Since advertising necessarily involves speech, how do you remove sexist advertising without restricting speech? Even if you restrict the images that aren't speech, there will still be written words and voice-overs.
Porn isn't "freedom of speech". "Speech" implies that words are communicated. Speech is important for political communication, for discussing ideas, for rational thinking, for debating. Porn isn't.
We've got it completely backwards when we make porn protected "speech" while making laws to limit how much money you can spend on real speech during a political campaign.
I was amazed and disappointed when Slashdot first reported the proposed law that there was so much concern about the elmination of porn and so little concern about the attempt to control what people think about gender differences. The purpose of "free speech" is to allow free thought, not for getting your jollies. Whether or not getting your jollies is a necessary component of free speech, we should always remember that freedom of thought is what really matters.
Or you may simply recognize that men and women are biologically different both in the brain and in the rest of the body, and consider attempts to force people to believe otherwise can only succeed through an increasingly totalitarian supression of what our sense and our rational thinking tell us.
Cutting taxes is in character for the Republicans - they have often cut taxes when they've had the opportunity. A better example you could have used is spending cuts. Yes I do think much of the GOP is bluffing when they claim they want to cut spending. I think a few Republicans would honestly cut spending if given the chance, but many of them will not. They certainly didn't do it when they controlled both houses of Congress and had a mildly conservative Republican president.
Cutting SS (or any other vote-buying scheme) across the board (instead of just targetting the hated rich) is not in character for Obama so I believe if said he would do it he was likely just trying to take an issue from the Republicans without actually having any intention of following through (knowing the Democrats won't let him anyway). This would be not unlikes Bill Clinton's famously disingenuous "The era of big government is over".
Congress would not have agreed with Obama had he tried to propose a We love Puppies day. The Republicans, with their principled obstructionism and criticism of every Obama action, reaped what they sowed.
Perhaps you're right. But sometimes a sub-optimal policy is the price we pay for representative democracy and rule of law. Obama set a precedent of overturning our constitutional order so that a president can unilaterally enter America in a war when there is no reason for not seeking Congressional approval other than "they might say no". Congress isn't supposed to be a rubber-stamp (at least not in free countries). So Obama set a horrible precedent of lawlessly attacking a foreign country. In this case the attack may have been good policy, but was it worth selling our soul for?
I think Mr. Paul would be satisfied if the president or the attorney general simply stated that the only time a drone could be used within America on an American citizen is in a situation where the danger presented by the suspect was so imminent that arresting the suspect is clearly not possible without undo risk to other's lives - i.e. those situations where a police officer would be allowed to shoot a suspect. And that furthermore any such situations would be immediately made public so that they could be judged as to their correctness. And that furthermore such situations can be remedied by impeachment.
I agree that there are situations where a drone strike on an American with America may be necessary, but the Obama seems to want to retain a much freer hand than he should be given in the matter.
He wants to cut social security, even said his policy was similar to Romney's in a debate.
Saying he wants to do it and actually doing it are not the same thing. And did he say he wants to cut everyone's social security or just "the rich" (is it class-warfare)?
I've noticed the Republican party seems to do a far better job of getting their senators and representatives to tow the party line, whereas members of the Democratic part seem far more willing to rock the boat and try to block objectionable legislation.
Anyone remember when every single Democratic senator voted to acquit President Clinton of obstruction of justice when he lied under oath? Can you find a better example of toeing the party line?
I suspect you may simply be confused by the terminology the press, NPR and the three big networks like to use. Although they call it "lockstepping" when Republicans act together and they call it "being united" when Democrats act together, it is in reality the same thing.
While the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were perhaps bigger policiy mistakes, they were at least arguably Constitutional actions by a President who had Congressional approval.
The war in Libya was not approved by Congress, was not a clear and present danger, was not something that came up suddenly with no time to take the matter to Congress, nor was it even a matter where secrecy was required. It was a situation with absolutely no excuse for leaving Congress out of the decision making. It was illegal and therefore it was wrong. And it shows that our current president has no respect for the American Constitution.
Libya was for once a required war that prevented much greater suffering. If you want to know what would have happened without that intervention
I don't have a big problem with the decision to intervene in Libya, but unfortunately no effort was made to secure Congressional approval and without that the war was completely unconstitutional and therefor completely illegal. That's the kind of thing impeachment was undisputably intended for.
