Religion can be dangerous. Imagine you show up at the ER with major blood loss and you die because the ER physician on staff that night was a Jehovah's Witness and didn't believe in giving transfusions.
Now, what if one of the nurses shook hands with the Dali Lama and swore to never wash that hand again, on religious grounds. Sorry, but I would want the hospital to require hand washing and I would sue a hospital that exposed me to danger in the interest of protecting a nurse's religous practices.
Not sure if they regularly screen for HIV, but that would be a good idea as well, along with other dangerous pathogens.
Do the hospital janitors have to take the vaccine? If not, I wouldn't say that the nurses should be fired, but demoted to minimum wage and scrubbing toilets might be a suitable alternative. Maybe they can get work as phone nurses - there is work in this field.
But why religious grounds? Why not claim to have an allergy? I don't take flu shots anymore because the last two times I had the shot my tongue swelled up. The second time I had a long of chest pressure and dizzyness as well. This was within hours of getting the shot.
The pistols and the AR-15 were both "rapid fire" compared to the muzzle-loading firearms that were commonplace when the 2nd amendment was drafted. In battle, more deaths were likely to come from the bayonnet at the end of the musket than from the musketball itself, which was not a high-velocity round like we have with modern pistols and semi-automatic rifles. In countries with strict gun controls, even pump-action shotguns are considered too dangerous for citizens to own, while muzzle loaders, bolt action rifles with small magazines (typically two rounds, plus one in the chamber), and breech loading shotguns are considered appropriate for most sporting, hunting, and culling purposes, and ownership is typically limited to individuals with such valid reasons. For instance, a bird hunter might not be granted a license to own a sniper rifle until he demonstrates that he also hunts boar or is a licensed animal control professional or some other legitimate reason.
I don't personally feel that in the USA we need such strict prohibitions if guns in general took just a little more effort to procure, such as requiring membership in a shooting club or possessing a hunting license, passing a background check and a drug screen - a screen which would detect anti-psychotics so nut-jobs can't get guns, as well as a process for making sure that mentally unstable individuals are barred from owning rapid-fire quick-reloading weapons as soon as they are identified by school officials or medical doctors.
Recent mass shootings have shown that the ability to quickly fire multiple rounds and reload in just a second or two can result in very high body counts. If a deranged gunman was limited to a breech loading shotgun or bolt-action rifle he could still kill and still be deadly. But in a crowd at point-blank range, he would only be able to get off two or three rounds at most before struggling to reload, at which time bystanders could at least have a chance to tackle the assailant or get away to safety. This reduces the gun-toting nutcase to the same level as the knife wielding deranged Chinese mass stabber. Still dangerous, but much more manageable. In such a case the gun no longer provides much more killing capability than other household tools, like a machete or a chainsaw, unless the attacker is highly skilled, like the 2002 DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad or the 1966 UT Tower Sniper Charles Whitman, both of whom had military training. In theory we should be doing a much better job of keeping nutcases out of our military and keeping close tabs on them when we identify them.
Stereotyping is too easy. I drive a new light duty pickup that gets better mileage than my previous vehicle - a full size sedan. I live in Texas where driving your own vehicle is virtually, for better or for worse, the only way to get around. There is bus service in my area, but according to the DART transit calculator I would have to leave home at 6am to get to work by noon.
But I do live within just a few miles of where I work. I'd commute on my bike, but I don't have enough heavy clothes to be outdoors more than 15 minutes during the coldest weeks of winter and there are no clothes that will keep me from showing up to work smelling like a sweaty dog during several months of 110 degrees heat during the summer.
Given that they want to charge a flat tax to anyone that doesn't let a GPS or similar type mileage logger track their every move, I see this more as a threat to privacy than a tax generating scheme. The IRS already has procedures in place to report mileage, but they are voluntary and rely on the honesty of taxpayers to report the truth. Blatant falsifications can but spotting during an audit. So why not just allow voluntary mileage reporting? Why an electronic tracking system to monitor our roadway usage? Not to mention that this tax system punishes state residents while out-of-state drivers can "consume" road usage without paying any such tax, which will especially be the case in border towns.
What happened to the common-sense approach of taxing citizens across the board at a flat or progressive rate and efficiently providing government services to the general public as demand required? Are people from poor districts still allowed to take their children to the nice parks in the rich districts, or is there now a gate keeper to view proof of residence and to collect fees from the riftraft deadweight freeloaders taking advantage of the poor rich people's public spaces?
Meanwhile, professional "urban planners" who know better than common folk how to properly lay out a city and set up zoning regulations continue to insist that future developments consist of far outlying commuter towns, composed of 95% mass-produced housing subdivisions (where America's #1 useless and unnecessary crop is cultivated - lawn grass), and massive freeways to have all the people drive for miles in bumper-to-bumper traffic at 20mph to skyrise financial or business districts devoid of any grocery stores or other amenities that could possibly encourage workers to live within walking distance of their workplaces.
Our cities and towns could be built intelligently to reduce the need to maintain such expansive infrastructure like roads, freeways, power lines, water pipes, and bus/rail systems (when they exist) that sprawl like tree roots under your house, undermining your foundation. Most of Europe seems to have figured this out already decades ago. But in many newer American cities, even if you lived right next to your neighborhood Walmart, you would have to walk across a desert of concrete just to get to the front door.
