Personally I despise the "Sequel" pronounciation. It goes right with tickle, fffp, erc,roffle, etc If there isn't a fucking vowel, don't try to add one. Hey, take it easy. I learned from someone who called it "sequel", so that's what I say.
From what I know, both are correct. Actually another post in this thread linked to mysql.com, your pronunciation is correct. So I know I'm saying it incorrectly, I just don't really care enough to start correcting myself.
INCLUDING all of the people killed by the US action on your precious iraqbodycount.net, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, WHEN COMPARED WITH the lives lost each year under sanctions
Thing is you're comparing apples to oranges. Iraq body count only counts casualties from sources that
comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
It doesn't count anyone who starved to death, didn't get medicine, those who died and were not reported, etc. The sanctions-related death count is an estimate including everything related to the sanctions. Iraqbodycount.net ignores indirect casualties of the war.
Though I would like to say you had a very good point earlier in the thread about the sanctions themselves - why do people think the war was wrong and the sanctions were o.k.? Them being internationaly approved didn't mean much to the Iraqis they killed.
Does it have a forum, or a feedback system? It could be that they were getting a lot of, ahem, abusive messages from non-US citizens
I would venture to say that it would get plenty trolling from inside the US too. In case you haven't heard, there are a few people here who don't like him very much.
Me I'm taking the long view so I think it would be best if Bush/Cheney win, the Republicans get 60 seats in the Senate, build their lead on the House, and get the Supreme Court stacked early in the next term. It would be especially good if the election looks really tainted, rigged and stolen. ...
Why is this good? Because things might get so bad it might wake up sane Americans that their government is no longer of the people, by the people or for the people, and it doesn't really matter which party has power because they are both screwing the people.
I disagree with this view. You seem to think that if things just get a little worse, if we just invade another country or two, if the economy just goes a little further downhill, if civil liberties are just rolled back a little more, then Joe Sixpack will rise up in a fit of Libertarian outrage. That's just not a likely outcome.
If you spend your time reading Slashdot and similar forums, you might not realize that most Americans actually support the Patriot act*. Repeal of civil liberties is always sold as security; and recent history has shown us that the public is by and large willing to make that trade. Especially when they don't think they are losing liberty - hence Bush being able to claim in the debates that the Patriot act doesn't restrict civil liberties without being laughed off the stage. If a second Bush administration, as you suggest, were to stage another terrorist attack (unlikely, do you think they want to get caught doing that? why stage it when you can just antagonize the world and egg terrorists on), Patriot II would pass easily, with public support.
Increased repression will be just that - it won't cause a "Master Reset and a reboot" unless it is done carelessly and incompetently. And the one area in which the Bush administration has shown extreme competency is the shaping of public opinion.
So, while the feature article does make me even more uneasy about Kerry than I already was, I say getting Bush out is A Good Thing.
*Didn't have time to find more recent polls. This is from 2003.
A simple drug test would make more sense. I mean, if they're that concerned, just do random drug tests every few months. Sheesh.
I consider that invasion of privacy as well. It's one thing if you're going to be employed as, say, a bus driver, and your drug problem could result in lots of dead people. But for most jobs, shouldn't your performance and your relations with co-workers be the only factors taken into consideration by management? Firing someone because they were intoxicated (not nessecarily on the job) is just going way overboard.
When someone starts showing up to work an hour late, shaking and sweating, and ducks into the bathroom to shoot up, it's time to fire them. If someone wants to smoke a joint or blow a line of coke on their own time, it shouldn't be the employers business. Of coarse I also don't think it should be the federal governments business, so I'm sure some will disagree with me:)
Bush's foreign policy accepts two principals as fact:
1. Democracy, like Communism, will spread via domino effect. (Remember, his administration is made up of people who still believe it was right to intervene in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Grenada because we had to stop the forward march of socialism.) 2. The ends justify the means.
The first part, which you addressed, can be interpreted as good intentions. I personaly don't buy their premise, but that's up for debate. However the second part is a sign of moral bankruptcy.
To be fair, it's not just liberals who flame like this, it happens in every politics article. There is always some variation on this:
"This article is clear evidence that Slashdot is biased against [party figure maligned]! My posts are always modded down by people who disagree with me! My submissions are always rejected! The politics section should be deleted!"
