Don't become a manager, just get yourself a f'n robot and program it. Use the machines to do all your work if you cannot handle people.
However, most of us don't want to be replaced by machines, so if you do that we arent going to work for you anymore, and we don't want to be treated like machines because unlike machine, we have feelings and we can go insane.
3. A real FDA that actually outlaws stuff like high fructose corn syrup and cancer causing chemicals in the food.
4. Health standards for tabacco products or products such as tabacco mist so the smoke kills less people.
5. Higher minimum wages and a real community for people living in ghettos and trailer parks.
Lets face it, Psychopaths run America therefore they run the world. It has been this way since before most of us have been born. It's not going to change overnight. Psychopaths are our bosses. The question we have to ask ourselves is, in a world with computers, telecommuting, and robots, why the hell do we need bosses anymore? Why arent we all our own boss?
If you care about the world or about yourself (the environment, avoiding wars, helping the weak), then you'll want to take control of your own economic destiny. No one stops you from starting your own company and not hiring a psychopath just like no one stops psychopaths from taking control of the US government and kicking you out of it.
Googles founders are not narcisists or psychopaths and they are doing just fine in competition with Microsoft.
A psychopath definately should not be boss, not because they run the company bad fiscally, but because they run the country into the ground to make the company successful. Having a narcisist is not much better if you want a clean environment and good health.
Do you think food companies give a damn about our health? They want us to have cancer and heart disease because its profitable. Do you think the government cares about our health? They want healthcare prices to rise above our limits and they dont want you getting drugs from Canada. DO you think doctors care about our health? They want to just sell the drugs the drug companies bribe them to sell.
Psychopaths are EVERYWHERE and unless we create some ethical standards for certain positions or even for getting certain degrees in college its not going to stop. If everyone who wants a masters degree or who wants to be a boss has to pass a psychological screening in the same way we have to pass a drug test I don't think there would be a problem. If we don't do this, then expect our bosses to destroy the world for profit because psychopaths do not care about the world, you do.
You are a psychopath. If you are against healthcare, social security, helping the poor, the old, minorities, the weak, then you are a psychopath.
People who arent psychopaths are usually progressive. It's safe to say the majority of Americans don't give a damn about themselves, their neighbor, the community, the country, or the world. The majority of Americans live only to make money. The majority of Americans do not care if Africa dies of AIDs. The majority of Americans do not care if you or I die of cancer or heart disease. The majority of Americans do not want us to have access to cheap drugs, they do not want us to have universal healthcare, they do not care about out lives at all, not even slightly.
How do I know this? Democracy works. The people who run this country don't give a damn about our lives. So expect social security to be destroyed, expect the government to spend itself into debt, expect the cost of healthcare go continue to go up forever until you cannot afford it, expect the poor to be tossed in ghettos and left to die, all around the world. Because the majority of people just don't care about the people who are weaker than them, and if you do not care about the weak then chances are you are a psychopath.
Is being a psychopath bad? No. It's not bad to be a psychopath for certain types of jobs. How many of us when we go to see our doctor would prefer to go see the psychopath doctor? Even a psychopath would prefer to see the doctor who cared about their health.
Lets face it, the majority of Americans are psychopaths and it's been this way for hundreds of years. We had slavery in this country, the native Americans were almost wiped out in this country, there has been ghettos created, and destroyed, there was the whole segregation stuff, all the way till now with the crack and the guns. There has been organized crime, so lets be real, our country has more psychopaths than perhaps any other country on the planet.
When it comes to going to war, this is good because we always win, but when theres no enemy, psychopaths go to war with themselves. Psychopaths were originally part of the warrior class, and for dealing with wars you'd want to have the coldest most psycho individual on your side. In 2005 however, there arent any real wars anymore, unless you believe we should be killing for stuff like oil and protecting our turf.
Then theres the whole free trade cafta/nafta stuff, which is rigged by default to benefit people who own patents and who run big businesses. Society is set up in a certain way because Americans chose for it to be run this way. You can call these Americans psychopaths or you can call these Americans the ruling class. Fact is, if a psychopath is your boss, you should pick a better boss or become a psychopath yourself.