In intelligently built cities, the storefronts are close to the street with parking in the rear of the building. In neighborhoods where cars are a luxury and not a necessity, homes can be built smaller by eliminating driveways and two-car garages, which means more houses can fit comfortably closer together, reducing the distance even more for pedestrians to walk past their neighbor's homes on the way to work, shops, schools, and occassionally the train station. Neighbors actually learn to recognize each other and even become friends. Outsiders are more easily noticed, and without tinted car windows to hide behind, suspicious behavior is easier to spot by the sidewalk traversing neighborhood pedestrians. Smaller neighborhood police forces, volunteer or private security patrols located in small neighborhood police stations can easily patrol neighborhood homes, shops, and schools on foot or by bicycles.
Just by tweaking a few details regarding how our cities are layed out, and usually this layout is mandated by city or county governments (often for the worst), the impact of our lifestyles on the environment could be dramatically reduced and our economic opportunities significantly increased without mandatory expenses like extremely high housing costs, expensive transportation and vehicle maintenance, high costs of energy consumption, time wasted during long distance commutes, and high taxes (both easily visible and hidden) to maintain multi-lane roads, freeways, traffic lights, street lamps, extra lengths of cable and conduit, police cars, city maintenance vehicles, etc.
It always seemed odd to me that the politicians who espouse smaller government and lower taxes tend to reject such alternative urban planning concepts, to the detriment of all mankind, simply because they suggest that such planning would be harmful to business and would lower house values. Technically, they are right because tax revenue comes from larger business like Walmart and businesses like Walmart succeed with the model of driving traffic via automobile to their big-box one-stop-shopping complexes. Bigger houses with big garages can be taxed at higher rates, and sales tax revenue and other taxes from the sale and operation of SUVs and the overconsumption of materials, services, and energy to maintain the whole system (appears) to bring in constantly growing tax revenue on the state and local level. But such "growth" is not sustainable and will lead to economic collapse, part of which we have already seen the in the securities and housing markets. More and deeper recessions will keep coming until this system is permanently corrected to a sustainable model that is not based on the presumption of unlimited energy and unbounded sprawl.
The walkable city and town approach would more likely bring back smaller businesses, like the family owned and operated neighborhood grocery store that sold it
getting too many campaign contributions and "consulting" from oil cartels and other conglomerates.
Socially and Environmentally Responsible Citizen: "I can do my part to reduce my carbon footprint by driving this alternative energy powered vehicle" Enter Sociopathic Lawmaker Lawmaker: "It puts the gas in its tank or it gets the tax again"
This crap isn't new. Hobbyists and inventors have already been threatened with jail time for tax evasion by using home brewed biodiesel because they didn't understand the regulations regarding fuel tax.
And if we are so concerned about people using roads without paying for the infrastructure, what about all those tax-evading pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair operators that using public sidewalks everyday. They should all be required to strap on GPS mileage loggers and pay their tax share as well. Same goes for all those brats getting a free education. They should all get a bill upon graduation for the cost of their schooling unless they pay for their own private education or get homeschooled by their mommy. Why force childless property owners to pay for others self-indulging personal development when nowadays a high school grad with a year and a half of college ends up in a career waiting tables when the previous generation could wait tables just fine without a high school diploma or a college degree?
OK - I'll stop before I go to far - I think the tea baggers will try to grab onto my cynical satire and use my bogus arguments as talking points at their next book burning ceremony.
To say Star Craft is not a violent video game is like saying Hitler didn't kill anyone during the Holocaust. Granted, I'd agree it is not "gratuitous" murder and mayhem, and usually played on a PC, not on a game consol. But to someone with serious mental and emotional problems who's to say how detrimental Star Craft or Mario World could be once they have access to rapid fire weapons with quick-change magazines.
I agree. In fact control of nukes should neither be in the hands of civilian government or the military. America's nuclear arsenal should be auctioned off to private owners who can more efficiently manage the cost of maintaining such systems and assume responsibility for their use, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Studies show that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition. Over time this tends to lead to lower prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red tape, and/or quicker delivery. Here are some other arguments to support privatization;
Performance. State-run industries tend to be bureaucratic. A political government may only be motivated to improve a function when its poor performance becomes politically sensitive.
Increased efficiency. Private companies and firms have a greater incentive to produce more goods and services for the sake of reaching a customer base and hence increasing profits. A public organization would not be as productive due to the lack of financing allocated by the entire government's budget that must consider other areas of the economy.
Specialization. A private business has the ability to focus all relevant human and financial resources onto specific functions. A state-owned firm does not have the necessary resources to specialize its goods and services as a result of the general products provided to the greatest number of people in the population.
Improvements. Conversely, the government may put off improvements due to political sensitivity and special interests—even in cases of companies that are run well and better serve their customers' needs.
Corruption. A state-monopolized function is prone to corruption; decisions are made primarily for political reasons, personal gain of the decision-maker (i.e. "graft"), rather than economic ones. Corruption (or principal-agent issues) in a state-run corporation affects the ongoing asset stream and company performance, whereas any corruption that may occur during the privatization process is a one-time event and does not affect ongoing cash flow or performance of the company.
Accountability. Managers of privately owned companies are accountable to their owners/shareholders and to the consumer, and can only exist and thrive where needs are met. Managers of publicly owned companies are required to be more accountable to the broader community and to political "stakeholders". This can reduce their ability to directly and specifically serve the needs of their customers, and can bias investment decisions away from otherwise profitable areas.
