Actually there is NO definition for terrorism. I mention this because it is part of the problem. As of now, something is terrorism simply because someone claims it is.
The story behind why this is the case is actually very important and one you should know about. To make a long story short, the definition would be "use of military force against civilians by a non-state actor to advance political goal" (vs. simple crime), note this would make all hate crimes terrorism, and what is the difference anyway. A State actor would be a different crime, violation of rules of war or genocide, both arguably more serious. The problem is everyone wants to put in exceptions for some cause or group they support. This isnâ(TM)t totally unreasonable, think French Freedom fighters against the Nazis. But once you state making exceptions things start going downhill fast.
I think there would be a benefit to having sort of a non-state Geneva convention. Of course such groups wouldnâ(TM)t care, but States could be held accountable for supporting forces in violation of these rules. The Geneva convention hasnâ(TM)t prevented ALL war crimes by nations, but setting out rules has proven to be a good starting point. An open discussion about how non-state actors should be allowed to conduct themselves would benefit us all.
You are out of your mind if you think Bin Laden could have been taken alive. If you think we should have not run the mission, that is one thing. But it could not have been run any other way. And for the record I would have prefered for Bin Laden to stand trial.
The President did try to close Gitmo, I think we have to give him a lease a B for effort.
But the cross boarder attacks are an issue. just not a simple issue.
The poster deliberatly misread the chains OP (claiming the OP was really hoping for people to die to advance some goal). I did the same thing on purpose (after all, goverment restriction might be one way to prevent accidental deaths of this kind) to point out how easy it is to misread something on purpose.
While topics like this typically bring out the worst in discussion, normally fairly dumb second amendment ranting. These printable guns really are news for nerds, demonstrating a technological advancement while also showing the possible dangers of new technology.
To get it, just replace the word printable gun with another type of arm, say a printable bomb with slots for of the shelf cell triggers, and pretend it was posted online by someone who you dislike. Choose your least favorite terrorist organization here.
The reality is a fair number of terror attacks really couldn’t have been as effective without modern technology. 911 required jumbo jets. You can’t go on a shooting rampage with a muzzle loaded gun. Modern bomb triggers has simplified bomb making and detonation. And of course the Internet itself makes all these things easier to learn to do.
Of course these technologies have been a great benefit, and violence has gone down over the years as our societies have advanced. However, we also have more laws and more tools in the hand of law enforcement to combat violence. It seems to me actual intelligent discussion about how to address the potential dark side of new technologies is an important part of new technology. I wish more of the discussion could be about technologies ramification for society as opposed to what it normally degenerates into.
I didn't like Ender's Game when I read it. I think there is a basic buy in you need to make when reading a novel, and I just couldn't do it with Ender's Game. The people in the book really didn't act like normal people, especially Ender's ever absent parents.
As near as I can tell, there was supposed to be this long running program to identify the potential parents of "military genius" kids, and that what appeared to be uncontrolled "lord of the flies" style anarchy was really a carefully controlled world government program to develop the needed skill set to win the upcoming war.
Except, there book really gave very few reasons why you should expect this program to work. You just had to take it on faith that the shadowy actions of the programs were somehow developing these skills. The novels had many good elements, but the story never really pulled me in. So I know for a fact it is very possbile to be unimpressed with Ender's Game on its own merits.
Who voted this guy as informative? Deceptive is more like it.
The Chinese may have increased their defense spending by 10.7%, but it is still a much smaller percentage of their GDP than the percentage the U.S. spends. Even after the "Draconian" cuts, the U.S. spends 4.4% of its GDP on military, the Chinese spend around 2.0% of GDP, noticeably below the world average of spending on defense BTW. Also much of the Chinese increase probably simply matched their economic growth.
And of course the U.S. economy is bigger, so we spend much more over all! The only real world power that comes close to our military spending by percentage is Russia, a country that bankrupted itself with military spending.