Whether or not the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and the Gulf Wars were illegal is at least debatable - while there was no Declaration of War there was at least Congressional approval which could be interpreted as a declaration. The actions in Grenada and Panama are on even less firm ground but at least you can argue the practical aspect that they were surprise attacks and Congress can't keep a secret. The bombing of Serbia could be argued as a case where there was simply no time to get Congressional action (apparantly it was the case that while intervention had been discussed and a coming genocide was feared, when the genocide appeared to actually be imminent there was very little time to react).
But Obama had none of these excuses. He had plenty of time to deliberate. He thought about it, didn't consult Congress, and unilaterally sent Americans to war. It was completely illegal. Right or wrong, it was illegal.
which was supported by the UN,
You're not helping your case here.
could be argued to be
"Protected class". I'm not real fond of that term. Should be "protected class" or "protected caste"?
The response most likely is that the law doesn't probihit discrimtion against certain people more than others, but rather that it protects against certain kinds of discrimination. However we know that isn't true when we see special contracts awarded by the government and preference given by government funded universities to some races but not to others.
My opinion is that the government should discriminate based on race and the government should certainly not require discrimination based on race like it does now. On the other hand private groups, whether they be corporations, clubs or whatever, ought to be free to discriminate based on whatever they want to discriminate based on so long as that discrimination doesn't take a form that violates other laws (e.g. you can refuse to hire people of a certain race but you can't hunt them down and beat them up).
My opinion is largely the same for homosexuals behavior but not entirely since it is actually a behavior. I was glad to see anti-sodomy laws go but I was disgusted that it happened by Supreme Court dictators rather than by Constitutional rule of law through state legislatures (which would have taken longer but would have been more widely accepted as legitimate because it would in fact have been legitimate).
But if you're an actor, author, musician, developer, athlete or any profession that tries to use their own popularity to further a belief or statement that I find reprehensible, I will actively and vocally make it known that I will no longer patronize you with funds or admiration.
This reminds me of quite a few arguments I have had with laws regulating businesses.
Card did something unrelated to his work, and you effectively fired him as an author (others may employ him, but you won't be buying from him). I completely agree with your right to do so. What about my right to make similar business decisions? Suppose I own an apartment building and decide not to rent to people for reasons that have little or no impact on their ability to regularly pay the rent without annoying the neighbors or breaking things? Suppose I refuse to rent to gay couples or unmarried couples? Isn't that my right?
But you say, what if all apartment buildings did that? Yet the argument for not buying Card's work seems to be not that you don't like his work, but rather that you're trying to punish or restrict his ability to act - not that you think your own piddly amount will make a difference but that if enough people do the same it will get noticed! What gives you the right to do that? I believe the fact that it is your money gives you the right, just like the fact that I own the apartment gives me the right.
It's even worse in this case because Card can no longer write Superman comics! What right did Chris Spouse have to refuse to do business with Card because of something unrelated to the work? This has a material impact on Card's career and presumably his happiness.
So yes, feel free to boycott Card. Feel free to refuse to work with someone whose politcal views you don't like. Feel free to walk off the job if your boss is in a religion you disapprove of. But remember that the boss has rights to. And so does the apartment owner. So does the guy running the restaurant. So do all of us.
The government realized that marriage had social benefits beyond the religious ones in that it provided a good unit for raising a family and provided a way to make men more civilized toward each other and toward women by channelling their competitive sex drive.
There may be similar reasons for supporting gay unions but it needs to be debated. The worst thing that could happen is another Supreme Court power grab that makes government support of gay unions a "right".
It all depends on your definition of "civil rights". If by civil rights you mean the right to be treated equally by your government regardless of your race, then in recent years it is the right that has been in favor of civil rights while the left has been opposed.
If by civil rights you mean the right to practice your religion, the the right has been pro civil rights while the left has been against.
If by civil rights you mean the right to practice sex in any way you choose, then the left has been pro civil rights while the left has been against.
If by civil rights you mean the right to choose not to associate with people who practice sex in ways you disapprove, then the right has been pro-civil rights while the left has been against.
So you dislike Card's beliefs that have nothing to do with his talent as an author so you make a business decision not to support his beliefs by buying things from him. I support your right to make that decision and follow through. A transaction takes two people and both should be willing. I hope the next time I'm choosing who I want to sublet an apartment to and I make a business decision not to support sexual practices I disapprove of that you don't sue me or otherwise sic the guys with guns on me.
