How the hell am I supposed to concentrate on getting MY work done when the government is working day and night to destroy our civil liberties, rape me financially and destroy the general quality of life of the working middle class. The most infuriating aspect of this is that they're stealing money out of my paycheck, thus forcing me to pay for my further enslavement.
I keep checking the news releases portion of their web site, but I haven't seen anything yet.
When I heard about this, I wrote to amazon and told them that they would no longer enjoy my business if they had just decided to roll over after getting a couple of phone calls from a Senator's office and someone at the DHS "asking" them to take down the material. If they had received a court order demanding that they stop hosting the material(doesn't look like that's the case) I can't blame them. Perhaps they can make a convincing argument that their terms of service were being violated? I'm waiting for word directly from them before deciding what to do.
If their policy is to simply bow to the whims of federal authorities, it makes you wonder if they'll simply turn over the personal data and purchase history of their customers if some authority figure just "asks".
"Wikileaks isn't done for sure. There will be more leaks in the future."
Hopefully the stuff we have seen so far is just the prelude. According to this interview with Assange, they are already getting more new leaks than they can sort through.
The awesome part of this interview is that he's talking about some leaks targeted for release next year that could "take down a bank or two" and he's apparently referring to some LARGE U.S. banks. I've been hoping for this ever since the release of the Afghan war documents. With any luck it will take down the entire global banking cartel.
Assuming that there is an innate quality called "intelligence" and leaving aside specifics and the problems with designing experiments to determine it, I suggest the following.
1. The positions and shapes of the curves depicting the distribution of intelligence in cats and dogs vary significantly by breed. My observations leave little doubt that the median doberman is at least one standard deviation dumber than the median golden retriever.
2. Considering ALL cats and dogs, the latter are disproportionately distributed on the DUMB end of the curve, but the high end doesn't trail off nearly as precipitously as a standard bell curve. As for the felines, I think they follow a much narrower distribution with the median cat well above the median dog, but with the high end trailing off much more sharply. i.e. The vast majority of dogs are morons, but the geniuses can be rather impressive.
The Federal Government, using their mountains of vague laws, further volumes of studies, memos, etc. and network of "fusion centers" is very gradually expanding the definition of "terrorist" to basically mean anyone that criticizes Federal government policy and/or engages in political activism. As we know, there are companion laws and policies which are in place to deprive "terrorists" of their lives and liberties and deny them any sort of due process or other Constitutional (or even "human")rights.
In my experience, engineers are solution-oriented folks and tend to speak bluntly when identifying problems and proposing solutions (exactly opposite to the approach of elected officials and bureaucrats). Washington D.C. is a gigantic batch of problems, so my theory is that engineers might be disproportionatley critical of the government, and are therefore, by definition "terrorists".
"Oh, if only logic worked... The obsession with HFCS vs. fructose vs. cane sugar vs. honey is the same old fantasy of being able to eat all the crap you want as long as it's the right kind of crap."
I agree that calories are calories, and from an obesity perspective, the fundamental equation comes down to calories consumed vs. calories expended. Assuming constant calories however, there are a lot more things to consider when making these tradeoffs, primarily those based on health and environmental impact.
Honey is created by bees from the nectar of flowers, and the only chemical/industrial processes required are heating and filtration. Maple syrup starts as tree sap, and is then either boiled, or put through an osmosis process, filtered, and then sold.
HFCS comes from corn, subsidized by the Federal government, grown with chemical fertilizers and treated with chemical pesticides. That's enough reason for me to minimize the amount of this crap that I purchase and consume.
A quick read of the wikipedia article describing the industrial process used to make HFCS describes such lovely terms as:
========= Cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase... Glucoamylase - which is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat... Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50-52% glucose... Numerous filtration, ion-exchange and evaporation steps are also part of the overall process. ===========
I have neither the time, nor the inclination to research and understand the chemistry involved here, but I think it's fair to say that as the number of processing and handling steps increases, the probability of error and contamination goes up.
"...a Jamaican woman who moved to the UK in the 50s as was encouraged under the Commonwealth."
I don't know the history there, but this whole idea of forcing/incentivizing people with vastly different cultural and religious practices to co-mingle for some theoretical and unsubstantiated "benefit" sure seems to be the source of a lot of tension. WTF was the Commonwealth thinking?
