The true indecency was the attacks against innocent people by al Qaida - they killed and wounded thousands of people before the US became truly committed to fighting them. There is no shame in calling the war what it is. It isn't a witch hunt. There have been hundreds of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses in the US. There have been thousands and thousands of terrorists killed or captured abroad. The reason the day to day threat to American lives appears to be low is due to the effectiveness of the military, intelligence, and police efforts. Don't kid yourself - al Qaida and its affiliates were responsible for killing tens of thousands of people in Iraq, and many more around the world. They would do it in the US if they could figure out how. And do note that there are al Qaida affiliated groups fighting in Syria. Both the rebels and the Syrian government have used chemical weapons. If al Qaida manages to get their hands on those and smuggles them out of Syria, they might very well try to use them in the US. That could easily kill hundreds, or thousands of people in a single attack.
You are trying to pull a fast one. I'm not the one trying to define a war by the number of coffins, you are. You want to deny the fact that there is more than one level of war. You are pretending that the fact that the US is engaged in fighting a limited war instead of a general war or total war means that there is no war at all. You are suggesting that a conflict that generates a number of coffins below that of one of the largest conflicts fought by the US means that there is no war. You are attempting to obscure that Congress has the power to declare war. The Congress has authorized the US to go to war against al Qaida, and the military is fighting it. The US is at war, period. This is a fact, and it is not altered by your disbelief, whimsy, mockery or ridicule.
You've engaged in a pointless exercise. All you've done is demonstrate something that is already known - the two conflicts involve different levels of effort for the US. From the US perspective the war against al Qaida is on the level of limited war - Low Intensity Conflict - Counterinsurgency - Counterterrorism, but it is still a war. It isn't comical, it still produces dead people. If this is all new to you, it's unfortunate that you are so uninformed, but that doesn't alter the facts.
Comparing random accidents with willful human planned violence is a farce. If you want to do that, they why not stop all law enforcement except drunk driving and cut the speed limit by 30%? It would drive the death rate down, and you seem to think that is the only measure that counts, right? You are quite uninformed if you believe that every war must be a large effort straining the resources of the nation. A low level war like the one against al Qaida is hardly a strain, but it still consumes lives. There are still acts of planned violence abroad, and many arrests and convictions domestically . There is no question of existence, the war against al Qaida exists independent of your whimsy. There is an act of Congress, expended munitions, and filled coffins to prove it. To deny it is an act of fantasy.
I see you are a fan of pulp quality fiction. Well, I can provide you with a general guide to help separate fiction from reality when it comes to war, we'll leave your other fiction for another time. Real war tends to fill these things. There have been thousands of them filled since it started. Many of them are being filled due to bombs, bullets, and rockets used by the enemy to kill American and allied service members. That is a pretty reliable way to separate "fictitious wars" from real wars. Another strong indicator is the use of 500 pound and 2,000 pound bombs being dropped on the enemy to kill them. That also doesn't happen in "fictitious wars." The war against al Qaida is real. Anything you are reading that calls it fiction is fiction or lies itself.
Then you don't understand the situation. The US is at war with the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. It is well settled law that such authorizations are legally equivalent to a declaration of war. You may not like that, but that doesn't change the legal situation.
Maybe you missed some history. Cheap foreign labor was brought in for railroad construction before. It could be done again. Nothing says that they either have to be citizens, or remain in the country, they could be admitted on guest worker visas. That is close enough to not only out-sourcing, but off-shoring, that it hardly matters.
That depends on the purpose of the comparison, doesn't it? Defense spending has been tending to decline since WW2. You can see that here. Noting that fact is neither disingenuous nor silly. But thanks for your unserious and gratuitous comment.
The government doesn't create the GDP, but it does tax economic activity reflected in the GDP and various types of wealth. The government uses taxes to get the money it spends. The tax burden imposed by the government on the economy may be represented as a percentage of the GDP. Maybe you've seen some faulty discussions of the issue in the past, but it is a fairly common way of describing the burden of government and taxes on an economy, and on society. That isn't a claim that the government creates the GDP.
I think your understanding is flawed. They already have competing priorities and don't get enough money to fund them all. In comparing the US and China, remember that the US pays everybody a lot more than China does. An American corporal is paid about as much as what a Chinese is paid. You may also want to keep in mind that defense spending as a portion of GDP has fallen from about 38% of GDP in 1945 to about 4-5% today. Spending for social welfare programs is about 2x what is spent on defense.