Civil-liberty concerns. A company controlled by the state may have access to information or assets which may be used against dissidents or any individuals who disagree with their policies.
Goals. A political government tends to run an industry or company for political goals rather than economic ones.
Capital. Privately held companies can sometimes more easily raise investment capital in the financial markets when such local markets exist and are suitably liquid. While interest rates for private companies are often higher than for government debt, this can serve as a useful constraint to promote efficient investments by private companies, instead of cross-subsidizing them with the overall credit-risk of the country. Investment decisions are then governed by market interest rates. State-owned industries have to compete with demands from other government departments and special interests. In either case, for smaller markets, political risk may add substantially to the cost of capital.
Security. Governments have had the tendency to "bail out" poorly run businesses, often due to the sensitivity of job losses, when economically, it may be better to let the business fold.
Lack of market discipline. Poorly managed state companies are insulated from the same discipline as private companies, which could go bankrupt, have their management removed,
I suppose you think civilians should be in charge of guarding the truth about UFOs and aliens as well, right? Other than private Bradley Manning, the military has done a good job of keeping its secrets. Civilian control would sooner or later bring about direct involvement from politicians in Congress who are members or chairs of various congressional committees. And from these congressmen, and sometimes from cabinet members of the executive branch, there tends to flow a steady series of leaks that get published in the New York Times even when the information is supposed to be classified, secret, or even top-secret.
We vote for civilian government, and those civilians (well, only the President actually) can hire and fire military personnel, even the highest generals, but the replacements still have to be military. The US government is actually barred by the Constitution (and international treaties) from sending civilian bureaocrats to directly command military personnel in combat zones. Whether a general, captain, or fresh recruit, neither can take orders from a civilian except directly from the President. Of course the executive branch didn't like these restrictions so they set up the OSS, which evolved now to the CIA. Nowadays the operations of the CIA are so encumbered by politics, including oversight from congressional committees, that the trend today is just to outsource the dirty work to private contractors. I fear the day when nuclear command is handed over to a private firm with a profit motive and a legal obligation to serve the financial interest of its shareholders.
Again, I think the question here is referring to the control of civilian government employees versus military officers, not control by private corporations run by civilian business executives and a board of civilian directors. I haven't checked recently, but I still don't think any private coporations own and maintain their own missile silos, complete with nuclear warheads and staff to maintain and launch attacks. Though I'm sure Blackwater would jump at the opportunity if it were available.
Actually, military brass might be less likely to drop the bomb than civilian politicians. MacArthur had the entire invasion of Japan all planned out and was really p*ssed when Truman decided instead to launch the nuclear attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to force a quick surrender.
For a general there is much more glory in leading dozens of divisions into battle than commanding a handful of national guardsmen to press a button from deep within a missile bunker.
The problem is how you define "advisory". Some of the worst acts from our government, both from civilians and military, can be traced back to a private contractor who "advised" a government official to do one thing or another. Sometimes it was "advice" that was just biased to serve the interest of the contractor and the official just wasn't smart enough to pick up on it. Other times free dinners, Christmas presents, "business entertainment", and an implied offer of future employment accompanied the so-called "advice". And more common than we would like to see officials have been simply flat-out bribed to knowingly serve the interests of private corporations and individuals at the expense of taxpayers and risk to citizens.
Why improve the lives of normal people in a practical way when you could stumbled upon a virtually unlimited energy source that could power a massive spacecraft and also propel it close to the speed of light. The one-percenters could sell spacecraft to each other and leave the "normal people" to deal with the polluted and destroyed planet they leave behind for a new life in a new star system.
Normally I would dismiss your concerns as paranoid, but this summer Facebook asked for my phone number so I could restore my account if I ever forgot my password or got locked out. Then this fall FB made my phone number searchable, so anyone could enter my digits in the FB search bar and pull up my name, complete list of FB friends, and other details. I keep my cell number unlisted for a reason, and for FB to constantly change privacy settings without warning with default setting to "public", I wouldn't trust FB to sweep my sidewalks, let alone manage my interpersonal relationships. Of course, FB makes these sort of drastic changes every three months, so I should have known better.
Recently I just unfriended most of my FB "friends", such as ex-classmates I barely knew as a teenager and don't really want to know now. I have maximum privacy settings in place, but again I don't trust FB to keep anything private anyway, so now I only keep a FB page as a beacon for acquaintances and colleagues to find me so I can exchange real contact info like email or maybe phone numbers, while screening out the weirdos I want nothing to do with. I have family that wouldn't understand my valid reasons for dropping them from FB, so I just keep them there as "friends" for their own amusement, but I do not post status updates and my profile is very watered down so as not to present all my personal life to the whole world, advertising companies, or governments.
There was a time when it was explicitly understood NEVER to give away personal details, such as your real name, birthday, age, or location over the internet. I'm shocked and amazed how FB totally flipped that concept and now controls everybody's personal address book.
Mental health is worse here than anywhere else. In other developed countries the mentally ill get access to therapists and medications. In the USA if you can't afford your Abilify ($600 in USA, $160 in Canada [price for US citizens without Canada's universal health coverage], $25 mail-order from India) this month, then you just don't get to have any.