"If you pre-judge a person based upon their perceived group..."
It wouldn't be logical to "condemn" 100% of the members of a particular group based on a bit of anecdotal evidence, but you can't expect people NOT to make inferences based on attributes that signify membership in a particular group.
"You would be pretty miffed if I tarred you with that brush though wouldn't you?"
If I visited the UK, or another foreign country, I'd think it was "natural" for the people to make inferences about me based on the behavior of U.S. tourists and on whatever U.S. media they had been exposed to. In fact, I find it rather fun to pleasantly surprise people.
Suppose that the soon to be released documents are similar in number and detail to the leaked documents regarding the Afghanistan war. The volume and scope of the information is so vast that any attempt to establish simple cause->effect relationships between the released documents and what might happen in the future is futile.
Maybe the FedGov has a point, and the documents will put people's lives in danger from a tactical standpoint. Then again, maybe the documents will cause enough outrage to reinvigorate the anti-war movement and end these operations sooner rather than later, thus saving lives. Maybe the evidence proving that the government always lies to the people will mean that the next military crusade (Iran?) never even happens, thus saving thousands of lives.
This is a case where we're talking about principles. An informed citizenry is essential to the basic functioning of a democratic society, and it's obvious that we won't get any true information from the government or mainstream media. Cheers to WikiLeaks and the patriots who are supplying this information.
"... how does implementing [a flat tax or consumption tax] take power away from politicians?"
It wouldn't really take away their delegated powers, but it might curb their exercise of those powers. If every single voter had to share some of the pain when government raised taxes, elected officials might just think twice about establishing big new entitlement programs or embarking on foreign military crusades. I'm sure that many voters would still be too myopic to realize that runaway deficit spending is going to bite them in the arse down the road, but with this sort of tax system, any new government spending plans would certainly be met with increased resistance.
"...this level of surveillance to fight crime will make us all into criminals soon enough."
I think they already have the laws in place to make 99.9% of the people "criminals". When you combine that with ubiquitous surveillance, it means that basically anyone that the government doesn't like can be prosecuted on a whim.
"Why is there a need to keep an eye on us all the time?"
Government needs to protect itself from the people. As you said "...bureaucrats and politicians with their fingers in the pot appreciate the growth industry that the public's taxes will pay for." They constantly need to keep an eye on us so that they can crush anyone that poses a threat to the revenue stream generated by their extortion racket.
"If you make enough laws, everyone can be considered a criminal..."
That's the whole idea! Make everyone a criminal and monitor what everyone is doing. Then, decide which laws to enforce and which people to investigate and prosecute. It's a perfect system to crush political dissidents and other people who might dare to speak out against the injustices being perpetrated against the people by the criminal cabal known as "government".
"You can't assume you have perfect knowledge of the reasons behind a road sign . . . The traffic authority probably has a more complete perspective of the road's conditions and the reasons behind the sign."
Seems to me that the driver on the road, aware of the present circumstances and who has driven over it 1000 times is in a better position to judge than the government agents who put it up however many years ago. Whether they follow their judgment . . .
I understand what you're saying, but I'm frustrated by the absolutism of traffic laws. I think it would be nice if things like speed limit signs were more of a "suggestion" and the government would take into account the dynamics of changing driving conditions when enforcing them.
"The SEC failed to catch Bernie Madoff largely because they are understaffed (a fact the SEC itself has admitted), under-funded, and simply lack the resources to adequately investigate his activities."
What a crock of pure BULLSHIT that statement is!
The SEC, and all of the other law enforcement agencies of the Federal government failed to catch Madoff and the other 10,000 crooks and fraudsters in the financial industry because they willfully and deliberately refuse to do their jobs. This guy, Harry Markopolos handed Madoff to the SEC on a silver platter repeatedly over the course of several years:
As more evidence as to the mindset of our Federal government regulators, the FBI was talking about an "epidemic of fraud" in the mortgage industry as early as 2004, yet refused to act.
The Federal government is NOT interested in applying the law to the politically well connected elites. Laws only apply to little people. We have the FBI, SEC, FDIC, OTS, OCC, and FRBs all with a mission to regulate various parts of the financial industry. However, most of the employees, from the Treasury Secretary on down are either former industry execs, or want to become industry execs after their government careers.
