I draw two main conclusions from various people's reaction to GTA...
1: People in general care more about the health and safety of CG prostitutes than the flesh-and-blood variety.
2: Killing men is perfectly ok.

This is sort of like saying that vegetarians don't mind if you eat people.

Sorry, but your "conclusions" make no sense whatever. You are superimposing beliefs on people who have expressed no such beliefs. Which means that you subscribe to a stereotype of what feminists, liberals, treehuggers, or whomever you're vilifying here with your accusations.

People who object to the killing of women prostitutes in videos do so precisely because they DO care about violence against real people. ALL real people. Even against those who have limited power and influece in society. You know, like women? Or prostitutes? Or women prostitutes?

"Y'know, maybe feminists should try to improve their image by doing things that actually help people? The only time I ever seem to hear of them is when they're ruining peoples fun, and, consequentially, I tend to be pretty dismissive of them."

Yeah, don't you just hate it when attempts at social reform get in the way of our entertainment? I know I do.

Maybe if feminists decried sexual harassment (and we all know what fun that can be!) in shark-filled tanks, or did Jell-O shots at congressional hearings on pay inequality, people like Anonymous would take them seriously.

Or maybe a "feminists Gone Wild" video? Oh, I know: "Dorf Explains Feminism." Feminists could finally contribute something to society by making a funny video about a short guy.

I can't believe that people believe movies, video games, and comics have so much power over young minds.

If a videogame has more influence on your child than you do, then you probably are something of a failure as a role model and teacher, or an absentee parent who lets him or her play it 8 hours a day, which in my view borders on child abuse.

The good news is that the patriarchy is dead and that women have all the power! Yippee! I knew that once we won the wars on drugs, poverty, and terrorism, that the patriarchy would be next to fall!

The idea that women control society is a sentimental lie propagated by stand-up comics, sitcoms, and patronizing males.

It's an argument that's equivalent to saying "you can tell that men have no control in our society by the fact that they make 25% more money for the same jobs as women do."

If that's powerlessness, maybe we should extend it to blacks and gays, too. They sure could use it!

Oops, I misspoke. We get roughly 1.8 million gallons a day from Africa and Russia. Compare that to the 2.7 we get from the Middle East.

All the figures I used are from Feb. 2008. These and 2008 Year-To-Date figures:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

"The US doesn't get it's oil from the middle east, but from Canada, Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, Brazil etc..."

Why do people keep saying this?

America's Top 3 sources of imported oil by region are:

1) North America (3.15 million barrels a day)
2) The Middle East (2.65 million barrels a day)
3) South America (1.33 million barrels a day)

(DOE figures of 4/28/08.)

So we get twice as much oil from the Middle East as we do from South America. We get only 8 million barrels a day from Africa and Russia combined.

---

"Instead of mileage requirements, let the market rule. Guarantee that this would lead to innovation in the market place."

Innovations take a very long time to be developed and mainstreamed. Decades, often. Those who can barely feed their families now, let alone in the face of future increases in gas prices, can't afford to wait for the benign hand of the market to make everything better, assuming it will. And that is, after all, only an assumption.

A real push for mileage requirements instead of the half-hearted attempts we've made so far would make a lot of sense. Which is probably why we haven't done it.

---

"I think it is lost on many that those who own the big vehicles are driving up prices for everyone else."

Right. No amount of errand consolidation on the part of those of us who drive vehicles that get better mileage is going to make up for the gas-greedy commuter vehicles out there.

For every gallon I use, an SUV uses 3 or 4.

"The one or two minutes that a cop would have to run to get to their legally parked car is that much more time they are delayed from responding to a potentially life-threatening situation."

And about risk: the reason double parking and parking on both sides of residential streets is illegal is that in the event of a fire, fire trucks can't go down those streets.

So explain to me again how a cop double parking outside a Blimpy Burger is making the public safer?

Also: Isn't a cop off-duty when he or she is eating lunch? I honestly don't know. If not, maybe they should eat in their cars if there's so much risk of delay. I know, tat's not fair. Neither is not allowing them a luch break, if that's the case.

Per cops being held to a higher standard: no, they shouldn't.

They should be held to the same reasonable standard as the rest of us. I.e., obey the law in the same "we're not perfect but we are law-abiding citizens" way the rest of us do.

It's extremely heartening to me, though, to see that the concept of authority not being above the law is alive and well.

PS per "On the whole the democratic approach seems to be more about social justice than consideration for the economy."

We Democrats sincerely believe that social justice and prosperity can go hand in hand.

Prodigious: I may have been a bit flippant in my comments. Allow me to respond in a more thoughtful way, as you have.

You quoted someone who referred to abortion and prayer in school as "social issues."

You then responded by describing health care and the economy as social issues.

If A is equal to B, and B is equal to C, then C is equal to A, no?

In all fairness, does this not seem to equate abortion, prayer in school, health care, and the economy? Was it not reasonable for me, then, to object to putting health care and prayer in schools in the same "social issues" basket, as if there were no qualitative difference?

In light of that, and of the fact that the first two issues your post mentioned are religious issues, as is Intelligent Design, don't you think it's somewhat unfair of you to say, "Its insulting to me, that you seem to assume all republicans only vote on religious issues"?

In any case, I stand by my positions, which are:

1) Health care and the economy are "hard" issues, not the sort of social issues mentioned in your comment, which are debated in terms of religion, philosophy, tradition, or custom.

Yes, we all bring our beliefs and biases to bear on these issues, but as this is a universal aspect of human behavior and reasoning, I don't see how it can in some cases render an issue "social," and in other cases, not. Surely the demarcation line must lie in the issues themselves?

2) There are legions of conservatives out there working every day to ban abortion and to introduce prayer in school, so these are hardly dead issues. Even Supreme Court decisions like Roe v Wade are reversible, after all, and there are people working hard to do just that.

I hope that makes sense... I've been working at my computer for almost 24 hours straight now on a deadline, and writing the above almost made my freakin' head explode!

SisterY:

I'm also uncomfortable with the whole thing. There's the idea of respecting the privacy of individuals, including people like this guy, and then there is the "whipping post" aspect. The guy has suffered the consequences of his actions. We should leave him in peace now.

"#77 KevinK my brother, there is a lot of distance between calling someone an "ignorant, stupid cunt" and what Noen and NickD were saying to you up there."

Thank you for that. But you know, someone who accuses people of "conversational terrorism"(!!) at the drop of a hat should not be expected to make fine distinctions like that... so I fear your gentle rebuke will fall on deaf ears.

Good answer, Scottfree. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic.) I have to give it to Jim H. for conciseness, though ("The President is the decider").

Besides trying to be funny, I was sort of hinting at the fact that I and many others are appalled by the imperial quality of the presidency, especially as Bush has interpreted its powers. So speculating that the Chief Executive appears at photo opps and acts as a sort of figurehead in a flowered hat like the Queen struck me as funny. Your other comments were very well-thought out, though, if I may say so.

But per the President: the Chief Executive in this country is, after all, coequal with both the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. He is the Commander-in-Chief. He appoints Supreme Court Justices. He is able to declare martial law, and to order many kinds of military actions on his say-so alone.

The President has all sorts of discretionary powers that allow him to act without the approval of either of the other branches of government.

An example is the Faith Based Initiative, wherein the Executive Branch gives taxpayers' money to religious groups.

This has been challenged in the Supreme Court, seperation of church and state being cited. The Court ruled that since the money (not his persoanl money, remember, but taxpayers' money) is contained in a fund earmarked fo his use, that neither of the other branches of government can tell him how to spend it. At all. If he wanted to build $40 million dollar Baptist church with a creationist museum attached, in other words, there is no way to stop him under current law.

See Guantanamo Bay for other examples of the imperial presidency.

Poor, poor misunderstood Kevink!

Trolls usually do exactly what you've done: enter a discussion in an obnoxious way, scorning the participants, and then complain and act outraged when people give them pushback.

You got the response you deserved.

This wasn't a debate. I don't think I've ever seen a real presidential race debate... I don't think there has ever been one in my lifetime. What they show on TV are what Bill Moyers, of whom I'm a big fan, calls "well-orchestrated publicity events." Or words to that effect.

