These regulatory and law enforcement douche-nozzles love to exercise their power over helpless victims. They raid small businesses, family farms and sole proprietorships just to get their jollies. Makes them feel like real tough guys to intimidate someone into compliance. The worst are the bureaucrats in agencies like OSHA and EPA. Until you've run a small business, you can't possibly understand the nitpicking BS that these jerks will pull on you.
I agree that we don't have tyranny in the USA. What scares me is that the legal framework for tyranny has largely been established. It has even been exercised to a limited extent. For example, with indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments have been practically eviscerated by draconian laws and court decisions. The First and Second Amendments are in perpetual danger from one angle or another. Speaking of "racism", so called "hate speech" laws are probably the most likely inroad for weakening the First Amendment, with "Campaign Finance Reform" right behind. And how often are the asshats in power trying to promote new laws and regulations to restrict use of the Internet? Constantly! People are actively fighting this stuff, but it is a perpetual struggle. No tyranny yet, but I think we're definitely trending in that direction.
There's a reason why democracy is called "The Tyranny of the Majority". The OP is correct. Democracy, and to a large extent, even the USA's Constitutional Republic is still about forcing your personal views on other people. No clear winners and losers in a democracy? What about when the 99% vote to murder the 1% and divide up their assets?
Under a Constitutional Republic, such abuses are technically prohibited by limiting government power to commit such atrocities and the elaboration of certain fundamental Rights of the individual. Despite these protections, both of the so-called "sides" in the false dichotomy of current USA politics have authoritarian views and both "sides" want to enact policies that help their supporters and harm their opponents. Pardon the labels, but with some exceptions, the 'left' wants to prohibit firearms ownership, wants to control relationships between businesses and their employees and wants to control the healthcare system. The "right"(again with exceptions) wants to prohibit you from using drugs, restrict your personal relationships with other consenting adults and otherwise push "morality" on you. There are definitely clear winners and losers with all of these sorts of restrictions, and society is hardly being "improved" because of them.
I can't help but compare this current "climate change" hysteria to the whole terrorist scare. Instill the public with this sense of fear and impending disaster and then use it as an excuse for more and bigger government and less personal freedom.
If you're "solution" to the "problem" of CO2 in the atmosphere is granting the U.S. federal government broad powers to regulate our energy use, forget it! Isn't this just the the socialist grand plan of having a central authority micro-managing everyone's lives? Government will tell you how many cubic feet of living space you're allowed to have, how much electricity you're allowed to use, how much fuel you can consume, how much food you need, etc. etc.?
I do my part to be an environmentally responsible citizen, but I'd rather be incinerated by this alleged "global warming" disaster than live with any more government micro-management of my life.
I remember this case from MD where an off duty cop pulled a gun on a speeding motorcyclist. They arrested the motorcycle operatorr for "wiretapping" because his helmet cam was filming the encounter. The judge ruled that cops have no expectation of privacy during a traffic stop.
Oh, it's definitely irritating as hell that it suddenly became a racism thing instead of a government vs. the people thing. Especially to those of us who have been paying attention to law enforcement abuses over the long term. I've been following "Cop Block" for years, long before anyone ever heard the name "Michael Brown" and there are cases of egregious police abuses against citizens of all races. Look up the case of "Kelly Thomas".
However, I think the whole politically correct "white tyranny" theme and the way it plays in the media is having the unintended effect of raising general awareness of the "cops vs. us" issue.
The authorities have actually tried to use this, but if you're filming police in a public place as they conduct their official duties, that law does not apply.
If you are in the position where you are filming your personal interaction with the cops, make sure to tell them that they are being recorded.
I think it's better if the police know you're filming them. They tend to be a little more polite.
You also have to be careful because of these states where there are "mutual consent" laws about recording. i.e. in some states you can record a conversation surreptitiously, while in others, all parties to the conversation must know it's being recorded. The authorities have actually tried to use this against people who film their encounters with the police. There was a case in MD where an off-duty cop pulled over a motorcycle driver who was wearing a helmet cam and they tried to say he broke the "wiretapping" laws by recording without the cop's consent.