All of the whistle-blowing, crowd sourcing, blatant evidence of crime, etc. is TOTALLY USELESS when the government actively participates in the frauds and refuses to enforce the existing laws. That's why the whole "financial reform" bill is a joke as well. Write more laws and hire more regulators not to enforce them.
I'm really hoping that we get some whistle-blowers in the financial industry sharing data with wikileaks. The Feds won't do anything about it, but I want the people to know the full story of how the financial industry, with the full cooperation of the Federal government, raped the people of the U.S.
You played the game and got some fun out of it! Cough up some $$$ you cheap bastards!
It's assholes like people who would blatantly pirate a game for their own entertainment and then refuse to pay that doom small and independent software development. This forces everything into the hands of corporations who spend time and resources DRMing everything and filing lawsuits. I have no love for the current corporate model of audio/video/game distribution, and it doesn't exactly arouse my indignation when people pirate $#!t from the major record labels. However, it seems like here we have a case where the developers are trying to be cool by releasing an inexpensive non-DRMed game, then see a bunch of greedy, ignorant, unsophisticated dipshits taking advantage of it.
I hope this is a case of raw ignorance trumping greed and selfishness so that I can remain hopeful about the possibilities of my ideal world view of art and music distribution materializing.
"Have you never worked with someone who disabled multiple elaborate safety devices just to make it slightly easier to work with his equipment?"
You mean like bypassing the "operator present" handle on the left side of my brush mower so that I can temporarily use my left hand without turning off the engine? Using the right hand would disengage the cutting mechanism, but I can live with that feature. The folks who designed that mower were obviously sitting in an air conditioned office and didn't consider the ideas of perspiration, thirst, flying wood and plant pieces, insects, etc. Either that or they were just following idiotic government regulations, and were smart enough to make it easy to short circuit the damned thing.
When Israel and the U.S. decide to bomb Iran, the U.S. troops in Iraq are going to be in some serious trouble. My perception of the country is that the population feels a much stronger affinity with their religious beliefs than with any concept of Iraqi nationalism. What do Obama and friends expect the Shiite majority government and military in Iraq to do when Israel and the U.S. start dropping bombs on their Shiite bretheren across the border? I'm guessing that U.S. soldiers are being pulled back inside fortified positions in preparation for the inevitable counterattack.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that this pullback process is somehow proceeding as planned.
"A nation has the right (and indeed, the obligation) to protect itself from undesirables crossing into the country or, similarly, to allow the authorities to execute arrest warrants as needed."
Unfortunately, the gangsters in Washington D.C. have decided that "nation" == "government". Their mission is no longer to protect the people of the US, their focus is protecting themselves and the ruling class. Therefore, the CITIZENS of the US, are now seen as a threat which the "nation/government" must protect itself from.
btw, governments have "powers", only people have "rights".
"... why are the politicians interests separate form their constituents interests?"
They're evil power-hungry bastards more interested in enriching themselves and their friends than in serving the best interests of their constituents. In addition, they've managed to set up a sham-electoral system which impairs candidates outside the two party duopoly and practically ensures that the majority of incumbents are re-elected.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . .."
I would like nothing better than to force the Federal government back into the safe confines of its Constitutional mandate. That would mean reducing it down to maybe 20% of its current size.
"...your position is this: you see a sick person in front of you (the government). your solution is to condemn the sick person, rather than treat him for the disease"
That fails because it isn't possible to shrink a sick person and make them easier to cure. It's more like I see a sick incredible hulk in front of me and I don't have enough medical supplies to treat such a massive beast. My only hope is the change him back into Bruce Banner.
" . . . it just blows my fucking mind, its fucking incredible: that some people should see the corporate infection of our government and conclude the only solution is to destroy the government!"
I can only speak for myself and a few like minded friends, but the idea is not to "destroy" the government, it is to de-centralize the money and power currently wielded by the Federal government and put the resources and decision making authority back in the hands of state, county and local governments where it rightly belongs. We don't have enough political antibiotics to cure the infected monster in Washington DC. Time to amputate a few of the tentacles.
You claim to value "freedom", "individual liberty", and the rights you have regarding your private property... yet you consistently attack libertarians and look to big government as your savior?
The inconsistency in your world view is so absurd that I'm forced to consider the possibility that you have a vested interest in the expansion of government power.
