I can understand your excitement, but, to paraphrase Pete Townshend, "Meet the transgendered cop, same as the old cop."
That's what excites me about it: the department doesn't particularly care. If I ever get a job as a cop, that's how I want the department to react to my own issues.
Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian. It's a popular myth, but the man enjoyed his sausage.
I don't think you got my point about Pete Townshend, but maybe that's a generational thing. Or maybe it's a whole I'm a drug-abusing communist with a low opinion of law enforcement. Original lyric: "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss."
Good to know about Hitler, but I'm totally willing to perpetuate popular myths if it'll piss off my boss.
I think that, while there certainly are bad cops, and cops do get annoyed and act like asses at times (who doesn't?), the profession as a whole is generally honorable.
Roughly when the US became a police state? That's a tougher one than I would have thought. Let me get back to you on that one.
Some communist propaganda to look over while you're thinking.
Some communist propaganda to look over while you're thinking.Roughly when the US became a police state? That's a tougher one than I would have thought. Let me get back to you on that one.
Ouch. I don't know how it comes through in the USA, but in Europe the idea of eugenics is closely tied to the nazi regime ideology. Not a pretty comparison.
Isn't there something in the US constitution to prevent such things as the right to body integrity ?
Ouch. I don't know how it comes through in the USA, but in Europe the idea of eugenics is closely tied to the nazi regime ideology. Not a pretty comparison.
Isn't there something in the US constitution to prevent such things as the right to body integrity ?
I would imagine that for most of my fellow American citizens, yes, indeed, the idea of eugenics is associated with the Nazis. Which, of course, overlooks how in love with the idea many early 20th-century American politicos (mostly "Progressives") were and, in fact, that the roots of Nazi "science" in this field were mostly American.
I am unaware of any such thing in the Constitution, but I'm not the go-to guy for that document. We're going to have to wait for Bitter Thorn to check in.
Hmmm. Maybe BT was right.
Ouch. I don't know how it comes through in the USA, but in Europe the idea of eugenics is closely tied to the nazi regime ideology. Not a pretty comparison.
Isn't there something in the US constitution to prevent such things as the right to body integrity ?
I would imagine that for most of my fellow American citizens, yes, indeed, the idea of eugenics is associated with the Nazis. Which, of course, overlooks how in love with the idea many early 20th-century American politicos (mostly "Progressives") were and, in fact, that the roots of Nazi "science" in this field were mostly American.
I am unaware of any such thing in the Constitution, but I'm not the go-to guy for that document. We're going to have to wait for Bitter Thorn to check in.
In current case law reproductive rights tend to be built on a privacy doctrine which I think is a terrible approach.
For me the issue of all human rights is self ownership, but my position is very much in the minority. After all, if we own our own bodies the state can't justify the war on drugs.
Much of the current evolution of case law in the US is positively tortured and twisted in its approach. For example JFK based his legal arguments for the federal government defending the rights of blacks in the '60's on interstate commerce of all things. WTF? We have a long history of some very odd legal doctrines.
Hmmm. Maybe BT was right.
Wow! Like I said it's a matter of degree. If you ask a wealthy stock broker who plea bargained his coke possession away he probably thinks it's a joke. If you ask some rural biker whose brother died of AIDS in prison for possession maybe we have something to worry about. Experience and perspective matter.
Some communist propaganda to look over while you're thinking.Roughly when the US became a police state? That's a tougher one than I would have thought. Let me get back to you on that one.
I've been very very busy as a precinct captain for the past few days.
I hope that didn't come across as impatient. I totally understand that people have other things to do than argue politics with a communist goblin!
[Takes off Comrade hat in order to talk D&D]
We used to play in the Scarred Lands, and that setting had its own stock monstrous humanoid races (ratmen, snakepeople, etc.). And orcs. They were not pleasant, those orcs. In fact, that party developed a real racist hatred against halflings of all things! Long story, that.
Since we switched over to Golarion, we've only played a stand-alone game vs. a white dragon, and started Carrion Crown with The Feast of Ravenmoor and side quests. No gobbos in sight!
Anyway, that's not to say that the party has never run across a goblin. I usually use them as comic-relief pests and see how far I can annoy the party-members before they attack. Much like I do here...
Gark the Goblin started a thread in OTD a while back called "All Goblins = Communist?" that made me laugh. It's somewhere in the archives.