Check out "Filming Cops" and "Cop Block". They've been advocating and doing this for years and facing violence and intimidation from the police as a result.
Yes, it's definitely easy to say and hard to do, but people ARE doing it. Just know that you have every right to film the cops in public and if they try to stop you, they are in the wrong. You might even get lucky and get a payday out of it.
It's funny. For years, people on the Cop Block message boards have been criticizing people who were actively filming police. They were saying that it wouldn't change anything. Now the tide is turning. Too bad that the "racism" thing had to enter the picture when cops have been brutalizing people of all races, but if that's what it takes to raise awareness, so be it.
When Islamic militants start a social network, I'm sure people will be interested in mining it.
If we're in such a nice comfy "democracy" why don't we have complete transparency in government? How are government personnel able to engage in blatant criminal activity without fear of consequences?
Cheers to these guys. There should be a searchable database of ALL employees of the government we're paying for.
I fully expect that people in the USA are going to follow their own mistakes. If the recent attack in Texas had succeeded in causing mass casualties, it would be the government's excuse for new gun control measures.
I've been saying for years that it was only a matter of time before a Charlie Hebdo or Mumbai style attack happened on U.S. soil with legally purchased firearms. Then, the gun grabbers will be out in force trying to limit access to firearms in the name of "safety". It's happening now, but the failure of the attack will prevent the gun control effort from gathering momentum.
The American people gave up Amendments 4,5 and 6 of the Bill of Rights after 9-11. Will they allow themselves to be deprived of #2 after an attack involving firearms?
Too bad it was a traffic cops and not a private citizen who thwarted the attack in Texas. Still, it proves that a good guy with a gun can prevent or mitigate mass murder.
=>You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.
==>that's unjust and immoral
LOL. It's "unjust and immoral" if you steal a person's money directly, but if you hold an election and appoint a few representatives to hire men with guns and send them to steal a person's money, it suddenly becomes "just and moral"?
"claiming that public education doesn't work when there is zero evidence of that."
No evidence? The only subject where USA students excel is in "self esteem". There's plenty of evidence that public schools are failing. If they were doing well, we wouldn't continuously be talking about how to fix them.
"Donating that 100 billion to our existing education system"
LOL Right, because the problem with public schools is lack of funding.
"... a change that shifts education into a business, where profit is the only thing that matters and the quality of education has no consideration."
You think there is a negative correlation between quality and profits? Quite the opposite. The person or business which figures out how to provide a quality education at an affordable cost will reap the profits With "quality" being in the eyes of the parents and students, not some government bureaucrat.
Nor is a profit-driven education system some malicious conspiracy against the poor. If absolutely necessary, you can take a small fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in public schools and create an "education stamps" program.
The top-down, big government, cookie-cutter approach to education is a failure. Time to unleash the power and creativity of the free market. Give people real choices and let people who want to be in education an opportunity to figure out what works.
Wal Mart or McDonalds could run the public school system better than the government and at lower cost.
Re:a scientific approach in the land of personhood
on
Who Owns Pre-Embryos?
·
· Score: 1
"What the fuck is a pre-embryo."
In the article, they stated that a "pre-embryo" is "an embryo that has not yet been implanted".
Something wrong with that? I think it suffices for the purposes of a magazine article. As long as they define their terms, I find it highly unlikely that they are using linguistic subterfuge to further some weird political agenda.
"If the biomatter belongs to a specific person, then it is their biomatter."
OK, so according to you, the sperm belong to the guy and the eggs to the woman, right? Well, given the fact that they have no way of removing the man's biomatter from the pre-embryo without destroying the woman's biomatter, can you see why the issue is "hotly contested"?
Why is the "genocide" label so important? There was undoubtedly mass murder and mass relocation/"ethnic cleansing". Do the Armenians get some special prize, or extended privileges because their dead ancestors were victims of "genocide"? Do they get to extort present day Turkey for "reparations" or something?
