Yes, it COULD be dangerous. Of course, a meteor COULD come crashing into your house killing you right now. It COULD turn out that laptop computers cause testical cancer.
If reactionaries like yourself are going to try to ban these kinds of products because they COULD be dangerous, can I have you thrown in jail because you COULD be a terrorist? I don't know if you are a terrorist, but you could very well be, Better to let fear and paranoia rule the day, then make a rational decision about the risks of products or people, right?
Don't forget the foreign aid and intervention is not nessicarily going to have the effect intended. We could be sending aid, and it could be going to a dictator (actually, this is how it happens and it is usually by design, but it can happen by accident or ignorance too). We could subsidize the wrong parts of the economy or the wrong industries and end up killing self-sustaining industries for whatever industry someone in Europe or the U.S. thinks is good for that country (and doesn't compete with European or U.S. economic interests). It is called "paternalism", and it is usually a disaster.
The fact is, the West does not have the skills to fix Africas problems... and we are not trustworthy enough not to use foriegn aid or intervention to further our own interests. So in the meantime, if we can't help Aftrica, we can at least try not to mess them up worse. Leave Africa alone, and keep our hands and noses out. No country has ever gone to war or bore resentment towards another country for not giving enough aid or intervention. At the same time, plenty of countries have grown to hate the countries that they were once dependent on. Paternalism is a nasty thing.
The West should have a strict non-intervention policy with Africa. It is better not to do anything for the time being.
They do it as a token effort to make people like you happy. Of course those companies could care less about doing charity. They are companies, and they basicly are a social tool used to provide products and services in exchange for money, in order to make a profit. That is the function they serve in society. There are also charities, and they are social tools used to provide aid or further some humanitarian goal in a non-profit manner.
Some people, of course, think that because charities are a good thing (charities help people), that companies should behave more like charities. This is of course, like saying that because a saw cuts wood, and cutting wood is good, a hammer should cut wood too. In reality, like a hammer and a saw, both the company and the charity are social tools that provide specialized functions to society. When you insist that a company should behave like a charity, the results aren't going to be good, because a company is not a charity. A company is a company. Making a company do charity is like making a hammer to cut wood... you might be able to cut wood with a hammer, in a very messed up and crude fashion.
In a sensible society, we would realize that companies and charities are two seperate tools, and they work best when each serves society in the way it was designed to serve society. But, some people don't really understand the purposes of companies and charities, or maybe they think that companies are evil, so token charity acts by companies have become normal.
It would be much better if companies, instead of donating to charity, would simply pass the money that they would have spent on charity back to the consumers in lower prices (after all, the money that companies give to charity come from the consumer in the first place), and then let people donate directly to the non-profit charity that they want.
You are thinking too much about the Left, and the Right, and forgetting about other points of view.
Like what about the people who couldn't really care one way or another about Iraqi attrocities, or Sudanese genocide? People who feel the U.S. military should stay out of all conflicts that are not a direct response to an attack or stopping an eminent attack on the United States?
Many of the people opposed to the invasion of Iraq, are just as opposed to doing anything in Sudan. Not everyone opposed to the Iraq war is some bleeding heart hippie. What about the people who believe that if you aren't willing to nuke them from orbit (it is the only way to be sure!), then U.S. should stay out!
Actually, yes... It was Christians (or at least former-Communists who were traditionally Christian) killing Muslims in the former Yugoslavia (at least that was what the propoganda said), and there were similiar fundraisers.
So quite clearly the fundraiser for Christians killing Muslims came first.
Relief efforts? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the "humanitarian problem" in Sudan basicly genocide? Does the relief supplies include AK-47s and rocket propelled grenades?
How did the free market fail in the 1930s? I am not sure what you mean? There was an economic recession after the stock market crash of 29, but that didn't turn to a Great Depression until government intervention such as the Smoot-Hawley Act, and total mismanagement of the U.S. money supply by the U.S. central bank (the U.S. central bank literally starved the economy of cash), and the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. Most economists consider the U.S. government reaction to the stock market crash and a run on banks as a "perfect storm" of mismanagement. There is no controversy that the things the U.S. government did during the great depression couldn't have possibly been worse for the economy... except maybe if they burned factories down.
Many would consider the Great Depression to be a failure of the government run central banks, rather than of the free market.
One thing is for sure, when the U.S. did have a more free market than today, the U.S. was far less militaristic and had a rapidly growing standard of living. The more money the U.S. government has, and the more power it has, the more mischeif it seems to get into.
Every successful industrial state since then has been structured around a somewhat fascist government economy.
More successful than what? What are you talking about? I agree that most industrial societies have had a somewhat fascist government... but I would go so far as to say ALL industrial societies. There is really nothing to compare to.
The only difference is whether that economy is regulated primarily via military spending (US) or social programs (Europe). Arguably the average working class person is better off under European-style socialism than the Pentagon system, but neither one is ideal.
Only a handful of European countries spend more per-capita than the United States on social programs, and in those cases it is only marginaly more. I don't think Europeans truly understand how much money the U.S. government spends on social programs. The idea that there is more social spending or more government regulation in Europe is a stereotype. There was truth to it in the early and mid 20th century, but ever since the 1960s and the "Great Society" programs, the U.S. has been spending astronomical amounts on social spending.
Speaking of Europe though, there are countries like Switzerland, Iceland, etc., that spend considerably less on social spending, and spend virtually nothing on military, than the U.S.... and as far as I understand it, those are the countries in Europe with the highest standard of living. Certainly, if I had to move to Europe, Switzerland, Iceland, and then maybe Holland or Belgium would probably be my order of choice, not France, or Sweden, or the places normally associated with European stlye welfare states.
