So we just turn it over to an organization made up mostly of dictatorships, fundamentalist theocracies, and other oppressors? The UN isn't exactly the "happy free world club" almost any country can be a member. Most of them aren't nice places to live.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe in the "people get the government they deserve" idea as a generality. By that kind of thinking people in oppressive dictatorships who's government tortures, rapes, enslaves, and murders it's citizens... deserve such treatment. They do not. Nobody does.
I think this sentiment is probably more true within the State governments, which are closer to being democratic republics than the Federal government is. At the level where you get to the US government....that's government run mainly by the States. There is far less democracy at that level. We don't even elect our President popularly, he's elected by the will of the various States. Federal judges are appointees. And the Senate represents the governments of the various States, not the people directly. The House of Representatives is closer...representing the people, but even that is divided by State rather than some arbitrary district. There's less ability for the people to overall effect change in the Federal system, and thus, less accountability. On the other hand...you can find some significant differences between the States themselves, and higher levels of accountability to the People (which is often used).
More accurately described as a Federal Republic. There's a lot more democracy on the State level than at the Federal. The President for example, isn't elected by the people, but by the Electoral Collage. They usually follow the will of the people of their States though. In our States, we elect State representatives to Congress. Technically only the House of Representatives actually represent the People, while in the Senate the States themselves are represented, Senators represent their State governments...even though they are now elected by the people of their State (not always, used to be appointed by Governors).
Now the States themselves, that's a different matter. We elect Governors directly. Our legislatures are elected based on ever changing districts within the State. With population of a particular district tending to be the most important factor (either directly or indirectly). We elect our local governments, which have home rule status (at least in my State) under the State government. We elect local judges (meanwhile Federal judges are appointed). We elect prosecutors, and the heads of our local law enforcement. At the local/State level there is a lot more of what we consider democracy...with the States themselves being democratic republics of some sort or another.
It's really more accurate to say the US Federal government is run by the States than by the people. Which is of course, the way it should be. We are after all the United States of America....not the United State of America (no matter how much certain people try to to it into that).
Great! No really, we need to test out the ability to do this so when we need to do this we can. I hear China also has a planned mission very similar to this. They intent do attempt to change the course of a comet. And we've already demonstrated that we could do such a thing, with Deep Impact (what prompted the Chinese, and likely the ESA as well). True, we didn't change it's course, but if the "object" has been a nuke instead...
Technically, by matter of international law....an embassy is part of the "national soil" of the country who's embassy it is. Therefore, the attacks on American embassies are also attacks on American soil. Oh, but I suppose all the attacks on American soil just don't count as terrorism...
I always find it amusing how American's call us British people "reserved", yet they freak out at a nipple on TV, or, gasp, a few "naked" people showing nothing but a bit of skin and hugging each other.
That's just a very vocal minority that has way too much influence in the government. Most people here are not uptight, controlling, assholes.
Then again, I've seen some American TV, and it's awful. "Reserved" isn't the word for us Britons, it's "not making a tit out of ourselves" that is.:p
Wow, you've seen some American TV and therefore can brand it all as bad... What about Alias, Stargate (both SG-1 and Atlantis....ok they are filmed in Canada but still part of USA's television), Lost, CSI, and any number of other awesome shows? Sure the sitcoms are horrible...need to be tossed, and the daytime stuff is entirely crap...but American TV as a whole isn't horrible.
Thus, terrorists were invented in order to keep your nation from looming and long overdue economic recession. I believe that both fall into the category of "people we hate but really don't understand why, so they obviously stand for everything we don't stand for."
You know, I'm sure I remember some of these fictional, made-up terrorists flying aircraft into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.... Not to mention the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, a Navy ship...let me guess, another fictional incident? Same must be true of all those embassy bombings, the prior bombing of the World Trade Center, and the attacks against various US Military bases that go back decades...
Banky wasn't "outed" until the end of J&SBSB, and even then only in the deleted scenes
I don't know what version you have, but on the DVD I have (which I just checked to be absolutely sure), the scene isn't one of the deleted scenes...it's right there in Chapter 17, "One 90-Minute Long Gay Joke." In fact, it's part of the exchange that gives the said Chapter it's name.
"They sent a slamhound on Turner's trail in New Delhi, slotted it to his pheromones and the color of his hair. It caught up with him on a street called Chandni Chauk and came scrambling for his rented BMW through a forest of bare brown legs and pedicab tires. Its core was a kilogram of recrystallized hexogene and flaked TNT.
He didn't see it coming. The last he saw of India was the pink stucco facade of a place called the Khush-Oil Hotel." Count Zero, by William Gibson
Wait....because the US has been hit by two big natural disasters which have caused massive destruction to multiple cities....we are a backwards country?