Furthermore, why doesn't anyone seem to give a damn about the Ukrainian genocide (The "Holodomor") of the 1920s and 1930s? We hear about the Armenians and we hear a lot about the Jews, but even with Ukraine being a focal point for recent news, the genocide of the Ukrainians by the Bolsheviks is skipped over like it never happened.
Besides, the primary mechanism by which fluoride arrests tooth decay is in a surface application. Fluoridated toothpastes usually carry a "Keep out of reach of children" warning. The directions also state that for children under 6, such products should be used in small quantities and with thorough rinsing to ensure that it isn't swallowed.
Drinking fluoride to prevent tooth decay is like drinking sunblock to prevent sunburn.
I loathe Microsoft, but they would do a lot better job than the government is doing. Heck, I think if you let McDonalds management take over education and treat each public school like a franchise it would be better than it is now. You can argue about the quality of McDonalds food, but they've managed to create a business model where you can order a Big Mac, fries and a shake almost anywhere and have it taste like the same Big Mac, fries and a shake you get anywhere else. Why can't someone replicate the model so that you can teach kids the same basic skills with a consistent quality? I'd like to see some REAL entrepreneurs develop an education business whose service was so popular with the customers (parents and students) that the founders did become millionaires and billionaires.
This is ABSURD! He's being singled out because the federal government has granted blanket immunity to the big financial firms and their employees. I guess he didn't bribe the right politicians and didn't provide enough job offers to federal bureaucrats.
Yes, placing orders that you never intend to execute is technically illegal, but the big financial firms that engage in HFT do this crap every f***ing day! Pick a random trading day in the last year and subpoena the order history of a big trading firm. I guarantee that there will be thousands of orders submitted and canceled in milliseconds. Orders which the firm obviously had zero intention of ever executing. Exactly the sort of activity they are calling "criminal" in this one particular case. The U.S. government is a monstrosity. Arbitrary enforcement of the law is a hideous injustice and it's standard procedure in government.
If I was a senator I'd be grilling the AG nominee about this selective enforcement BS.
Adderall is hardly a weaker version of meth even though it is classified as an amphetamine. Cough and cold tablets, specifically nasal decongestants are also amphetamines but people don't turn into toothless zombies from taking them.
Good thinking. The judge needs to declare them "mentally defective"(by human standards) so that they get added to the NICS database and will be denied firearms purchase.
The U.S. federal government will indefinitely detain or even assassinate a U.S. citizen accused of beign a "terrorist" without so much as a criminal indictment. Obviously that's depriving them of habeus corpus and other Constitutional Rights.
This is deemed legal while a court decides to extend those rights to a pair of chimps?
Consider the implications. The government points a finger at you and says "terrorist!" without presenting a single shred of evidence and your life is suddenly worth less than that of a chimp?
Yes, "progress" in terms of advancing the "progressive" political agenda is a very bad thing. Contemporary "progressivism" is just reformulated communist nonsense.
"IF" states in this country are still going to use the death penalty, they should at least give the condemned a choice. The degree to which governments have gone to sanitize execution bespeaks the embarrassing nature of the whole operation. Rather than doing it quickly, loudly and publicly, they do it in some dark secluded basement with an injection as if they're trying to obscure the fact that they are killing someone.
I don't anticipate being in this position, but I'd definitely take a firing squad to being poisoned and/or asphyxiated. If the government is willing to execute people and call it "justice", then they should do it out in the open and/or broadcast it on TV for all the world to see. Poisons and gases are, IMO, much more barbaric to the condemned than the old methods. Those methods are not more "humane", they merely spare the authorities from having to clean up the mess associated with their deeds.
Slashdot Mirror
These regulatory and law enforcement douche-nozzles love to exercise their power over helpless victims. They raid small businesses, family farms and sole proprietorships just to get their jollies. Makes them feel like real tough guys to intimidate someone into compliance. The worst are the bureaucrats in agencies like OSHA and EPA.
