You can close down every single one of the programs you listed and there will be exactly as many government employees bearing arms as now.
It's not the programs themselves but the *powers* the government has either just outright taken from the States and/or the people in clear violation of the plain Constitutional language or given to it by greedy/lazy voters, that it has used to set these things up and run them. These are the same powers used to take away freedom.
A government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take everything away at its' whim.
Government is made up of imperfect people. You cannot have a government that is powerful enough to provide all that the US government does to its' citizens without that power being abused & misused.
Things like ACTA, DMCA, PATRIOT, etc are what you get with a government that's big enough and powerful enough for a national healthcare system, cradle-to-grave entitlements, etc.
A) Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, student loans, foodstamps, Cash For Clunkers, Stimulus (aka Money for Mobsters), etc etc etc.
Europe is an existence proof for how we can live pretty well with half the CO2 footprint, and high gas prices.
Europe would be a good example only if the US were to completely alter it's population distributions to match those of Europe. The US is BIG. The US population and it's cities and towns are much more spread out, with large areas of the continent that are relatively sparsely populated, but yet that population is a significant portion of the total population.
Even US cities are different. Most US cities aren't that old compared to most European cities, and the many cities designed/built (as well as expansions of existing cities) after the Model 'T' era were laid out with automobiles in mind. Many European cities are hundreds of years old, built when most people walked and those with freedom and means rode horses and horse-drawn wagons, carts, etc. This means the cities are much more compact, which makes things like mass transit, walking, and bicycling much more practical and economical.
As far as these scientists and their statement, I agree with others here who've expressed the opinion that they're only hurting the pro-AGW camp. The best thing they could do would be to advocate for a full disclosure of all raw data and have it made available to anyone, and set up something like the X-Prize for anyone that can come up with a decently-working climatological model whose code and algorithms can be released publicly and tested by anyone willing to do so.
The fact that those leading the charge behind AGW and cap-n-tax stand to make Sagans of dollars from it, along with more political power and government control over the people, coupled with this reluctance to release methods/data & attacks against anyone who questions their conclusions, makes me extremely skeptical.
There may be, in fact, an AGW crisis looming that threatens mankind. Unfortunately, the sloppy and ideologically- and politically-driven "science" and election-campaign-like tactics using personal attacks, etc have completely wrecked the debate and delayed or killed any chance of doing anything about it for years or decades.
The world just isn't going to give up many trillions in wealth, sacrifice many lives, reduce individual freedoms, lose national sovereignty, and destroy the standard of living of many millions without solid, verifiable, and dire reasons. This has only reinforced skepticism.
Well, of course it's a joke! That's one of the central ideas describing an effective monopoly; no *reasonable* alternatives exist. That's precisely the lever they use to keep you under control.
Unfortunately, changing the situation will involve a significantly-large number of people choosing to suffer with the poor alternative(s) or nothing to pressure the money side of the equation. It will also take voting out politicians who want it to continue, to pressure the government side of the equation.
My concern with this whole deal with the FCC being so determined to impose this new regulatory framework over the internet one way or another seriously worries me for the internet freedoms we currently enjoy. I guarantee that at the least, subscriber rates will jump if only to cover compliance costs.
It's the parts of what they're doing that don't have anything to do with actual network/peering issues, QoS practices, etc but hand over more control to the US government that concern me. This should be nearly as worrisome to other countries that may have data that passes through the US as it is to US citizens.
The internet has allowed regular people a world-wide voice they never had before, and has become a way for people to organize to expose corruption, government abuses, and make their will known to their government. You'd better bet that those in power will take steps to take control.
This is the first step; establish that the government can regulate this area without any additional Congressional action (I wonder if any Democrats on the Hill are feeling left out of the power-loop here, as they're once again bypassed by Obama's administration?) and establish broadly-worded "emergency" powers. Can you imagine the screams of "fascists!" if a Republican administration had pushed for anything like this?
Note that I blame Progressives in BOTH major parties over the last ~100 years or so for most of the mess the US is in, and that includes this attempt to establish control of the 'net.
Once the government has established regulatory control over the internet, it's just the standard increasing expansion of regulation (regulatory creep) that's been seen with nearly every other Federal regulatory area, whether those in charge have an (R) or (D) after their names, for the last 100 or more years.
As I understand it, internet service will be declared a public utility and regulated. The power grid and the telephone network in the US are other services that were declared a public utility and regulated. I leave it up to you whether you think that, given their history, government regulation & control of the internet will turn out to be a good thing for people's freedoms.
I have to wonder if Democrats in favor of this have thought about how they'll feel when a conservative Republican President/Congress is elected at some point in the future and has these powers at THEIR disposal. Do they not worry because they think they can seize enough power quickly enough to prevent any future challenges to their power?
"More proof of the profound impact cable, the Internet, and other outlets have had on broadcast news organizations..."
The fact that their hard news as well as their editorial/opinion shows/segments have also become increasingly-shameless cheerleaders for the Progressive agenda and the Obama administration has also heavily contributed to their viewership losses as ever-larger numbers of people look elsewhere for more objective sources.
That won't stop the loonies however, they'll just invent another made up story and try again, claiming that there was a coverup.
At this point the Progressives in Congress & the White House don't even care anymore about studies, right, wrong, facts, lies, or science. They are hell-bent on either passing climate change legislation or going around Congress by just having the EPA jackboot the changes with new rules.
