OK, I'll bite... what is it about Objectivism that has so totally pissed you off that you resort to rhetoric and slander? If you disagree with Ayn Rands' views or her objectivist philosophy, surely you can put the argument in a rational form... oh, whoops. Sorry, my bad.
Like anything written by humans, including so-called 'holy scriptures' of various forms, Rands' work is judged by the behavior of those who espouse it, whether they understand it or not. Tarring her because you met an idiot (or idiots) who once read her and blather about it is not intellectually honest by a long shot.
I respectfully suggest that 'saving the environment' while laudable, needs to be taken in context. Sure, don't drive to the mall with your friends, all in your own cars. Do, however, keep doing things to advance the state of our knowledge - geeky fun with a massive load of hardware, for example, unless we are talking 'substantial' environmental impact. What constitutes 'substantial' is, of course, subjective, but at least think about it and don't just say, "Well, it uses energy and gives off heat - BAD!"
To those who would snark - what are YOU doing RIGHT NOW to save the environment? Reading/.! Hypocrite!
Look on the bright side - stupidity and laziness are their own reward. My company is laying off people left and right - and they generally hire very bright college grads - and guess who is going? Those who required extensive hand-holding. What differentiates your kid from a spoon-fed kid is that a well-raised kid has initiative, judgement and self-reliance. These traits may not get a 'better' degree, but they will ensure people actually want to work with them. Cliche, but 'attitude determines altitude' - and spoiled brats tend to have bad ones.
PARENTING. Your kid may be a rock or a rocket scientist, but without good parenting, they will never reach their full potential, figure out what their particular gifts are, or 'learn how to learn'. Whatever ones' opinion of No Child Left Behind and other well-intended public policies, no policy has anything close to the impact of good parenting and good teaching. The study and its implications are not relevant to the individual family - good parenting is.
C'mon, Master of Puppets was excellent - but the production sucked. Listen to their 'S&M Live' album (OK, I could do without the orchestra, but otherwise...) and liten to MofP and some of the other older tracks - they are great, and while there is no 'Enter Sandman' until TBA, there's a lot of quality there.
They never had the mainstream success of some of the other bands, but have put out classic albums. Steve Vai 'Passion and Warfare' is pretty much standard issue to guitar geeks, even if they are of the 'I hate the LA sound of the 80's' school, because it just doesn't get better, or even as good as Steve Vai very often. I highly recommend it. Metallica, and I am a fan, dream of growing up to play like Steve Vai, and I say that with much respect, but absolutely seriously.
If no one used the editor prior to the actual release of the game, would there be no content? I think not. The public demos already show lots of creatures, and Mr. Wrights' public explanations of the game reinforce the fact that they do have pre-packaged content.
So, you download the demo or pay the $10 for the 'full' editor or wait and buy the game itself, which comes with the ability to create the creatures.
Where have you lost? Did you lose when the Sim you made and posted online got pulled down by someone and used in the game? Does Mr. Wright owe you a check for that?
NO! YOU LOST NOTHING, YOU WILL LOSE NOTHING. YOU ARE BEING OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY. Your game will still work if you don't enable sharing or use the editor.
Listen, naysayers, you are getting MORE CONTENT than is usually sold OR given away for a game title, and you are complaining? I realize this is/. but these negative comments, especially those also rambling about Spore being 'Vaporware' are setting new records for community idiocy.
You were a muggle once, but something or someone somewhere introduced you to something that inspired you, unless you grew up in a cave and spontaneously imagined the wide world around you in all its glory. If no one inspired muggles, we'd all be muggles. Pity the first muggle-inspirer - she/he held up fire, and the rest of the muggles looked in awe, then killed him/her and probably ate them, but the fire thing stuck.
We've made some progress since then. There's no need to be condescending, nasty or even dismissive to people......unless you know them personally and they really deserve it.
Same old story, "XXX New medium is the future, while YYY is SO yesterday, it is obsolete and will be dead soon..."
People said this about books, radio, and now television.
Short answer, and I think this is consistent with TFA - some people respond well to quality information, whatever the form. The easier the format is to process in terms of availability and ease of use, the more people will use it. Some of those people will be idiots. The number of such idiots will rise as the format becomes easier to use. Smarter people will invent 'moderation' systems to regulate and classify idiocy, to keep the signal-to-noise ratio acceptable.
NPR ran a segment on Edward Murrow this past weekend, where he discussed the then new technology Television, and made many of the same observations. I recommend listening - what he said in the 1950's is absolutely relevant today.
... the network made the placement / sponsorship unobtrusive and made the programs available in a non-DRM-ed format for download with no commercial interruptions. I completely understand shows cost money,and I am willing to play ball. If I can download, say, Battlestar Galactica or Law and Order to use as I see fit, but there are branded placements in the episodes and there are no dialog kludges ("Gee, lieutenant, have a Coke!") I would not only watch, such a move would make me less vehemently negative about advertising. Right now, I actually avoid buying items I am aware of advertising for, unless I go looking for them. Studies show advertising works, even if we think it doesn't, but I can tell you this - if you make a conscious decision to avoid advertisers' products, it is possible. No coke in my house, nor Anheiser-Busch, and I've been buying Volkswagens since before they even advertised on television in the US (my first VW was a '76 Rabbit). Why? Because I don't believe in rewarding annoying or anti-social behavior, which most advertising is, IMHO.