By comparison, our spending on social programs, besides social security and Medicare AKA true welfare, is the lowest per capita of first world economies. Alternatives to Social Security may be worth talking about, but it is a separate budget by design and have nothing to do with Military spending. Linking them at all is deceptive.
If the most expensive military in the world, bar none, by every imaginable measure isn't a good enough military, we need to fire every general and get competent ones.
Sorry but us Americans are stubborn assholes who dont care about the issues all we care about is what the party says on the issue.
Hi. I'm an American too. We aren't all stubborn assholes. Case in point, I tracked down this poster and told a truck full of passing conservatives that a single mother lived at the poster's home address and was collecting welfare. I don't think we'll be seeing him after tonight.
Somewhat more seriously though, to the international community: We're sick of the two-party system too. It's a joke; Nobody really feels their interests are well-represented by either party. As a result, we've taken to discussing politics like it's a sporting event -- we bet on which team will win, scream and dance around in our underwear in front of the TV during the national debates, and get drunk and then either cry, or riot, when our team wins. Because while our political system is shit, we still really, really enjoy watching people we don't like fail. Take Romney for example -- his epic failure kept me happy (and warm!) through most of the frigid Midwestern winter.
I know where you are coming from, but here is a big tip on our two party system. Don't try to change it, it really can't be changed, instead change yourself. Parties ultimately exits only as a vehicle to elect officials, no more or less. That is why their platforms change over time, all they are or have ever been doing is selecting a menu of issues that will advance their candidates. They claim to have guiding principles, but in practice it seems each party has at times been on either side of way too many issues. The reason other governments have more parties is because they have proportional representations schemes, the parties are simply a function of how the elections are set up. Is proportional representation better? I suppose that depends on the scheme, but take a close look at how politics works in a country with the scheme you want and make sure you really like what you see.
In the U.S., the real action and power is in special interests. Be it the corporate lobbies, NRA or Green Peace. If you want to be part of change, join and support an NGO, or at least donate money. They are the ones who shape the party platforms and create change. People in political parties are simply interested in power for power’s sake, and just happened to have a opinions on issues, NGOs however actually make and enact change. Understand your relation to the two political parties better and you will get a lot more done. FYI, that is why many corporations donate to both parties, they don’t care about candidates, they care about issues, you should be the same way.
If your eyes have been open, it is pretty clear very many people are no longer using any kind of logic. Most political attitudes today are tribally based. Very rarely do people honestly consider what the other person is saying.
There was an experiment I heard about on Radio Lab where several pieces of colored paper were given to someone to tell apart, supposedly this would identify someone with 4 color receptors rather than 3 (a small percentage of woman) and was largely analogous to color blindness tests (normally men). In theory people with 3 color receptors would be unable to tell the hues apart.
What they found is that some people with lots of experience working with color could tell the color samples apart fairly easily, while most people literally could not. A lot had to do with training and life experience apparently. So yes, some people really see more colors than you because they are trained to as incredible as that sounds.
Sound could be the same way. Plus, depends on your stereo system I guess.
The only upside is that Nixon was really saying the same thing publically and privately. "I can win this war, vote for me." Of course he was badly and tragically mistaken, but he really thought he could bomb his way to victory.
Not that unlike the Iraq war in a way.
Paradoxically, the Iran Contra affair was at least more effective in the case of Iran. But then our only intent at the time was to prolong an existing war. That is much easier to do, though inhumane.
Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg are over all much more authoritarian than the rest. Being authoritarian is in some ways at right angles to liberal vs. conservative. So they grant greater latitude for the Government to enforce rules.
I get where you are coming from, but how do you know the cop doesn't think you did these things? Cops will also lie and say they are investigating someone else.
What can happen is you end up with a basic societal break down. When cops are allowed to lie or distort to get evidence, you lose the ability to talk to them.
To a large extent that has happened in some communities, these types of tactics destroy the police's relationship with the community. It is very serious and I would rather a few criminals escape then undermine basic social stability.