"Abortion and school prayer are dead issues even for the republicans."

You can't really believe this, can you? How about Creationism (oops, sorry: Intelligent Design)? Is that a dead letter, too?

"This year it seems the democrats are banging the social issue drum with national health care and the rich poor "divide"."

How did health care and the economy become social issues(?!) as if they're just the hobbyhorses of the religiously intolerant, like abortion and school prayer? Is there someone in America who doesn't have a body or is not part of the economy? And the rich-poor "divide" (I love those quotes!) is a matter of statistical fact, not ideology.

Your bias is showing, Prodigious, and bias does not make for coherent thought.

"Do you know, I've seen almost every episode of the West Wing, and I still have no idea what the president actually does on a day to day basis? It seems like he [or she, why not?] basically corresponds to the English Queen."

Wow. This sort of takes the wind out of the sails of your political analysis of the US political landscape, Scottfree.

Imagine if I said, "I'm not really sure how a Queen gets elected... I imagine it's something like our Electoral College... but here are my lengthy opinions on British politics..."

Per the "outing": I don't think that sending something from a work e-mail eliminates all rights of confidentiality, myself. Nor does being an asshole. Putting something into a public forum (say, this comments section) with your name on it? Yeah, then it's public all the way.

"... it's assholes like this that gives most republicans a bad name."

Um, no offense, Nivalsj, but it's the Republican philosophy that gives Republicans a bad name. It's not about personalities, it's about policy. We dislike your policy.

"BTW Left/Right Liberal/Conservative. All the same basically."

Wow. There's some insightful commentary. It really made me think. What it made me think was: has this person ever read a newspaper or seen a news broadcast?

"I think both sides are wacked."

I know you're not an elitist college graduate or anything, Kevink, but it's "wack," not "wacked." Or does knowing slang make me an elitist?

"But thanks for that overly pretentious condescending banter you've decided to add to this discussion."

Now it's pretentious and condescending to be able to speak English at a fifth grade level? Condescending to whom? Fourth graders?

Kaiguy:

If you had bothered to read the above comments carefully, you'd see that your comment merely replicated comments already made.

But by all means, feel free to call us all uninformed hysterics who don't bother to do our homework.

Put down the editors of the blog while you're at it, too.

And to think I was afraid that you guys were going to presume to pass judgment on a couple you have never met and know nothing about!

"I saw a photo of the two of them together and she just looks like a psychopath."

"She wishes to "have her cake and eat it, too"

"Just an histeric female agitating the arms and breaking into tears trying to hurt someone that obviously is more powerful (and smarter!)"

"thats impossible also if they truly didn't have sex then the only reason she would have married him is ... MONEY"

What goes on between two people in a relationship is private. The fact that one or both of them airs their dirty laundry in public does not give you license to wave that dirty laundry around, or to pass judgment.

I hate to be a spoilsport, and I know it's harmless speculation, but it jest ain't right.

You're welcome, Takuan.

"Dr. S's contribution to society is definitely not a good one... but this book is not the creator of that message--these moms are."

So it's all the fault of the moms, and the doctor doing the surgery doesn't share the blame? He certainly is profiting by it!

This discussion, BTW, is not really about this book at all, but about the abuse of plastic surgery. This book is just the sand in the oyster.

OK, OK!

At 1:32 she grabs her crotch and screams, "I had a vagina tuck for you!"

At 2:15 she shows the Lord of the Rings themed dildos her husband forced her to use (you should like that!).

At 3:56 she lifts her shirt and shouts "Here's the boobies!"

(No, wait, that last was Girls Gone Wild: Finally 18!" Sorry.)

Carmen, medical marijuana and physician assisted suicide are good things. Are you saying that suing over copyrighted laws is good too? I have to disagree.

PS: typing in all caps does not make people think you have a good point. It just makes them think you're throwing a temper tantrum.

Charles Guarino:

Saying that I slagged off all lawyers just shows you didn't read my comment very carefully.

Anyway, lawyers are not just tools that do what their employers want. Their actions have an ethical dimension like everyone else's.

Lawyers advise their employers. They can advise them to pursue their interests ethically, or they can advise the opposite. Hence "shyster" vs "honest."

Or maybe you thought that every single underhanded, slimy abuse of copyright law was thought up by clients who then forced their groaning lawyers to comply?

For what it's worth, I personally prefer to withhold judgment about a marriage and two people I know nothing about.

I'm not hesitant, however, to form an opinion of people who watch other people's suffering for entertainment. 150,000 views? Sheesh. We are a nation of voyeurs, snoops, and busybodies.

"Let's all harass the doctor just like "'Net bullies target Chinese student participants in pro-Tibet protests!"

There's nothing wrong with a respectful, polite e-mail telling him what you think. It's neither illegal nor unethical.

Don't mess with his internet rating, though. That's not what internet ratings are for. Leaving fake negative feedback is indefensible.

It's all about the pretty mommy!

@41: tee hee! Good post.

$42: Right on.

I'm not one of the It's-About-the-Children! brigade, but there's something about juxtaposing this with a child that really points up what's wrong with it.

In this case: if this is the type of role model you're providing your child, your child is fucked.

If in a time when 40 million Americans don't have health insurance you're teaching your child that your appearance is your top priority, you are a failure in the role model department.

I'm no prude and I don't object to people doing some basic maintenance on themselves, but when you start getting into breast implant territory, your money is better spent on a shrink than a plastic surgeon. Trust me, you will be happier and better adjusted, and the results will never sag or come undone. Money well spent.

But, but... how can you say this chimp was exploited? Surely he freely entered into the contract? He did, after all, accept a certain number of bananas in payment. He wouldn't have accepted the deal if it weren't fair and free from coercion, right? After all, if he hadn't been blessed with this opportunity, he would have just wasted his life in some tree somewhere, doing no one any good!

Therefore, the arrangement is satisfactory and capitalism shows it's superiority once again!

Take that, bleeding heart liberal animal lovers!

Well, we Americans have already surrendered justice to the forces of the free market: the person with the most money to spend on lawyers generally wins.

The next logical step is to actually sell access to the law itself.

After all, the State of Oregon must turn a profit, (so the thinking goes), right? And in a capitalist society, you have to pay for everything, including a fair trial. Which is another way of saying that everything is for sale, including justice.

Per the continuum of secrecy: I don't think totalitarian regimes have ever bothered to keep their laws secret. The laws were written by them for them, and in any case, were interpreted in any way they saw fit. See the Stalinist show trials. Or Bush's interpretations of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

I'm just spitballin' here.

Scapegoating psychology is a close relative to bully psychology.

Bullies often blame their victims for the problems that arise from their bullying. As when China blames Tibetans for not accepting foreign rule submissively. Damn troublemakers!

Good thing you both have agreed upon the wage that makes it worth while to put up with his dickishness eh? or are you slave labor?"

R-i-i-ight: if you accept a wage, it must be a fair wage. You couldn't POSSIBLY be faced with the prospect of starvation if you didn't accept it. Economic coercion is still coercion.

40 million American citizens can't get health care, and this Moon character thinks the wetbacks are using up his share! Typical scapegoating psychology.

"someone's brain dead whelp becomes president"

Takuan, I take exception to your comparing Bush to a brain-dead puppy. A brain-dead puppy has more sense and infinitely more class.

What a bunch of douchebags.

Cases like these, IMO, are perfect examples of the consumerism parasite sucking on the civic body.

No, Oregon, you are not a corporation, and your citizens are not consumers of law statutes. And you do not have the right to make taxpayers fund legislation and then try to sell it back to them for a fee. And I know that's what you're shyster lawyers are pushing for - no offense to the honest lawyers out there.

I hope they're not feeding that dead pig to chickens.

Modern Capitalism: apply any kind of Band-aid that will patch a problem but not really address it. This way, you never have to actually think about how the system works and how it might work better. Remember: thinking is for Commies and academics!

"Because the price of healthcare sucks and part of that cost is free care given to illegal immigrants."

Oh, puh-lease! Saying this is like saying that the high price of gas is due to truckers leaving their engines running while they get a coffee-to-go.

Getting rid of truckers would no more lower the cost of oil than sending every illegal immigrant home would reduce the cost of health care.