The Progressive political backers of climate change are in it for power and ideology, as the whole idea behind what's being done is to set up a massive wealth transfer system to bleed America and give the money to the rest of the world. Basically, they think America (and Americans) are too rich & too free, so they intend to fix both of those issues through climate change legislation, along with healthcare and the other initiatives being pushed by Progressives in Washington.
It's all about turning America into a semi-Socialist second- or third-rate power while feeding off the spoils of it's demise and the suffering of the American people.
No end in sight for the politicizing of the science and research surrounding climate change.
Isn't that what the Virginia AG is investigating Mr. Mann for to begin with (using taxpayer money to perform a fraudulent study to back a political ideology/policy push)?
Is it now OK to misuse taxpayer money for political purposes as long as they benefit the Progressive movement and/or it's goals?
It's so hard to keep up with what laws those on the Progressive Left can violate in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others, as the list just keeps growing every day.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Strat
in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others,
I think you actually mean..
in the pursuit of whatever the hell they damn well please, be that their ideology or wallet or libido
That may also be true, but it's the possibly fraudulent misuse of taxpayer money to create false/misleading research to further a political agenda that is the crux of the issue here.
I would have thought that Slashdotters would be the first to argue for strict enforcement of ethics regarding public-funded science used in formulating policy and legislation being non-partisan/nonpolitical. It's not like there isn't plenty of reasonable suspicion to warrant an investigation unless one is wearing kool-aid glasses.
Legislation involving climate change issues will affect staggering amounts of wealth and who gets it, and who gets it taken away. Shouldn't the science (and the scientists) being used to justify such staggering transfers of wealth (hint: not *to* Americans as a whole) be held to very high standards?
Why shouldn't Mr. Mann be treated the same way any average citizen would that was suspected of misusing large amounts of public money? It seems to me that those that defend climate change and Mr. Mann's research should welcome this as an opportunity to end the demagoguing on both sides and prove they and Mr. Mann were right all along.
Unless, of course, this is all distraction because they know the facts don't support their positions.
It seems the last several decades that any time that someone or some organization on the left violates the law and/or ethical rules etc, anyone who has the audacity to call them on it is labeled a racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe, ad-nauseum, and personally & viciously attacked/destroyed. Look at ACORN and the two college students. ACORN still receives Federal funding while forces on the left attempt to destroy the students.
They don't want debate, they want you to STFU and sit down. They'll tell you what's best for you, and if they want your opinion, they'll give it to you. Rules and laws are to keep the masses obedient, they only apply to them if they allow it.
No end in sight for the politicizing of the science and research surrounding climate change.
Isn't that what the Virginia AG is investigating Mr. Mann for to begin with (using taxpayer money to perform a fraudulent study to back a political ideology/policy push)?
Is it now OK to misuse taxpayer money for political purposes as long as they benefit the Progressive movement and/or it's goals?
It's so hard to keep up with what laws those on the Progressive Left can violate in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others, as the list just keeps growing every day.
I'm a european so take this with appropriate quantities of salt but from where I'm standing Palin, Beck, the teabaggers, et al seem more of a threat to the internal cohesion of the Republican party than to the "progressive agenda" (whatever that means.)
The Republican Party and the Democratic Party have both been infiltrated by Progressives. Examples of Republican Progressives include (but aren't limited to) Lindsey Graham(sp?) and John McCain.
The political struggles in Europe have ranged mainly between royalty and a parliamentary body, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism with most European governments being some compromise between them. Where America has differed fundamentally is that the debate was changed from what form, to *how much* government there should be. The Founders believed that the only way to contain government expansion and thus prevent loss of individual freedom was to restrict government. They (rightly, IMHO) viewed all government as a necessary evil that should be kept at the very minimums of size and power possible while still performing the minimal duties it must.
This is the struggle America faces once again. Those that want to sacrifice our individual freedoms in exchange for power through cradle-to-grave entitlements and thus government involvement & control in every facet of life, versus those that do not wish to sacrifice their freedoms for an intrusive nanny-state.
If there had been anything that could have even remotely made even the most shaky, thin case against Palin in the emails, you don't think it would have been the subject of a special Congressional committee and/or special prosecutor? You don't think that was *exactly* the intent behind the account cracking?
Actually, I was on ebaumsworld when the account was "hacked" and the first screenshots were posted and I can assure you it was done for the lulz [encycloped...matica.com] and not some some diabolical political purpose.
Sure, and I'm certain that if the son/daughter of a Republican politician had cracked Obama's or Hillary's email accounts that all those claiming the Palin email crack was the equivalent of a random prank would feel the same.
If it were for laughs, why did he not try cracking email accounts of Hillary or Obama and instead chose Palin? Just because the politically-motivated cracker was incompetent at exploiting the data politically or even at hiding his tracks doesn't affect the fact that Palin was a target because she was (and remains) a threat to the Progressive social & political agenda.
There are two stupid people at the heart of this story, David Kernell and Sarah Palin.
Huh? How was Palin stupid in the context of this incident? Was she stupid to use email, as she should have known the extremists on the Left would hack it? Or just stupid because she disagrees with your views?
Apparently, Palin must not have used that account in any way that seriously violated any ethics rules and/or laws in any meaningful way or she would have been tarred, feathered, pilloried, and publicly horse-whipped on the Senate and/or House floors before being jailed by those who were (and still are) out to personally destroy the woman.
If there had been anything that could have even remotely made even the most shaky, thin case against Palin in the emails, you don't think it would have been the subject of a special Congressional committee and/or special prosecutor? You don't think that was *exactly* the intent behind the account cracking?