The media is more moderate now than it has ever been. There are far more moderate and balanced news programs than ever. Fox is an exception to the general rule... it clearly has an editorial bias. Who cares? There are plenty of other perfectly good sources of news, and it isn't even a BROADCAST channel anyway, so it is outside the juristdiction "Fairness Doctrine".
But you have shown your TRUE modivations for supporting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". You don't like Fox News' editorial positions, and you want to censor it and force it to broadcast in a way that conforms to your political beliefs. You don't like talk show radio hows like Rush Limbaugh or whoever, so you want to ban them from the air under the guise of the "Fairness Doctrine". You want to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to go after your ideological enemies, not to broaden the scope of information available to people.
Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreilly may be demigogs, and Fox News a bunch of yellow journalists, but they have the right to say what they want without facists such as yourself banning or controlling what they have to say.
And I ignored the main aspect of the F.D., which is to force media to "not suppress news of vital importance"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Making a law like that is like making a law saying "Only show GOOD television programs, and not BAD ones". Or making a law that says "You may only promote the one true religion". Are you able to comprehend that "vital importance" is a entirely subjective, that no-one really agrees on what is of "vital importance"? Yeah, lets make a law that radio stations can only play "good" music, while we are at it. And lets make a law that says "all jokes must be funny". Then we can make a law requiring that resterants must serve food that "tastes good".
A chain of movie theaters cannot order the creater of a film arrested, it cannot kill the creater of the film. The theater chain is not a monopoly, it is not even an oligarchy - there are hundreds of movie chains in the U.S., in addition to stores that sell DVDs, and hundreds of cable TV networks.
Claiming that this movie chain is trying to censor a movie, because it has decided not to show a movie, is like claiming that you are trying to censor muslims, because you don't allow your own home to be used as a Mosque. Why do YOU hate muslims so much as to censor Islam, by not letting muslims use your home to practice their religion? Why are you so viciously denying Muslims the right to practice their religion? You are also not letting CocaCola use your front lawn to promote their product! Why are use censoring CocaCola?
Part of freedom of speech is the right to decide NOT to participate in speech. Just as you have the right to say whatever you want, you have the right not to be forced to say something either. A movie theater is not censoring anyone by not showing a movie, any more than you are censoring Coke by not allowing them to build a Coke billboard in your front lawn. As long as there are plenty of other places than your front lawn to advertise Coke, you wouldn't be censoring Coke. Understand??
Just because some second rate movie director hired a PR firm to create some McControversy about the film, doesn't mean that every movie chain in America is required by law to show it. No one is trying to censor, ban, or restrict this movie. Some theaters have simply forgone the option of showing the movie. If anything, this film is going to be more widely available BECAUSE of the controversy. This film is going to be FAR EASIER to see than your average low-budget UK film. Most Americans wouldn't have heard about the movie if it wasn't for the controversy. Something isn't been censored when it is being made MORE widely available, only when it is being made less widely available. The movie is being PROMOTED because of the controversy, not censored.
It's censorship and it's all-American excuses for censorship. Just deal with it.
You comment was design to stereotype Americans in a inflammitory way. it is hate speech. Why do you feel you have the right to use hate speech, yet you want to punish others for it?
Start with the conclusion, then build arguement...
on
Why Spore Is Special
·
· Score: 1
What if Spore shows us that short term local concerns are more important than long term global concerns, that ecosystems are highly robust and there is little that can be done to disrupt them, and the proper way to solve all of our problems is by massive unprovoked violence? What if a highly militarist, highly aggressive and genicidal society with no goal other than destroying others turns out to be the most effective strategy in the game?
Are people willing to say, unconditionally, that Spore is a simulation which we should take broad lessons about real-life from? Even if those lessons might be in direct conflict with their current views on reality and morality?
Somehow I have a feeling that people will decide how "accurate" a model of reality that Spore is, based on how well the Spore "reality" conforms to their preconcieved model of reality. I think that Spore will probably be an amazing game, but I am a little skeptical about those who are so sure it will confirm their view of reality, or that if it does it will not be because it was designed to do so.
While the "Fairness Doctrine" was not passed as a law by congress, it was enforced by the FCC, who had the power to revoke licences and throw people in jail. The "Fairness Doctrine" was a law... It was a law put in place in a non-democratic manner (i.e. it was a law by executive decree instead of of being properly voted into law by congress), but any time the government sets out rules that must be obeyed under the threat of legal penalties, those are laws!
As the article above will show, the "Fairness Doctrine" had a "chilling effect" on the reporting of controversial issues, and was considered by most journalists to be a violation of their First Amendment Rights.
The FCC is a part of the executive brand of government, and it's head is appointed by the President of the United States... While a President does not micro-manage all aspects of the FCC, the President has ultimate authority over the FCC. (Hence, the recent crackdown on anything "obcene" by the FCC since the Bush administration took over). The Fairness Doctrine clearly gave the President of the United States absolute power to decide what was "fair" and what wasn't "fair" in broadcast media.
Examples of how the Fairness Doctrine would be used today if it was still in effect:
1. All documentaries on Global Warming would be required to provide equal time to those who claim Global Warming is a myth. 2. All information about evolution would be required to provide equal time to creationism and intelligent design.
The only people who would support something like the Fairness Doctrine, are people like yourself, who worship the institution of government as your religion. You believe that the institution of government is inherently holy, and infailable, and that a simple decree by the holy masters in Washington to make things "fair" (whatever the hell "fair" means), will eliminate all bias and corruption in the media as if God ordered the Red Sea to part. Anyone who doesn't attribute mystical powers to the state, who believes that governments don't always act in the best interests of their people, or understands that concepts like "fair" are purely subjective, would of course be highly sceptical of giving the government the right to tell people what they can or can't broadcast. However, for you, to show any doubts whatsoever that a decree from the President of the United States is not tantamount to the will of God, is sinnful and incomprehensable.
