I'm a consultant currently forced to work in SQL Server. If you had to replace SQL Server with the nearest open source functional equivalent in *NIX, what would it (or they) be? I'm talking the whole nut - interface and underlying DB. I've used MySQL before, but only at the CLI. Is there a gui frontend I can use to show 'this is just like MS product, but better.. and free (as in freedom)' ?
You might want to add some context - Bush was new, and had not yet turned into the president we now know him to be - see the date on your posted citation (August 2001). At the time, Bush was behind the 'no child left behind' initiative, which was supposed to help education in the US. It didn't live up to what was promised, but it was the only really comprehensive solution floating around at the time. As for the 1994 quote, the 'Republican Revolution' was pretty much about people being annoyed that the Democrats who had been in office hadn't done anything they promised - kind of like now, where the last round of elections saw people like Nancy Pelosi elected on anti-war platforms, which have turned into just so much smoke.
I'm not saying the man is a saint or even correct in his assessments of politics, but your post reads like the left-wing equivalent of a FOX News personality profile.
She' smart and ambitious - once tarred with the label 'science fiction', a written work may no longer be referred to as 'literature' and admiring it, except after much sherry in the faculty lounge, one may confess to having not hated such work when one was too immature to know better.
Ms. Atwood probably doesn't want to risk turning off her academic audience... You know, academics are truly the arbiters of quality when it comes to literature...:)
No one has ever, to my knowledge, claimed Ray Bradbury writes, or has ever written, 'hard' science fiction. He writes literature, using a 'science fiction-y' setting. Mars, to him, is a totally new place with totally alien people on it, but it has air just like Earth... hmmm... He uses the notion of a totally new place to cover issues like race, difference, perception, etc. One could argue he wrote fantasy, not science fiction, but 'Ray Bradbury cannot write' ? Come on, that is too much.
Did the 'Ohio latitude' issue really make 'Rocket Summer' suck? Seriously? So, by implication, anyone who liked the story is an idiot, because how could it be good if setting it in Ohio would completely blow suspension of disbelief for any marginally intelligent person...
I respectfully suggest you have taken a bit too extreme a position on the subject, but I respect your willingness to at least elaborate on it.
You are confused -a soliloquy is not an essay. Essays are ordered and logical and make a point by (hopefully) proposing a clear, orderly argument or discussion. A soliloquy is a character speaking (or 'speechifying' in slang, if done badly) 'aloud' to the reader, although not necessarily out loud in context, or even consciously to the reader, elaborating his or her chain of thought. You were bored because Montag liked to muse on his surroundings, one of the traits that set him apart from his peers, and which proves his undoing, as it moves from musings to thinking to action. If he were thinking in essays, he'd be far less credible as a character, and the book would be much more preachy. Montag would likely be much less sympathetic - no one likes a preachy, self-righteous jerk, even if they are 'right'. Ayn Rand wrote preachy characters, which is why I'd argue her books were much more clearly about the 'detail' of ideas (philosophy), but her characters were far less well-formed than Bradburys' - his writings about ideas never went past the thematic - in '451' on its own, anyway.
As for uneven storytelling, I can't possibly imagine what you mean. Sorry you didn't like the book.
One item I noted when I reread 'Farenheit 451' last year after a LONG absence... here in the US, the government doesn't have to force us to give up books, walking, political discussion, etc. (although some would argue that there's lots of effort in those directions) - we've given up these ourselves. Think I'm wrong?
Here's a little test: 1. Name all the people who live around you - next door, both sides, across the street. Bonus points if you know all the names, first and last, and how old the kids are. 2. Name your librarian - at least one of them. 3. Now, count up all the people you just successfully named, double the number (call the doubled number X), and list that many television shows, movies and/or celebrities. Note: Bonus points if you can name X of each category instead of in aggregate.
You have to admit though, Tron had some cool moments. As did Black Hole - ya gotta love humans turned into drones with mirror-masks (not the Cirque De Soleil type, either) and Maximillian the hovering, exceptionally menacing robot with the blender arms shredding Tony Perkins for no apparent reason. I was maybe 12 when it came out and while it was not a good movie at all, I thought it was cool then. I think kids tend to overlook stuff that doesn't work and focus on anything 'cool'. My parents called it 'lost in a world of their own'. Not that kids don't appreciate quality, I think they do, they are just more likely to edit stuff out that they don't like, rather than focus on it and complain - in movies, anyway, if not in life.