I don't care about "R" or "D", as both have been for larger government & larger national debt, but this was a really sleazy dirty trick and those behind anything like it, regardless of party/ideology, should be aggressively prosecuted and sentenced severely if found guilty.
Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?
Why? The same reason why one can simultaneously fear any two (or more) threats which may or may not present equal levels of peril. One can reasonably fear a wasp sting and a gunshot wound at the same time, as long as one does not assign equal responses to unequal dangers. You wouldn't just put some OTC burn/sting ointment on a gunshot wound (well, maybe if you're Chuck Norris!), and you wouldn't call in a trauma team for a wasp sting (unless there's some life-threatening allergic reaction, the wasp used an assault rifle, etc).
Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans. At this point I'm starting to believe our own government is more of an immediate threat to at least our way of life and our freedoms & liberties, if not our lives, than the threat of terrorism or other foreign threat.
That's nice but not related to my post or the post I replied to.
Do you have something on topic?
You plainly discussed the comparative safety concerns of e-cigs vs tobacco cigs. I replied by pointing out that the safety issue as far as the ALA & government are concerned is a non-starter for them. It's simply a distraction from the real reason they want e-cigs banned; money & power they obtain through continued sale/use of conventional tobacco cigs could be threatened.
Don't know how much more on-topic I could be.
[Spanish accent]This word, I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Spanish accent]
That makes safer than many over the counter medicine, alcohol, stairs, driving, and bathtubs
Unfortunately, safety/health has almost nothing at all to do with it except to be used in e-cig opposition demagoguery.
The two major factors behind e-cig opposition are;
1) Anti-smoking related organizations like the ALA fear losing power/influence/money and the government fears losing tobacco tax revenues.
2) Busybodies hate it whenever someone might be enjoying themselves and will always oppose anything that might even give a remote impression that it may be possible to enjoy...as long as it's not *their* chosen form of enjoyment. Unfortunately, again, the lower intelligence required to hold such views pretty well guarantees they will fail to see the danger of removing free choice until it *IS* their chosen form of enjoyment/lifestyle/etc that's targeted for persecution, and then it's too late.
These types of busybodies have existed forever, and have even been granted a popular-culture term that accurately describes how they are viewed by their leaders.
You aren't only paying for that 45 minutes you are paying for the assurance that you didn't miss anything or make any mistakes in the calculations. If you have a medium complexity return TurboTax can auto-import all of W-2's and 1099's and do all the calculations for you. For some people that assurance is worth it.
Tell that to Timothy Geithner (who specifically attempted to blame the TurboTax software), Charlie Rangel, and Tom Daschle (among just a few). If it were so easy, why are so many powerful people having such a difficult time paying the taxes they owe when not only are they in a position to "have someone qualified do it", but actually helped *write* the tax code? Also, why is it that these same people are not held to the same legal and financial penalties as Citizen Doe in Podunk would suffer for the same thing?
I think before we worry too much about what shape our tax system should have, we should first assure that the people in charge of it aren't corrupt, power-hungry, lying slimebags. Until the latter is dealt with, the former will never result in anything resembling fair & honest.
I'd say we draw the line between expressing an opinion and expressing facts.
I should be allowed to say whatever I want, as long as it's clearly my opinion: "I think...", "It is my opinion that..." I should not be allowed to say whatever I want if I'm presenting it as fact.
"I think John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You go ahead and think that. "John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You can't go around making false statements like that
Reasonable?
Yes, much *too* reasonable, which is why it will never be allowed to be that simple.
[sarcasm]
Why do you wish to starve the poor trial lawyers' children? You know, those poor, poor trial lawyers that give so much money to politicians & political parties and even become politicians themselves. Thankfully, our government has seen fit to pass the IRS Auditor/Trial Lawyer Full Employment Act of 2010 (also known to a few as the recently-passed healthcare reform and the "stimulus" & TARP packages...yes, the stuff Bush passed too).
The only way at this point to prevent the government from taking what's left of individual freedom is a Ghandi-like non-violent movement to take back our government through peaceful means. This will be extremely difficult, as the government and its' non-government proxies such as unions and community organizations are already actively seeking to provoke violence at town hall meetings and Tea Party events as an excuse to use extreme measures to prevent/suppress dissent.
Ah yes..... we need to peacefully speak up for our rights, so go grab your guns and get ready to start shooting because THEY actually have a secret plan to provoke a violent revolution!
Yeah yeah, I've seen Glen Beck's show too. Once or twice.
I have a suggestion... how about you put down your gun and turn off the Glen Beck show for a while and go outside to play with your kids while you're oh-so-peacefully waiting for the anti-war-pacifists and the hippies and tree-huggers and egghead-professors to fire the first bullet in the civil war that they are secretly plotting.
So, without knowing me from Adam, you assume I own a gun, am ready to grab said gun and start randomly shooting like some nutcase, and I thoroughly believe some stuff being said by this Glenn Beck person, apparently a Fox news info-tainment personality?
Just...wow. I thought it was conservatives that stereotyped people and were filled with vitriol.
I learned of Beck a few weeks ago replying to another Progressive-leaning poster here where he also accused me of being a Glenn Beck fan. Is this some sort of organized Progressive talking-point tactic to discredit those who voice dissent? FYI, the cable plan I'm on doesn't include the Fox News Channel. I really wasn't aware of Glenn Beck or who he was until recently, but thanks to you and the previously-alluded-to poster for assuring that I'll start giving his show the occasional view. He seems to be quite entertaining, at the very least.
