As long as the movie stays consistent with its own internal logic everything's ok. The seal is that way because God said so. It doesn't matter why, it's just a plot device. Take the Indiana Jones movies for what they are, good pulp movies. Part of what makes them so much fun is the fact that they don't have to draw an entire logically cohesive universe to support the meaning of each action.
I have lived in rural areas most of entire life (I'm 20), often hundreds of miles away from anything most Americans consider a city. If it wasn't for the internet I wouldn't have access to things such as balanced national and international news, not to mention things such as arts and entertainment. I can confidently say I would be much less informed if it were not for these requirements. Speaking from anecdotes, myself and many of my friends growing up would not be nearly as educated as we are if it weren't for internet access.
So while you may have a point as far as an internet connection not being a necessity of life, we should also take into consideration the effects of depriving a large number of Americans of this link to the "outside world". The cost to the taxpayers is probably made up for by the fact that the rural areas are producing intelligent, productive people that then move to the cities. Regardless of what many urbanites think, rural areas are not just full of rusting farm equipment and slack-jawed yokels. If 20% of the population has little chance to access information as freely as those in more concentrated areas, that would be a very bad thing. A lot of people live in rural areas, so we need to be educating and providing services to those people whether it is a fair distribution of cost or not.
While I agree with your argument, I don't think that any studies state this. I have been very interested in this issue and have done a fair amount of research, although I'm certainly not a sociologist. Perhaps you could share your sources if you have any?
These dolphins are not essential to the lives of humans. Not like rice, wheat, cows, corn, and not even in a less obvious way like your bee example. We should attempt to promote biodiversity, but sometimes shit happens. Species have been going extinct for as long as distinct species have existed. If this species was not an integral part of our environment, then why all the fuss about its death? We can't coexist with every other species on the planet. It is simply not possible. We have been killing off species and modifying others to our purposes for tens of thousands of years. There are plenty of threatened animal populations that are actually essential to our existence (fish populations for example). I say we focus on those instead of crying over what is essentially a sad but unimportant story.
The difference between man and the "natural world" is poetic, not scientific. It is a romantic view, and it is irrational. We view nature as everything other than what we have created. Whenever we talk about nature, it is usually associated with the good and man is associated with the bad. However, when speaking of a scientific phenomenon such as natural selection it is stupid to separate man and nature. We are part of the ecosystem just like every other animal. The "destruction of nature" IMO is only dangerous as far as it affects us. The world is a cruel and harsh place, with or without humans. Extinction happens. Life on Earth was here long before we emerged, and it will be here long after we are gone.
I wasn't saying that just because the hunter is eating the meat that it makes hunting OK. I certainly believe that is the case, but I respect your opinion to believe otherwise. Vegetarians and vegans certainly have a valid point, albeit one that I disagree with.
What I was saying, and perhaps I should've been more clear, is that if you believe in the consumption of meat then hunting is absolutely morally and ethically superior to the way most animals are raised and killed in agriculture today. As you have made clear in your reply (if I'm reading it correctly), you are morally opposed to both that and hunting. I'm ok with that, it is a logically consistent position and you have every right to your personal opinion.
I was simply countering your assertion that the "for food" argument is not valid. If you in fact believe that it is morally acceptable to eat meat, then it does matter if someone is hunting for food or not. Your original post was ambiguous as to whether this was what your were arguing. Hopefully you understand I wasn't trying to flame.
You really have no idea the amount of time and effort that would actually take. Killing animals in the wild is very labor intensive. In my homes state of Colorado alone last year, 56,462 elk were harvested (stats on page 3) and 41,665 deer were harvested (stats also on page 3).
The numbers vary from state to state, but a significant number of states have harvests that large or larger. The amount of effort and labor it takes to bring down that many animals is huge. If it was state run, it would be inefficient, animals would be wasted, and it would be a huge burden on the taxpayers. As is it's an income generator, run very efficiently, and results in many people getting cheap food while reducing an overpopulation of animals. What the hell is wrong with that?