Hence the popularity of such films (including Tron, Star Wars Ep. I) on/. I suspect most/.-ers were 'that kid'.
Rewatching as adults some of these films we loved at twelve is kind of sad - the bad films don't need George or Steven to re-edit them and screw them up (SWEPI, ET) - the films flaws, such as they are, are just more obvious.
Oh damn, I just realized I implied SWEPI was not perfect as originally shown. Will they revoke my/. ID? Will my karma ever recover? Will they come and take away my DVD box set of the original release versions and leave a copy of the 'Friends' box set in its place? Gotta go hide my stuff, scuse me...
If the orig. poster is straight from school, in the US s/he is unlikely to get a decent severance package - my experience is 1 weeks pay for every year with the firm, with no one getting less than 2 weeks, maybe a month. Maybe different elsewhere, but I've seen this dance at three employers, and for newer employees, there is seldom a good incentive to stay. Can't hurt to ask, though.
Happened to me. I learned that if you are not considered a 'revenue center' you will likely be the first to go - IT Departments, internal audit, accounting are all 'cost centers', and since businesses live to minimize costs...
Given what you do, moving to HP or one of their ilk (Accenture, etc.) will make you such a revenue center, and thus less likely to be laid off. In those environments (where I currently work) if you do good work and have a good senior manager (director level, selling work to clients) you will remain chargeable, and therefore, employed. It can work out well. One thing I do recommend, though, to someone straight from University - don't fall in love with your job, because it won't love you back, and it may break your heart. Good luck!
Generally true, but if you have people who are displaced and starving - say, in Darfur for example - then 'handouts' are pretty much the only way one can prevent starvation and disease. Besides, for all we know, Gates Foundation may very well donate to charities that build roads and infrastructure. For all we know, they could be a big donor to Habitat for Humanity, who requires 'sweat equity' from beneficiaries.
I would challenge your 'something given has no value' when applied to circumstances qualifying for the term 'sudden and disasterous'.
Agreed, but you don't need to force MS to LGPL anything. Use *NIX and OpenOffice, and presto - *you* have more money. I assumed we were discussing this in terms of the 'greater good', but I actually prefer looking at things at the individual level - where it truly matters.
As for parables, the 'broken window' parable is relevant only if you assume we *have to* buy Microsoft products. We don't.
Your first point assumes that if we didn't pay the 'Microsoft Tax' that somehow the government c/w/should take what we 'would have' spent on MS products and set that aside for aid projects. I don't think that is terribly likely - do you?
You could be correct on your second point, but it is my understanding that the Gates Foundation relies on private donations - Warren Buffet is a huge donor, for example. As to other illegal business practices, I'm not qualified to speak to that.
"In some cases fraud and abuse are committed by the nonprofit itself, such as when a charity is established to benefit its main donor; in other cases, the nonprofit acts an enabler for tax-shelter promoters, such as when a municipality or union takes a fee to participate in a deal that allocates "profits" to it and losses to wealthy individuals."
He is talking about *abuse* of the mechanisms for tax relief related to charities, not-for-profits, etc. He is not saying 'giving to charity is a scam' he's saying that the system is being misused. Fraud is illegal, charities are not. Setting up a charity for fraudulent purposes does not mean charities are bad, it means people abuse them and should be prosecuted for it.
Nowhere does he state explicitly or implicitly that donating to a bona-fide charity (Red Cross, Red Crescent, Habitat for Humanity, etc.) is a 'scam'.
Agree. I fear that RMS has an extremely narrow focus (NS, I know) that most corporate managers simply can't grasp, because it takes years in an academic environment to develop them. Think about it - the whole purpose of academia is to push the state of knowledge forward by developing deeper understanding of whatever field. Businesses function by picking tools to get the job done such that they achieve their Return On Investment (ROI) goals. A significant factor in the business process is risk minimization. Who is less risky - a commercial software vendor or a hairy academic arguing esoterica that, however valid, requires a willingness to invest time and intellectual energy to understand?
RMS is not the person who will convince 'the mainstream' to use or support free software. Any 'damage' his remarks may cause is restricted to those who know and care who he is, and the few businesspeople who know who he is also understand his views and attitude enough to not be 'damaged' by his remarks.
