"Tell us what we missed."

1. Completion of the Human Genome Project in 2000.
2. Growing a new trachea from patients' own cells in 2008.
3. Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan got into a tiff in 2007, thereby altering the course of history.

Anything else?

Oh no, no, no! You cannot delete your comment, NR! I have saved it for posterity!

>> ^NetRunner:
Okay, here's my reaction to each:
1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean the US is going to take a role of non-interference in the operation of state governments? Foreign governments? It'll let people rope off an acre of land and self-determine it into an independent country?
2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Anyone can speak on the behalf of the US government if they want to? Individuals can invade countries, whilst flying the American flag? The US will protect a US citizen's rights as we define them, even if they move overseas?
3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Same thought as gwiz. Either this is silly and obvious, or a declaration to the world that we will take over as much land as we feel we need to feed and house our people.
4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
This one just sounds a little too hard edged. Something more like "The United States government will attempt to foster an environment of high employment and economic growth, and provide for the livelihood of those who are unable to provide for themselves" sounds a lot better to me, since it leaves open the right questions for debate (things like what constitutes a growth environment, and what does "unable" or livelihood mean), while foreclosing questions I think shouldn't be up for debate (i.e. is it the responsibility of the government of the United States to care about economic issues and hardships at all?).
5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
I like equal rights. What's equal duty mean? We all work the same hours a day? All pay the same amount in taxes? We all need to take our turn in the barrel? Everyone needs to do 2 years public service?
6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
No, I don't like this one at all. I think everyone has a god-given right to be lazy. I don't like the idea of making it a core principle that one must not "clash with the general interest", either. I think the "general good" should be protected (e.g. environmental protection law, FDA regulations on food and drugs, general police protection, regulating the financial sector, etc.), but I don't think the way to do that is to say people can't act against the general interest at all.
7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.
I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).
8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22).
The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.
However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.
9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
No need to nationalize them, just bust 'em up.
10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about profit-sharing with all employees, no matter how lowly. I agree, and why focus only on the "large industrial enterprises"? The mechanics would need to be worked out, and for some people I think they'd rather have stability in their income than having it tied to profit, but I think everyone should have the opportunity to opt into a profit-driven payscale if they want it, even if they just sweep the floors.
11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We've already done it -- Social Security and Medicare. I want Medicare for All now.
12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I like supporting the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, though I don't see why this would require nationalizing malls as dedicated workers for the state...
Seems to me that there are more effective, and less heavy-handed ways to lower barriers for entry to small businesses.
13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
No. I'm curious what "ground" rent is, but no.
14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
I think this one is worded badly. "The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life." sounds kinda scary. "Education should be focused on the requirements of practical life." sounds better, since it doesn't talk about how people must be brought into line.
I believe the "education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State" is otherwise known as a scholarship, and I'm all for governments levying taxes to beef them up.
If anything, this one just seems a bit modest and unfocused. I agree that "practical life" leaves a bit too much leeway, I'm thinking it would be things like civics, personal finance, career planning, etc., and not things like shop class (though shop class is good too).
15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Some of this exists already (child labor laws), and compulsory gymnastics and sports...for kids going to school (at least in my K-12 it was). I'm not for making exercise/sports mandatory for adults, but I think we'd do well to have some types of diet and exercise programs covered by our health care plans.
16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
The way this is written, it almost sounds like they don't even want the states to run their own militias, and I certainly don't think those should be dismantled. I don't even have an issue with the idea of private military companies like Blackwater, as long as they aren't corrupt and evil like Blackwater. I would want a fat regulatory agency looking over their shoulder, with backing from the US military, but I wouldn't necessarily want to abolish them outright.
I don't care for the people who call themselves militias but are really talking about plotting a revolution against the government, or fighting off the IRS with assault rifles. Those people are criminals, not militias.
17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.
I'm not sure what half of this one is supposed to mean. Personally, I think anyone on the left talking about the size of government in the current political era is making a mistake, and adopting the preferred framing of the right.
It's good policy vs. bad policy. Government that believes it bears an important duty to the people vs. government that wants to prove government can't do anything right. Empathy vs. selfishness. We're in this together vs. You're on your own.

Perez Hilton really cleaned up his act!

I think Paris Hilton would agree with the man at the end "It's Hot"

Wait what? Paris Hilton has a tv show to find her next friend?

Wait... Why am I surprised?

What do you think people with this kind of income use for purchases? A debit card from their local credit union? A friend of mine served Rick Hilton at an EAA dinner some years ago and he apparently paid using one of these.