I watched some clips at the FN website and a couple from Becks' website. IMHO, most of Becks' reasoning is based on facts, but he seems to make many logical assumptions based on worst-case-default variables. Sure, many of the things he claims will happen *could* happen, but there might be equally-logical scenarios based on the same data that do not involve some of the most dire outcomes. He does however bring to light many facts and highlights many things that have been and are being said by powerful people in the government that put the lie to much of what they say publicly as well as making people aware of what kind of people the President has advising him and acting in his name internally and what special interests seem to have the Presidents' ear.
It seems to me that Becks' facts are well-researched and quite revealing, even if you completely disregard anything else he may say.
Why do you seem to have a problem with the people exercising their Constitutional and legal rights to peacefully vote out those that, in their opinion, don't represent their or the countries' best interests for those that do? If you attempt to infer that their opinion is wrong, misguided, etc then fine, debate on the facts and merits and convince them of the correctness of your argument. If you can't get a majority of people to agree with your policy, then the fault is the policy, not the people.
Don't attempt to shut down/silence opposition, as when the tables eventually turn, the power you usurp to do so may be turned on you or your grandmother. It may be you at the ER with a loved one roughed-up by organized thugs outside of a public meeting with their elected representative for having the "wrong" ideas.
Strange that all the violence associated with the recent healthcare legislation has been all one-sided; HC supporters physically attacking and attempting to intimidate those who opposed/oppose it. Meanwhile, the Obama Justice Dept decides not to proceed against the two Black Panthers caught on video standing at the entrance to a vote polling location brandishing weapons even when they knew that they already had the case locked.
> There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation.
Then they can just take the power they want through non-governmental channels. Where there are no chiefs, you need to have a very special environment indeed, or people will start making themselves into chiefs with tooth and nail.
Take the power they want from *whom* exactly, if no single government official or body has any serious power and most governing is done locally? Are they going to take over/corrupt every single local and state government position of power?
That's precisely the reason for one of the main ideas behind having a weaker/smaller/more-restricted Federal government and having most domestic governing done locally with very little or no Federal involvement in things that are Constitutionally to be left to the States and the People respectively.
It makes it harder for any individual or cabal/group to seize enough power over enough people without their full consent to make it a successful strategy for seizing power over the nation. Why lobby/bribe some Representative or Senator in Washington if they don't have the power to help you? If you're a shallow, power/wealth-seeking amoral climber, why be a career Washington politician if you know you won't be able to gain much wealth or power?
Federal power was meant to be kept in check by the States who were supposed to have more domestic power over their own affairs than the Federal Government, and the Federal Government was intended to be financially dependent on the will of the States to fund itself fully. It's now completely the reverse...the States are dependent on the Federal Government to get some of their own money back and must dance to the Federal piper or face economic collapse.
IMHO the Founders were far, far ahead of their time in the designing they put into the Constitution. We "improve" and "re-interpret" the Constitution at our freedoms' peril. Over 200 years ago they designed a system with remarkable similarities to the internet, in that instead of packets, it's power, and it's meant to be a balanced, distributed network of power that will route around/blackhole bad nodes to minimize system damage as opposed to a centralized "master" network node that leaves the entire network vulnerable to catastrophic failure through a single/central point or points of failure. I think they had DARPA beat by over 2 centuries.
It's left up to the small, crazy passionate garage shops to start the revolution.
Meanwhile, sources for seed capital are drying up and the tax & regulatory landscape is getting ever-worse for just such small enterprises. The US is getting to be a downright unfriendly place for business in general and new/small business in particular.
They were forced to resort to indirect democracy 200 years ago because they lacked the infrastructure for direct democracy, but that limitation is long gone now.
This is incorrect according to the letters, pamphlets, and other historical writings from the period concerning the Constitution and the founders. "They" (the founders) made a studied and considered deliberate decision to *not* have a direct democracy as they fall prey to the "tyranny of the majority". It had nothing to do with the difficulty in tabulation.
They feared the population would figure out it could vote itself free stuff. Looking at America today I don't think they went far enough in preventing that, as now it's the politicians voting to give people free stuff for (re-)election votes and to gain power for themselves. This is also why the founders intended the Federal government to have little domestic power and a very limited budget as that minimizes corruption & power-seeking and its' national effects.
ACTA is simply another symptom of a government that's grown far too large & powerful and seeks to extend its' power even more.
The only way at this point to prevent the government from taking what's left of individual freedom is a Ghandi-like non-violent movement to take back our government through peaceful means. This will be extremely difficult, as the government and its' non-government proxies such as unions and community organizations are already actively seeking to provoke violence at town hall meetings and Tea Party events as an excuse to use extreme measures to prevent/suppress dissent.
Slashdot Mirror
You can close down every single one of the programs you listed and there will be exactly as many government employees bearing arms as now.
It's not the programs themselves but the *powers* the government has either just outright taken from the States and/or the people in clear violation of the plain Constitutional language or given to it by greedy/lazy voters, that it has used to set these things up and run them. These are the same powers used to take away freedom.
A government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take everything away at its' whim.
Government is made up of imperfect people. You cannot have a government that is powerful enough to provide all that the US government does to its' citizens without that power being abused & misused.
Strat
Things like ACTA, DMCA, PATRIOT, etc are what you get with a government that's big enough and powerful enough for a national healthcare system, cradle-to-grave entitlements, etc.
A) Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, student loans, foodstamps, Cash For Clunkers, Stimulus (aka Money for Mobsters), etc etc etc.
B) Freedom.
Choose one.
