So this is all just a giant conspiracy? A vast, right-wing secret attack on Obama? A backhand way to make him look bad? "Hey boys, lets fill out another hundred or so of those FOIA requests today! We're almost at our goal".
I see you didn't bother to read my post before replying... you know, the part of my post that actually explains what I think may be a contributing factor, that has *nothing* to do with any kind of conspiracy.
Although, FWIW, there *are* groups that coordinate to send FOIA requests on topics. I don't think the purpose is to discredit Obama via bad FOIA numbers -- but the purpose is generally to discredit *someone* via the information gathered.
Thanks for the explanation, you put it into words much better than I could have. BTW, I was the AC...
I wanted to see if Pudge responded differently to ACs than he does to logged in users (I've been engaged in another useless "debate" with him in the comments to this article).
Sorry, have to disagree there. I say fairly controversial (read: anything remotely approaching a conservative viewpoint) things all the time but I make sure to do it either eloquently enough or humorously enough that I've been modded down so little I can count the negative point comments on one hand.
Perhaps it's because conservatives viewpoints are less controversial on slashdot than you'd think at first glance?
I have a fairly liberal viewpoint, it's not even extreme. And yet I get modded Troll quite often for writing comments that are by no means trollish.
I think it's the liberal viewpoints that get hammered here on slashdot... really it's the extremes of both sides. But thinking on the topic over the past couple years has led me to one conclusion on the topic... people with axes to grind will spend their modpoints grinding that axe, many of them without consideration for the actual content of the post.
And I didn't say you said I was. YOU are the one jumping to conclusions here. Seriously.
Oh? What conclusions have I jumped to? You quoted me making a generic caution against jumping to conclusions, and your single-line response was that you didn't jump to conclusions. The only reason you would have quoted me in your single-line denial would be if you DID think I accused you of jumping to conclusions. Although, it is quite possible that you're simply a moron, but I give you more credit than that -- you wouldn't quote someone and then respond to that quote with an unrelated sentence, would you? I mean, if you did, then I've lost what little respect I have left for your ability to discuss items with reason.
Another (false) assumption on your part. I took no pleasure in it whatsoever. Indeed, it was, on the contrary, a slight bit of exasperation, if there was any emotion at all.
Why would you write it if you took no pleasure in it? Really? Your response to my post did not address the meaning of my post at all... it set up a straw man that you are unsuccessfully attacking. Either you didn't bother to comprehend my post and responded anyway (bad form, Pudge), or you comprehended my post and decided to straw-man it to stroke your ego or for some other reason.
What error is that? I don't see any error I made...
You allowed the original poster's claim that the piece was a Breitbart piece be left uncontested.
Whatever. I'm done arguing with you... it's pointless. I've crossed paths with you enough in prior slashdot discussions knowing that you cannot allow any kind of differing opinion into your consciousness, and you will spend your time making specious arguments to try to discredit the arguments of those you disagree with. It appears you'll never learn better reading comprehension, you'll never learn to think rationally in the face of opinions that differ from your own, and you'll never learn to appreciate that opinions different than your own may indeed have value.
So... whatever. Feel free to set up more straw men, to chase after red herrings...
Please just do me one favor and, if you actually have *ANY* response that is relevant to my OP in this thread, go ahead and make that response to my OP. I'm done making responses to this ancillary thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with the points I raised.
I didn't say you were -- go ahead and re-read my post. Ironically, your assumption that I was saying that *is* an example of you jumping to conclusions:)
I was pointing out that while I agree that it's ok to examine a work in progress, it is not OK to make conclusions based on incomplete data. I thought that was an important distinction to be made in light of your comment.
You mean the ASSOCIATED PRESS article at Breitbart?
Funny how you seem to take so much pleasure in pointing that out, while you made the same error I did. Does it help overcome your shame to point out the same error in others?
Except the only people with enough time on their hands (artists, welfare, ACORN workers, etc) to make tens of thousands of requests tend to be Obama supporters...
Stupid troll.
Young Republicans clubs? Out of work blue-collar Republicans who feel empowered by becoming teabaggers (and I personally know quite a few of those)?
it wouldn't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story. out of context it's meaningless.
Not sure why your post was marked troll, even if it's a little paranoid. It's quite likely that teabaggers and other anti-obama people have affected these nnumbers, even if unintentionally.