I agree with you esp. re 'moral hazard' - but I think 'letting people go bankrupt' is a political non-starter, unfortunately, and will cost us more in the near and long term.
I agree with some of what you say, but let's assume you are 100% correct.
The point remains - if you are poor and were stupid enough to sign up for a mortgage you can't pay because a mortgage broker was willing to sign a no-financial-income-disclosure based loan, who would you rather deal with? The lender, Bear Stearns, can and will take your house. They will not care about you, and Congress can't pass a law requiring them to default on their contractual obligations any more than they could pass a law requiring you to shoplift. So, what happens?
1. Government 'bailout' where the risks got to the government, who is accountable to taxpayers and can forgive debt.
2. No 'bailout' (or whatever label you choose) in which case Bear Sterns assets go on the block for pennies on the dollar, other companies buy them and foreclose on defaulting mortgages, and everyone involved in a securities or commodities transaction where Bear Stearns was counterparty hopes someone picks up the contracts - which is unlikely to happen.
Part of the problem (IMHO) is that tax policy is not just viewed as a means to generate revenue for programs, but also to encourage behavior - better tax treatment for long-term capital gains, for example, is designed to encourage people to save. Of course, with all the lobbying going on under the aegis of free speech, after a while, you get 'encouraged' to do many things, especially if you are a corporation.
To your point - lower income people pay more payroll taxes as well (not sure if your figures included this, but if not, they should, it supports your argument).
Keep in mind too that much of the wealthiest individuals money comes from dividends, etc. If you start taxing those income streams like regular income, you will also be strangling lower-income people who have 401Ks, etc. Unless you start applying caps and brackets to such income in a way that favors lower-income people, you will not solve the issue. Even if you did, the rich still do pay more in income taxes than everyone else - but at higher income levels there are more mechanisms for moving payments around, spreading them over time, and re-investing the cash pre-tax. Most 'normal' people can't participate in such, because they don't have the disposable income to do so.
I always thought the flat tax up to double or triple the poverty level (fixed percentage) then rolling to a progressive 'straight' tax would be the most equitable and best at meeting national revenue goals, but hey - that might be too simple.
The reason for the bailout is the counterparty risk element - Bear Sterns is so large, if they were allowed to fail, that failure would jeopardize millions of equity and commodity trades placed by people who may have no relationship with Bear Sterns. This is why there is so much talk of reform - the rules regarding bank regulations were implemented when banking lacked the sophisticated derivative products we now have. The Fed has been trying to reform these rules for decades, but the banks have not cooperated, and until now, the only people who got hurt were private (Google 'Long Term Capital Management' for a good example). Now that a 'public facing' bank has bought the farm, there is the political will to fix the rules.
And BTW - the Fed is not bailing out anyone, it is guaranteeing a purchase. One could argue with it, but it is not a bailout - the US Taxpayers are not out a dime until the loans (to the citizenry) start entering default, and in that case, who would you rather have holding your now-unpayable mortgage, the Fed or a Bank? Given the political environment, who is more likely to kick you out? Who is more likely to work with you on an adjusted payment? The bailout makes the borrower (voter!) better able to negotiate with the holder of the loan. If the banks kept the risk, guess what - foreclosures would keep rolling, because the banks *cannot* give deadbeats a break - their shareholders would sue them, rightfully, for breach of contract - 'You had an agreement with the mortgagee to receive payments for our benefit, at a given interest rate, and you let them off the hook with no compensation...' Basic contracts law. The government can, however give people a break if it so chooses - its fiduciary duties are pretty much whatever the voters demand (which is how we got into the current deficit mess, but that's OT).
Oil and Banks (Bear Sterns in particular, but most in general) are all publicly held - that's why you can look up a price for their stock. These companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits, period. Guess what? That makes EVERY person with a 401k an active participant in this system, the public equity market, just like the right to vote and be politically active makes every American an active participant in the entity that actually makes the rules that regulate the publicly traded companies. We could discuss the rights of corporate 'persons', but that is a tangent - short story, there is one economy, and we all make our decisions about how we participate. So no, there is no magic rich people bank you get a gold key and password to when you amass $1 million.
Also, gas prices in the US have been subsidized for years - look at the prices in Europe. Theirs are WAY higher, and were much higher even before the dollar's slide. Why is that? Because we the people voted for politicians who gave us slops in the trough - subsidies, so we could drive frickin' Hummers and Minivans - it kept the economy going, can't have those poor union SUV assembly workers thrown out of work just because the products they make get 7 miles to the gallon. (Clarification: I have no problem with unions, but a huge problem subsidizing stupidity)
It boils down to this: in a capitalist democracy, which we still are, rhetoric notwithstanding, we the people are the government and own the businesses that make up the economy. We get what we pay for. For years, we have paid for consumption with trade deficits abroad and whacked subsidy policies at home (sugar prices anyone?) and now the pure-d idiocy and refusal of the general public, or at least a significant portion thereof, to actually pay attention when they vote and buy stuff is coming home to roost. To those who lost their homes in this 'bubble', I say you are an idiot for not reading your mortgage.