It's not even like the "for food" argument really applies in this situation, since someone else needs to be around and it's probably much easier to acquire the food without all the extra effort that would go into two people coordinating a gun.
Actually, hunting and killing an animal in the wild is much more ethical and humane (generally speaking) than what most slaughterhouses get away with. At least the animal is living free and healthy in its natural environment. I sincerely hope that you do not eat meat bought from most supermarkets, or especially not from a fast food chain. Those animals are treated much worse than any wild animal is ever treated. If you aren't vegetarian/vegan and still feel this way about the killing of an animal (whether it has "feelings" or not) then maybe a healthy look at your own carnivorous habits is called for.
And yes, the for food argument does actually apply. The fact that it brings people pleasure is irrelevant as long as they actually put the animal to use after they kill it.
I agree. When I was younger we lived in a very rural area in eastern Oregon and could tune into TV and a couple radio stations from Boise (about 150 miles away) that were rebroadcast from Ontario, OR (about 90 miles away). The quality wasn't great and we had a big antenna set up, but you could still get clear reception. Driving around was bad because the signal dropped out constantly but at home it was definitely useable. I imagine most if not all of The Netherlands is easily reachable by broadcasts from outside the country.
Clinton won the presidential election in part because he was promising universal health care. Gore and Kerry both lost, Hillary's run is still up in the air. So while your point still stands that Democratic nominees don't move left to get a nomination, maybe they should. Maybe part of the reason they don't win is because they don't do a good enough job courting the "silent majority" with things such as universal health care, decrease in government handouts to big business, environmental concerns, etc. When I say silent majority I mean that in the actual literal definition of the words, not the meaning used by conservative politicians. There's a shitload of people in this country that don't vote. There is probably a way to get them to support the Democrats, especially since Republican administrations have been so incompetent.
I understand why you are frustrated but since Apple is based in the US, most of the record companies are based in the US, and the US has by far the largest music market in the world it is understandable that they don't focus on smaller markets like Sweden. They are really mainly concerned about selling iPods anyway so it may be that just having the iTunes store available is enough for them. I imagine they don't consider getting all the proper distribution rights and licensing in Sweden for the large catalogue they have in the US worth the time and effort. If you're getting all of your music from torrents but still buy an iPod Apple probably doesn't care.
A friend of mine mooned somebody from one of my other friends' car when we were in high school. A police officer happened to see this and arrested my friend for indecent exposure. The judge let him off easy, but he was told that it was possible he could've been forced to register as a sex offender.
I think that what you have there is a solution looking for a problem. Certainly urban areas already have a much larger percentage of the power, just not as large a share as they would have if it wasn't for a non-population based Senate (not sure what the correct terminology is there). Also, I don't think the "subsidies" to rural residents are as large as you make them seem.
You say, "we as a society have no particular need for rural residents beyond those necessary to keep our farming and recreational operations in business." The language you use makes it seem that you view society as urban and that rural residents are somehow lesser than urban residents. For example (not trying to start a flame war but here it goes), say you were to make the claim "we as a society have no particular need for inner-city residents, beyond those necessary to keep our fast food and housekeeping operations in business." That may not be a perfect example, but you can't separate certain segments of society and try to assess their "value". Our job isn't simply to give the urbanites food and recreation, in fact I find that view extremely condescending. If you look at any minority population (not necessarily an ethnic minority) relative to the rest of society you begin to foster a sense of seclusion and elitism. That is not the way to go.
I assure you that people living in rural areas are contributing to society as much as those in urban areas. 20% of the US lives in rural areas, and they are serving a practical purpose. You may be surprised to find that in the rural areas, there is also a large feeling that the cities have too much power, as they control policy decisions that have drastic effects on rural residents. I can guarantee in every single election year, the rural residents will be complaining that the cities hold too much sway over the elections. I've seen people with this view even in Wyoming, where the largest city is about 60,000.