The healthcare crisis in this country has been brewing for decades, and has precisely nothing to do with illegal immigration.

QSD and Takuan: you guys should save your strongest invective for someone who really deserves it: Denial.

No, no, I kid. I kid because I love, Denial!

Good discussion on a very hot-button topic almost guaranteed to make tempers flare and invective fly, IMO.

"Honor payment systems are good hearted ideas, but they do not work in the real world."

May I refer you to the "heart-warming stories about other honor payment systems" referred to above?

Donopolis: You make an excellent point regarding the refusal to amend their position. Not grown-up behavior in my book.

#39: "[Zero tolerance policies make sure that] all the fault must fall on the student, parents, etc., and none of the fault can attach to the school."

Right. Again, not grown up behavior, but that's where unscrupulous insurance companies and lawyers have got us, abetted by judges willing to hear frivolous lawsuits.

Public schools are constantly under fire by taxpayers who don't want to pay any taxes and by armchair critics like Gort (sorry Gort, by I get sick of meaningless blanket statements like "Government workers are incompetent" or "All schools are run by morons," or "Politicians are all corrupt").

Per ReddiWhip: doesn't the research show that it's a gateway drug that leads to vanilla extract addiction?

"If we want our children to learn about personal responsibility, we should take responsibility for our actions."

And we should start by not being cowed into submission by lawsuit-happy lawyers and insurance companies. I think that would also be a good lesson for the kids, don't you?

I think that "better safe than sorry" attitude is one of the more worrying aspects of cases like these.

Thanks for the e-mail address, Elysianartist.

"Public schools - that's the problem; they're run by ultra-sensitive boneheads. Sigh."

That's what comes of socialized education, I guess!

Do you really want to slag off the entire public school system in one fell swoop? Because it doesn't seem at all fair to me. And it certainly doesn't seem fair to all the many really smart, really capable people I know who work at public schools.

Surely there's a lawsuit here just begging to be filed? I'm no lawyer, but I can't see how that's legal.

"How can I enjoy my wealth without someone to feel bad for not having it?"
(Takuan, #64)

I don't know about you, Takuan, but nothing gives me greater satisfaction than thinking about how superior I am to all those lazy, marker-sniffing poor people!

When I want to relieve some tension, so to speak, I ... (giggle) ... you know , "think about" all the sexy millionaires running around on their yachts.

Then I fantasize (wink)... you know what I mean... about the day when I will have my Captain Video space suit and fly up to the Satellite of Infinite Merchandise and get me some of those cell phones and PS3 that poor people are always whining about not having.

By then, of course, me and the other rich people will be living on our own super-special, only for businessmen, poor-people-free planet.

Where I will be their pool boy.

Ooooo... yeah, baby... that's the ticket!

"Eathan, you know that drugs are not the answer. They make you lose touch with reality.... Now take your Ritalin, we have to prepare for the End Time."

I'm still reeling from being compared to a little girl in a freaky gorilla mask! Not that I haven't fantasized about it, mind you.

But seriously...

I've never detected any racism in Dahl--unlike Kipling... but I haven't read everything he's written, so I don't know for certain.

TAKESHI:

"That is to say, the fact that he is using his horn when no danger is imminent could be interpreted as an unlawful or illegal use of the device." (#44)

So you're asserting that running a red light does not qualify as dangerous behavior? I know it's not in the same category as my death-dealing, destroyer-of-worlds horn beeping, but surely it's reckless?

And, no, my use of the horn in that circumstance is not illegal. Sorry. Look it up if you don't believe me.

"First off: no one knows what the hell you're talking about here."

Hmmm... I seem to have gotten a little cranky here. Too much caffeine, perhaps. :)

Go, Cory!

"You've got some bleeding-heart talking about how they feel inferior because their cell phones can't get signal in the grasslands, and what are you going to do about it, America?"(flamingphonebook)

First off: no one knows what the hell you're talking about here.

Look, you can go on believing that there's an unlimited amount of wealth and resources in the world, and that somehow the pot will magically replenish itself as the wealthy drain off the lion's share, and that somehow that will not effect the living standards of the rest of us.

You can insist on believing that disparities of wealth are somehow abstract and have nothing to do with things like a regressive income tax, low wages, or huge asymmetries in the ownership and thus control of the means of production.

But believing it doesn't make it true.

Every year, unless you are very wealthy, your living standard and buying power are declining, and your cost of living is rising. Yours, flamingphonebook, not the wealthy's. If you think that the reason that the vast majority of Americans aren't doing better is because we are taxing the rich too much, I can only scratch my head in disbelief.

"But where the laws tilt toward the worker and the consumer and the unemployed and everyone but the businessman, how easy is it to get rich?"

Newsflash: the welfare recipient, the consumer, the worker, and the businessman are all in the same category: the not-rich. You seem to conflating the working man and the businessman with the wealthy, and you are making a category error.

I say tax the wealthy owners of the 97% of the assets of this country, and give the workers, the independent businessmen, and the poor, who are struggling to get by with the remaining 3%, a break.

The hardpressed workingperson and the endangered small businessperson in America are struggling partly because they are shouldering a far greater proportion of the tax burden than is just. If you think this has no relation with the ridiculously low tax rates the wealthy pay, again, I can only scratch my head in puzzlement.

flamingphonebook (#37):

"I knew a man from Wisconsin who started out on the assembly lines of a car company...."

You start by reiterating a point that's not even in dispute, that it's possible to work hard and do well in America. So what? I never said it wasn't. I just said you could do it lots of other places, too.

"I can introduce you to my grandmother's oncologist, Dr. Tang from Korea."

The fact that you know a Korean proctologist or something who wants to come here, doesn't disprove this one simple fact: the world is filled with people who have absolutely no need or desire to come to the US to be happy or well-off. I know it rankles, but try to cope.

"Thanks for the PS3, but you're rich, couldn't you have gotten me a home theater?"

So the starving children in country B should SHUT UP AND STOP WHINING because the children in Country A are being fed? I'll buy you a ticket to Darfur or Rwanda--you can go explain that to them. Make sure to eat a cheeseburger in front of them and not offer them any while you're at it. That will show them!

The fact remains that the US, in comparison to a lot of other nations, is stingy when it gives out foreign aid. It's simple math, and neither your national pride nor your contempt for the poor changes that.

"Point 4: But the rich are better off in America, yes?"

Who gives a fuck?

If you understood that the richest are better off in any country in direct proportion to how poor the poorest are, you wouldn't brag about this. But there I go again with the math! I'll wait while you look up "direct proportion."

The working man and woman in the US is getting shafted in order to fund the excesses of the few, but hey, it's OK! Our billionaires are richest! (Cue squelchy sound of credulous worker bee licking clean the ass of a billionaire.)

Nick (#30): Your point three strikes me as really selfish and self-serving. As flamingphonebook says, what does it matter what the percentage is, if the dollar amount is higher than anyone else? It's still more. "

Yes, how selfish of me to want all that foreign aid for myself! As you know, much of our foreign aid does go directly to me! Weee!

My suggestion to you is that you repeat the above statement out loud to yourself, over and over again, until the sheer absurdity of it becomes apparent to you.

"What does it matter?"?! Think about it--I'm sure it will come to you why it does matter. Eventually. Just be patient. I'll wait.

"So, our old Uncle Jeff may have had a heart condition, but how could young niece Emily be blamed for his death when all she did was jump out of the laundry hamper, screaming at the top of her lungs and wearing a freaky gorilla mask?"

Tee hee. This is good. It's like something out of Roald Dahl!

Phew! For a while it looked like I was going to the hooskow for reckless endangement with a horn. But then they gave me a really good public defender who got me off!

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: right on, RSATX: !

"The one thing Europe doesn't have is the ability to get really, really rich."

R-i-i-g-h-t. No rich people in Europe, no sir. Those communist bastards!

We Americans have some very well-cherished notions about ourselves and other nations that haven't been true since around 1955. Here's a few:

MYTH 1) "America's the only place where people are free to get as rich as they want, they just have to work hard."

I'll wait for all you millionaires out there to stop tittering before I go on.... What? You say you're not rich? Lazy moron!

