The trouble is, once the government gets into the buisness of legislating on morality or social issues, then you have to accept that a moral code you do not believe in will sometimes be enforced on you.
The Christian Right did not invent the state apperatus for morality enforcement and social engineering. That was a creation of the progressive movement, and is championed by the secular left as "social democracy". It just so happens that the Christian Right has managed to sieze control of the state apparatus at this time. The danger of extreme government power, is that those who you might disagree with might sieze that power and use it on you.
Fighting the Christian Right is pointless... if we live in a society that says it is "Democratic", and "Progressive" for moral views and social conditions are to be regulated by the government, then it is only reasonable and democratic that the Christian Right would try to further their agenda through the state. The only way you can fight this, is to oppose government intervention into the social lives of citizens. The only way to fight this is to smash the state social engineering aparatus, to limit the power of government, and to force the government to mind their own buisness.
The Secular Left is in love with big government, social engineering, and enforcing their own form of morality. The Secular Left will never want to limit the power of government over people, they simply want to enforce their own moral and social agenda on people instead of the Christian Right agenda. As long as you view this as a problem with the Christian Right, and not a problem with big government in general, you don't understand the problem enought to solve it.
Yeah, thought so. In the real world, one of the major uses of wealth is to concentrate and control further wealth. To put it bluntly, that means preventing YOU from getting it.
Nowadays, when the vast majority of the "wealth" that the 2% own only exists on paper. An acre of land in Manhattan is only worth 100,000 times more than an acre of land in Sascatchiwan because of competition for that land by the wealthy. An expensive designer bag is only worth $50,000 if you resell it, because the designer artificially limits supply, and there is social benifits for having the bag, but no-one actually believes that the designer bag uses more resources to produce than an SUV. An origional hand written copy of Beatles lyrics is worth millions and continues to go up in value, but in the end it is just a piece of paper, it doesn't represent the vast financial resource it does when you pay taxes on it or pay to insure it.
It is inevitable that the rich own half of the wealth, but a good portion of that wealth is only wealth because the rich own it. The rich owning half the wealth is a self fulfilling prophesy, because there are many things that gain "value" just because the rich own it. A lot of so-called wealth is not real!
These statistics are meaningless, because they are not limited to items that have real economic values. A much more accurate value would be to compare the consumption of natural resources and labor by the wealthy. How much metal do they use, how much wood do they use, the fruits of how much labor they consume. This will give you a real breakdown on who is wealthy, and who is not.
Trailer-park libertarian, huh?
As opposed to the bourgeois socialist? (or in your case maybe the tree-less suburban subdivision socialist:) ) Of course Libertarians are not as ultra-rich as Socialists. When the ultra-rich reach the limits of their power in the market (lets face it, consumers can be fickle and what is an economic powerhouse one year can be in the dumps the next... most rich people in America don't stay rich their entire lives. And there are things that even the ultra-rich can't do, like throw people in jail, or invade countries), the ultra rich look for a way to institutionalize their wealth by gaining power in the state. They look to nationalize all wealth into the state, and they use socialist rhetoric to get the people to go along with it. Socialism = State Capitalism = The most extreme type of capitalism and the most extreme inbalance of wealth possible.
So, of course rich people (or those who are under permanent dependence of the rich), would be horrified by a Libertarian philosophy which doesn't want to give them state apperatus they can manipulate to preserve their wealth. Everyone knows the rich don't go for Laisse Faire economics, because it is too unpredictable, to violtile, and too hard to concentrate wealth in. Libertarians tend to be middle class, because the middle class benifit the most from free markets.
Because voters understand "Go to the Moon", because it can fit into a 5 second sound bite on TV news... but voters can't understand the economics of building cheaper heavy lift concepts, because it would require maybe 5 minutes to properly explain it to the average person. You are thinking like a CEO, and not like a politician. Selling a project to investors is different than selling it to the voting public.
Because in the 1960s, close to 1% of the U.S. economy (NOT 1% of the U.S. government budget, but the WHOLE ECONOMY) was being spent on the Apollo program each year. The U.S. just isn't going to spend that kind of money anymore unless the program is garanteed to get votes.
You are confusing a benign characteristic like race, with behavior characteristics which are very useful in determining future behavior. It should be obviouse that if someone commited an act of violence in the past, that they are more likely to commit an act of violence in the future than someone who did not commit an act of violence in the past. If someone does not have employable skills, it is less likely that a person will be able to find a job, and therefore more likely they may choose criminal behavior vs. someone who has an employable skill and so they can find work very easy. It is also true than males have more testosterone, which tends to produce violent behavior if you have too much.