Deceptive practices have been alleged, but frankly, my wife and I bought a house in the run up to the bubble - our load officer was *extremely* clear about the loans and how they worked. However, instead of saying, "Gee, we can get a 6,000 square foot McMansion..." we borrowed only what we needed to get a house we wanted that WAS IN OUR BUDGET. I find it hard to believe that there was some massive fraud being perpetrated on borrowers. People saw something that was too good to be true (e.g., we will give you all the money you need) and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. I find that very easy to believe.
Blaming your mortgage broker for selling you the product you want is along the same lines as suing McDonalds because their food is bad for you, you are morbidly obese, but you eat there every day ayway.
And the rich? Maybe they're just smart - at least, smart enough not to eat at McDonalds every day, anyway.
What is ridiculous is that it isn't the film that people are concerned about - it is the reaction of some section of the Muslim community.
I live in the US - we have tons of nutty, racist or homophobic groups running around. Some make news, but never on this scale. Why not? Because whatever negative things may be said about 'Americans' one thing we as a nation do reasonably well (not perfectly, but reasonably) is let asshats speak. Then we ignore them, and they generally fade into the woodwork. A Few examples:
- Nation of Islam. Hasn't gotten much bigger over the last 40 years, despite all the hoopla when Louis Farrakhan calls whites 'Blue eyed devils' or such from time to time. - A tiny church in rural Arkansas (I believe) that pickets the funerals of dead servicemembers because they believe god is allowing US soldiers to die because America tolerates Gays and Lesbians. No kidding. Point and laugh, they get media attention, but no one takes them seriously, except as a bunch of asshats.
The big deal here is not some (alleged) wingnut politician and a 15-minute film - it is the anticipation of a few million oversensitized Muslims (note: I am not saying *all* muslims are oversensitised, I am saying some are) rioting and killing each other and a few innocent bystanders in reaction to a film that in the grand scheme of things makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. Oh, except the people who get mauled by the rioters.
Freedom of speech is about being able to speak your mind without fear of censorship or 'undue' consequence - i.e., being murdered for said speech. I submit a part and parcel of that freedom is the freedom to ignore anothers' freely-made speech, or respond with your own. To those Muslims who may be offended by this film (which no one has as yet seen):
1. Make your own film. Blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, etc. as you see fit. Watch as the rest of the world refrains from rioting and killing people over it. 2. Prepare a point-for-point rebuttal of the films' key themes and arguments once you see it. Upload the rebuttal to Youtube. Observe how people will listen to you and consider what you have said. 3. Ignore this film when it is released. See how fast is falls off the memetic map.
In the US, unlike Europe, speech that is controversial or even factually wrong is allowed, unless it is actually defamatory toward a person. You can't say someone is a prositute unless you can back it up with proof, but you may publicly deny the holocaust here all you like, in print and in person. The US also has more Jews than Israel. You might expect then that such denial would be a big deal, right? Wrong. The only media coverage of holocaust denial we really see here is when some idiot who writes a book on it goes to Germany and gets arrested for holocaust denial, or an occasional overwrought member of B'Nai Brith crying in the media about antisemitism and pointing to three pointy-headed rednecks in rural Nebraska who have a pro-Nazi website set up, thus gaining the neo-nazis more media attantion than they ever would have received had BB never said anything about them at all.
I'll go out on a limb and further state that despite the fact that we have a frightening number of 'new Earth' creationists here and American secondary education is terrible, asshats who deny the holocaust are vanishingly few and of no importance in the American media environment. Yes, you can tell the 'big lie' over and over, but it only sticks if you can make it stick by removing competing messages. In a truly free-speech environment, lies can't survive over the long-term or gain real traction because more people are concerned with truth than with lying (we can debate exactly what proportion, but it only takes >50% for truth to eventually win).
Take the 'free speech' lesson from us, oh enraged Muslim masses. It is far more effective to say 'Eh. She/he is an asshat. Ignore them.' The Asshats will go away, and pretty quickly at that. Paying attention to them, though, will make them breed like roaches. Or trolls.
The part number on the bottom of it is WD7500H1Q-00
The '5' might be an 'S' - the type is so small, I can't tell.
If it helps, it came in a red box and the enclosue was grey, rounded at the front with the LED looking like a tall, narrow '0' on the front. Edges are rounded. Vents ar in the top and back. There is a stylized 'WD' on the side in white.
Apple sells a line of Western Digital external HDDs in their retail stores, and while they are pricier than roll your owns, they are really nice in their lighting scheme. They have a long LED on the front - imagine a 'Cylon style' white LED, but vertical. The light changes intensity, position, etc depending on what the HD is doing. File access - light cycles with access. HD noise itself is pretty minimal, and the fan is virtually silent. Best part, when Time Machine hoses my system and freezes the external HD (which it occasionally does), the light goes full-on and stays on, so I know there is a problem. I think this kind of feedback is great, and it eats up zero system resources.