Combined with no-questions-asked access to lethal firearms and a cult-like obsession with 'personal responsibility', you can see why we have these kinds of atrocities. Medically needy people in America see people just like themselves doing fine or thriving in "socialist" European countries, while in the USA they either pay 50% of their income on health care, rack up medical debt, forced to quit their jobs and "spend down" all savings - including 501k and 401k plans - just to qualify for the few situations Medicaid actually covers them (mainly children and their parents - single adults without dependents are out of luck until 2014 when Obamacare kicks in).
Something just seems off when the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth leaves its most vulnerable suffering sometimes worse than what is seen in third world countries. Suppposedly there should be enough philanthropists to magically fill in the gaps, but it is often quite deficient. There are non-profit hospitals with executives earning record salaries and bonuses, and endowments from donors that add up to billions, yet more and more often they are turning away those with limited ability to pay, or they suck dry all savings from a struggling family, even forcing them first to max out their credit cards and home equity lines before offering any charity care. If there is a delay in making these payments the hospitals are halting treatment, even for cancer. If they suspect you can ask or beg for money, they will halt treatment on a regular basis until you pony up the cash, and this is after you have already made several lump-sum payments of tens of thousands of dollars. Bill collectors will walk in with physicians in the middle of examinations and halt the exam if you "refuse" to cough up more thousand-dollar bills. If you doubt this just search Google about how hard it was for one family to afford treatment at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. And no, this isn't an issue just for the uninsured, there are too many cases where insurance denies essential coverage or limits are maxed out.
Another disconnect is the cost of a bachelors degree, which is free or low cost for many Europeans, but many in the US are overwhelmed by student debt and living worse than if they just pursued a skilled trade through an apprenticeship. The only thing government has done in the past 10 years is to close more escape routes from desparation situations, such as bankruptcy reform that leaves anyone earning $1.00 more than median income absolutely screwed for five years - and that's only if they stick to the plan and pay 100% of their disposable income to creditors, who are usually medical providers with billing practices totally out of sync with the actual costs for services.
This sort of disparity where you can have wealth beyond your wildest dreams if you are smart, work hard, know the right people and have good luck, or due to random misfortune, regardless of how hard you work or how educated you are, you can still find yourself struggling the rest of your life to provide your family's basic needs. If you're wealthy you pursue asset protection planning, including medicaid planning [that's right - the rich have plans to transfer their wealth so they can qualify for medicaid to pay their nursing home bills - Google it! ], to protect your fortune, so the wealthy can withstand such calamity. But there are no such plans to help those just starting out and haven't created or protected their wealth in time for when the SHTF.
This artificially created scarcity and disparity in the US economic system no doubt pushes many people over the brink. Our system has become much less about capitalism (which isn't all bad) to a system of survival of the fittest. In a country with too many guns and too many untreated mental nutcases, trust me, you don't want to play the survival-of-the-fittest game.
If today's attack was carried out by an enemy combatant, such as a Taliban soldier, who mistook the school for an American military base and accidentally shot little children one by one, then maybe your point might be analogous to this situation. Who knows, maybe those boy-scout uniforms made the kids look like midget commandos.
There are thousands of weapons collectors, shooting competitors, and enthusiasts who have gone through the process to own Class III weapons. Only two murders have been committed in the last 50 years using legally obtained automatic weapons, and in one of those the perpetrator was a law enforcement officer. But rather than require background checks, fingerprinting, and registration, the NRA and other fanatics want semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles with quick-change magazines to be available off-the-shelf and on-demand for any reason. The system to regulate Class III weapons has shown itself effective at keeping powerful weapons out of the hands of hooligans. But the fanatical NRA is going to ruin gun ownership for everyone because of the irrational fear of the "slippery slope" phenomenon.
There are other countries that enjoy high rates of gun ownership, such as Sweden, but officials simply ask a few basic questions, like 'do you have a hunting license?' or 'do you belong to a shooting club?' If neither, why do you need a gun? Of course, Sweden has a low rate of violent crime so self-defense is rarely a valid reason. Collectors can own weapons also, but they need to show they have a valid collection, not just an armory of heavy weapons waiting for the apocalypse.
I had a Chinese friend, but she never understood my satire. While traveling on business I commented on how nice the pillows were. She agreed they were nice. Then I told her that's why I packed one into my luggage to take home. She really thought I was serious. I had to explain I was joking.
Culture plays a big role in how people react to things. For instance, don't pull a prank on a total stranger, like a random nurse in a hospital. Depending on their cultural background you might prompt them to kill themselves.
Remember Billy Mays? His commercials seemed loud, but he was loud even in person. But what made the sound of his voice intolerable was that he was able to maintain the same level of loudness with every breath, and he made sure that 98% of the commericial time was literally the loud sound of his loud voice with no pauses. Even with the volume turned down he still sounded loud because the human voice does not modulate the same with a quiet "indoor" voice as it does when we "speak up" and talk loudly. It actually took remarkable skill for him to speak that way.
So even with the volume reduced, we will still probably perceive many commercials as being loud, or at least obnoxious.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion can be dangerous. Imagine you show up at the ER with major blood loss and you die because the ER physician on staff that night was a Jehovah's Witness and didn't believe in giving transfusions.
