living like a hobo for 4 years...business people...making $75k
Which business people were these? Having a business undergrad degree, I don't recall anyone doing this right out of college, unless you want to count people who went to work for the family business. Besides, the life described wasn't "living like a hobo," it was living a modest life. You have to have priorities, and if your priorities are going to bars, then you'll have to sacrifice other things. If you can't live as a single person on ~$37K (OK, maybe not in NYC) then you seriously need to reevaluate your life.
Maybe we should pay the CEO's their equivalent wages of a small business owner in a third world country?
Be careful what you wish for. Most business owners in third world countries are probably better at lining their pockets than any CEO of any firm that outsources.
Re:A Conservative is a Liberal who got 0wned
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
I agree that he has done this (thank you for supporting my point). Lots of people who consider themselves conservatives (including myself) are not happy about the recent (needless) bloating of the government. I guess it depends on how you measure the deficit. It's certainly the biggest in terms of absolute dollars, but not as a % of GDP, for instance. I think you also can't discount the effect of other events, like 9/11, or the stock market bubble bursting.
As other posters have pointed out, you can't really judge what a politician will do based on his ideology. Once they're in power, they all make government bigger (with perhaps a few exceptions).
I suppose your 'reasons' might make him a cultural conservative, but I guess you forgot about how he cut taxes, or about the provisions for medical savings accounts in the Medicare bill. Those certainly aren't things that a liberal would be for.
There's definitely a difference in foreign policy matters, too. His actions have certainly been in opposition with liberals, and it's usually said to be influenced by neo-conservatives, so I suppose there's another check mark in the conservative column.
Personally, I'm probably a cultural conservative (but no, I'm not religious), although I believe that there's a difference between how a person should act, and how a government should dictate how people act. In otherwords, I don't think homosexuals should marry, but I also don't think that there should be laws against it.
When was the last time you agreed 100% with anyone?
Re:A Conservative is a Liberal who got 0wned
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
It was under a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. There's a lot to be said about divided government. It is funny, though, that a lot of what Clinton ended up doing was co-opting conservative ideas (e.g., welfare reform) and that Bush has done the same with liberal ideas (e.g., Medicare prescription drugs).
That's the problem with hype. People believe it after it's been simplified into one dimension.
I believe that PJ O'Rourke had it right when he said that giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Problem is that when it comes to widespread mass media, there IS no TRUE liberal counterpart to Limbaugh.
As others have pointed out, it's not for lack of trying. I guess the reason is that there either isn't really a mass audience for this, or that no one with sufficient talent has stepped up to the challenge. I believe that Rush's own theory is that you can get most of what his Leftist counterpart would bring to the table through the main stream media.
The public is getting messages from the Right (GOP) and the right-center (Democrats), but there IS NO Left in America.
Well, this is probably a matter of opinion, because from my perspective it's the GOP who is center-right, and the Democrats who are Left, but I suppose I'm about as far right as you are left (there, now you can mod me down:).
There is no economic left in America; the media and the politicians are perfectly to define leftism as all about gay rights, and abortion and gun control, and all the other "acceptable" liberal issues.
I basically agree, although I wouldn't say that it doesn't exist (you seem to be here, and I'm sure you have like minded friends). It's just that it's been [properly, IMNSHO] marginalized. And I don't think that an "all the other industrialized, Western countries" argument will get you very far (if all your friends were jumping off a bridge...). The Economic Left's ideas all tend to sound really nice and noble, but the bad unintended consequences generally outweigh the good intentions.
Poll after poll shows that 70% or more of Americans want universal, tax-funded healthcare.
I'm usually suspicious of things like issue polls, since the phrasing of the question can really skew the results (Lies, damn lies and statistics, as Mark Twain said). Also, they probably don't take a very comprehensive view of an issue. If 70% of Americans were really that behind something like Universal Health Care, we'd probably be farther along with implementing it, instead of the death by a thousand cuts way that we're going about it (i.e., Medicare keeps growing, so how long do you think it will take before it grows beyond its current target demographic).
But when most of the country is on broadband, I can promise you, *I* and others will be out there with our homebrew movies and documentaries on p2p--THEN there will be a leftist voice in America.
Why not right now? I promise not to watch either way.:)
On the other hand, this would also give the aspiring Rush Limbaughs of the world the ability to get their message out there. But I don't think that the general public has any problem getting messages from either the left or the right at this point in time. Otherwise, why would so many be so polarized on many issues?
I think that there is really no shortage of proseletyzing for "raising the tax rates...welfare for any poor person...universal health care" (see NY Times). I really can't see how this supposed 'free*' broadband would "disrupt the media/entertainment distribution machine." You might get some more creative ideas injected into it, but I'm not convinced that shoestring budgets would produce something to compete with the big money that entertainment companies have. Anyway, those guys are mostly interested in finding stuff that many people want to watch/listen to. If people wanted to watch this sort of thing, there'd be more of it.
