. Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack?
The United States of America.
Nothing they do actually protects us from attack because that is actually a ridiculously impossible goal. Its not even partially achievable in any meaningful way.
Are you sure that it isn't your evaluation that is ridiculous? There are people sitting in US prisons after arrest and conviction for terrorism related offenses, included attempted and actual attacks. If you were correct there shouldn't be anyone. There seems to be a defect in your reasoning.
Our only protection from attack is the lack of profit in actually attacking us that leaves all but an insignificant few even interested in trying, once in a great while.
That makes no sense in light of the states goals of al Qaida. They want to conquer the entire earth for Islam, install Islamic governments in each country, and convert the people to Muslims, even if it takes 1,000 years. Given their goals they must ultimately deal with every nation. Your view makes no sense in light of that.
No, the security apparatus and military is, AT BEST, security theater to make people feel safe, because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are the ones people imagine could happen.
Thousands of terrorist attacks happen around the globe each year, killing tens of thousands of people and wounding many more. I think the actual theater here is the fiction you're posting.
All taxpayers contribute 1.5 per cent of income to Medicare. Higher earners contribute 2.5 per cent. This falls very far short of the budget required. Most funding comes from central government.
Having said that, I think that the Australian healthcare system is interesting and probably a better model than some other national healthcare systems.
Why would slashdotters support GM crops? The goal of such research is to make plants into intellectual property - not usually the favourite kind of property around here.
Goals for GM food vary, and include increased yields, resistance to disease, and other properties. One important one is to better the lives of the people eating them by combating disease. Consider "golden rice." I would think (hope?) most people on Slashdot aren't big fans of disease and starvation of other people.
The combined damage in North America alone from eco-terrorism was estimated by the FBI to exceed $100 million.
These terrorists did not limit their actions to the destruction of property. They planted pipe bombs, mailed packages booby-trapped with razor blades, and physically assaulted scientists at public events. By 2001 the FBI had characterized them as the nation’s most active domestic terrorist group. One ELF member remains at large and on the FBI’s Most Wanted list today. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, these radical domestic acts of violence against agriculture slowed as public tolerance for these crimes wore thin, but the attacks continued overseas with the support of groups like Greenpeace.
That is changing the subject. If you can, please list some countries that don't care if you come in to the country and attack its citizens - that will do nothing to stop you? Would even the Greens do that? The communists won't.
... and there hadn't been any "play-testing" of democracy, and then you include those imperfect rules into a constitution that is very hard to amend.
Actually the US Constitution is Democracy 2.0, or 3.0, depending on your point of view. The Colonies were originally governed by Great Briton, which is governed by Parliament. After the Revolution, the US was governed under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were found to be unworkable so they were replaced by the present Constitution. The Constitution has been amended quite a few times on important matters. The system has its oddities, but it has worked reasonably well for more than 200 years.
Maybe you could help me, then. Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack? Communist governments protect their citizens, so I know the idea isn't unknown on the Left.
It just seems that no-one in the government is at odds with the NSA spying program. The idea was always to have checks and balances in the system so that if things spiraled out of control, there would always be counter-forces that would set it right.
However, the white house, senate, supreme courts etc doesn't seem to care. They're all acting like it is no big deal and we should forget about it (or maybe that is how the media is portraying it).
I think that you are overlooking the possibility that the checks and balances functioned as designed, and that the three branches of government signed off on the major aspects of the NSA's programs. That's not to say that there weren't compliance problems, or that the NSA's programs may have gone too far at various times and in various aspects. But the overall information seems to indicate that the NSA's programs were more or less supported by all three branches of government.
