Yeah, cuz thinking about a subject and changing your opinion due to changing evidence is clearly a bad thing *roll eyes*.
Do we REALLY have to get into this again? The whole thing's baseless rhetoric on both sides. Of course it is. But it's distressing that this baseless political rhetoric is poppping up in what is ostensibly scientific research.
From a libertarian website:
McCain-Feingold makes it a felony for a "corporation" (company, grassroots organization, an incorporated blog or Internet site that takes subscribers) to mention in advertising or on a web site any Congressman within two months of an election. And there are hundreds of pages of complex election "reform" laws that came out of McCain-Feingold just like this one. Given the complexity, organizations may simply decide to walk away from the political arena, fearing having to fight a lawsuit brought by a vengeful government. Net effect? Shutting down grassroots organizations, abridging the First Amendment, prevention of public discussion of voter issues.
* Radio talk shows are getting in trouble for expressing opinions on a topic, being told that what they are doing is essentially a campaign contribution. Net effect? Preventing public discourse on voter issues.
* Note that the news media has no such restrictions. What does this mean? As the media knows which side its bread is buttered on, is it in their best interest to go up against a strong incumbent? Net effect? Issues that could paint the incumbents in a bad light do not get aired in the mainstream media.
Oh yeah, "willful" violations of McCain-Feingold are felonies punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Say good-bye to your right to vote or right to own a firearm and ability to get a job in the future. "So what are you in for?"
Sadly the people who wrote the constitution where human, and aren't around to give their interpretation. So we interpret as we can. These are a couple of preposterous sentences. The people who wrote the Constitution explained their ideas in the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. Additionally, a written Constitution that is subject to the vagaraties of shifting interpretation might as well not be written down at all because at that point it becomes essentially meaningless. Which it has become.
Take the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Freedom of speech has been watered down to mean that you have freedom of speech so long as the speech in question is unoffensive and non-political in nature within 60 days of an election. This is interpretation of the Constitution at work for you. And it's an affront to the original intent and meaning of the 1st Amendment, which was to protect political speech in light of England's very recent attempts at suppressing it. So now we have a privileged overclass (the media) who can say whatever they want, and everyone else, who can be put in jail for up to 10 years if they engage in prohibited political speech within 60 days of an election.
One could argue that without campaign reform, my 1st ammendment rights are being violates, since I'm not allowed the same free speak with elected officials as those who made large compaign contributions. One could argue that the earth is flat or the moon is made of blue cheese also. The right to free speech isn't the right to equal speech. Your ability to get your voice heard is YOUR responsibility to pay for. And your inability to do so shouldn't constrain me or anyone else from having the right to excercise our voice by forming a PAC or putting up a web page blasting a particular candidate. Now, instead of that PAC putting out an ad on TV or the NY Times, it just donates soft money to the RNC or the DNC. Campaign Finance Reform was supposed to get the money out of politics. The result has been the complete opposite, and as a bonus, it's muzzled the average citizen's free speech rights.
And the 5th was obviously written to allow for free/controlled militias to protected against the current administration trying to grab absolute power. You are confusing the 2nd and the 5th. The point of the 2nd covered a whole lot of purposes, from self defense to protection against government tyranny, to protection against foreign invaders.
Current interpretations are more likely to lean towards the knowledge that people don't need assault rifles, machine guns, and even 38 specials for their everyday living and that we should have stronger controls over guns. Which sorta illustrates the problems with the "interpretation" school of things. What business is it of YOU or anyone else what RIGHTS that *I* need. I mean, what exactly do you think "shall not be infringed" means in this day and age? And if "current interpretations" are so strong...go get a freaking Constitutional amendment! It's that simple. Stop trying to pretend that the Constitution says or means something it clearly does not because it happens to be what you believe, and then wrapping yourselves in the Constitution when people like Bush do something that violates the Constitution.