In America, I'd say alot of us are psychopaths. How many of us actually care about people? We don't support universal healthcare, we laugh while people in Africa are dying of AIDS and starving to death, and we like war. I think its safe to say that if you are in America, you'd be better off being a psychopath than not being one.
Is to give it to people in an organized way. This means offer classes, teach the people who show up, and at the end of the course, give away the free laptops.
The stupid way is to just give it away to random people. Laptops in the right hands are more valueable than school. A lot of the best programmers are drop outs. Using the internet anyone can educate themselves to become anything they want, this includes getting a degree, this includes becoming a computer scientist.
The idea is good, they just handled it in a stupid way. Yes its good to give people access to technology, but its also just as important to give it to the people who actually want to to learn and use the technology.
Good idea, bad way of handling it. It's definately not a waste of tax payer dollars, when more people are educated and employed, less people are on welfare, DUH! More tax dollars are generated, DUH!
Long term its a good strategy, and if we put internet cafes in every ghetto and in every trailer park, we could have trained millions of programmers to help write Linux or start new software companies of their own.
I think the USA likes to have poverty, welfare, etc. We like having ghettos and trailer parks becaue its a way for the average joe to have a sense of self esteem. If someone is always below you, you feel better about yourself.
This is why we have a third world, a ghetto, and welare, trailer parks, and outsourcing.
So instead of giving away laptops, build some internet cafes, actually train people, and give the laptops to people who actually go through the training program.
People on welfare pay taxes. It's called sales tax, and everyone pays. People on welfare also work, but because their work is less valueable to you, it does not make them enough money to pay taxes.
Now, you can call them lazy, but compared to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, you are lazy and your job is worthless.
I think giving out laptops is good, I think they picked a stupid way to give them out. People should take a free computer education course and recieve the laptop at the end. It's pointless to just give away laptops when you don't teach people how to use it to find a way out of poverty.
I'd like to meet guys who like hot women, duh. Am I supposed to want to meet gay guys instead? I'm straight. Meeting other straight guys = access to free porn.
Also lets remember that porn isnt the only reason people go online, a lot of us are investors, researchers, students etc. For the majority of people this would be a good idea. I want to meet people with the same interests, even if its just porn interests.
Because people search google, an IM would be genius. People who search for the same thing could meet each other through google IM. Almost like how technorati and other sites do it, google could take it one step further. Imagine the waste IM client combined with the google search engine.
Shouldnt the intellectuals be making the decisions? Do we really have room for stupid decisions? One stupid decision can and most likely will end our world.
If you are a capitalist, then you'd know that corporations are more valueable than people. Profit is more valueable than life, and in this case loss of money is worse than loss of life. Rape is actually less damaging than spam. How many corporations are harmed by spammers? Perhaps thousands. How many individuals are harmed by spammers? Perhaps millions. How much money is lost? how many people might get blackmailed? bribed, or attacked with this information sold by the spammer?
Spam is very bad on a wide scale, rape is very bad on an individual scale. Both are wrong. If you steal and sell peoples information, this is virtual rape, its not as bad as actual rape but its not much better. Millions of virtual rapes vs 1 rape? Yeah this guy raped millions. Physical rape to millions is worse than virtual rape if you are a communist. If you are a capitalist, then the individual does not matter, only the corporation matters, only the CEO matters, only your boss matters. Only profits matter.
If someone can get life for minor physical crimes, like selling illegal plants and chemicals, why not give a spammer life? Why not have a war on spam? Moe of us are against the spam than against the drugs.
How many of us like spam? how many of us like our personal information being sold? NONE OF US. We all want the spammer to get life in prison, why? Because when you sell someones information, its a personal offense. It is more personal than selling a plant, it is more personal than selling a gun, why? All of that information combined can be as dangerous as a gun. This guy was selling information to who? Terrorists? serial killers? hitmen? who? Most likely some unknown nameless group of guys, which makes it even worse.
If someone rapes a person this is life in prison, if someone rapes a millon people, this is life in prison, if someone steals your personal information and sells it, this is life in prison.
Who is to stop your rich enemies from buying that information to bribe and blackmail you? Who is to stop them from using this information to attack you?