The historical record demonstrates beyond question that government power and their monopoly on the use of force has been the instrument used to trample on the "freedom" and "individual liberty" of people, deprive them of their private property at gunpoint (or spear point) and imprison, torture, and murder them by the millions.
If you think the contemporary United States is somehow special in this regard, look no further than the Patriot Act, military commissions act, warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the executive branch claiming the power to imprison accused "terrorists" without due process, and to assassinate U.S. citizens who are merely "suspected" of terrorist activity.
If you are unable to see that the greatest threat to your life, liberty and property is the power of the state, you should self-apply some of the innumerable insults about ignorance and idiocy that you've hurled in the direction of those of us who really value our freedom.
I hope I've made it abundantly clear that I am talking about FEDERAL government and not local/county/state government.
"..the corporations manipulate the government to work against you..."
Correct. Big central government is a dysfunctional institution; inherently corrupt(ible) and self-interested.
"...the job is therefore not to fight the government, the only tool on your side, but to remove the corporate infection of your tool that doesn't make it work as well as it should for you... get it yet genius?"
I understand what you're saying, but I think your strategy is futile, and in the off-chance it ever succeeds, the success will be short lived. If the FEDERAL government was about 15% of its current size and operated within its Constitutional mandate, the incentive to spend billions in corrupting it would be greatly reduced.
"do you honestly trust a corporation, beholden to shareholders only, more than your own government, beholden officially to you?"
Obviously it would depend on which corporation you're talking about, but when it comes to the Federal government, I might take my chances with the corporation.
"... corporations have corrupted government away fro, the purpose of serving you. and you think this is somehow an argument against government rather than corporations? how the fuck does that work in your mind?"
Like this.
1. Corporations are a known quantity and they have proven time and time again that you get the behavior that you expect out of them. i.e. Maximize shareholder profits and make everything else a secondary concern. Note that it was government that created the laws regarding corporate organization and established their special legal status as pseudo-persons.
2. Big central governments "pretend" to serve the people, but their monopoly on the use of force and inherent corruptibility ALWAYS leads them to accumulate power, exploit the people they are supposed to be serving, and enrich themselves and a few "special" people at the expense of the general population . . . and, as history has proven, if the people dare to complain about it, they end up dead, or rotting in a prison or gulag somewhere.
I'm not a cheerleader for corporations, but I think they generally operate as we would expect given their legal status. In pursuing their goals, they will sometimes be our "enemies". The Federal government on the other hand operates in this web of lies and deceit, and betrays our trust at every opportunity. When it comes to dealing with an enemy or a traitor, I'll take the enemy.
Hello CTS, here we go again with the "Good Government" vs. "Evil Corporations" argument.
"... your government is A REPRESENTATION OF YOUR WILL."
LOL. I'm having trouble recalling the last time that the Federal government did anything in accordance with my will. Maybe you have me confused with the CEO of a big financial firm or defense contractor? The people in D.C. treat the U.S. Constitution like a piece of toilet paper. This is not paranoia, it's a statement of fact. The abuses over the last 10 years are numerous and obvious.
"... corporations, meanwhile, genuinely do not have your interests in line with them at all..."
They're bound by law to maximize the profits of their shareholders, not to serve the public good. Does this come as some sort of surprise? There are however, plenty of examples in which the best interests of the shareholders DO align with the best interests of the public. Look at the vast quantity of goods and services around you. Amazing technology, life saving medications, tools, food, fuel, clothing, building materials, etc. Sure, the corporations that produce and deliver them have a profit motive, but so what?
As you stated, the corporations are "...actively corrupting your government..." and they have succeeded most admirably in that goal. So much so that the government represents THEM and an elite minority, NOT the average working citizen. Perhaps the government "CAN" protect me from the evil corporations; They just DON'T. Furthermore, they confiscate my earnings by force to feed themselves and their corporate cronies.
It's not you and the government vs. the corporations, it's the government and corporations working together against YOU.
"... net neutrality has nothing at all to do with "the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet"... "
Don't be so sure until you see the government's definition of "net neutrality" and the powers they want to accumulate in order to enforce it. My expectation is that the reality will be closer to what the OP described than any sort of real network neutrality.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell am I supposed to concentrate on getting MY work done when the government is working day and night to destroy our civil liberties, rape me financially and destroy the general quality of life of the working middle class. The most infuriating aspect of this is that they're stealing money out of my paycheck, thus forcing me to pay for my further enslavement.