I wouldn't be so sure that this belligerence is really a sign that NK isn't going to change. It is better to watch what a country does rather than what it says, objectively NK is really no more or less of a threat than they were 5 years ago. NK is not able to produce a single nuclear missile, much less produce enough to do anything. Remember if they simply want to kill a bunch of people, followed by being wiped off the map, they could just shell Seoul. Plus I think NK is much more concerned with their immediate neighbors than the U.S. Frankly the U.S. is just a useful "enemy" to rail against because that kind of rhetoric doesn’t really offend anyone in the area.
The Schizophrenic nature of NK statements are almost certainly all due to internal conflicts. Watch and see, things are rarely as they appear and U.S . positions about NK are more about what we find useful for our foreign policy than they are about reality.
For a while I have thought that with all the data and transaction records, simply stealing money by transfering ought to be very hard.
Sadly many of these so called "mules" are small businessmen who ship goods thinking they got real money. Still a verification system might be able to help even them.
I can explain. It is kind of like sickle cell anemia. While it is bad for the person who has it, the presence of the gene is a net benefit for populations in the tropics. Because if you only have one copy, you become highly resistant to malaria!
In fact, here is something you can take to the bank about “genetic diseases”. All of them have some benefit, even if the benefit is only to people who got a single copy of the gene. If you think about this it make perfect sense, why would a gene with only a down side ever spread in the first place? So pretty much ever genetic disease we have a name for has some benefit to humans, however bad it is for the person who has it.
The more serious the disease, probably the larger the benefit.
One moral to evolution is that if you, through social pressure, effectively compel people who wouldn't normally be inclined to have children, due to genetic reasons, to do so, you make those genes more common.
Ummm... and this is left leaning because, ummm... all aliens are communists?
You are deliberately misreading a speculation fluff piece and comparing it to objective science of energy policy. I note you didn’t even bother to link this outrageous left leaning story, maybe you could get a good job at FOX News?
If you are going to put a cap in place, how about a cap of "one person, one vote"? You know, kind of like the polling that has been done for a very long time?
If you want some kind of "vote with dollars" so you vote more based on how "confident" you are there is no such thing as market manipulation. A person willing to sink a huge amount of resources into a particular candidate represents an intensity of support. Or more accurately is represents a real pool of resources for the candidate. There is no market manipulation possible it is supposed to be part of the process, only a too small pool of participants, a fault of the market itself.
The most basic problem with this in elections is that 100 dollars doesn't mean the same thing to a Millionaire and Fast Food worker, yet on election day they both get one vote. And failing to understand the Fast Food worker was more likely to give time to the candidate rather than money.
A VAT tax might be an OK idea, but this idea is pure bad. Different businesses have different profit margins and need to be different sizes. How on earth could the government bureaucracy figure out what the right rate was? This assumes WAY more knowledge about the correct economy than we actually have!
IHMO the right thing to do is nationalize failed businesses, clean house at the top and sell off under controlled circumstances for a small profit, or at least a minimal loss.
We are so used to humans being not very strong physically, we forget that we are actually the best, bar none at some things.
What humans are crazy good at is best speed over time. Many animals are faster than us in the short run, but few or none can outdistance us over time. We are the tortoise to most animals hare.
So if you can track an animal and are determined to walk it down, it really can't keep away from a human. So once you are smart enough to track something out of site, the animals odds of getting away become slim. And what is one skill EVERY primative culture has? Tracking.
First, I am fairly certain the new leader knows about Macroeconomics as he was educated in the West. If had to bet on anything, I would bet he is trying to open up the country, while keeping his leadership secure.
To make long story short, the saber rattling is wholly for the consumption of internal NK and Chinese politics. In order to liberalize policies he has to appear to be a hard liner militarily.
