That, and the fact that he is not obtaining or even seeking to obtain congressional authority to do so, unlike his predecessor.
In a large part, that was because with all of the post 9/11 hoo-ha, there was an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" that was worded broadly enough that it has basically served as a legal foundation for pretty much indefinite military action. Specifically, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... for the text and http://www.radiolab.org/story/... for a rundown of how it's been used.
The real trouble is that the office President has too much power these days, and the military has too much influence in how the US acts.
Every single day more people ar ekilled with guns due to gang violence than happened by this one sick fuck, yet we focus on the sick fuck rather than on gang culture??
I suspect the race of the people involved has something to do with how much the media cares, unfortunately.
Actually, I would like to rephrase your option #1:
People who make a lot of money using a particular technology/technique will do what they can to try to keep doing so.
We have seen this pattern multiple times. When scientists showed that lead in gasoline was causing problems, the oil and gas industry fought that claim for years. When scientists said that smoking caused cancer, tobacco companies fought that claim for years.
Now, scientists are pointing out the overwhelming amount of data showing that the climate is changing rapidly and that our spike of CO2 emissions is driving it. Meanwhile, those who make a lot of money off dumping CO2 into the atmosphere are denying it.
For me, it's still better to improve education overall, rather than concentrate funds on presumably "gifted" children. This way, those chldren who don't get selected can also get a good education.
Or, better yet, fund education well enough so that we don't have these kinds of dichotomies and can educate each student as well as possible.
You may be wrong, it may be the case that incarceration increases the likelihood of reoffending.
The more and more that I've been thinking about it, the more I realize how incarceration is probably one of the best ways to majorly disrupt someone's life and send them down a path where crime is the best option. As a thought experiment, imagine that all of a sudden you weren't able to work for 2 years. By the time you're out, you probably don't have a place to live or a job, and given your criminal record, it is hard to get a job, and given your lack of a job, it is hard to find a place to live.
For the generic person who had bad circumstances and made a few bad choices, this is almost certainly a recipe for continued trouble with the law.
It's amusing to me that you think outspending on health is bad and that outspending on education is good. [This assumes that all your data points were intended to show Sweden superior].
I fail to see the humor here. Sweden manages to spend just over half of the US on health, but manages to have nearly half the infant mortality rate and a longer life expectancy. It seems that they must be doing something right.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that all of these numbers are independent.
First of all, I wonder about this conclusion that I "so desperately seek." I thought that I was sharing my views and experience with the world and how I see things.
Anyhow, you point out that a big part of the issue is that the public is not making the fully informed, long-term self-interested decisions to create the proper market forces. I'd agree wholeheartedly, and extend this analysis to say that this is NORMAL. In modern society, our consumer decisions impact many, many things. Chances are, we are all walking around wearing clothing and carrying goods that originate from multiple countries and that are built up from many different suppliers. (Personally, I just checked that my fleece was made in the Philippines, my shoes were made in china, my socks in the US, my cell phone is by a Korean company, my car is Japanese, and so on.) Furthermore, there is no indication of the quality of treatment of the workers who mined the copper that is in this computer I'm using, and I suspect that it would be very difficult to trace the origins of that copper, let alone figure out the worker conditions.
My point here is that it is essentially impossible for all consumers to make all purchase decisions based upon a fully informed view of how the products are made and what kinds of direct and external costs are factored into the price of these items. In order for a truly free market, each person would need to make all kinds of these decisions all the time.
I think this places the blame squarely on the feet of Science....Why are there biological scientists out there carrying on with their day-to-day work and not raising hell about this? Why aren't they refusing, as a group, to work on new medicines until the media and industry give the issue the publicity it needs?
Perhaps it is because scientists are often ignored, ridiculed, and dismissed. Witness discussions around evolution or global warming, two concepts widely accepted by the scientific community, yet resisted by people with long-held religious beliefs and financial interests, respectively.
You're characterization of the issue as a failing of scientists and laying the blame wholly at their feet is missing much of the larger complexities here. Perhaps those who are pumping their cattle full of antibiotics, despite warnings of scientists, also share some of the responsibility? Pointing the finger at scientists who are not talking loudly enough sure sounds like scapegoating to me.