I don't mean to be picking you out specifically, your viewpoint is a very common (and somewhat justified). Compromises like the bicameral legislature we have in the US government satisfies no one completely, but it makes concessions to everybody's interests. That's why it works.
True, but when the Constitution says it explicitly, the Federalist Papers directly line up with the argument that you are making, you have hundreds of years of judicial precedents, and a huge percentage of the population agrees with that interpretation it is going to be pretty damn hard to change. (IANAL)
I agree. In my history class, there was a small section about how the White House was burned down, but it did not give any details about how and why. They certainly didn't get into how it was pretty much a miracle that we actually won that war. A lot more time was spent on issues such as impressment of American sailors and "The Star Spangled Banner." And of course for the Civil War we got the usual slavery vs. abolitionists story with none of the actual important details of why the war was fought and the consequences for both sides (other than emancipation of course).
Generally speaking the show had good music, but the intro theme was unbelievably corny. I don't think it took away from the show because it just played over the credits, but every time I hear it my friends and I crack up. There's something to be said for a little subtlety in lyrics. It is like a caricature of a cheesy cowboy song (speaking as a fan of country and folk music). I'm not sure if that's what they were going for.
One, because the law says to stop at a Stop sign. There are a good number of folks out there who stop because obeying traffic laws is the right thing to do. Let's just skip right over the obligatory/. moral relativism--there are people in the real world who don't feel a juvenile compulsion to break any and every law to prove they are somehow fighting "the violence inherent in the system." There are nonsensical laws, even laws that deserve to be ignored, but generally traffic laws don't fall into that category.
What if you are at a left-turn red light and can see clearly enough in all directions to know you are not going to cause an accident. Clearly you could make the illegal turn without hurting anybody, so why not do it? They're isn't something naturally unjust about making an illegal left turn, so there must be something else stopping you from going. Breaking laws in itself also isn't unjust, so the thing preventing a person from making the turn in that situation is probably a fear of getting caught.
And yes, if a red light is forcing me to sit still in the middle of the night and there is no one around, I consider it stupid to follow the traffic laws. I have no problem breaking the law. I am perfectly capable of judging that situation, I do not need a set of laws to guide my actions. I do not view that as "juvenile" as you put it, it is in fact the opposite. I do not look to someone else to guide my behavior, I react in accordance with my own judgment. If I make a mistake, then I will take responsibility for that mistake.
Not only is it a reason to buy a Wii, it's proof that despite all of our doubts, despite the fears that they'd gone crazy-nutso with this 'waggling' thing, they really know what they're doing.
Twilight Princess is coming out for the GameCube as well, right? In fact it was originally developed for the GC, so theoretically it should control as good or better compared to the Wii version. So why would I pay $250 for a new Wii when I can just play the game on the GC I already own?
What makes you think a few snakes and scorpions are going to stop them if this is viable?
That is what you said. I merely pointed out that deserts are more than snakes and scorpions. They're a very diverse and valuable part of the biosphere. I then pointed out the flaw in your thinking that by shading the desert you could turn into into viable farmland. I then made my own point that they probably wouldn't put all of their solar panels in one place because of other factors. So I'll say no thanks to that course, my reading comprehension is just fine. I was merely showing why I disagreed with you opinions. Oh, and just to throw a little more fuel on the flame, Iraq wasn't about oil. They're killing thousands of people to advance America's interests in geopolitics, most of which does not have anything to do with energy needs. If you want to point at one industry for the cause of most of our wars (including Iraq), look to the arms industry before the oil industry.
Looks like someone needs a refresher course in ecology. Deserts are very rich and diverse zones. Remember, a desert isn't just sand dunes. Just because it isn't green and not many people live there (the US West/Southwest) doesn't mean it's a barren wasteland. Also, the reason why the desert isn't farmland is because there is no water. The thing preventing Nevada from being a rich agricultural region is a rather large mountain range, not too much sun. Unless you can find a way of getting more water to the desert (like the Northwest) then it isn't going to produce squat.