MYTH 2) "People in other countries envy us, and wish they could live here."

I've had many friends from other countries, and none of them ever wished they could live here. "Two weeks vacation? No health care? A regressive income tax? Why the fuck would I want to live here?"

MYTH 3) "America gives more foreign aid than anyone else."

Actually, as a percentage of GNP, America gives far less than many countries. Look it up.

4) "America has the highest standard of living in the world."

I refer you to Pyros' excellent post. Having lots of billionaires, oddly enough, doesn't seem to have translated into a higher standard of living for the lower and middle classes here (the vast majority, remember). Go figure.

Not to mention, contrary to what many Americans believe (mostly those who have never travelled to another country) the rest of the world is not living without electricity or indoor plumbing.

Ordinary working folk in many countries live quite nicely, just as we do. But they also have medical coverage, free college, and humane work environments. What? Middle class people in foreign countries living better than us? Impossible! Our sttreets are paved with gold!

I sympathize with you, Emma.

"It has gotten so bad that I will not go immediately after the light turns green, because there is a very good chance that there is someone running the light."

Whenever I stop at a yellow or red but the car next to me runs it, I lay on my horn. Pavlovian responses being what they are, I'm pretty sure it scares the hell out of that driver. And it gives me a chuckle!

"Turning left on a yellow is practically impossible, with no more than one car getting through...."

Safe drivers don't turn left on yellow, so no big loss there.

The "I'm waiting in the intersection on a yellow, and I'll turn when I have the red" maneuver is no longer considered a proper or safe way to make a left at a light. Go figure. Oddly enough, the correct maneuver is to wait until you have the green light!

Drivers like the ones you describe above need to grow up and get over themselves and their "me first" attitude. I hate cameras, though. What we need are more traffic cops at the high risk lights, not more machines.

Foolster41:

Maybe I misinterpreted your comment. I take your point, but no one was seeing this event as a freedom of speech test case. I didn't think anyone had mentioned "suppression," either.

Several commenters were, however, depicting this as some sort of pointless, attention-getting stunt (see comments 4, 16, 47, etc.). To me, that is just cynical sneering.

As to the dangerous aspect of it, look at it this way: if they had meekly and politely picketed somewhere, I'm sure they would still have been arrested, as the police in this country have a solid tradition of arresting peaceful demonstrators. So yeah, maybe that would have been dangerous enough.

But it would have had no value as PR.

That's why doing dangerous things like this is smart, in my opinion. Knowing how to do PR for your cause makes you effective - not trendy, shallow, or conniving. Just effective.

"This is what happens when valuable resources are *NOT* privatized. Government-controlled resources will inevitably be pilfered and polluted (using taxpayers' money)."

You're kidding, right? You're problem with this is that the water wasn't sold for fair market value? Are you perhaps missing the point?

Or are you just pulling my leg? Jeez, you really had me going for a while there!

I haven't seen so much nonsense and arrogance being spewed out since Bush's State of the Union address.

"Can't these activists think of ways to get out the message that don't involve screwing with people's commute?"

Hmm... can't imagine why turnout at American polls is so low, and the country's going to hell.

If I didn't know better, I'd say it's because we're a nation of fat-asses who don't want our comfy little lives disrupted by controversy.

Nah, that can't be it....

"It is because protestors are devoid of any power and unmotivated to attain it, so once the idea of boycotting the Olympics came into play, they decided to act on it."

Right. I see no motivation displayed here.

Not like the HEROIC EFFORT! and UNBENDING WILL! it took for you to mock them safely from the comfort of your chair.

"While their acitvism and conern about the serious situaiton in Tibet is commendable, there are less dangerous ways of doing it."

Perhaps a bake sale? How about a knitting circle?

PS; ever heard of spellchecking? Or would that be too dangerous?

If you think the Dalai Lama is planning to institute some boy-loving monk-ruled theocracy in Tibet, you probably also think the Surge is working, and that not teaching kids about birth control will control teen pregnancies.

In other words, you are a credulous bumpkin.

Um, "The State of Florida" is an abstraction, and as such does not pass laws and resolutions. People do. People with names.

Names, please. Anyone? Anyone in Florida know?

Per bottled water, I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you have good, clean tap water and you buy bottled water, you are a sucker, and you're hurting the environment.

Thanks, ROSSINDETROIT. You're obviously no slouch yourself!

Takuan: there's another option this side of WMD that you've forgotten: the draft.

From what I've read, the whole mortgage mess was a game of hot potato, the potato being the bad loans. Once things started going south, the financial people started throwing the potato around. Now usually, someone gets stuck holding the hot potatoand it's their tough luck--it's only when enough of the other people in this little Ponzi scheme also got their hands burned that there was a fuss.

(I'm no economist, and I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong....)

Now, who do you feel deserves more scorn in this scenario? The homeowners who took a chance, and were financially ruined, or the financial wheeler dealers who were trying to make a dubious quick buck by playing fast and loose with other people's money?

And oh yeah, lest I forget: Neal Stephenson is a genius. But you knew that already.

Coldspell:

Libertarians can posit their anti-federal future utopia, socialists can argue for redistribution of wealth, anarchists can hope for the elimination of government all together, etc., etc., but I don't expect to see a reorganization of the American polity in my lifetime.

So... given the fact that we need solutions now, I'll restate my assertion: we need to put people in power that are fighting for everyone, not just for the corporate oligarchy. This is a lot more feasible as a short term goal than dismantling the Union.

Thanks, Marble River!

"Next time, maybe, don't buy things you cannot afford." (#14)

Ah, the wisdom (and arrogance) of hindsight.

Financial institutions tell you that you CAN afford it, and they BEND OVER BACKWARDS to make it possible for you, and MILLIONS of other people are doing it...

BUT if only they had consulted the wise and farsighted 12ozTim, well, HE could have set them straight!

Thanks, 12ozTim. You've really made me rethink the whole issue!

"Of course it's Bush's fault. Isn't most everything bad Bush's fault?"

In America in 2008? Yep, pretty much.

"If it was, say, a one-percent chance of scary movie terrorists doing something ostentatious, then the US government might move on it. Give some more tax breaks to deserving plutocrats, that sort of thing." (#24)

Damn! Wish I'd said that!

I'm confused.

I was told that enlightened self-interest, the unerring forces of the free market, and the trickle down theory would make us all prosperous and happy.

What happened?

Self-interest has turned out to be not-so-enlightened, free market forces have been shown to be capricious and prone to bubbles, busts, and trends, and the "rising tide" that was supposed to raise all boats has raised a few yachts, and left the rest of us trying to keep our heads above water.

Who to blame?

OK, many people bought houses they couldn't afford. We know that. Bankers with get rich quick schemes made bad loans. Check. But let's look at the bigger culprits in our economic downward spiral.

Well, you can't blame unions anymore for the flight of manufacturing jobs overseas, since they're pretty much a thing of the past, as are the well-paying manufacturing jobs that used to fund the American Dream.

Corporate earnings are reaching record highs, yet the same businesses that are receiving tax cuts in order to bolster the US economy (according to the Theory) continue to export jobs overseas. Hmm... very little trickle down happening there.

Deregulation has been a boon to American industries and businesses, yet this freer hand they've been given has not resulted in an economic growth spurt. What gives? Maybe we haven't deregulated ENOUGH. Yeah, that must be it.

Meanwhile, money needed to repair our infrastructure and fund our entitlement obligations (never mind anything as ambitious as a bailout) has been squandered in Iraq.

But let's look at the phrase "squandered in Iraq."

Those trillions of dollars have not been buried in some hole in Baghdad, nor have they disappeared into the pockets of Iraqi leaders or bussinessmen.

Where's it gone? Where's all that taxpayer money gone?
Into the pockets of Halliburton, Blackwater, and the like.

It's time to face the fact that our economic system is nothing more than a very efficient way of channelling wealth from the lower and middle classes into the upper classes, by way of the federal government.

If you can exonerate George Bush and his fellow travellers from blame, then you have more imagination than common sense.

Wake up, people, and take back the federal government.

(Sorry to be so longwinded....)