I didn't mention Democrats or Republicans... I mentioned "Liberals" (modern Liberals, not classical Liberals), Social Democrats, and Socialists. I specificly kept my comments non-American.
The fact is, Imperial Power requires the type of government intervention and central planning that so-called progressive Europeans support. American Imperialism is only possible because the U.S. has adopted traditionally European domestic policies such as heavy taxation, economic central planning, gun control, regulation of media, nationalized education, etc.
Had the United States stuck to it's traditional domestic policy of economic and social non-intervention by the government, it's traditional foreign policy of neutrality would have continued. The rise of American Imperialism corresponds directly with the rise of "progressive" politics in America. Each state of expanding American militarism (Wilson and WWI, Roosevelt during WWII, Kenedy during the cold war, LBJ and Nixon during Vietnam, GWB today) has been closely linked to increases of taxation powers, increase of regulatory powers and central planning powers, and media regulation and government education to promote propoganda.
People need to understand that domestic policy and foreign policy are linked. Central planning, gun control, government regulation of media, government education, taxation, etc., lead to foreign militarism. You cannot support a domestic activist state, and at the same time be against foreign militarism. You either support limited government, or you support Empire.
You support political, economic, and social conditions that make U.S. Imperialism inevitable, and then you want to pretend that you are somehow against U.S Imperialism. Europe laid the idiological blueprint for U.S. Imperialism, and to this day continue to propogate the myth of "benevolent government intervention" that continues to make U.S. Imperialism possible.
The hate speech that is commonly forbidden in sensible countries is the one that incites in no uncertain terms to harm other identifiable, immediately close, group of people.
Really? Here in Canada a man was convicted for hate speech when he simply published a reverence to 3 bible verses which forbid homosexuality. He didn't say anything violent, anything threatening, he actually didn't even say anything about homosexuality period. All he did was place an add with the chapter and verse in the bible a person could look up, which happened to contain the verses in the bible that forbid homosexuality. The courts ruled that simply publishing a chapter and verse of the bible that homosexuals may find offensive, even without any sort of interpretation or comment on those passages, could be considered a hate crime.
At the same time, a well-respected political leader in Canada, one who had ties to the Liberal party in Canada, and had won the "Order of Canada" the highest civilian honor that the Canadian government gives, advocated the Nazi party, and called for Canada to exterminate Jews in the same way the Nazis exterminated Jews. He was of course, not only found innocent of hate speech, they didn't even feel it was nessicary to revoke his "Order of Canada" award - They said he still exemplified the highest ideals of Canada, despite what he said.
Clearly, even the most harmless statements can get you arrested for hate speech violations (if you don't have friends in high places), and even the most racist, violent, calls for genocide are not only tolerated, but those people are still endorced as people exemplifying the national honour (so long as you have friends in high places).
Clearly the hate speech laws in Canada have nothing to do with saying anything racist, so much as they do with cracking down on people who don't have friends in the Liberal party. There is no reason to think that it is any different in the U.K...
When the game changes is when they say "lets kill x" or "lets beat Z". In the moment they name specific aims they become subject of criminal investigation. And that IMHO is a good thing.
Absolutly not... I know of no Western country that bans Marxism. Marxism calls on violent revolution, and demands direct violent action on people of specific social classes. In the U.K. in particular, Imams have called for violent attacks on Jews, Americans, and Europeans in general. Most have not been the target of public investigation, let alone punished for what they say. These people have not faced punishment, because they are organized political groups with a lot of political power... where as the guy who went to prison for 3 years was a lonely crazed individual with no political power and probably very few financial resources. His real crime wasn't calling for racist violence (which goes unpunished in the U.K. provided you have some political power), his crime was being poor and mentally unstable.
Your point seems to be "the flames are burning, lets throw some more petrol to extinguish them" which frankly makes no sense to me.
No, it is because racist ideology is particularly weak. It isn't particularly compelling stuff. If people are allowed to freely discuss the racist ideology, it doesn't take much to poke it full of holes and disuade many people from becoming racist.
Where as if racists must hide their views from the public because they are afraid of going to jail, it eliminates the possibility of engaging them in open discussion and convincing them that their racist ideology is bad. The only people they will discuss their views with are other racists who simply reenforce their world view.
By banning them from making racist statements, you are banning other people from countering their racist statements. You are denying non-racists the opportunity to engage them in free discussion.
Of course, the goal of hate speech laws isn't to stop hate. The goal of hate speech laws are to put in place a censorship infrastructure, by jus
Contests are only legal in Quebec if the company running the contest has a headquarters in Quebec. It is basicly a kind of intra-Canada protectionist measure to make sure companies in Toronto aren't "stealing" all the advertising and promotion opportunities from Quebec. There are all sorts of weird things that Quebec does to make sure that jobs don't go to other provinces.
I understand you were joking... but the kind of intra-national protectionism with Quebec is interesting and unique enough that it deserves a mention.
Just to be fair, Russia, China, France, amoung others have participated in more conflicts with a larger death toll in just the last few years, than the Iraq war. There are literally hundreds of bloody wars going on in the world, and most are proxie wars for major economic powers like Germany, France, Russia, China, Japan, etc., and smaller politically modivated players such as Cuba. Not that it excuses what Bush has done (don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Other countries do it so it is OK for Bush to do it").