You act as if there were no regulation of the health care industry. Indeed, it's probably the most regulated in the world. So what are the free-market forces which you claim are responsible for this issue?
First of all, the regulation of the health care industry is to the side of this issue. The largest driver for resistance is the over-use of antibiotics in non-health care related fields, like industrial agriculture, and hand soap.
The market forces here are the desire for higher meat production (ie, more profit!) as well as the marketability of antibiotics to consumers that don't realize that you don't need or want antibiotics everywhere.
Where the market forces completely and utterly fail is that the very high cost of widespread antibiotic resistance is NOT being directly felt by the industries that are using them the most. It is in fact a very nice example of where pure capitalism fails - large, long-term, external costs are not felt by the people making short term profits.
I mean if you say that rape is NEVER the girl's fault in ANY way, you're an extremist.
Then I am an extremist.
It doesn't matter what a woman does prior to the point that a man forcibly inserts himself into her body. She is not guilty of her own rape. It is true that it is possible that a rape victim is not completely innocent, but nothing she does is ever justification of her getting raped.
To take your example of a guy verbally picking a fight, the verbal abuser is not responsible for being punched. He is responsible for being a dickhead and acting like an ass, but the person who started the physical fight bears the entire responsibility for starting the physical fight.
Stepping back, I think you have a good point - interactions are rarely black and white victim/villain scenarios, but when one person inflicts violence (of any kind) against another, the violent person is entirely responsible for their violent actions.
Some of us dont have any issue with an eye for an eye in extreme cases. I would put this in one of those cases.
In general, I agree with the sentiment that there are some people who are cruel, bloodthirsty sadists who are best dealt with by the most extreme penalties available.
The trouble is how do you define what those limits are? Furthermore, how can you be sure that whatever definition you use is not distorted by some unscrupulous government agent at some point in the future?
This line of thinking is why I am categorically against the death penalty. The ability to kill its own citizens is too great of a power to willingly grant something as big and clumsy as the government. Once the government is given such a power, it will use it inappropriately at some point, pretty much guaranteed.
It always surprises me how many of the hard-core, anti-government conservatives are still pro death penalty...
The second amendment... is to protect us from the government
Actually, if you read the amendment, there is a whole clause about a militia being needed to defend a free state. As such, it was seen that it was a good idea to have the populace have access to arms in order to form a militia in response to an invading force. In other words, part of the responsibility of owning a firearm is to be ready to defend the government from outsiders. Yes, there is also some thought about the right "to protect us from the government," but I honestly wonder how realistic such an idea really is.
Take for example, the civil rights movement in the U.S. If ever there was a case for armed insurrection, this was it. An entire race of legal citizens were systematically excluded and segregated, often with the force of law and government on the side of segregation. In parts of New Orleans, black people were required *by law* to get off of a sidewalk whenever a white person was on the same side.
To counter this repression, compare the effectiveness of some of the more extreme Blank Panther groups vs. the effectiveness of the peaceful marches.
If you can come up with an example where the armed citizenry managed to achieve such things without an aiding government, please let me know. And, no, the American revolution doesn't count - it most likely would not have succeeded without the aid of the French government.
Of course, much of the US news sources are so beholden to the political New Left point of view (this is not a crime, but one must identify and understand bias where it occurs, yes?)
Funny, but I really don't see the US media as beholden to the left or right. A giant problem is that the media has been so centralized/defunded that a lot of "news" consists of puff pieces that belong in tabloids only or are simply a repetition of whatever Powers That Be have released as a statement.
See how much the media just fell in line when Bush talked about WMD and justification to invade Iraq.
The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace
Yes, yes, yes!
They want everyone ignorant and afraid, so they can sell more guns.
No, no, no. If you actually take the time to talk to NRA members, you'll find that very few (none I've met) have any such desire to turn everyone into ignorant, fearful people. Rather, they have a world view that is very different from (I'm guessing) your own.
I would suggest that as part of becoming "an educated populace," you should first and foremost stop trying to sum up the opinions and desires of those on the other side of political spectrum with simple minded statements like the above.