Spammers annoy the hell out of people, and do a lot more harm than drug dealers. If a drug dealer selling Marijuana can get life in prison, the spammer should get life in prison too.
Selling personal information is a lot worse than selling any drug.
I actually AM pro life. I'm against war, the death penalty and abortion. The majority of Americans are actually pro life, then you have the people who are pro death, and folks who make the calculation that some lives are more valueable than others, such as the life of a fetus vs the life of a baby under 2 years old when neither are fully alive yet by human standards.
Murder is wrong, killing is wrong in cases where there are better alternatives. In the case of abortion, it should be very rare and adoption should be promoted. In the case of crime, the death penalty shouldnt exist. Prisoners can work just like anyone else and theres no reason to kill them off. I'd rather they build a new bridge or new tower and live than kill them. I'd rather our prison population do labor like the rest of us than support the death penalty.
I think while some people are hypocrites, there are some people who actually know right from wrong because they feel it. Abortion to some people just feels wrong, just like stem cell research to some people just feels wrong. Universal healthcare feels wrong to some people even though another group of people think it feels right.
We need to do what is in humanities best interest and which feels right, or if you do not care about humanity, then you do whats in your best interest and hope you arent consumed by the machine.
I support stem cell research because it saves lives. I'm not a fan of embryonic stem cell research but you act like theres only one way to do it, as if theres no ethical stem cell research.
There are also ethical reasons to do genetic screenings, however the employer should get permission from the employee before being able to do this. This is the kind of information which should be sold to employers or in which the individual has at least the right to make this information difficult to get.
The last thing the world needs is for marketing companies to have access to our genetic code.
There are still sociaist countries. Socialism is not the problem, the problem is that individuals are too greedy and uneducated to live in a socialist society. At the same time people are too greedy and uneducated to live in a capitalist society.
The results will be the same. Too much greed = collapse. Too much corruption = collapse. This occurs no matter what system you use, its the people running the system who decide if the system is a failure or a success.
Capitalism is a huge failure. Look at the global economy, Africa is dying, theres ghettos all accross America where people are dying of poverty in the richest country in the world. Capitalism can work only when the game is fair, but its not and never will be because it was corrupt from the beginning. So yeah, anything bad you can say about socialism can also be said about capitalism. Since we are in capitalism, the way to solve poverty is through trade, but there will be no trade with Africa, why? Because capitalism is biased. There will be no jobs brought to ghettos accross America, why? Capitalism is biased.
When we accept that fact that the system is corrupt and biased and accept the reality that there is no perfect system, then we can work on improving the systems we have. Fighting for socialism at this point is stupid, however fighting for fair trade is smart.
If you want to be the global leader you have to be competitive. At the same time, you don't need to use socialism to help people, You can simply require corporations to be responsible, sustainable, and ethical and then theres no problem with capitalism. The problem is corruption not capitalism.
You cannot have anything fair when all the big corporations do everything they can to bribe the government to help keep things unfair. If the corporations and the government work together against the people what you end up with is fascism which ultimately is corporate socialism where the government helps the corporations instead of the people.
So, whats better? Being a corporate socialist or a socialist?
But when people cheat thats exactly what they do. When people divorce and marry again thats exactly what they do. So people already give themselves to multiple people even if they don't plan on it.
I don't want to say you are naive because maybe you've been in a relationship like this before, but often people will physically be disloyal and cheat on you and still want to have sex with you. Often people will want to have more than one partner, as a lot of men would love to have more than one wife. A lot of women would love to have more than one husband, and a lot of kids wouldnt mind having more than one father because a lot of kids end up having two fathers anyway after a divorce.
So if you are asking how do people do it? It's simple, most people don't completely give themselves to anyone, they just give a part of themselves to many people. If you only give yourself to one person then what happens if it does not work with that person?
Marrying your cousin is not actually good for your gene pool, but then again most people don't seem to care about their gene pool, they just marry whoever physically looks good or has the biggest wallet. If people actually married based on gene pool then we'd be searching around the globe fo a mate. Chances are if you marry someone from the same race and who comes from the same country, you are going to be genetically closer to them than if you marry someone who is completely new to your gene pool.