There is one thing Kerry can (and almost certainly will) do that is important - he'll get some of the neocons a little further from power. I consider those people to be dangerous.
Though I take anything written by an anonymous author claiming to have inside information with a grain of salt, this article is a pretty interesting take on what may happen in a second Bush administration.
I'm not going to give you any of this left wing baloney about invading Iraq for oil - this has always been a pretty silly argument, and just look at the price of oil now
What you're forgeting is that we were supposed to be greeted by Iraqis waving American flags, throwing rice and rose petals into the streets to greet their liberators. The reason oil is priced so high is the instability in the country due to a raging insurgency, which the Bush administration clearly did not plan for. Of coarse you are right on when you say:
D) his advisors support a strongly neoconservative agenda and told him this was an opportunity to create a "domino effect" and restructure the Middle East in a more democratic fashion
This is a primary motivator, but the oil is not insignificant. They don't want to steal the oil outright, they just want to create a stable market (that US companies would of coarse have access to). They didn't count on regular Iraqis fighting back.
I don't think Kerry has "flip-flopped" in the sense of saying that knowing what we knew then, going to war was a fundamentally bad idea, though perhaps he might not make the same vote knowing what he knows now (I'm not sure if he ever answered that hypothetical question explicitly).
He did. The answer was yes.
Other than those points I pretty well agree with you. Your statement
September 11th provided a convenient way to make this invasion plan actually happen. And the nuclear inspection stuff, well, that was the icing on the cake. But we were effectively mobilizing for war behind the scenes before the whole nuclear inspection access issue was was even there.
1984 is one of your favorite books... and the CCTV cameras made you feel safe?
I guess you're getting something radicaly different out of the book than I am.
Seriously though, CCTV cameras don't make you safe. Just having a low-resolution feed that isn't being monitered live doesn't help one bit until after the fact.
Does make for more entertaining police shows though. (If only they had real crime, anyway - I remember watching a crime show in the UK, the big bust was "pop pirates" who made counterfit Panda Pop. Actually it was pretty hilarious - the cops don't have guns, so the owner of the fake soda factory just ignored them when they raided him - but I digress).
The two presidential candidates have not even said a word about taking out evil corporations. And the third party candidates might say something about it, but have no track record of actually doing so. (emphasis added)
I understand that Kerry is better than Bush on the war. Which is why I am voting for him if my state is close. I would not vote for Peroutka regardless, I disagree with him on too much. I don't think he's completly insane, he's just VERY conservative. I personally put foreign policy pretty high on my list of prioreties, so to me he isn't the absolute worst candidate. While I am an atheist and am uncomfortable with some of his religious platforms, I would honestly prefer him to Bush.
I'm not joining them! I'm just not as freaked by this guy as many others seem to be - I'm much more afraid of Bush and his henchmen.
we also have the right to ask the shop to supply us with a copy of any footage of us. Its all under the data protection act
But what good is that? I was in London recently, and those cameras where everywhere. Freaked me out. It's not really possible to go around getting every_single_tape that catches you, you'd be doing nothing but asking people for tapes all day.
Terror is not an enemy. Terror is the tactic of an enemy. A war on a tactic will, in all likelihood, never end because the object of the war, the tactic, can never be eradicated. This type of war will always be an endless, confusing tragedy.
That is, I fear, what we have in the case of Iraq. We should get the troops out now.
And we have John Kerry just saying he will do the same thing Bush is doing, only "better" and "stronger". You be the judge.
I'm assuming your objection to Peroutka is based on the fact that he's very conservative. Well, I'd rather have a real conservative in office than one of the neo-conservative or neo-liberal douchebags on the major party tickets. I don't agree with Peroutka's positions on seperation of church and state, women in the military, and his very strict anti-abortion platform (I support exemptions when the mother's life is in danger). But at least this guy seems to have a conscience.
Yes, I have heard about this. And let me assure you, Bush does NOT want a draft.
This is, of coarse, a sneaky, underhanded way of getting info for military recruiters. But it's just for the junk mail, the phone calls, etc. I took the SATs at age 13 and started getting all their crap in the mail - same system, only this way they get everyone.