The very idea that such a thing is possible will of course result in uproar, cries of "traitors!", posts of the 4th Amendment, and quotes from Benjamin Franklin, and even cries to disband all the intelligence agencies. People will overlook that George Washington ran a spy ring that spied on other colonists and apparently existed well into the days of the Republic, and that Benjamin Franklin headed a committee that opened the mail of other colonists for intelligence purposes. There will be no recognition of Article II of the Constitution, the fact that applying the Constitution to real world situations for more than 200 years might have resulted in meaningful legal precedent and doctrines, that there are different implications in the Constitutional protections of criminal law versus the role of the state in time of war, and the much more modest impositions on the citizens today versus during WW2. There are a variety of other considerations including the shrinking size of the world with modern transportation and the transformational nature of modern communications. The US will be proclaimed to be a tyranny or a fascist state despite the fact that little fundamentally has changed. Elections continue, government changes by election, the Republic endures.
There has been push back against the NSA's programs in Congress, and that push back will continue. It is pretty likely that the NSA's programs will continue, although perhaps with some additional safeguards and oversight. That would be a good thing.
Intelligence agencies, like standing armies, are a regrettable necessity of the modern era. Neither the US nor Europe would be free today without them. But they always pose a potential danger to democracy if abused, and should be watched closely by the legislature.
There's no difference between the two parties that run America. The last election was between the rich white right-wing religious crazy guy and the rich black right-wing religious crazy guy, each of them representing their rich right-wing religious crazy organizations.
You've picked an ironic day to spout that sort of nonsense. Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party. There are plenty of difference between the two parties in terms of goals and policies. One thing they largely agree on is that allowing Americans to be killed in large numbers by terrorists is a bad thing. As a result President Obama has largely continued President Bush's counter-terrorism policies, but gone in very different directions with domestic policy. (Although it must be recognized that the differences in outlook have resulted in far fewer attempts to capture and interrogate terrorists due to the legal messiness that the Obama administration has helped create. As a result, they simply kill terrorists and lose the intelligence data.)
Not quite. You are apparently thinking of Article I Section 8:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
That simply means that military spending can only be budgeted for two years or less. That says nothing about how the current spending within government is prioritized.
It's taking a bigger bite than just the customer service type jobs. Of course in any budget dispute the more visible jobs and services are cut first. But even the Defense Department and intelligence agencies are taking a hit.
My comment was straight forward with no real ambiguity. You tried to turn it into a generalization to distort it, and now you are quibbling about it. If you don't want to take responsibility for that, then I guess that's fine.
Not so - Washington power brokers were calling for Snowden to swing from the gallows, and that's after he got NDAA'ed and waterboarded at Gitmo.
Which is all nonsense. Pundits and legislators have no power over the prosecutorial or judicial process. The only people sent the Gitmo, less than 800 ever, were people known or thought to be connected to al Qaida or other related terrorists groups. The US only waterboarded three people in total, the last of which was ten years ago.
You don't have any information linking Snowden to al Qaida, do you?
I have no interest in debating the position of every past, present, or future recipient of the award. The position of Snowden in regard to the criminal justice system of the US is pretty clear. I'm amused that you would even think of accusing me of being "snippy."
Al-Awlaki was quite open in his declarations. If you bothered to read the previously linked story it shows he was directly connected to multiple plots.
He placed himself in the same status as the American citizens represent here that were also shot dead en mass by the US federal government without arrest, charge, trial, conviction, or sentence. It wasn't needed in their case, it wasn't needed in his. He decided to make war on the US, the US made it back.
Slashdot Mirror
You do not want a free country, as you have made clear.
See: Ad hominem
Then I suggest you widen your reading material.
. Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack?
The United States of America.
Nothing they do actually protects us from attack because that is actually a ridiculously impossible goal. Its not even partially achievable in any meaningful way.
Are you sure that it isn't your evaluation that is ridiculous? There are people sitting in US prisons after arrest and conviction for terrorism related offenses, included attempted and actual attacks. If you were correct there shouldn't be anyone. There seems to be a defect in your reasoning.
Our only protection from attack is the lack of profit in actually attacking us that leaves all but an insignificant few even interested in trying, once in a great while.
That makes no sense in light of the states goals of al Qaida. They want to conquer the entire earth for Islam, install Islamic governments in each country, and convert the people to Muslims, even if it takes 1,000 years. Given their goals they must ultimately deal with every nation. Your view makes no sense in light of that.