I think that stupid people who are not in prison are generally conservative because conservative values work in real life. Even a stupid person can survive and have a reasonably decent life living conservative values.
But a stupid liberal will get himself into all kinds of trouble and either end up in prison or dead.
A major benefit of intelligence in today's society is that it allows you to earn money.
The rich man who ignores his marriage vows can still get laid. The poor man loses his wife and has no future. The poor woman who gets pregnant before marriage spends her life in poverty scraping by. The rich woman hires a nanny and goes back to work. The poor man who refuses to insist on justice gets walked over and has what little he has taken away. The rich man loses twice as much money and goes back to his nice house all smug at how kind-hearted he is. The poor man buys a gun. The rich man lives in a gated community and talks about the need for gun-control.
So yes, poor people tend to be conservative by necessity. They only become liberal if the government starts handing them money to shield them from the facts of life. People on the government dole and rich people tend to be liberal because they can afford to make poor choices.
Still, I'm not sure how being an honorable person is a bad thing.
You missed the part about it being coincidental with being Southern. On slashdot being Southern is bad, so any trait associated with Southernness is bad too.
The GOP leaders lie to us by claiming they'll be responsible by cutting taxes and spending. Sometimes they don't mention cutting spending.
The Democrats promise to raise taxes and give us free stuff or to force businesses to give us free stuff. Sometimes they don't mention raising taxes. Unfortunately the Democrats usually keep their promises, sometimes with Republican help.
So who do I vote for? The party that lies when promising to save the country or the party that honesty promises to destroy the country?
Suppose the US government decides to use nuclear weapons against Americans - who are they going to get to operate the weapons? How many American soldiers would obey such an order?
The interesting question then is which came first? In developed societies are people more likely to punish cheats at their own expense because they are rich and can afford to do so, or did the societies become rich due to the cultures' devotion to fairness and doing one's civic duty?
Slashdot Mirror
Since advertising necessarily involves speech, how do you remove sexist advertising without restricting speech? Even if you restrict the images that aren't speech, there will still be written words and voice-overs.
I agree.
Porn isn't "freedom of speech". "Speech" implies that words are communicated. Speech is important for political communication, for discussing ideas, for rational thinking, for debating. Porn isn't.
We've got it completely backwards when we make porn protected "speech" while making laws to limit how much money you can spend on real speech during a political campaign.
I was amazed and disappointed when Slashdot first reported the proposed law that there was so much concern about the elmination of porn and so little concern about the attempt to control what people think about gender differences. The purpose of "free speech" is to allow free thought, not for getting your jollies. Whether or not getting your jollies is a necessary component of free speech, we should always remember that freedom of thought is what really matters.
Or you may simply recognize that men and women are biologically different both in the brain and in the rest of the body, and consider attempts to force people to believe otherwise can only succeed through an increasingly totalitarian supression of what our sense and our rational thinking tell us.
Cutting taxes is in character for the Republicans - they have often cut taxes when they've had the opportunity. A better example you could have used is spending cuts. Yes I do think much of the GOP is bluffing when they claim they want to cut spending. I think a few Republicans would honestly cut spending if given the chance, but many of them will not. They certainly didn't do it when they controlled both houses of Congress and had a mildly conservative Republican president.
Cutting SS (or any other vote-buying scheme) across the board (instead of just targetting the hated rich) is not in character for Obama so I believe if said he would do it he was likely just trying to take an issue from the Republicans without actually having any intention of following through (knowing the Democrats won't let him anyway). This would be not unlikes Bill Clinton's famously disingenuous "The era of big government is over".
Congress would not have agreed with Obama had he tried to propose a We love Puppies day. The Republicans, with their principled obstructionism and criticism of every Obama action, reaped what they sowed.
Perhaps you're right. But sometimes a sub-optimal policy is the price we pay for representative democracy and rule of law. Obama set a precedent of overturning our constitutional order so that a president can unilaterally enter America in a war when there is no reason for not seeking Congressional approval other than "they might say no". Congress isn't supposed to be a rubber-stamp (at least not in free countries). So Obama set a horrible precedent of lawlessly attacking a foreign country. In this case the attack may have been good policy, but was it worth selling our soul for?