Bush & co want an all volunteer army because that way the country is much less reluctant to go to war. If half the soldiers don't believe in the war, things would be a little tougher for those trying to sell it.
Imagine how different public opinion would be if there was a conscripted army fighting in Iraq right now.
And what the hell does Apple care how people get their music? That's not their responcibility.
actually they seem to think it is. they do use a lot of "anti-piracy" protection that just hurts functionality. I record my own music. If I put it on my ipod, I can't copy it to another machine, or even back to my own (my ipod has as much HD space as both my computers combined... pathetic, I know). Now I have to make 2 copies of the same file - one so I can listen to it, the other so I can use the ipod as an external HD. It's a pain in the ass. Not to mention that they won't let you burn CD's from the ipod, which is just rediculous.
Of coarse I agree that they SHOULDN'T care, but sadly that's not the case.
I think Carlson was just in disbelief that Stewart would go on his show and say something so confrontational. It's just against the unspoken code of TV show hosts to do something like that. Coming from an average guest, it would just be considered tactless. Coming from a fellow host, it was seen as an act of aggression (BTW, Carlson deserved it).
Notice how Carlson kept trying to change the subject, saying "yeah, let's look at those naked cartoons of the supreme court". He was clearly pissed that Stewart would dare bring something like this up live on the air.
I'm sure Carlson is aware that his show is formula based, and probably knows he's not adding anything to the discussion. Whether or not he grasps the terrible consequences of his program is anyone's guess.
If you are interested in this phenomenom, check out "With God On Our Side". It was origionally for PBS and is currently airing on cable. Frightening indeed.
It's actually not the usual smear job against the religious right - they are happy with how it came out. Which scares the shit out of me.
Do you know if that tax were ONLY spent on roads, we'd have gold plated roads with gemstone lane dividers and never see another pothole, ever?
That's actually a good point I hadn't considered. My concern wasn't that the rich "aren't paying their fair share" - it was mainly out of concern that this proposal would amount to a high tax on those who can't afford it.
Of course, we don't need gold plated roads, so the net result is that gasoline taxes go down for EVERYBODY Which is great by me. I stand corrected.
It's the people who put shit on a stick and call it art that will have to find a "real" job. I make art that is shit on a stick, you insensitive clod! Actually I'm a musician that makes 'noise' music... and I expect absolutely no one to pay me for it. I agree with you on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I despise the "Sequel" pronounciation. It goes right with tickle, fffp, erc,roffle, etc
If there isn't a fucking vowel, don't try to add one.
Hey, take it easy. I learned from someone who called it "sequel", so that's what I say.
From what I know, both are correct.
Actually another post in this thread linked to mysql.com, your pronunciation is correct. So I know I'm saying it incorrectly, I just don't really care enough to start correcting myself.
Thing is you're comparing apples to oranges. Iraq body count only counts casualties from sources that
It doesn't count anyone who starved to death, didn't get medicine, those who died and were not reported, etc. The sanctions-related death count is an estimate including everything related to the sanctions. Iraqbodycount.net ignores indirect casualties of the war.Though I would like to say you had a very good point earlier in the thread about the sanctions themselves - why do people think the war was wrong and the sanctions were o.k.? Them being internationaly approved didn't mean much to the Iraqis they killed.
Maybe we're just supposed to send you warez sites for those great German movies. Yeah, that's it, that's what you meant...
Actually there have been some great German movies.
Does it have a forum, or a feedback system? It could be that they were getting a lot of, ahem, abusive messages from non-US citizens
I would venture to say that it would get plenty trolling from inside the US too. In case you haven't heard, there are a few people here who don't like him very much.
This seems to just be a bandwith thing.
Why is this good? Because things might get so bad it might wake up sane Americans that their government is no longer of the people, by the people or for the people, and it doesn't really matter which party has power because they are both screwing the people.
I disagree with this view. You seem to think that if things just get a little worse, if we just invade another country or two, if the economy just goes a little further downhill, if civil liberties are just rolled back a little more, then Joe Sixpack will rise up in a fit of Libertarian outrage. That's just not a likely outcome.