I think, Kebko, that the reason people are so upset about this (apart from the obvious economic impact it's having) is that it raises a lot of unpleasant questions about America in 2008.

Qustions like: is our economy really as solid as we like to think? Is owning a home the American Dream, or just a fantasy? Is the middle class ever going to catch a frickin' break? Is the US ever going to get financially realistci, stop running deficits and incurring debt we can't afford, both individually and as a nation?
Maybe we should (gasp) save more?

A nerve has been struck. It should have been struck long ago, in my opinion.

Per Bush: if the economy were going great guns, be sure he would be taking credit for it.

Presidents don't control giant economies, but in a nation like ours where the Executive Branch has so moch power and influence, the question of whether it has helped or hindered the economy naturally arises.

Do they have dictionaries in Idaho? You know, those books that tell you how to spell things? I guess not.

Tom makes good points but I feel I have to point out one simple fact: nature and human society are two different things.

To equate political conservatism with environmental conservatism might be rhetorically staisfying, but is nonetheless facile.

Political conservatism seeks to preserve social constructs, representing them as unchanging natural laws like gravity, when they are in fact arbitrary and manmade.

Environmental conservatism seeks to limit our tampering with a natural order, which, unlike society, is the end product of billions of years of evolution. We tamper with it at our peril.

Environmental conservationists are as prone to panicking as anyone else. Feel free to take them to task when they do. But their basic premise is the same as yours, Tom. It goes like this: let nature take its course.

No, wait! I want to hear more about how we limp-wristed Commie sympathizers are stopping the rock-ribbed, granite-jawed defenders of freedom on the Right from saving the world for democracy!

On the contrary, Matty D.

Bush has done everything good Conservative presidents have always done historically: give tax cuts to the rich, encourage religious interference in politics, run up a huge budget deficit for his Democratic successor, demonized dissenters as unpatriotic, etc.

Maybe you should vote Libertarian. Unfortunately, there is no fascist candidate on any of the tickets at present.

Hey! You're insulting the genuinely senile!

But seriously, she's not senile, she's just seems to be a little out of touch with contemporary America.

I hope if anyone e-mails her (and I hope many people will!) they will be polite. We should let her know that we exist and that her view of The Land of Lincoln and of the US in general is incomplete and closeted. Her age is irrelevant.

"Nick 111: I'm aware of p-zombies"

Didn't mean to imply that you weren't, honest!

The whole debate about logical proofs of God's existence is wrong-headed, it seems to me. Thinking a human can understand God is like thinking a fish can do algebra, or that a blind-from-birth person can imagine what the color orange looks like.

There are such things as frames of reference, and some of them are as impossible to transcend as it is impossible to move faster than the speed of light. (See catepillar/butterfly analogy above.)

Having said that... I don't blame the believers in this thread for being miffed and feeling condescended to. I would be, too.

Not by the comparisons of Jesus to the Easter Bunny (rhetorically and logically legitimate it seems to me) but in the comparisons of believers to little children who need to educated by non-believers. No one likes to be talked down to.

SPROING3:

You seem to be displaying an irrational belief in the mystical powers of academic case studies.

Look up from the bar charts and the science journals, please, and remember that humans, the natural world, and the universe are not tidily enclosable in your or anyone else's quantification schemes.

Leaving aside the fact that Piaget's theories of childhood development have been modified by later research, I'd say that it's silly to catagorize people in that all-or-nothing way. As if the brain and the personality are that simple!

Conclusions like some of yours remind me of over-simplifications of research like, "The left brain handles language, the right brain is visual" and others along those lines.

Any neuroscientist will tell you that both hemispheres handle both, and that the relationship is not that black-and-white. There's a complex system of interactions and distributions of tasks that we are only beginning to map.

Drawing conclusions about society and people in general from specific research is not science, it's opinion. Your opinion. You can't support them empirically. Stop pretending you can, and that it's not just your own extrapolation from current data.

Leave room in your calculations for the many variables and unknowns in the world, and the gaps in our knowledge of it.

Knowledge is not wisdom.

These are beautiful. Is there somewhere we can see higher-rez versions?

Was XODARAP "screaming inflammatory rhetoric"? I didn't think so, or I wouldn't have addressed any comments to him/her.

***

Scoutmaster: good for you! A fax, no less. Admirable.

Davis' e-mail (again): mdavis2147@aol.com

***

#55: "A zombie is by definition a mindless animated corpse."

Philosophers define "zombie" differently than B-movie fans. "Zombie" is, believe it or not, a term used by philosophers, as in the Zombie Paradox. Look it up!

One more thing: I was going to look at XADARAP's logical proof of God's existence but then I decided to do something more fun, like stick needles in my eyes.

PS: I see now (belatedly) that Semiotix wasn't self-censoring out of prudery (#41). Sorry, Semiotix!

Per "'invisible sky wizard' is roughly in the same connotative space as n****r":

This a category error: racial epitephs and metaphors are in different categories, and thus are not equatable.

I also object to the use of stars (n****r). C'mon, Semiotix, we're all grown-ups here, you can write the word "nigger." We won't be offended, we promise. Not by that use of the word, anyway.

After all, even in the event that a dewy innocent (like the ones that Davis is trying to protect) should happen onto this discussion and see the word "nigger," I guarantee that he or she will not be struck blind, rendered mentally incompetent or morally degenerate, or emotionally scarred by the experience!

XODARAP:

No disrespect intended, but being a theist is deeply irrational, and the fact that theism can coexist with facts as in the case of Galileo and Einstein proves very little except the hospitable nature of the human mind.

Thomist prima mobile-type arguments and the like are in my opinion based in wish fulfillment. They are not subject to disproof, either abstractly or empirically. Therefore, the only rational stance on the existence of God or gods is agnosticism. IMO.

Ill. Rep. Monique Davis' e-mail address:

mdavis2147@aol.com

Well, it's fun to debate whether Jesus is a zombie, etc., but if anyone really cares about this, they will contact this poor, benighted woman and let her know that she is living in the 21st century, and that religious persecution went out with stocks and dunking witches:

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=909

Does anyone reading this still have a fax machine? My God... she probably still has a rotary phone made out of Bakelite.

Per the "Text is wrong" error message: you have been logged out of the system by mistake. You need to log-in before you comment.

Bngbng:

"Pudding" is incomprehensible to us here in the Colonies. Try "dessert."

"Dare we call them a "cult"" (#37)

I would like to suggest "Christofascist" as a name for this cult.

Shame on her.

Aren't we all a little sick of her 19th century, Little House on the Prairie, spinster-schoolmarm idea of what's appropriate?

Here's her contact info--tell her how you feel!

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=909

I believe it's both, allowing for maximum Victorian-era titillation.

"So you would rather that government be less transparent and less accountable? Odd choice that."

I see I've been misinterpreted. I don't want my information handled transparently and with accountability. I don't want my information handled at all. Period. Not stuff like fingerprints, no.

And I don't want any part of "total information awareness." Count me out, please.

"Because it's simply a fact that there is a greater need for security in densely populated areas."

Well, I hate to be a knee-jerk liberal and all but I don't understand what security you feel you'd be getting from being fingerprinted. The kind of crime that arises in urban areas where there are lots of people crammed together is better dealt with by more cops on the beat than with biometrics.

PS: this is a beautiful example of creative political action; of people empowering themselves to have an effect, rather than waiting for their elected officials to get off their asses (or in this caes, arses) and do something. I approve holeheartedly.

Tom,

I'll bite. :)

I just want to add that per overpopulation, choices are sometimes made that don't have economic considerations behind them, as you hinted at above.

Think of the world's Catholics (there are lots of them) not using contraceptives because some guy in a pointy hat says God thinks it's wrong. Thanks, Pointy Hat Guy! Just what we need!

"What is this Olympic 'Ideal' anyway?"

The UN having been gutted by US non-cooperation at every turn, the Olympics are the only symbol of international goodwill and cooperation left. It ain't about the sports.

Let's get over ourselves for a second here, and stop pretending that the rulers of countries like China (or Belgium, for that matter) give a shit about what people outside their borders think. They are sovereign nations, after all.