I'm a consultant, and I can personally attest, presentation is 98% of the argument when selling ERP systems to C-level executives. Another 1% is your golf score, and the last 1% is the free T-shirts you bring along for the propellerheads at the client who will have to babysit the behemoth after you leave.:)
Come on, this is/. not the AICPA. Give a nerd a break on bad math skills!
Seriously, you would not believe how often accountants hear 'laypeople' talk about how much of a 'scam' charitable donations are for the rich. It is a popular meme that just will not die, mores the pity.
So you propose some sort of tax on free software to pay to the poor? Or, Microsoft keeps charging for Windows but makes it GPL and gives whatever money they get to the poor?
How does your proposal work - specifically, how does the money get to the poor, and from whom?
I'm not a MS fan at all, but given we can all use free software if we choose to and donate money to the poor, unless your plan calls for mandating Microsoft give money to charity, that company has nothing to do with the aims you espouse.
PS - The Gates foundation may only give 'a fraction' of what it 'robs' (how does one rob by soliciting donations, again?) from the rich to the poor, but it is still donating more than you or I ever will, and therefore, has done more good than you or I will likely do in this context.
It is easy to throw up ones hands and declare, "They all suck, the system sucks, we need a revolution..." That rarely works. We have a system that works better than most others. If 'we the people' care, participate and vote, things get better. Otherwise not.
As to your point about research, I am referring to specific people, not groups of people. You paint with an overly broad brush. One cannot assume that because today a wealthy white male lawyer was elected to Congress that he is exactly like every previous white male lawyer. Analogies like that don't hold up when reduced to the level of individuals, which is what the gov't is composed of.
As to your argument about the Bush presidential legitimacy, we have a court system in place, and they made a decision that legitimized the result. You might not like it - I didn't - but we hardly had anything resembling a coup.
I suggest that pride in the context of appreciation of what one has makes sense. If I am Japanese and emigrate to the US because I like the 'American system' better and am therefore proud of being a naturalized citizen, why would a 'natural born' American citizen not be able to be as proud?
Your suggestion that pride is a mechanism for saying 'screw you' to people like Jesse Helms is not 'pride' in that you are not expressing pride in something, you are expressing anger or disrespect toward someone you know devalues what you claim pride in. Your pride in that case is not dependent on the thing being held 'in pride' but on the opinions of a third party, Jesse Helms - so by your definition, one can only be a 'proud black man' when dealing with racists?
One of the things I find wonderful about the rise of the internet is the ability to see politicians speaking at length - Barack Obama (whatever you may think of him as a presidential candidate) has a lot of material on YouTube that provide a lot more information - good and bad - than gets reported. People just have to look for it. I'm sure McCain has similar quantities of speeches out there. Likewise Hillary, etc.
To your point on 'not my job' - if he was truly asked a question outside his area of expertise, would you want him to answer? Whether you like his answers or not, 'not my job' implies he should be concerned but is not. His answers were more along the lines of, "I can't answer that because I am not an authority on that."
You need to clarify 'Nationalism'. I think you meant, nationalism as in 'I'm proud to be American' as opposed to 'I'm proud to live in a country that has such an amazing Constitution, Bill of Rights and Balance of Power baked into its governance'. You can be born and raised in India, Moscow, Liberia, Afghanistan or Peru and feel the latter - the former I agree makes no sense at all to anyone with anything approaching reasonable cognitive function.
Same argument can be made for race - in the US if I say I am a 'Proud Black Man' that is ok, but if I claim to be a 'Proud White Man' I'll probably be mistaken for a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Both sentiments are ridiculous - how can you proud of something that is no 'achievement' in any sense of the word, and over which you had no control?
My only quibble with you is on the travel bit - getting on a civilian-owned aircraft is not a right, it is a privilege. Don't like it? Take the bus. Otherwise, I agree, you should be able to tap all the hookers and dope you like, and the police shouldn't be bothering you without probable cause.
I absolutely agree. I would go further - even if there was NOT a pragmatic reason to enforce the standards of the Geneva convention on all people falling into the 'enemy' category, it is still the right thing to do.
For those who want to hammer me for being naive or a 'softie' - I'm a USMC combat veteran who lost friends in war. I still would not torture, period. (I would, however, hold strictly accountable those who cause, aid or abet violence against civilians, etc. - including those in my own uniform)
To your point on the publics' "failure to recognize" - sadly, many people don't realize how screwed up and appalling the problem is until they are directly affected.