Until you've run a small business, you can't possibly understand the nitpicking BS that these jerks will pull on you.
I agree that we don't have tyranny in the USA. What scares me is that the legal framework for tyranny has largely been established. It has even been exercised to a limited extent. For example, with indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments have been practically eviscerated by draconian laws and court decisions.
The First and Second Amendments are in perpetual danger from one angle or another. Speaking of "racism", so called "hate speech" laws are probably the most likely inroad for weakening the First Amendment, with "Campaign Finance Reform" right behind. And how often are the asshats in power trying to promote new laws and regulations to restrict use of the Internet? Constantly!
People are actively fighting this stuff, but it is a perpetual struggle. No tyranny yet, but I think we're definitely trending in that direction.
There's a reason why democracy is called "The Tyranny of the Majority". The OP is correct. Democracy, and to a large extent, even the USA's Constitutional Republic is still about forcing your personal views on other people. No clear winners and losers in a democracy? What about when the 99% vote to murder the 1% and divide up their assets?
Under a Constitutional Republic, such abuses are technically prohibited by limiting government power to commit such atrocities and the elaboration of certain fundamental Rights of the individual. Despite these protections, both of the so-called "sides" in the false dichotomy of current USA politics have authoritarian views and both "sides" want to enact policies that help their supporters and harm their opponents.
Pardon the labels, but with some exceptions, the 'left' wants to prohibit firearms ownership, wants to control relationships between businesses and their employees and wants to control the healthcare system. The "right"(again with exceptions) wants to prohibit you from using drugs, restrict your personal relationships with other consenting adults and otherwise push "morality" on you.
There are definitely clear winners and losers with all of these sorts of restrictions, and society is hardly being "improved" because of them.
I can't help but compare this current "climate change" hysteria to the whole terrorist scare. Instill the public with this sense of fear and impending disaster and then use it as an excuse for more and bigger government and less personal freedom.
If you're "solution" to the "problem" of CO2 in the atmosphere is granting the U.S. federal government broad powers to regulate our energy use, forget it! Isn't this just the the socialist grand plan of having a central authority micro-managing everyone's lives? Government will tell you how many cubic feet of living space you're allowed to have, how much electricity you're allowed to use, how much fuel you can consume, how much food you need, etc. etc.?
I do my part to be an environmentally responsible citizen, but I'd rather be incinerated by this alleged "global warming" disaster than live with any more government micro-management of my life.
I remember this case from MD where an off duty cop pulled a gun on a speeding motorcyclist. They arrested the motorcycle operatorr for "wiretapping" because his helmet cam was filming the encounter. The judge ruled that cops have no expectation of privacy during a traffic stop.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.co...
Oh, it's definitely irritating as hell that it suddenly became a racism thing instead of a government vs. the people thing. Especially to those of us who have been paying attention to law enforcement abuses over the long term. I've been following "Cop Block" for years, long before anyone ever heard the name "Michael Brown" and there are cases of egregious police abuses against citizens of all races. Look up the case of "Kelly Thomas".
However, I think the whole politically correct "white tyranny" theme and the way it plays in the media is having the unintended effect of raising general awareness of the "cops vs. us" issue.
The authorities have actually tried to use this, but if you're filming police in a public place as they conduct their official duties, that law does not apply.
If you are in the position where you are filming your personal interaction with the cops, make sure to tell them that they are being recorded.
I think it's better if the police know you're filming them. They tend to be a little more polite.
You also have to be careful because of these states where there are "mutual consent" laws about recording. i.e. in some states you can record a conversation surreptitiously, while in others, all parties to the conversation must know it's being recorded. The authorities have actually tried to use this against people who film their encounters with the police. There was a case in MD where an off-duty cop pulled over a motorcycle driver who was wearing a helmet cam and they tried to say he broke the "wiretapping" laws by recording without the cop's consent.
