So the US supported the overthrow of that government to put the Shah into power. The Shah was a ruthless dictator who was sort of like Saddam, only less cuddly.
When the people finally rose up against the Shah and took back their country, they made it very clear that the US was not welcome. Well, we can't have that now can we? So we helped put yet another ruthless dictator into power, Saddam Hussein. We gave Saddam military support and weapons to help fight a proxy war for us with Iran. That was quite a bloody mess. And that eventually lead Kuwait and the Iraq wars. More death and destruction.
Don't worry, the US still has Iran beat in regards to the killing people. They're amateurs compared to the US.
If you think the Iranians dislike their government, they dislike the US a whole lot more. If one thing can be said for the Middle East, its that they have long memories. We've been screwing over that area of the world for the better part of a century now, and I think it is easy to see that the remember all to well the actions of our past.
~X~
Foreign policy is a major driver, and gives them plenty of desperate-nothing-left-to-live-for types to recruit. Although, the occasional certifiably insane nut job helps.
But, if you're going to become a racist (like Theo did) especially if you have a large Muslim population, then there is a pretty good chance you're going to rub a crazy the wrong way. We have things like that happen here, but we don't call it terrorism. We call it murder. Last I checked, even our friendly neighborhood KKK isn't classified as a a terrorist organization, despite their colorful views.
The Spanish attack you are referring to had nothing to do with Middle East terrorists. It was Basque separatists. Totally different reasons and completely unrelated. I'm not even sure why included it.
The UK is a Middle East terrorist target because their hands are just as dirty as ours in that region. They were a staunch ally, and the terrorists know it.
Ron Paul didn't say anything about foreign policy being the only cause of terrorism worldwide. He said that the biggest driver for terrorism from the MIDDLE EAST against the US is our foreign policy, which if you ever researched it is pretty damn appalling.
You may also want to do some reading on the causes of terrorism, aside from the Middle Eastern variety. The blue pill the media is feeding certainly doesn't discuss the underlying reasons, nor real solutions on how to address it.
~X~
Well, you can do that now and let the people and the states handle the situation. Or you can wait a few years until the lobbyiest buy the laws that will allow them to do so.
Ron Paul WANTS corporations to be held accountable. The laws governing corporations are re-goddamn-diculous. The reason why corporations have so much power is because of the laws. If corporations were made to be as responsible for their actions as the average citizen, you would see a drastic change in how things work. Imagine being able to charge an electric company for extortion, for example. If a corporation is abusing its niche within a state, then the state should be able punish said corporations as it sees fit. If the corporation withdraws, then someone will step in to takes it's place.
And how the hell do you think he would firesale the government? He talks about reduction, not elimination. Whatever he does has to be approved by congress. How about you stop and think for a minute.
Ron Paul is a very smart guy. He knows he can't just cut the government. He knows he can't balance the budget in the first year. Their are obstacles and challenges. Like all candidates, he is stating what he would like to do and work towards, not what is actually going to happen. Stop taking the blue pill for a second, and take a real hard look at our country. We are not well.
~X~
You are full of shit. Period.
Nothing in his congressional record, personal life, nor his medical practice leads one iota of credence to the newsletters. In fact, it's just the opposite.
Would the president of the NAACP back someone like you just described? Of course not. Would someone that you just described deliver babies for free to African American and Hispanic families that were too poor to afford it? No.
He was running a full time medical practice and left the newsletters in care of people he thought he could trust. That was a mistake, as there were those who had a different agenda. At least he admitted he had been careless, unlike MOST of our elected officials (Iraq War).
His actions speak a lot louder than the words written by some assholes who had a vendetta. Here's a challenge for you. I want you to find one, just one instance where an action in his personal, medical, or political life shows paranoid racism. You won't find one.
He's not a libertarian. He's a constitutionalist. There is a difference.
~X~
They were widely discredited because they were written by the ghostwriter, not Ron Paul. The ghostwriter (and friends), as it turns out, had an agenda against Ron Paul. The letters were written to discredit Paul.
The letters were real and I never stated anything to the contrary. All I said is that their contents had been discredited. As in, Ron Paul's views are not contained in therein. The New Republic did actually have forgeries that were supposedly released letters, but they were not. However, the other letters did exist.
As far as not noticing sooner, here's the deal. When Paul left congress to return to his practice, he left some people he thought he could trust in charge. I'm not sure if you know how much work goes into a Ob/gyn practice, but I can assure it consumes a lot of time and effort.