Honestly, in the future if we really wanted to support evolution we'd genetically scan each other and marry based on that. Someone who happens to be a creative art genius who marries a math or science genius could produce the next Einstien, but the chance of them actually meeting up and marrying are slim because the art genius is most likely some homeless person with no job, while the math genius most likely is rich and looking for the blonde with huge breasts. The result? If you are a math genius who marrys a dumb blonde(Not saying all blondes are dumb!), then you'll be weakening your own gene pool even if your kids look better. If you marry someone who is a genius in some other area on the other hand who also happens to be a genius, then your children may look ugly, but they'll be the best of both worlds. So its important to know yourself, and then know what you want in a mate, and expect the child to be a bit of you and your mate. If you marry a mate that is a genius writer, and you are a math genius, then you can expect to have kids that will have both sets of traits. This is good because your kids will definately be genetically stronger.
If people could marry multiple partners then men would actually have to take care of each wife they marry, and divorce would be a lot less popular, but guess what? We like divorce. We would rather start all over after each failed marriage and have 5 wives, 4 of which if you are a man you'll have to give child support to.
Ultimately monogamy does not work for about 50% of people, the divorce rates are high because people arent designed for monogamy. I'm all for monogamy if people want it, but if people don't and you try to force them into it by law, all it does is cause a lot of divorces, a lot of money wasted in court, a lot of children get hurt, its better I think for the children to have more mothers or more fathers than to just have no mother or no father.
In most cases they are the same group just with a D or R next to their name. Lieberman is more conservative than George Bush is. Bill Clinton is a plutocrat not a Democrat. Neither of these men are Democrats in the traditional sense. None of these guys are progressives.
Bill Clinton supports big corporations, free trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, and basically does whatever the corporations tell him to do. George Bush supports big corporations, free trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, and basically does whatever the corporations tell him to. Liberman basically is a classical religious conservative, who does whatever corporations tell him to.
Our politicians basically are tools of corporations and special interests. These parties mean absolutely nothing, its all about who sponsors you and who endorses you. If you care about people you wont get elected, if you care about special interest groups, corporations and things of this sort then you'll get elected. This means you have to be for free trade, you have to be for outsourcing, you have to be for illegal immigration, you have no choice but to support these things, its not even debateable. Instead both parties debate cultural issues, should abortion be legal or not? Is there a god? Should the government tell decide on a state religion? Stuff like this which ordinary people could give a damn about because we are too busy trying to survive.
Do I wake up each morning worried about abortion, church and state, Terry Schiavo or whatever? No. I want my money, I want my job, and I think the role of government is to give full employment or help people start businesses and educate themselves so we can give ourselves full employment. Most of us run small businesses if we run a business at all, so our country should be giving billions of dollars if not trillions per year to help us start our own small businesses. Our government should give us a free college education so we can have an edge on the rest of the world, but since our government wont be doing this, prepare to work for a Chinese company and have a boss from China paying you minimum wage in 10 years because we can't all be Bill Gates can we?
Now, if you actually care about the country, the economy, and yourself, then you'll see that its in your best interest to support local small businesses that employ people you know. It's also in your best interest to shop at responsible businesses which arent actively helping you commit consumer suicide. Supporting companies that want to kill you is a form of suicide and believe me, there are many corporations out there that by design exist to help speed your demise. Do you have to shop there? No. But if you like cheap stuff, keep shopping at Walmart, keep eating at Mc Donalds, and keep drinking your Coke, and soon enough you'll see for yourself when you have diabetes, heart problems, and other health issues. You'll see when your community suddenly has no other jobs but Walmart and yuor wages are going down. I'd like to hope Americans will wake up before they consume themselves to death but I doubt its going to happen because most Americans don't mind the idea of dying of a heart attack as long as they die happy and with a full stomach.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't become a manager, just get yourself a f'n robot and program it. Use the machines to do all your work if you cannot handle people.
However, most of us don't want to be replaced by machines, so if you do that we arent going to work for you anymore, and we don't want to be treated like machines because unlike machine, we have feelings and we can go insane.
