If the army can arbitrarily kill thousands in Iraq, why can’t they kill a few people in Staten Island, Missouri, or Ohio? You “support the troops” why don’t you support us, they ask. . . Fair question. There is an answer. We made a bad mistake. Now we understand. We have to unwind this. We have to tell the police that they are us and we are them. When they kill us they are killing themselves. . . We can support the troops by honoring their sacrifice. By caring for them when they come home. Or caring for their families if they don’t. But don’t expect to get a pass when you break the law. Police must be held to a higher standard, because of the power we give them. Certainly not a lower one.
Scripting.com: NYPD are the people
Even though the people grant officials special privileges, officials are still beholden to the same fundamental rights and principles that govern all citizens. Officials must be willing to have their decisions reviewed, criticized, and adjusted as required by the people that put them in that position of authority. We have a shared responsibility to exercise our right to free speech when necessary to ensure that our other rights are not infringed. Ultimately, transparency is maintained through free speech by the people’s demand of it, and those in authority understanding they share that duty as fellow citizens.
Everything those in authority have is a privilege, neither a right nor immutable, and is open to scrutiny and adjustment. If those in authority do not see themselves as beholden to the same laws that apply to everyone else, then they do not see themselves as fellow citizens, and therefore have no business being in the position of authority entrusted to them by the people that placed them there.
The truth is, America’s commitment to free speech is dwarfed by our commitment to capitalism. Seth Rogen can stand in his house and say anything he wants about Kim Jong-un – but Sony has the choice to fund him, and even if it agrees, AMC can still pull the plug. The corporation, not the individual, has always had the power to decide what movie is a thoughtcrime. We’re just only now visibly seeing the suits flex their clout.
LA Weekly: Pulling The Interview Is the End of Free Speech in Hollywood
I think noting that this issue is not new is just as important.
Ted Cruz had this to say about Net Neutrality:
“Net Neutrality” is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
Of all the arguments I’ve heard against Net Neutrality, this is the most incoherent and doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny of any kind. For the first sentence, if Ted Cruz is against the proposed Net Neutrality rules because they align with Obamacare, then he is against anything that falls under the FCC’s Title II including the nation’s telephone system. Regardless of one’s position on Obamacare, this is a stupid statement, unless Ted Cruz is against how the nation’s telephone system is managed. About the only overlap I can find between Net Neutrality rules (and FCC Title II in general) and Obamacare is that President Obama sponsored both. Which is probably all we really need to know about Ted Cruz.
The second sentence is even less coherent than the first. If “the speed of government” is meant to be a play on “the speed of business” there are far too many examples of business maintaining the status quo despite all coherent arguments to the contrary—Net Neutrality being a great example—for that statement to be anything meaningful either.
Ultimately, that tweet reads as rhetoric for rhetoric’s sake and not anything actionable on anyone’s part. Which is probably all we really need to know about Ted Cruz.
Emphasis mine, but I kept the rest both for context and the fact that it’s really funny:
“The whole country’s got a fucked up mentality. We all got a gang mentality. Republicans are fucking idiots. Democrats are fucking idiots. Conservatives are idiots and liberals are idiots. Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I’m a conservative! I’m a liberal! I’m a conservative! It’s bullshit! Be a fucking person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal decent person is one thing. OK!?! I got some shit I’m conservative about, I got some shit I’m liberal about. Crime—I’m conservative. Prostitution—I’m liberal.”
I forget which album this was on, but I keep coming back to this quote repeatedly. One thing I have learned as I’ve gotten older is that absolutist positions are rarely tenable or realistic.
I don’t know what compels me at times to dive back into email discussions about fussy things like iPhone vs. Android, at least fussy in the sense that most of us have no skin in the game outside of what we paid for our phones. But here I am on Hacker News getting my feet wet again…
> JohnTHaller 3 hours ago | link
> If you bought your music after Apple finally ditched DRM,
> you can upload your AAC files to Google Music for free and
> sync/stream them to all your Android devices as well as your
> If you “bought” your music with Apple DRM, you can pay
> another fee to actually own it and be able to play it on a
> non-Apple devices.
> If you “bought” your videos with Apple DRM, consider it a
> lesson learned.
1 point by oatmeal_coffee 28 minutes ago | link | edit |
Taking the entire migration process you describe changes the
“price” to be paid for similar phone, so my claim of false
equivalence still stands.
There’s no “lesson” when I have made the conscious decision
to stick with Apple all these years. I may have paid a
premium paying for iPods and iPhones, but I feel my time is
valuable enough to not have to mess around with my media
files in any way you describe. Nor do I feel the urge to
spend money on music I have already purchased, but I don’t
see that as being a mistake from which to learn a lesson.
Nothing has happened to me with Apple or its products so
egregious to feel compelled to take on anything like you
I think what gets me sometimes is the general smugness that comes with these types of discussions and the inevitable finger-wagging that ensues. Discussions about mobile platforms, for me at least, have gone into that same category about religion, politics, and sports: Everyone has an opinion while sitting in their armchairs, and none of the opinions are going to sway anyone one way or another because no one is in the mood to listen. It’s bullshit, and I’m just as guilty as anyone else in the discussion. I don’t dive into these sorts of things nearly as much as I used to, but something about Hacker News has changed in the past several months where this kind of smug finger wagging is happening with greater frequency. Myself included. Still…
Don’t claim there is a lesson for me to learn in regards to my situation without knowing my story. I could just as likely have chosen to be in the position where I am. There is no lesson to be learned when I feel I have not done anything wrong. I know nothing about you, and you know nothing about me, so you are in no position to determine what is a lesson for me to learn.
Compete, target and reform
The priority should be a Rooseveltian attack on monopolies and vested interests, be they state-owned enterprises in China or big banks on Wall Street. The emerging world, in particular, needs to introduce greater transparency in government contracts and effective anti-trust law. It is no coincidence that the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, made his money in Mexican telecoms, an industry where competitive pressures were low and prices were sky-high. In the rich world there is also plenty of opening up to do. Only a fraction of the European Union’s economy is a genuine single market. School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers’ unions have. Getting rid of distortions, such as labour laws in Europe or the remnants of China’s hukou system of household registration, would also make a huge difference.
Next, target government spending on the poor and the young. In the emerging world too much cash goes to universal fuel subsidies that disproportionately favour the wealthy (in Asia) and unaffordable pensions that favour the relatively affluent (in Latin America). But the biggest target for reform is the welfare states of the rich world. Given their ageing societies, governments cannot hope to spend less on the elderly, but they can reduce the pace of increase—for instance, by raising retirement ages more dramatically and means-testing the goodies on offer. Some of the cash could go into education. The first Progressive era led to the introduction of publicly financed secondary schools; this time round the target should be pre-school education, as well as more retraining for the jobless.
Last, reform taxes: not to punish the rich but to raise money more efficiently and progressively. In poorer economies, where tax avoidance is rife, the focus should be on lower rates and better enforcement. In rich ones the main gains should come from eliminating deductions that particularly benefit the wealthy (such as America’s mortgage-interest deduction); narrowing the gap between tax rates on wages and capital income; and relying more on efficient taxes that are paid disproportionately by the rich, such as some property taxes.
The Economist: “True Progressivism”
“A new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth”
I never was one for ready-made politics, but this is really good.
I might have quoted this in the past, but I think this is just great:
We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing? Neither, is the answer. . . it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so.
The Economist explains itself: Is The Economist left- or right-wing?