One interesting bit the Church is all about, and another poster alluded to it, is 'natural law'. The church has spent literally centuries documenting elaborate rationales for their beliefs. The Pope doesn't just bark out something that sounds good to him - he has a team of researchers and theologians write thse HUGE papers on it. The current Pope was, as I understand it, quite the prolific author of these when he was the chief guardian of the faith prior to being Pope (this is the modern equivalent of the Grand Inquisitor, but without the hot pokers and spikes).
My point - there is a convoluted 'logic' to their reasoning, which you can read for yourself, but having read through the relevant sections for this thread, I found them positively Escherian in their convoluted self-referentialality (is that a real word? You get the idea...) and all lead back to 'because we said so', which is the cornerstone of the Catholic churches' authority. They don't worry about their shrinking domain from an ideological standpoint, as you suggest - they have literally an entire theory of 'law' that says they don't have to worry. The pronouncements they put out are for the faithful - normal, rational people won't understand them because they are written in circular logic tarted up in faux-academic jargon - i.e., nonsense.
Same situation in the US - we have been importing priests from third world countries where the Catholic church sent missionaries back in the 1950's and 60's. Every time I go to a function in a church (I grit my teeth and sit through weddings and baptisms in the name of family unity) I am surprised to see deacons doing most of the services except the actual sacrament, and many priests who have hysterically thick foreign accents. When I grew up (1970's and 80's) the 'foreign' priests were uncommon (50%) and usually Polish, German, Italian or Portuguese. Now, it seems like they are Korean, Phillippino or African. Interesting to see - one wonders if the rise in prevalence of third-world priests will result in the church moving further 'to the right' - they seem to be much more doctrinaire and dogmatic than the free-spirited American neo-hippies I recall. Then again, most of the priest I knew growing up who were worth a piss left the priesthood anyway.
I think leaving is easy for people with few family ties - my family, no big deal. My sister married into a nutball Catholic family who are generally wonderful people, but they are seriously unhinged about being Catholic - leaving offerings at the shrine to aborted baby's (seriously - a creepy statue outside the church), baking a 'Happy Birthday Baby Jesus' cake at Christmas and describing 'The Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests' as 'evil people who want to bring down the Church. I made the mistake of asking the Patriarch of the family (after a few too many at a family function - those fools can DRINK in the best Irish-Catholic tradition) what he would do if some priest buggered one of his seven grandsons (all under 12 years old). I got the fish-eye, but one of his sons, not a parent but a godparent to a couple of the nephews, piped up that he'd 'kill the sonofabitch'. His heart was in the right place at least. If one of them tried to leave the church, they'd be ostracized.
While I appreciate the sentiment and gesture, even if you prayed for me and I had some kind of spiritual awakening, it would not be verifiable in that a third party could observe and repeat it. This is where science and religion permanently part ways - there is no way to verify any of the claims made by religion regarding the existence or nature of god and therefore, virtually everything done 'in his name' by religious organizations like the Catholic church. Verification 'by me' is besides the point - that is, by definition, purely subjective, and we are looking for objective proof, which is the context in which 'verification' was used in this thread. This dichotomy was first identified by Thomas Aquinas in his discussions of what is knowable and unknowable - while I think he was absolutely wrong on 'divine revelation', he had the right concept.
Pray if you like, I will be apathetic toward it. What would you suggest as 'confirmatory evidence' (which as indicated, will mean purely nothing, as it is subjective) ? What should I be looking for?
I'm trying to unwrap the layers of sarcasm - are you suggesting artificial insemination is murder? Where in the whole natural law bit did that come from? Or did you misread, hence the flaming yourself?
??
"Sin is bad" - How can I verify a 'fact' related to your experience of sin?
"Confirmation helps people sin less" - I was confirmed, under duress, and I ran screaming out of the church as fast as I could. It isn't the confirmation that helps you, it is how you feel about it, and that is beyond 'verifiable' and is therefore in no way a fact.
Sorry - you only get to use 'because I said so' as a reason INSIDE the Catholic church, and only if you are a member of the clergy.
Awesomely Catholic post - brings me back to my Sunday school days, but without Mr. Rheingold telling me I was going to hell for arguing with my sister. You gave us the what (natural law) without the why ('what is natural law, even briefly and how is it relevant').
For interested readers, here is the relevant passage from the link provided:
QUOTE...They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.
Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."
Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person END QUOTE
Did you get that? The conjugal act has intrinsic meaning, and if you get knocked up by any other method, the 'meaning' is not there, because the act itself has meaning that cannot be moved elsewhere, nor can any other act have that meaning. The church has bound a specific physical act (copulation between husband and wife) with a specific meaning and decreed that everyone must interpret this conglomeration their way.
So, even if you artificially conceive out of love, in a loving marriage, to raise beautiful children, sorry - 'natural law' says you can't, because the meanings the church has given cannot be changed, nor should they be. Nothing natural about it, actually...
Clearly, the Catholic Church does not have a 'humble' opinion. Must be nice to be right 100% of the time, whilst avoiding the sin of pride too.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'll bite... what is it about Objectivism that has so totally pissed you off that you resort to rhetoric and slander? If you disagree with Ayn Rands' views or her objectivist philosophy, surely you can put the argument in a rational form... oh, whoops. Sorry, my bad.