Of course, I will not be suprised when governments go for this kind of money grab... like any profit making corporation, their primary purpose is to maximize revenue. They would tax going to the bathroom if it was possible.
However, taxing virtual goods in games is stupid. Some people might buy or sell virtual items, but the vast majority of people play online games as A GAME!!!! A virtual item has no real value any more than monopoly money, because the people playing have no intention of selling the item. Not only that, but most games explicitly state that virtual goods have no real value as part of their terms of service. There is no way they are going to tax me on virtual assets, because I simply won't play any game where I have to pay taxes on virtual assets.
Basicly, if they tax virtual assets, massively multiplayer games will go out of buisness (the vast majority of people won't pay taxes on virtual goods in a game) or move to a tax haven country. Not only will the government not get the revenue from taxing virtual assets, it won't get any revenue from taxing a real game company on their profits. The government isn't going to make a cent off of this.
You are assuming that Russia wants to keep it a secret that they murdered the guy. If Russia is trying to intimidate defectors/critics, etc., then you want something that can be pretty clearly linked to Russia. Using Polonium is not so much to be secret, but to make sure the target suffers before they die. Kind of like the modern version of being stabbed in the head with an icepick.
Answer me this: If the health care is so great, why outlaw most types of private care? If the system is good, clearly nearly everyone would participate, so there would be no need to outlaw care because who would want to pay for something that is free? And why do MPs and government officials get a special exemption to allow them to use private care if the system is so good? I mean, if the system is as fantastic as they say it is, why do even it's most hardcore advocates choose to use a private system? Why do even the people who are responsible for running the public system (who would no doubt get special privledges above the ordinary citizen even in the public system), refuse to be forced to use the public system?
If there was a resteraunt that had to force people to eat there, you wouldn't consider it to be a very good resteraunt. If there was a free movie, and the only way to get people to go to that movie over a movie with paid admission was to ban the other movie, you would know that the free movie is an aweful movie! Especially if the owner of the resteraunt or the movie themselves refused to eat at the resteraunt or watch the movie. The fact that the government of Canada has to FORCE people to participate in the public system against their will is proof it sucks. You just don't have to force people into doing something if it is good.
If I die on a waiting list for treatment, if I have a medical condition and the government refuses to give me the proper tests, I DO NOT have universal health care. Universal health care means I get the treatment I need, when I need it. While the U.S. health care system has problems (insane legal costs, overregulation, etc.), health care is MORE universal in the U.S. than Canada. The only time I ever had a doctor refuse to give me the healthcare I need, is in the Canadian "universal" health care scheme. The only time I have ever had a loved one with a life-threatening illness have to WAIT to get the medicine or tests they need is in the Canadian "universal" healthcare system. The only place I have ever had a clinic refuse to treat me because I forgot my health card was in Canada. Even my unemployed, uninsured cousin in the U.S. gets better health care than I do!
Right now I am in good health, and Canada is a pretty nice place to live with the exception of health care, so it is not really an issue... but if I ever develop any life-threatening health problems, I am so going over to the U.S. with a quickness. And if ever you or someone you love is truly facing death or suffering because of a health issue, I advise you to put aside your nationalistic pride, or your faith in socialism, and to go to the U.S. where they can get the health care they need, and screw how much it costs!
The biggest reason, of course, is that it is affordable in the United States. With the higher costs of fuel, higher taxes on larger vehicles, lower wages, less nessicity to drive (making a purchase of a vehicle more a luxury than anything else), most Europeans can't really afford to drive a big-ass SUV. I have a feeling that if purchasing a big SUV were just as affordable in Europe as it was in the U.S., there would be a lot more SUV drivers.
I am too lazy to do it, but I would guess that if you looked online and calculated the cost of an SUV in Europe, and the yearly cost of maintanence, and calculated the same cost in say Ohio in the U.S., the cost difference would be 40%+.
The problem with diesel is that it has trouble meeting certain emissions standards in U.S. states. While diesel is good when it comes to conserving fuel, and it may well be a better choice - diesel has larger particulates and is more likely to cause smog. In the U.S., the laws seem to be more geared for preventing smog than preventing CO2 emissions, as smog is an immediate and visible problem, while CO2 emissions are a long term problem.
I live in Canada now, which has socialized medicine and claims to have the best health care on earth, and I can tell you that the medical care here is outright third world even compared to the basic health care of one of my uninsured relatives gets in the United States. Health care isn't a commodity... Health Care in the U.S. is expensive, but it is also far superior than socialized systems (at least the socialized systems I have experienced). That is why countries like Canada have banned private insurance programs (except for MPs and high government officials, of course... those cats aren't going to use the shitty system that the ordinary people use... they go to the private hospitals and clinics in Ottawa that foriegn diplomats go to because they exempted themselves from the law!). If they allowed private insurance and private care, every Canadian who could afford it would get out of the crappy Canadian system as quick as possible.