But please understand that the dislike or fear of Bush has more to do to his complete lack charisma, his Texan accent and declasse behavior, and that he comes off as an idiot. He makes it so easy to be tagged with the "stupid redneck" stereotype. If he had the charasma and upper-class manners of a Kennedy, or Churchill, or De Gaul, or even the personality of Castro, all who have invaded more countries and killed more people than Bush, Bush would be considered the great leader of our time.
People's fears of psychotic dictators have less to do with who is really a psychotic dictator, and more who can manage people's perceptions. Bush is an evil and dangerous man, and should not be president of the United States... but the fact that he is evil and dangerous is not why most people dislike him. In many ways, the almost universal dis-like people have for Bush, and the intense scrutiny he is under, makes him less dangerous.
So why is it fashionable to invoke Hitler when it comes to his foriegn policy, yet it is unfashionable to point out his views on gun control, education, regulation of the media, family planning, price and wage controls, and economic central planning?
It is not that I so much disagree that certain U.S. foriegn policy Hawks don't have some similiar foreign policy views as Hitler... but at the same why don't so-called "liberals", social-democrats, and socialists want admit that they have essentially a Nazi domestic agenda?
I mean, a Nazi foreign policy would not be possible without a Nazi domestic policy to provide the propoganda, government control and regulation, taxation for military spending, and disarmament of potential dissenters. It is pretty clear that an agressive foreign policy is only possible with the type of centraly planned command economy at home that people on the left tend to support. A state with only a modest government, dependent on good relations with other countries for trade, and without a state-contolled education system or state-regulated media to push nationalist propoganda, and with an armed population who could resist the government, is unable to carry out an agressive foreign policy. A limited government and warfare state are mutually exclusive.
If you don't like the U.S. so much, perhaps South Korea should consider protecting itself? The South Korea government, while fond of strumming anti-American sentiment on occasion, is absolutly insistant that the U.S. military MUST stay. There are many in the U.S who would be happy to see the U.S. military leave SK, and to let the SKs fend for themselves, but then some politician from South Korea comes and tells congress that America leaving would mean certain destruction for SK. South Koreans want to have their cake and eat it too.
I think it would be an interesting experiment. The U.S. military should leave SK, the U.S. government should make it clear that the U.S. intends to stay out of Korean Peninsula no matter what happens and not take sides in any potential conflict, and we can finally see if the problems with North Korea are U.S. manufactured hype, or if NK really is dangerous. Just remind me not to visit to South Korea for a while when that happens.:)
U.S. poverty rates are measured against normal standards of living in the U.S.... Meaning that U.S. people living in "poverty" would be richer than most people in the world. The a person living in "poverty" in the U.S. would be doing better than the average European, if you include Eastern Europe.
Also, there is no starvation whatsoever in the United States. In fact, in the United States, the poorer you are the more likely you are to suffer from obecity and to eat a high-calorie diet. There is a problem with "malnutrition" in the sense that a lot of poor people eat too much fast-food, packaged foods, not enough fruits and vegetables. This is not because of money... healthy foods are actually cheaper... rather, it is a cultural problem.
Well, you shouldn't. Nuclear weapons are only useful if you let people know you have them. Since, the inevitable result of a nuclear attack is massive retaliation with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are more about detering a potential attack that actually attacking. If you don't let people know you have nukes, nukes are pretty useless.
I mostly agree with what you are saying. Although, the problem could be solved by having one standardized DRM format (the same way there is one standardized CD format).
In the days of the Sony Walkman, most of the portable radios were knockoffs. The "Walkman" as a general term for portable radio was ubiquitous, but I actually only knew 1 person who had a real Sony Walkman brand portable radio, while at the same time everyone I knew had a portable radio.
The thing that is exceptional about the ipod is that there aren't a million knockoffs that have identical functionality. There are some pretty cheap flash-based mp3 players, but none of them have a hard drive with the storage space as an ipod.
Why can't I walk into an electronics store and buy a cheap generic mp3 player with 40+gb of storage space? Why can I purchase an tiny 80gb usb external harddrive for about $50, but the manufacturer can't just attach a battery and an mp3 decoder chip and make a $100 80gb mp3 player?
The movie that you mentioned will be widely available in the U.S.. It will be available at movie theaters, on DVD, etc. Nor will it be edited or changed for the U.S. audience. Nor will there be any restrictions on advertising for the movie. The movie isn't being restricted or censored in any way. If anything, it will be MORE widely available because of the controvery, because the movie is a low budget movie with unknown actors and director and probably would not have been shown widely in the United States without the controversy.
How is NOT censoring a movie, comparible to throwing someone in prison for what they say? You have me confused.
First of all, Communists advocate violent revolution, and the murder of the Bougiouse class. I am petty-bougiouse, so I am definitly a target. Should Communist literature be made illegal?
Second of all, there are people in England who praised the 9/11 attacks and said that there should be more attacks against Americans. I am an American, so I am a target for that. Should those people go to jail?
Third, Borat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat ), the sacha cohen character, is violently racist. He advocates throwing jews down wells, murdering uzbeks, torturing homosexuals, and stereotype Gypsies. It is, of course, humor... but since there is no disclaimer or warning letting you know it is humor and it is presented as being factual, isn't his hate speech likely to "incite violence"? Shouldn't he be punished for hate crimes?
You have just commited hate speech!!! Why shouldn't you be reported to the police and punished? Don't worry, I am not going to report you to the police, but you HAVE just made hate speech that incited and threatened violence. Why should you be immune from punishment, while other people are sent to prison for 3 years for doing the same thing you just did now?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it COULD be dangerous. Of course, a meteor COULD come crashing into your house killing you right now. It COULD turn out that laptop computers cause testical cancer.