Why do I say this? Not to discourage people, but to remind them of two things:

1) China is a sovereign nation, which from its point of view is trying to stop the secession of one of its regions. It doesn't see a moral issue here, any more than we did when we fought the Civil War in the US for the same reason.

If you don't inderstand why it gets upset when people talk about freeing Tibet, then you're efforts to improve the situation are hampered by ignorance.

2) By all means, raise awareness, etc. All good things. But be aware that governments have to get into the act, or it's hopeless. And no, I'm not talking about forceful regime change, or anything military.

If only there were an international body that could address this sort of thing.... Wait, isn't there a United Nations or something?

Oh, right: see "gutted," above.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration, by taking China off the human rights watch list just in time for the Olympics, has shown exactly how significant IT sees human rights as being: i.e., not important at all, certainly nothing to get excited about when there's business to be conducted.

"China, as it gets more and more "open" to the world, has won praises but also an equal dose of criticism."

Can't imagine what these "praises" consist of. Congratulations, you only executed 100 factory managers this year, as against 150 last year? Go, China!

"I don't think we are going to stop this push for 'total information awareness'. Perhaps a better response it to demand greater transparency and accountability?"

No thanks. I'll pass.

"The concerns about what happens when you have way way too many people in one place are legitimate."

Why? Because someone might slip out from under the thumb of the corporate police state?

Wait, I forgot--it's about the children! Oh well, since you put it that way....

Ick, no. Selling your notes to your students? No. Not kosher. Selling a textbook, yes. Selling notes, no.

Students have paid their tuition, as someone has pointed out, and the professor has been paid a salary for creating the class syllabus and lectures, so selling notes to his class is ethically dubious, as Antinous points out.

That would be sort of like asking for an entrance fee at the door to his classroom.

@ #27: I don't see an ethical dilemma in a professor selling his textbook to his students, or even requiring it; it's his course, he can make anything required reading he sees fit, including his own. I could be wrong.

But I've never known a professor to sell class notes out of his station wagon. Have you? Maybe I've missed something here?

Narual: consider, please, the possibility that people in your situation are not the people we are "complaining" about.

People with crappy tap water are not my target. People with perfectly fine tap water who waste their money and fill the landfills with non-biodegradable plastic water bottles are.

"Knowledge of the global climate system right now is spotty at best..."

I don't think the world's climatologists would agree with this. Climatology is not a pseudoscience like astrology, nor is it ignorant of how the biosphere functions.

"...neither can we predict with accuracy the consequences of a certain amount of extra CO2 released into our atmossphere on its temperature, nor the consequences of the changed temperature on other climatic variables nor the consequences of these consequences on human living conditions."

With total accuracy, no... but generally? Yes. Yes, we can. Or at least it seems so to me.

"Rising temperatures will ramp up the hydrologic cycle... more rain, and more C02 will accelerate plant growth. Global warming could halt desertification and turn the Sahara, the Gobi, and the American Southwest into gardens."

At the risk of offending Fightcopyright, I have to point out that at least Bob Dobbs is aware he's not a climatologist (nor am I, I hasten to add) but it seems that Fightcopyright IS. Or maybe he just slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

No, no, I kid. He (she?) is as entitled to armchair speculation as any of us.

But on a philosophical note: it's EXTREMELY arrogant and rash to assume that we can tamper with an ecosystem that took billions of years to evolve, and that somehow we can make it turn out alright!

"And Nick D. - copyright protects original expression fixed in a tangible medium; if it's not original, or if it's not fixed in a tangible medium of expression, it doesn't matter how much labor he put in.."

Granted. My question was an ethical one, not a legal one.

Crap. I messed up my post. Allow me to repost:

"Bureaucrats the world over are salivating at the possibility of taxing carbon emissions so they can "save us".

Right... because nothing makes a politician more popular than raising taxes!

"Can someone remind me what was the last global problem the bureaucrats were able to solve? (Hint: it the eradication of AIDS, global poverty, malaria, nuclear proliferation, genocide..."

I wasn't aware that the free market had found solutions to these problems.

Silly, uninformed me. I forgot that industrialists are super-competent ubermensches motivated by love of their fellow man, and that the deforestation of the Amazon and the obliteration of the ocean's fish stocks are the work of diabolical pencil pushers growing fat on taxpayers dollars!

Also, I wasn't aware that bureacrats write legislation and pass tax hikes. But hey... don't let logic deter you from demonizing while segments of populations.

Really "Good" science states a hypothesis (the world is warming up because...). Then the hypothesis needs to be tested. Over time. A long time."

Not always. How long did it take for scientists to prove the feasibilty of nuclear fission? Pretty quick turnaround there.

Also, much of the support for evolution was there when Darwin and his colleagues were writing. Much of the subsequent evidence has merely confirmed what they established.

"If climate change is mans fault then how do people explain the medeval warm period followed by the little ice age. I would assume it was the sun, but I am not a climatologist."

Well, no, obviously you're not.

The notes, it seems to me, are the property of the students, not the professor, unless they are simply a transcription of his words. They therefore have a right to do with them what they will.

An important point, though, is how much of the notes reproduce original research or ideas produced by the professor? Say he's done some hard-won original research, and produced groundbreaking conclusions from them? Surely he's entitled to compensation for his efforts, or at the very least, credit for them?

Right... because nothing makes a politician more popular than raising taxes!

I wasn't aware that the free market had found solutions to these problems.

Silly, uninformed me. I forgot that industrialists are super-competent ubermensches motivated by love of their fellow man, and that the deforestation of the Amazon and the obliteration of the ocean's fish stocks are the work of diabolical pencil pushers growing fat on taxpayers dollars!

Not always. How long did it take for scientists to prove the feasibilty of atomic fusion? Pretty quick turnaround there.

Also, much of the support for evolution was there when Darwin and his colleagues were writing. Much of the subsequent evidence has merely confirmed what they established.

I'm not a scientist, but I was under the impression that scientists have more sources of data than historical experience. I.e., fossil records, astronomical dat, etc.

That is, the fact that there were no climatologists in the Roamn Empire does not mean we are totally lacking data about what took place then.

Criminy, lay off Cory with the nitpciking, wouldja? At least he's doing something.

Cory! Someone on the internet is wrong! Please argue with them!

But seriously... my response to the inevitable science geek objection that we are mostly laymen here and really know nothing about this (no disrespect intended, science geeks) is simply that policy decisions are made by citizens and politicians, not soley by PhDs-- nor should they be.

My point being that there has to be a debate about it among laymen like ourselves, and the fact that we will only know for sure who is right sometime in the future (if then) does not mean that taking some prudent precautions now makes us "lemmings."

One more thing: why is this topic such a magnet for unpleasant ideological posturing? It just clogs up a discussion which obviously demands a lot of detailed back and forth on difficult scientific points--and that's hard enough!

#38 and #39: absolutely.

People take things to extremes, and it's human nature to uncritically latch onto any figure that supports a belief you hold (eight glasses, for example).

People who, to quote Lewis Black, go around proclaiming "My pee has no color! My PEE has no COLOR!" are overdoing it. Moderation is the key, people.

As per dehydration: there are different levels. Anyone who has seen a real case of dehydration knows that Josh and Britney powerwalking through their yuppie neighborhood have never been there.

Having slightly less water than you need can result in some discomfort, though. Drinking enough water is just part of good nutrition.

Right on, JETSETSC. It's like "Christians" who believe in the death penalty but don't believe in helping the poor.

This is sympotmatic of two trends in the US:

1) The idea that being a citizen is nothing more than being a consumer.

"It's federally funded, therefore it should be agreeable to all taxpayers (read: customers)."

As if that's ever a possibility.

Or, "I pay more taxes than you, thus I have more say than you, and I'm a Christian!"

and

2) The idea that your health decisions should be based on someone else's religious convictions.

There is a place for the abortion debate. Medical databases should be off-limits.

There are advantages to drinking lots of water that haven't been mentioned here.

For example, it's one of the two most important ways to prevent constipation (the other is eating fiber). It also helps you digest the food you eat.

It can also prevent headaches, especially sinus headaches. (I've suffered from these my whole life).

How do I know these things? Personal experience. Plus, I came up with a revolutionary new research approach: I asked my doctor.