I think the nature of the requests probably has a lot to do with it. A lot the people who submitted FOIA requests that related to their frustration with the prior administration (1) had given up/stopped caring prior to 2009 or (2) knew what they were doing, so were less likely to submit a request that would be denied.
In comes Obama, and all the sudden you have a change in where a lot of the FOIA requests are coming from. People without experience in submitting them... people who make errors in submission, those who submit requests for information they know won't be released.
Let's compare numbers after a few years, one year (especially after a huge administration change) does not make a good sample.
Though while, yes, more years will reveal better data, there's nothing wrong with looking at it in-progress.
Although, of course, there IS something wrong with jumping to conclusions based upon incomplete data.
And you know just as well as I do that the article at breitbart is intended to lead people who like to jump to conclusions that support their politics.
I'm not going to claim it protects against cancer, instead merely make a vague statement along the lines of "we'd better watch out carefully when removing something evolution has decided should appear in fit creatures".
We already know what the answer is -- why this gene was selected for. Did you notice that the regeneration resulted in no scar formation? The answer to the reproductive advantage should be coming clear to you any second, it's obvious really.
Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous (please no Skynet jokes)
Resistance is futile. This article will be assimiliated into the collective conscious of slashdot, and will become subject to Skynet jokes whether you like it or not.
There. A skynet comment and a borg comment rolled into one...
The US Constitution was last amended in 1992, a scant 18 years ago
When was the last time we had an amendment that actually impacted the operation of government?
Amendment 27 just deals with legislators not granting themselves immediate pay raises. This amendment is nowhere near the scale of what OP is suggesting. It's addressing an administrative detail, not a critical issue.
Why, yes, you might be able to force your way on everyone, but since you're already saying you advocate "working around" the basic laws of the country, aren't you admitting you're legally in the wrong?
Since when is the law black and white? You're deluding yourself if you think it's so simple. It's open to interpretation, and if I choose a loose interpretation, that is my perogative. It's open to debate in the form of cases before the court... if the law were black-and-white, we wouldn't need lawyers and judges.
Just or unjust, whether you agree or disagree with me, the truth of the matter is that the law is exactly what we make of it. And what we've made of it is a fuzzy mess that you can put a fine point on... but so can your opposition.
I'm not advocating disregard of the law... I'm advocating understanding that the law must be mutable, that our Constitutional process for changing the law is broken (through lack of use), and thus should not be held as a requirement for action. Because inaction through lack of a useful channel for authorization is, in many cases, worse than taking action outside the scope of the Constitution.
Note that I think we still need to use the Constitution as a guiding document, and should do our best to only deviate when necessary. It's just that getting ANY meaningful amendment to the Constitution passed is impossible. Our stupid 15-second-soundbite politics have killed our ability to have meaningful political dialogue on a national stage.
Well obviously I did not label you a troll, since I posted in the thread.
But I can tell you that excessive use of boldface and capitals make it seem like you're a little unhinged... no need to get worked up about it.
At any rate, while you can quote Jefferson and Madison all you like, it doesn't change the reality that strict adherence to the Constitution died a long time ago. You can scream and rant and rave all you want, but it's not going to change a thing. The Legislature will continue to pass laws, and the Executive will continue to enforce them, and the Judiciary will continue to rule on them as they all see fit, with only a token nod to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
You know that we're past the point of passing Constitutional amendments. You know that what you're asking for is a pipe dream. So why not do something more useful than piss into the wind?
So to avoid impacting the "wild desert" we end up sticking with the status quo - destroying the entire planet. Well played, Mr Green!
Far better to consider the impact of action than to act rashly without understanding the consequences.
For that matter, beyond the consequences, are we a rational society or not? If we aim to be a rational society, why would we not want discourse on a divisive course of action?
There is a reason that the phrase "look before you leap" is used so often. I'll let you try to figure out the reason.
Keep in mind that deciding on the fate of this one plant will set a precedent for many more.
Granted, I believe a lot of it is NIMBYism, and I also believe that petrodollars fund some of the solar obstructionists. But as people, we need potential courses of action to be studied, discussed, and debated. You dismiss their objections to the solar plant... fine. Good thing you're not the Decider here. Those with specialized knowledge can do the specialized assessment needed. I know I'm not competent to do so... but I'm glad someone is.
I cannot agree with the idea that wars effectively suspend ethics.
And yet how can one wage war without suspending ethics? Does your code of ethics allows for the killing of others in the normal course of life?