Explain why we do not have
1. Universal healthcare for all.
2. Universal college education for all.
3. A real FDA that actually outlaws stuff like high fructose corn syrup and cancer causing chemicals in the food.
4. Health standards for tabacco products or products such as tabacco mist so the smoke kills less people.
5. Higher minimum wages and a real community for people living in ghettos and trailer parks.
Lets face it, Psychopaths run America therefore they run the world. It has been this way since before most of us have been born. It's not going to change overnight. Psychopaths are our bosses. The question we have to ask ourselves is, in a world with computers, telecommuting, and robots, why the hell do we need bosses anymore? Why arent we all our own boss?
If you care about the world or about yourself (the environment, avoiding wars, helping the weak), then you'll want to take control of your own economic destiny. No one stops you from starting your own company and not hiring a psychopath just like no one stops psychopaths from taking control of the US government and kicking you out of it.
Check out this site on August 22
http://alonovo.com/
Googles founders are not narcisists or psychopaths and they are doing just fine in competition with Microsoft.
A psychopath definately should not be boss, not because they run the company bad fiscally, but because they run the country into the ground to make the company successful. Having a narcisist is not much better if you want a clean environment and good health.
Do you think food companies give a damn about our health? They want us to have cancer and heart disease because its profitable. Do you think the government cares about our health? They want healthcare prices to rise above our limits and they dont want you getting drugs from Canada. DO you think doctors care about our health? They want to just sell the drugs the drug companies bribe them to sell.
Psychopaths are EVERYWHERE and unless we create some ethical standards for certain positions or even for getting certain degrees in college its not going to stop. If everyone who wants a masters degree or who wants to be a boss has to pass a psychological screening in the same way we have to pass a drug test I don't think there would be a problem. If we don't do this, then expect our bosses to destroy the world for profit because psychopaths do not care about the world, you do.
You are a psychopath. If you are against healthcare, social security, helping the poor, the old, minorities, the weak, then you are a psychopath.
People who arent psychopaths are usually progressive.
It's safe to say the majority of Americans don't give a damn about themselves, their neighbor, the community, the country, or the world. The majority of Americans live only to make money. The majority of Americans do not care if Africa dies of AIDs. The majority of Americans do not care if you or I die of cancer or heart disease. The majority of Americans do not want us to have access to cheap drugs, they do not want us to have universal healthcare, they do not care about out lives at all, not even slightly.
How do I know this? Democracy works. The people who run this country don't give a damn about our lives. So expect social security to be destroyed, expect the government to spend itself into debt, expect the cost of healthcare go continue to go up forever until you cannot afford it, expect the poor to be tossed in ghettos and left to die, all around the world. Because the majority of people just don't care about the people who are weaker than them, and if you do not care about the weak then chances are you are a psychopath.
Is being a psychopath bad? No. It's not bad to be a psychopath for certain types of jobs. How many of us when we go to see our doctor would prefer to go see the psychopath doctor? Even a psychopath would prefer to see the doctor who cared about their health.
Lets face it, the majority of Americans are psychopaths and it's been this way for hundreds of years. We had slavery in this country, the native Americans were almost wiped out in this country, there has been ghettos created, and destroyed, there was the whole segregation stuff, all the way till now with the crack and the guns. There has been organized crime, so lets be real, our country has more psychopaths than perhaps any other country on the planet.
When it comes to going to war, this is good because we always win, but when theres no enemy, psychopaths go to war with themselves. Psychopaths were originally part of the warrior class, and for dealing with wars you'd want to have the coldest most psycho individual on your side. In 2005 however, there arent any real wars anymore, unless you believe we should be killing for stuff like oil and protecting our turf.
Then theres the whole free trade cafta/nafta stuff, which is rigged by default to benefit people who own patents and who run big businesses. Society is set up in a certain way because Americans chose for it to be run this way. You can call these Americans psychopaths or you can call these Americans the ruling class. Fact is, if a psychopath is your boss, you should pick a better boss or become a psychopath yourself.
In America, I'd say alot of us are psychopaths. How many of us actually care about people? We don't support universal healthcare, we laugh while people in Africa are dying of AIDS and starving to death, and we like war. I think its safe to say that if you are in America, you'd be better off being a psychopath than not being one.