No, it's more-or-less to protect everyone. Well, it protects everyone, but generally speaking, the majority is almost in a position to dictate and doesn't need protections per se (except against themselves).
Morally dubious? Not really. It's not like you have a contract with the person serving up the web page in the vast majority of cases. The standard non-fee service model is "I present you information, my advertisers pay for that presentation", but the web page visitor is a guest, and the payment arrangement exists independently of anything the visitor has agreed to. Until there is an explicit arrangement that the guest agrees to, it's a bad assumption on the presenter's part to assume that the guest is going to be equally interested in the advertising.
No rational person would disagree that these eavesdropping methods don't work. But the proponents of this legislation have been focusing the conversation on a "no eavesdropping = potential danger" argument. I don't think you said what you meant to say.
Take out the double negative, and you get:
No rational person would agree that these eavesdropping methods work.
Hate to be a grammer Nazi, but:
1) If that's really what you intended, you are wrong.
2) If it's not what you intended, you most likely typed the opposite of what you intended.
Regardless, the laws and policies of the US are a reflection of the majority of people who comprise it. You exactly missed my point. The purpose of things like a Constitution in a constitutional republic is to protect the rights of the minority, since the majority very seldom has problems getting it's will reflected in policies and laws and enforcing them on the minority. The Constitution defines the powers and sets limitations on the Federal government, and in some cases, the state governments. Over time, the Federal government has decided that it's powers are unlimited and has ignored the limitations as defined in what is essentially a legal contract with the citizens of this country. They are in breach of contract, but since they own the courts and they own the guns, who's gonna stop them?
There is no surprise when I travel Europe or Asia and actually feel the hatred by the common citizens towards the U.S. It takes a lot of time, but I've explained to many people that the U.S. government has no connection to U.S. citizens: they've moved beyond common ideals such as "by the People", and it is both parties' faults. I'm sure many of the subjects of the EU sympathize, since they are in the same boat...a decidedly undemocratic bureaucracy deciding what's best for all of Europe.
Also, it broke up a GERMAN attack... How does dropping in on AMERICAN communication help? A key component of the 9-11 attacks were organized in Germany. The Islamist terrorist organizations are transnational, and the plots don't conveniently end at a nation's borders.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were shredded a long time ago. For example, when was the last time the 10th Amendment was used as a constraint on Federal power? How is "Campaign Finance Reform" not an end-around of the 1st Amendment? How is the D.C. gun ban (in which guns can not be kept loaded and assembled in the home) not a violation of the 2nd Amendment (you know, that whole "keep and bear arms" thing)? "Liberals" are waking up to it now because, for once, they aren't the ones doing the shredding.
Study from two liberal schools finds that liberals are smarter than conservatives!
Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict. Maybe some people perceived Kerry as a flip fopper because he was caught on tape repeatedly saying ridiculous things like "I actually voted for the war before I voted against it". Maybe "scientists" and "researchers" shouldn't try to overreach and extrapolate individuals hitting an "M" and "W" and translate that into dubious conclusions about political results in order to placate their fellow partisans.
"Smaller government" and "smaller Federal government" are two very different things. Simply shuffling powers around matters little. I don't disagree that the Fed has gotten too big, but all too many "state's rights" advocates either naively believe that the states are more friendly to liberty than the federal government, or actively want the states to be able to oppress the minority groups they don't like. I'm not making the argument that states or local municipalities are any less prone to corruption than the Federal government, but at least with states and municipalities you have the option of moving to a better, friendlier environment that is more conducive to one's values. Do you really want the Federal government mandating creationism being taught side-by-side (or instead of) evolution? How about the Federal government mandating books like "Bobby Has Two Dads"? Point is, if I don't like the way Greenville, Kansas or San Fransisco, California runs their education system I can move...in many cases it's as easy as moving the next town or school district over. It's a lot harder to emigrate out of the US entirely.