If being "civilized" means rationed care, waiting lists, unavailable treatments, having to wait weeks for a beurocrat in the capital to approve your treatment, and not getting worse service from your hospital or clinic than you would at a fast food resteraunt, then I highly recommend that the U.S. remains a bunch of uncivilized savages.
Oh knock it off with the "EVIL CORPORATIONS!!! EVIL UNITED STATES!!!". You know if the U.S. declared a technology embargo to China, self rightous dweebs like yourself would be all up in arms that "Corporations are trying to intimidate the soveriegn nation of China and undermine socialism", just like you already do with Cuba! Censorship existed in far greater extremes in China back in the day when China was as anti-American and anti-Free-Market as yourself. Tell me the U.S. corporation that was making censorship possible back in the days of the cultural revolution, when censorship meant that having the wrong views would get you starved to death in a work camp or killed by firing squad? Since the opening of China to foriegn buisnesses, average income has increase by 1500% just in the poorest parts of China, music / movies / and books are available from all over the world, and personal freedom and expression are far greater than during the Communist era. In fact, Chinese censorship is more a dying holdover from the days when China was ruled under YOUR anti-corporation ideology of choice.
The only thing that would happen if the U.S. stopped selling data technology to China, is that they would buy it from the Europeans instead (this is what has been happening with weapons technology - The U.S. refuses to sell high tech weapons to China, and so China buys the same or similiar weapons from Europe). That, and then you would switch to calling the U.S. refusal to sell the technology as "Economic Imperialism" and you would be all up in arms about that.
Well, here is the thing. Give me your static IP address. I can (with your explicit permission, of course) try to make it look like you are file sharing to the RIAA. If you get sued, then you will understand that many of the people currently being sued are innocent. If you don't get sued, then I will stand corrected that the RIAA are only going after true file sharers. Sound fair?
But if you are not willing to give me your IP address and permission to try to make it look like you are file sharing, then shut up. If you are scared that I might make you look guilty of file sharing, then obviously you know that many of the people being sued can also have been misidentified the same way. If the RIAA don't sue innocent people, then you should have nothing to worry about, correct?
Except that with the RIAA's tactics, people who don't download any music illegally are being sued along with people who do. A good third of the people sued by the RIAA most likely never shared music and are only guilty of having their windows machine compromised or of having not secured their wireless network. A sizeable chunk of the people being sued by the RIAA don't own computers or have internet connections.
Given the RIAAs tactics in indiscriminatly sueing those who they know are innocent, one can only assume that this guy is innocent. The RIAA are trying to devistate innocent people financially, in a way that is a complete abuse of the legal system if it isn't outright illegal, so any and all tactics in escaping their attacks are legit. The way I see it, the people running these legal attacks should be in prison, not being allowed to continuing harming innocent people.
The trouble with blaming corporations with all the problems, is that no-one has an alternative. Some people claim to be "socialists", but socialism is really just state-capitalism, the most extreme form of capitalism... the government as monopoly corporation.
If you have some truly new and novel idea on how to run an economy, I would truly love to hear it. State-capitalism (or Socialism) is not the answer (just look at the terrible enviornmental destruction in the Soviet Union, which was clearly entirely free of any "Big Oil" influence).
Right now, allowing multiple corporations to exist means that we at least have some choice between corporations. If you had your way, and we put one government run corporation in charge of everything, all that does is eliminate choice and make that one corporation all powerful. In the pyramid of authoritarian power structures, you have Government/Corporations/Small Buisness/The people. While corporate power is far less desirable than people power, it is far less oppressive than government power (which is the only alternative to corporate power that leftists ever offer).
If you are going to rant on about "the evil corporations", offer a viable solution (and make sure it isn't the same old Marxist bullshit that has failed time and time again).
Since when is a movie designed to promote the political career of a politician proper viewing material in schools? What next, force kids to watch campaign commercials? Why not require them to "volunteer" to support Al Gore's next political campaign (or whoever he endorces) in order to get full credit?
Sorry, even if your propoganda is being pushed out of schools by the oil companies, just because the oil companies are doing it for their own selfish reasons doesn't mean that keeping propoganda out of schools is a bad thing.
Overthrowing the government IS treason, but it is not terrorism unless the people overthrowing the government resort to intentional indiscriminate attacks on civilians. It is possible to overthrow a government without random attacks on civilians. And charging people for treason if they try to overthrow the government is a good thing... while we want the people to be able to overthrow the government, we also want there to be a sufficient disincentive so people don't do it on a whim. Basicly, people should be armed and able to overthrow the government, but if treason charges are enough to get you to decide not to overthrow the government, then the government probably is not quite evil enough to be overthrown yet. Revolution should be an option of last resort, but is should be an option.