Now, what if one of the nurses shook hands with the Dali Lama and swore to never wash that hand again, on religious grounds. Sorry, but I would want the hospital to require hand washing and I would sue a hospital that exposed me to danger in the interest of protecting a nurse's religous practices.
Not sure if they regularly screen for HIV, but that would be a good idea as well, along with other dangerous pathogens.
Do the hospital janitors have to take the vaccine? If not, I wouldn't say that the nurses should be fired, but demoted to minimum wage and scrubbing toilets might be a suitable alternative. Maybe they can get work as phone nurses - there is work in this field.
But why religious grounds? Why not claim to have an allergy? I don't take flu shots anymore because the last two times I had the shot my tongue swelled up. The second time I had a long of chest pressure and dizzyness as well. This was within hours of getting the shot.
The pistols and the AR-15 were both "rapid fire" compared to the muzzle-loading firearms that were commonplace when the 2nd amendment was drafted. In battle, more deaths were likely to come from the bayonnet at the end of the musket than from the musketball itself, which was not a high-velocity round like we have with modern pistols and semi-automatic rifles. In countries with strict gun controls, even pump-action shotguns are considered too dangerous for citizens to own, while muzzle loaders, bolt action rifles with small magazines (typically two rounds, plus one in the chamber), and breech loading shotguns are considered appropriate for most sporting, hunting, and culling purposes, and ownership is typically limited to individuals with such valid reasons. For instance, a bird hunter might not be granted a license to own a sniper rifle until he demonstrates that he also hunts boar or is a licensed animal control professional or some other legitimate reason.
I don't personally feel that in the USA we need such strict prohibitions if guns in general took just a little more effort to procure, such as requiring membership in a shooting club or possessing a hunting license, passing a background check and a drug screen - a screen which would detect anti-psychotics so nut-jobs can't get guns, as well as a process for making sure that mentally unstable individuals are barred from owning rapid-fire quick-reloading weapons as soon as they are identified by school officials or medical doctors.
Recent mass shootings have shown that the ability to quickly fire multiple rounds and reload in just a second or two can result in very high body counts. If a deranged gunman was limited to a breech loading shotgun or bolt-action rifle he could still kill and still be deadly. But in a crowd at point-blank range, he would only be able to get off two or three rounds at most before struggling to reload, at which time bystanders could at least have a chance to tackle the assailant or get away to safety. This reduces the gun-toting nutcase to the same level as the knife wielding deranged Chinese mass stabber. Still dangerous, but much more manageable. In such a case the gun no longer provides much more killing capability than other household tools, like a machete or a chainsaw, unless the attacker is highly skilled, like the 2002 DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad or the 1966 UT Tower Sniper Charles Whitman, both of whom had military training. In theory we should be doing a much better job of keeping nutcases out of our military and keeping close tabs on them when we identify them.
Stereotyping is too easy. I drive a new light duty pickup that gets better mileage than my previous vehicle - a full size sedan. I live in Texas where driving your own vehicle is virtually, for better or for worse, the only way to get around. There is bus service in my area, but according to the DART transit calculator I would have to leave home at 6am to get to work by noon.
But I do live within just a few miles of where I work. I'd commute on my bike, but I don't have enough heavy clothes to be outdoors more than 15 minutes during the coldest weeks of winter and there are no clothes that will keep me from showing up to work smelling like a sweaty dog during several months of 110 degrees heat during the summer.
Given that they want to charge a flat tax to anyone that doesn't let a GPS or similar type mileage logger track their every move, I see this more as a threat to privacy than a tax generating scheme. The IRS already has procedures in place to report mileage, but they are voluntary and rely on the honesty of taxpayers to report the truth. Blatant falsifications can but spotting during an audit. So why not just allow voluntary mileage reporting? Why an electronic tracking system to monitor our roadway usage? Not to mention that this tax system punishes state residents while out-of-state drivers can "consume" road usage without paying any such tax, which will especially be the case in border towns.
What happened to the common-sense approach of taxing citizens across the board at a flat or progressive rate and efficiently providing government services to the general public as demand required? Are people from poor districts still allowed to take their children to the nice parks in the rich districts, or is there now a gate keeper to view proof of residence and to collect fees from the riftraft deadweight freeloaders taking advantage of the poor rich people's public spaces?
Meanwhile, professional "urban planners" who know better than common folk how to properly lay out a city and set up zoning regulations continue to insist that future developments consist of far outlying commuter towns, composed of 95% mass-produced housing subdivisions (where America's #1 useless and unnecessary crop is cultivated - lawn grass), and massive freeways to have all the people drive for miles in bumper-to-bumper traffic at 20mph to skyrise financial or business districts devoid of any grocery stores or other amenities that could possibly encourage workers to live within walking distance of their workplaces.
Our cities and towns could be built intelligently to reduce the need to maintain such expansive infrastructure like roads, freeways, power lines, water pipes, and bus/rail systems (when they exist) that sprawl like tree roots under your house, undermining your foundation. Most of Europe seems to have figured this out already decades ago. But in many newer American cities, even if you lived right next to your neighborhood Walmart, you would have to walk across a desert of concrete just to get to the front door.