If it's not OK to kill someone in the normal course of life, but it is OK to do so when at war... why the difference? What are the factors that allow one to suspend the ethical rule against killing when at war?
IMO, war itself is unethical. As they used to say, in for a penny, in for a pound -- why apply a bastardized ethical code to something that is itself unethical? All the rules and treaties governing humane prosecution of war are window dressing that is supposed to make war more palatable, so those who wage war can convince themselves they are acting ethically.
The universal acceptance of such a principle would reduce humanity to a level of barbarism unseen since the end of the Bronze Age.
I find that laughable. Many Bronze Age societies were no more barbarians than people today -- barbarism still exists all over the world.
I intimate from your argument that you think this is somehow tempered by the need for popular support, but this is not born out by the practices of sacking hordes from the Ancient and Medieval periods
I was referring to the current period. Not everything that applies today applied hundreds or thousands of years ago. We have common literacy and mass media, for starters. The second of those two is the most important, IMO -- it represents a sea change in how civilians experience war. Those who wage war are far more accountable for the visible results of their actions.
Now I happen to agree with you that the clean air act is constitutional (under the commerce clause, because air pollution is interstate) but this "living document" stuff is a formula for tyranny.
You misunderstand what "living document" means.
In regards to the Constitution, it means that the document is not fixed forever. It can be amended via procedures established within it.
The problem is that conservatives (in the true sense of the word) have taken that option off the table... so instead of changing the contract by the mechanism provided, we work around the contract. This happens all the time, in business and in government. When you have a contract that doesn't suit any of the parties to the contract, but cannot edit the contract for some reason, you work around the contract. It's not the ideal way to operate, but sometimes you just need to get shit done.
I'm not saying our system is perfect. What I AM saying is that modern society requires concerted action on a scale that makes strict Constitutionalism useless. The Constitution is a dead document. Realistically it can't be touched... so instead we use it as a guide for governance.
Ironically, one of the reasons it's a dead document is because of the Constitutionalists who believe it is sacred... these are some of the same people who insist any federal action be specifically provided for via Constitutional amendment. I find most of these people to be blissfully unaware of all the things that our government makes possible that their libertarian utopia would not have.
Yeah, he took pride in the "Made in the USA" label right up until he saw how much money he and his crotchfruit could make off buying cheaply imported goods. Even in the 80s, as much as 85% of the goods sold in Walmart were made outside the US... despite the remarkable marketing/PR campaign which you appear to have fallen for hook, line, and sinker:)
Sam Walton was great at *pretending* to take pride in "Made in the USA"... when in actuality, he made tons of cash off sourcing cheaply overseas.
That said, the small amount that was made in the USA is perhaps more than what a lot of his competitors in the 80s were selling.
I mean come on, how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.
Oh yes. Let's admit we have a problem, and then go ahead and implement a solution without bothering to evaluate that solution.
I hope to God you don't have any sort of responsibility for any systems I use.
And, for what it's worth, do you really think that "greens" are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals? Have you ever bothered to consider that "greens" constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns? It's quite possible for some people who are "greens" to think it's OK to damage wild deserts in the name of reducing carbon output -- and there are some "greens" who are more concerned with maintaining a natural environment.
But whatever dude... your tired complaint of a large group of people having members with sometimes conflicting interests is useless for any kind of rational discussion.
Those are good acts but still unconstitutional (per Bill of Rights 9 and 10). The U.S. Constitution should be amended to specifically grant Congress said power to regulate the air and water's clarity. I believe in following the Supreme Law as written, and amending it as needed to assign new powers to the U.S. government as time advance
Horsepoop. Really, just plain horsepoop.
Although lots of clauses in the Constitution have been abused, establishing clean air and water are textbook examples of measures taken "to promote the general welfare". There is no amendment needed.
What is needed is for knee-jerk strict constitutionalism to be laid to rest. The world is much different than it was 220 years ago. Deal with it.
I sense a market gap for motorbike helmets that are airbrushed to look like turbans.
What observant sikh is going to wear something that just looks like a turban, instead of actually *being* a turban?
Why not get a textile expert to help you design a turban that, when wrapped, gives good protection against trauma? I dunno, teflon-impregnated fabric or something.
You could *OWN* the motorbike-riding-sikh-protective-headwear market segment!