Second, your idea that the people most vocal in defense of their right to bear arms are also very vocal about support for the president ia just plain false. Republicans tend to be some of the strongest supporters of gun control. You are confusing Libertarians, who insist the unconditional right to keep and bear arms is to overthrow the government (and are also extremly anti-Bush), with Republicans who simply like to hunt and so they want to keep guns legal but as a strictly regulated and government supervised privledge.
I mean, come on, I hate Newt as much as the next guy, but Newt said freedom of speech needs to be expanded, not curtailed. This article is a total fabrication, invented by appending two completely different sentences he said out of context.
It isn't even shitty journalism, it isn't even partisan propoganda, this is outright fabrication.
Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?
Since the begining of time?
Please save us the self-rightous posturing. People have always had a certain fasination with war and violence. There are going to be people who find war and conflict exciting and challenging, or at least training for war exciting and challening. If, as a society, we are going to have a military to fight wars, there is nothing wrong with choosing people who will enjoy their work.
The only thing I find undesirable about the game is that it gives people the impression that they will see combat if they join the military. The vast majority of the military personel are in support positions (You need people to ship supplies, repair equipment, prepare food, teach classes, police other soldiers). Kids sign up thinking they are going to be repelling out of helicopters yelling "Go! Go! Go!", and then they get assigned to be a "Laundry and Textile Specialist" for 4 years. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arjobs /bl92s.htm
You are taking the most extreme examples, and then applying them to this case.
We ALL must compromise our morals sometimes. Living in a country with 300 million people, and living on a planet with 6.5 billion people, means that not all people are going to share our moral views 100%, and if you don't compromise to a certain extent, you are alienating yourself from the vast majority of people. At some point the issue becomes so small, that it becomes unreasonable and you are just being a jerk.
An example: If people who are kosher or hallal refuse to eat pork, I totally understand. However, if someone who is Kosher or Hallal refused to print a newspaper ad for a resterant serving pork, whatever moral benifits you have from eating pork are outweighted by the negativity and conflict you create by not running the ad. You must also take in consideration the moral issue of doing things to make life difficult for other reasonable people in your community.
Dropping a nuke on civilians is a far cry from doing flash animation for Maxim magazine or whatever.
Except that according to the propoganda put out by Rogers, my cable provider, per capita Canada has the largest TV screen size in the world. Canadians love their huge freakin' TVs.
The issue is that people with large screen HD televisions, probably have cable or satelite, and so they are watching U.S. stations, or specialty cable stations, rather than the CBC (unless it is hockey - Which IS broadcast in HD by the CBC as far as I know).
Well, I can drag out the tired old arguements of alcohol prohibition in the U.S., and the U.S. war on drugs... they are a dead horse, but it deserves some beating just because so few people understand the concept...
Currently, software developers use a lot of discretion in what they produce, and they do a pretty good job making sure the games are not sold to minors and not marketed to them. They might not do a perfect job, but there are a clear and established set of guidlines that they follow, a set of guidelines that stores follow, and it works OK.
Ban violent video games, and instead of violent video games being sold in legit stores, by legit companies, you are going to instead shift that buisness to the black market, who will not be able to compete in quality but instead will outdue each other in how graphicly violent, demented, and disturbing the games can be, and they will sell them online from outside Germany.
You never ever ever improve a situation by driving a product from being sold by legit buisnesses to be sold by the black market. It won't reduce violent video games, it will make them more violent. It will not make violent video games harder to get, it will make them easier to get. Just like any high school kid knows, it is way easier to get weed than alcohol... and any gun owners knows that it is cheaper and easier to get an AK-47 on the black market than to legaly purchase a modest licened pistol in most places... this kind of legislation is just going to drive the production of video games into the hands of those who most want to exploit children.
All attempts to ban victimless crimes fail... and they fail because the government can't revoke basic laws of economics. If there is sufficient demand for a product, there are going to be people more than willing to supply the product. Even in the U.S. where there are paramilitary style drug squads, and over a million people in prison because of drug charges, there has not been any permanent decrease in drug use since the war began. And I hardly imagine that Germany is going to be willing to go as far enforcing a video game ban as the U.S. has gone with it's drug ban, so it will not even be as effective as the U.S. war on drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble is, once the government gets into the buisness of legislating on morality or social issues, then you have to accept that a moral code you do not believe in will sometimes be enforced on you.