Furthermore, there is a very real reason to shuffle powers around. It's called Federalism. Basically, the Federal government today runs roughshod over the Constitution primarily because the idea of Federalism and enumerated powers has been abandoned. Like many of the Framers originally feared, the Bill of Rights has become the basis for an exclusionary policy (that which is not explicitly permitted is explicitly forbidden). The imperial ambitions of people like Alexander Hamilton have won out. And one of the end results of a powerful Federal government is exactly the adventurism and foreign interventionism which a lot of big government proponents decry.
Piracy still accounts for hundreds of incidents each year, with $13 to $16 billion in annual losses. Which isn't all that much considering that the world economy is some $40 trillion per year, and a significant fraction of that is transported via waterways. Piracy is gone in most areas, a nuisance in others, but it used to be a real scourge all over the world.
My point is that the very existence of "big business" is only made possible by government action I disagree. Big business was alive and well during the Gilded Age, when the US Federal government was tiny compared to today. As a percentage of national GDP, people like Rockefeller dwarfed today's billionaires.
Shrinking the parts that provide some oversight of "big business" is foolhardy - like lightening your car by installing light-duty brakes instead of replacing the engine with a smaller one. I'm not really advocating the shrinking of regulatory agencies (although I think in some respects, the EPA is a rogue agency but that's a topic for another day). My main concern is non-discretionary entitlement spending, which we have (as a nation) overpromised and have no way to pay for in 20 years. If the government had stayed within it's enumerated powers or even managed to maintain fiscal discipline, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are today. And don't blame Bush for all of this. He at least tried to initiate Social Security reform, which was promptly shot down by Democrats and the AARP (taxing tomorrow's generation for today's seniors). But, Bush and the Republican Congress certainly haven't helped. Which is why a lot of people stayed home during the 2006 elections.
And I'm not advocating abandoning the social safety net either, I just think it should be shuffled lower, down to the individual states, with Federal oversight with respect to benefits. That way, money in New York stays in New York, and we don't have a welfare system where well over half of the money spent goes to paying the bureaucratic staff rather than actually giving benefits to people mired in poverty.
This really goes both ways though. Our military is currently responsible for destabilizing what had been a fairly stable country, for very little cause. This has resulted in wide spread ethnic warfare in said country, thousands of deaths, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. Perhaps with a smaller military we would not have attempted this. True, and perhaps with a smaller military, Saddam Hussein would've kept his tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia in 1991 because there would've been no one in a position to oppose him. And lets be clear...Iraq was "stable" because of tyranny and brutal oppression, ethnic and religious. The US "broke" Iraq, but it's not like we invaded Canada. Iraq was already a teapot about to boil over.
Unfortuantely, those who make the most noise about "smaller government" usually mean taking the regulators and governors off the engine of the state, not shrinking the engine. No, most people who talk about smaller government really do want a smaller Federal government. The Federal government has increasingly usurped issues that are better left decided at a local or state level. Education for example.
We could halve our "defense" spending and still outspend any potential adversary about five to one. That leaves plenty to defend our nation - while being less of a temptation to foreign adventures and wars of choice. Funny how people forget things like the US military being first on the scene after the Tsunami hit...or world kept mostly free of piracy from the US navy. When the Somali civil war broke out and all the embassies were evacuated, guess who evacuated them? That's right, the US military. So yeah, the US military is a hegemony machine, but if the US wasn't doing a lot of those functions, someone else would need to, or the world would suffer for it.
Then let's go about reducing government powers to issue corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyright and patents, and to run a federal reserve system that lets banks suck in wealth and that bails out speculator markets. Bah...what do you think has increased the size of government? It's shit like the above...government spending is always a windfall for someone. Usually someone with government connections. Which is why smaller government is an inherent good...it reduces the ability of big business to line their pockets with your tax money while being backed up by the monopoly of force that is the government.