Like anything written by humans, including so-called 'holy scriptures' of various forms, Rands' work is judged by the behavior of those who espouse it, whether they understand it or not. Tarring her because you met an idiot (or idiots) who once read her and blather about it is not intellectually honest by a long shot.
I know, this is /. - I have high hopes, though.
I respectfully suggest that 'saving the environment' while laudable, needs to be taken in context. Sure, don't drive to the mall with your friends, all in your own cars. Do, however, keep doing things to advance the state of our knowledge - geeky fun with a massive load of hardware, for example, unless we are talking 'substantial' environmental impact. What constitutes 'substantial' is, of course, subjective, but at least think about it and don't just say, "Well, it uses energy and gives off heat - BAD!"
To those who would snark - what are YOU doing RIGHT NOW to save the environment? Reading /.! Hypocrite!
Look on the bright side - stupidity and laziness are their own reward. My company is laying off people left and right - and they generally hire very bright college grads - and guess who is going? Those who required extensive hand-holding. What differentiates your kid from a spoon-fed kid is that a well-raised kid has initiative, judgement and self-reliance. These traits may not get a 'better' degree, but they will ensure people actually want to work with them. Cliche, but 'attitude determines altitude' - and spoiled brats tend to have bad ones.
PARENTING. Your kid may be a rock or a rocket scientist, but without good parenting, they will never reach their full potential, figure out what their particular gifts are, or 'learn how to learn'. Whatever ones' opinion of No Child Left Behind and other well-intended public policies, no policy has anything close to the impact of good parenting and good teaching. The study and its implications are not relevant to the individual family - good parenting is.
C'mon, Master of Puppets was excellent - but the production sucked. Listen to their 'S&M Live' album (OK, I could do without the orchestra, but otherwise...) and liten to MofP and some of the other older tracks - they are great, and while there is no 'Enter Sandman' until TBA, there's a lot of quality there.
They never had the mainstream success of some of the other bands, but have put out classic albums. Steve Vai 'Passion and Warfare' is pretty much standard issue to guitar geeks, even if they are of the 'I hate the LA sound of the 80's' school, because it just doesn't get better, or even as good as Steve Vai very often. I highly recommend it. Metallica, and I am a fan, dream of growing up to play like Steve Vai, and I say that with much respect, but absolutely seriously.
If no one used the editor prior to the actual release of the game, would there be no content? I think not. The public demos already show lots of creatures, and Mr. Wrights' public explanations of the game reinforce the fact that they do have pre-packaged content.
/. but these negative comments, especially those also rambling about Spore being 'Vaporware' are setting new records for community idiocy.
So, you download the demo or pay the $10 for the 'full' editor or wait and buy the game itself, which comes with the ability to create the creatures.
Where have you lost? Did you lose when the Sim you made and posted online got pulled down by someone and used in the game? Does Mr. Wright owe you a check for that?
NO! YOU LOST NOTHING, YOU WILL LOSE NOTHING. YOU ARE BEING OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY. Your game will still work if you don't enable sharing or use the editor.
Listen, naysayers, you are getting MORE CONTENT than is usually sold OR given away for a game title, and you are complaining? I realize this is
Sorry, rant over.
You were a muggle once, but something or someone somewhere introduced you to something that inspired you, unless you grew up in a cave and spontaneously imagined the wide world around you in all its glory. If no one inspired muggles, we'd all be muggles. Pity the first muggle-inspirer - she/he held up fire, and the rest of the muggles looked in awe, then killed him/her and probably ate them, but the fire thing stuck.
...unless you know them personally and they really deserve it.
We've made some progress since then. There's no need to be condescending, nasty or even dismissive to people...
Same old story, "XXX New medium is the future, while YYY is SO yesterday, it is obsolete and will be dead soon..."
People said this about books, radio, and now television.
Short answer, and I think this is consistent with TFA - some people respond well to quality information, whatever the form. The easier the format is to process in terms of availability and ease of use, the more people will use it. Some of those people will be idiots. The number of such idiots will rise as the format becomes easier to use. Smarter people will invent 'moderation' systems to regulate and classify idiocy, to keep the signal-to-noise ratio acceptable.
NPR ran a segment on Edward Murrow this past weekend, where he discussed the then new technology Television, and made many of the same observations. I recommend listening - what he said in the 1950's is absolutely relevant today.
http://www.bobedwardsradio.com/blog/2008/4/25/edward-r-murrows-centenary.html
... the network made the placement / sponsorship unobtrusive and made the programs available in a non-DRM-ed format for download with no commercial interruptions. I completely understand shows cost money,and I am willing to play ball. If I can download, say, Battlestar Galactica or Law and Order to use as I see fit, but there are branded placements in the episodes and there are no dialog kludges ("Gee, lieutenant, have a Coke!") I would not only watch, such a move would make me less vehemently negative about advertising. Right now, I actually avoid buying items I am aware of advertising for, unless I go looking for them. Studies show advertising works, even if we think it doesn't, but I can tell you this - if you make a conscious decision to avoid advertisers' products, it is possible. No coke in my house, nor Anheiser-Busch, and I've been buying Volkswagens since before they even advertised on television in the US (my first VW was a '76 Rabbit). Why? Because I don't believe in rewarding annoying or anti-social behavior, which most advertising is, IMHO.