As for CNN...that applies to most of the media in the world right now, not just CNN or American media.
As for "parts of the USA" being backward....doesn't Russia have parts that are backward? Hell, doesn't the EU?
Geeze, you make it sound like the US is a third world nation...
And this statement right here makes you look like a fool. Are you forgetting Challenger? It exploded fairly early into launch.
As for your critique of Soyuz.....all Soyuz are not created equal. There have been many varients of what is called "Soyuz." Are you claiming the track record of the earlier, far less advanced Soyuz should be counted against more modern versions? They are, basically, very different craft with the same name.
Oh hell yeah. It's well known that Jefferson liked "the dark meat" while good ol' Ben Franklin had many "encounters with the wrong sort of women." Hell, even when he was an old man in Paris...he was banging every French woman he found willing, using his celebrity status (the French practically worshipped the man).
Our Founding Fathers were also hard drinking, pot smoking, long haired, anti-authority types.
Dark Ages? The period of the Middle Ages commonly refered to as the Dark Ages (the whole Middle Ages certainly can't be called that) is distinguished by an end to trade, a near end to literacy and education, and nearly constant warfare. How is "not being able to read old CDs" a "Dark Age"?
Also... Do you know how many documents from ancient times survived? Very few. What we know of today, the documents that tell us of our ancient history....is a small fraction of what actually existed. Most were destroyed thousands of years ago. Not just at the Library of Alexandria either. So somehow, the idea that most of our records won't be avaliable to people in the future...that somehow means a new Dark Age? I don't really get this.
So...another case of a nation willing to oppress the people, and take away their rights.
If I buy a CD, I own that CD. As it is my property it is my right to use that CD however I se fit so long as it doesn't effect anyone else. That includes being able to play it, using whatever technology I want, it includes ripping the CD, burning personal copies, etc... So long as I don't go distributing the music...as that is restricted by copyright.
Under the American view of rights, people are sovereign entities who decide to establish a government between them for mutual protection and benefit. They set aside some rights to explicitly protect from government interference...but only lose other rights when they agree to give them up to the government. There is no such thing as a privilage provided by the government. Nor a "right" provided by government. Those are fictions made up by tyrants.
You left out the European "you can say anything you want unless it offends the State in some specific way" idea of what Free Speech is. Oh I get it....Microsoft EULA!
Get out of your narrow little American world view and realize that there are places in the world that make "Jesusland" look like a fucking utopia. Hell, the US has even more liberal free speech laws compared to even Europe, and Europe is pretty damn liberal. Try wearing a swastika in Germany or France and see how long it takes for the police to drag you off the streets.
Hell, we have more liberal Freedom of the Press here too. Many countries seem to think "Freedom of the Press" means that the governmment can't interfere with reporters. It means however, the freedom to print whatever...no matter how controversial. How many of the "enlightened" and "better than the USA" (what they think anyway) countries ban books? We don't ban books....Freedom of the Press. England (along with many of it's former colonies, and a number of European "enlightened" nations too) has a history of banning books that they (or I should say, some governmental body) find "offensive." To this American's eyes....that's downright tyrannical and oppressive, a violation of basic civil liberties. How dare the government choose what people can read. But I guess it's all a price to pay for living in a socialist nanny state. I for one, wouldn't want to.
We also have a more liberal (in the true sense of the word) society when it comes to the right to arm yourself for self defense. It's a right to bear arms. Your average person can go out and purchase an AK-47 or M-16 if they want (providing their State isn't illegally violating their right to do so), or perhaps something lighter. In many other countries....you can't even buy a pistol, because personal ownership of firearms is outlawed or severely restricted. To my American eyes....this too is oppression, tyranny, a violation of basic civil liberties. It shows that those governments are so paranoid it must strip the people of the means to defend themselves.
Of course we can do better with regards to respecting people's rights....but we're doing better than everyone else it seems to me.
You guys are ones to talk. Your media is well over to the left in what they choose to report, and how they report it. Even more so than most American reporting. Comes from living in socialist nanny states I suppose.
But American press isn't immune to this garbage either. There used to be journalistic standards (at least here)....simply report on the facts and leave opinions to the editorial column. That's well out the window now. Now everyone pushes their agenda, newspapers hold stories to release until it's politically useful, TV news exaggerates and is quick to point fingers at those not even responsable...provided it's useful politically. Or reporters simply let personal, political bias leak into their stories at every turn. "Good journalism" today means anything that is so sensational, so capable of grabbing ratings, that it doesn't even matter if it's true or not...or if anything beyond the barest of facts is true.