If reactionaries like yourself are going to try to ban these kinds of products because they COULD be dangerous, can I have you thrown in jail because you COULD be a terrorist? I don't know if you are a terrorist, but you could very well be, Better to let fear and paranoia rule the day, then make a rational decision about the risks of products or people, right?
Don't forget the foreign aid and intervention is not nessicarily going to have the effect intended. We could be sending aid, and it could be going to a dictator (actually, this is how it happens and it is usually by design, but it can happen by accident or ignorance too). We could subsidize the wrong parts of the economy or the wrong industries and end up killing self-sustaining industries for whatever industry someone in Europe or the U.S. thinks is good for that country (and doesn't compete with European or U.S. economic interests). It is called "paternalism", and it is usually a disaster.
The fact is, the West does not have the skills to fix Africas problems... and we are not trustworthy enough not to use foriegn aid or intervention to further our own interests. So in the meantime, if we can't help Aftrica, we can at least try not to mess them up worse. Leave Africa alone, and keep our hands and noses out. No country has ever gone to war or bore resentment towards another country for not giving enough aid or intervention. At the same time, plenty of countries have grown to hate the countries that they were once dependent on. Paternalism is a nasty thing.
The West should have a strict non-intervention policy with Africa. It is better not to do anything for the time being.
They do it as a token effort to make people like you happy. Of course those companies could care less about doing charity. They are companies, and they basicly are a social tool used to provide products and services in exchange for money, in order to make a profit. That is the function they serve in society. There are also charities, and they are social tools used to provide aid or further some humanitarian goal in a non-profit manner.
Some people, of course, think that because charities are a good thing (charities help people), that companies should behave more like charities. This is of course, like saying that because a saw cuts wood, and cutting wood is good, a hammer should cut wood too. In reality, like a hammer and a saw, both the company and the charity are social tools that provide specialized functions to society. When you insist that a company should behave like a charity, the results aren't going to be good, because a company is not a charity. A company is a company. Making a company do charity is like making a hammer to cut wood... you might be able to cut wood with a hammer, in a very messed up and crude fashion.
In a sensible society, we would realize that companies and charities are two seperate tools, and they work best when each serves society in the way it was designed to serve society. But, some people don't really understand the purposes of companies and charities, or maybe they think that companies are evil, so token charity acts by companies have become normal.
It would be much better if companies, instead of donating to charity, would simply pass the money that they would have spent on charity back to the consumers in lower prices (after all, the money that companies give to charity come from the consumer in the first place), and then let people donate directly to the non-profit charity that they want.
You are thinking too much about the Left, and the Right, and forgetting about other points of view.
Like what about the people who couldn't really care one way or another about Iraqi attrocities, or Sudanese genocide? People who feel the U.S. military should stay out of all conflicts that are not a direct response to an attack or stopping an eminent attack on the United States?
Many of the people opposed to the invasion of Iraq, are just as opposed to doing anything in Sudan. Not everyone opposed to the Iraq war is some bleeding heart hippie. What about the people who believe that if you aren't willing to nuke them from orbit (it is the only way to be sure!), then U.S. should stay out!
Actually, yes... It was Christians (or at least former-Communists who were traditionally Christian) killing Muslims in the former Yugoslavia (at least that was what the propoganda said), and there were similiar fundraisers.
So quite clearly the fundraiser for Christians killing Muslims came first.
Relief efforts? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the "humanitarian problem" in Sudan basicly genocide? Does the relief supplies include AK-47s and rocket propelled grenades?
How did the free market fail in the 1930s? I am not sure what you mean? There was an economic recession after the stock market crash of 29, but that didn't turn to a Great Depression until government intervention such as the Smoot-Hawley Act, and total mismanagement of the U.S. money supply by the U.S. central bank (the U.S. central bank literally starved the economy of cash), and the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. Most economists consider the U.S. government reaction to the stock market crash and a run on banks as a "perfect storm" of mismanagement. There is no controversy that the things the U.S. government did during the great depression couldn't have possibly been worse for the economy... except maybe if they burned factories down.
... and as far as I understand it, those are the countries in Europe with the highest standard of living. Certainly, if I had to move to Europe, Switzerland, Iceland, and then maybe Holland or Belgium would probably be my order of choice, not France, or Sweden, or the places normally associated with European stlye welfare states.
Many would consider the Great Depression to be a failure of the government run central banks, rather than of the free market.
One thing is for sure, when the U.S. did have a more free market than today, the U.S. was far less militaristic and had a rapidly growing standard of living. The more money the U.S. government has, and the more power it has, the more mischeif it seems to get into.
Every successful industrial state since then has been structured around a somewhat fascist government economy.
More successful than what? What are you talking about? I agree that most industrial societies have had a somewhat fascist government... but I would go so far as to say ALL industrial societies. There is really nothing to compare to.
The only difference is whether that economy is regulated primarily via military spending (US) or social programs (Europe). Arguably the average working class person is better off under European-style socialism than the Pentagon system, but neither one is ideal.
Only a handful of European countries spend more per-capita than the United States on social programs, and in those cases it is only marginaly more. I don't think Europeans truly understand how much money the U.S. government spends on social programs. The idea that there is more social spending or more government regulation in Europe is a stereotype. There was truth to it in the early and mid 20th century, but ever since the 1960s and the "Great Society" programs, the U.S. has been spending astronomical amounts on social spending.
Speaking of Europe though, there are countries like Switzerland, Iceland, etc., that spend considerably less on social spending, and spend virtually nothing on military, than the U.S.