First, you have to understand the North Koreans really do hate the U.S. with a passion. The Vietnamese were able to forgive the U.S. (kind of) because they won. The NK experience was much more awful. The casualties on all sides were pretty high, on par with the casualties in the Vietnam war, but happening over 3 years rather than 20! And the outcome was the worst imaginable for the long term, all those people died and nothing changed! So anti U.S. propaganda sells well.
NK leadership has to know full well they are no threat to anyone besides SK. So why would they want to alienate China.
Let's ask a different question. Let's say one day, by a miracle, everyone in NK woke up and thought "this sucks, let's just surrender to SK, reunify our people and start making a better life". Seems like the smart thing to do right? Well, so what does China do? Does China, also a country that made a huge investment in lives in NK, say "Yeah, cool, enjoy yourselves. Oh, and NP if U.S. military personnel are now walking around our border."
OK, maybe they don't all wake up one morning and do this, but instead the leader starts a plan that seems to have an end game of effective Korean reunification. Is China cool with that either?
So NK is kind of between a rock and a hard place. Don’t destabilize or China comes in to “clean up”, don’t appear to be on the way to reunification with SK or the Chinese come in to “prevent U.S. expansion”.
Throw into the mix the real bad blood on all sides and you have a real problem.
So, who can NK really use its nuclear weapons on. The U.S.? Not really, not for a long time. Japan? Why? SK? Yes, they could kill a bunch of Koreans is they wanted. U.S. forces in SK? Well, yes, but they are fairly intermingled with SK population and military bases. The Chinese? Wait, they would never do that, right, I mean they are allies, right?
OK what does everyone want?
NK – to continue to exist as nation, perhaps to better their lot SK- Security, possibly improve NK out of charity (they ARE family, literally in many cases) U.S. – Bases ON the Chinese border would be nice, but in the meantime SK security and excellent justification for U.S. bases in SK China – Buffer between China and close U.S. ally and no U.S. bases on border.
NK is threatening us, because we have the least skin in the game, are least likely to attack them and care least about what is going on. It sells well internally and with China, certainly sells better than threatening China. None the less everyone in the area gets the message loud and clear, “don’t F with us!”
OTOH China and the U.S. find the situation right now very good for our geopolitical interests. China gets its buffer and the U.S. gets its bases. Sure, each side might want more, but it is as nice deal as they could hope for under the circumstances. The only reason to want to change anything is humanitarian, and which of those normally win out in your experience.
Next, if NK wanted to be come closer (absorbed?) into China maybe they could. Invite in Chinese investment, let in lots of Chinese businesses, kind of like Tibet is right now. But what if they want to get closer to SK? Kind of sounds like a path to reunification to me, sort of a no go.
So what to do? Maybe, just maybe, if you are a big enough pain in the butt, the U.S., but more importantly China, will decide the status quo isn’t such a good deal after all. Attacking isn’t such good option, what with the nuclear weapons and all. But maybe letting NK open up will make the situation less bad for everyone. And as a bonus, you appease hard liners.
Making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues
Ah hahahahahahaha.
Wait, you're serious? The jokes are the only ones getting attention because people have realised just how pointless putting a real issue up for debate is. Bring up anything remotely important, and all you'll get is the canned response about how the current policies are best.
Well, I know you are making a joke, but this is worth responding to.
The Whitehouse response is probably the least important part of the petition process. Politicians of all stripes are more than willing to give their ideas and opinions to you (well, what they claim to be but close enough). Really, read whitehouse.gov or either party's web sites. They are just full of stuff the politicians want to tell you and why their solutions to whatever problems is best. You may not like it or find is unsatisfying, but that is the product you are voting for.
The petition process is by definition just a chance for the general public to get their voice heard. No more. Think online town hall.
Also I think the idea of a negative vote on a petition is very interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there is NO definition for terrorism. I mention this because it is part of the problem. As of now, something is terrorism simply because someone claims it is.