And the only reason that it took so long to deal with the issue domestically (the international slave trade itself was banned fairly quickly), is that everyone was trying to avoid a war to do it. Even back when the US was under the Articles of Confederation, and even earlier...to the revolutiuonary era...they knew slavery was going to be a major issue that needed to be dealt with, but also felt that keeping the new, unstable nation together was more important. So basically...they put it off until later, hoping that slavery wouldn't drive the nation apart. Of course, that happened anyway, but at a point where we were better able to handle that.
Treaties are only valid as long as they are convenient, historycally and practically speaking. The Soviets developed orbital weapons decades ago, and even armed one of their space stations, the Chinese have also been developing space weaponry. The "space is for peaceful purposes only" ideal went out the window a long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
So we just turn it over to an organization made up mostly of dictatorships, fundamentalist theocracies, and other oppressors? The UN isn't exactly the "happy free world club" almost any country can be a member. Most of them aren't nice places to live.
Sure, what's a few official rapes, gassings, and torture chambers between friends?
I'm sorry, I just don't believe in the "people get the government they deserve" idea as a generality. By that kind of thinking people in oppressive dictatorships who's government tortures, rapes, enslaves, and murders it's citizens... deserve such treatment. They do not. Nobody does.
I think this sentiment is probably more true within the State governments, which are closer to being democratic republics than the Federal government is. At the level where you get to the US government....that's government run mainly by the States. There is far less democracy at that level. We don't even elect our President popularly, he's elected by the will of the various States. Federal judges are appointees. And the Senate represents the governments of the various States, not the people directly. The House of Representatives is closer...representing the people, but even that is divided by State rather than some arbitrary district. There's less ability for the people to overall effect change in the Federal system, and thus, less accountability. On the other hand...you can find some significant differences between the States themselves, and higher levels of accountability to the People (which is often used).
More accurately described as a Federal Republic. There's a lot more democracy on the State level than at the Federal. The President for example, isn't elected by the people, but by the Electoral Collage. They usually follow the will of the people of their States though. In our States, we elect State representatives to Congress. Technically only the House of Representatives actually represent the People, while in the Senate the States themselves are represented, Senators represent their State governments...even though they are now elected by the people of their State (not always, used to be appointed by Governors).
Now the States themselves, that's a different matter. We elect Governors directly. Our legislatures are elected based on ever changing districts within the State. With population of a particular district tending to be the most important factor (either directly or indirectly). We elect our local governments, which have home rule status (at least in my State) under the State government. We elect local judges (meanwhile Federal judges are appointed). We elect prosecutors, and the heads of our local law enforcement. At the local/State level there is a lot more of what we consider democracy...with the States themselves being democratic republics of some sort or another.
It's really more accurate to say the US Federal government is run by the States than by the people. Which is of course, the way it should be. We are after all the United States of America....not the United State of America (no matter how much certain people try to to it into that).
Great! No really, we need to test out the ability to do this so when we need to do this we can. I hear China also has a planned mission very similar to this. They intent do attempt to change the course of a comet. And we've already demonstrated that we could do such a thing, with Deep Impact (what prompted the Chinese, and likely the ESA as well). True, we didn't change it's course, but if the "object" has been a nuke instead...
Technically, by matter of international law....an embassy is part of the "national soil" of the country who's embassy it is. Therefore, the attacks on American embassies are also attacks on American soil. Oh, but I suppose all the attacks on American soil just don't count as terrorism...
But will they look good in hotpants?
http://animeart.com/p/gallery?j/a/armitageNaked, big titted women don't just fall out of the sky you know!
I like this literary quote...
"They sent a slamhound on Turner's trail in New Delhi, slotted it to his pheromones and the color of his hair. It caught up with him on a street called Chandni Chauk and came scrambling for his rented BMW through a forest of bare brown legs and pedicab tires. Its core was a kilogram of recrystallized hexogene and flaked TNT.
He didn't see it coming. The last he saw of India was the pink stucco facade of a place called the Khush-Oil Hotel." Count Zero, by William Gibson
Wait....because the US has been hit by two big natural disasters which have caused massive destruction to multiple cities....we are a backwards country?
As for CNN...that applies to most of the media in the world right now, not just CNN or American media.
As for "parts of the USA" being backward....doesn't Russia have parts that are backward? Hell, doesn't the EU?
Geeze, you make it sound like the US is a third world nation...
And this statement right here makes you look like a fool. Are you forgetting Challenger? It exploded fairly early into launch.