The media is more moderate now than it has ever been. There are far more moderate and balanced news programs than ever. Fox is an exception to the general rule... it clearly has an editorial bias. Who cares? There are plenty of other perfectly good sources of news, and it isn't even a BROADCAST channel anyway, so it is outside the juristdiction "Fairness Doctrine".
But you have shown your TRUE modivations for supporting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". You don't like Fox News' editorial positions, and you want to censor it and force it to broadcast in a way that conforms to your political beliefs. You don't like talk show radio hows like Rush Limbaugh or whoever, so you want to ban them from the air under the guise of the "Fairness Doctrine". You want to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to go after your ideological enemies, not to broaden the scope of information available to people.
Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreilly may be demigogs, and Fox News a bunch of yellow journalists, but they have the right to say what they want without facists such as yourself banning or controlling what they have to say.
And I ignored the main aspect of the F.D., which is to force media to "not suppress news of vital importance"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Making a law like that is like making a law saying "Only show GOOD television programs, and not BAD ones". Or making a law that says "You may only promote the one true religion". Are you able to comprehend that "vital importance" is a entirely subjective, that no-one really agrees on what is of "vital importance"? Yeah, lets make a law that radio stations can only play "good" music, while we are at it. And lets make a law that says "all jokes must be funny". Then we can make a law requiring that resterants must serve food that "tastes good".
A chain of movie theaters cannot order the creater of a film arrested, it cannot kill the creater of the film. The theater chain is not a monopoly, it is not even an oligarchy - there are hundreds of movie chains in the U.S., in addition to stores that sell DVDs, and hundreds of cable TV networks.
Claiming that this movie chain is trying to censor a movie, because it has decided not to show a movie, is like claiming that you are trying to censor muslims, because you don't allow your own home to be used as a Mosque. Why do YOU hate muslims so much as to censor Islam, by not letting muslims use your home to practice their religion? Why are you so viciously denying Muslims the right to practice their religion? You are also not letting CocaCola use your front lawn to promote their product! Why are use censoring CocaCola?
Part of freedom of speech is the right to decide NOT to participate in speech. Just as you have the right to say whatever you want, you have the right not to be forced to say something either. A movie theater is not censoring anyone by not showing a movie, any more than you are censoring Coke by not allowing them to build a Coke billboard in your front lawn. As long as there are plenty of other places than your front lawn to advertise Coke, you wouldn't be censoring Coke. Understand??
Just because some second rate movie director hired a PR firm to create some McControversy about the film, doesn't mean that every movie chain in America is required by law to show it. No one is trying to censor, ban, or restrict this movie. Some theaters have simply forgone the option of showing the movie. If anything, this film is going to be more widely available BECAUSE of the controversy. This film is going to be FAR EASIER to see than your average low-budget UK film. Most Americans wouldn't have heard about the movie if it wasn't for the controversy. Something isn't been censored when it is being made MORE widely available, only when it is being made less widely available. The movie is being PROMOTED because of the controversy, not censored.
It's censorship and it's all-American excuses for censorship. Just deal with it.
You comment was design to stereotype Americans in a inflammitory way. it is hate speech. Why do you feel you have the right to use hate speech, yet you want to punish others for it?
What if Spore shows us that short term local concerns are more important than long term global concerns, that ecosystems are highly robust and there is little that can be done to disrupt them, and the proper way to solve all of our problems is by massive unprovoked violence? What if a highly militarist, highly aggressive and genicidal society with no goal other than destroying others turns out to be the most effective strategy in the game?
Are people willing to say, unconditionally, that Spore is a simulation which we should take broad lessons about real-life from? Even if those lessons might be in direct conflict with their current views on reality and morality?
Somehow I have a feeling that people will decide how "accurate" a model of reality that Spore is, based on how well the Spore "reality" conforms to their preconcieved model of reality. I think that Spore will probably be an amazing game, but I am a little skeptical about those who are so sure it will confirm their view of reality, or that if it does it will not be because it was designed to do so.
You are a moron.
s doct/fairnessdoct.htm
Read about the "Fairness Doctrine" here:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnes
While the "Fairness Doctrine" was not passed as a law by congress, it was enforced by the FCC, who had the power to revoke licences and throw people in jail. The "Fairness Doctrine" was a law... It was a law put in place in a non-democratic manner (i.e. it was a law by executive decree instead of of being properly voted into law by congress), but any time the government sets out rules that must be obeyed under the threat of legal penalties, those are laws!
As the article above will show, the "Fairness Doctrine" had a "chilling effect" on the reporting of controversial issues, and was considered by most journalists to be a violation of their First Amendment Rights.
The FCC is a part of the executive brand of government, and it's head is appointed by the President of the United States... While a President does not micro-manage all aspects of the FCC, the President has ultimate authority over the FCC. (Hence, the recent crackdown on anything "obcene" by the FCC since the Bush administration took over). The Fairness Doctrine clearly gave the President of the United States absolute power to decide what was "fair" and what wasn't "fair" in broadcast media.
Examples of how the Fairness Doctrine would be used today if it was still in effect:
1. All documentaries on Global Warming would be required to provide equal time to those who claim Global Warming is a myth.
2. All information about evolution would be required to provide equal time to creationism and intelligent design.
The only people who would support something like the Fairness Doctrine, are people like yourself, who worship the institution of government as your religion. You believe that the institution of government is inherently holy, and infailable, and that a simple decree by the holy masters in Washington to make things "fair" (whatever the hell "fair" means), will eliminate all bias and corruption in the media as if God ordered the Red Sea to part. Anyone who doesn't attribute mystical powers to the state, who believes that governments don't always act in the best interests of their people, or understands that concepts like "fair" are purely subjective, would of course be highly sceptical of giving the government the right to tell people what they can or can't broadcast. However, for you, to show any doubts whatsoever that a decree from the President of the United States is not tantamount to the will of God, is sinnful and incomprehensable.