The story behind why this is the case is actually very important and one you should know about. To make a long story short, the definition would be "use of military force against civilians by a non-state actor to advance political goal" (vs. simple crime), note this would make all hate crimes terrorism, and what is the difference anyway. A State actor would be a different crime, violation of rules of war or genocide, both arguably more serious. The problem is everyone wants to put in exceptions for some cause or group they support. This isnâ(TM)t totally unreasonable, think French Freedom fighters against the Nazis. But once you state making exceptions things start going downhill fast.
I think there would be a benefit to having sort of a non-state Geneva convention. Of course such groups wouldnâ(TM)t care, but States could be held accountable for supporting forces in violation of these rules. The Geneva convention hasnâ(TM)t prevented ALL war crimes by nations, but setting out rules has proven to be a good starting point. An open discussion about how non-state actors should be allowed to conduct themselves would benefit us all.
You are out of your mind if you think Bin Laden could have been taken alive. If you think we should have not run the mission, that is one thing. But it could not have been run any other way. And for the record I would have prefered for Bin Laden to stand trial.
The President did try to close Gitmo, I think we have to give him a lease a B for effort.
But the cross boarder attacks are an issue. just not a simple issue.
Why would IRS workers and the Taxed Enough Already Party not get along?
The poster deliberatly misread the chains OP (claiming the OP was really hoping for people to die to advance some goal). I did the same thing on purpose (after all, goverment restriction might be one way to prevent accidental deaths of this kind) to point out how easy it is to misread something on purpose.
While topics like this typically bring out the worst in discussion, normally fairly dumb second amendment ranting. These printable guns really are news for nerds, demonstrating a technological advancement while also showing the possible dangers of new technology.
To get it, just replace the word printable gun with another type of arm, say a printable bomb with slots for of the shelf cell triggers, and pretend it was posted online by someone who you dislike. Choose your least favorite terrorist organization here.
The reality is a fair number of terror attacks really couldn’t have been as effective without modern technology. 911 required jumbo jets. You can’t go on a shooting rampage with a muzzle loaded gun. Modern bomb triggers has simplified bomb making and detonation. And of course the Internet itself makes all these things easier to learn to do.
Of course these technologies have been a great benefit, and violence has gone down over the years as our societies have advanced. However, we also have more laws and more tools in the hand of law enforcement to combat violence. It seems to me actual intelligent discussion about how to address the potential dark side of new technologies is an important part of new technology. I wish more of the discussion could be about technologies ramification for society as opposed to what it normally degenerates into.
LOL, so you arguing for the gubbermint to restrict access to poor quality self-made weapons.... well OK if that is what you want.
Or maybe the original post was a joke?
"You take my gun from my cold dead hands!"
"I find your deal acceptable!"
I didn't like Ender's Game when I read it. I think there is a basic buy in you need to make when reading a novel, and I just couldn't do it with Ender's Game. The people in the book really didn't act like normal people, especially Ender's ever absent parents.
As near as I can tell, there was supposed to be this long running program to identify the potential parents of "military genius" kids, and that what appeared to be uncontrolled "lord of the flies" style anarchy was really a carefully controlled world government program to develop the needed skill set to win the upcoming war.
Except, there book really gave very few reasons why you should expect this program to work. You just had to take it on faith that the shadowy actions of the programs were somehow developing these skills. The novels had many good elements, but the story never really pulled me in. So I know for a fact it is very possbile to be unimpressed with Ender's Game on its own merits.
Who voted this guy as informative? Deceptive is more like it.
The Chinese may have increased their defense spending by 10.7%, but it is still a much smaller percentage of their GDP than the percentage the U.S. spends. Even after the "Draconian" cuts, the U.S. spends 4.4% of its GDP on military, the Chinese spend around 2.0% of GDP, noticeably below the world average of spending on defense BTW. Also much of the Chinese increase probably simply matched their economic growth.
And of course the U.S. economy is bigger, so we spend much more over all! The only real world power that comes close to our military spending by percentage is Russia, a country that bankrupted itself with military spending.