I hope that didn't come across as impatient. I totally understand that people have other things to do than argue politics with a communist goblin!
Lol. Not at all; I was just catching up on my unread posts.
Beating Terrorism by winning hearts and minds.
Does no one understand blowback at all?
Beating Terrorism by winning hearts and minds.
Does no one understand blowback at all?
I only skimmed the article (I just woke up), but I think the safe answer is "no, they don't."
I only skimmed the article (I just woke up), but I think the safe answer is "no, they don't."Beating Terrorism by winning hearts and minds.
Does no one understand blowback at all?
I'd like to learn more about the African drone campaigns too.
Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals
EDIT: Btw, the person transcribing this essay messed up--the essay begins with the words "Most Americans of a certain age..."
Also, I'll just link his whole webpage. Good reading in there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect most of us here agree with BT about the War on (Some) Drugs and the War on Terror, as well as the corrupting affects of government getting too cozy with big business.
I just disagree that the solution is to gut government so that it isn't capable of doing anything bad.
That seems reasonable - probably because you believe that people won't just suddenly change their nature and become socially responsible and kind-hearted... which people seem to think is the case when they advocate castrating the government.
Honestly, IMHO government exists to protect the people from their own base instincts.
Then again, I'm military, and a centrist. The system has issues, that much is blatantly obvious, but it's not like there's a blueprint for what's going on - there hasn't really been a culture like ours before.
Personally, I like the idea of federal control and regulation, I just think it should be transperent. Ideally, we could do with a lot less regulation than we currently have, but much stricter enforcement of that regulation.
eh, just my 2c.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you've hit on a lot of the problems that us left of centers have with the government. Not the amount of regulation, but the lack of bite those regulations have. The EPA has determined a fine structure for companies that pollute that doesn't deter them from doing so; they just work the fines into their profit scheme and pass the buck.
The problem is that most state and federal regulatory agencies, DNR, EPA, SEC, FCC, are considered captured agencies by the industries they regulate. When the regulators at the SEC are on the bankroll from Goldman Sachs, how can you expect things to go well? This is one of the key issues that we need to push this election cycle.
Yes, the revolving door between Congress and business and between business and regulatory agencies is a major problem.
As is chronic underfunding of regulatory agencies. They're slow and ineffective because they're understaffed, which leads to complaints about how they get in the way which leads to cutting the regulations. Also feeds into the whole "government is inefficient" idea, which leads to budget cuts, which leads to more slowdown which reinforces the original idea again.
Which all circles back around to a government that thrives on failure and corruption. All bureaucrats justify their utter failure by claiming that the billions in tax payer dollars they were entrusted with weren't enough to do the job.
The result seems to be a government that rewards and incentivizes failure. 911 is the perfect example. Our multi trillion dollar law enforcement, intelligence, and military bureaucracies fail utterly and we reward them with massive amounts of power and money. This is how government works now, but somehow it's never their fault. The standard reaction to government failure in both parties seems to be to throw money and power at the failed institutions.
War on drugs an epic failure? Build more prisons.
Regulatory agencies hopelessly corrupt and incompetent? Hire more!
Airport baggage screeners drop the ball? Make 'em federal employees!
Education a complete failure? Keep adding money and bureaucracy!
We're 15 trillion dollars in debt, but you're fine with that, and the government using force and spending money seems to be your solution to every problem.
I fail to comprehend people who seem to think that government inefficiency and incompetence is some kind of myth. I'm even more mystified by people who want to trade their freedom for the illusion of some kind of government protection. It's not even a real trade off. We become less safe the more we surrender power to the state.
This is why the political divide in this country will probably not be resolved peacefully. We see the exact same failures and we come to exactly opposite conclusions because we have radically different values.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, the cat clawed me again. I have a scale of possible responses:
1. Replace the cat's real claws with adamantine vorpal claws.
2. Do nothing and keep getting clawed.
3. Keep the cat's claws trimmed and/or train the thing.
4. Get the cat declawed.
5. Kill the cat or otherwise get rid of it.
6. Kill all cats everywhere.
The people arguing #1 are indeed stupid. Your arguments, BT, are really meant as #4, I think, but most often come across as #5. Personally, I'm a #3 kind of guy, but YMMV. We all differ in how extreme exactly our response is, but that's the nature of reality -- I really don't think it's a "values" issue where the "other side" is "morally aberrant" or anything like that.