As for your critique of Soyuz.....all Soyuz are not created equal. There have been many varients of what is called "Soyuz." Are you claiming the track record of the earlier, far less advanced Soyuz should be counted against more modern versions? They are, basically, very different craft with the same name.
Oh hell yeah. It's well known that Jefferson liked "the dark meat" while good ol' Ben Franklin had many "encounters with the wrong sort of women." Hell, even when he was an old man in Paris...he was banging every French woman he found willing, using his celebrity status (the French practically worshipped the man).
Our Founding Fathers were also hard drinking, pot smoking, long haired, anti-authority types.
The greatest humor in this, of course, is that Banky turned out to be gay.
Dark Ages? The period of the Middle Ages commonly refered to as the Dark Ages (the whole Middle Ages certainly can't be called that) is distinguished by an end to trade, a near end to literacy and education, and nearly constant warfare. How is "not being able to read old CDs" a "Dark Age"?
Also... Do you know how many documents from ancient times survived? Very few. What we know of today, the documents that tell us of our ancient history....is a small fraction of what actually existed. Most were destroyed thousands of years ago. Not just at the Library of Alexandria either. So somehow, the idea that most of our records won't be avaliable to people in the future...that somehow means a new Dark Age? I don't really get this.
So...another case of a nation willing to oppress the people, and take away their rights.
If I buy a CD, I own that CD. As it is my property it is my right to use that CD however I se fit so long as it doesn't effect anyone else. That includes being able to play it, using whatever technology I want, it includes ripping the CD, burning personal copies, etc... So long as I don't go distributing the music...as that is restricted by copyright.
Under the American view of rights, people are sovereign entities who decide to establish a government between them for mutual protection and benefit. They set aside some rights to explicitly protect from government interference...but only lose other rights when they agree to give them up to the government. There is no such thing as a privilage provided by the government. Nor a "right" provided by government. Those are fictions made up by tyrants.
You left out the European "you can say anything you want unless it offends the State in some specific way" idea of what Free Speech is. Oh I get it....Microsoft EULA!
Hell, we have more liberal Freedom of the Press here too. Many countries seem to think "Freedom of the Press" means that the governmment can't interfere with reporters. It means however, the freedom to print whatever...no matter how controversial. How many of the "enlightened" and "better than the USA" (what they think anyway) countries ban books? We don't ban books....Freedom of the Press. England (along with many of it's former colonies, and a number of European "enlightened" nations too) has a history of banning books that they (or I should say, some governmental body) find "offensive." To this American's eyes....that's downright tyrannical and oppressive, a violation of basic civil liberties. How dare the government choose what people can read. But I guess it's all a price to pay for living in a socialist nanny state. I for one, wouldn't want to.
We also have a more liberal (in the true sense of the word) society when it comes to the right to arm yourself for self defense. It's a right to bear arms. Your average person can go out and purchase an AK-47 or M-16 if they want (providing their State isn't illegally violating their right to do so), or perhaps something lighter. In many other countries....you can't even buy a pistol, because personal ownership of firearms is outlawed or severely restricted. To my American eyes....this too is oppression, tyranny, a violation of basic civil liberties. It shows that those governments are so paranoid it must strip the people of the means to defend themselves.
Of course we can do better with regards to respecting people's rights....but we're doing better than everyone else it seems to me.
You guys are ones to talk. Your media is well over to the left in what they choose to report, and how they report it. Even more so than most American reporting. Comes from living in socialist nanny states I suppose.
But American press isn't immune to this garbage either. There used to be journalistic standards (at least here)....simply report on the facts and leave opinions to the editorial column. That's well out the window now. Now everyone pushes their agenda, newspapers hold stories to release until it's politically useful, TV news exaggerates and is quick to point fingers at those not even responsable...provided it's useful politically. Or reporters simply let personal, political bias leak into their stories at every turn. "Good journalism" today means anything that is so sensational, so capable of grabbing ratings, that it doesn't even matter if it's true or not...or if anything beyond the barest of facts is true.
And the only reason that it took so long to deal with the issue domestically (the international slave trade itself was banned fairly quickly), is that everyone was trying to avoid a war to do it. Even back when the US was under the Articles of Confederation, and even earlier...to the revolutiuonary era...they knew slavery was going to be a major issue that needed to be dealt with, but also felt that keeping the new, unstable nation together was more important. So basically...they put it off until later, hoping that slavery wouldn't drive the nation apart. Of course, that happened anyway, but at a point where we were better able to handle that.
Treaties are only valid as long as they are convenient, historycally and practically speaking. The Soviets developed orbital weapons decades ago, and even armed one of their space stations, the Chinese have also been developing space weaponry. The "space is for peaceful purposes only" ideal went out the window a long time ago.