Is to give it to people in an organized way. This means offer classes, teach the people who show up, and at the end of the course, give away the free laptops.
The stupid way is to just give it away to random people. Laptops in the right hands are more valueable than school. A lot of the best programmers are drop outs. Using the internet anyone can educate themselves to become anything they want, this includes getting a degree, this includes becoming a computer scientist.
The idea is good, they just handled it in a stupid way. Yes its good to give people access to technology, but its also just as important to give it to the people who actually want to to learn and use the technology.
Good idea, bad way of handling it. It's definately not a waste of tax payer dollars, when more people are educated and employed, less people are on welfare, DUH! More tax dollars are generated, DUH!
Long term its a good strategy, and if we put internet cafes in every ghetto and in every trailer park, we could have trained millions of programmers to help write Linux or start new software companies of their own.
I think the USA likes to have poverty, welfare, etc. We like having ghettos and trailer parks becaue its a way for the average joe to have a sense of self esteem. If someone is always below you, you feel better about yourself.
This is why we have a third world, a ghetto, and welare, trailer parks, and outsourcing.
So instead of giving away laptops, build some internet cafes, actually train people, and give the laptops to people who actually go through the training program.
People on welfare pay taxes. It's called sales tax, and everyone pays. People on welfare also work, but because their work is less valueable to you, it does not make them enough money to pay taxes.
Now, you can call them lazy, but compared to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, you are lazy and your job is worthless.
I think giving out laptops is good, I think they picked a stupid way to give them out. People should take a free computer education course and recieve the laptop at the end. It's pointless to just give away laptops when you don't teach people how to use it to find a way out of poverty.
I'd like to meet guys who like hot women, duh. Am I supposed to want to meet gay guys instead? I'm straight. Meeting other straight guys = access to free porn.
Also lets remember that porn isnt the only reason people go online, a lot of us are investors, researchers, students etc. For the majority of people this would be a good idea. I want to meet people with the same interests, even if its just porn interests.
Let them create GoogleOS. It would be a good idea in the long term once Linux is mature enough I think people would actually buy the OS.
Google has enough money to completely fund Linux development and do that.
Because people search google, an IM would be genius. People who search for the same thing could meet each other through google IM. Almost like how technorati and other sites do it, google could take it one step further. Imagine the waste IM client combined with the google search engine.
Shouldnt the intellectuals be making the decisions? Do we really have room for stupid decisions? One stupid decision can and most likely will end our world.
If you are a capitalist, then you'd know that corporations are more valueable than people. Profit is more valueable than life, and in this case loss of money is worse than loss of life. Rape is actually less damaging than spam. How many corporations are harmed by spammers? Perhaps thousands. How many individuals are harmed by spammers? Perhaps millions. How much money is lost? how many people might get blackmailed? bribed, or attacked with this information sold by the spammer?
Spam is very bad on a wide scale, rape is very bad on an individual scale. Both are wrong. If you steal and sell peoples information, this is virtual rape, its not as bad as actual rape but its not much better. Millions of virtual rapes vs 1 rape? Yeah this guy raped millions. Physical rape to millions is worse than virtual rape if you are a communist. If you are a capitalist, then the individual does not matter, only the corporation matters, only the CEO matters, only your boss matters. Only profits matter.
If someone can get life for minor physical crimes, like selling illegal plants and chemicals, why not give a spammer life? Why not have a war on spam? Moe of us are against the spam than against the drugs.
How many of us like spam? how many of us like our personal information being sold? NONE OF US. We all want the spammer to get life in prison, why? Because when you sell someones information, its a personal offense. It is more personal than selling a plant, it is more personal than selling a gun, why? All of that information combined can be as dangerous as a gun. This guy was selling information to who? Terrorists? serial killers? hitmen? who? Most likely some unknown nameless group of guys, which makes it even worse.
If someone rapes a person this is life in prison, if someone rapes a millon people, this is life in prison, if someone steals your personal information and sells it, this is life in prison.
Who is to stop your rich enemies from buying that information to bribe and blackmail you? Who is to stop them from using this information to attack you?