No, the security apparatus and military is, AT BEST, security theater to make people feel safe, because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are the ones people imagine could happen.
Thousands of terrorist attacks happen around the globe each year, killing tens of thousands of people and wounding many more. I think the actual theater here is the fiction you're posting.
This would seem to dovetail with the development of precision agriculture.
You do realise that in Australia a 1.5% levy on income tax covers the cost of a "free" health system for all Australians (taxpayer or otherwise),
That 1.5% income tax levy doesn't cover the whole cost of the healthcare system, not even close.
Expat guide to Australia: health care
All taxpayers contribute 1.5 per cent of income to Medicare. Higher earners contribute 2.5 per cent. This falls very far short of the budget required. Most funding comes from central government.
Healthcare costs rise to $130bn, or $5800 per Australian: report
Having said that, I think that the Australian healthcare system is interesting and probably a better model than some other national healthcare systems.
Why would slashdotters support GM crops? The goal of such research is to make plants into intellectual property - not usually the favourite kind of property around here.
Goals for GM food vary, and include increased yields, resistance to disease, and other properties. One important one is to better the lives of the people eating them by combating disease. Consider "golden rice." I would think (hope?) most people on Slashdot aren't big fans of disease and starvation of other people.
... the later books just seems bizarre - greens are terrorists?
Some of them, yes.
Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers.
The combined damage in North America alone from eco-terrorism was estimated by the FBI to exceed $100 million.
These terrorists did not limit their actions to the destruction of property. They planted pipe bombs, mailed packages booby-trapped with razor blades, and physically assaulted scientists at public events. By 2001 the FBI had characterized them as the nation’s most active domestic terrorist group. One ELF member remains at large and on the FBI’s Most Wanted list today. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, these radical domestic acts of violence against agriculture slowed as public tolerance for these crimes wore thin, but the attacks continued overseas with the support of groups like Greenpeace.
That is changing the subject. If you can, please list some countries that don't care if you come in to the country and attack its citizens - that will do nothing to stop you? Would even the Greens do that? The communists won't.
... and there hadn't been any "play-testing" of democracy, and then you include those imperfect rules into a constitution that is very hard to amend.
Actually the US Constitution is Democracy 2.0, or 3.0, depending on your point of view. The Colonies were originally governed by Great Briton, which is governed by Parliament. After the Revolution, the US was governed under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were found to be unworkable so they were replaced by the present Constitution. The Constitution has been amended quite a few times on important matters. The system has its oddities, but it has worked reasonably well for more than 200 years.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to specify which program(s) you think to be illegal?
Maybe you could help me, then. Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack? Communist governments protect their citizens, so I know the idea isn't unknown on the Left.
It just seems that no-one in the government is at odds with the NSA spying program. The idea was always to have checks and balances in the system so that if things spiraled out of control, there would always be counter-forces that would set it right.
However, the white house, senate, supreme courts etc doesn't seem to care. They're all acting like it is no big deal and we should forget about it (or maybe that is how the media is portraying it).
I think that you are overlooking the possibility that the checks and balances functioned as designed, and that the three branches of government signed off on the major aspects of the NSA's programs. That's not to say that there weren't compliance problems, or that the NSA's programs may have gone too far at various times and in various aspects. But the overall information seems to indicate that the NSA's programs were more or less supported by all three branches of government.
The very idea that such a thing is possible will of course result in uproar, cries of "traitors!", posts of the 4th Amendment, and quotes from Benjamin Franklin, and even cries to disband all the intelligence agencies. People will overlook that George Washington ran a spy ring that spied on other colonists and apparently existed well into the days of the Republic, and that Benjamin Franklin headed a committee that opened the mail of other colonists for intelligence purposes. There will be no recognition of Article II of the Constitution, the fact that applying the Constitution to real world situations for more than 200 years might have resulted in meaningful legal precedent and doctrines, that there are different implications in the Constitutional protections of criminal law versus the role of the state in time of war, and the much more modest impositions on the citizens today versus during WW2. There are a variety of other considerations including the shrinking size of the world with modern transportation and the transformational nature of modern communications. The US will be proclaimed to be a tyranny or a fascist state despite the fact that little fundamentally has changed. Elections continue, government changes by election, the Republic endures.