Strat
Europe is an existence proof for how we can live pretty well with half the CO2 footprint, and high gas prices.
Europe would be a good example only if the US were to completely alter it's population distributions to match those of Europe. The US is BIG. The US population and it's cities and towns are much more spread out, with large areas of the continent that are relatively sparsely populated, but yet that population is a significant portion of the total population.
Even US cities are different. Most US cities aren't that old compared to most European cities, and the many cities designed/built (as well as expansions of existing cities) after the Model 'T' era were laid out with automobiles in mind. Many European cities are hundreds of years old, built when most people walked and those with freedom and means rode horses and horse-drawn wagons, carts, etc. This means the cities are much more compact, which makes things like mass transit, walking, and bicycling much more practical and economical.
As far as these scientists and their statement, I agree with others here who've expressed the opinion that they're only hurting the pro-AGW camp. The best thing they could do would be to advocate for a full disclosure of all raw data and have it made available to anyone, and set up something like the X-Prize for anyone that can come up with a decently-working climatological model whose code and algorithms can be released publicly and tested by anyone willing to do so.
The fact that those leading the charge behind AGW and cap-n-tax stand to make Sagans of dollars from it, along with more political power and government control over the people, coupled with this reluctance to release methods/data & attacks against anyone who questions their conclusions, makes me extremely skeptical.
There may be, in fact, an AGW crisis looming that threatens mankind. Unfortunately, the sloppy and ideologically- and politically-driven "science" and election-campaign-like tactics using personal attacks, etc have completely wrecked the debate and delayed or killed any chance of doing anything about it for years or decades.
The world just isn't going to give up many trillions in wealth, sacrifice many lives, reduce individual freedoms, lose national sovereignty, and destroy the standard of living of many millions without solid, verifiable, and dire reasons. This has only reinforced skepticism.
Strat
Two options is not a choice, it's a fucking joke.
Well, of course it's a joke! That's one of the central ideas describing an effective monopoly; no *reasonable* alternatives exist. That's precisely the lever they use to keep you under control.
Unfortunately, changing the situation will involve a significantly-large number of people choosing to suffer with the poor alternative(s) or nothing to pressure the money side of the equation. It will also take voting out politicians who want it to continue, to pressure the government side of the equation.
My concern with this whole deal with the FCC being so determined to impose this new regulatory framework over the internet one way or another seriously worries me for the internet freedoms we currently enjoy. I guarantee that at the least, subscriber rates will jump if only to cover compliance costs.
It's the parts of what they're doing that don't have anything to do with actual network/peering issues, QoS practices, etc but hand over more control to the US government that concern me. This should be nearly as worrisome to other countries that may have data that passes through the US as it is to US citizens.
The internet has allowed regular people a world-wide voice they never had before, and has become a way for people to organize to expose corruption, government abuses, and make their will known to their government. You'd better bet that those in power will take steps to take control.
This is the first step; establish that the government can regulate this area without any additional Congressional action (I wonder if any Democrats on the Hill are feeling left out of the power-loop here, as they're once again bypassed by Obama's administration?) and establish broadly-worded "emergency" powers. Can you imagine the screams of "fascists!" if a Republican administration had pushed for anything like this?
Note that I blame Progressives in BOTH major parties over the last ~100 years or so for most of the mess the US is in, and that includes this attempt to establish control of the 'net.
Once the government has established regulatory control over the internet, it's just the standard increasing expansion of regulation (regulatory creep) that's been seen with nearly every other Federal regulatory area, whether those in charge have an (R) or (D) after their names, for the last 100 or more years.
As I understand it, internet service will be declared a public utility and regulated. The power grid and the telephone network in the US are other services that were declared a public utility and regulated. I leave it up to you whether you think that, given their history, government regulation & control of the internet will turn out to be a good thing for people's freedoms.
I have to wonder if Democrats in favor of this have thought about how they'll feel when a conservative Republican President/Congress is elected at some point in the future and has these powers at THEIR disposal. Do they not worry because they think they can seize enough power quickly enough to prevent any future challenges to their power?
Strat
You must not actually watch CNN.
You may watch, but you must not actually see CNN.
Strat
"More proof of the profound impact cable, the Internet, and other outlets have had on broadcast news organizations..."
The fact that their hard news as well as their editorial/opinion shows/segments have also become increasingly-shameless cheerleaders for the Progressive agenda and the Obama administration has also heavily contributed to their viewership losses as ever-larger numbers of people look elsewhere for more objective sources.
Strat
That won't stop the loonies however, they'll just invent another made up story and try again, claiming that there was a coverup.
At this point the Progressives in Congress & the White House don't even care anymore about studies, right, wrong, facts, lies, or science. They are hell-bent on either passing climate change legislation or going around Congress by just having the EPA jackboot the changes with new rules.
The Progressive political backers of climate change are in it for power and ideology, as the whole idea behind what's being done is to set up a massive wealth transfer system to bleed America and give the money to the rest of the world. Basically, they think America (and Americans) are too rich & too free, so they intend to fix both of those issues through climate change legislation, along with healthcare and the other initiatives being pushed by Progressives in Washington.
It's all about turning America into a semi-Socialist second- or third-rate power while feeding off the spoils of it's demise and the suffering of the American people.
Strat
No end in sight for the politicizing of the science and research surrounding climate change.
Isn't that what the Virginia AG is investigating Mr. Mann for to begin with (using taxpayer money to perform a fraudulent study to back a political ideology/policy push)?