Besides, other areas of the country still receive sunshine. I bet when you take into account the costs of maintaining the transmission infrastructure as well as the risks associated with a centralized power source most of the solar stations would be stationed near population centers instead of concentrated in one area.
When are these people going to buy themselves a clue and scale it back a little?
I know it was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway. They will scale it back when they start losing audiences. Until that day, they'll cram as many ads into a program as they can. If you really want to see ad free football, go down to your local high school on a Friday night. Remember, the NFL is about making as much money as possible. If you would sit there and watch nothing but ads for three hours, that's what they would put on TV.
To mitigate the asshattery of the latter, I endorse a sensation of searing pain until they stop acting like asshats.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. US Constitution
Who, exactly, gets to decide if they're being asshats (to use your vernacular)? If they're protesting the president's actions? If they're marching for civil rights? If they're protesting against the WTO? Obviously if they are using violence then they have forfeited their right to assemble, but if the government has this weapon, don't doubt for a single second that it will not be abused.
We do get to the point where the moderators come to a consensus (or at least a majority overrides a minority) but that doesn't address the issue of whether or not the moderators are correct in moderating a comment up or down. In most situations there is no one correct answer, so how can you get everybody to agree? I am not going to moderate a post insightful if I disagree with the content, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so either. In a situation that it is essentially voting for whether you think the post makes a valid point, it is pretty obvious that groupthink will prevail most of the time.
Some people will flip out if they get behind someone who is driving within the speed limit. I don't understand why people think it's acceptable to pressure me to break the law. This greatly offends me.
I, unfortunately, am sometimes that guy. The only times I do that, however, is when people are driving slow in a left-hand lane and there is plenty of room to get over. Although in that situation they may technically be obeying the law, what they are doing is creating a more dangerous situation by forcing people going above the speed limit to make a right-hand pass and generally pissing everybody off. It is very disruptive when someone thinks, "I am doing the speed limit, so it doesn't matter where on the road I'm at."
I do try and control my frustration and am generally not an asshole when driving, but there are definitely situations where people driving the speed limit are acting discourteous by ignoring those that want to get by. That's probably a small amount compared to the asshole drivers that just want to drive as fast as possible, though. I agree that riding behind someone trying to get them to go faster is extremely rude and dangerous, just wanted to add my 2 cents.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the movie stays consistent with its own internal logic everything's ok. The seal is that way because God said so. It doesn't matter why, it's just a plot device. Take the Indiana Jones movies for what they are, good pulp movies. Part of what makes them so much fun is the fact that they don't have to draw an entire logically cohesive universe to support the meaning of each action.
I have lived in rural areas most of entire life (I'm 20), often hundreds of miles away from anything most Americans consider a city. If it wasn't for the internet I wouldn't have access to things such as balanced national and international news, not to mention things such as arts and entertainment. I can confidently say I would be much less informed if it were not for these requirements. Speaking from anecdotes, myself and many of my friends growing up would not be nearly as educated as we are if it weren't for internet access.
So while you may have a point as far as an internet connection not being a necessity of life, we should also take into consideration the effects of depriving a large number of Americans of this link to the "outside world". The cost to the taxpayers is probably made up for by the fact that the rural areas are producing intelligent, productive people that then move to the cities. Regardless of what many urbanites think, rural areas are not just full of rusting farm equipment and slack-jawed yokels. If 20% of the population has little chance to access information as freely as those in more concentrated areas, that would be a very bad thing. A lot of people live in rural areas, so we need to be educating and providing services to those people whether it is a fair distribution of cost or not.
While I agree with your argument, I don't think that any studies state this. I have been very interested in this issue and have done a fair amount of research, although I'm certainly not a sociologist. Perhaps you could share your sources if you have any?