Just so you know, both parties aggressively pursue the expanded police state. If anything, the Dems push the boundaries and the GOP solidifies the gains.
Strongly agree with the first sentence. Strongly disagree with the second. You do remember that the god-awful patriot act was pushed by republicans, right?
When it comes to claiming and not releasing power, I don't see much of any difference.
Your argument might have more merit if you can explain how so many people who are poor and come from nothing but the clothes on their back and manage to become wealthy. Are they all, each and every one helpless to achieve without the government providing them everything?
The argument is not that it is absolutely impossible to achieve if you come from a poor background. That argument is patently false, as you well know.
I think what the previous poster was getting at was the fact that if you take two people of equal ability and plop one down in a rich family and one down in a poor family, it is extremely likely that the person in the richer family will end going to college, finding a better job, etc. whereas the person in the poorer situation is much more likely to turn to crime as the best way of getting by.
I think that to a certain extent, a certain amount of such disparity is unavoidable, but I also think that we should, as a society, try to avoid these kinds of differences as much as possible by investing in schools, healthcare, etc. to try to give each person an equal chance at success.
How to create equal opportunities is a much larger discussion...
Even if evolution has many facts confirming it, the big problem is in the first cell.
Last research papers state that the minimum genes to create a living cell is ~400.
400 genes is so much complex to be generated by luck or by mutation from nothing.
The "improbable cell" is a very common straw man put forth by the creationists. Certainly, you are right, there is essentially zero chance that a single cell could spring into existence from nothing, which is why no scientist worth their salt would ever make such a claim.
Instead, the first cells came about only after a lot of molecular evolution happened. This is pretty common knowledge.
If indeed AGW is such a threat, such a dire situation, then everyone should be more than willing to set aside their anti-nuke bias and ignorance and embrace it as the one way we can solve this problem.
Yes, nuclear is an option, and yes, we should explore it objectively (as if that's even possible at this point..), but it is hardly accurate to say that if you accept AGW, it follows that you must endorse nuclear or you are a horrible hypocrite.
The trouble is that there has been so much FUD around AGW that we haven't been able to even have the conversation about what we're going to do about it.
Most likely, though, there isn't going to be one solution. There will be many, depending on where you live. Geothermal energy works great in Iceland, not so much in Arizona. Arizona gets a lot of sun, though, so solar is more feasible there, but not in Seattle. Seattle could use tidal energy, though, which wouldn't then work in Wisconsin. You get the idea - tap into the resource that is nearby.
Slashdot Mirror
That, and the fact that he is not obtaining or even seeking to obtain congressional authority to do so, unlike his predecessor.
In a large part, that was because with all of the post 9/11 hoo-ha, there was an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" that was worded broadly enough that it has basically served as a legal foundation for pretty much indefinite military action. Specifically, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... for the text and http://www.radiolab.org/story/... for a rundown of how it's been used.
The real trouble is that the office President has too much power these days, and the military has too much influence in how the US acts.
I suspect the race of the people involved has something to do with how much the media cares, unfortunately.
The Onion nailed it.
Actually, I would like to rephrase your option #1:
People who make a lot of money using a particular technology/technique will do what they can to try to keep doing so.
We have seen this pattern multiple times. When scientists showed that lead in gasoline was causing problems, the oil and gas industry fought that claim for years. When scientists said that smoking caused cancer, tobacco companies fought that claim for years.
Now, scientists are pointing out the overwhelming amount of data showing that the climate is changing rapidly and that our spike of CO2 emissions is driving it. Meanwhile, those who make a lot of money off dumping CO2 into the atmosphere are denying it.
Or, better yet, fund education well enough so that we don't have these kinds of dichotomies and can educate each student as well as possible.
And if you *really* want to become a food geek, read Harold McGee, especially hist book "On Food and Cooking."
A little bit of understanding of the basic physics/chemistry of cooking plus a lot of practice/experimentation can turn you into a fantastic cook.