I think that is correct. There is also the fact that until very recently many of the major powers, and major regional powers, were still mainly using conscription to fill their armies. It makes a bit of a difference when you are paying your soldiers market rates for their labors instead of what you would pay conscripts. You also have the factor of first world cost structures versus third world costs. Last time I look at some data within the last few years, an American corporal (1 step above the highest private) was paid about what a Chinese junior general was paid. Same thing goes for supplies, expenses, and systems.
Maybe at the level of modules or minor subsystems, but with software systems that large you would still want architecture documents and data definitions as a minimum.
Not so much, no. There is some history you may be missing. Although that focuses on the Soviets, the National Socialist government is woven into the narrative. I think it is well worth the time.
Many of their program demands are familiar socialist themes:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
Breaking the Bondage of Interest
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
The National Socialist Party is about as accurate a name as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Actually the National Socialist Party name is accurate. There is some history you may be missing. Although that focuses on the Soviets, the National Socialist government is woven into the narrative. I think it is well worth the time.
No, but the overarching point is that if you let the opinions and views of the artist cloud your interpretation of the work, you will never enjoy anything because ultimately *everybody* out there has some belief you disagree with..... Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist." Artists are stupid people like everyone else and will always break your heart if you expect them to be as awesome as you want them to be. Leave them out of it and you'll have a much easier time enjoying art for what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I've been reading your posts. Many of them are jokes, just not the funny kind.
The true indecency was the attacks against innocent people by al Qaida - they killed and wounded thousands of people before the US became truly committed to fighting them. There is no shame in calling the war what it is. It isn't a witch hunt. There have been hundreds of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses in the US. There have been thousands and thousands of terrorists killed or captured abroad. The reason the day to day threat to American lives appears to be low is due to the effectiveness of the military, intelligence, and police efforts. Don't kid yourself - al Qaida and its affiliates were responsible for killing tens of thousands of people in Iraq, and many more around the world. They would do it in the US if they could figure out how. And do note that there are al Qaida affiliated groups fighting in Syria. Both the rebels and the Syrian government have used chemical weapons. If al Qaida manages to get their hands on those and smuggles them out of Syria, they might very well try to use them in the US. That could easily kill hundreds, or thousands of people in a single attack.
You are trying to pull a fast one. I'm not the one trying to define a war by the number of coffins, you are. You want to deny the fact that there is more than one level of war. You are pretending that the fact that the US is engaged in fighting a limited war instead of a general war or total war means that there is no war at all. You are suggesting that a conflict that generates a number of coffins below that of one of the largest conflicts fought by the US means that there is no war. You are attempting to obscure that Congress has the power to declare war. The Congress has authorized the US to go to war against al Qaida, and the military is fighting it. The US is at war, period. This is a fact, and it is not altered by your disbelief, whimsy, mockery or ridicule.
You've engaged in a pointless exercise. All you've done is demonstrate something that is already known - the two conflicts involve different levels of effort for the US. From the US perspective the war against al Qaida is on the level of limited war - Low Intensity Conflict - Counterinsurgency - Counterterrorism, but it is still a war. It isn't comical, it still produces dead people. If this is all new to you, it's unfortunate that you are so uninformed, but that doesn't alter the facts.
Comparing random accidents with willful human planned violence is a farce. If you want to do that, they why not stop all law enforcement except drunk driving and cut the speed limit by 30%? It would drive the death rate down, and you seem to think that is the only measure that counts, right? You are quite uninformed if you believe that every war must be a large effort straining the resources of the nation. A low level war like the one against al Qaida is hardly a strain, but it still consumes lives. There are still acts of planned violence abroad, and many arrests and convictions domestically . There is no question of existence, the war against al Qaida exists independent of your whimsy. There is an act of Congress, expended munitions, and filled coffins to prove it. To deny it is an act of fantasy.
I see you are a fan of pulp quality fiction. Well, I can provide you with a general guide to help separate fiction from reality when it comes to war, we'll leave your other fiction for another time. Real war tends to fill these things. There have been thousands of them filled since it started. Many of them are being filled due to bombs, bullets, and rockets used by the enemy to kill American and allied service members. That is a pretty reliable way to separate "fictitious wars" from real wars. Another strong indicator is the use of 500 pound and 2,000 pound bombs being dropped on the enemy to kill them. That also doesn't happen in "fictitious wars." The war against al Qaida is real. Anything you are reading that calls it fiction is fiction or lies itself.