I agree with you esp. re 'moral hazard' - but I think 'letting people go bankrupt' is a political non-starter, unfortunately, and will cost us more in the near and long term.
I agree with some of what you say, but let's assume you are 100% correct.
The point remains - if you are poor and were stupid enough to sign up for a mortgage you can't pay because a mortgage broker was willing to sign a no-financial-income-disclosure based loan, who would you rather deal with? The lender, Bear Stearns, can and will take your house. They will not care about you, and Congress can't pass a law requiring them to default on their contractual obligations any more than they could pass a law requiring you to shoplift. So, what happens?
1. Government 'bailout' where the risks got to the government, who is accountable to taxpayers and can forgive debt.
2. No 'bailout' (or whatever label you choose) in which case Bear Sterns assets go on the block for pennies on the dollar, other companies buy them and foreclose on defaulting mortgages, and everyone involved in a securities or commodities transaction where Bear Stearns was counterparty hopes someone picks up the contracts - which is unlikely to happen.
Maybe I missed an option?
Part of the problem (IMHO) is that tax policy is not just viewed as a means to generate revenue for programs, but also to encourage behavior - better tax treatment for long-term capital gains, for example, is designed to encourage people to save. Of course, with all the lobbying going on under the aegis of free speech, after a while, you get 'encouraged' to do many things, especially if you are a corporation.
To your point - lower income people pay more payroll taxes as well (not sure if your figures included this, but if not, they should, it supports your argument).
Keep in mind too that much of the wealthiest individuals money comes from dividends, etc. If you start taxing those income streams like regular income, you will also be strangling lower-income people who have 401Ks, etc. Unless you start applying caps and brackets to such income in a way that favors lower-income people, you will not solve the issue. Even if you did, the rich still do pay more in income taxes than everyone else - but at higher income levels there are more mechanisms for moving payments around, spreading them over time, and re-investing the cash pre-tax. Most 'normal' people can't participate in such, because they don't have the disposable income to do so.
I always thought the flat tax up to double or triple the poverty level (fixed percentage) then rolling to a progressive 'straight' tax would be the most equitable and best at meeting national revenue goals, but hey - that might be too simple.
The reason for the bailout is the counterparty risk element - Bear Sterns is so large, if they were allowed to fail, that failure would jeopardize millions of equity and commodity trades placed by people who may have no relationship with Bear Sterns. This is why there is so much talk of reform - the rules regarding bank regulations were implemented when banking lacked the sophisticated derivative products we now have. The Fed has been trying to reform these rules for decades, but the banks have not cooperated, and until now, the only people who got hurt were private (Google 'Long Term Capital Management' for a good example). Now that a 'public facing' bank has bought the farm, there is the political will to fix the rules.
And BTW - the Fed is not bailing out anyone, it is guaranteeing a purchase. One could argue with it, but it is not a bailout - the US Taxpayers are not out a dime until the loans (to the citizenry) start entering default, and in that case, who would you rather have holding your now-unpayable mortgage, the Fed or a Bank? Given the political environment, who is more likely to kick you out? Who is more likely to work with you on an adjusted payment? The bailout makes the borrower (voter!) better able to negotiate with the holder of the loan. If the banks kept the risk, guess what - foreclosures would keep rolling, because the banks *cannot* give deadbeats a break - their shareholders would sue them, rightfully, for breach of contract - 'You had an agreement with the mortgagee to receive payments for our benefit, at a given interest rate, and you let them off the hook with no compensation...' Basic contracts law. The government can, however give people a break if it so chooses - its fiduciary duties are pretty much whatever the voters demand (which is how we got into the current deficit mess, but that's OT).
Oil and Banks (Bear Sterns in particular, but most in general) are all publicly held - that's why you can look up a price for their stock. These companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits, period. Guess what? That makes EVERY person with a 401k an active participant in this system, the public equity market, just like the right to vote and be politically active makes every American an active participant in the entity that actually makes the rules that regulate the publicly traded companies. We could discuss the rights of corporate 'persons', but that is a tangent - short story, there is one economy, and we all make our decisions about how we participate. So no, there is no magic rich people bank you get a gold key and password to when you amass $1 million.
Also, gas prices in the US have been subsidized for years - look at the prices in Europe. Theirs are WAY higher, and were much higher even before the dollar's slide. Why is that? Because we the people voted for politicians who gave us slops in the trough - subsidies, so we could drive frickin' Hummers and Minivans - it kept the economy going, can't have those poor union SUV assembly workers thrown out of work just because the products they make get 7 miles to the gallon. (Clarification: I have no problem with unions, but a huge problem subsidizing stupidity)
It boils down to this: in a capitalist democracy, which we still are, rhetoric notwithstanding, we the people are the government and own the businesses that make up the economy. We get what we pay for. For years, we have paid for consumption with trade deficits abroad and whacked subsidy policies at home (sugar prices anyone?) and now the pure-d idiocy and refusal of the general public, or at least a significant portion thereof, to actually pay attention when they vote and buy stuff is coming home to roost. To those who lost their homes in this 'bubble', I say you are an idiot for not reading your mortgage.