* As many posters have pointed out, someone has to pay for this . RFTA'ing, I saw some mention of the possibility of a fee to use the network. But it will still IMHO likely be taxpayer subsidized, not unlike public transportation. I'm not aware (but would be interested in any examples) of any major public transportation system in the US that is self funding (definitely not in the DC area). And how do you get the govt to improve service when they end up with a monopoly (and why would a govt monopoly be any better than a Microsoft monopoly--seems like it would probably be worse).
It kinda reminded me of Heinlein (think Time Enough for Love). You've got people spreading out to a new frontier, where it's not always easy to simply transplant all of civilization to new planets.
You're right, it all probably could have been done, more or less, in a straight western setting, but the SF setting gives it a more 'modern' frontier feeling (let's explore what could happen when people start moving out into the galaxy). We also get to sympathize with a guy who fought for the losing side in the Civil War (although his side is definitely more deserving of our sympathy than the original losing side--you get all the states rights without the nasty property laws).
Personally, I'd prefer the SF-with-Western-Shoehorning than a Western-with-Fantasy-Shoehorning, but that's just my preference. I think that an SF setting allows (not that it's always--or even often--taken advantage of) exploration of ideas in a more neutral setting than something based on reality.
Joss also probably wanted to do something a little different than the modern fantasy stuff he'd already done.
They don't need probable cause. That's the big deal; they just can say "We need it for a terrorism investigation" and the judge approves it.
I suppose that since PC isn't explicitly in the text, it could be interpreted that way, but my assumption would be that the 4th ammendment still applies. Do other statutes regarding the issuance of warrants explicitly address PC?
> Also, Section 502 calls for semi-annual congressional reviews.
Which, IIRC, have met with only stonewalling by the AG.
I haven't heard this. In fact, the only thing I've heard about this process have been statements from Ashcroft himself, where he rebuts criticisms that the PATRIOT Act allows DoJ to run around without any oversight.
SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS
It states that access to certain business records (which is what, eg, library records are) must be applied by a high ranking FBI official, and be approved by a judge. This appears to be due process to me. Also, Section 502 calls for semi-annual congressional reviews. So you've got both other branches providing oversight of the executive branch.
I'm at least as interested in civil liberties as anyone else around here, but inflamatory arguments about things like the PATRIOT Act that disregard what the act actually says don't do any good for anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
living like a hobo for 4 years...business people...making $75k
Which business people were these? Having a business undergrad degree, I don't recall anyone doing this right out of college, unless you want to count people who went to work for the family business. Besides, the life described wasn't "living like a hobo," it was living a modest life. You have to have priorities, and if your priorities are going to bars, then you'll have to sacrifice other things. If you can't live as a single person on ~$37K (OK, maybe not in NYC) then you seriously need to reevaluate your life.Maybe we should pay the CEO's their equivalent wages of a small business owner in a third world country?
Be careful what you wish for. Most business owners in third world countries are probably better at lining their pockets than any CEO of any firm that outsources.
I agree that he has done this (thank you for supporting my point). Lots of people who consider themselves conservatives (including myself) are not happy about the recent (needless) bloating of the government. I guess it depends on how you measure the deficit. It's certainly the biggest in terms of absolute dollars, but not as a % of GDP, for instance. I think you also can't discount the effect of other events, like 9/11, or the stock market bubble bursting.
As other posters have pointed out, you can't really judge what a politician will do based on his ideology. Once they're in power, they all make government bigger (with perhaps a few exceptions).
I suppose your 'reasons' might make him a cultural conservative, but I guess you forgot about how he cut taxes, or about the provisions for medical savings accounts in the Medicare bill. Those certainly aren't things that a liberal would be for.
There's definitely a difference in foreign policy matters, too. His actions have certainly been in opposition with liberals, and it's usually said to be influenced by neo-conservatives, so I suppose there's another check mark in the conservative column.
Personally, I'm probably a cultural conservative (but no, I'm not religious), although I believe that there's a difference between how a person should act, and how a government should dictate how people act. In otherwords, I don't think homosexuals should marry, but I also don't think that there should be laws against it.
When was the last time you agreed 100% with anyone?
It was under a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. There's a lot to be said about divided government. It is funny, though, that a lot of what Clinton ended up doing was co-opting conservative ideas (e.g., welfare reform) and that Bush has done the same with liberal ideas (e.g., Medicare prescription drugs).
That's the problem with hype. People believe it after it's been simplified into one dimension.
I believe that PJ O'Rourke had it right when he said that giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Problem is that when it comes to widespread mass media, there IS no TRUE liberal counterpart to Limbaugh.
As others have pointed out, it's not for lack of trying. I guess the reason is that there either isn't really a mass audience for this, or that no one with sufficient talent has stepped up to the challenge. I believe that Rush's own theory is that you can get most of what his Leftist counterpart would bring to the table through the main stream media.