He found out about what was happening by a third party. He was not receiving the letters. Since he had a full-time+ job, he wasn't exactly keeping tabs on everything that was happening. By the time he realized what was going on, there was little he could do.
Later, it emerged that the people who had orchestrated this did so in effort to discredit Paul for personal gain. One of the people responsible was actually planning to run in Paul's congressional district and wanted to make sure he had plenty of ammo in case Paul wanted to get back into politics. The ploy failed miserably, since Paul was very well known in the area (one would hardly expect a crazed racist to deliver babies for free to poor mexican and african american families).
Since that incident, the letters have been brought up occasionally and are quickly dismissed.
The New Republic (thanks to submission by said ghostwriter and friends) once again brought up the letters. The president of the NAACP came out in defense of Ron Paul, as once again his actions in his personal life, medical practice, and political records clearly show he is anything but racist.
You don't need to take my word for it though. You can research the timeline yourself and draw your own conclusions. But my guess is that if you have the support of the NAACP president, you're probably not a racist.
~X~
He wants to create competing currencies using "the gold standard", which is a pretty decent idea. Trying to outright replace a fiat currency would be devastating on a global scale and he is well aware of that fact.
He is not protectionist either. If you would read his website instead of parroting what the media tells you, you'll see it is quite the opposite.
As far as social programs, he is fully aware of how many people have become dependent on the system. Again, read his website. The favors phasing out the social programs over time in favor of state or private programs. It is not and should not be the role of the federal government to determine how people are taken care of, as you end up with a huge sub-optimal mess. One needs to look no further than the ballooning social security and Medicare/Medicaid programs to see that our country will be bankrupt in the near future trying to keep them afloat.
But don't take my word for it. Go to the government accountability office's website and look up David Walker (the comptroller). Take a look at the financial forecasts based on our current rate of spending. The social programs by themselves have the potential to bankrupt our country in a couple of decades.
Right now, the social programs in the US budget make up the bulk of spending. This is closely followed by defense spending. If you combine defense and social programs, you ALREADY EXCEED THE REVENUE by a good margin. So what do you cut?
By keeping troop levels the same and just pulling them home, you can save about a half trillion dollars or more. That's a pretty good start. McCain is hot and heavy about pork, but that makes up about 1 or 2 percent of the spending. Good to cut, and one of the few things Paul agrees with him on. After that, you have to start hunting around for cuts. The social programs like Social security would need about 30 years to 40 years to phase out.
Ron Paul isn't going to throw people out on the street. Some of his ideas will take decades to develop. But at least he is trying unlike other candidates who just want to give you more of the same.
~X~
Back in the cave, troll.
Ron Paul wasn't even in congress when those newsletters were written. He had gone back to his practice in Texas. Those letters WERE written by a ghostwriter, and have been widely discredited. When Ron Paul finally saw what was going on, he fired the people responsible. He has admitted that it was his fault the letters were published without appropriate oversight.
I'm also pretty sure Ron Paul wouldn't be endorsed by the NAACP if they thought those letters contained even a hint of truth.
If you're looking for modern bigotry, try McCain. He had some lovely things to say about people from the Middle East, including some things he said at the South Carolina debate.
~X~
Most of those questions are easily answered by going to his website. But here is what you would find.
1.Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Yes he does believe the current amount illegal immigration is a problem. He wants to end birthright citizenship and not give welfare support to illegal immigrants. As part of his plan of bringing the troops home, he wants to add support to our currently very understaffed border patrol operations. A better description can be found on the issues section of his website.
2.Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
No. At least not with the US in its current state. See the website.
3. In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
That is not what he implied at all. What he was talking about was the reasons WHY we were attacked. The CIA describes this as blowback. He was contesting that 9/11 has been consistently portrayed as an unprovoked attack, which is simply not true. He also contests the claim that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, which is again simply not true.
If the majority of Americans were aware of our foreign policy in the region for the last 60 years, they would suddenly look at 9/11 and other such attacks in a completely different light. There have been many books and studies published on this, some even from former CIA officials about just how badly we've screwed over the Middle East. And they all agree: We had it coming. You can't overthrow governments and support blood-thirsty dictators who oppress the population and expect the people to actually like you afterwards.
Seriously, read up on the history of the US in the Middle East.
4. Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
Absolutely not. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, which means everyone is equal and every citizen has the right to vote.
5. What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
He supports the 2nd amendment. More details about this belief are on his website.
6. Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
Yes he does, and makes no bones about it. He wants the cut as much as he can. Of course, that's an uphill battle but if anyone has the will to do it is Ron Paul. More details on his website.
7. How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
He hates our dependence on foreign oil. He wants to stop subsidizing the industry and removing roadblocks for alternative fuel research. More details are on his website.
8. Is healthcare a right?
Ron Paul believes we should have freedom of choice in healthcare, which we don't have. Government involvement has caused many problems, including jacked rates. That being said, he does not believe it is the federal government's responsibility to provide nationwide healthcare; it should be left to the states or the people (like the Constitution says). He also wants to phase out Medicare and Medicaid, but that will take awhile.
9. Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
Ron Paul strongly disagrees with this.
Like I said, more information is available from the campaign website and/or various discussion groups. www.ronpaul2008.com
~X~
Alan Greenspan and Robert Barro are just two very notable figures who endorse the gold standard as a basis for competing currencies. Read their treatise on the matter before criticizing. Their arguments (from the 60s 70s and 80s) are quite persuasive, since we are seeing today exactly what they predicted would happen with the fiat system.
Create a stable competing currency. At least something that will hold it's value. Right now, despite whatever gains people thought they achieved during the past 5 years, because of the dollar drop they didn't make out nearly as well as they think they did. As the dollar continues to plummet (and it will thanks to the Fed), countries are going to switch to a different currency and dump dollars. When that happens, our dollar is going to fall even further. In fact, several nations have already voiced their intention to switch to th Euro as opposed to the dollar for their international transactions.
Ron Paul is not advocating a cold switch. He is advocating a competing currency. In my opinion, the sooner the better since the dollar has already lost so much of it's value.
~X~
Except that you do have market distortion, control, and manipulation with paper currency. For example, you cannot "print" more gold. But the FED seems quite adept and printing more dollars.
You cannot arbitrarily inflate or deflate gold. Pegging the currency to gold wold keep prices fairly stable as opposed to the Fed pile driving interest rates, printing more cash, and sending the dollar through the floor.
To add to this, the Fed isn't even federal. It's private. So you have these large central banks which have no oversight influencing and determining monetary policy.
Besides, he doesn't want to suddenly switch back to commodity backed currency. That would create insanity, like it did when we went of the standard back in the 70s. He wants to create competing currencies, which I think would be an excellent idea. Over time, the stability would probably win people over in long run.
As far as him not understanding economics, unless you have an advanced degree on the subject you should probably keep quiet. Ron Paul has studied economics quite extensively. And if Wall Street big wigs are agreeing with his ideas, then perhaps they know something that you do not.
~X~
Define hypocrisy: Slashdot.
How many times have we seen people bitch about the state of civil liberties in this country? How many time have we seen people complain about corporate interests and lobbiests? How many times have people bitched about Bush, Cheney, war propoganda, and ridiculous spending of our government? How many times have people bitched about the Consititution being eviscerated?
Finally, we get a candidate who has a 20 year voting record on fiscal responsibility and supporting thee cconstitution and what is the response from slashdot? Ron Paul is kook.
Huh? Why? He supports the Constitution. He supports balanced budgets. He wants to get rid of government waste. He wants to get rid of lobbiests. He wants to repeal the PATRIOT and the Protect America acts. He wants to reinstate Habeaus Corpus. He wants to do just about every freakin' think that the Slashdot crowd has been bitching about for the past 7 years and somehow he is a kook?
He doesn't believe in regulating the internet and is endorsed by the NTU as the person who would actually reduce taxes, cut spending, and balance the budget. Ron Paul even has a sign on his desk that says "Don't steal. The government hates competition.".
He's pro-life. So what? He believes that the federal government has no say in it. He's not convinced of evolution. So what? He doesn't believe the government should be mandating what should be taught. He's not convinced of global warming? So what? He doesn't believe it's the federal governments responsibility to do what state regulations should cover (see EPA vs. California).
He also actually understands the world community. Anyone who thinks that terrorists attack us for our freedoms have drank the kool-aid. The US has been screwing the Middle East over for the better part of a century. We've overthrown democratic governments. We've supported ruthless dictators. I mean for heaven's sake we are the ones who supported and trained Osama bin Laden.
Do you think a non-interventionist foreign policy is crazy? Do you think that saber rattling and bombing threats are a more effective means of negotiation than diplomacy? Do you really think the US can AFFORD its current aggressive foreign policy?