The Christian Right did not invent the state apperatus for morality enforcement and social engineering. That was a creation of the progressive movement, and is championed by the secular left as "social democracy". It just so happens that the Christian Right has managed to sieze control of the state apparatus at this time. The danger of extreme government power, is that those who you might disagree with might sieze that power and use it on you.
Fighting the Christian Right is pointless... if we live in a society that says it is "Democratic", and "Progressive" for moral views and social conditions are to be regulated by the government, then it is only reasonable and democratic that the Christian Right would try to further their agenda through the state. The only way you can fight this, is to oppose government intervention into the social lives of citizens. The only way to fight this is to smash the state social engineering aparatus, to limit the power of government, and to force the government to mind their own buisness.
The Secular Left is in love with big government, social engineering, and enforcing their own form of morality. The Secular Left will never want to limit the power of government over people, they simply want to enforce their own moral and social agenda on people instead of the Christian Right agenda. As long as you view this as a problem with the Christian Right, and not a problem with big government in general, you don't understand the problem enought to solve it.
They are no longer your children... they are now the government's children, and you are given the revokable privledge of raising them.
Yes, we can see how evenly the wealth was distributed in Maoist China, or the Soviet Union, or Revolutionary Cuba, etc!
The only thing that can stop the inequity of the capitalist system... why state capitalism, of course!
Yeah, thought so. In the real world, one of the major uses of wealth is to concentrate and control further wealth. To put it bluntly, that means preventing YOU from getting it.
:) ) Of course Libertarians are not as ultra-rich as Socialists. When the ultra-rich reach the limits of their power in the market (lets face it, consumers can be fickle and what is an economic powerhouse one year can be in the dumps the next... most rich people in America don't stay rich their entire lives. And there are things that even the ultra-rich can't do, like throw people in jail, or invade countries), the ultra rich look for a way to institutionalize their wealth by gaining power in the state. They look to nationalize all wealth into the state, and they use socialist rhetoric to get the people to go along with it. Socialism = State Capitalism = The most extreme type of capitalism and the most extreme inbalance of wealth possible.
Nowadays, when the vast majority of the "wealth" that the 2% own only exists on paper. An acre of land in Manhattan is only worth 100,000 times more than an acre of land in Sascatchiwan because of competition for that land by the wealthy. An expensive designer bag is only worth $50,000 if you resell it, because the designer artificially limits supply, and there is social benifits for having the bag, but no-one actually believes that the designer bag uses more resources to produce than an SUV. An origional hand written copy of Beatles lyrics is worth millions and continues to go up in value, but in the end it is just a piece of paper, it doesn't represent the vast financial resource it does when you pay taxes on it or pay to insure it.
It is inevitable that the rich own half of the wealth, but a good portion of that wealth is only wealth because the rich own it. The rich owning half the wealth is a self fulfilling prophesy, because there are many things that gain "value" just because the rich own it. A lot of so-called wealth is not real!
These statistics are meaningless, because they are not limited to items that have real economic values. A much more accurate value would be to compare the consumption of natural resources and labor by the wealthy. How much metal do they use, how much wood do they use, the fruits of how much labor they consume. This will give you a real breakdown on who is wealthy, and who is not.
Trailer-park libertarian, huh?
As opposed to the bourgeois socialist? (or in your case maybe the tree-less suburban subdivision socialist
So, of course rich people (or those who are under permanent dependence of the rich), would be horrified by a Libertarian philosophy which doesn't want to give them state apperatus they can manipulate to preserve their wealth. Everyone knows the rich don't go for Laisse Faire economics, because it is too unpredictable, to violtile, and too hard to concentrate wealth in. Libertarians tend to be middle class, because the middle class benifit the most from free markets.
Because voters understand "Go to the Moon", because it can fit into a 5 second sound bite on TV news... but voters can't understand the economics of building cheaper heavy lift concepts, because it would require maybe 5 minutes to properly explain it to the average person. You are thinking like a CEO, and not like a politician. Selling a project to investors is different than selling it to the voting public.
Because in the 1960s, close to 1% of the U.S. economy (NOT 1% of the U.S. government budget, but the WHOLE ECONOMY) was being spent on the Apollo program each year. The U.S. just isn't going to spend that kind of money anymore unless the program is garanteed to get votes.
You are confusing a benign characteristic like race, with behavior characteristics which are very useful in determining future behavior. It should be obviouse that if someone commited an act of violence in the past, that they are more likely to commit an act of violence in the future than someone who did not commit an act of violence in the past. If someone does not have employable skills, it is less likely that a person will be able to find a job, and therefore more likely they may choose criminal behavior vs. someone who has an employable skill and so they can find work very easy. It is also true than males have more testosterone, which tends to produce violent behavior if you have too much.