The public is getting messages from the Right (GOP) and the right-center (Democrats), but there IS NO Left in America.
Well, this is probably a matter of opinion, because from my perspective it's the GOP who is center-right, and the Democrats who are Left, but I suppose I'm about as far right as you are left (there, now you can mod me down:).
There is no economic left in America; the media and the politicians are perfectly to define leftism as all about gay rights, and abortion and gun control, and all the other "acceptable" liberal issues.
I basically agree, although I wouldn't say that it doesn't exist (you seem to be here, and I'm sure you have like minded friends). It's just that it's been [properly, IMNSHO] marginalized. And I don't think that an "all the other industrialized, Western countries" argument will get you very far (if all your friends were jumping off a bridge...). The Economic Left's ideas all tend to sound really nice and noble, but the bad unintended consequences generally outweigh the good intentions.
Poll after poll shows that 70% or more of Americans want universal, tax-funded healthcare.
I'm usually suspicious of things like issue polls, since the phrasing of the question can really skew the results (Lies, damn lies and statistics, as Mark Twain said). Also, they probably don't take a very comprehensive view of an issue. If 70% of Americans were really that behind something like Universal Health Care, we'd probably be farther along with implementing it, instead of the death by a thousand cuts way that we're going about it (i.e., Medicare keeps growing, so how long do you think it will take before it grows beyond its current target demographic).
But when most of the country is on broadband, I can promise you, *I* and others will be out there with our homebrew movies and documentaries on p2p--THEN there will be a leftist voice in America.
Why not right now? I promise not to watch either way. :)
On the other hand, this would also give the aspiring Rush Limbaughs of the world the ability to get their message out there. But I don't think that the general public has any problem getting messages from either the left or the right at this point in time. Otherwise, why would so many be so polarized on many issues?
I think that there is really no shortage of proseletyzing for "raising the tax rates...welfare for any poor person...universal health care" (see NY Times). I really can't see how this supposed 'free*' broadband would "disrupt the media/entertainment distribution machine." You might get some more creative ideas injected into it, but I'm not convinced that shoestring budgets would produce something to compete with the big money that entertainment companies have. Anyway, those guys are mostly interested in finding stuff that many people want to watch/listen to. If people wanted to watch this sort of thing, there'd be more of it.
* As many posters have pointed out, someone has to pay for this . RFTA'ing, I saw some mention of the possibility of a fee to use the network. But it will still IMHO likely be taxpayer subsidized, not unlike public transportation. I'm not aware (but would be interested in any examples) of any major public transportation system in the US that is self funding (definitely not in the DC area). And how do you get the govt to improve service when they end up with a monopoly (and why would a govt monopoly be any better than a Microsoft monopoly--seems like it would probably be worse).
It kinda reminded me of Heinlein (think Time Enough for Love). You've got people spreading out to a new frontier, where it's not always easy to simply transplant all of civilization to new planets.
You're right, it all probably could have been done, more or less, in a straight western setting, but the SF setting gives it a more 'modern' frontier feeling (let's explore what could happen when people start moving out into the galaxy). We also get to sympathize with a guy who fought for the losing side in the Civil War (although his side is definitely more deserving of our sympathy than the original losing side--you get all the states rights without the nasty property laws).
Personally, I'd prefer the SF-with-Western-Shoehorning than a Western-with-Fantasy-Shoehorning, but that's just my preference. I think that an SF setting allows (not that it's always--or even often--taken advantage of) exploration of ideas in a more neutral setting than something based on reality.
Joss also probably wanted to do something a little different than the modern fantasy stuff he'd already done.
Asst SiC isn't particularly high-ranking.
Yes, you're correct.
They don't need probable cause. That's the big deal; they just can say "We need it for a terrorism investigation" and the judge approves it.
I suppose that since PC isn't explicitly in the text, it could be interpreted that way, but my assumption would be that the 4th ammendment still applies. Do other statutes regarding the issuance of warrants explicitly address PC?
> Also, Section 502 calls for semi-annual congressional reviews.
Which, IIRC, have met with only stonewalling by the AG.
I haven't heard this. In fact, the only thing I've heard about this process have been statements from Ashcroft himself, where he rebuts criticisms that the PATRIOT Act allows DoJ to run around without any oversight.
You've left out an important part of the 4th amendment. Here's the amendment in its entirety:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, if you look at the actual text of the PATRIOT Act, and go down to:
SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS
It states that access to certain business records (which is what, eg, library records are) must be applied by a high ranking FBI official, and be approved by a judge. This appears to be due process to me. Also, Section 502 calls for semi-annual congressional reviews. So you've got both other branches providing oversight of the executive branch.
I'm at least as interested in civil liberties as anyone else around here, but inflamatory arguments about things like the PATRIOT Act that disregard what the act actually says don't do any good for anyone.