The Democratic party to which you attribute the KKK, Jim Crow, etc. isn't today's party. Your analogy is similar to saying the '69 NY Jets were world champions, thus the 21st century NY Jets are today. The people who populated the Democratic Party during the time of "Reconstruction" are not the same people who populate the Democratic party of the 21st century. Times change, people are replaced as they age out. The post civil war South embraced the Democratic party of that era because the party reflected most of the values that they believed in (i.e., the party members were either also Southerner's, or people generally sympathetic to the South's post war world view). After the 1964 passage of the civil rights laws, which ran contrary to the South's world view, the Democrats began to fall out of favor in the South, particularly in national politics. Locally, the South continued elect local Democratic officials, but only because they shared the Southern world view. Starting with the 1968 national elections, where Nixon campaigned though out the South using racial code words ("law and order"), the South flocked to the polls to vote Republican (again, nationally). A party's name may not change, but the political party you credited with abolishing slavery in the mid 19th century spent the better part of the 20th century opposing racial equality (some would say that they still do). And the politcal party you credit with the creation of the KKK, Jim Crow et all spent the last half of the 20th century supporting racial equality (some still believe that they do today. I have begun to wonder what they stand for, period). Political parties are, for many people, similar to their home sports team. Regardless of their politics (or the party's politics), they vote their party line.
The credit card companies in the U.S. could take more measures to prevent the credit card fraud in the first place. The fact that they don't implies to me that they just accept the fraud as a cost of doing business, passing that cost on to their customers.
Newsday used to be an award winning newspaper. In the 80's there was a very good New York City edition (New York Newsday). They had some truly great writers. The paper actually reported news in the journalistic tradition. Currently, it is owned by Cablevision (following nearly going under thanks in no small part to a circulation/advertising scandal), the size of it's print edition has been shrunk to near comic book size, and while there are still some very talented people writing for the paper, the tone of the paper has really swung to the hard right (as opposed to being somewhat objective). Why anyone would pay for the print edition is beyond me, so I don't know what made them think anyone would pony up for the electronic version. And unless I'm mistaken, current subscribers to "Optimum Online" (Cablevision's Internet offering) can view the Newsday website gratis.
I think that Fascism is the appropriate term for what you are describing.. the melding of corporate interests with those of government, generally at the expense of the citizens.
It doesn't appear that you desire rational discourse on this subject. You need blanket conclusions. You take half truths and mix them in with emotional rhetoric. If you want to point something out to me, do so with facts, not half truths and rhetoric. Hatred is the most powerful weapon in the human arsenal. Without it there can be no war. You seem to harbor sufficient hatred to know what I am saying. Do you maintain continuity in your rhetoric? Tell me, which population was responsible for World War I? Who were the war mongers? Was it governments or populations?
*All Americans* are certainly *not* "fine" with what has been done in their name, with their children, and their tax dollars. Remember, nearly 50% of those that participated in the last election voted against Mr. Bush. The net result, unfortunately, is that the killing continues in the name of all Americans.There has been a noticeable shift in popularity against both the war and the Bush administration as of late. Possibly the fog of deceit is finally burning away, but more likely personal economic realities have become too painful to ignore. In direct response to your post, however, I think that the election would have turned out differently had the media been investigating and reporting instead of echoing what it was fed from the White House. Fact of the matter is that the American people were lied to, and they voted accordingly. While the media outside of the US was reporting on the questions regarding the march to war, in the US, the media's relative silence was deafening. People are the same everywhere. They will respond emotionally to those issues that are close to their heart. Tell them that there is a direct link to the disaster of September 11th and Iraq.. over and over.. without anyone in the media doing any fact checking.. what do you expect would be the result? People voted against their own economic interests in large part to support a president they believed was protecting them from the murderers who masterminded 9/11. The American people are not warmongers. They were made to feel very vulnerable by the attacks of 9/11, and subsequently their government used that emotional vulnerability to march the country off to war war which was and is unjustifiable morally. That never would have happened had the truth been told from the beginning. Read "Brave New World Revisited". It's Carl Rove's playbook.
After reading the IEEE article, it seems less like they re-named a honeypot, but more like they expanded on the LaBrea Tarpit http://sourceforge.net/projects/labrea.