Then you don't understand the situation. The US is at war with the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. It is well settled law that such authorizations are legally equivalent to a declaration of war. You may not like that, but that doesn't change the legal situation.
How many times to we have to revisit this issue?
Maybe you missed some history. Cheap foreign labor was brought in for railroad construction before. It could be done again. Nothing says that they either have to be citizens, or remain in the country, they could be admitted on guest worker visas. That is close enough to not only out-sourcing, but off-shoring, that it hardly matters.
Transcontinental Railroad Recruits Chinese Laborers
Comparing computer based pay methods to manual WWII methods is either disingenuous or just plain silly.
Computers screw things up? That is a rare insight you have there. Another way of describing it is trite.
That depends on the purpose of the comparison, doesn't it? Defense spending has been tending to decline since WW2. You can see that here. Noting that fact is neither disingenuous nor silly. But thanks for your unserious and gratuitous comment.
The government doesn't create the GDP, but it does tax economic activity reflected in the GDP and various types of wealth. The government uses taxes to get the money it spends. The tax burden imposed by the government on the economy may be represented as a percentage of the GDP. Maybe you've seen some faulty discussions of the issue in the past, but it is a fairly common way of describing the burden of government and taxes on an economy, and on society. That isn't a claim that the government creates the GDP.
I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but you may have a couple of items swapped.
In 2012, the US federal government spent $3.56 trillion dollars, with revenues of $2.44 trillion, and a deficit of $1.12 trillion.
Entitlement spending was 61.9%, and defense spending was 18.7% (~ $677 billion).
You can find that data here: Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012
You can see the long term trend of defense versus entitlement spending here.
I think your understanding is flawed. They already have competing priorities and don't get enough money to fund them all. In comparing the US and China, remember that the US pays everybody a lot more than China does. An American corporal is paid about as much as what a Chinese is paid. You may also want to keep in mind that defense spending as a portion of GDP has fallen from about 38% of GDP in 1945 to about 4-5% today. Spending for social welfare programs is about 2x what is spent on defense.
Normal staff turnover and one building move would probably stand a good chance of taking care of it.
I think that is correct. There is also the fact that until very recently many of the major powers, and major regional powers, were still mainly using conscription to fill their armies. It makes a bit of a difference when you are paying your soldiers market rates for their labors instead of what you would pay conscripts. You also have the factor of first world cost structures versus third world costs. Last time I look at some data within the last few years, an American corporal (1 step above the highest private) was paid about what a Chinese junior general was paid. Same thing goes for supplies, expenses, and systems.
Maybe at the level of modules or minor subsystems, but with software systems that large you would still want architecture documents and data definitions as a minimum.
The Party anti-drinking agitprop didn't really seem to make a dent during the Soviet years.
If we transform that to be, "Step 1 - People actually caring about the issue," then I can agree with you.
Tick tock tick tock.
Not so much, no. There is some history you may be missing. Although that focuses on the Soviets, the National Socialist government is woven into the narrative. I think it is well worth the time.
Many of their program demands are familiar socialist themes:
Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
Breaking the Bondage of Interest
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
The National Socialist Party is about as accurate a name as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Actually the National Socialist Party name is accurate. There is some history you may be missing. Although that focuses on the Soviets, the National Socialist government is woven into the narrative. I think it is well worth the time.
They had a program with demands as well: Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party
They were National Socialists as opposed to the communists who were international socialists.
You might find this more than a little enlightening. (Well worth the investment of time.)
You may also want to view their demands: Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party
There's a bit of a gap between necklaces of beads and the Sistine Chapel.
There are many views on what is socially responsible. I'm reasonably certain your view doesn't have a monopoly on that.
No, but the overarching point is that if you let the opinions and views of the artist cloud your interpretation of the work, you will never enjoy anything because ultimately *everybody* out there has some belief you disagree with. .... Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist." Artists are stupid people like everyone else and will always break your heart if you expect them to be as awesome as you want them to be. Leave them out of it and you'll have a much easier time enjoying art for what it is.
Much talent, little wisdom
That is very gracious of you. Thank you. I hope you have a pleasant evening, and a great week. Cheers!