I didn't mention Democrats or Republicans... I mentioned "Liberals" (modern Liberals, not classical Liberals), Social Democrats, and Socialists. I specificly kept my comments non-American.
The fact is, Imperial Power requires the type of government intervention and central planning that so-called progressive Europeans support. American Imperialism is only possible because the U.S. has adopted traditionally European domestic policies such as heavy taxation, economic central planning, gun control, regulation of media, nationalized education, etc.
Had the United States stuck to it's traditional domestic policy of economic and social non-intervention by the government, it's traditional foreign policy of neutrality would have continued. The rise of American Imperialism corresponds directly with the rise of "progressive" politics in America. Each state of expanding American militarism (Wilson and WWI, Roosevelt during WWII, Kenedy during the cold war, LBJ and Nixon during Vietnam, GWB today) has been closely linked to increases of taxation powers, increase of regulatory powers and central planning powers, and media regulation and government education to promote propoganda.
People need to understand that domestic policy and foreign policy are linked. Central planning, gun control, government regulation of media, government education, taxation, etc., lead to foreign militarism. You cannot support a domestic activist state, and at the same time be against foreign militarism. You either support limited government, or you support Empire.
You support political, economic, and social conditions that make U.S. Imperialism inevitable, and then you want to pretend that you are somehow against U.S Imperialism. Europe laid the idiological blueprint for U.S. Imperialism, and to this day continue to propogate the myth of "benevolent government intervention" that continues to make U.S. Imperialism possible.
The hate speech that is commonly forbidden in sensible countries is the one that incites in no uncertain terms to harm other identifiable, immediately close, group of people.
Really? Here in Canada a man was convicted for hate speech when he simply published a reverence to 3 bible verses which forbid homosexuality. He didn't say anything violent, anything threatening, he actually didn't even say anything about homosexuality period. All he did was place an add with the chapter and verse in the bible a person could look up, which happened to contain the verses in the bible that forbid homosexuality. The courts ruled that simply publishing a chapter and verse of the bible that homosexuals may find offensive, even without any sort of interpretation or comment on those passages, could be considered a hate crime.
At the same time, a well-respected political leader in Canada, one who had ties to the Liberal party in Canada, and had won the "Order of Canada" the highest civilian honor that the Canadian government gives, advocated the Nazi party, and called for Canada to exterminate Jews in the same way the Nazis exterminated Jews. He was of course, not only found innocent of hate speech, they didn't even feel it was nessicary to revoke his "Order of Canada" award - They said he still exemplified the highest ideals of Canada, despite what he said.
Clearly, even the most harmless statements can get you arrested for hate speech violations (if you don't have friends in high places), and even the most racist, violent, calls for genocide are not only tolerated, but those people are still endorced as people exemplifying the national honour (so long as you have friends in high places).
Clearly the hate speech laws in Canada have nothing to do with saying anything racist, so much as they do with cracking down on people who don't have friends in the Liberal party. There is no reason to think that it is any different in the U.K...
When the game changes is when they say "lets kill x" or "lets beat Z". In the moment they name specific aims they become subject of criminal investigation. And that IMHO is a good thing.
Absolutly not... I know of no Western country that bans Marxism. Marxism calls on violent revolution, and demands direct violent action on people of specific social classes. In the U.K. in particular, Imams have called for violent attacks on Jews, Americans, and Europeans in general. Most have not been the target of public investigation, let alone punished for what they say. These people have not faced punishment, because they are organized political groups with a lot of political power... where as the guy who went to prison for 3 years was a lonely crazed individual with no political power and probably very few financial resources. His real crime wasn't calling for racist violence (which goes unpunished in the U.K. provided you have some political power), his crime was being poor and mentally unstable.
Your point seems to be "the flames are burning, lets throw some more petrol to extinguish them" which frankly makes no sense to me.
No, it is because racist ideology is particularly weak. It isn't particularly compelling stuff. If people are allowed to freely discuss the racist ideology, it doesn't take much to poke it full of holes and disuade many people from becoming racist.
Where as if racists must hide their views from the public because they are afraid of going to jail, it eliminates the possibility of engaging them in open discussion and convincing them that their racist ideology is bad. The only people they will discuss their views with are other racists who simply reenforce their world view.
By banning them from making racist statements, you are banning other people from countering their racist statements. You are denying non-racists the opportunity to engage them in free discussion.
Of course, the goal of hate speech laws isn't to stop hate. The goal of hate speech laws are to put in place a censorship infrastructure, by jus
Contests are only legal in Quebec if the company running the contest has a headquarters in Quebec. It is basicly a kind of intra-Canada protectionist measure to make sure companies in Toronto aren't "stealing" all the advertising and promotion opportunities from Quebec. There are all sorts of weird things that Quebec does to make sure that jobs don't go to other provinces.
I understand you were joking... but the kind of intra-national protectionism with Quebec is interesting and unique enough that it deserves a mention.
Just to be fair, Russia, China, France, amoung others have participated in more conflicts with a larger death toll in just the last few years, than the Iraq war. There are literally hundreds of bloody wars going on in the world, and most are proxie wars for major economic powers like Germany, France, Russia, China, Japan, etc., and smaller politically modivated players such as Cuba. Not that it excuses what Bush has done (don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Other countries do it so it is OK for Bush to do it").