I think Mr. Paul would be satisfied if the president or the attorney general simply stated that the only time a drone could be used within America on an American citizen is in a situation where the danger presented by the suspect was so imminent that arresting the suspect is clearly not possible without undo risk to other's lives - i.e. those situations where a police officer would be allowed to shoot a suspect. And that furthermore any such situations would be immediately made public so that they could be judged as to their correctness. And that furthermore such situations can be remedied by impeachment.
I agree that there are situations where a drone strike on an American with America may be necessary, but the Obama seems to want to retain a much freer hand than he should be given in the matter.
He wants to cut social security, even said his policy was similar to Romney's in a debate.
Saying he wants to do it and actually doing it are not the same thing. And did he say he wants to cut everyone's social security or just "the rich" (is it class-warfare)?
I've noticed the Republican party seems to do a far better job of getting their senators and representatives to tow the party line, whereas members of the Democratic part seem far more willing to rock the boat and try to block objectionable legislation.
Anyone remember when every single Democratic senator voted to acquit President Clinton of obstruction of justice when he lied under oath? Can you find a better example of toeing the party line?
I suspect you may simply be confused by the terminology the press, NPR and the three big networks like to use. Although they call it "lockstepping" when Republicans act together and they call it "being united" when Democrats act together, it is in reality the same thing.
While the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were perhaps bigger policiy mistakes, they were at least arguably Constitutional actions by a President who had Congressional approval.
The war in Libya was not approved by Congress, was not a clear and present danger, was not something that came up suddenly with no time to take the matter to Congress, nor was it even a matter where secrecy was required. It was a situation with absolutely no excuse for leaving Congress out of the decision making. It was illegal and therefore it was wrong. And it shows that our current president has no respect for the American Constitution.
Libya was for once a required war that prevented much greater suffering. If you want to know what would have happened without that intervention
I don't have a big problem with the decision to intervene in Libya, but unfortunately no effort was made to secure Congressional approval and without that the war was completely unconstitutional and therefor completely illegal. That's the kind of thing impeachment was undisputably intended for.
Whether or not the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and the Gulf Wars were illegal is at least debatable - while there was no Declaration of War there was at least Congressional approval which could be interpreted as a declaration. The actions in Grenada and Panama are on even less firm ground but at least you can argue the practical aspect that they were surprise attacks and Congress can't keep a secret. The bombing of Serbia could be argued as a case where there was simply no time to get Congressional action (apparantly it was the case that while intervention had been discussed and a coming genocide was feared, when the genocide appeared to actually be imminent there was very little time to react).
But Obama had none of these excuses. He had plenty of time to deliberate. He thought about it, didn't consult Congress, and unilaterally sent Americans to war. It was completely illegal. Right or wrong, it was illegal.
which was supported by the UN,
You're not helping your case here. could be argued to be
"Protected class". I'm not real fond of that term. Should be "protected class" or "protected caste"?
The response most likely is that the law doesn't probihit discrimtion against certain people more than others, but rather that it protects against certain kinds of discrimination. However we know that isn't true when we see special contracts awarded by the government and preference given by government funded universities to some races but not to others.
My opinion is that the government should discriminate based on race and the government should certainly not require discrimination based on race like it does now. On the other hand private groups, whether they be corporations, clubs or whatever, ought to be free to discriminate based on whatever they want to discriminate based on so long as that discrimination doesn't take a form that violates other laws (e.g. you can refuse to hire people of a certain race but you can't hunt them down and beat them up).
My opinion is largely the same for homosexuals behavior but not entirely since it is actually a behavior. I was glad to see anti-sodomy laws go but I was disgusted that it happened by Supreme Court dictators rather than by Constitutional rule of law through state legislatures (which would have taken longer but would have been more widely accepted as legitimate because it would in fact have been legitimate).
But if you're an actor, author, musician, developer, athlete or any profession that tries to use their own popularity to further a belief or statement that I find reprehensible, I will actively and vocally make it known that I will no longer patronize you with funds or admiration.
This reminds me of quite a few arguments I have had with laws regulating businesses.
Card did something unrelated to his work, and you effectively fired him as an author (others may employ him, but you won't be buying from him). I completely agree with your right to do so. What about my right to make similar business decisions? Suppose I own an apartment building and decide not to rent to people for reasons that have little or no impact on their ability to regularly pay the rent without annoying the neighbors or breaking things? Suppose I refuse to rent to gay couples or unmarried couples? Isn't that my right?