Check out "Filming Cops" and "Cop Block". They've been advocating and doing this for years and facing violence and intimidation from the police as a result.
Yes, it's definitely easy to say and hard to do, but people ARE doing it. Just know that you have every right to film the cops in public and if they try to stop you, they are in the wrong. You might even get lucky and get a payday out of it.
It's funny. For years, people on the Cop Block message boards have been criticizing people who were actively filming police. They were saying that it wouldn't change anything. Now the tide is turning. Too bad that the "racism" thing had to enter the picture when cops have been brutalizing people of all races, but if that's what it takes to raise awareness, so be it.
When Islamic militants start a social network, I'm sure people will be interested in mining it.
If we're in such a nice comfy "democracy" why don't we have complete transparency in government? How are government personnel able to engage in blatant criminal activity without fear of consequences?
Cheers to these guys. There should be a searchable database of ALL employees of the government we're paying for.
I fully expect that people in the USA are going to follow their own mistakes. If the recent attack in Texas had succeeded in causing mass casualties, it would be the government's excuse for new gun control measures.
I've been saying for years that it was only a matter of time before a Charlie Hebdo or Mumbai style attack happened on U.S. soil with legally purchased firearms. Then, the gun grabbers will be out in force trying to limit access to firearms in the name of "safety". It's happening now, but the failure of the attack will prevent the gun control effort from gathering momentum.
The American people gave up Amendments 4,5 and 6 of the Bill of Rights after 9-11. Will they allow themselves to be deprived of #2 after an attack involving firearms?
Too bad it was a traffic cops and not a private citizen who thwarted the attack in Texas. Still, it proves that a good guy with a gun can prevent or mitigate mass murder.
=>You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.
==>that's unjust and immoral
LOL. It's "unjust and immoral" if you steal a person's money directly, but if you hold an election and appoint a few representatives to hire men with guns and send them to steal a person's money, it suddenly becomes "just and moral"?
"Education is a fundamental public good and no public resources should ever go to a private company to run schools."
Good call. Get government out of the education business entirely. It would solve a myriad of problems.
"claiming that public education doesn't work when there is zero evidence of that."
No evidence? The only subject where USA students excel is in "self esteem". There's plenty of evidence that public schools are failing. If they were doing well, we wouldn't continuously be talking about how to fix them.
"Donating that 100 billion to our existing education system"
LOL Right, because the problem with public schools is lack of funding.
" ... a change that shifts education into a business, where profit is the only thing that matters and the quality of education has no consideration."
You think there is a negative correlation between quality and profits? Quite the opposite. The person or business which figures out how to provide a quality education at an affordable cost will reap the profits With "quality" being in the eyes of the parents and students, not some government bureaucrat.
Nor is a profit-driven education system some malicious conspiracy against the poor. If absolutely necessary, you can take a small fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in public schools and create an "education stamps" program.
The top-down, big government, cookie-cutter approach to education is a failure. Time to unleash the power and creativity of the free market. Give people real choices and let people who want to be in education an opportunity to figure out what works.
Wal Mart or McDonalds could run the public school system better than the government and at lower cost.
"What the fuck is a pre-embryo."
In the article, they stated that a "pre-embryo" is "an embryo that has not yet been implanted".
Something wrong with that? I think it suffices for the purposes of a magazine article. As long as they define their terms, I find it highly unlikely that they are using linguistic subterfuge to further some weird political agenda.
"If the biomatter belongs to a specific person, then it is their biomatter."
OK, so according to you, the sperm belong to the guy and the eggs to the woman, right?
Well, given the fact that they have no way of removing the man's biomatter from the pre-embryo without destroying the woman's biomatter, can you see why the issue is "hotly contested"?
Why is the "genocide" label so important? There was undoubtedly mass murder and mass relocation/"ethnic cleansing".
Do the Armenians get some special prize, or extended privileges because their dead ancestors were victims of "genocide"? Do they get to extort present day Turkey for "reparations" or something?