I keep checking the news releases portion of their web site, but I haven't seen anything yet.
When I heard about this, I wrote to amazon and told them that they would no longer enjoy my business if they had just decided to roll over after getting a couple of phone calls from a Senator's office and someone at the DHS "asking" them to take down the material. If they had received a court order demanding that they stop hosting the material(doesn't look like that's the case) I can't blame them. Perhaps they can make a convincing argument that their terms of service were being violated? I'm waiting for word directly from them before deciding what to do.
If their policy is to simply bow to the whims of federal authorities, it makes you wonder if they'll simply turn over the personal data and purchase history of their customers if some authority figure just "asks".
"Wikileaks isn't done for sure. There will be more leaks in the future."
Hopefully the stuff we have seen so far is just the prelude. According to this interview with Assange, they are already getting more new leaks than they can sort through.
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange
The awesome part of this interview is that he's talking about some leaks targeted for release next year that could "take down a bank or two" and he's apparently referring to some LARGE U.S. banks. I've been hoping for this ever since the release of the Afghan war documents. With any luck it will take down the entire global banking cartel.
"If you like an analogy, the people can be called a shareholders assembly, and the government a management."
The better analogy is that the government is a crime syndicate and the people are extortion victims.
Assuming that there is an innate quality called "intelligence" and leaving aside specifics and the problems with designing experiments to determine it, I suggest the following.
1. The positions and shapes of the curves depicting the distribution of intelligence in cats and dogs vary significantly by breed. My observations leave little doubt that the median doberman is at least one standard deviation dumber than the median golden retriever.
2. Considering ALL cats and dogs, the latter are disproportionately distributed on the DUMB end of the curve, but the high end doesn't trail off nearly as precipitously as a standard bell curve. As for the felines, I think they follow a much narrower distribution with the median cat well above the median dog, but with the high end trailing off much more sharply. i.e. The vast majority of dogs are morons, but the geniuses can be rather impressive.
The Federal Government, using their mountains of vague laws, further volumes of studies, memos, etc. and network of "fusion centers" is very gradually expanding the definition of "terrorist" to basically mean anyone that criticizes Federal government policy and/or engages in political activism. As we know, there are companion laws and policies which are in place to deprive "terrorists" of their lives and liberties and deny them any sort of due process or other Constitutional (or even "human")rights.
In my experience, engineers are solution-oriented folks and tend to speak bluntly when identifying problems and proposing solutions (exactly opposite to the approach of elected officials and bureaucrats). Washington D.C. is a gigantic batch of problems, so my theory is that engineers might be disproportionatley critical of the government, and are therefore, by definition "terrorists".
"Oh, if only logic worked... The obsession with HFCS vs. fructose vs. cane sugar vs. honey is the same old fantasy of being able to eat all the crap you want as long as it's the right kind of crap."
I agree that calories are calories, and from an obesity perspective, the fundamental equation comes down to calories consumed vs. calories expended. Assuming constant calories however, there are a lot more things to consider when making these tradeoffs, primarily those based on health and environmental impact.
Honey is created by bees from the nectar of flowers, and the only chemical/industrial processes required are heating and filtration. Maple syrup starts as tree sap, and is then either boiled, or put through an osmosis process, filtered, and then sold.
HFCS comes from corn, subsidized by the Federal government, grown with chemical fertilizers and treated with chemical pesticides. That's enough reason for me to minimize the amount of this crap that I purchase and consume.
A quick read of the wikipedia article describing the industrial process used to make HFCS describes such lovely terms as:
========= ... ...
Cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase
Glucoamylase - which is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat
Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50-52% glucose...
Numerous filtration, ion-exchange and evaporation steps are also part of the overall process.
===========
I have neither the time, nor the inclination to research and understand the chemistry involved here, but I think it's fair to say that as the number of processing and handling steps increases, the probability of error and contamination goes up.
"...a Jamaican woman who moved to the UK in the 50s as was encouraged under the Commonwealth."
I don't know the history there, but this whole idea of forcing/incentivizing people with vastly different cultural and religious practices to co-mingle for some theoretical and unsubstantiated "benefit" sure seems to be the source of a lot of tension. WTF was the Commonwealth thinking?
"If you pre-judge a person based upon their perceived group ..."