It is illogical to accept that people are being shot by law enforcement all the time, period. The relevance of the victim was that he was unarmed, and therefore not a threat to the law enforcement person seeking to make the arrest (unless the intent was to shoot the guy to send a "message"). The shooting of the bystander was a crime in and of itself. The person who fired the gun should be arrested himself. Once we start rationalizing murder, regardless of who is doing it, we are all in danger of having the same type of justice delivered.
Has it occured to anyone else that maybe what the FBI is calling a "keylogger" might actually be some type of EMF snooping? It's been possible for a long time for a properly equiped black van to park a short distance from the target, and "see" what's on the screen, for example. Maybe that's why it's "classified"?
The way I have decided to deal with this situation is to let them *choke* on their music, movies, et all. If they want to charge way to much for much to little, so be it. Do not expect the Supreme Court, the U.S. Government in general, or anyone else who earns a literal fortune off of this enterprise to worry about you in the least - until your money stays in your pocket, instead of flowing into theirs. Then they will take notice. An organized boycott? Nope. Each individual should just decide that paying too much is wrong. I think the money looks better in my pocket. I can live without what they sell. Can't you? If so, *keep* your money. If not, stop complaining, as you are literally paying for them to do as they please with you.
'Nuff said, me thinks.
Whenever I read about laws being created to cloak the U.S. government in even more secrecy than it already is, and/or to relieve U.S. citizens of previously held freedoms (for our own good, of course), I am reminded of my 8th grade history teacher (a very politically "right-wing" individual, I might add) who, in the early 1970's, stated his belief that the U.S. was slowly removing freedom from it's constitution while (at the time) the Soviet Union was slowly inserting freedom into it's "order". He predicted a time where both governments reached a common plateau in terms of citizen rights and freedoms.
In 1989, of course, the Soviet Union dissolved. However, I am haunted by his prediction: The US govenment is slowly but surely removing freedoms from U.S. citizens by virtue of "The Drug War"(tm), The tremendous "need" for intellectual copyright protection, the need for the govenment to be able to conduct foreign affairs as it sees fit, without the bothersome input from the rank and file citizenship, etc.
It is a sad time. I have no doubt Mr. Bush would sign this bill into law without hesitation. The erosion of freedoms has yet to be a campaign issue. Why?
Slashdot Mirror
The Democratic party to which you attribute the KKK, Jim Crow, etc. isn't today's party. Your analogy is similar to saying the '69 NY Jets were world champions, thus the 21st century NY Jets are today. The people who populated the Democratic Party during the time of "Reconstruction" are not the same people who populate the Democratic party of the 21st century. Times change, people are replaced as they age out. The post civil war South embraced the Democratic party of that era because the party reflected most of the values that they believed in (i.e., the party members were either also Southerner's, or people generally sympathetic to the South's post war world view). After the 1964 passage of the civil rights laws, which ran contrary to the South's world view, the Democrats began to fall out of favor in the South, particularly in national politics. Locally, the South continued elect local Democratic officials, but only because they shared the Southern world view. Starting with the 1968 national elections, where Nixon campaigned though out the South using racial code words ("law and order"), the South flocked to the polls to vote Republican (again, nationally). A party's name may not change, but the political party you credited with abolishing slavery in the mid 19th century spent the better part of the 20th century opposing racial equality (some would say that they still do). And the politcal party you credit with the creation of the KKK, Jim Crow et all spent the last half of the 20th century supporting racial equality (some still believe that they do today. I have begun to wonder what they stand for, period).
Political parties are, for many people, similar to their home sports team. Regardless of their politics (or the party's politics), they vote their party line.
The credit card companies in the U.S. could take more measures to prevent the credit card fraud in the first place. The fact that they don't implies to me that they just accept the fraud as a cost of doing business, passing that cost on to their customers.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/outdated-smart-card-chip-pin-1273.php
Newsday used to be an award winning newspaper. In the 80's there was a very good New York City edition (New York Newsday). They had some truly great writers. The paper actually reported news in the journalistic tradition. Currently, it is owned by Cablevision (following nearly going under thanks in no small part to a circulation/advertising scandal), the size of it's print edition has been shrunk to near comic book size, and while there are still some very talented people writing for the paper, the tone of the paper has really swung to the hard right (as opposed to being somewhat objective). Why anyone would pay for the print edition is beyond me, so I don't know what made them think anyone would pony up for the electronic version. And unless I'm mistaken, current subscribers to "Optimum Online" (Cablevision's Internet offering) can view the Newsday website gratis.
As a matter of fact, it is on Prince Street ...