By comparison, our spending on social programs, besides social security and Medicare AKA true welfare, is the lowest per capita of first world economies. Alternatives to Social Security may be worth talking about, but it is a separate budget by design and have nothing to do with Military spending. Linking them at all is deceptive.
If the most expensive military in the world, bar none, by every imaginable measure isn't a good enough military, we need to fire every general and get competent ones.
Sorry but us Americans are stubborn assholes who dont care about the issues all we care about is what the party says on the issue.
Hi. I'm an American too. We aren't all stubborn assholes. Case in point, I tracked down this poster and told a truck full of passing conservatives that a single mother lived at the poster's home address and was collecting welfare. I don't think we'll be seeing him after tonight.
Somewhat more seriously though, to the international community: We're sick of the two-party system too. It's a joke; Nobody really feels their interests are well-represented by either party. As a result, we've taken to discussing politics like it's a sporting event -- we bet on which team will win, scream and dance around in our underwear in front of the TV during the national debates, and get drunk and then either cry, or riot, when our team wins. Because while our political system is shit, we still really, really enjoy watching people we don't like fail. Take Romney for example -- his epic failure kept me happy (and warm!) through most of the frigid Midwestern winter.
I know where you are coming from, but here is a big tip on our two party system. Don't try to change it, it really can't be changed, instead change yourself. Parties ultimately exits only as a vehicle to elect officials, no more or less. That is why their platforms change over time, all they are or have ever been doing is selecting a menu of issues that will advance their candidates. They claim to have guiding principles, but in practice it seems each party has at times been on either side of way too many issues. The reason other governments have more parties is because they have proportional representations schemes, the parties are simply a function of how the elections are set up. Is proportional representation better? I suppose that depends on the scheme, but take a close look at how politics works in a country with the scheme you want and make sure you really like what you see.
In the U.S., the real action and power is in special interests. Be it the corporate lobbies, NRA or Green Peace. If you want to be part of change, join and support an NGO, or at least donate money. They are the ones who shape the party platforms and create change. People in political parties are simply interested in power for power’s sake, and just happened to have a opinions on issues, NGOs however actually make and enact change. Understand your relation to the two political parties better and you will get a lot more done. FYI, that is why many corporations donate to both parties, they don’t care about candidates, they care about issues, you should be the same way.
If your eyes have been open, it is pretty clear very many people are no longer using any kind of logic. Most political attitudes today are tribally based. Very rarely do people honestly consider what the other person is saying.
There was an experiment I heard about on Radio Lab where several pieces of colored paper were given to someone to tell apart, supposedly this would identify someone with 4 color receptors rather than 3 (a small percentage of woman) and was largely analogous to color blindness tests (normally men). In theory people with 3 color receptors would be unable to tell the hues apart.
What they found is that some people with lots of experience working with color could tell the color samples apart fairly easily, while most people literally could not. A lot had to do with training and life experience apparently. So yes, some people really see more colors than you because they are trained to as incredible as that sounds.
Sound could be the same way. Plus, depends on your stereo system I guess.
The only upside is that Nixon was really saying the same thing publically and privately. "I can win this war, vote for me." Of course he was badly and tragically mistaken, but he really thought he could bomb his way to victory.
Not that unlike the Iraq war in a way.
Paradoxically, the Iran Contra affair was at least more effective in the case of Iran. But then our only intent at the time was to prolong an existing war. That is much easier to do, though inhumane.
Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg are over all much more authoritarian than the rest. Being authoritarian is in some ways at right angles to liberal vs. conservative. So they grant greater latitude for the Government to enforce rules.
I get where you are coming from, but how do you know the cop doesn't think you did these things? Cops will also lie and say they are investigating someone else.
What can happen is you end up with a basic societal break down. When cops are allowed to lie or distort to get evidence, you lose the ability to talk to them.
To a large extent that has happened in some communities, these types of tactics destroy the police's relationship with the community. It is very serious and I would rather a few criminals escape then undermine basic social stability.