Murder rate in the U.S. for 2004 was 5.5 per 100,000. Your math is way off.
Of course, I will not be suprised when governments go for this kind of money grab... like any profit making corporation, their primary purpose is to maximize revenue. They would tax going to the bathroom if it was possible.
However, taxing virtual goods in games is stupid. Some people might buy or sell virtual items, but the vast majority of people play online games as A GAME!!!! A virtual item has no real value any more than monopoly money, because the people playing have no intention of selling the item. Not only that, but most games explicitly state that virtual goods have no real value as part of their terms of service. There is no way they are going to tax me on virtual assets, because I simply won't play any game where I have to pay taxes on virtual assets.
Basicly, if they tax virtual assets, massively multiplayer games will go out of buisness (the vast majority of people won't pay taxes on virtual goods in a game) or move to a tax haven country. Not only will the government not get the revenue from taxing virtual assets, it won't get any revenue from taxing a real game company on their profits. The government isn't going to make a cent off of this.
You are assuming that Russia wants to keep it a secret that they murdered the guy. If Russia is trying to intimidate defectors/critics, etc., then you want something that can be pretty clearly linked to Russia. Using Polonium is not so much to be secret, but to make sure the target suffers before they die. Kind of like the modern version of being stabbed in the head with an icepick.
Answer me this: If the health care is so great, why outlaw most types of private care? If the system is good, clearly nearly everyone would participate, so there would be no need to outlaw care because who would want to pay for something that is free? And why do MPs and government officials get a special exemption to allow them to use private care if the system is so good? I mean, if the system is as fantastic as they say it is, why do even it's most hardcore advocates choose to use a private system? Why do even the people who are responsible for running the public system (who would no doubt get special privledges above the ordinary citizen even in the public system), refuse to be forced to use the public system?
If there was a resteraunt that had to force people to eat there, you wouldn't consider it to be a very good resteraunt. If there was a free movie, and the only way to get people to go to that movie over a movie with paid admission was to ban the other movie, you would know that the free movie is an aweful movie! Especially if the owner of the resteraunt or the movie themselves refused to eat at the resteraunt or watch the movie. The fact that the government of Canada has to FORCE people to participate in the public system against their will is proof it sucks. You just don't have to force people into doing something if it is good.
If I die on a waiting list for treatment, if I have a medical condition and the government refuses to give me the proper tests, I DO NOT have universal health care. Universal health care means I get the treatment I need, when I need it. While the U.S. health care system has problems (insane legal costs, overregulation, etc.), health care is MORE universal in the U.S. than Canada. The only time I ever had a doctor refuse to give me the healthcare I need, is in the Canadian "universal" health care scheme. The only time I have ever had a loved one with a life-threatening illness have to WAIT to get the medicine or tests they need is in the Canadian "universal" healthcare system. The only place I have ever had a clinic refuse to treat me because I forgot my health card was in Canada. Even my unemployed, uninsured cousin in the U.S. gets better health care than I do!
Right now I am in good health, and Canada is a pretty nice place to live with the exception of health care, so it is not really an issue... but if I ever develop any life-threatening health problems, I am so going over to the U.S. with a quickness. And if ever you or someone you love is truly facing death or suffering because of a health issue, I advise you to put aside your nationalistic pride, or your faith in socialism, and to go to the U.S. where they can get the health care they need, and screw how much it costs!
The biggest reason, of course, is that it is affordable in the United States. With the higher costs of fuel, higher taxes on larger vehicles, lower wages, less nessicity to drive (making a purchase of a vehicle more a luxury than anything else), most Europeans can't really afford to drive a big-ass SUV. I have a feeling that if purchasing a big SUV were just as affordable in Europe as it was in the U.S., there would be a lot more SUV drivers.
I am too lazy to do it, but I would guess that if you looked online and calculated the cost of an SUV in Europe, and the yearly cost of maintanence, and calculated the same cost in say Ohio in the U.S., the cost difference would be 40%+.
The problem with diesel is that it has trouble meeting certain emissions standards in U.S. states. While diesel is good when it comes to conserving fuel, and it may well be a better choice - diesel has larger particulates and is more likely to cause smog. In the U.S., the laws seem to be more geared for preventing smog than preventing CO2 emissions, as smog is an immediate and visible problem, while CO2 emissions are a long term problem.
What civilized country are you talking about?