The more and more that I've been thinking about it, the more I realize how incarceration is probably one of the best ways to majorly disrupt someone's life and send them down a path where crime is the best option. As a thought experiment, imagine that all of a sudden you weren't able to work for 2 years. By the time you're out, you probably don't have a place to live or a job, and given your criminal record, it is hard to get a job, and given your lack of a job, it is hard to find a place to live.
For the generic person who had bad circumstances and made a few bad choices, this is almost certainly a recipe for continued trouble with the law.
I fail to see the humor here. Sweden manages to spend just over half of the US on health, but manages to have nearly half the infant mortality rate and a longer life expectancy. It seems that they must be doing something right.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that all of these numbers are independent.
First of all, I wonder about this conclusion that I "so desperately seek." I thought that I was sharing my views and experience with the world and how I see things.
Anyhow, you point out that a big part of the issue is that the public is not making the fully informed, long-term self-interested decisions to create the proper market forces. I'd agree wholeheartedly, and extend this analysis to say that this is NORMAL. In modern society, our consumer decisions impact many, many things. Chances are, we are all walking around wearing clothing and carrying goods that originate from multiple countries and that are built up from many different suppliers. (Personally, I just checked that my fleece was made in the Philippines, my shoes were made in china, my socks in the US, my cell phone is by a Korean company, my car is Japanese, and so on.) Furthermore, there is no indication of the quality of treatment of the workers who mined the copper that is in this computer I'm using, and I suspect that it would be very difficult to trace the origins of that copper, let alone figure out the worker conditions.
My point here is that it is essentially impossible for all consumers to make all purchase decisions based upon a fully informed view of how the products are made and what kinds of direct and external costs are factored into the price of these items. In order for a truly free market, each person would need to make all kinds of these decisions all the time.
Perhaps it is because scientists are often ignored, ridiculed, and dismissed. Witness discussions around evolution or global warming, two concepts widely accepted by the scientific community, yet resisted by people with long-held religious beliefs and financial interests, respectively.
You're characterization of the issue as a failing of scientists and laying the blame wholly at their feet is missing much of the larger complexities here. Perhaps those who are pumping their cattle full of antibiotics, despite warnings of scientists, also share some of the responsibility? Pointing the finger at scientists who are not talking loudly enough sure sounds like scapegoating to me.
First of all, the regulation of the health care industry is to the side of this issue. The largest driver for resistance is the over-use of antibiotics in non-health care related fields, like industrial agriculture, and hand soap.
The market forces here are the desire for higher meat production (ie, more profit!) as well as the marketability of antibiotics to consumers that don't realize that you don't need or want antibiotics everywhere.
Where the market forces completely and utterly fail is that the very high cost of widespread antibiotic resistance is NOT being directly felt by the industries that are using them the most. It is in fact a very nice example of where pure capitalism fails - large, long-term, external costs are not felt by the people making short term profits.
Then I am an extremist.
It doesn't matter what a woman does prior to the point that a man forcibly inserts himself into her body. She is not guilty of her own rape. It is true that it is possible that a rape victim is not completely innocent, but nothing she does is ever justification of her getting raped.
To take your example of a guy verbally picking a fight, the verbal abuser is not responsible for being punched. He is responsible for being a dickhead and acting like an ass, but the person who started the physical fight bears the entire responsibility for starting the physical fight.
Stepping back, I think you have a good point - interactions are rarely black and white victim/villain scenarios, but when one person inflicts violence (of any kind) against another, the violent person is entirely responsible for their violent actions.
In general, I agree with the sentiment that there are some people who are cruel, bloodthirsty sadists who are best dealt with by the most extreme penalties available.
The trouble is how do you define what those limits are? Furthermore, how can you be sure that whatever definition you use is not distorted by some unscrupulous government agent at some point in the future?
This line of thinking is why I am categorically against the death penalty. The ability to kill its own citizens is too great of a power to willingly grant something as big and clumsy as the government. Once the government is given such a power, it will use it inappropriately at some point, pretty much guaranteed.
It always surprises me how many of the hard-core, anti-government conservatives are still pro death penalty...
Agreed. Gravity is a hoax
A business MAY be held accountable to the public. The government will ALWAYS be held accountable to the public.