As for people who buy bottled water: unless you live someplace where the water is going to make you sick, I'm sorry, but you're a sucker!

What next, references to the White Panthers and the MC5?

Scottfree:

In New York they have rent controlled apartments (not nough of them, I'm sure). I'd like to see that spread beyond Manhattan.

It's the only way of stopping the rich from gobbling up all the habitable neighborhoods and pushing the poor and middle class residents out.

"What do you do next?" (Takuan)

That's the question of the day, isn't it?

I guess the main thing I'd like to contribute to that discussion is the idea that political action takes many forms, including the social and economic.

An example of economic action: when Verizon pesters me to use their Fios system, I tell them that I will when they stop collaborating with the government in their surveillance activities. I use their pre-paid envelope to do this, so it's on their dime.

When I walk into a BJ's and they have a big sign bragging about how they drug test their employees, I turn in my membership card, and tell their manager exactly why.

When my employer asks me to sign a form giving them direct access in perpetuity to my DMV records, I refuse to do so.

These are all things I've done. In themselves, they're little actions. Done en masse by significant numbers of people like yourselves, they would get results, mark my words.

WeightedCompanionCube:

I'm afraid that I do agree with the EFF's assumptions.

Remember: it's not that the Bush administration is pushing for the right or ability to surveille our communications--it IS surveilling our communications. Every telephone call is automatically routed to government servers. This is not something that we're afraid will happened, it HAS happened. And it has received legal legitimacy from the US Congress, so that now it's the law of the land.

Don't take my word for it--look it up. But then you probably know this already. So I'm not understanding why pointing this out and objecting to it is "paranoid."

As for "cooler heads will prevail": it's been 8 years since 9/11 and frankly, I don't see the reversal of the trend you're referring to. When exactly can we expect these cooler heads to get busy. In time for the next millenium?

Mindy:

"I'm just wondering if there can ever be anything but compromise under the system as it is"

Compromise gets a bad rap sometimes. Nothing gets done in a democracy without compromise. Only totalitarian regimes can change things by fiat. Change doesn't always happen overnight, and mostly it probably shouldn't. Deliberate, thoughtful change usually gets better results.

But no, I don't think we have got to the point of no return, and thus I'm hopeful.

Well, the logical next step here, if things are as bad as the commenters here seem to be saying, is armed conflict and resistance. When can we expect you guys to begin your guerrilla war?

Frankly (and maybe I'm just getting cranky here because I'm tired--if so, please excuse me) but there is a point where commiserating about the state of things turns self-indulgent. Let's not go there.

Mindy: idealism isn't the belief that the system is good or getting better, or even that it CAN get better. It is simply the belief that it should be better.

My ethos dictates that I have to fight for my ideals whether or not I believe I can win. Anything less is cowardice.

Per your other comments: I think you're letting your discouragement color your views. Ask any black man or woman if they would rather be living today or in the 1950s. I think they will, to a person, answer that things are better today. How can you not be encouraged by that?

@ Bluemonq: thank you. I don't think we can remind ourselves too often of what our officials are supposed to be loyal to, by law. Bush's sin is that he has demanded loyalty to nothing but himself. Shame on him and those who have played that game. May they rot in hell.

Does anyone else here see how crying "surveillance on the everyday communications of millions of americans" vs. "terrorists are constantly trying to kill millions of americans" show just about the same level of fermongering?

WeightedCompanionCube:

Your comment presupposes that my and others' positions are predicated on the statements of one organization (EFF), rather than on our lived experience of the past eight years, and on our analysis of recent events and legislative abominations.

The problem with recent (past eight years or more) legislation is twofold:

1) it increasingly accords the Executive Branch the power to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a threat, what constitutes an enemy, what constitutes reasonable cause, what constitutes legality, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on;

and

2) it increasingly positions the military, under direct command of the Commander-in-Chief, as the sole administrator of order and the rule of law. As these things are interpreted solely by--guess who?-- the Commander-in-Chief.

All of which is a subversion the idea that the military is answerable to the civil government.

Thus we have Bush saying that the sole reason he needs to do whatever he wants in the area of surveillance or security is that he thinks it's a good idea.

There are those who downplay recent amendments to laws by saying, "This has been in force for years, it's nothing new, we've always had provisions for martial law."

My question for them is: why then do we need to make these changes? Changes to laws that were good enough for us during WWII, in the wake of Pearl Harbor? Why is it that Roosevelt could combat Tojo and Hitler under these laws, but Bush finds them too constraining?

I invite you to prove me wrong. If you can, I will thank you for it, I promise.

@ #20:

The problem is that EULA's like this are part of a cascading structure of instruments that puts in place precedents, legal frameworks, and insurance policy clauses that basically make the end user the scapegoat and the repository for the downhill flow of crap.

God, I hate insurance companies. Even more than I do ambulance chasing lawyers and opportunistic politicians.

The coup taking place is slow, but it's happening quickly and overtly enough that we could stop it if we cared enough.

The fact that it's so overt is the neo-cons' way of saying two things: 1) See? Americans agree with us, or we couldn't do this; and 2) Protest, you little pissants. You can't stop this.

It's time to prove them wrong on both counts.

Per frustration: sometimes I'm so sick at heart that I want to go out and kill honeybees so as to hasten the demise of our species!

Then it passes and sanity returns.

Mindy:

You sound like an idealistic person. You're exactly the kind of person who must not get discouraged or succumb to despair.

Hope is the only thing they CAN'T take away from you. They can only gleefully accept it as a gift from you, and congratulate themselves on having worn you down and won that way.

Where would we be if the Civil Rights Movement gave up? They didn't capitualte to depair, and they were being murdered and beaten. I think we can tough it out here, don't you?

Per the Dems: I'm as dissatisfied with them as anyone, and they are decidely too centrist for me, but until a viable third party candidate comes along, the only rational political position to take is to support them. They are at the moment to only alternative to the Republicans.

Looks to me as if they are trying to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit, insurance claim, or criminal prosecution.

Craven behavior like this is the reason that lawyers and insurance agents are the real decisionmakers in our society. Not to mention fear-mongering security freaks.

PS to DCER: please don't interpret my last comment as a personal attack.

I may not have written precisely enough there. I didn't mean to imply that you personally cannot feel good about yourself "without taking a cognitive dump on the less fortunate or the less successful."

I was criticising the attitude, not any person in particular.

PS: why is Craiggnoble yelling at people who agree with him, and why has he started talking like Li'l Abner? :)

Mintfresh: don't apologize, and don't give up. Keep fighting the good fight.

I'd like to add here, if it's not too off-topic, that Mr. Supposedly Against Torture John McCain recently failed to live up to that position in the Congress.

So now the idea that waterboarding is not torture is the law of the land. Thanks, Congress!

Jeff: it's an unsubtle kind of logic that doesn't recognize that there are degrees of publicness and privatness, etc.

It's as if I were to say that once you're behind your picket fence, the laws of society don't obtain--which of course we know is not the case.

Similarly, privacy concerns do not vanish outside of the picket fence.

Per Apashiol's comments: I agree.

I would also add that in a society wherein mental hospitals are being closed every day, but prisons are being built every day, the system is simply funnelling the mental ill into prisons, along with the non-violent drug offenders, where they can be preyed on by the violent offenders they share those prisons with.

All you paranoid liberal nutjobs are flying off the handle over a president that just wants to protect your children!! Get a life!!

I kid, I kid. Just thought I'd say it before our resident apologists-for-power chimed in with it.

But seriously, our constitution and society are extremely vulnerable to subversion in this way. That's why citizen groups like the ACLU are so important--because they take these things to court, and court precedents are very important in preventing and fighting this kind of thing.

As for the type of society that stands still for stuff like this, I can only quote Scoutmaster from the Dangers of Giant National Database thread:

"A whole lot of people believe that it's more important to do what you're told than to do what you think is right.... For them, thinking for yourself, being responsible, is horror and chaos. For them to think other people aren't under similar constraints is abject fear."

How on-the-nose is that? This describes to a T so many people I know!

PS: hey, ACLU--how come your stickers always peel off my car after 24 hours? Make better stickers, I beg you!

DCER: we are emphatically not in agreement--just for the record.