In intelligently built cities, the storefronts are close to the street with parking in the rear of the building. In neighborhoods where cars are a luxury and not a necessity, homes can be built smaller by eliminating driveways and two-car garages, which means more houses can fit comfortably closer together, reducing the distance even more for pedestrians to walk past their neighbor's homes on the way to work, shops, schools, and occassionally the train station. Neighbors actually learn to recognize each other and even become friends. Outsiders are more easily noticed, and without tinted car windows to hide behind, suspicious behavior is easier to spot by the sidewalk traversing neighborhood pedestrians. Smaller neighborhood police forces, volunteer or private security patrols located in small neighborhood police stations can easily patrol neighborhood homes, shops, and schools on foot or by bicycles.
Just by tweaking a few details regarding how our cities are layed out, and usually this layout is mandated by city or county governments (often for the worst), the impact of our lifestyles on the environment could be dramatically reduced and our economic opportunities significantly increased without mandatory expenses like extremely high housing costs, expensive transportation and vehicle maintenance, high costs of energy consumption, time wasted during long distance commutes, and high taxes (both easily visible and hidden) to maintain multi-lane roads, freeways, traffic lights, street lamps, extra lengths of cable and conduit, police cars, city maintenance vehicles, etc.
It always seemed odd to me that the politicians who espouse smaller government and lower taxes tend to reject such alternative urban planning concepts, to the detriment of all mankind, simply because they suggest that such planning would be harmful to business and would lower house values. Technically, they are right because tax revenue comes from larger business like Walmart and businesses like Walmart succeed with the model of driving traffic via automobile to their big-box one-stop-shopping complexes. Bigger houses with big garages can be taxed at higher rates, and sales tax revenue and other taxes from the sale and operation of SUVs and the overconsumption of materials, services, and energy to maintain the whole system (appears) to bring in constantly growing tax revenue on the state and local level. But such "growth" is not sustainable and will lead to economic collapse, part of which we have already seen the in the securities and housing markets. More and deeper recessions will keep coming until this system is permanently corrected to a sustainable model that is not based on the presumption of unlimited energy and unbounded sprawl.
The walkable city and town approach would more likely bring back smaller businesses, like the family owned and operated neighborhood grocery store that sold it
getting too many campaign contributions and "consulting" from oil cartels and other conglomerates.
Socially and Environmentally Responsible Citizen: "I can do my part to reduce my carbon footprint by driving this alternative energy powered vehicle"
Enter Sociopathic Lawmaker
Lawmaker: "It puts the gas in its tank or it gets the tax again"
This crap isn't new. Hobbyists and inventors have already been threatened with jail time for tax evasion by using home brewed biodiesel because they didn't understand the regulations regarding fuel tax.
And if we are so concerned about people using roads without paying for the infrastructure, what about all those tax-evading pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair operators that using public sidewalks everyday. They should all be required to strap on GPS mileage loggers and pay their tax share as well. Same goes for all those brats getting a free education. They should all get a bill upon graduation for the cost of their schooling unless they pay for their own private education or get homeschooled by their mommy. Why force childless property owners to pay for others self-indulging personal development when nowadays a high school grad with a year and a half of college ends up in a career waiting tables when the previous generation could wait tables just fine without a high school diploma or a college degree?
OK - I'll stop before I go to far - I think the tea baggers will try to grab onto my cynical satire and use my bogus arguments as talking points at their next book burning ceremony.
My rig is already self-driving. At least while I'm snoozing.
You wouldn't need a gun, just a firecracker and a turban on your head.
To say Star Craft is not a violent video game is like saying Hitler didn't kill anyone during the Holocaust. Granted, I'd agree it is not "gratuitous" murder and mayhem, and usually played on a PC, not on a game consol. But to someone with serious mental and emotional problems who's to say how detrimental Star Craft or Mario World could be once they have access to rapid fire weapons with quick-change magazines.
Why shouldn't Pakistan have nukes? They're our allies, right?
I agree. In fact control of nukes should neither be in the hands of civilian government or the military. America's nuclear arsenal should be auctioned off to private owners who can more efficiently manage the cost of maintaining such systems and assume responsibility for their use, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Studies show that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition. Over time this tends to lead to lower prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red tape, and/or quicker delivery. Here are some other arguments to support privatization;
Performance. State-run industries tend to be bureaucratic. A political government may only be motivated to improve a function when its poor performance becomes politically sensitive.
Increased efficiency. Private companies and firms have a greater incentive to produce more goods and services for the sake of reaching a customer base and hence increasing profits. A public organization would not be as productive due to the lack of financing allocated by the entire government's budget that must consider other areas of the economy.
Specialization. A private business has the ability to focus all relevant human and financial resources onto specific functions. A state-owned firm does not have the necessary resources to specialize its goods and services as a result of the general products provided to the greatest number of people in the population.
Improvements. Conversely, the government may put off improvements due to political sensitivity and special interests—even in cases of companies that are run well and better serve their customers' needs.
Corruption. A state-monopolized function is prone to corruption; decisions are made primarily for political reasons, personal gain of the decision-maker (i.e. "graft"), rather than economic ones. Corruption (or principal-agent issues) in a state-run corporation affects the ongoing asset stream and company performance, whereas any corruption that may occur during the privatization process is a one-time event and does not affect ongoing cash flow or performance of the company.
Accountability. Managers of privately owned companies are accountable to their owners/shareholders and to the consumer, and can only exist and thrive where needs are met. Managers of publicly owned companies are required to be more accountable to the broader community and to political "stakeholders". This can reduce their ability to directly and specifically serve the needs of their customers, and can bias investment decisions away from otherwise profitable areas.