You need to remember one thing - the US is a nation 'of by and for' the people. The government is composed of people, none of whom are perfect. We can point to this or that good or bad thing that was done, and that thing is the result of a set of decisions, good or bad, made by people. The US Government that experimented on African Americans by infecting them with syphilis 80 years ago is totally different than the one that shot the demonstrating vets, which is totally different than the one that invaded Iraq based on intelligence that it knew to be flawed.
I say this as a former military public affairs rep - yes, government representatives lie, or at least limit the truth of what they say. There are, however, many fine people whose careers go down in flames because they would not 'toe the line' (incidentally, not mine, as I was too low on the food chain to know anything really useful). As long as 'good' citizens eschew government service, military or otherwise, the lying bastards will dominate and destroy those with integrity.
For a concrete example, one I am personally familiar with, google "Col Sabow". His death is one of many nasty events at MCAS El Toro that occurred while I was stationed there, none of which has ever been adequately investigated. These include illegal dumping of toxic waste (burying batteries behind buildings instead of taking them to the disposal facility), misappropriation of government assets (flag-level officers using military aircraft for personal travel, including golf trips and family reunions) and the wholesale perversion of the military police function (officers 'did not drive drunk' on base as a matter of policy - they were never cited or tried, and any paperwork that was written by an MP never made it past a particular desk in the PMO office and the writing MP got yelled at and basically blacklisted for promotion). For this last, I know about it because I was writing for the base paper at the time (the 'Flight Jacket') and a military policeman in my barracks approached me and showed me verifiable proof of this. I reported it to my bosses and wrote a story on it. Never ran, surprise surprise, and nothing was done.
Why was this allowed to continue? Because those in a position to investigate either refused to or were not inclined to, as it might upset their golf buddies (i.e., retired senior officers). I did what I could - but it wasn't much, and there has to be a critical mass of good people for good to triumph. There was no such critical mass there, and in my experience, every command is more or less like El Toro was.
A wiser man than I once said - 'if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.' To all who read this far, you can fix it, if enough of you care. I tried and failed, but I am only one.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a consultant currently forced to work in SQL Server. If you had to replace SQL Server with the nearest open source functional equivalent in *NIX, what would it (or they) be? I'm talking the whole nut - interface and underlying DB. I've used MySQL before, but only at the CLI. Is there a gui frontend I can use to show 'this is just like MS product, but better.. and free (as in freedom)' ?
You might want to add some context - Bush was new, and had not yet turned into the president we now know him to be - see the date on your posted citation (August 2001). At the time, Bush was behind the 'no child left behind' initiative, which was supposed to help education in the US. It didn't live up to what was promised, but it was the only really comprehensive solution floating around at the time. As for the 1994 quote, the 'Republican Revolution' was pretty much about people being annoyed that the Democrats who had been in office hadn't done anything they promised - kind of like now, where the last round of elections saw people like Nancy Pelosi elected on anti-war platforms, which have turned into just so much smoke.
I'm not saying the man is a saint or even correct in his assessments of politics, but your post reads like the left-wing equivalent of a FOX News personality profile.
She' smart and ambitious - once tarred with the label 'science fiction', a written work may no longer be referred to as 'literature' and admiring it, except after much sherry in the faculty lounge, one may confess to having not hated such work when one was too immature to know better.
Ms. Atwood probably doesn't want to risk turning off her academic audience... You know, academics are truly the arbiters of quality when it comes to literature... :)
No one has ever, to my knowledge, claimed Ray Bradbury writes, or has ever written, 'hard' science fiction. He writes literature, using a 'science fiction-y' setting. Mars, to him, is a totally new place with totally alien people on it, but it has air just like Earth... hmmm... He uses the notion of a totally new place to cover issues like race, difference, perception, etc. One could argue he wrote fantasy, not science fiction, but 'Ray Bradbury cannot write' ? Come on, that is too much.
Did the 'Ohio latitude' issue really make 'Rocket Summer' suck? Seriously? So, by implication, anyone who liked the story is an idiot, because how could it be good if setting it in Ohio would completely blow suspension of disbelief for any marginally intelligent person...
I respectfully suggest you have taken a bit too extreme a position on the subject, but I respect your willingness to at least elaborate on it.