Is it now OK to misuse taxpayer money for political purposes as long as they benefit the Progressive movement and/or it's goals?
It's so hard to keep up with what laws those on the Progressive Left can violate in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others, as the list just keeps growing every day.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Strat
in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others,
I think you actually mean..
in the pursuit of whatever the hell they damn well please, be that their ideology or wallet or libido
That may also be true, but it's the possibly fraudulent misuse of taxpayer money to create false/misleading research to further a political agenda that is the crux of the issue here.
I would have thought that Slashdotters would be the first to argue for strict enforcement of ethics regarding public-funded science used in formulating policy and legislation being non-partisan/nonpolitical. It's not like there isn't plenty of reasonable suspicion to warrant an investigation unless one is wearing kool-aid glasses.
Legislation involving climate change issues will affect staggering amounts of wealth and who gets it, and who gets it taken away. Shouldn't the science (and the scientists) being used to justify such staggering transfers of wealth (hint: not *to* Americans as a whole) be held to very high standards?
Why shouldn't Mr. Mann be treated the same way any average citizen would that was suspected of misusing large amounts of public money? It seems to me that those that defend climate change and Mr. Mann's research should welcome this as an opportunity to end the demagoguing on both sides and prove they and Mr. Mann were right all along.
Unless, of course, this is all distraction because they know the facts don't support their positions.
It seems the last several decades that any time that someone or some organization on the left violates the law and/or ethical rules etc, anyone who has the audacity to call them on it is labeled a racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe, ad-nauseum, and personally & viciously attacked/destroyed. Look at ACORN and the two college students. ACORN still receives Federal funding while forces on the left attempt to destroy the students.
They don't want debate, they want you to STFU and sit down. They'll tell you what's best for you, and if they want your opinion, they'll give it to you. Rules and laws are to keep the masses obedient, they only apply to them if they allow it.
Again, some animals are more equal than others.
Strat
No end in sight for the politicizing of the science and research surrounding climate change.
Isn't that what the Virginia AG is investigating Mr. Mann for to begin with (using taxpayer money to perform a fraudulent study to back a political ideology/policy push)?
Is it now OK to misuse taxpayer money for political purposes as long as they benefit the Progressive movement and/or it's goals?
It's so hard to keep up with what laws those on the Progressive Left can violate in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others, as the list just keeps growing every day.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Strat
shits ice cream.
two girls one cup?
One CONE.
Two girls, one conehead??
Somebody contact Akroyd. He needs the work. Tell him to bring a parka to the audition.
KTHNXBYE
Strat
I'm a european so take this with appropriate quantities of salt but from where I'm standing Palin, Beck, the teabaggers, et al seem more of a threat to the internal cohesion of the Republican party than to the "progressive agenda" (whatever that means.)
The Republican Party and the Democratic Party have both been infiltrated by Progressives. Examples of Republican Progressives include (but aren't limited to) Lindsey Graham(sp?) and John McCain.
The political struggles in Europe have ranged mainly between royalty and a parliamentary body, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism with most European governments being some compromise between them. Where America has differed fundamentally is that the debate was changed from what form, to *how much* government there should be. The Founders believed that the only way to contain government expansion and thus prevent loss of individual freedom was to restrict government. They (rightly, IMHO) viewed all government as a necessary evil that should be kept at the very minimums of size and power possible while still performing the minimal duties it must.
This is the struggle America faces once again. Those that want to sacrifice our individual freedoms in exchange for power through cradle-to-grave entitlements and thus government involvement & control in every facet of life, versus those that do not wish to sacrifice their freedoms for an intrusive nanny-state.
Strat
If there had been anything that could have even remotely made even the most shaky, thin case against Palin in the emails, you don't think it would have been the subject of a special Congressional committee and/or special prosecutor? You don't think that was *exactly* the intent behind the account cracking?
Actually, I was on ebaumsworld when the account was "hacked" and the first screenshots were posted and I can assure you it was done for the lulz [encycloped...matica.com] and not some some diabolical political purpose.
Sure, and I'm certain that if the son/daughter of a Republican politician had cracked Obama's or Hillary's email accounts that all those claiming the Palin email crack was the equivalent of a random prank would feel the same.
If it were for laughs, why did he not try cracking email accounts of Hillary or Obama and instead chose Palin? Just because the politically-motivated cracker was incompetent at exploiting the data politically or even at hiding his tracks doesn't affect the fact that Palin was a target because she was (and remains) a threat to the Progressive social & political agenda.
Strat
There are two stupid people at the heart of this story, David Kernell and Sarah Palin.
Huh? How was Palin stupid in the context of this incident? Was she stupid to use email, as she should have known the extremists on the Left would hack it? Or just stupid because she disagrees with your views?
Apparently, Palin must not have used that account in any way that seriously violated any ethics rules and/or laws in any meaningful way or she would have been tarred, feathered, pilloried, and publicly horse-whipped on the Senate and/or House floors before being jailed by those who were (and still are) out to personally destroy the woman.
If there had been anything that could have even remotely made even the most shaky, thin case against Palin in the emails, you don't think it would have been the subject of a special Congressional committee and/or special prosecutor? You don't think that was *exactly* the intent behind the account cracking?
I don't care about "R" or "D", as both have been for larger government & larger national debt, but this was a really sleazy dirty trick and those behind anything like it, regardless of party/ideology, should be aggressively prosecuted and sentenced severely if found guilty.