How many of you know that according to the GAO, that this country will be bankrupt in (best case scenario) a couple of decades?
There is actually an honest politician with a completely consistent record of supporting the Constitution and sound principles that actually echo what slashdotters as a whole have been complaining about and all you can say is he is crazy. Has everyone swallowed the blue-pill?
I would like to see a well reasoned argument as to why he is a kook. If you disagree on some of his platform, then fine. But that does not make him a kook.
Other than Ron Paul, name one candidate who has voted or would vote against the war in Iraq. Name one candidate who is willing to bring the troops home. Name one candidate who understands the monetary policy behind a fiat currency and WHY the Fed is destroying our currency. Name another candidate who has actually followed through to uphold the oath of office. Name another candidate that does NOT have lobbiests in his campaign. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against pork. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against giving congressional raises. Name another candidate that actually returns unused funds back to the budget at the end of the year. Name another candidate that REFUESES to use any FEC funds because he believes that taxpayer dollars should not be used for campaigning.
Ron Paul has been the candidate you've been asking for. And yet he is a kook. Only on slashdot.
~X~
"as long as my constituional rights don't get outright trampled on, I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them."
What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is it that congress, and the populace aren't trying to solve the freakin' problem?
Why don't people ever stop and ask the question: Why are they so pissed off at us? What have we done to deserve this? If they did, people might actually discover that the terrorist, as well as much of the Middle East, are angry for legitimate reasons.
They're pissed off because of 60 years of brutal US foreign policy in the Middle East. We've overthrown democratic governments. We've installed bloody dictators. We've supported terrorism, and even had proxy wars fought by our "puppets". The Shah of Iran, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein were all funded and supported by the US. We turned a blind eye or even supported their atrocities as long as they were serving US purposes.
This isn't conspiracy theory. It's well documented. Several former CIA experts have written multiple books on this, and the blowback we've been seeing (like 9/11). Our foreign policy there basically amounts to an "the ends justify the means" campaign. It definitely puts all of this in a quite different light once you start researching our history in the region.
What's really sad is that we have not learned our lessons either, as once again we are supporting yet another military dictator to achieve our goals.
They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we've been screwing them over for the better part of a century. Terrorist attacks are a symptom of the problem, and that problem is our aggression and foreign policy.
If you want the threat of terrorism to go down, it's simple. Get out. Leave them alone. Get our bases out the region. Stop supporting murderous dictators like Saddam and the Shah. Stop trying to overthrow their governments. Let them try to figure it out themselves, and stop trying to shove our ideas down their throats. Stop terrorizing them with threats of embargoes and bombings.
Seriously, if another country did half the crap to us as we have done to the Middle East we'd be pretty damned pissed off too.
~X~
Our galaxy is over 100,000 light years in diameter. We barely started listening to the universe.
In fact, there are few installations that could detect an "unnatural" signal against the background radiation unless it was generated very close by (in galactic measure), or was specifically directed at us with enough power. As I'm sure others will mention, any advanced civilization capable of SOME space travel would be using mainly directed transmissions which would severely limit our chances of detecting them unless by chance we were somehow in the path.
And then, of course, there is a travel time.
You're also equating life with "intelligent life capable of generating detectable transmissions". Life could be quite prevalent, but intelligent life less so. Then there is also the chance that a civilization arose and fell long before humans ever walked the earth.
Then, for the tin foil hatters out there, an advanced civilization may be monitoring us or even participating. A civilization sufficiently advanced will have abilities indistinguishable from magic and all that.
~X~
Give a man a fish, and he eats for day. Teach a man to phish, and he eats for the rest of his life.
All joking aside, $200 of rice will feed them sure enough. But that is merely treating the symptom. It always has.
Indeed, it seems a lot of the times that's what happens. People see a problem but they don't fix it. Instead they treat the symptoms of the problem.
Now why would that be? The answer is, of course, profit. There is far more money to be made from treating symptoms than solving problems. Just look at the government. We've got the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and let's not forget our most recent addition to the family, the war on terror. All of which were started with good intentions (the road to hell and all that), but not a single one of them address the underlying problems.
The OLPC project is actually a step in the right direction. Helping people help themselves works out a lot better than providing a constant crutch that people grow reliant on.
And that, Mr. Dvorak, is the problem with $200 dollars worth of rice. When it runs out, they'll need $200 more. That doesn't fix the problem, it only temporarily addresses the symptom.
~X~