The important thing, though, is that there is indeed a scale, not a binary proposition.
OK, the cat clawed me again. I have a scale of possible responses:
1. Replace the cat's real claws with adamantine vorpal claws.
2. Do nothing and keep getting clawed.
3. Keep the cat's claws trimmed and/or train the thing.
4. Get the cat declawed.
5. Kill the cat or otherwise get rid of it.
6. Kill all cats everywhere.The people arguing #1 are indeed stupid. Your arguments, BT, are really meant as #4, I think, but most often come across as #5. Personally, I'm a #3 kind of guy, but YMMV. We all differ in how extreme exactly our response is, but that's the nature of reality -- I really don't think it's a "values" issue where the "other side" is "morally aberrant" or anything like that.
The important thing, though, is that there is indeed a scale, not a binary proposition.
What makes me nuts is that things relentlessly trend toward #1. No matter how corrupt or incompetent the government is it just keeps gaining power and money.
An expansion or defense individual liberty is exceedingly rare, and it will likely to be quickly circumvented.
Of course it doesn't help that huge numbers of people have violently contradictory ideas about the role of government.
I agree with Kirth and Jeff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes me nuts is that things relentlessly trend toward #1.
That's because we've left the decision up to the adamantine claw manufacturers. And that's where we need to start -- sever (heh) the ties between the cats and the vorpal peddlers. Until we do that, things will just keep getting worse.
Power needs to be kept diffused, not centralized. Putting religious leaders into government on the payroll of large corporations is WAY too much consolidation. The more those three are kept away from each other, the more liberty everyone has.
What makes me nuts is that things relentlessly trend toward #1.That's because we've left the decision up to the adamantine claw manufacturers. And that's where we need to start -- sever (heh) the ties between the cats and the vorpal peddlers. Until we do that, things will just keep getting worse.
Power needs to be kept diffused, not centralized. Putting religious leaders into government on the payroll of large corporations is WAY too much consolidation. The more those three are kept away from each other, the more liberty everyone has.
I agree, but how do we do it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, the cat clawed me again. I have a scale of possible responses:
1. Replace the cat's real claws with adamantine vorpal claws.
2. Do nothing and keep getting clawed.
3. Keep the cat's claws trimmed and/or train the thing.
4. Get the cat declawed.
5. Kill the cat or otherwise get rid of it.
6. Kill all cats everywhere.
7. International proletarian socialist revolution. (Talk about drawing opposite conclusions!)
Btw, I love cats!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, but how do we do it?What makes me nuts is that things relentlessly trend toward #1.That's because we've left the decision up to the adamantine claw manufacturers. And that's where we need to start -- sever (heh) the ties between the cats and the vorpal peddlers. Until we do that, things will just keep getting worse.
Power needs to be kept diffused, not centralized. Putting religious leaders into government on the payroll of large corporations is WAY too much consolidation. The more those three are kept away from each other, the more liberty everyone has.
Exactly. How indeed? I mean you could form a new regulatory agency to keep those three seperate, but that agency would be immediately captured and then used to regulate any reformers into non-existence. In a more perfect world, it would work. We've tried training the cat. I think there is ample evidence that it usually doesnt work, and when it does, it comes with some pretty bad unintended consequences. ( i.e. I gave my cat some Xanax and now he has jaundice and ataxia) It is my belief that it is far past time to try something new and get that cat declawed. (but not really, declawing is cruel)
OK, the cat clawed me again. I have a scale of possible responses:
1. Replace the cat's real claws with adamantine vorpal claws.
2. Do nothing and keep getting clawed.
3. Keep the cat's claws trimmed and/or train the thing.
4. Get the cat declawed.
5. Kill the cat or otherwise get rid of it.
6. Kill all cats everywhere.
7. International proletarian socialist revolution. (Talk about drawing opposite conclusions!)
Btw, I love cats!
Hahahah as I read this, this is what kept going through my head
I was looking for the one where The Simpsons host an exchange student from Albania, but I can't find it. :(
|
Well as a former political consultant it is virtually impossible to separate Government and Private companies, since most run hand in hand making business with each other.