JPFO = Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The main difference between JPFO, the GOA, and the NRA is that the JPFO and GOA tend to be absolutists with respect to the 2nd Amendment (one might even say "militant" about it), while the NRA is much more sportsman and hunting oriented. The problem is, the 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting rifles and hunting. That's not to say the NRA doesn't do some good with respect to the 2nd, but they aren't any where as sinister as the gun control lobby likes to paint them as being.
Take 80 developers, mixed about 50% between full time employees and contractors. Bring in offshore providers like Infosys, Mphasis, Wipro. Through natural attrition (no layoffs), reduce employee count to about 25 developers. Replace domestic contractors with H1B contractors, double their numbers (still paying market rates, no cost savings). Add offshore, about 2.5x that number. Total headcount goes way up. Total cost goes way up. Time to market? Way up too. Quality of work? Way down. I can't fault the offshore guys, some of their people are genuinely very competent, and a lot of their work is too. It's bad management on our part. But see, that's the fundamental problem. You don't fix bad management with technology or offshoring and that's what a lot of companies are trying to do these days...including the one I work at.
What do you think the NRA did? they cherry picked the Second amendment. Of course that's the reason of their existence. The existence of the NRA is quite a bit more complex than that, and if you want a true 2nd Amendment group, look up the JPFO or GOA, not the NRA. But regardless, unlike the ACLU, they don't pretend to defend the entire Bill of Rights. Ultimately, it's the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st, not the ACLU.
ACLU as an organization (the members of which not necessarily withstanding) has consistently and logically supported the fundamental rights and liberties all people should be granted and have protected. You mean like the Second Amendment? Oh yeah, that's right, they think it applies to state organized militias. You know, like the Federally funded, Federally equipped, Federally organized, and Federally controlled Nation Guard. Support the ACLU? No thanks, I'd rather support someone that doesn't cherry pick from the Bill of Rights.
That's the scary part, and Roberts may well equal Iraq as being one of Bush's worst legacies. And funny, from my perspective, he'll be one of Bush's only positive legacies. A lot of people fear he'll help overturn Roe v Wade. Good. I hope he does. It's a horrible Constitutional decision. When you start talking about penumbras and emanations and derivitive rights, you know you are on shaky Constitutional grounds and ruling by judicial fiat. Which isn't to say I think abortion should be illegal: I just don't think it's the Federal government's business AT ALL whether or not it's legal. If Texas wants to outlaw abortion fine. If California wants to legalize third trimester abortions, fine. Keep the Federal government out of it.
Sure it matters. Most of the American nuclear weapons are thermo-nuclear and optimized for size and efficiency. Meaning, the primary is just big enough to light the secondary. And while you can harvest the plutonium even if you can't unlock the PAL code, it's doubtful you could get a Hiroshima sized weapon out of it...because if you had that kind of technical capacity, you wouldn't be resorting to stealing bombs in the first place.
You might want to fasten that tinfoil a little tighter. The US doesn't have to "pre-position" nukes. The B52's were designed to be launched from the middle of the United States and fly to the other side of the globe to open up some canned sunshine.
Slashdot Mirror
touche.
From a libertarian website:
McCain-Feingold makes it a felony for a "corporation" (company, grassroots organization, an incorporated blog or Internet site that takes subscribers) to mention in advertising or on a web site any Congressman within two months of an election. And there are hundreds of pages of complex election "reform" laws that came out of McCain-Feingold just like this one. Given the complexity, organizations may simply decide to walk away from the political arena, fearing having to fight a lawsuit brought by a vengeful government. Net effect? Shutting down grassroots organizations, abridging the First Amendment, prevention of public discussion of voter issues.
* Radio talk shows are getting in trouble for expressing opinions on a topic, being told that what they are doing is essentially a campaign contribution. Net effect? Preventing public discourse on voter issues.
* Note that the news media has no such restrictions. What does this mean? As the media knows which side its bread is buttered on, is it in their best interest to go up against a strong incumbent? Net effect? Issues that could paint the incumbents in a bad light do not get aired in the mainstream media.