There has been push back against the NSA's programs in Congress, and that push back will continue. It is pretty likely that the NSA's programs will continue, although perhaps with some additional safeguards and oversight. That would be a good thing.
Intelligence agencies, like standing armies, are a regrettable necessity of the modern era. Neither the US nor Europe would be free today without them. But they always pose a potential danger to democracy if abused, and should be watched closely by the legislature.
There's no difference between the two parties that run America. The last election was between the rich white right-wing religious crazy guy and the rich black right-wing religious crazy guy, each of them representing their rich right-wing religious crazy organizations.
You've picked an ironic day to spout that sort of nonsense. Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party. There are plenty of difference between the two parties in terms of goals and policies. One thing they largely agree on is that allowing Americans to be killed in large numbers by terrorists is a bad thing. As a result President Obama has largely continued President Bush's counter-terrorism policies, but gone in very different directions with domestic policy. (Although it must be recognized that the differences in outlook have resulted in far fewer attempts to capture and interrogate terrorists due to the legal messiness that the Obama administration has helped create. As a result, they simply kill terrorists and lose the intelligence data.)
Not quite. You are apparently thinking of Article I Section 8:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
That simply means that military spending can only be budgeted for two years or less. That says nothing about how the current spending within government is prioritized.
It's taking a bigger bite than just the customer service type jobs. Of course in any budget dispute the more visible jobs and services are cut first. But even the Defense Department and intelligence agencies are taking a hit.
NSA, intelligence workers 'stretched to limit' by shutdown, official says
400,000 DOD Civilians to Get Shutdown Furloughs
US shutdown: Bad for Pentagon workers, not so much for defense firms
The Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies would be considered essential. They continue with their missions.
The Volokh Conspiracy had some interesting comments in August: Geoffrey Stone Added to NSA Surveillance Review Committee
My comment was straight forward with no real ambiguity. You tried to turn it into a generalization to distort it, and now you are quibbling about it. If you don't want to take responsibility for that, then I guess that's fine.
The other possibility is that I'm simply better informed in many respects than most people on some topics.
If you have data to show that this is wrong, please provide it. If you don't, then I'm not going to worry about your uninformed opinion.
I replied to correct your error. I was quite specific in my response and you inappropriately tried to turn that into a generalization.
Here is the report, A., do you have any more on it?
Not so - Washington power brokers were calling for Snowden to swing from the gallows, and that's after he got NDAA'ed and waterboarded at Gitmo.
Which is all nonsense. Pundits and legislators have no power over the prosecutorial or judicial process. The only people sent the Gitmo, less than 800 ever, were people known or thought to be connected to al Qaida or other related terrorists groups. The US only waterboarded three people in total, the last of which was ten years ago.
You don't have any information linking Snowden to al Qaida, do you?
I have no interest in debating the position of every past, present, or future recipient of the award. The position of Snowden in regard to the criminal justice system of the US is pretty clear. I'm amused that you would even think of accusing me of being "snippy."
An award will make no difference whatsoever in prosecuting Snowden
So your position is that the award is of no value to any of the recipients. Thanks for sharing.
As you can see, I stated SNOWDEN. Thanks for sharing.
Al-Awlaki was quite open in his declarations. If you bothered to read the previously linked story it shows he was directly connected to multiple plots.
He placed himself in the same status as the American citizens represent here that were also shot dead en mass by the US federal government without arrest, charge, trial, conviction, or sentence. It wasn't needed in their case, it wasn't needed in his. He decided to make war on the US, the US made it back.
As in, it was on the table and everyone assumed that would happen.
On what basis?