Strat
I don't believe in rounding. I truncate. It helps to always win 2/3 majority votes:
2/3 is 0.66666... Truncated to integer = 0
Total voters: 206
To win the vote, we require at least: 206 * 0 = 0
Therefore any number of affirmative votes constitutes a 2/3 majority.
Numbers don't lie!
Is that you, Nancy Pelosi? Or is it Harry Reid? Sounds like some of the things we've heard coming from Congress of late.
I'm a bit surprised as I thought you guys would be too busy taxing, spending, and ignoring the populace to post on /. :D
Strat
And how many industry lobbyists are waiting in the wings to twist the arms of Congress into ratifying it?
I think for this answer, we need to summon the spirit of the departed Carl Sagan.
"BILL-i-ons and BILL-i-ons!" :)
Strat
Or fuck knows . . . the treaty is being published after it's been ratified.
Um, like, what happened to political debate?
AFAIK the treaty still needs to be ratified by Congress before becoming enforceable.
Strat
Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?
Why? The same reason why one can simultaneously fear any two (or more) threats which may or may not present equal levels of peril. One can reasonably fear a wasp sting and a gunshot wound at the same time, as long as one does not assign equal responses to unequal dangers. You wouldn't just put some OTC burn/sting ointment on a gunshot wound (well, maybe if you're Chuck Norris!), and you wouldn't call in a trauma team for a wasp sting (unless there's some life-threatening allergic reaction, the wasp used an assault rifle, etc).
Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans. At this point I'm starting to believe our own government is more of an immediate threat to at least our way of life and our freedoms & liberties, if not our lives, than the threat of terrorism or other foreign threat.
Strat
That's nice but not related to my post or the post I replied to.
Do you have something on topic?
You plainly discussed the comparative safety concerns of e-cigs vs tobacco cigs. I replied by pointing out that the safety issue as far as the ALA & government are concerned is a non-starter for them. It's simply a distraction from the real reason they want e-cigs banned; money & power they obtain through continued sale/use of conventional tobacco cigs could be threatened.
Don't know how much more on-topic I could be.
[Spanish accent]This word, I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Spanish accent]
Strat
That makes safer than many over the counter medicine, alcohol, stairs, driving, and bathtubs
Unfortunately, safety/health has almost nothing at all to do with it except to be used in e-cig opposition demagoguery.
The two major factors behind e-cig opposition are;
1) Anti-smoking related organizations like the ALA fear losing power/influence/money and the government fears losing tobacco tax revenues.
2) Busybodies hate it whenever someone might be enjoying themselves and will always oppose anything that might even give a remote impression that it may be possible to enjoy...as long as it's not *their* chosen form of enjoyment. Unfortunately, again, the lower intelligence required to hold such views pretty well guarantees they will fail to see the danger of removing free choice until it *IS* their chosen form of enjoyment/lifestyle/etc that's targeted for persecution, and then it's too late.
These types of busybodies have existed forever, and have even been granted a popular-culture term that accurately describes how they are viewed by their leaders.
Useful idiots.
Strat
You aren't only paying for that 45 minutes you are paying for the assurance that you didn't miss anything or make any mistakes in the calculations. If you have a medium complexity return TurboTax can auto-import all of W-2's and 1099's and do all the calculations for you. For some people that assurance is worth it.
Tell that to Timothy Geithner (who specifically attempted to blame the TurboTax software), Charlie Rangel, and Tom Daschle (among just a few). If it were so easy, why are so many powerful people having such a difficult time paying the taxes they owe when not only are they in a position to "have someone qualified do it", but actually helped *write* the tax code? Also, why is it that these same people are not held to the same legal and financial penalties as Citizen Doe in Podunk would suffer for the same thing?
I think before we worry too much about what shape our tax system should have, we should first assure that the people in charge of it aren't corrupt, power-hungry, lying slimebags. Until the latter is dealt with, the former will never result in anything resembling fair & honest.
Strat
I'd say we draw the line between expressing an opinion and expressing facts.
I should be allowed to say whatever I want, as long as it's clearly my opinion: "I think...", "It is my opinion that..."
I should not be allowed to say whatever I want if I'm presenting it as fact.
"I think John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You go ahead and think that.
"John Doe is a pedophile and a terrorist" - You can't go around making false statements like that
Reasonable?
Yes, much *too* reasonable, which is why it will never be allowed to be that simple.
[sarcasm]
Why do you wish to starve the poor trial lawyers' children? You know, those poor, poor trial lawyers that give so much money to politicians & political parties and even become politicians themselves. Thankfully, our government has seen fit to pass the IRS Auditor/Trial Lawyer Full Employment Act of 2010 (also known to a few as the recently-passed healthcare reform and the "stimulus" & TARP packages...yes, the stuff Bush passed too).
[/sarcasm]
Strat
The only way at this point to prevent the government from taking what's left of individual freedom is a Ghandi-like non-violent movement to take back our government through peaceful means. This will be extremely difficult, as the government and its' non-government proxies such as unions and community organizations are already actively seeking to provoke violence at town hall meetings and Tea Party events as an excuse to use extreme measures to prevent/suppress dissent.
Ah yes..... we need to peacefully speak up for our rights, so go grab your guns and get ready to start shooting because THEY actually have a secret plan to provoke a violent revolution!
Yeah yeah, I've seen Glen Beck's show too.
Once or twice.
I have a suggestion... how about you put down your gun and turn off the Glen Beck show for a while and go outside to play with your kids while you're oh-so-peacefully waiting for the anti-war-pacifists and the hippies and tree-huggers and egghead-professors to fire the first bullet in the civil war that they are secretly plotting.