It wouldn't be logical to "condemn" 100% of the members of a particular group based on a bit of anecdotal evidence, but you can't expect people NOT to make inferences based on attributes that signify membership in a particular group.
"You would be pretty miffed if I tarred you with that brush though wouldn't you?"
If I visited the UK, or another foreign country, I'd think it was "natural" for the people to make inferences about me based on the behavior of U.S. tourists and on whatever U.S. media they had been exposed to. In fact, I find it rather fun to pleasantly surprise people.
What "consequences" would those be?
Suppose that the soon to be released documents are similar in number and detail to the leaked documents regarding the Afghanistan war. The volume and scope of the information is so vast that any attempt to establish simple cause->effect relationships between the released documents and what might happen in the future is futile.
Maybe the FedGov has a point, and the documents will put people's lives in danger from a tactical standpoint. Then again, maybe the documents will cause enough outrage to reinvigorate the anti-war movement and end these operations sooner rather than later, thus saving lives. Maybe the evidence proving that the government always lies to the people will mean that the next military crusade (Iran?) never even happens, thus saving thousands of lives.
This is a case where we're talking about principles. An informed citizenry is essential to the basic functioning of a democratic society, and it's obvious that we won't get any true information from the government or mainstream media. Cheers to WikiLeaks and the patriots who are supplying this information.
"... how does implementing [a flat tax or consumption tax] take power away from politicians?"
It wouldn't really take away their delegated powers, but it might curb their exercise of those powers. If every single voter had to share some of the pain when government raised taxes, elected officials might just think twice about establishing big new entitlement programs or embarking on foreign military crusades. I'm sure that many voters would still be too myopic to realize that runaway deficit spending is going to bite them in the arse down the road, but with this sort of tax system, any new government spending plans would certainly be met with increased resistance.
"...this level of surveillance to fight crime will make us all into criminals soon enough."
I think they already have the laws in place to make 99.9% of the people "criminals". When you combine that with ubiquitous surveillance, it means that basically anyone that the government doesn't like can be prosecuted on a whim.
"Why is there a need to keep an eye on us all the time?"
Government needs to protect itself from the people. As you said "...bureaucrats and politicians with their fingers in the pot appreciate the growth industry that the public's taxes will pay for." They constantly need to keep an eye on us so that they can crush anyone that poses a threat to the revenue stream generated by their extortion racket.
"If you make enough laws, everyone can be considered a criminal..."
That's the whole idea! Make everyone a criminal and monitor what everyone is doing. Then, decide which laws to enforce and which people to investigate and prosecute. It's a perfect system to crush political dissidents and other people who might dare to speak out against the injustices being perpetrated against the people by the criminal cabal known as "government".
This might be fun:
http://www.ab9il.net/wlan-projects/wifi3.html
UVB-76 must be the new and improved version of the CRM-114.
Peace On Earth
"You can't assume you have perfect knowledge of the reasons behind a road sign . . . The traffic authority probably has a more complete perspective of the road's conditions and the reasons behind the sign."
Seems to me that the driver on the road, aware of the present circumstances and who has driven over it 1000 times is in a better position to judge than the government agents who put it up however many years ago. Whether they follow their judgment . . .
I understand what you're saying, but I'm frustrated by the absolutism of traffic laws. I think it would be nice if things like speed limit signs were more of a "suggestion" and the government would take into account the dynamics of changing driving conditions when enforcing them.
"The SEC failed to catch Bernie Madoff largely because they are understaffed (a fact the SEC itself has admitted), under-funded, and simply lack the resources to adequately investigate his activities."
What a crock of pure BULLSHIT that statement is!
The SEC, and all of the other law enforcement agencies of the Federal government failed to catch Madoff and the other 10,000 crooks and fraudsters in the financial industry because they willfully and deliberately refuse to do their jobs. This guy, Harry Markopolos handed Madoff to the SEC on a silver platter repeatedly over the course of several years:
http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/12/busting-bernie-madoff-one-mans-10-year-crusade
As more evidence as to the mindset of our Federal government regulators, the FBI was talking about an "epidemic of fraud" in the mortgage industry as early as 2004, yet refused to act.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html
The Federal government is NOT interested in applying the law to the politically well connected elites. Laws only apply to little people. We have the FBI, SEC, FDIC, OTS, OCC, and FRBs all with a mission to regulate various parts of the financial industry. However, most of the employees, from the Treasury Secretary on down are either former industry execs, or want to become industry execs after their government careers.