Neither is a good option, but I'd rather take the one that can be forced into transparency.
Actually, if you read the amendment, there is a whole clause about a militia being needed to defend a free state. As such, it was seen that it was a good idea to have the populace have access to arms in order to form a militia in response to an invading force. In other words, part of the responsibility of owning a firearm is to be ready to defend the government from outsiders. Yes, there is also some thought about the right "to protect us from the government," but I honestly wonder how realistic such an idea really is.
Take for example, the civil rights movement in the U.S. If ever there was a case for armed insurrection, this was it. An entire race of legal citizens were systematically excluded and segregated, often with the force of law and government on the side of segregation. In parts of New Orleans, black people were required *by law* to get off of a sidewalk whenever a white person was on the same side.
To counter this repression, compare the effectiveness of some of the more extreme Blank Panther groups vs. the effectiveness of the peaceful marches.
If you can come up with an example where the armed citizenry managed to achieve such things without an aiding government, please let me know. And, no, the American revolution doesn't count - it most likely would not have succeeded without the aid of the French government.
Unlike those who stay and live for ever?
Funny, but I really don't see the US media as beholden to the left or right. A giant problem is that the media has been so centralized/defunded that a lot of "news" consists of puff pieces that belong in tabloids only or are simply a repetition of whatever Powers That Be have released as a statement.
See how much the media just fell in line when Bush talked about WMD and justification to invade Iraq.
Yes, yes, yes!
No, no, no. If you actually take the time to talk to NRA members, you'll find that very few (none I've met) have any such desire to turn everyone into ignorant, fearful people. Rather, they have a world view that is very different from (I'm guessing) your own.
I would suggest that as part of becoming "an educated populace," you should first and foremost stop trying to sum up the opinions and desires of those on the other side of political spectrum with simple minded statements like the above.
"Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement.
That is why I never use absolute statements.
Strongly agree with the first sentence. Strongly disagree with the second. You do remember that the god-awful patriot act was pushed by republicans, right?
When it comes to claiming and not releasing power, I don't see much of any difference.
Since when do the republicans *actually* represent smaller government? Certainly, they do no better than democrats when it comes to total spending.
As far as I can tell, when they say "small government" all they really mean is "no regulations on business."
PTO also stands for, "The company must pay you for your sick days when you leave." Otherwise, you will only be paid for unused vacation days.
The argument is not that it is absolutely impossible to achieve if you come from a poor background. That argument is patently false, as you well know.
I think what the previous poster was getting at was the fact that if you take two people of equal ability and plop one down in a rich family and one down in a poor family, it is extremely likely that the person in the richer family will end going to college, finding a better job, etc. whereas the person in the poorer situation is much more likely to turn to crime as the best way of getting by.
I think that to a certain extent, a certain amount of such disparity is unavoidable, but I also think that we should, as a society, try to avoid these kinds of differences as much as possible by investing in schools, healthcare, etc. to try to give each person an equal chance at success.
How to create equal opportunities is a much larger discussion...
Even if evolution has many facts confirming it, the big problem is in the first cell. Last research papers state that the minimum genes to create a living cell is ~400. 400 genes is so much complex to be generated by luck or by mutation from nothing.
The "improbable cell" is a very common straw man put forth by the creationists. Certainly, you are right, there is essentially zero chance that a single cell could spring into existence from nothing, which is why no scientist worth their salt would ever make such a claim.
Instead, the first cells came about only after a lot of molecular evolution happened. This is pretty common knowledge.
Yes, nuclear is an option, and yes, we should explore it objectively (as if that's even possible at this point..), but it is hardly accurate to say that if you accept AGW, it follows that you must endorse nuclear or you are a horrible hypocrite.
The trouble is that there has been so much FUD around AGW that we haven't been able to even have the conversation about what we're going to do about it.
Most likely, though, there isn't going to be one solution. There will be many, depending on where you live. Geothermal energy works great in Iceland, not so much in Arizona. Arizona gets a lot of sun, though, so solar is more feasible there, but not in Seattle. Seattle could use tidal energy, though, which wouldn't then work in Wisconsin. You get the idea - tap into the resource that is nearby.