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/12/13/billboard-inserts-au.html
I think that Fascism is the appropriate term for what you are describing .. the melding of corporate interests with those of government, generally at the expense of the citizens.
It doesn't appear that you desire rational discourse on this subject. You need blanket conclusions. You take half truths and mix them in with emotional rhetoric. If you want to point something out to me, do so with facts, not half truths and rhetoric. Hatred is the most powerful weapon in the human arsenal. Without it there can be no war. You seem to harbor sufficient hatred to know what I am saying. Do you maintain continuity in your rhetoric? Tell me, which population was responsible for World War I? Who were the war mongers? Was it governments or populations?
*All Americans* are certainly *not* "fine" with what has been done in their name, with their children, and their tax dollars. Remember, nearly 50% of those that participated in the last election voted against Mr. Bush. The net result, unfortunately, is that the killing continues in the name of all Americans.There has been a noticeable shift in popularity against both the war and the Bush administration as of late. Possibly the fog of deceit is finally burning away, but more likely personal economic realities have become too painful to ignore. In direct response to your post, however, I think that the election would have turned out differently had the media been investigating and reporting instead of echoing what it was fed from the White House. Fact of the matter is that the American people were lied to, and they voted accordingly. While the media outside of the US was reporting on the questions regarding the march to war, in the US, the media's relative silence was deafening. People are the same everywhere. They will respond emotionally to those issues that are close to their heart. Tell them that there is a direct link to the disaster of September 11th and Iraq .. over and over .. without anyone in the media doing any fact checking .. what do you expect would be the result? People voted against their own economic interests in large part to support a president they believed was protecting them from the murderers who masterminded 9/11. The American people are not warmongers. They were made to feel very vulnerable by the attacks of 9/11, and subsequently their government used that emotional vulnerability to march the country off to war war which was and is unjustifiable morally. That never would have happened had the truth been told from the beginning. Read "Brave New World Revisited". It's Carl Rove's playbook.
After reading the IEEE article, it seems less like they re-named a honeypot, but more like they expanded on the LaBrea Tarpit http://sourceforge.net/projects/labrea.
It is illogical to accept that people are being shot by law enforcement all the time, period. The relevance of the victim was that he was unarmed, and therefore not a threat to the law enforcement person seeking to make the arrest (unless the intent was to shoot the guy to send a "message"). The shooting of the bystander was a crime in and of itself. The person who fired the gun should be arrested himself. Once we start rationalizing murder, regardless of who is doing it, we are all in danger of having the same type of justice delivered.
Has it occured to anyone else that maybe what the FBI is calling a "keylogger" might actually be some type of EMF snooping? It's been possible for a long time for a properly equiped black van to park a short distance from the target, and "see" what's on the screen, for example. Maybe that's why it's "classified"?
Ooops! Your ignorance is showing again, coward.
The way I have decided to deal with this situation is to let them *choke* on their music, movies, et all. If they want to charge way to much for much to little, so be it. Do not expect the Supreme Court, the U.S. Government in general, or anyone else who earns a literal fortune off of this enterprise to worry about you in the least - until your money stays in your pocket, instead of flowing into theirs. Then they will take notice. An organized boycott? Nope. Each individual should just decide that paying too much is wrong. I think the money looks better in my pocket. I can live without what they sell. Can't you? If so, *keep* your money. If not, stop complaining, as you are literally paying for them to do as they please with you. 'Nuff said, me thinks.
Whenever I read about laws being created to cloak the U.S. government in even more secrecy than it already is, and/or to relieve U.S. citizens of previously held freedoms (for our own good, of course), I am reminded of my 8th grade history teacher (a very politically "right-wing" individual, I might add) who, in the early 1970's, stated his belief that the U.S. was slowly removing freedom from it's constitution while (at the time) the Soviet Union was slowly inserting freedom into it's "order". He predicted a time where both governments reached a common plateau in terms of citizen rights and freedoms. In 1989, of course, the Soviet Union dissolved. However, I am haunted by his prediction: The US govenment is slowly but surely removing freedoms from U.S. citizens by virtue of "The Drug War"(tm), The tremendous "need" for intellectual copyright protection, the need for the govenment to be able to conduct foreign affairs as it sees fit, without the bothersome input from the rank and file citizenship, etc. It is a sad time. I have no doubt Mr. Bush would sign this bill into law without hesitation. The erosion of freedoms has yet to be a campaign issue. Why?