You are confused -a soliloquy is not an essay. Essays are ordered and logical and make a point by (hopefully) proposing a clear, orderly argument or discussion. A soliloquy is a character speaking (or 'speechifying' in slang, if done badly) 'aloud' to the reader, although not necessarily out loud in context, or even consciously to the reader, elaborating his or her chain of thought. You were bored because Montag liked to muse on his surroundings, one of the traits that set him apart from his peers, and which proves his undoing, as it moves from musings to thinking to action. If he were thinking in essays, he'd be far less credible as a character, and the book would be much more preachy. Montag would likely be much less sympathetic - no one likes a preachy, self-righteous jerk, even if they are 'right'. Ayn Rand wrote preachy characters, which is why I'd argue her books were much more clearly about the 'detail' of ideas (philosophy), but her characters were far less well-formed than Bradburys' - his writings about ideas never went past the thematic - in '451' on its own, anyway.
As for uneven storytelling, I can't possibly imagine what you mean. Sorry you didn't like the book.
One item I noted when I reread 'Farenheit 451' last year after a LONG absence... here in the US, the government doesn't have to force us to give up books, walking, political discussion, etc. (although some would argue that there's lots of effort in those directions) - we've given up these ourselves. Think I'm wrong?
Here's a little test:
1. Name all the people who live around you - next door, both sides, across the street. Bonus points if you know all the names, first and last, and how old the kids are.
2. Name your librarian - at least one of them.
3. Now, count up all the people you just successfully named, double the number (call the doubled number X), and list that many television shows, movies and/or celebrities. Note: Bonus points if you can name X of each category instead of in aggregate.
Am I wrong?
You have to admit though, Tron had some cool moments. As did Black Hole - ya gotta love humans turned into drones with mirror-masks (not the Cirque De Soleil type, either) and Maximillian the hovering, exceptionally menacing robot with the blender arms shredding Tony Perkins for no apparent reason. I was maybe 12 when it came out and while it was not a good movie at all, I thought it was cool then. I think kids tend to overlook stuff that doesn't work and focus on anything 'cool'. My parents called it 'lost in a world of their own'. Not that kids don't appreciate quality, I think they do, they are just more likely to edit stuff out that they don't like, rather than focus on it and complain - in movies, anyway, if not in life.
Hence the popularity of such films (including Tron, Star Wars Ep. I) on /. I suspect most /.-ers were 'that kid'.
This link tends to bear me out:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rape+my+childhood+site%3Aslashdot.org&btnG=Google+Search
Rewatching as adults some of these films we loved at twelve is kind of sad - the bad films don't need George or Steven to re-edit them and screw them up (SWEPI, ET) - the films flaws, such as they are, are just more obvious.
Oh damn, I just realized I implied SWEPI was not perfect as originally shown. Will they revoke my /. ID? Will my karma ever recover? Will they come and take away my DVD box set of the original release versions and leave a copy of the 'Friends' box set in its place? Gotta go hide my stuff, scuse me...
If the orig. poster is straight from school, in the US s/he is unlikely to get a decent severance package - my experience is 1 weeks pay for every year with the firm, with no one getting less than 2 weeks, maybe a month. Maybe different elsewhere, but I've seen this dance at three employers, and for newer employees, there is seldom a good incentive to stay. Can't hurt to ask, though.
Happened to me. I learned that if you are not considered a 'revenue center' you will likely be the first to go - IT Departments, internal audit, accounting are all 'cost centers', and since businesses live to minimize costs...
Given what you do, moving to HP or one of their ilk (Accenture, etc.) will make you such a revenue center, and thus less likely to be laid off. In those environments (where I currently work) if you do good work and have a good senior manager (director level, selling work to clients) you will remain chargeable, and therefore, employed. It can work out well. One thing I do recommend, though, to someone straight from University - don't fall in love with your job, because it won't love you back, and it may break your heart. Good luck!
Generally true, but if you have people who are displaced and starving - say, in Darfur for example - then 'handouts' are pretty much the only way one can prevent starvation and disease. Besides, for all we know, Gates Foundation may very well donate to charities that build roads and infrastructure. For all we know, they could be a big donor to Habitat for Humanity, who requires 'sweat equity' from beneficiaries.
I would challenge your 'something given has no value' when applied to circumstances qualifying for the term 'sudden and disasterous'.