If you spend your time reading Slashdot and similar forums, you might not realize that most Americans actually support the Patriot act*. Repeal of civil liberties is always sold as security; and recent history has shown us that the public is by and large willing to make that trade. Especially when they don't think they are losing liberty - hence Bush being able to claim in the debates that the Patriot act doesn't restrict civil liberties without being laughed off the stage. If a second Bush administration, as you suggest, were to stage another terrorist attack (unlikely, do you think they want to get caught doing that? why stage it when you can just antagonize the world and egg terrorists on), Patriot II would pass easily, with public support.
Increased repression will be just that - it won't cause a "Master Reset and a reboot" unless it is done carelessly and incompetently. And the one area in which the Bush administration has shown extreme competency is the shaping of public opinion.
So, while the feature article does make me even more uneasy about Kerry than I already was, I say getting Bush out is A Good Thing.
*Didn't have time to find more recent polls. This is from 2003.
Or you could just use Sealand
A simple drug test would make more sense. I mean, if they're that concerned, just do random drug tests every few months. Sheesh.
:)
I consider that invasion of privacy as well. It's one thing if you're going to be employed as, say, a bus driver, and your drug problem could result in lots of dead people. But for most jobs, shouldn't your performance and your relations with co-workers be the only factors taken into consideration by management? Firing someone because they were intoxicated (not nessecarily on the job) is just going way overboard.
When someone starts showing up to work an hour late, shaking and sweating, and ducks into the bathroom to shoot up, it's time to fire them. If someone wants to smoke a joint or blow a line of coke on their own time, it shouldn't be the employers business. Of coarse I also don't think it should be the federal governments business, so I'm sure some will disagree with me
Besides, drug testing is a poor business practice.
Bush's foreign policy accepts two principals as fact:
1. Democracy, like Communism, will spread via domino effect. (Remember, his administration is made up of people who still believe it was right to intervene in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Grenada because we had to stop the forward march of socialism.)
2. The ends justify the means.
The first part, which you addressed, can be interpreted as good intentions. I personaly don't buy their premise, but that's up for debate.
However the second part is a sign of moral bankruptcy.
To be fair, it's not just liberals who flame like this, it happens in every politics article. There is always some variation on this:
"This article is clear evidence that Slashdot is biased against [party figure maligned]! My posts are always modded down by people who disagree with me! My submissions are always rejected! The politics section should be deleted!"
There is one thing Kerry can (and almost certainly will) do that is important - he'll get some of the neocons a little further from power. I consider those people to be dangerous.
Though I take anything written by an anonymous author claiming to have inside information with a grain of salt, this article is a pretty interesting take on what may happen in a second Bush administration.
What you're forgeting is that we were supposed to be greeted by Iraqis waving American flags, throwing rice and rose petals into the streets to greet their liberators. The reason oil is priced so high is the instability in the country due to a raging insurgency, which the Bush administration clearly did not plan for.
Of coarse you are right on when you say:
This is a primary motivator, but the oil is not insignificant. They don't want to steal the oil outright, they just want to create a stable market (that US companies would of coarse have access to). They didn't count on regular Iraqis fighting back.
He did. The answer was yes.
Other than those points I pretty well agree with you. Your statement
is 100% on.
1984 is one of your favorite books... and the CCTV cameras made you feel safe?
I guess you're getting something radicaly different out of the book than I am.
Seriously though, CCTV cameras don't make you safe. Just having a low-resolution feed that isn't being monitered live doesn't help one bit until after the fact.
Does make for more entertaining police shows though. (If only they had real crime, anyway - I remember watching a crime show in the UK, the big bust was "pop pirates" who made counterfit Panda Pop. Actually it was pretty hilarious - the cops don't have guns, so the owner of the fake soda factory just ignored them when they raided him - but I digress).
The two presidential candidates have not even said a word about taking out evil corporations. And the third party candidates might say something about it, but have no track record of actually doing so. (emphasis added)
Ralph Nader does.
Though he's not "third party" anymore, he ditched the Green party (or the Green Party ditched him, depending on who you ask).