I wrote those lines in response to the parent to my post, which claimed that Sherman's scorched earth campaign was done just for the sake of burning stuff.
But, war is war. It is an ugly thing. Although the past two centuries have seen a lot of advancement in waging war in a more humane manner, we have to consider the tactics and strategy used within the context of their time.
It would have been better to draw out the conflict, even to a stalemate, than it is to have won by such efforts.
How many more hundreds of thousands would have had to have died? How many millions would have had to suffer longer under a protracted war? Making a stand on principle sounds nice, but if it causes more suffering in the end... well... I'm not sure I can agree with you.* Wars are fought to be won, and if a campaign of terror helps end the war quicker, in the long run, we're probably better off for it.
And FWIW, while their remains a divide between the north and south, it's continually diminishing. Reconstruction had as much to do with mending the rift as carpetbagging.
I'm not sure why you reference continued mistreatment of the south by the north -- do you have any examples?
* To elaborate on principles and ethics in war -- if those principles were of overriding importance (i.e., more important than expediting victory & avoidance of many more casualties by any means necessary), then I would think that the act of waging war would be out of the question. Once you have crossed the ethical line by actually entering into battle, then it is hypocritical to demand that you avoid causing suffering in the interest of ethics. War is about practicality. Ethical considerations come into play because of their practical implications... support of the people, avoiding the need for a lengthy occupation, etc. It's a bit pie-in-the-sky to think that the people who execute wars consider ethics more than a set of rules they need to follow in order to be allowed to do what they are paid to do. People with a hard code of ethics don't make it to the top level.
At the time, trade laws were biased heavily in favor of the north and the southern states had to pay heavy tariffs on everything we got from them
Tariffs between states did not exist at that time. Perhaps you are confusing the issue of tariffs between the states with export tariffs on agricultural goods? The tariff issue boils down to protectionist tariffs on finished goods (helping the North's industrial base), and export tariffs on agricultural goods (the North wanted the South to sell goods cheaply to them, not to sell goods overseas).
The north is in no position to take the moral high ground here. Lincoln chose to ignore the constitution he swore to uphold and should have been impeached.
Every president of the US did likewise in time of war. And each time, it wasn't quite as bad. Judge Learned Hand wrote extensively about this; Lincoln was no different (and perhaps a little better wrt rights, even) than prior wartime presidents. Rights are trampled in time of war, then peacetime review finds problems with those actions... so in the next war, rights are trampled a little less. This has held true until, arguably, the current war in Iraq.
Sherman was a war criminal who burned everything in sight just for the sake of causing damage.
You miss the purpose of his campaign. It was not for fun -- it was to demoralize the heart of the insurgency. And it worked, however nauseating it may be in hindsight.
The north invaded our lands, killed many of our people, and destroyed most of our infrastructure.
The south would have done the same were they able to. They did, after all, initiate the hostilities. The south's campaign into Pennsylvania was a good example of the south practicing a lot of the same tactics the north would later use in the south... the only reason there wasn't a lot of infrastructure damage is because the south wanted to use the north's rail systems at the front. Had the south been able to get past the front, they would have destroyed northern infrastructure.
Why do people always look down on the south? ... Who are they to judge us?
I'm a damned yankee, and I look down on much of the south. There's ignorance and stupidity everywhere (present company excepted, of course), but the south seems to have gotten a double helping.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, the above post was made by me.
sorry if anyone thought it was written by anyone else due to it being AC.
And, by the way, I *DO* think Pudge is fundamentally retarded in the special kind of way that only intelligent right-wing idealists can be.
I was the AC.
I wanted to see if Pudge responded differently to an AC than he did to my other "debates" with him. I've called him names logged in plenty of times.
Sorry if it gave anyone any issues because the post was misattributed.
I'll post a response to it now to clear it up.
I see you didn't bother to read my post before replying... you know, the part of my post that actually explains what I think may be a contributing factor, that has *nothing* to do with any kind of conspiracy.
Although, FWIW, there *are* groups that coordinate to send FOIA requests on topics. I don't think the purpose is to discredit Obama via bad FOIA numbers -- but the purpose is generally to discredit *someone* via the information gathered.
Thanks for the explanation, you put it into words much better than I could have. BTW, I was the AC...
I wanted to see if Pudge responded differently to ACs than he does to logged in users (I've been engaged in another useless "debate" with him in the comments to this article).
No, I believe both parties are liars and, generally, scumbags.