All of the whistle-blowing, crowd sourcing, blatant evidence of crime, etc. is TOTALLY USELESS when the government actively participates in the frauds and refuses to enforce the existing laws. That's why the whole "financial reform" bill is a joke as well. Write more laws and hire more regulators not to enforce them.
I'm really hoping that we get some whistle-blowers in the financial industry sharing data with wikileaks. The Feds won't do anything about it, but I want the people to know the full story of how the financial industry, with the full cooperation of the Federal government, raped the people of the U.S.
You played the game and got some fun out of it! Cough up some $$$ you cheap bastards!
It's assholes like people who would blatantly pirate a game for their own entertainment and then refuse to pay that doom small and independent software development. This forces everything into the hands of corporations who spend time and resources DRMing everything and filing lawsuits. I have no love for the current corporate model of audio/video/game distribution, and it doesn't exactly arouse my indignation when people pirate $#!t from the major record labels. However, it seems like here we have a case where the developers are trying to be cool by releasing an inexpensive non-DRMed game, then see a bunch of greedy, ignorant, unsophisticated dipshits taking advantage of it.
I hope this is a case of raw ignorance trumping greed and selfishness so that I can remain hopeful about the possibilities of my ideal world view of art and music distribution materializing.
"Have you never worked with someone who disabled multiple elaborate safety devices just to make it slightly easier to work with his equipment?"
You mean like bypassing the "operator present" handle on the left side of my brush mower so that I can temporarily use my left hand without turning off the engine? Using the right hand would disengage the cutting mechanism, but I can live with that feature. The folks who designed that mower were obviously sitting in an air conditioned office and didn't consider the ideas of perspiration, thirst, flying wood and plant pieces, insects, etc. Either that or they were just following idiotic government regulations, and were smart enough to make it easy to short circuit the damned thing.
When Israel and the U.S. decide to bomb Iran, the U.S. troops in Iraq are going to be in some serious trouble. My perception of the country is that the population feels a much stronger affinity with their religious beliefs than with any concept of Iraqi nationalism. What do Obama and friends expect the Shiite majority government and military in Iraq to do when Israel and the U.S. start dropping bombs on their Shiite bretheren across the border? I'm guessing that U.S. soldiers are being pulled back inside fortified positions in preparation for the inevitable counterattack.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that this pullback process is somehow proceeding as planned.
"A nation has the right (and indeed, the obligation) to protect itself from undesirables crossing into the country or, similarly, to allow the authorities to execute arrest warrants as needed."
Unfortunately, the gangsters in Washington D.C. have decided that "nation" == "government". Their mission is no longer to protect the people of the US, their focus is protecting themselves and the ruling class. Therefore, the CITIZENS of the US, are now seen as a threat which the "nation/government" must protect itself from.
btw, governments have "powers", only people have "rights".
"... why are the politicians interests separate form their constituents interests?"
They're evil power-hungry bastards more interested in enriching themselves and their friends than in serving the best interests of their constituents. In addition, they've managed to set up a sham-electoral system which impairs candidates outside the two party duopoly and practically ensures that the majority of incumbents are re-elected.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . ."
I would like nothing better than to force the Federal government back into the safe confines of its Constitutional mandate. That would mean reducing it down to maybe 20% of its current size.
"...your position is this: you see a sick person in front of you (the government). your solution is to condemn the sick person, rather than treat him for the disease"
That fails because it isn't possible to shrink a sick person and make them easier to cure. It's more like I see a sick incredible hulk in front of me and I don't have enough medical supplies to treat such a massive beast. My only hope is the change him back into Bruce Banner.
" . . . it just blows my fucking mind, its fucking incredible: that some people should see the corporate infection of our government and conclude the only solution is to destroy the government!"
I can only speak for myself and a few like minded friends, but the idea is not to "destroy" the government, it is to de-centralize the money and power currently wielded by the Federal government and put the resources and decision making authority back in the hands of state, county and local governments where it rightly belongs. We don't have enough political antibiotics to cure the infected monster in Washington DC. Time to amputate a few of the tentacles.
You claim to value "freedom", "individual liberty", and the rights you have regarding your private property ... yet you consistently attack libertarians and look to big government as your savior?