I understand that Kerry is better than Bush on the war. Which is why I am voting for him if my state is close.
I would not vote for Peroutka regardless, I disagree with him on too much. I don't think he's completly insane, he's just VERY conservative. I personally put foreign policy pretty high on my list of prioreties, so to me he isn't the absolute worst candidate. While I am an atheist and am uncomfortable with some of his religious platforms, I would honestly prefer him to Bush.
I'm not joining them! I'm just not as freaked by this guy as many others seem to be - I'm much more afraid of Bush and his henchmen.
we also have the right to ask the shop to supply us with a copy of any footage of us. Its all under the data protection act
But what good is that? I was in London recently, and those cameras where everywhere. Freaked me out. It's not really possible to go around getting every_single_tape that catches you, you'd be doing nothing but asking people for tapes all day.
I'd venture to say he is. From his site:
And we have John Kerry just saying he will do the same thing Bush is doing, only "better" and "stronger". You be the judge.
I'm assuming your objection to Peroutka is based on the fact that he's very conservative. Well, I'd rather have a real conservative in office than one of the neo-conservative or neo-liberal douchebags on the major party tickets. I don't agree with Peroutka's positions on seperation of church and state, women in the military, and his very strict anti-abortion platform (I support exemptions when the mother's life is in danger). But at least this guy seems to have a conscience.
Yes, I have heard about this. And let me assure you, Bush does NOT want a draft.
This is, of coarse, a sneaky, underhanded way of getting info for military recruiters. But it's just for the junk mail, the phone calls, etc. I took the SATs at age 13 and started getting all their crap in the mail - same system, only this way they get everyone.
Bush & co want an all volunteer army because that way the country is much less reluctant to go to war. If half the soldiers don't believe in the war, things would be a little tougher for those trying to sell it.
Imagine how different public opinion would be if there was a conscripted army fighting in Iraq right now.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the parent used the word "supposed".
And what the hell does Apple care how people get their music? That's not their responcibility.
actually they seem to think it is. they do use a lot of "anti-piracy" protection that just hurts functionality. I record my own music. If I put it on my ipod, I can't copy it to another machine, or even back to my own (my ipod has as much HD space as both my computers combined... pathetic, I know). Now I have to make 2 copies of the same file - one so I can listen to it, the other so I can use the ipod as an external HD. It's a pain in the ass. Not to mention that they won't let you burn CD's from the ipod, which is just rediculous.
Of coarse I agree that they SHOULDN'T care, but sadly that's not the case.
I think Carlson was just in disbelief that Stewart would go on his show and say something so confrontational. It's just against the unspoken code of TV show hosts to do something like that. Coming from an average guest, it would just be considered tactless. Coming from a fellow host, it was seen as an act of aggression (BTW, Carlson deserved it).
Notice how Carlson kept trying to change the subject, saying "yeah, let's look at those naked cartoons of the supreme court". He was clearly pissed that Stewart would dare bring something like this up live on the air.
I'm sure Carlson is aware that his show is formula based, and probably knows he's not adding anything to the discussion. Whether or not he grasps the terrible consequences of his program is anyone's guess.
If you are interested in this phenomenom, check out "With God On Our Side". It was origionally for PBS and is currently airing on cable. Frightening indeed.
It's actually not the usual smear job against the religious right - they are happy with how it came out. Which scares the shit out of me.
Do you know if that tax were ONLY spent on roads, we'd have gold plated roads with gemstone lane dividers and never see another pothole, ever?
That's actually a good point I hadn't considered. My concern wasn't that the rich "aren't paying their fair share" - it was mainly out of concern that this proposal would amount to a high tax on those who can't afford it.
Of course, we don't need gold plated roads, so the net result is that gasoline taxes go down for EVERYBODY
Which is great by me. I stand corrected.
It's the people who put shit on a stick and call it art that will have to find a "real" job.
I make art that is shit on a stick, you insensitive clod! Actually I'm a musician that makes 'noise' music... and I expect absolutely no one to pay me for it. I agree with you on this one.
good point
I'm sick of America being the biggest wilful contributor to the pollution of the planet.
Dude, ever hear of a country called China?
I know :-). I was trying to make a joke.