The reason I didn't think it was a joke is because I've seen remarkably similar sentiments expressed seriously too many times.
Perhaps it's because conservatives viewpoints are less controversial on slashdot than you'd think at first glance?
I have a fairly liberal viewpoint, it's not even extreme. And yet I get modded Troll quite often for writing comments that are by no means trollish.
I think it's the liberal viewpoints that get hammered here on slashdot... really it's the extremes of both sides. But thinking on the topic over the past couple years has led me to one conclusion on the topic... people with axes to grind will spend their modpoints grinding that axe, many of them without consideration for the actual content of the post.
Oh? What conclusions have I jumped to? You quoted me making a generic caution against jumping to conclusions, and your single-line response was that you didn't jump to conclusions. The only reason you would have quoted me in your single-line denial would be if you DID think I accused you of jumping to conclusions. Although, it is quite possible that you're simply a moron, but I give you more credit than that -- you wouldn't quote someone and then respond to that quote with an unrelated sentence, would you? I mean, if you did, then I've lost what little respect I have left for your ability to discuss items with reason.
Why would you write it if you took no pleasure in it? Really? Your response to my post did not address the meaning of my post at all... it set up a straw man that you are unsuccessfully attacking. Either you didn't bother to comprehend my post and responded anyway (bad form, Pudge), or you comprehended my post and decided to straw-man it to stroke your ego or for some other reason.
You allowed the original poster's claim that the piece was a Breitbart piece be left uncontested.
Whatever. I'm done arguing with you... it's pointless. I've crossed paths with you enough in prior slashdot discussions knowing that you cannot allow any kind of differing opinion into your consciousness, and you will spend your time making specious arguments to try to discredit the arguments of those you disagree with. It appears you'll never learn better reading comprehension, you'll never learn to think rationally in the face of opinions that differ from your own, and you'll never learn to appreciate that opinions different than your own may indeed have value.
So... whatever. Feel free to set up more straw men, to chase after red herrings...
Please just do me one favor and, if you actually have *ANY* response that is relevant to my OP in this thread, go ahead and make that response to my OP. I'm done making responses to this ancillary thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with the points I raised.
I didn't say you were -- go ahead and re-read my post. Ironically, your assumption that I was saying that *is* an example of you jumping to conclusions :)
I was pointing out that while I agree that it's ok to examine a work in progress, it is not OK to make conclusions based on incomplete data. I thought that was an important distinction to be made in light of your comment.
Funny how you seem to take so much pleasure in pointing that out, while you made the same error I did. Does it help overcome your shame to point out the same error in others?
Stupid troll.
Young Republicans clubs? Out of work blue-collar Republicans who feel empowered by becoming teabaggers (and I personally know quite a few of those)?
Not sure why your post was marked troll, even if it's a little paranoid. It's quite likely that teabaggers and other anti-obama people have affected these nnumbers, even if unintentionally.
I think the nature of the requests probably has a lot to do with it. A lot the people who submitted FOIA requests that related to their frustration with the prior administration (1) had given up/stopped caring prior to 2009 or (2) knew what they were doing, so were less likely to submit a request that would be denied.
In comes Obama, and all the sudden you have a change in where a lot of the FOIA requests are coming from. People without experience in submitting them... people who make errors in submission, those who submit requests for information they know won't be released.
Let's compare numbers after a few years, one year (especially after a huge administration change) does not make a good sample.
Although, of course, there IS something wrong with jumping to conclusions based upon incomplete data.
And you know just as well as I do that the article at breitbart is intended to lead people who like to jump to conclusions that support their politics.
We already know what the answer is -- why this gene was selected for. Did you notice that the regeneration resulted in no scar formation? The answer to the reproductive advantage should be coming clear to you any second, it's obvious really.
Chicks dig scars.
Resistance is futile. This article will be assimiliated into the collective conscious of slashdot, and will become subject to Skynet jokes whether you like it or not.
There. A skynet comment and a borg comment rolled into one...
Bet you didn't see that coming, submitter.
When was the last time we had an amendment that actually impacted the operation of government?
Amendment 27 just deals with legislators not granting themselves immediate pay raises. This amendment is nowhere near the scale of what OP is suggesting. It's addressing an administrative detail, not a critical issue.