These dolphins are not essential to the lives of humans. Not like rice, wheat, cows, corn, and not even in a less obvious way like your bee example. We should attempt to promote biodiversity, but sometimes shit happens. Species have been going extinct for as long as distinct species have existed. If this species was not an integral part of our environment, then why all the fuss about its death? We can't coexist with every other species on the planet. It is simply not possible. We have been killing off species and modifying others to our purposes for tens of thousands of years. There are plenty of threatened animal populations that are actually essential to our existence (fish populations for example). I say we focus on those instead of crying over what is essentially a sad but unimportant story.
The difference between man and the "natural world" is poetic, not scientific. It is a romantic view, and it is irrational. We view nature as everything other than what we have created. Whenever we talk about nature, it is usually associated with the good and man is associated with the bad. However, when speaking of a scientific phenomenon such as natural selection it is stupid to separate man and nature. We are part of the ecosystem just like every other animal. The "destruction of nature" IMO is only dangerous as far as it affects us. The world is a cruel and harsh place, with or without humans. Extinction happens. Life on Earth was here long before we emerged, and it will be here long after we are gone.
I wasn't saying that just because the hunter is eating the meat that it makes hunting OK. I certainly believe that is the case, but I respect your opinion to believe otherwise. Vegetarians and vegans certainly have a valid point, albeit one that I disagree with.
What I was saying, and perhaps I should've been more clear, is that if you believe in the consumption of meat then hunting is absolutely morally and ethically superior to the way most animals are raised and killed in agriculture today. As you have made clear in your reply (if I'm reading it correctly), you are morally opposed to both that and hunting. I'm ok with that, it is a logically consistent position and you have every right to your personal opinion.
I was simply countering your assertion that the "for food" argument is not valid. If you in fact believe that it is morally acceptable to eat meat, then it does matter if someone is hunting for food or not. Your original post was ambiguous as to whether this was what your were arguing. Hopefully you understand I wasn't trying to flame.
You really have no idea the amount of time and effort that would actually take. Killing animals in the wild is very labor intensive. In my homes state of Colorado alone last year, 56,462 elk were harvested (stats on page 3) and 41,665 deer were harvested (stats also on page 3).
The numbers vary from state to state, but a significant number of states have harvests that large or larger. The amount of effort and labor it takes to bring down that many animals is huge. If it was state run, it would be inefficient, animals would be wasted, and it would be a huge burden on the taxpayers. As is it's an income generator, run very efficiently, and results in many people getting cheap food while reducing an overpopulation of animals. What the hell is wrong with that?
Actually, hunting and killing an animal in the wild is much more ethical and humane (generally speaking) than what most slaughterhouses get away with. At least the animal is living free and healthy in its natural environment. I sincerely hope that you do not eat meat bought from most supermarkets, or especially not from a fast food chain. Those animals are treated much worse than any wild animal is ever treated. If you aren't vegetarian/vegan and still feel this way about the killing of an animal (whether it has "feelings" or not) then maybe a healthy look at your own carnivorous habits is called for.
And yes, the for food argument does actually apply. The fact that it brings people pleasure is irrelevant as long as they actually put the animal to use after they kill it.
I agree. When I was younger we lived in a very rural area in eastern Oregon and could tune into TV and a couple radio stations from Boise (about 150 miles away) that were rebroadcast from Ontario, OR (about 90 miles away). The quality wasn't great and we had a big antenna set up, but you could still get clear reception. Driving around was bad because the signal dropped out constantly but at home it was definitely useable. I imagine most if not all of The Netherlands is easily reachable by broadcasts from outside the country.
Clinton won the presidential election in part because he was promising universal health care. Gore and Kerry both lost, Hillary's run is still up in the air. So while your point still stands that Democratic nominees don't move left to get a nomination, maybe they should. Maybe part of the reason they don't win is because they don't do a good enough job courting the "silent majority" with things such as universal health care, decrease in government handouts to big business, environmental concerns, etc. When I say silent majority I mean that in the actual literal definition of the words, not the meaning used by conservative politicians. There's a shitload of people in this country that don't vote. There is probably a way to get them to support the Democrats, especially since Republican administrations have been so incompetent.