Furthermore, why doesn't anyone seem to give a damn about the Ukrainian genocide (The "Holodomor") of the 1920s and 1930s? We hear about the Armenians and we hear a lot about the Jews, but even with Ukraine being a focal point for recent news, the genocide of the Ukrainians by the Bolsheviks is skipped over like it never happened.
I don't know about a Communist plot or thyroid problems, but numerous studies have suggested that fluoride lowers IQ:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Besides, the primary mechanism by which fluoride arrests tooth decay is in a surface application. Fluoridated toothpastes usually carry a "Keep out of reach of children" warning. The directions also state that for children under 6, such products should be used in small quantities and with thorough rinsing to ensure that it isn't swallowed.
Drinking fluoride to prevent tooth decay is like drinking sunblock to prevent sunburn.
I loathe Microsoft, but they would do a lot better job than the government is doing. Heck, I think if you let McDonalds management take over education and treat each public school like a franchise it would be better than it is now.
You can argue about the quality of McDonalds food, but they've managed to create a business model where you can order a Big Mac, fries and a shake almost anywhere and have it taste like the same Big Mac, fries and a shake you get anywhere else. Why can't someone replicate the model so that you can teach kids the same basic skills with a consistent quality?
I'd like to see some REAL entrepreneurs develop an education business whose service was so popular with the customers (parents and students) that the founders did become millionaires and billionaires.
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid you have testicular cancer."
This is ABSURD! He's being singled out because the federal government has granted blanket immunity to the big financial firms and their employees. I guess he didn't bribe the right politicians and didn't provide enough job offers to federal bureaucrats.
Yes, placing orders that you never intend to execute is technically illegal, but the big financial firms that engage in HFT do this crap every f***ing day! Pick a random trading day in the last year and subpoena the order history of a big trading firm. I guarantee that there will be thousands of orders submitted and canceled in milliseconds. Orders which the firm obviously had zero intention of ever executing. Exactly the sort of activity they are calling "criminal" in this one particular case. The U.S. government is a monstrosity. Arbitrary enforcement of the law is a hideous injustice and it's standard procedure in government.
If I was a senator I'd be grilling the AG nominee about this selective enforcement BS.
Adderall is hardly a weaker version of meth even though it is classified as an amphetamine. Cough and cold tablets, specifically nasal decongestants are also amphetamines but people don't turn into toothless zombies from taking them.
".the right to ... carry arms."
Good thinking. The judge needs to declare them "mentally defective"(by human standards) so that they get added to the NICS database and will be denied firearms purchase.
The U.S. federal government will indefinitely detain or even assassinate a U.S. citizen accused of beign a "terrorist" without so much as a criminal indictment. Obviously that's depriving them of habeus corpus and other Constitutional Rights.
This is deemed legal while a court decides to extend those rights to a pair of chimps?
Consider the implications. The government points a finger at you and says "terrorist!" without presenting a single shred of evidence and your life is suddenly worth less than that of a chimp?
The definitions of particular words get a little murky when people appropriate the terms for a political ideology:
"http://thinkprogress.org/election/2013/03/22/1761431/what-it-means-to-be-a-progressive-a-manifesto/"
Yes, "progress" in terms of advancing the "progressive" political agenda is a very bad thing. Contemporary "progressivism" is just reformulated communist nonsense.
"IF" states in this country are still going to use the death penalty, they should at least give the condemned a choice. The degree to which governments have gone to sanitize execution bespeaks the embarrassing nature of the whole operation. Rather than doing it quickly, loudly and publicly, they do it in some dark secluded basement with an injection as if they're trying to obscure the fact that they are killing someone.
I don't anticipate being in this position, but I'd definitely take a firing squad to being poisoned and/or asphyxiated.
If the government is willing to execute people and call it "justice", then they should do it out in the open and/or broadcast it on TV for all the world to see. Poisons and gases are, IMO, much more barbaric to the condemned than the old methods. Those methods are not more "humane", they merely spare the authorities from having to clean up the mess associated with their deeds.