Here's another source on McCain-Feingold from a liberal angle:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/14/IN288208.DTL
Oh yeah, "willful" violations of McCain-Feingold are felonies punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Say good-bye to your right to vote or right to own a firearm and ability to get a job in the future. "So what are you in for?"
Take the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Freedom of speech has been watered down to mean that you have freedom of speech so long as the speech in question is unoffensive and non-political in nature within 60 days of an election. This is interpretation of the Constitution at work for you. And it's an affront to the original intent and meaning of the 1st Amendment, which was to protect political speech in light of England's very recent attempts at suppressing it. So now we have a privileged overclass (the media) who can say whatever they want, and everyone else, who can be put in jail for up to 10 years if they engage in prohibited political speech within 60 days of an election.
One could argue that without campaign reform, my 1st ammendment rights are being violates, since I'm not allowed the same free speak with elected officials as those who made large compaign contributions. One could argue that the earth is flat or the moon is made of blue cheese also. The right to free speech isn't the right to equal speech. Your ability to get your voice heard is YOUR responsibility to pay for. And your inability to do so shouldn't constrain me or anyone else from having the right to excercise our voice by forming a PAC or putting up a web page blasting a particular candidate. Now, instead of that PAC putting out an ad on TV or the NY Times, it just donates soft money to the RNC or the DNC. Campaign Finance Reform was supposed to get the money out of politics. The result has been the complete opposite, and as a bonus, it's muzzled the average citizen's free speech rights. And the 5th was obviously written to allow for free/controlled militias to protected against the current administration trying to grab absolute power. You are confusing the 2nd and the 5th. The point of the 2nd covered a whole lot of purposes, from self defense to protection against government tyranny, to protection against foreign invaders. Current interpretations are more likely to lean towards the knowledge that people don't need assault rifles, machine guns, and even 38 specials for their everyday living and that we should have stronger controls over guns. Which sorta illustrates the problems with the "interpretation" school of things. What business is it of YOU or anyone else what RIGHTS that *I* need. I mean, what exactly do you think "shall not be infringed" means in this day and age? And if "current interpretations" are so strong...go get a freaking Constitutional amendment! It's that simple. Stop trying to pretend that the Constitution says or means something it clearly does not because it happens to be what you believe, and then wrapping yourselves in the Constitution when people like Bush do something that violates the Constitution.
Morally dubious? Not really. It's not like you have a contract with the person serving up the web page in the vast majority of cases. The standard non-fee service model is "I present you information, my advertisers pay for that presentation", but the web page visitor is a guest, and the payment arrangement exists independently of anything the visitor has agreed to. Until there is an explicit arrangement that the guest agrees to, it's a bad assumption on the presenter's part to assume that the guest is going to be equally interested in the advertising.
Take out the double negative, and you get:
No rational person would agree that these eavesdropping methods work.
Hate to be a grammer Nazi, but:
1) If that's really what you intended, you are wrong.
2) If it's not what you intended, you most likely typed the opposite of what you intended.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were shredded a long time ago. For example, when was the last time the 10th Amendment was used as a constraint on Federal power? How is "Campaign Finance Reform" not an end-around of the 1st Amendment? How is the D.C. gun ban (in which guns can not be kept loaded and assembled in the home) not a violation of the 2nd Amendment (you know, that whole "keep and bear arms" thing)? "Liberals" are waking up to it now because, for once, they aren't the ones doing the shredding.
Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict. Maybe some people perceived Kerry as a flip fopper because he was caught on tape repeatedly saying ridiculous things like "I actually voted for the war before I voted against it". Maybe "scientists" and "researchers" shouldn't try to overreach and extrapolate individuals hitting an "M" and "W" and translate that into dubious conclusions about political results in order to placate their fellow partisans.