And no, I don't feel sorry for you because of your grad school loans. Sorry, you're knocking on the wrong door.

There's a word that describes people who cannot feel good about themselves without taking a cognitive dump on the less fortunate or the less successful. That word is "arrogance."

As for comparing a sidewalk to Rocky Mountain National Park: Gimme a break, wouldja? Please?

OK, I'm done.

"When you can't afford to buy your own home it's god's way of telling you that you need to go to college or graduate school." (#40)

Ri-i-i-ght... no forces beyond their control are ever involved in the existence of poor people, right? They're just not as smart and hardworking as you.

I guess there is no poverty caused by tanking industries, or debts caused by long-term illness, or anything like that, right?

I hope that if you ever suffer an economic catastrophe (which, of course, will be no fault of your brilliant, industrious self) that you are shown more compassion than you dispalyed when you made that comment.

Anyway... I like this graffitti and I like the idea of boosting morale this way, and I think saying it's "defacing" the sidewalk is overblown.

It'll probably be sandblasted off, anyway--that's what has happened to every bit of graffitti I've ever done. Bombers like this should do it in non-permanent paint that wears off in a few days. Then it's harmless... and ephemeral, as art like this should be.

Jeff (19): I don't think you should conflate "moderated" and "watched" like that. They are two very different processes.

As for the effectiveness of CCTV, I'll have to take your word for that, as I haven't read any studies. Regardless, though, that argument doesn't hold water for me, because it ignores the COST that's being paid.

Here's a thought experiment: traffic accidents would decline dramatically if fewer people were granted driver's licenses, simply because there would be fewer cars on the road. Let's say that anyone who tests with an IQ under such-and-such a number is denied a driver's license.

I don't have to test this hypothosis to be pretty sure that it would be effective in reducing traffic accidents, 70% of which are caused by driver error (I did read THAT study), but that doesn't mean I would support the idea. Would you? I'd rather take my chances on the road.

Which is just a longwinded way of saying that a CCTV society is creepy and infantilizing, and I want nothing to do with it.

@ #15: I don't think information technology needs any impetus from the corporate police state at this point.

Or to put it another way: dealing with misuses of technology like this one just distracts the attention and diverts the resources of both the private and the public sectors away from innovation that's actually useful.

But now maybe I'M being naively optimistic; I mean, I still believe there's a difference between the private and the public sectors!

Per Felby's comments @ #3: I think there is a very real difference between paper and digital records, and very real concerns that weren't there pre-digital. I don't think these concerns are obsessive or paranoid, I think they're just plain prudent. The price of freedom, and all that.

Per confirming these concerns: I think Cory and others spend a great deal of time and effort doing just that.

@ #6 & #7:

I think Padster123 absolutely has the right idea, although I do understand that you have to pick your battles, Xodarap.

An example: I worked at a firm that decided that "as a condition of continued employment," we all had to sign a form giving the firm automatic access to our DMV records.

I and many others just flat out refused, and this completely offensive idea went away. What were they going to do, fire 200 people?

Per Jeff's comments: my information doesn't want to be free, thank you very much! Feel free to share yours! :)

There's a difference between knowledge and private information, and it's not a technological distinction, it's a political one.

You can e-mail Rajoppi at: jrajoppi@ucnj.org

Just thought I'd mention that NickD and I are two seperate entities.

Thank you, please drive through.

Nick D.

Realitymatching: do you work for Google? You sound like you do.

"No wonder the education system in this country sucks. The teachers are idiots too."

Our military is the best, are schools... not so great.

Why?

Look at all the billions and trillions of dollars that go into the armed forces.

Our schools have to beg like trained seals for every cent they get.

You get what you pay for.

PS: if someone made me listen to Guns'N'Roses, I'd call the cops, too! Sorry, but they have to be the most over-rated band since... well, ever.

I can't imagine wanting this in my home except that I love the bubblegum pink this one's done in.

Thanks, Noen. The site you linked to, I should add for those who haven't visited it, has a comments section that they apparently think Dodd might actually read.

Jasut @16 said: "Let's make voter registration and voting easier. How do we do this? Legislation. Uh oh."

But you know, there are things you can do without being a legislator.

You can help those not registered through the process. It's not that hard.

You can bug those already registered to get out and vote.

You can offer rides to people who have trouble getting to their polling place. You can offer to take someone's shift if they can't get to the polling place because of work.

Many times, people sometimes just need a babysitter, or a ride, or a kick in the pants, or something mundane like that, to get them involved.

But why would they shred the old stuff? Is there a limit to how long they have to keep these records? Is that what you're saying?

Agnot: an impartial view would cause a chain reaction that would destroy the Universe!

But seriously, the truth is too big to be understood by any human. That why we're all partial. We have only partial views of the truth.

I'm still not sure I get it (maybe I'm being thick), but thanks for the explanation anyway.

He was "kidnapped"? Somehow, I imagine his kidnapping involved being caught with a large amount of explosives. (#58)

Oracle: I don't know the details of the case, either, but I don't think that every, or even most (not even 'many' for that matter) of the detainees have been caught indelicto flagrante (sp?).

Do you prefer "extraordinary rendition" to "kidnapping?" If so, why? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just wondering.)

I think maybe you're misinterpreting the post if you think it's criticizing them for patching him up after his suicide attempt, or keeping him from starving.

OK, OK, relax. This is getting out of hand. Do your stuff, Muppet. Ciao.

I was referring to some other threads, not this one.
Rock on, Muppet. (Not sarcasm.)

I saw him speak once and he delivered a list that must have cracked the triple digits.

I think one of them was Muppets.

I kid, I kid. Muppet, I declare a unilateral flame truce.

Muppet, please try to actually participate in the discussion in some way, rthr thn jst pstng xcrpts frm yr prnd ntrr mnlgs.

"I am not here to argue."

That's right. You're here to monologue, and post bad poetry.

This is a discussion forum. If you want to post monologues, I suggest you create your own blog.

PS: what's with the disemvowelled swear words like mthrfckrs? Are we not all adults here? And while I'm being a scold, let's retire once and for all the STFU thing. It's an intolerant sentiment, and abbreviating it doesn't make it any less uncivil.

Aileinduinn,

Thank you. I get so sick of these uneducated nutters spouting their hatred and their uninformed opinions.

Your post made me realize how well-written most of the comments at Boing Boing are, because I'm someone who hears a non-grammatical construction as something akin to nails on a chalkboard, and reading the comments section is relatively painless for me.

"This had something to do with Freedom of Information Act changes rather than something sinister, I believe."

What do you mean by that, Moon? I don't get it. Why would changes in FOIA mean more shredding?

The only explanation for that which I can think of certainly IS sinister.

Foofer and Muppet:

What are you guys, some sort of Christian Science sci-fi anarchists? And what's with the muppets? Is this a language only your twin understands, or what?

"And all we can do is state our position on the matter. What else is there we can do?"

Do us all a favor and become armed revolutionaries, or anarchist terrorists, or whatever, because that is what someone who really, truly believes what you say you believe should do.

Just please stop with the dire apocalyptic mutterings about what slaves we are and how we are being run by Masonic alien overlords, or whatever.

I actually prefer Realcatholicmen, who, although he's always wrong, and an amoral apologist for torturers and therefore dictators, at least makes a coherent argument.

Realcatholicmen: As for "Either we as a country decide it's okay or it's not": that issue was decided long ago. That's why we have laws against it. That's why we are signatories to the Geneva Convention. Why can you not get that through your head? It's a really simple concept to grasp.

Maybe it's because you're not a lawyer. But I forget, it's we "lefties" who talk about things we don't have experience in.

Here's a quote from one of your posts: "It's a shame more lefties don't do a turn in the military just so they could actually speak from some experience and stop sounding so foolish."

Well, unless you have experience in being waterboarded, blowing up skyscrapers, writing a blog in Iraq, or in being Egyptian, Lebanese, or Saudi, maybe you should refrain from making comments like the ones above. By your logic.

Here's you again: "I mean, the goal is entertainment, not information, right? Who needs experts!"

You mean experts like John McCain, who is unequivocally against our using torture? Or are you more knowledgeable on the subject than he is? Spent 5 years in a North Vietname