The inconsistency in your world view is so absurd that I'm forced to consider the possibility that you have a vested interest in the expansion of government power.
The historical record demonstrates beyond question that government power and their monopoly on the use of force has been the instrument used to trample on the "freedom" and "individual liberty" of people, deprive them of their private property at gunpoint (or spear point) and imprison, torture, and murder them by the millions.
If you think the contemporary United States is somehow special in this regard, look no further than the Patriot Act, military commissions act, warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the executive branch claiming the power to imprison accused "terrorists" without due process, and to assassinate U.S. citizens who are merely "suspected" of terrorist activity.
If you are unable to see that the greatest threat to your life, liberty and property is the power of the state, you should self-apply some of the innumerable insults about ignorance and idiocy that you've hurled in the direction of those of us who really value our freedom.
I hope I've made it abundantly clear that I am talking about FEDERAL government and not local/county/state government.
"..the corporations manipulate the government to work against you..."
Correct. Big central government is a dysfunctional institution; inherently corrupt(ible) and self-interested.
"...the job is therefore not to fight the government, the only tool on your side, but to remove the corporate infection of your tool that doesn't make it work as well as it should for you... get it yet genius?"
I understand what you're saying, but I think your strategy is futile, and in the off-chance it ever succeeds, the success will be short lived. If the FEDERAL government was about 15% of its current size and operated within its Constitutional mandate, the incentive to spend billions in corrupting it would be greatly reduced.
"do you honestly trust a corporation, beholden to shareholders only, more than your own government, beholden officially to you?"
Obviously it would depend on which corporation you're talking about, but when it comes to the Federal government, I might take my chances with the corporation.
"... corporations have corrupted government away fro, the purpose of serving you. and you think this is somehow an argument against government rather than corporations? how the fuck does that work in your mind?"
Like this.
1. Corporations are a known quantity and they have proven time and time again that you get the behavior that you expect out of them. i.e. Maximize shareholder profits and make everything else a secondary concern. Note that it was government that created the laws regarding corporate organization and established their special legal status as pseudo-persons.
2. Big central governments "pretend" to serve the people, but their monopoly on the use of force and inherent corruptibility ALWAYS leads them to accumulate power, exploit the people they are supposed to be serving, and enrich themselves and a few "special" people at the expense of the general population . . . and, as history has proven, if the people dare to complain about it, they end up dead, or rotting in a prison or gulag somewhere.
I'm not a cheerleader for corporations, but I think they generally operate as we would expect given their legal status. In pursuing their goals, they will sometimes be our "enemies". The Federal government on the other hand operates in this web of lies and deceit, and betrays our trust at every opportunity. When it comes to dealing with an enemy or a traitor, I'll take the enemy.
Hello CTS, here we go again with the "Good Government" vs. "Evil Corporations" argument.
"... your government is A REPRESENTATION OF YOUR WILL."
LOL. I'm having trouble recalling the last time that the Federal government did anything in accordance with my will. Maybe you have me confused with the CEO of a big financial firm or defense contractor? The people in D.C. treat the U.S. Constitution like a piece of toilet paper. This is not paranoia, it's a statement of fact. The abuses over the last 10 years are numerous and obvious.
"... corporations, meanwhile, genuinely do not have your interests in line with them at all ..."
They're bound by law to maximize the profits of their shareholders, not to serve the public good. Does this come as some sort of surprise? There are however, plenty of examples in which the best interests of the shareholders DO align with the best interests of the public. Look at the vast quantity of goods and services around you. Amazing technology, life saving medications, tools, food, fuel, clothing, building materials, etc. Sure, the corporations that produce and deliver them have a profit motive, but so what?
As you stated, the corporations are "...actively corrupting your government..." and they have succeeded most admirably in that goal. So much so that the government represents THEM and an elite minority, NOT the average working citizen. Perhaps the government "CAN" protect me from the evil corporations; They just DON'T. Furthermore, they confiscate my earnings by force to feed themselves and their corporate cronies.
It's not you and the government vs. the corporations, it's the government and corporations working together against YOU.
" ... net neutrality has nothing at all to do with "the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet"... "
Don't be so sure until you see the government's definition of "net neutrality" and the powers they want to accumulate in order to enforce it. My expectation is that the reality will be closer to what the OP described than any sort of real network neutrality.