Agreed, but you don't need to force MS to LGPL anything. Use *NIX and OpenOffice, and presto - *you* have more money. I assumed we were discussing this in terms of the 'greater good', but I actually prefer looking at things at the individual level - where it truly matters.
As for parables, the 'broken window' parable is relevant only if you assume we *have to* buy Microsoft products. We don't.
Your first point assumes that if we didn't pay the 'Microsoft Tax' that somehow the government c/w/should take what we 'would have' spent on MS products and set that aside for aid projects. I don't think that is terribly likely - do you?
You could be correct on your second point, but it is my understanding that the Gates Foundation relies on private donations - Warren Buffet is a huge donor, for example. As to other illegal business practices, I'm not qualified to speak to that.
You should have read the entire article.
"In some cases fraud and abuse are committed by the nonprofit itself, such as when a charity is established to benefit its main donor; in other cases, the nonprofit acts an enabler for tax-shelter promoters, such as when a municipality or union takes a fee to participate in a deal that allocates "profits" to it and losses to wealthy individuals."
He is talking about *abuse* of the mechanisms for tax relief related to charities, not-for-profits, etc. He is not saying 'giving to charity is a scam' he's saying that the system is being misused. Fraud is illegal, charities are not. Setting up a charity for fraudulent purposes does not mean charities are bad, it means people abuse them and should be prosecuted for it.
Nowhere does he state explicitly or implicitly that donating to a bona-fide charity (Red Cross, Red Crescent, Habitat for Humanity, etc.) is a 'scam'.
Agree. I fear that RMS has an extremely narrow focus (NS, I know) that most corporate managers simply can't grasp, because it takes years in an academic environment to develop them. Think about it - the whole purpose of academia is to push the state of knowledge forward by developing deeper understanding of whatever field. Businesses function by picking tools to get the job done such that they achieve their Return On Investment (ROI) goals. A significant factor in the business process is risk minimization. Who is less risky - a commercial software vendor or a hairy academic arguing esoterica that, however valid, requires a willingness to invest time and intellectual energy to understand?
RMS is not the person who will convince 'the mainstream' to use or support free software. Any 'damage' his remarks may cause is restricted to those who know and care who he is, and the few businesspeople who know who he is also understand his views and attitude enough to not be 'damaged' by his remarks.
I'm a consultant, and I can personally attest, presentation is 98% of the argument when selling ERP systems to C-level executives. Another 1% is your golf score, and the last 1% is the free T-shirts you bring along for the propellerheads at the client who will have to babysit the behemoth after you leave. :)
Come on, this is /. not the AICPA. Give a nerd a break on bad math skills!
Seriously, you would not believe how often accountants hear 'laypeople' talk about how much of a 'scam' charitable donations are for the rich. It is a popular meme that just will not die, mores the pity.
So you propose some sort of tax on free software to pay to the poor? Or, Microsoft keeps charging for Windows but makes it GPL and gives whatever money they get to the poor?
How does your proposal work - specifically, how does the money get to the poor, and from whom?
I'm not a MS fan at all, but given we can all use free software if we choose to and donate money to the poor, unless your plan calls for mandating Microsoft give money to charity, that company has nothing to do with the aims you espouse.
PS - The Gates foundation may only give 'a fraction' of what it 'robs' (how does one rob by soliciting donations, again?) from the rich to the poor, but it is still donating more than you or I ever will, and therefore, has done more good than you or I will likely do in this context.
It is easy to throw up ones hands and declare, "They all suck, the system sucks, we need a revolution..." That rarely works. We have a system that works better than most others. If 'we the people' care, participate and vote, things get better. Otherwise not.
As to your point about research, I am referring to specific people, not groups of people. You paint with an overly broad brush. One cannot assume that because today a wealthy white male lawyer was elected to Congress that he is exactly like every previous white male lawyer. Analogies like that don't hold up when reduced to the level of individuals, which is what the gov't is composed of.
As to your argument about the Bush presidential legitimacy, we have a court system in place, and they made a decision that legitimized the result. You might not like it - I didn't - but we hardly had anything resembling a coup.
I suggest that pride in the context of appreciation of what one has makes sense. If I am Japanese and emigrate to the US because I like the 'American system' better and am therefore proud of being a naturalized citizen, why would a 'natural born' American citizen not be able to be as proud?