Deceptive practices have been alleged, but frankly, my wife and I bought a house in the run up to the bubble - our load officer was *extremely* clear about the loans and how they worked. However, instead of saying, "Gee, we can get a 6,000 square foot McMansion..." we borrowed only what we needed to get a house we wanted that WAS IN OUR BUDGET. I find it hard to believe that there was some massive fraud being perpetrated on borrowers. People saw something that was too good to be true (e.g., we will give you all the money you need) and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. I find that very easy to believe.
Blaming your mortgage broker for selling you the product you want is along the same lines as suing McDonalds because their food is bad for you, you are morbidly obese, but you eat there every day ayway.
And the rich? Maybe they're just smart - at least, smart enough not to eat at McDonalds every day, anyway.
What is ridiculous is that it isn't the film that people are concerned about - it is the reaction of some section of the Muslim community.
I live in the US - we have tons of nutty, racist or homophobic groups running around. Some make news, but never on this scale. Why not? Because whatever negative things may be said about 'Americans' one thing we as a nation do reasonably well (not perfectly, but reasonably) is let asshats speak. Then we ignore them, and they generally fade into the woodwork. A Few examples:
- Nation of Islam. Hasn't gotten much bigger over the last 40 years, despite all the hoopla when Louis Farrakhan calls whites 'Blue eyed devils' or such from time to time.
- A tiny church in rural Arkansas (I believe) that pickets the funerals of dead servicemembers because they believe god is allowing US soldiers to die because America tolerates Gays and Lesbians. No kidding. Point and laugh, they get media attention, but no one takes them seriously, except as a bunch of asshats.
The big deal here is not some (alleged) wingnut politician and a 15-minute film - it is the anticipation of a few million oversensitized Muslims (note: I am not saying *all* muslims are oversensitised, I am saying some are) rioting and killing each other and a few innocent bystanders in reaction to a film that in the grand scheme of things makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. Oh, except the people who get mauled by the rioters.
Freedom of speech is about being able to speak your mind without fear of censorship or 'undue' consequence - i.e., being murdered for said speech. I submit a part and parcel of that freedom is the freedom to ignore anothers' freely-made speech, or respond with your own. To those Muslims who may be offended by this film (which no one has as yet seen):
1. Make your own film. Blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, etc. as you see fit. Watch as the rest of the world refrains from rioting and killing people over it.
2. Prepare a point-for-point rebuttal of the films' key themes and arguments once you see it. Upload the rebuttal to Youtube. Observe how people will listen to you and consider what you have said.
3. Ignore this film when it is released. See how fast is falls off the memetic map.
In the US, unlike Europe, speech that is controversial or even factually wrong is allowed, unless it is actually defamatory toward a person. You can't say someone is a prositute unless you can back it up with proof, but you may publicly deny the holocaust here all you like, in print and in person. The US also has more Jews than Israel. You might expect then that such denial would be a big deal, right? Wrong. The only media coverage of holocaust denial we really see here is when some idiot who writes a book on it goes to Germany and gets arrested for holocaust denial, or an occasional overwrought member of B'Nai Brith crying in the media about antisemitism and pointing to three pointy-headed rednecks in rural Nebraska who have a pro-Nazi website set up, thus gaining the neo-nazis more media attantion than they ever would have received had BB never said anything about them at all.
I'll go out on a limb and further state that despite the fact that we have a frightening number of 'new Earth' creationists here and American secondary education is terrible, asshats who deny the holocaust are vanishingly few and of no importance in the American media environment. Yes, you can tell the 'big lie' over and over, but it only sticks if you can make it stick by removing competing messages. In a truly free-speech environment, lies can't survive over the long-term or gain real traction because more people are concerned with truth than with lying (we can debate exactly what proportion, but it only takes >50% for truth to eventually win).
Take the 'free speech' lesson from us, oh enraged Muslim masses. It is far more effective to say 'Eh. She/he is an asshat. Ignore them.' The Asshats will go away, and pretty quickly at that. Paying attention to them, though, will make them breed like roaches. Or trolls.
The part number on the bottom of it is WD7500H1Q-00
The '5' might be an 'S' - the type is so small, I can't tell.
If it helps, it came in a red box and the enclosue was grey, rounded at the front with the LED looking like a tall, narrow '0' on the front. Edges are rounded. Vents ar in the top and back. There is a stylized 'WD' on the side in white.
Good luck!
Apple sells a line of Western Digital external HDDs in their retail stores, and while they are pricier than roll your owns, they are really nice in their lighting scheme. They have a long LED on the front - imagine a 'Cylon style' white LED, but vertical. The light changes intensity, position, etc depending on what the HD is doing. File access - light cycles with access. HD noise itself is pretty minimal, and the fan is virtually silent. Best part, when Time Machine hoses my system and freezes the external HD (which it occasionally does), the light goes full-on and stays on, so I know there is a problem. I think this kind of feedback is great, and it eats up zero system resources.