If you decide to pick up a Gallardo on your way to the Four Seasons, this is what you do it with.

I wouldn't feel too creepy about it -- call me a cynic, but I'd bet good money that this whole thing was orchestrated by Andrews herself. Who had heard of her before this? And who has heard of her now? Feels very Paris Hilton Sex Tape to me.

We interrupt this moon landing to bring you a more important story...Paris Hilton is Prego.

^ I think that's most of the way true. I think he was a pedo bastard and a musical genius, a really strange, messed-up maniac in all, but he could really fucking dance and write a beat.

Also, ponceleon, never spite a rich person for being a philanthropist. It's backwards and makes you sound like a brat. If Diana has the means to jet off to where ever the fuck she's going to talk about landmines, and still look good, then good for her and good for the cause. Sadly her position and glamor could raise awareness more than the combined shouts of every inhabitant of every warzone she visited. Why spite her for attempting to make atrocities known? Or I guess it might suit her better to just lounge in her castle and eat peeled grapes all day. Yeah I'd much rather her do that. They're aren't enough Paris Hilton's in the world.

Thank you for responding.

1 – You are correct that Perez Hilton does not speak for all gay people. If he made such a claim he is certainly mistaken.

2 – The term "gay agenda" was created by rightwing theocrats as a way to whip up fear (and solicited donations) in their followers. There is no "gay agenda," aside from the desire to be treated equally under the law, which when put that way sounds more like an "American agenda." If you want to know what gay people really want, I’d suggest you talk to an actual gay person and have a grain of salt handy anytime you hear a talking head or snake oil salesman speak.

3 – Saying "two men together or two women together is "equal" to heterosexual couples" is FAR different from your original statement that "men and women are "interchangeable," and there are no significant differences between the sexes."

See? QM is careful with his words... notice how the "scumball" is not "scum" because he's gay.. he's gay AND a scumball... which, if in reference to Perez Hilton... is pretty accurate.

Yet you walk the line.... oh how you walk it

6/18/09 12AM the gays have had this video *removed due to terms of use violation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_civil_marriage_in_the_U.S.

I was disappointed with the often silent Mr. Perez who should rightly be outraged but did not do an effective job of expressing that. And Perez had plenty of opportunities to jump all over Hilton:

-He kept bringing religion into the debate but at the same acknowledging that he was only talking about civil unions

-He actually said "the same does not mean equal"

-His argument that a woman can give something to a child that a man cannot doesn't hold water. (It's just like saying "Steve can be a different father than Ted" which is of course true but it's not an argument against gay marriage just because a woman can offer something 'different')

This is a nice representation of what not to do in the face of a bigot (let them drag on and on and on) Hold your ground and don't just memorize sound bytes.
*promote

real life zoolander- and this guy wasn't trying for it.


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2009/04/xtmrf7zxrmab8ei9ppudlblio1_400.gif

More losers with the same face:

Paris Hilton: http://www.gossiplist.com/blog2/archives/paris_hiltons_frozen_face.gif
Lindsey Lohan: http://trimex.us/img/$rand/lohan%20facial.gif

>> ^dirtythirtyix:
I love the contrast between Jesse's thoughtful measured speech, and Elizabeth's fast-forwarded talking point regurgitation.


That's something I've noticed when people are having to do verbal gymnastics to justify their points... youhavetotalkreallyfasttomakesureyourpointgetsoutinthefifteensecondsyouhave. Whereas the morally obvious choices are easily summed up in those fifteen seconds: Why don't police do it? Why did we make such a fuss when Vietnam did it to us? Guantanamo is OUR Hanoi Hilton.

The more difficult your argument is to make, the faster you have to talk to try to trip up the other folks. It's not necessarily a good way to tell who's right and who's wrong, but I daresay it gives a pretty damn good impression of it.

>> ^spoco2:
Since it's not blocked anymore: nochannel
terrible Actionpack Cinema Nature

One has to ask:
How the hell do movies like this ever get made
And what happened to poor Debbie Gibson, she used to be a cute singer, she... oh... what? She posed nude... ooooooh


Because posing nude is a sign that the devil is working within you. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they knew shame. That's why God invented clothes and that, children, is why we should shun those who show us their bodies.

And, ye, through the ages God's decree destroys the mediocre careers of pop singers and actresses -- unless they're mega whores like Paris Hilton and, then, WOOHOO! God doth decree that they star in hamburger commercials and reality television shows.

Amen.