Spammers annoy the hell out of people, and do a lot more harm than drug dealers. If a drug dealer selling Marijuana can get life in prison, the spammer should get life in prison too.
Selling personal information is a lot worse than selling any drug.
The sooner we patent the building blocks of life, the sooner we own life. This is the ownership society, so lets own stuff!
I actually AM pro life. I'm against war, the death penalty and abortion. The majority of Americans are actually pro life, then you have the people who are pro death, and folks who make the calculation that some lives are more valueable than others, such as the life of a fetus vs the life of a baby under 2 years old when neither are fully alive yet by human standards.
Murder is wrong, killing is wrong in cases where there are better alternatives. In the case of abortion, it should be very rare and adoption should be promoted. In the case of crime, the death penalty shouldnt exist. Prisoners can work just like anyone else and theres no reason to kill them off. I'd rather they build a new bridge or new tower and live than kill them. I'd rather our prison population do labor like the rest of us than support the death penalty.
I think while some people are hypocrites, there are some people who actually know right from wrong because they feel it. Abortion to some people just feels wrong, just like stem cell research to some people just feels wrong. Universal healthcare feels wrong to some people even though another group of people think it feels right.
We need to do what is in humanities best interest and which feels right, or if you do not care about humanity, then you do whats in your best interest and hope you arent consumed by the machine.
I support stem cell research because it saves lives. I'm not a fan of embryonic stem cell research but you act like theres only one way to do it, as if theres no ethical stem cell research.
There are also ethical reasons to do genetic screenings, however the employer should get permission from the employee before being able to do this. This is the kind of information which should be sold to employers or in which the individual has at least the right to make this information difficult to get.
The last thing the world needs is for marketing companies to have access to our genetic code.
Pour your $ into wifi and internet telephony while you can. Own your overlords before its too late!
who created it? If its nature shouldnt the Africans be most immune to it?
There are still sociaist countries. Socialism is not the problem, the problem is that individuals are too greedy and uneducated to live in a socialist society. At the same time people are too greedy and uneducated to live in a capitalist society.
The results will be the same. Too much greed = collapse. Too much corruption = collapse. This occurs no matter what system you use, its the people running the system who decide if the system is a failure or a success.
Capitalism is a huge failure. Look at the global economy, Africa is dying, theres ghettos all accross America where people are dying of poverty in the richest country in the world. Capitalism can work only when the game is fair, but its not and never will be because it was corrupt from the beginning. So yeah, anything bad you can say about socialism can also be said about capitalism. Since we are in capitalism, the way to solve poverty is through trade, but there will be no trade with Africa, why? Because capitalism is biased. There will be no jobs brought to ghettos accross America, why? Capitalism is biased.
When we accept that fact that the system is corrupt and biased and accept the reality that there is no perfect system, then we can work on improving the systems we have. Fighting for socialism at this point is stupid, however fighting for fair trade is smart.
If you want to be the global leader you have to be competitive. At the same time, you don't need to use socialism to help people, You can simply require corporations to be responsible, sustainable, and ethical and then theres no problem with capitalism. The problem is corruption not capitalism.
You cannot have anything fair when all the big corporations do everything they can to bribe the government to help keep things unfair. If the corporations and the government work together against the people what you end up with is fascism which ultimately is corporate socialism where the government helps the corporations instead of the people.
So, whats better? Being a corporate socialist or a socialist?
But when people cheat thats exactly what they do. When people divorce and marry again thats exactly what they do. So people already give themselves to multiple people even if they don't plan on it.
I don't want to say you are naive because maybe you've been in a relationship like this before, but often people will physically be disloyal and cheat on you and still want to have sex with you. Often people will want to have more than one partner, as a lot of men would love to have more than one wife. A lot of women would love to have more than one husband, and a lot of kids wouldnt mind having more than one father because a lot of kids end up having two fathers anyway after a divorce.
So if you are asking how do people do it? It's simple, most people don't completely give themselves to anyone, they just give a part of themselves to many people. If you only give yourself to one person then what happens if it does not work with that person?