I live in Canada now, which has socialized medicine and claims to have the best health care on earth, and I can tell you that the medical care here is outright third world even compared to the basic health care of one of my uninsured relatives gets in the United States. Health care isn't a commodity... Health Care in the U.S. is expensive, but it is also far superior than socialized systems (at least the socialized systems I have experienced). That is why countries like Canada have banned private insurance programs (except for MPs and high government officials, of course... those cats aren't going to use the shitty system that the ordinary people use... they go to the private hospitals and clinics in Ottawa that foriegn diplomats go to because they exempted themselves from the law!). If they allowed private insurance and private care, every Canadian who could afford it would get out of the crappy Canadian system as quick as possible.
If being "civilized" means rationed care, waiting lists, unavailable treatments, having to wait weeks for a beurocrat in the capital to approve your treatment, and not getting worse service from your hospital or clinic than you would at a fast food resteraunt, then I highly recommend that the U.S. remains a bunch of uncivilized savages.
Oh knock it off with the "EVIL CORPORATIONS!!! EVIL UNITED STATES!!!". You know if the U.S. declared a technology embargo to China, self rightous dweebs like yourself would be all up in arms that "Corporations are trying to intimidate the soveriegn nation of China and undermine socialism", just like you already do with Cuba! Censorship existed in far greater extremes in China back in the day when China was as anti-American and anti-Free-Market as yourself. Tell me the U.S. corporation that was making censorship possible back in the days of the cultural revolution, when censorship meant that having the wrong views would get you starved to death in a work camp or killed by firing squad? Since the opening of China to foriegn buisnesses, average income has increase by 1500% just in the poorest parts of China, music / movies / and books are available from all over the world, and personal freedom and expression are far greater than during the Communist era. In fact, Chinese censorship is more a dying holdover from the days when China was ruled under YOUR anti-corporation ideology of choice.
The only thing that would happen if the U.S. stopped selling data technology to China, is that they would buy it from the Europeans instead (this is what has been happening with weapons technology - The U.S. refuses to sell high tech weapons to China, and so China buys the same or similiar weapons from Europe). That, and then you would switch to calling the U.S. refusal to sell the technology as "Economic Imperialism" and you would be all up in arms about that.
Well, here is the thing. Give me your static IP address. I can (with your explicit permission, of course) try to make it look like you are file sharing to the RIAA. If you get sued, then you will understand that many of the people currently being sued are innocent. If you don't get sued, then I will stand corrected that the RIAA are only going after true file sharers. Sound fair?
But if you are not willing to give me your IP address and permission to try to make it look like you are file sharing, then shut up. If you are scared that I might make you look guilty of file sharing, then obviously you know that many of the people being sued can also have been misidentified the same way. If the RIAA don't sue innocent people, then you should have nothing to worry about, correct?
Except that with the RIAA's tactics, people who don't download any music illegally are being sued along with people who do. A good third of the people sued by the RIAA most likely never shared music and are only guilty of having their windows machine compromised or of having not secured their wireless network. A sizeable chunk of the people being sued by the RIAA don't own computers or have internet connections.
Given the RIAAs tactics in indiscriminatly sueing those who they know are innocent, one can only assume that this guy is innocent. The RIAA are trying to devistate innocent people financially, in a way that is a complete abuse of the legal system if it isn't outright illegal, so any and all tactics in escaping their attacks are legit. The way I see it, the people running these legal attacks should be in prison, not being allowed to continuing harming innocent people.
The trouble with blaming corporations with all the problems, is that no-one has an alternative. Some people claim to be "socialists", but socialism is really just state-capitalism, the most extreme form of capitalism... the government as monopoly corporation.
If you have some truly new and novel idea on how to run an economy, I would truly love to hear it. State-capitalism (or Socialism) is not the answer (just look at the terrible enviornmental destruction in the Soviet Union, which was clearly entirely free of any "Big Oil" influence).
Right now, allowing multiple corporations to exist means that we at least have some choice between corporations. If you had your way, and we put one government run corporation in charge of everything, all that does is eliminate choice and make that one corporation all powerful. In the pyramid of authoritarian power structures, you have Government/Corporations/Small Buisness/The people. While corporate power is far less desirable than people power, it is far less oppressive than government power (which is the only alternative to corporate power that leftists ever offer).
If you are going to rant on about "the evil corporations", offer a viable solution (and make sure it isn't the same old Marxist bullshit that has failed time and time again).
Since when is a movie designed to promote the political career of a politician proper viewing material in schools? What next, force kids to watch campaign commercials? Why not require them to "volunteer" to support Al Gore's next political campaign (or whoever he endorces) in order to get full credit?
Sorry, even if your propoganda is being pushed out of schools by the oil companies, just because the oil companies are doing it for their own selfish reasons doesn't mean that keeping propoganda out of schools is a bad thing.