Furthermore, there is a very real reason to shuffle powers around. It's called Federalism. Basically, the Federal government today runs roughshod over the Constitution primarily because the idea of Federalism and enumerated powers has been abandoned. Like many of the Framers originally feared, the Bill of Rights has become the basis for an exclusionary policy (that which is not explicitly permitted is explicitly forbidden). The imperial ambitions of people like Alexander Hamilton have won out. And one of the end results of a powerful Federal government is exactly the adventurism and foreign interventionism which a lot of big government proponents decry. Piracy still accounts for hundreds of incidents each year, with $13 to $16 billion in annual losses. Which isn't all that much considering that the world economy is some $40 trillion per year, and a significant fraction of that is transported via waterways. Piracy is gone in most areas, a nuisance in others, but it used to be a real scourge all over the world.
My point is that the very existence of "big business" is only made possible by government action I disagree. Big business was alive and well during the Gilded Age, when the US Federal government was tiny compared to today. As a percentage of national GDP, people like Rockefeller dwarfed today's billionaires. Shrinking the parts that provide some oversight of "big business" is foolhardy - like lightening your car by installing light-duty brakes instead of replacing the engine with a smaller one. I'm not really advocating the shrinking of regulatory agencies (although I think in some respects, the EPA is a rogue agency but that's a topic for another day). My main concern is non-discretionary entitlement spending, which we have (as a nation) overpromised and have no way to pay for in 20 years. If the government had stayed within it's enumerated powers or even managed to maintain fiscal discipline, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are today. And don't blame Bush for all of this. He at least tried to initiate Social Security reform, which was promptly shot down by Democrats and the AARP (taxing tomorrow's generation for today's seniors). But, Bush and the Republican Congress certainly haven't helped. Which is why a lot of people stayed home during the 2006 elections.
And I'm not advocating abandoning the social safety net either, I just think it should be shuffled lower, down to the individual states, with Federal oversight with respect to benefits. That way, money in New York stays in New York, and we don't have a welfare system where well over half of the money spent goes to paying the bureaucratic staff rather than actually giving benefits to people mired in poverty.
JPFO = Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The main difference between JPFO, the GOA, and the NRA is that the JPFO and GOA tend to be absolutists with respect to the 2nd Amendment (one might even say "militant" about it), while the NRA is much more sportsman and hunting oriented. The problem is, the 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting rifles and hunting. That's not to say the NRA doesn't do some good with respect to the 2nd, but they aren't any where as sinister as the gun control lobby likes to paint them as being.
My company's experience with offshoring:
Take 80 developers, mixed about 50% between full time employees and contractors. Bring in offshore providers like Infosys, Mphasis, Wipro. Through natural attrition (no layoffs), reduce employee count to about 25 developers. Replace domestic contractors with H1B contractors, double their numbers (still paying market rates, no cost savings). Add offshore, about 2.5x that number. Total headcount goes way up. Total cost goes way up. Time to market? Way up too. Quality of work? Way down. I can't fault the offshore guys, some of their people are genuinely very competent, and a lot of their work is too. It's bad management on our part. But see, that's the fundamental problem. You don't fix bad management with technology or offshoring and that's what a lot of companies are trying to do these days...including the one I work at.
it's look pretty certain that YOU missed the irony.
I wish there was a slashkos mod.
The government powerful enough to do everything for you is powerful enough to do anything to you.
Sure it matters. Most of the American nuclear weapons are thermo-nuclear and optimized for size and efficiency. Meaning, the primary is just big enough to light the secondary. And while you can harvest the plutonium even if you can't unlock the PAL code, it's doubtful you could get a Hiroshima sized weapon out of it...because if you had that kind of technical capacity, you wouldn't be resorting to stealing bombs in the first place.
You might want to fasten that tinfoil a little tighter. The US doesn't have to "pre-position" nukes. The B52's were designed to be launched from the middle of the United States and fly to the other side of the globe to open up some canned sunshine.