You don't need to create an agency, bu what you need is basically run a cleaner slate and change a lot of people that have been leeching for ever from the government making it a life time of just jumping from one position to another.
You know it doesn't work and yet there are people that are still in the senate for like 3 terms or more, same in the House.
They should just do it like other countries, make them not be able to reelect, they can change from House to Senate or from Senate to House and then they better find another public position because you cannot serve in the same one again.
This is an ideal time for independent centrist to take it over and fix it. I believe in the Iron Hand type of leadership as a come in clean house and leave everything for the next one to run a more efficient place.
There are many things to learn from other countries.
Like a more streamlined government body to cut down in the bureaucratic aspect.
Also if you want to cut some budget target the colleges high positions like the Dean not the poor darn teachers. Just go check what a Dean and his best buds win it is a ridiculous amount.
Also government can invest in the creation of pilot programs in state colleges to create small business with quality certifications, I've done it in a college in a state as a project and it worked the company is CMMI (level 1) and has another certification that they got after they left my hands and doing fine. Students are the cheapest workforce and they can become more experience, capable and create the net big thing or idea.
I was looking for the one where The Simpsons host an exchange student from Albania, but I can't find it. :(
One of those little white kids with the pink eyes?!? hahaha I love the simpsons way too much.
I agree, but how do we do it?
Intesestingly, I heard these guys on the radio right after I posted that. Their proposed amendment is currently so vague as to be worthless; someone needs to get in there with a red pen and give it some chops. Still, at least it shows someone other than me is thinking seriously about this avenue of approach.
Wouldn't a simple 'conflict of interest' clause solve most everything?
Wouldn't a simple 'conflict of interest' clause solve most everything?
I think so. Certainly, it would allow for a much clearer and more precise amendment than all this hippie crap about "corporations aren't people," which of course sounds great as a slogan but doesn't really mean anything in practice. But I agree with them that nothing short of an amendment will do any good at this point.
I thought the house tried to pass something along those lines a couple months ago?
I saw this. Looks like the usual -- "Ooh! It has to be worse for Obama than it is for us! Nuh uh! Is too! You first! No! You flinched!"
Rand's bill would have applied only to White House staffers, not to the crooks in Congress, so it was pretty much worthless out of the gate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it would have been something. But I agree. I saw that sotry on 60 minutes about senators on both sides voting for things that net them big stock increases. It makes you furious.
It's obvious to everyone that's whats going on, but they say "Of course I didnt do that" and that's good enough for most people I guess.
Well, how about we get a law or amendment to prevent it from being possible? Tack on them not being able to vote themselves pay raises and that would be swell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tack on them not being able to vote themselves pay raises and that would be swell.
Congress' base salary is peanuts compared to their corporate bribes, though. Most people would be happy to receive $10 a year total, if it means that 4 years from now they retire and are thereafter given $500,000/year for life by Monsanto for doing absolutely nothing.
I'm completely ok with Congress being a voluntary position only, with no salary.
I'm completely ok with Congress being a voluntary position only, with no salary.
I'd go the opposite route -- I have no problem with a high salary, if they're barred from taking corporate bribes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The f&@!ed up part is that we know damn well every single congressperson, and probably Obama and the cabinet, takes bribes, and, despite knowing this, we do nothing what so ever to rectify the blatantly obvious corruption.
Well, most if not all lobby money and contributions are a bribe. Legal bribes.
End lobbying.
And Kirth, I guess I'd be on page with that too. I just would like it to stop being a career for people. Serve one or two terms, then leave. You're not there to form a power base, you're there to represent other people.
One term limit for all politicians, no lobbying. Anybody caught lobbying or taking bribes should be considered guilty of treason, and punished as such. Considering what the maximum punishment for treason in the US is, it would make quite a message.
Hahahah as I read this, this is what kept going through my headOK, the cat clawed me again. I have a scale of possible responses:
1. Replace the cat's real claws with adamantine vorpal claws.
2. Do nothing and keep getting clawed.
3. Keep the cat's claws trimmed and/or train the thing.
4. Get the cat declawed.
5. Kill the cat or otherwise get rid of it.
6. Kill all cats everywhere.
7. International proletarian socialist revolution. (Talk about drawing opposite conclusions!)
Btw, I love cats!
lol!
I think treason is a bit much, but definately censured until their term is over.