Since when is the law black and white? You're deluding yourself if you think it's so simple. It's open to interpretation, and if I choose a loose interpretation, that is my perogative. It's open to debate in the form of cases before the court... if the law were black-and-white, we wouldn't need lawyers and judges.
Just or unjust, whether you agree or disagree with me, the truth of the matter is that the law is exactly what we make of it. And what we've made of it is a fuzzy mess that you can put a fine point on... but so can your opposition.
I'm not advocating disregard of the law... I'm advocating understanding that the law must be mutable, that our Constitutional process for changing the law is broken (through lack of use), and thus should not be held as a requirement for action. Because inaction through lack of a useful channel for authorization is, in many cases, worse than taking action outside the scope of the Constitution.
Note that I think we still need to use the Constitution as a guiding document, and should do our best to only deviate when necessary. It's just that getting ANY meaningful amendment to the Constitution passed is impossible. Our stupid 15-second-soundbite politics have killed our ability to have meaningful political dialogue on a national stage.
Well obviously I did not label you a troll, since I posted in the thread.
But I can tell you that excessive use of boldface and capitals make it seem like you're a little unhinged... no need to get worked up about it.
At any rate, while you can quote Jefferson and Madison all you like, it doesn't change the reality that strict adherence to the Constitution died a long time ago. You can scream and rant and rave all you want, but it's not going to change a thing. The Legislature will continue to pass laws, and the Executive will continue to enforce them, and the Judiciary will continue to rule on them as they all see fit, with only a token nod to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
You know that we're past the point of passing Constitutional amendments. You know that what you're asking for is a pipe dream. So why not do something more useful than piss into the wind?
Far better to consider the impact of action than to act rashly without understanding the consequences.
For that matter, beyond the consequences, are we a rational society or not? If we aim to be a rational society, why would we not want discourse on a divisive course of action?
There is a reason that the phrase "look before you leap" is used so often. I'll let you try to figure out the reason.
Keep in mind that deciding on the fate of this one plant will set a precedent for many more.
Granted, I believe a lot of it is NIMBYism, and I also believe that petrodollars fund some of the solar obstructionists. But as people, we need potential courses of action to be studied, discussed, and debated. You dismiss their objections to the solar plant... fine. Good thing you're not the Decider here. Those with specialized knowledge can do the specialized assessment needed. I know I'm not competent to do so... but I'm glad someone is.
And yet how can one wage war without suspending ethics? Does your code of ethics allows for the killing of others in the normal course of life?
If it's not OK to kill someone in the normal course of life, but it is OK to do so when at war... why the difference? What are the factors that allow one to suspend the ethical rule against killing when at war?
IMO, war itself is unethical. As they used to say, in for a penny, in for a pound -- why apply a bastardized ethical code to something that is itself unethical? All the rules and treaties governing humane prosecution of war are window dressing that is supposed to make war more palatable, so those who wage war can convince themselves they are acting ethically.
I find that laughable. Many Bronze Age societies were no more barbarians than people today -- barbarism still exists all over the world.
I was referring to the current period. Not everything that applies today applied hundreds or thousands of years ago. We have common literacy and mass media, for starters. The second of those two is the most important, IMO -- it represents a sea change in how civilians experience war. Those who wage war are far more accountable for the visible results of their actions.
You misunderstand what "living document" means.
In regards to the Constitution, it means that the document is not fixed forever. It can be amended via procedures established within it.
The problem is that conservatives (in the true sense of the word) have taken that option off the table... so instead of changing the contract by the mechanism provided, we work around the contract. This happens all the time, in business and in government. When you have a contract that doesn't suit any of the parties to the contract, but cannot edit the contract for some reason, you work around the contract. It's not the ideal way to operate, but sometimes you just need to get shit done.
I'm not saying our system is perfect. What I AM saying is that modern society requires concerted action on a scale that makes strict Constitutionalism useless. The Constitution is a dead document. Realistically it can't be touched... so instead we use it as a guide for governance.
Ironically, one of the reasons it's a dead document is because of the Constitutionalists who believe it is sacred... these are some of the same people who insist any federal action be specifically provided for via Constitutional amendment. I find most of these people to be blissfully unaware of all the things that our government makes possible that their libertarian utopia would not have.
Yeah, he took pride in the "Made in the USA" label right up until he saw how much money he and his crotchfruit could make off buying cheaply imported goods. Even in the 80s, as much as 85% of the goods sold in Walmart were made outside the US... despite the remarkable marketing/PR campaign which you appear to have fallen for hook, line, and sinker :)
Sam Walton was great at *pretending* to take pride in "Made in the USA"... when in actuality, he made tons of cash off sourcing cheaply overseas.