Marrying your cousin is not actually good for your gene pool, but then again most people don't seem to care about their gene pool, they just marry whoever physically looks good or has the biggest wallet. If people actually married based on gene pool then we'd be searching around the globe fo a mate. Chances are if you marry someone from the same race and who comes from the same country, you are going to be genetically closer to them than if you marry someone who is completely new to your gene pool.
Honestly, in the future if we really wanted to support evolution we'd genetically scan each other and marry based on that. Someone who happens to be a creative art genius who marries a math or science genius could produce the next Einstien, but the chance of them actually meeting up and marrying are slim because the art genius is most likely some homeless person with no job, while the math genius most likely is rich and looking for the blonde with huge breasts. The result? If you are a math genius who marrys a dumb blonde(Not saying all blondes are dumb!), then you'll be weakening your own gene pool even if your kids look better. If you marry someone who is a genius in some other area on the other hand who also happens to be a genius, then your children may look ugly, but they'll be the best of both worlds. So its important to know yourself, and then know what you want in a mate, and expect the child to be a bit of you and your mate. If you marry a mate that is a genius writer, and you are a math genius, then you can expect to have kids that will have both sets of traits. This is good because your kids will definately be genetically stronger.
If people could marry multiple partners then men would actually have to take care of each wife they marry, and divorce would be a lot less popular, but guess what? We like divorce. We would rather start all over after each failed marriage and have 5 wives, 4 of which if you are a man you'll have to give child support to.
Ultimately monogamy does not work for about 50% of people, the divorce rates are high because people arent designed for monogamy. I'm all for monogamy if people want it, but if people don't and you try to force them into it by law, all it does is cause a lot of divorces, a lot of money wasted in court, a lot of children get hurt, its better I think for the children to have more mothers or more fathers than to just have no mother or no father.
Thats because Republicans are Democrats.
In most cases they are the same group just with a D or R next to their name. Lieberman is more conservative than George Bush is. Bill Clinton is a plutocrat not a Democrat. Neither of these men are Democrats in the traditional sense. None of these guys are progressives.
Bill Clinton supports big corporations, free trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, and basically does whatever the corporations tell him to do. George Bush supports big corporations, free trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, and basically does whatever the corporations tell him to. Liberman basically is a classical religious conservative, who does whatever corporations tell him to.
Our politicians basically are tools of corporations and special interests. These parties mean absolutely nothing, its all about who sponsors you and who endorses you. If you care about people you wont get elected, if you care about special interest groups, corporations and things of this sort then you'll get elected. This means you have to be for free trade, you have to be for outsourcing, you have to be for illegal immigration, you have no choice but to support these things, its not even debateable. Instead both parties debate cultural issues, should abortion be legal or not? Is there a god? Should the government tell decide on a state religion? Stuff like this which ordinary people could give a damn about because we are too busy trying to survive.
Do I wake up each morning worried about abortion, church and state, Terry Schiavo or whatever? No. I want my money, I want my job, and I think the role of government is to give full employment or help people start businesses and educate themselves so we can give ourselves full employment. Most of us run small businesses if we run a business at all, so our country should be giving billions of dollars if not trillions per year to help us start our own small businesses. Our government should give us a free college education so we can have an edge on the rest of the world, but since our government wont be doing this, prepare to work for a Chinese company and have a boss from China paying you minimum wage in 10 years because we can't all be Bill Gates can we?
Now, if you actually care about the country, the economy, and yourself, then you'll see that its in your best interest to support local small businesses that employ people you know. It's also in your best interest to shop at responsible businesses which arent actively helping you commit consumer suicide. Supporting companies that want to kill you is a form of suicide and believe me, there are many corporations out there that by design exist to help speed your demise. Do you have to shop there? No. But if you like cheap stuff, keep shopping at Walmart, keep eating at Mc Donalds, and keep drinking your Coke, and soon enough you'll see for yourself when you have diabetes, heart problems, and other health issues. You'll see when your community suddenly has no other jobs but Walmart and yuor wages are going down. I'd like to hope Americans will wake up before they consume themselves to death but I doubt its going to happen because most Americans don't mind the idea of dying of a heart attack as long as they die happy and with a full stomach.