Civil-liberty concerns. A company controlled by the state may have access to information or assets which may be used against dissidents or any individuals who disagree with their policies.
Goals. A political government tends to run an industry or company for political goals rather than economic ones.
Capital. Privately held companies can sometimes more easily raise investment capital in the financial markets when such local markets exist and are suitably liquid. While interest rates for private companies are often higher than for government debt, this can serve as a useful constraint to promote efficient investments by private companies, instead of cross-subsidizing them with the overall credit-risk of the country. Investment decisions are then governed by market interest rates. State-owned industries have to compete with demands from other government departments and special interests. In either case, for smaller markets, political risk may add substantially to the cost of capital.
Security. Governments have had the tendency to "bail out" poorly run businesses, often due to the sensitivity of job losses, when economically, it may be better to let the business fold.
Lack of market discipline. Poorly managed state companies are insulated from the same discipline as private companies, which could go bankrupt, have their management removed,
I suppose you think civilians should be in charge of guarding the truth about UFOs and aliens as well, right? Other than private Bradley Manning, the military has done a good job of keeping its secrets. Civilian control would sooner or later bring about direct involvement from politicians in Congress who are members or chairs of various congressional committees. And from these congressmen, and sometimes from cabinet members of the executive branch, there tends to flow a steady series of leaks that get published in the New York Times even when the information is supposed to be classified, secret, or even top-secret.
We vote for civilian government, and those civilians (well, only the President actually) can hire and fire military personnel, even the highest generals, but the replacements still have to be military. The US government is actually barred by the Constitution (and international treaties) from sending civilian bureaocrats to directly command military personnel in combat zones. Whether a general, captain, or fresh recruit, neither can take orders from a civilian except directly from the President. Of course the executive branch didn't like these restrictions so they set up the OSS, which evolved now to the CIA. Nowadays the operations of the CIA are so encumbered by politics, including oversight from congressional committees, that the trend today is just to outsource the dirty work to private contractors. I fear the day when nuclear command is handed over to a private firm with a profit motive and a legal obligation to serve the financial interest of its shareholders.
Again, I think the question here is referring to the control of civilian government employees versus military officers, not control by private corporations run by civilian business executives and a board of civilian directors. I haven't checked recently, but I still don't think any private coporations own and maintain their own missile silos, complete with nuclear warheads and staff to maintain and launch attacks. Though I'm sure Blackwater would jump at the opportunity if it were available.
Actually, military brass might be less likely to drop the bomb than civilian politicians. MacArthur had the entire invasion of Japan all planned out and was really p*ssed when Truman decided instead to launch the nuclear attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to force a quick surrender.
For a general there is much more glory in leading dozens of divisions into battle than commanding a handful of national guardsmen to press a button from deep within a missile bunker.
The problem is how you define "advisory". Some of the worst acts from our government, both from civilians and military, can be traced back to a private contractor who "advised" a government official to do one thing or another. Sometimes it was "advice" that was just biased to serve the interest of the contractor and the official just wasn't smart enough to pick up on it. Other times free dinners, Christmas presents, "business entertainment", and an implied offer of future employment accompanied the so-called "advice". And more common than we would like to see officials have been simply flat-out bribed to knowingly serve the interests of private corporations and individuals at the expense of taxpayers and risk to citizens.
Why improve the lives of normal people in a practical way when you could stumbled upon a virtually unlimited energy source that could power a massive spacecraft and also propel it close to the speed of light. The one-percenters could sell spacecraft to each other and leave the "normal people" to deal with the polluted and destroyed planet they leave behind for a new life in a new star system.
Actually, I hope FB exploits this to the maximum degree possible and cause such a public outrage that it implodes and goes the way of MySpace.
Normally I would dismiss your concerns as paranoid, but this summer Facebook asked for my phone number so I could restore my account if I ever forgot my password or got locked out. Then this fall FB made my phone number searchable, so anyone could enter my digits in the FB search bar and pull up my name, complete list of FB friends, and other details. I keep my cell number unlisted for a reason, and for FB to constantly change privacy settings without warning with default setting to "public", I wouldn't trust FB to sweep my sidewalks, let alone manage my interpersonal relationships. Of course, FB makes these sort of drastic changes every three months, so I should have known better.
Recently I just unfriended most of my FB "friends", such as ex-classmates I barely knew as a teenager and don't really want to know now. I have maximum privacy settings in place, but again I don't trust FB to keep anything private anyway, so now I only keep a FB page as a beacon for acquaintances and colleagues to find me so I can exchange real contact info like email or maybe phone numbers, while screening out the weirdos I want nothing to do with. I have family that wouldn't understand my valid reasons for dropping them from FB, so I just keep them there as "friends" for their own amusement, but I do not post status updates and my profile is very watered down so as not to present all my personal life to the whole world, advertising companies, or governments.
There was a time when it was explicitly understood NEVER to give away personal details, such as your real name, birthday, age, or location over the internet. I'm shocked and amazed how FB totally flipped that concept and now controls everybody's personal address book.
True. A mini black hole could cause earthquakes and tsunamis, but who on earth would be better prepared for such an apacolyptic event?
Mental health is worse here than anywhere else. In other developed countries the mentally ill get access to therapists and medications. In the USA if you can't afford your Abilify ($600 in USA, $160 in Canada [price for US citizens without Canada's universal health coverage], $25 mail-order from India) this month, then you just don't get to have any.