But you say, what if all apartment buildings did that? Yet the argument for not buying Card's work seems to be not that you don't like his work, but rather that you're trying to punish or restrict his ability to act - not that you think your own piddly amount will make a difference but that if enough people do the same it will get noticed! What gives you the right to do that? I believe the fact that it is your money gives you the right, just like the fact that I own the apartment gives me the right.
It's even worse in this case because Card can no longer write Superman comics! What right did Chris Spouse have to refuse to do business with Card because of something unrelated to the work? This has a material impact on Card's career and presumably his happiness.
So yes, feel free to boycott Card. Feel free to refuse to work with someone whose politcal views you don't like. Feel free to walk off the job if your boss is in a religion you disapprove of. But remember that the boss has rights to. And so does the apartment owner. So does the guy running the restaurant. So do all of us.
The government realized that marriage had social benefits beyond the religious ones in that it provided a good unit for raising a family and provided a way to make men more civilized toward each other and toward women by channelling their competitive sex drive.
There may be similar reasons for supporting gay unions but it needs to be debated. The worst thing that could happen is another Supreme Court power grab that makes government support of gay unions a "right".
It all depends on your definition of "civil rights". If by civil rights you mean the right to be treated equally by your government regardless of your race, then in recent years it is the right that has been in favor of civil rights while the left has been opposed.
If by civil rights you mean the right to practice your religion, the the right has been pro civil rights while the left has been against.
If by civil rights you mean the right to practice sex in any way you choose, then the left has been pro civil rights while the left has been against.
If by civil rights you mean the right to choose not to associate with people who practice sex in ways you disapprove, then the right has been pro-civil rights while the left has been against.
So you dislike Card's beliefs that have nothing to do with his talent as an author so you make a business decision not to support his beliefs by buying things from him. I support your right to make that decision and follow through. A transaction takes two people and both should be willing. I hope the next time I'm choosing who I want to sublet an apartment to and I make a business decision not to support sexual practices I disapprove of that you don't sue me or otherwise sic the guys with guns on me.
- it surprised me to learn how batshit insane he was
The idea of a "bashit insane" artist surprises you??
Of course the idea of a right-wing batshit crazy artist is kind of unusual.
I think that stupid people who are not in prison are generally conservative because conservative values work in real life. Even a stupid person can survive and have a reasonably decent life living conservative values.
But a stupid liberal will get himself into all kinds of trouble and either end up in prison or dead.
A major benefit of intelligence in today's society is that it allows you to earn money.
The rich man who ignores his marriage vows can still get laid. The poor man loses his wife and has no future. The poor woman who gets pregnant before marriage spends her life in poverty scraping by. The rich woman hires a nanny and goes back to work. The poor man who refuses to insist on justice gets walked over and has what little he has taken away. The rich man loses twice as much money and goes back to his nice house all smug at how kind-hearted he is. The poor man buys a gun. The rich man lives in a gated community and talks about the need for gun-control.
So yes, poor people tend to be conservative by necessity. They only become liberal if the government starts handing them money to shield them from the facts of life. People on the government dole and rich people tend to be liberal because they can afford to make poor choices.
"the neoConfederate Tea Party Republicans"
Cool contradiction. It would be weird if they're really were such a thing. It would be like having gay-bashing Log Cabin Democrats!
Still, I'm not sure how being an honorable person is a bad thing.
You missed the part about it being coincidental with being Southern. On slashdot being Southern is bad, so any trait associated with Southernness is bad too.
The roads and schools are socialized too. And they work pretty well.
They do?
The GOP leaders lie to us by claiming they'll be responsible by cutting taxes and spending. Sometimes they don't mention cutting spending.
The Democrats promise to raise taxes and give us free stuff or to force businesses to give us free stuff. Sometimes they don't mention raising taxes. Unfortunately the Democrats usually keep their promises, sometimes with Republican help.
So who do I vote for? The party that lies when promising to save the country or the party that honesty promises to destroy the country?
Wow! You got insightful for beating up strawmen by name-calling and using ALL CAPS! That's quite and accomplishment.
Now how about dealing with your REAL politcal opponents instead of your caricatures.
Suppose the US government decides to use nuclear weapons against Americans - who are they going to get to operate the weapons? How many American soldiers would obey such an order?
The interesting question then is which came first? In developed societies are people more likely to punish cheats at their own expense because they are rich and can afford to do so, or did the societies become rich due to the cultures' devotion to fairness and doing one's civic duty?