I understand why you are frustrated but since Apple is based in the US, most of the record companies are based in the US, and the US has by far the largest music market in the world it is understandable that they don't focus on smaller markets like Sweden. They are really mainly concerned about selling iPods anyway so it may be that just having the iTunes store available is enough for them. I imagine they don't consider getting all the proper distribution rights and licensing in Sweden for the large catalogue they have in the US worth the time and effort. If you're getting all of your music from torrents but still buy an iPod Apple probably doesn't care.
A friend of mine mooned somebody from one of my other friends' car when we were in high school. A police officer happened to see this and arrested my friend for indecent exposure. The judge let him off easy, but he was told that it was possible he could've been forced to register as a sex offender.
That thing is about a thousand times creepier than I would've imagined from your description. Very interesting creature.
I think that what you have there is a solution looking for a problem. Certainly urban areas already have a much larger percentage of the power, just not as large a share as they would have if it wasn't for a non-population based Senate (not sure what the correct terminology is there). Also, I don't think the "subsidies" to rural residents are as large as you make them seem.
You say, "we as a society have no particular need for rural residents beyond those necessary to keep our farming and recreational operations in business." The language you use makes it seem that you view society as urban and that rural residents are somehow lesser than urban residents. For example (not trying to start a flame war but here it goes), say you were to make the claim "we as a society have no particular need for inner-city residents, beyond those necessary to keep our fast food and housekeeping operations in business." That may not be a perfect example, but you can't separate certain segments of society and try to assess their "value". Our job isn't simply to give the urbanites food and recreation, in fact I find that view extremely condescending. If you look at any minority population (not necessarily an ethnic minority) relative to the rest of society you begin to foster a sense of seclusion and elitism. That is not the way to go.
I assure you that people living in rural areas are contributing to society as much as those in urban areas. 20% of the US lives in rural areas, and they are serving a practical purpose. You may be surprised to find that in the rural areas, there is also a large feeling that the cities have too much power, as they control policy decisions that have drastic effects on rural residents. I can guarantee in every single election year, the rural residents will be complaining that the cities hold too much sway over the elections. I've seen people with this view even in Wyoming, where the largest city is about 60,000.
I don't mean to be picking you out specifically, your viewpoint is a very common (and somewhat justified). Compromises like the bicameral legislature we have in the US government satisfies no one completely, but it makes concessions to everybody's interests. That's why it works.
True, but when the Constitution says it explicitly, the Federalist Papers directly line up with the argument that you are making, you have hundreds of years of judicial precedents, and a huge percentage of the population agrees with that interpretation it is going to be pretty damn hard to change. (IANAL)
I agree. In my history class, there was a small section about how the White House was burned down, but it did not give any details about how and why. They certainly didn't get into how it was pretty much a miracle that we actually won that war. A lot more time was spent on issues such as impressment of American sailors and "The Star Spangled Banner." And of course for the Civil War we got the usual slavery vs. abolitionists story with none of the actual important details of why the war was fought and the consequences for both sides (other than emancipation of course).
Generally speaking the show had good music, but the intro theme was unbelievably corny. I don't think it took away from the show because it just played over the credits, but every time I hear it my friends and I crack up. There's something to be said for a little subtlety in lyrics. It is like a caricature of a cheesy cowboy song (speaking as a fan of country and folk music). I'm not sure if that's what they were going for.
What if you are at a left-turn red light and can see clearly enough in all directions to know you are not going to cause an accident. Clearly you could make the illegal turn without hurting anybody, so why not do it? They're isn't something naturally unjust about making an illegal left turn, so there must be something else stopping you from going. Breaking laws in itself also isn't unjust, so the thing preventing a person from making the turn in that situation is probably a fear of getting caught.