One interesting bit the Church is all about, and another poster alluded to it, is 'natural law'. The church has spent literally centuries documenting elaborate rationales for their beliefs. The Pope doesn't just bark out something that sounds good to him - he has a team of researchers and theologians write thse HUGE papers on it. The current Pope was, as I understand it, quite the prolific author of these when he was the chief guardian of the faith prior to being Pope (this is the modern equivalent of the Grand Inquisitor, but without the hot pokers and spikes).
My point - there is a convoluted 'logic' to their reasoning, which you can read for yourself, but having read through the relevant sections for this thread, I found them positively Escherian in their convoluted self-referentialality (is that a real word? You get the idea...) and all lead back to 'because we said so', which is the cornerstone of the Catholic churches' authority. They don't worry about their shrinking domain from an ideological standpoint, as you suggest - they have literally an entire theory of 'law' that says they don't have to worry. The pronouncements they put out are for the faithful - normal, rational people won't understand them because they are written in circular logic tarted up in faux-academic jargon - i.e., nonsense.
Same situation in the US - we have been importing priests from third world countries where the Catholic church sent missionaries back in the 1950's and 60's. Every time I go to a function in a church (I grit my teeth and sit through weddings and baptisms in the name of family unity) I am surprised to see deacons doing most of the services except the actual sacrament, and many priests who have hysterically thick foreign accents. When I grew up (1970's and 80's) the 'foreign' priests were uncommon (50%) and usually Polish, German, Italian or Portuguese. Now, it seems like they are Korean, Phillippino or African. Interesting to see - one wonders if the rise in prevalence of third-world priests will result in the church moving further 'to the right' - they seem to be much more doctrinaire and dogmatic than the free-spirited American neo-hippies I recall. Then again, most of the priest I knew growing up who were worth a piss left the priesthood anyway.
I think leaving is easy for people with few family ties - my family, no big deal. My sister married into a nutball Catholic family who are generally wonderful people, but they are seriously unhinged about being Catholic - leaving offerings at the shrine to aborted baby's (seriously - a creepy statue outside the church), baking a 'Happy Birthday Baby Jesus' cake at Christmas and describing 'The Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests' as 'evil people who want to bring down the Church. I made the mistake of asking the Patriarch of the family (after a few too many at a family function - those fools can DRINK in the best Irish-Catholic tradition) what he would do if some priest buggered one of his seven grandsons (all under 12 years old). I got the fish-eye, but one of his sons, not a parent but a godparent to a couple of the nephews, piped up that he'd 'kill the sonofabitch'. His heart was in the right place at least. If one of them tried to leave the church, they'd be ostracized.
While I appreciate the sentiment and gesture, even if you prayed for me and I had some kind of spiritual awakening, it would not be verifiable in that a third party could observe and repeat it. This is where science and religion permanently part ways - there is no way to verify any of the claims made by religion regarding the existence or nature of god and therefore, virtually everything done 'in his name' by religious organizations like the Catholic church. Verification 'by me' is besides the point - that is, by definition, purely subjective, and we are looking for objective proof, which is the context in which 'verification' was used in this thread. This dichotomy was first identified by Thomas Aquinas in his discussions of what is knowable and unknowable - while I think he was absolutely wrong on 'divine revelation', he had the right concept.
Pray if you like, I will be apathetic toward it. What would you suggest as 'confirmatory evidence' (which as indicated, will mean purely nothing, as it is subjective) ? What should I be looking for?
I'm trying to unwrap the layers of sarcasm - are you suggesting artificial insemination is murder? Where in the whole natural law bit did that come from? Or did you misread, hence the flaming yourself? ??
Okay, I'll bite...
"Sin is bad" - How can I verify a 'fact' related to your experience of sin?
"Confirmation helps people sin less" - I was confirmed, under duress, and I ran screaming out of the church as fast as I could. It isn't the confirmation that helps you, it is how you feel about it, and that is beyond 'verifiable' and is therefore in no way a fact.
Sorry - you only get to use 'because I said so' as a reason INSIDE the Catholic church, and only if you are a member of the clergy.
Awesomely Catholic post - brings me back to my Sunday school days, but without Mr. Rheingold telling me I was going to hell for arguing with my sister. You gave us the what (natural law) without the why ('what is natural law, even briefly and how is it relevant').
...They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.
For interested readers, here is the relevant passage from the link provided:
QUOTE
Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."
Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person
END QUOTE
Did you get that? The conjugal act has intrinsic meaning, and if you get knocked up by any other method, the 'meaning' is not there, because the act itself has meaning that cannot be moved elsewhere, nor can any other act have that meaning. The church has bound a specific physical act (copulation between husband and wife) with a specific meaning and decreed that everyone must interpret this conglomeration their way.
So, even if you artificially conceive out of love, in a loving marriage, to raise beautiful children, sorry - 'natural law' says you can't, because the meanings the church has given cannot be changed, nor should they be. Nothing natural about it, actually...
Clearly, the Catholic Church does not have a 'humble' opinion. Must be nice to be right 100% of the time, whilst avoiding the sin of pride too.