Your suggestion that pride is a mechanism for saying 'screw you' to people like Jesse Helms is not 'pride' in that you are not expressing pride in something, you are expressing anger or disrespect toward someone you know devalues what you claim pride in. Your pride in that case is not dependent on the thing being held 'in pride' but on the opinions of a third party, Jesse Helms - so by your definition, one can only be a 'proud black man' when dealing with racists?
One of the things I find wonderful about the rise of the internet is the ability to see politicians speaking at length - Barack Obama (whatever you may think of him as a presidential candidate) has a lot of material on YouTube that provide a lot more information - good and bad - than gets reported. People just have to look for it. I'm sure McCain has similar quantities of speeches out there. Likewise Hillary, etc.
To your point on 'not my job' - if he was truly asked a question outside his area of expertise, would you want him to answer? Whether you like his answers or not, 'not my job' implies he should be concerned but is not. His answers were more along the lines of, "I can't answer that because I am not an authority on that."
You need to clarify 'Nationalism'. I think you meant, nationalism as in 'I'm proud to be American' as opposed to 'I'm proud to live in a country that has such an amazing Constitution, Bill of Rights and Balance of Power baked into its governance'. You can be born and raised in India, Moscow, Liberia, Afghanistan or Peru and feel the latter - the former I agree makes no sense at all to anyone with anything approaching reasonable cognitive function.
Same argument can be made for race - in the US if I say I am a 'Proud Black Man' that is ok, but if I claim to be a 'Proud White Man' I'll probably be mistaken for a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Both sentiments are ridiculous - how can you proud of something that is no 'achievement' in any sense of the word, and over which you had no control?
My only quibble with you is on the travel bit - getting on a civilian-owned aircraft is not a right, it is a privilege. Don't like it? Take the bus. Otherwise, I agree, you should be able to tap all the hookers and dope you like, and the police shouldn't be bothering you without probable cause.
I absolutely agree. I would go further - even if there was NOT a pragmatic reason to enforce the standards of the Geneva convention on all people falling into the 'enemy' category, it is still the right thing to do.
For those who want to hammer me for being naive or a 'softie' - I'm a USMC combat veteran who lost friends in war. I still would not torture, period. (I would, however, hold strictly accountable those who cause, aid or abet violence against civilians, etc. - including those in my own uniform)
To your point on the publics' "failure to recognize" - sadly, many people don't realize how screwed up and appalling the problem is until they are directly affected.
You need to remember one thing - the US is a nation 'of by and for' the people. The government is composed of people, none of whom are perfect. We can point to this or that good or bad thing that was done, and that thing is the result of a set of decisions, good or bad, made by people. The US Government that experimented on African Americans by infecting them with syphilis 80 years ago is totally different than the one that shot the demonstrating vets, which is totally different than the one that invaded Iraq based on intelligence that it knew to be flawed.
I say this as a former military public affairs rep - yes, government representatives lie, or at least limit the truth of what they say. There are, however, many fine people whose careers go down in flames because they would not 'toe the line' (incidentally, not mine, as I was too low on the food chain to know anything really useful). As long as 'good' citizens eschew government service, military or otherwise, the lying bastards will dominate and destroy those with integrity.
For a concrete example, one I am personally familiar with, google "Col Sabow". His death is one of many nasty events at MCAS El Toro that occurred while I was stationed there, none of which has ever been adequately investigated. These include illegal dumping of toxic waste (burying batteries behind buildings instead of taking them to the disposal facility), misappropriation of government assets (flag-level officers using military aircraft for personal travel, including golf trips and family reunions) and the wholesale perversion of the military police function (officers 'did not drive drunk' on base as a matter of policy - they were never cited or tried, and any paperwork that was written by an MP never made it past a particular desk in the PMO office and the writing MP got yelled at and basically blacklisted for promotion). For this last, I know about it because I was writing for the base paper at the time (the 'Flight Jacket') and a military policeman in my barracks approached me and showed me verifiable proof of this. I reported it to my bosses and wrote a story on it. Never ran, surprise surprise, and nothing was done.
Why was this allowed to continue? Because those in a position to investigate either refused to or were not inclined to, as it might upset their golf buddies (i.e., retired senior officers). I did what I could - but it wasn't much, and there has to be a critical mass of good people for good to triumph. There was no such critical mass there, and in my experience, every command is more or less like El Toro was.
A wiser man than I once said - 'if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.' To all who read this far, you can fix it, if enough of you care. I tried and failed, but I am only one.