And yes, if a red light is forcing me to sit still in the middle of the night and there is no one around, I consider it stupid to follow the traffic laws. I have no problem breaking the law. I am perfectly capable of judging that situation, I do not need a set of laws to guide my actions. I do not view that as "juvenile" as you put it, it is in fact the opposite. I do not look to someone else to guide my behavior, I react in accordance with my own judgment. If I make a mistake, then I will take responsibility for that mistake.
Twilight Princess is coming out for the GameCube as well, right? In fact it was originally developed for the GC, so theoretically it should control as good or better compared to the Wii version. So why would I pay $250 for a new Wii when I can just play the game on the GC I already own?
That is what you said. I merely pointed out that deserts are more than snakes and scorpions. They're a very diverse and valuable part of the biosphere. I then pointed out the flaw in your thinking that by shading the desert you could turn into into viable farmland. I then made my own point that they probably wouldn't put all of their solar panels in one place because of other factors. So I'll say no thanks to that course, my reading comprehension is just fine. I was merely showing why I disagreed with you opinions. Oh, and just to throw a little more fuel on the flame, Iraq wasn't about oil. They're killing thousands of people to advance America's interests in geopolitics, most of which does not have anything to do with energy needs. If you want to point at one industry for the cause of most of our wars (including Iraq), look to the arms industry before the oil industry.
Looks like someone needs a refresher course in ecology. Deserts are very rich and diverse zones. Remember, a desert isn't just sand dunes. Just because it isn't green and not many people live there (the US West/Southwest) doesn't mean it's a barren wasteland. Also, the reason why the desert isn't farmland is because there is no water. The thing preventing Nevada from being a rich agricultural region is a rather large mountain range, not too much sun. Unless you can find a way of getting more water to the desert (like the Northwest) then it isn't going to produce squat.
Besides, other areas of the country still receive sunshine. I bet when you take into account the costs of maintaining the transmission infrastructure as well as the risks associated with a centralized power source most of the solar stations would be stationed near population centers instead of concentrated in one area.
I know it was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway. They will scale it back when they start losing audiences. Until that day, they'll cram as many ads into a program as they can. If you really want to see ad free football, go down to your local high school on a Friday night. Remember, the NFL is about making as much money as possible. If you would sit there and watch nothing but ads for three hours, that's what they would put on TV.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. US Constitution
Who, exactly, gets to decide if they're being asshats (to use your vernacular)? If they're protesting the president's actions? If they're marching for civil rights? If they're protesting against the WTO? Obviously if they are using violence then they have forfeited their right to assemble, but if the government has this weapon, don't doubt for a single second that it will not be abused.
We do get to the point where the moderators come to a consensus (or at least a majority overrides a minority) but that doesn't address the issue of whether or not the moderators are correct in moderating a comment up or down. In most situations there is no one correct answer, so how can you get everybody to agree? I am not going to moderate a post insightful if I disagree with the content, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so either. In a situation that it is essentially voting for whether you think the post makes a valid point, it is pretty obvious that groupthink will prevail most of the time.
I, unfortunately, am sometimes that guy. The only times I do that, however, is when people are driving slow in a left-hand lane and there is plenty of room to get over. Although in that situation they may technically be obeying the law, what they are doing is creating a more dangerous situation by forcing people going above the speed limit to make a right-hand pass and generally pissing everybody off. It is very disruptive when someone thinks, "I am doing the speed limit, so it doesn't matter where on the road I'm at."
I do try and control my frustration and am generally not an asshole when driving, but there are definitely situations where people driving the speed limit are acting discourteous by ignoring those that want to get by. That's probably a small amount compared to the asshole drivers that just want to drive as fast as possible, though. I agree that riding behind someone trying to get them to go faster is extremely rude and dangerous, just wanted to add my 2 cents.