That said, the small amount that was made in the USA is perhaps more than what a lot of his competitors in the 80s were selling.
Oh yes. Let's admit we have a problem, and then go ahead and implement a solution without bothering to evaluate that solution.
I hope to God you don't have any sort of responsibility for any systems I use.
And, for what it's worth, do you really think that "greens" are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals? Have you ever bothered to consider that "greens" constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns? It's quite possible for some people who are "greens" to think it's OK to damage wild deserts in the name of reducing carbon output -- and there are some "greens" who are more concerned with maintaining a natural environment.
But whatever dude... your tired complaint of a large group of people having members with sometimes conflicting interests is useless for any kind of rational discussion.
Horsepoop. Really, just plain horsepoop.
Although lots of clauses in the Constitution have been abused, establishing clean air and water are textbook examples of measures taken "to promote the general welfare". There is no amendment needed.
What is needed is for knee-jerk strict constitutionalism to be laid to rest. The world is much different than it was 220 years ago. Deal with it.
What observant sikh is going to wear something that just looks like a turban, instead of actually *being* a turban?
Why not get a textile expert to help you design a turban that, when wrapped, gives good protection against trauma? I dunno, teflon-impregnated fabric or something.
You could *OWN* the motorbike-riding-sikh-protective-headwear market segment!
I wrote those lines in response to the parent to my post, which claimed that Sherman's scorched earth campaign was done just for the sake of burning stuff.
But, war is war. It is an ugly thing. Although the past two centuries have seen a lot of advancement in waging war in a more humane manner, we have to consider the tactics and strategy used within the context of their time.
How many more hundreds of thousands would have had to have died? How many millions would have had to suffer longer under a protracted war? Making a stand on principle sounds nice, but if it causes more suffering in the end... well... I'm not sure I can agree with you.* Wars are fought to be won, and if a campaign of terror helps end the war quicker, in the long run, we're probably better off for it.
And FWIW, while their remains a divide between the north and south, it's continually diminishing. Reconstruction had as much to do with mending the rift as carpetbagging.
I'm not sure why you reference continued mistreatment of the south by the north -- do you have any examples?
* To elaborate on principles and ethics in war -- if those principles were of overriding importance (i.e., more important than expediting victory & avoidance of many more casualties by any means necessary), then I would think that the act of waging war would be out of the question. Once you have crossed the ethical line by actually entering into battle, then it is hypocritical to demand that you avoid causing suffering in the interest of ethics. War is about practicality. Ethical considerations come into play because of their practical implications... support of the people, avoiding the need for a lengthy occupation, etc. It's a bit pie-in-the-sky to think that the people who execute wars consider ethics more than a set of rules they need to follow in order to be allowed to do what they are paid to do. People with a hard code of ethics don't make it to the top level.
Tariffs between states did not exist at that time. Perhaps you are confusing the issue of tariffs between the states with export tariffs on agricultural goods? The tariff issue boils down to protectionist tariffs on finished goods (helping the North's industrial base), and export tariffs on agricultural goods (the North wanted the South to sell goods cheaply to them, not to sell goods overseas).
Every president of the US did likewise in time of war. And each time, it wasn't quite as bad. Judge Learned Hand wrote extensively about this; Lincoln was no different (and perhaps a little better wrt rights, even) than prior wartime presidents. Rights are trampled in time of war, then peacetime review finds problems with those actions... so in the next war, rights are trampled a little less. This has held true until, arguably, the current war in Iraq.
You miss the purpose of his campaign. It was not for fun -- it was to demoralize the heart of the insurgency. And it worked, however nauseating it may be in hindsight.
The south would have done the same were they able to. They did, after all, initiate the hostilities. The south's campaign into Pennsylvania was a good example of the south practicing a lot of the same tactics the north would later use in the south... the only reason there wasn't a lot of infrastructure damage is because the south wanted to use the north's rail systems at the front. Had the south been able to get past the front, they would have destroyed northern infrastructure.
I'm a damned yankee, and I look down on much of the south. There's ignorance and stupidity everywhere (present company excepted, of course), but the south seems to have gotten a double helping.
FWIW, I look down on much of the north as well...