But please understand that the dislike or fear of Bush has more to do to his complete lack charisma, his Texan accent and declasse behavior, and that he comes off as an idiot. He makes it so easy to be tagged with the "stupid redneck" stereotype. If he had the charasma and upper-class manners of a Kennedy, or Churchill, or De Gaul, or even the personality of Castro, all who have invaded more countries and killed more people than Bush, Bush would be considered the great leader of our time.
People's fears of psychotic dictators have less to do with who is really a psychotic dictator, and more who can manage people's perceptions. Bush is an evil and dangerous man, and should not be president of the United States... but the fact that he is evil and dangerous is not why most people dislike him. In many ways, the almost universal dis-like people have for Bush, and the intense scrutiny he is under, makes him less dangerous.
So why is it fashionable to invoke Hitler when it comes to his foriegn policy, yet it is unfashionable to point out his views on gun control, education, regulation of the media, family planning, price and wage controls, and economic central planning?
It is not that I so much disagree that certain U.S. foriegn policy Hawks don't have some similiar foreign policy views as Hitler... but at the same why don't so-called "liberals", social-democrats, and socialists want admit that they have essentially a Nazi domestic agenda?
I mean, a Nazi foreign policy would not be possible without a Nazi domestic policy to provide the propoganda, government control and regulation, taxation for military spending, and disarmament of potential dissenters. It is pretty clear that an agressive foreign policy is only possible with the type of centraly planned command economy at home that people on the left tend to support. A state with only a modest government, dependent on good relations with other countries for trade, and without a state-contolled education system or state-regulated media to push nationalist propoganda, and with an armed population who could resist the government, is unable to carry out an agressive foreign policy. A limited government and warfare state are mutually exclusive.
If you don't like the U.S. so much, perhaps South Korea should consider protecting itself? The South Korea government, while fond of strumming anti-American sentiment on occasion, is absolutly insistant that the U.S. military MUST stay. There are many in the U.S who would be happy to see the U.S. military leave SK, and to let the SKs fend for themselves, but then some politician from South Korea comes and tells congress that America leaving would mean certain destruction for SK. South Koreans want to have their cake and eat it too.
:)
I think it would be an interesting experiment. The U.S. military should leave SK, the U.S. government should make it clear that the U.S. intends to stay out of Korean Peninsula no matter what happens and not take sides in any potential conflict, and we can finally see if the problems with North Korea are U.S. manufactured hype, or if NK really is dangerous. Just remind me not to visit to South Korea for a while when that happens.
U.S. poverty rates are measured against normal standards of living in the U.S. ... Meaning that U.S. people living in "poverty" would be richer than most people in the world. The a person living in "poverty" in the U.S. would be doing better than the average European, if you include Eastern Europe.
Also, there is no starvation whatsoever in the United States. In fact, in the United States, the poorer you are the more likely you are to suffer from obecity and to eat a high-calorie diet. There is a problem with "malnutrition" in the sense that a lot of poor people eat too much fast-food, packaged foods, not enough fruits and vegetables. This is not because of money... healthy foods are actually cheaper... rather, it is a cultural problem.
Well, you shouldn't. Nuclear weapons are only useful if you let people know you have them. Since, the inevitable result of a nuclear attack is massive retaliation with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are more about detering a potential attack that actually attacking. If you don't let people know you have nukes, nukes are pretty useless.
Other brands offer batteries that can be replaced by the user!
I mostly agree with what you are saying. Although, the problem could be solved by having one standardized DRM format (the same way there is one standardized CD format).
In the days of the Sony Walkman, most of the portable radios were knockoffs. The "Walkman" as a general term for portable radio was ubiquitous, but I actually only knew 1 person who had a real Sony Walkman brand portable radio, while at the same time everyone I knew had a portable radio.
The thing that is exceptional about the ipod is that there aren't a million knockoffs that have identical functionality. There are some pretty cheap flash-based mp3 players, but none of them have a hard drive with the storage space as an ipod.
Why can't I walk into an electronics store and buy a cheap generic mp3 player with 40+gb of storage space? Why can I purchase an tiny 80gb usb external harddrive for about $50, but the manufacturer can't just attach a battery and an mp3 decoder chip and make a $100 80gb mp3 player?
The movie that you mentioned will be widely available in the U.S.. It will be available at movie theaters, on DVD, etc. Nor will it be edited or changed for the U.S. audience. Nor will there be any restrictions on advertising for the movie. The movie isn't being restricted or censored in any way. If anything, it will be MORE widely available because of the controvery, because the movie is a low budget movie with unknown actors and director and probably would not have been shown widely in the United States without the controversy.
How is NOT censoring a movie, comparible to throwing someone in prison for what they say? You have me confused.
First of all, how would I feel? How DO I feel?
First of all, Communists advocate violent revolution, and the murder of the Bougiouse class. I am petty-bougiouse, so I am definitly a target. Should Communist literature be made illegal?
Second of all, there are people in England who praised the 9/11 attacks and said that there should be more attacks against Americans. I am an American, so I am a target for that. Should those people go to jail?
Third, Borat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat ), the sacha cohen character, is violently racist. He advocates throwing jews down wells, murdering uzbeks, torturing homosexuals, and stereotype Gypsies. It is, of course, humor... but since there is no disclaimer or warning letting you know it is humor and it is presented as being factual, isn't his hate speech likely to "incite violence"? Shouldn't he be punished for hate crimes?
You have just commited hate speech!!! Why shouldn't you be reported to the police and punished? Don't worry, I am not going to report you to the police, but you HAVE just made hate speech that incited and threatened violence. Why should you be immune from punishment, while other people are sent to prison for 3 years for doing the same thing you just did now?