I wouldn't be so sure that this belligerence is really a sign that NK isn't going to change. It is better to watch what a country does rather than what it says, objectively NK is really no more or less of a threat than they were 5 years ago. NK is not able to produce a single nuclear missile, much less produce enough to do anything. Remember if they simply want to kill a bunch of people, followed by being wiped off the map, they could just shell Seoul. Plus I think NK is much more concerned with their immediate neighbors than the U.S. Frankly the U.S. is just a useful "enemy" to rail against because that kind of rhetoric doesn’t really offend anyone in the area.
The Schizophrenic nature of NK statements are almost certainly all due to internal conflicts. Watch and see, things are rarely as they appear and U.S . positions about NK are more about what we find useful for our foreign policy than they are about reality.
For a while I have thought that with all the data and transaction records, simply stealing money by transfering ought to be very hard.
Sadly many of these so called "mules" are small businessmen who ship goods thinking they got real money. Still a verification system might be able to help even them.
I can explain. It is kind of like sickle cell anemia. While it is bad for the person who has it, the presence of the gene is a net benefit for populations in the tropics. Because if you only have one copy, you become highly resistant to malaria!
In fact, here is something you can take to the bank about “genetic diseases”. All of them have some benefit, even if the benefit is only to people who got a single copy of the gene. If you think about this it make perfect sense, why would a gene with only a down side ever spread in the first place? So pretty much ever genetic disease we have a name for has some benefit to humans, however bad it is for the person who has it.
The more serious the disease, probably the larger the benefit.
One moral to evolution is that if you, through social pressure, effectively compel people who wouldn't normally be inclined to have children, due to genetic reasons, to do so, you make those genes more common.
Kind of ironic, eh?
Ummm... and this is left leaning because, ummm... all aliens are communists?
You are deliberately misreading a speculation fluff piece and comparing it to objective science of energy policy. I note you didn’t even bother to link this outrageous left leaning story, maybe you could get a good job at FOX News?
If you are going to put a cap in place, how about a cap of "one person, one vote"? You know, kind of like the polling that has been done for a very long time?
If you want some kind of "vote with dollars" so you vote more based on how "confident" you are there is no such thing as market manipulation. A person willing to sink a huge amount of resources into a particular candidate represents an intensity of support. Or more accurately is represents a real pool of resources for the candidate. There is no market manipulation possible it is supposed to be part of the process, only a too small pool of participants, a fault of the market itself.
The most basic problem with this in elections is that 100 dollars doesn't mean the same thing to a Millionaire and Fast Food worker, yet on election day they both get one vote. And failing to understand the Fast Food worker was more likely to give time to the candidate rather than money.
A VAT tax might be an OK idea, but this idea is pure bad. Different businesses have different profit margins and need to be different sizes. How on earth could the government bureaucracy figure out what the right rate was? This assumes WAY more knowledge about the correct economy than we actually have!
IHMO the right thing to do is nationalize failed businesses, clean house at the top and sell off under controlled circumstances for a small profit, or at least a minimal loss.
The hacking, the spying, the amoral corporations/pseudo-governments, the omnipresent smog. China is looking more and more like neo-Shanghai.
William Gibson was right!
We are so used to humans being not very strong physically, we forget that we are actually the best, bar none at some things.
What humans are crazy good at is best speed over time. Many animals are faster than us in the short run, but few or none can outdistance us over time. We are the tortoise to most animals hare.
So if you can track an animal and are determined to walk it down, it really can't keep away from a human. So once you are smart enough to track something out of site, the animals odds of getting away become slim. And what is one skill EVERY primative culture has? Tracking.
Actually, the actions make perfect sense.
First, I am fairly certain the new leader knows about Macroeconomics as he was educated in the West. If had to bet on anything, I would bet he is trying to open up the country, while keeping his leadership secure.