Overthrowing the government IS treason, but it is not terrorism unless the people overthrowing the government resort to intentional indiscriminate attacks on civilians. It is possible to overthrow a government without random attacks on civilians. And charging people for treason if they try to overthrow the government is a good thing... while we want the people to be able to overthrow the government, we also want there to be a sufficient disincentive so people don't do it on a whim. Basicly, people should be armed and able to overthrow the government, but if treason charges are enough to get you to decide not to overthrow the government, then the government probably is not quite evil enough to be overthrown yet. Revolution should be an option of last resort, but is should be an option.
Second, your idea that the people most vocal in defense of their right to bear arms are also very vocal about support for the president ia just plain false. Republicans tend to be some of the strongest supporters of gun control. You are confusing Libertarians, who insist the unconditional right to keep and bear arms is to overthrow the government (and are also extremly anti-Bush), with Republicans who simply like to hunt and so they want to keep guns legal but as a strictly regulated and government supervised privledge.
I mean, come on, I hate Newt as much as the next guy, but Newt said freedom of speech needs to be expanded, not curtailed. This article is a total fabrication, invented by appending two completely different sentences he said out of context.
It isn't even shitty journalism, it isn't even partisan propoganda, this is outright fabrication.
Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?
s /bl92s.htm
Since the begining of time?
Please save us the self-rightous posturing. People have always had a certain fasination with war and violence. There are going to be people who find war and conflict exciting and challenging, or at least training for war exciting and challening. If, as a society, we are going to have a military to fight wars, there is nothing wrong with choosing people who will enjoy their work.
The only thing I find undesirable about the game is that it gives people the impression that they will see combat if they join the military. The vast majority of the military personel are in support positions (You need people to ship supplies, repair equipment, prepare food, teach classes, police other soldiers). Kids sign up thinking they are going to be repelling out of helicopters yelling "Go! Go! Go!", and then they get assigned to be a "Laundry and Textile Specialist" for 4 years. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arjob
You are taking the most extreme examples, and then applying them to this case.
We ALL must compromise our morals sometimes. Living in a country with 300 million people, and living on a planet with 6.5 billion people, means that not all people are going to share our moral views 100%, and if you don't compromise to a certain extent, you are alienating yourself from the vast majority of people. At some point the issue becomes so small, that it becomes unreasonable and you are just being a jerk.
An example: If people who are kosher or hallal refuse to eat pork, I totally understand. However, if someone who is Kosher or Hallal refused to print a newspaper ad for a resterant serving pork, whatever moral benifits you have from eating pork are outweighted by the negativity and conflict you create by not running the ad. You must also take in consideration the moral issue of doing things to make life difficult for other reasonable people in your community.
Dropping a nuke on civilians is a far cry from doing flash animation for Maxim magazine or whatever.
Except that according to the propoganda put out by Rogers, my cable provider, per capita Canada has the largest TV screen size in the world. Canadians love their huge freakin' TVs.
The issue is that people with large screen HD televisions, probably have cable or satelite, and so they are watching U.S. stations, or specialty cable stations, rather than the CBC (unless it is hockey - Which IS broadcast in HD by the CBC as far as I know).
Well, I can drag out the tired old arguements of alcohol prohibition in the U.S., and the U.S. war on drugs... they are a dead horse, but it deserves some beating just because so few people understand the concept...
Currently, software developers use a lot of discretion in what they produce, and they do a pretty good job making sure the games are not sold to minors and not marketed to them. They might not do a perfect job, but there are a clear and established set of guidlines that they follow, a set of guidelines that stores follow, and it works OK.
Ban violent video games, and instead of violent video games being sold in legit stores, by legit companies, you are going to instead shift that buisness to the black market, who will not be able to compete in quality but instead will outdue each other in how graphicly violent, demented, and disturbing the games can be, and they will sell them online from outside Germany.
You never ever ever improve a situation by driving a product from being sold by legit buisnesses to be sold by the black market. It won't reduce violent video games, it will make them more violent. It will not make violent video games harder to get, it will make them easier to get. Just like any high school kid knows, it is way easier to get weed than alcohol... and any gun owners knows that it is cheaper and easier to get an AK-47 on the black market than to legaly purchase a modest licened pistol in most places... this kind of legislation is just going to drive the production of video games into the hands of those who most want to exploit children.
All attempts to ban victimless crimes fail... and they fail because the government can't revoke basic laws of economics. If there is sufficient demand for a product, there are going to be people more than willing to supply the product. Even in the U.S. where there are paramilitary style drug squads, and over a million people in prison because of drug charges, there has not been any permanent decrease in drug use since the war began. And I hardly imagine that Germany is going to be willing to go as far enforcing a video game ban as the U.S. has gone with it's drug ban, so it will not even be as effective as the U.S. war on drugs.