So, without knowing me from Adam, you assume I own a gun, am ready to grab said gun and start randomly shooting like some nutcase, and I thoroughly believe some stuff being said by this Glenn Beck person, apparently a Fox news info-tainment personality?
Just...wow. I thought it was conservatives that stereotyped people and were filled with vitriol.
I learned of Beck a few weeks ago replying to another Progressive-leaning poster here where he also accused me of being a Glenn Beck fan. Is this some sort of organized Progressive talking-point tactic to discredit those who voice dissent? FYI, the cable plan I'm on doesn't include the Fox News Channel. I really wasn't aware of Glenn Beck or who he was until recently, but thanks to you and the previously-alluded-to poster for assuring that I'll start giving his show the occasional view. He seems to be quite entertaining, at the very least.
I watched some clips at the FN website and a couple from Becks' website. IMHO, most of Becks' reasoning is based on facts, but he seems to make many logical assumptions based on worst-case-default variables. Sure, many of the things he claims will happen *could* happen, but there might be equally-logical scenarios based on the same data that do not involve some of the most dire outcomes. He does however bring to light many facts and highlights many things that have been and are being said by powerful people in the government that put the lie to much of what they say publicly as well as making people aware of what kind of people the President has advising him and acting in his name internally and what special interests seem to have the Presidents' ear.
It seems to me that Becks' facts are well-researched and quite revealing, even if you completely disregard anything else he may say.
Why do you seem to have a problem with the people exercising their Constitutional and legal rights to peacefully vote out those that, in their opinion, don't represent their or the countries' best interests for those that do? If you attempt to infer that their opinion is wrong, misguided, etc then fine, debate on the facts and merits and convince them of the correctness of your argument. If you can't get a majority of people to agree with your policy, then the fault is the policy, not the people.
Don't attempt to shut down/silence opposition, as when the tables eventually turn, the power you usurp to do so may be turned on you or your grandmother. It may be you at the ER with a loved one roughed-up by organized thugs outside of a public meeting with their elected representative for having the "wrong" ideas.
Strange that all the violence associated with the recent healthcare legislation has been all one-sided; HC supporters physically attacking and attempting to intimidate those who opposed/oppose it. Meanwhile, the Obama Justice Dept decides not to proceed against the two Black Panthers caught on video standing at the entrance to a vote polling location brandishing weapons even when they knew that they already had the case locked.
Strat
> There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation.
Then they can just take the power they want through non-governmental channels. Where there are no chiefs, you need to have a very special environment indeed, or people will start making themselves into chiefs with tooth and nail.
Take the power they want from *whom* exactly, if no single government official or body has any serious power and most governing is done locally? Are they going to take over/corrupt every single local and state government position of power?
That's precisely the reason for one of the main ideas behind having a weaker/smaller/more-restricted Federal government and having most domestic governing done locally with very little or no Federal involvement in things that are Constitutionally to be left to the States and the People respectively.
It makes it harder for any individual or cabal/group to seize enough power over enough people without their full consent to make it a successful strategy for seizing power over the nation. Why lobby/bribe some Representative or Senator in Washington if they don't have the power to help you? If you're a shallow, power/wealth-seeking amoral climber, why be a career Washington politician if you know you won't be able to gain much wealth or power?
Federal power was meant to be kept in check by the States who were supposed to have more domestic power over their own affairs than the Federal Government, and the Federal Government was intended to be financially dependent on the will of the States to fund itself fully. It's now completely the reverse...the States are dependent on the Federal Government to get some of their own money back and must dance to the Federal piper or face economic collapse.
IMHO the Founders were far, far ahead of their time in the designing they put into the Constitution. We "improve" and "re-interpret" the Constitution at our freedoms' peril. Over 200 years ago they designed a system with remarkable similarities to the internet, in that instead of packets, it's power, and it's meant to be a balanced, distributed network of power that will route around/blackhole bad nodes to minimize system damage as opposed to a centralized "master" network node that leaves the entire network vulnerable to catastrophic failure through a single/central point or points of failure. I think they had DARPA beat by over 2 centuries.
Strat
It's left up to the small, crazy passionate garage shops to start the revolution.
Meanwhile, sources for seed capital are drying up and the tax & regulatory landscape is getting ever-worse for just such small enterprises. The US is getting to be a downright unfriendly place for business in general and new/small business in particular.
Strat
They were forced to resort to indirect democracy 200 years ago because they lacked the infrastructure for direct democracy, but that limitation is long gone now.
This is incorrect according to the letters, pamphlets, and other historical writings from the period concerning the Constitution and the founders. "They" (the founders) made a studied and considered deliberate decision to *not* have a direct democracy as they fall prey to the "tyranny of the majority". It had nothing to do with the difficulty in tabulation.
They feared the population would figure out it could vote itself free stuff. Looking at America today I don't think they went far enough in preventing that, as now it's the politicians voting to give people free stuff for (re-)election votes and to gain power for themselves. This is also why the founders intended the Federal government to have little domestic power and a very limited budget as that minimizes corruption & power-seeking and its' national effects.
ACTA is simply another symptom of a government that's grown far too large & powerful and seeks to extend its' power even more.
The only way at this point to prevent the government from taking what's left of individual freedom is a Ghandi-like non-violent movement to take back our government through peaceful means. This will be extremely difficult, as the government and its' non-government proxies such as unions and community organizations are already actively seeking to provoke violence at town hall meetings and Tea Party events as an excuse to use extreme measures to prevent/suppress dissent.
Strat