Combined with no-questions-asked access to lethal firearms and a cult-like obsession with 'personal responsibility', you can see why we have these kinds of atrocities. Medically needy people in America see people just like themselves doing fine or thriving in "socialist" European countries, while in the USA they either pay 50% of their income on health care, rack up medical debt, forced to quit their jobs and "spend down" all savings - including 501k and 401k plans - just to qualify for the few situations Medicaid actually covers them (mainly children and their parents - single adults without dependents are out of luck until 2014 when Obamacare kicks in).
Something just seems off when the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth leaves its most vulnerable suffering sometimes worse than what is seen in third world countries. Suppposedly there should be enough philanthropists to magically fill in the gaps, but it is often quite deficient. There are non-profit hospitals with executives earning record salaries and bonuses, and endowments from donors that add up to billions, yet more and more often they are turning away those with limited ability to pay, or they suck dry all savings from a struggling family, even forcing them first to max out their credit cards and home equity lines before offering any charity care. If there is a delay in making these payments the hospitals are halting treatment, even for cancer. If they suspect you can ask or beg for money, they will halt treatment on a regular basis until you pony up the cash, and this is after you have already made several lump-sum payments of tens of thousands of dollars. Bill collectors will walk in with physicians in the middle of examinations and halt the exam if you "refuse" to cough up more thousand-dollar bills. If you doubt this just search Google about how hard it was for one family to afford treatment at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. And no, this isn't an issue just for the uninsured, there are too many cases where insurance denies essential coverage or limits are maxed out.
Another disconnect is the cost of a bachelors degree, which is free or low cost for many Europeans, but many in the US are overwhelmed by student debt and living worse than if they just pursued a skilled trade through an apprenticeship. The only thing government has done in the past 10 years is to close more escape routes from desparation situations, such as bankruptcy reform that leaves anyone earning $1.00 more than median income absolutely screwed for five years - and that's only if they stick to the plan and pay 100% of their disposable income to creditors, who are usually medical providers with billing practices totally out of sync with the actual costs for services.
This sort of disparity where you can have wealth beyond your wildest dreams if you are smart, work hard, know the right people and have good luck, or due to random misfortune, regardless of how hard you work or how educated you are, you can still find yourself struggling the rest of your life to provide your family's basic needs. If you're wealthy you pursue asset protection planning, including medicaid planning [that's right - the rich have plans to transfer their wealth so they can qualify for medicaid to pay their nursing home bills - Google it! ], to protect your fortune, so the wealthy can withstand such calamity. But there are no such plans to help those just starting out and haven't created or protected their wealth in time for when the SHTF.
This artificially created scarcity and disparity in the US economic system no doubt pushes many people over the brink. Our system has become much less about capitalism (which isn't all bad) to a system of survival of the fittest. In a country with too many guns and too many untreated mental nutcases, trust me, you don't want to play the survival-of-the-fittest game.
If today's attack was carried out by an enemy combatant, such as a Taliban soldier, who mistook the school for an American military base and accidentally shot little children one by one, then maybe your point might be analogous to this situation. Who knows, maybe those boy-scout uniforms made the kids look like midget commandos.
There are thousands of weapons collectors, shooting competitors, and enthusiasts who have gone through the process to own Class III weapons. Only two murders have been committed in the last 50 years using legally obtained automatic weapons, and in one of those the perpetrator was a law enforcement officer. But rather than require background checks, fingerprinting, and registration, the NRA and other fanatics want semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles with quick-change magazines to be available off-the-shelf and on-demand for any reason. The system to regulate Class III weapons has shown itself effective at keeping powerful weapons out of the hands of hooligans. But the fanatical NRA is going to ruin gun ownership for everyone because of the irrational fear of the "slippery slope" phenomenon.
There are other countries that enjoy high rates of gun ownership, such as Sweden, but officials simply ask a few basic questions, like 'do you have a hunting license?' or 'do you belong to a shooting club?' If neither, why do you need a gun? Of course, Sweden has a low rate of violent crime so self-defense is rarely a valid reason. Collectors can own weapons also, but they need to show they have a valid collection, not just an armory of heavy weapons waiting for the apocalypse.
I had a Chinese friend, but she never understood my satire. While traveling on business I commented on how nice the pillows were. She agreed they were nice. Then I told her that's why I packed one into my luggage to take home. She really thought I was serious. I had to explain I was joking.
Culture plays a big role in how people react to things. For instance, don't pull a prank on a total stranger, like a random nurse in a hospital. Depending on their cultural background you might prompt them to kill themselves.
I think Magnavox had the patent for that, but who has a Magnavox TV these days?
Remember Billy Mays? His commercials seemed loud, but he was loud even in person. But what made the sound of his voice intolerable was that he was able to maintain the same level of loudness with every breath, and he made sure that 98% of the commericial time was literally the loud sound of his loud voice with no pauses. Even with the volume turned down he still sounded loud because the human voice does not modulate the same with a quiet "indoor" voice as it does when we "speak up" and talk loudly. It actually took remarkable skill for him to speak that way.
So even with the volume reduced, we will still probably perceive many commercials as being loud, or at least obnoxious.
You're just another reason why Boomers don't trust anyone over 90.