To make long story short, the saber rattling is wholly for the consumption of internal NK and Chinese politics. In order to liberalize policies he has to appear to be a hard liner militarily.
First, you have to understand the North Koreans really do hate the U.S. with a passion. The Vietnamese were able to forgive the U.S. (kind of) because they won. The NK experience was much more awful. The casualties on all sides were pretty high, on par with the casualties in the Vietnam war, but happening over 3 years rather than 20! And the outcome was the worst imaginable for the long term, all those people died and nothing changed! So anti U.S. propaganda sells well.
NK leadership has to know full well they are no threat to anyone besides SK. So why would they want to alienate China.
Let's ask a different question. Let's say one day, by a miracle, everyone in NK woke up and thought "this sucks, let's just surrender to SK, reunify our people and start making a better life". Seems like the smart thing to do right? Well, so what does China do? Does China, also a country that made a huge investment in lives in NK, say "Yeah, cool, enjoy yourselves. Oh, and NP if U.S. military personnel are now walking around our border."
OK, maybe they don't all wake up one morning and do this, but instead the leader starts a plan that seems to have an end game of effective Korean reunification. Is China cool with that either?
So NK is kind of between a rock and a hard place. Don’t destabilize or China comes in to “clean up”, don’t appear to be on the way to reunification with SK or the Chinese come in to “prevent U.S. expansion”.
Throw into the mix the real bad blood on all sides and you have a real problem.
So, who can NK really use its nuclear weapons on. The U.S.? Not really, not for a long time. Japan? Why? SK? Yes, they could kill a bunch of Koreans is they wanted. U.S. forces in SK? Well, yes, but they are fairly intermingled with SK population and military bases. The Chinese? Wait, they would never do that, right, I mean they are allies, right?
OK what does everyone want?
NK – to continue to exist as nation, perhaps to better their lot
SK- Security, possibly improve NK out of charity (they ARE family, literally in many cases)
U.S. – Bases ON the Chinese border would be nice, but in the meantime SK security and excellent justification for U.S. bases in SK
China – Buffer between China and close U.S. ally and no U.S. bases on border.
NK is threatening us, because we have the least skin in the game, are least likely to attack them and care least about what is going on. It sells well internally and with China, certainly sells better than threatening China. None the less everyone in the area gets the message loud and clear, “don’t F with us!”
OTOH China and the U.S. find the situation right now very good for our geopolitical interests. China gets its buffer and the U.S. gets its bases. Sure, each side might want more, but it is as nice deal as they could hope for under the circumstances. The only reason to want to change anything is humanitarian, and which of those normally win out in your experience.
Next, if NK wanted to be come closer (absorbed?) into China maybe they could. Invite in Chinese investment, let in lots of Chinese businesses, kind of like Tibet is right now. But what if they want to get closer to SK? Kind of sounds like a path to reunification to me, sort of a no go.
So what to do? Maybe, just maybe, if you are a big enough pain in the butt, the U.S., but more importantly China, will decide the status quo isn’t such a good deal after all. Attacking isn’t such good option, what with the nuclear weapons and all. But maybe letting NK open up will make the situation less bad for everyone. And as a bonus, you appease hard liners.
Making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues
Ah hahahahahahaha.
Wait, you're serious? The jokes are the only ones getting attention because people have realised just how pointless putting a real issue up for debate is. Bring up anything remotely important, and all you'll get is the canned response about how the current policies are best.
Well, I know you are making a joke, but this is worth responding to.
The Whitehouse response is probably the least important part of the petition process. Politicians of all stripes are more than willing to give their ideas and opinions to you (well, what they claim to be but close enough). Really, read whitehouse.gov or either party's web sites. They are just full of stuff the politicians want to tell you and why their solutions to whatever problems is best. You may not like it or find is unsatisfying, but that is the product you are voting for.
The petition process is by definition just a chance for the general public to get their voice heard. No more. Think online town hall.
Also I think the idea of a negative vote on a petition is very interesting.