>> ^notarobot:

Bottled water is no better than what comes through your faucet. The plastic bottle it comes in ends up downstream in your food supply. No matter how fun or witty the advertising is, bottled water is bullshit.
http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-About-Bottled-Water
http://videosift.com/video/The-Seas-of-Plastic


Actually, tap water supplies are tested many times per day and shut down immediately by government regulators if they are found to have dangerous levels of any known contaminant. Water bottling plants are inspected as infrequently as once a year. So I'd replace "no better" with "demonstrably worse." The whole idea that people would pay good money for a product when our cities and counties provide a superior product for pennies on the dollar just shows how gullible we are. No wonder we're in debt to the rest of the world.

For the most part, I agree @BoneyD. I wouldn't have been personally offended had I been on that ship but I do have some misgivings.

Members of the military tend to have a pretty crude, dark, and mean/offensive - from a civilian point of view - sense of humor. The flip side is that most of them have pretty thick skin as well and aren't offended as easily. I've heard my share of jokes that I wont tell to most civilians.

His 'gay' insults I found to be the worst part but it's hardly surprising considering he is part of an organization that until very very recently considered homosexuality worse than friendly fire.

That said, my disagreement stems from his position and how he responded to criticism. As a high-ranking officer in command (or soon to be in command) of a large number of men and women it is his job to ensure a high level of morale, to ensure his people feel safe in their place of duty and to ensure those below him feel confident with him in the lead. I could see how these videos would undermine all three, even before he refused to stop after there were complaints.

My initial response when hearing about the videos was of how his actions reflected on the Navy itself. The following is a quote from Canadian naval officer Lt(N) P. Richard Moller from his paper entitled "Bureaucracy Versus Ethics" which, I think, addresses that issue well (even if from a Canadian standpoint):

"We must, at all times, remember that while we are wearing this uniform we represent the government and the people of Canada, as well as the element whose uniform we wear. Whatever we do reflects, for better or for worse, on ourselves, our element, and on the people of Canada. We have been entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the honour of our uniform, and all that it represents. The whole world will judge this uniform and Canada on our conduct while wearing it.
We must, therefore, comport ourselves on all occasions, and in all circumstances in such a manner as to reflect credit upon our element, our government, and our country. Our every act must encourage all people to have confidence in this uniform, and what it represents."


While the videos weren't personally offensive, I think they reflected badly on the US Navy and that is why such a big issue is being made of them.

>> ^poolcleaner:

Who cares. It's a font. It says the same thing no matter what font it's in (well, except maybe Winddings). And it's a tie. It serves the same purpose... wait, what's the purpose of a tie again? Oh, I remember: to look like a professional douchebag. That's right, the tie is the professional version of a titlted hat in hip hop.

Some people care about good design. If you don't, that's perfectly OK (I'm sure there are things that you're interested in that I don't care about either), but why criticise those who do care about good typography? I think the typeface does change what something "says" - for better or for worse, people make value judgements on whether to see a play, buy a DVD, shop in a certain store, or read a book by what is used to advertise it. Sure, it's not as important as the content of the book/play/film, but when you're trying to let your customers know what the product is like and help them decide whether it's "their sort of thing", such stylistic choices have a lot of impact. You might think it's trivial, but ask yourself if you'd feel 100% comfortable walking into a hospital seeing the hospital's name and all the signs in Comic Sans? Wouldn't you feel that they weren't taking this "being a hospital" stuff seriously?

Oh, and the gentleman in your avatar picture is wearing a tie.

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. The Constitution isn't being overridden, there's nothing in it about marriage either way. No one political party has the patent on hypocrisy. The legitimate State exists to preserve rights and protect private property, and since marriage is a legal contract it IS the State's business, and still would be even under the flawed 'marriage privatization' libertarian model.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Is one of the two major political movements more concerned with actual consequences than the other? Yes. The Right defends traditional values, for better or for worse. Why? To be mean? Or is it because 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail?

Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

The left has no real idea what the ultimate effects of legalizing gay marriage will be. We're talking 30 years of sketchy, activist-driven data versus 5000 years of history, during which no lasting society or moral thinker--religious or otherwise--condoned gay "marriage". It could be harmless, or it could turn the legal system and society on its ear. What personally ticks me off is if gay 'marriage' proves harmful to society, the left will deny it and try to hide the evidence.

3. Marriage is not about children. A rather large part of it is. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? No, but if the left cannot admit that two loving parents are better than one, then once again we are mired in intellectual dishonesty and the disavowal of common sense.

Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Society has a right to define what relationships it values the most. If society decides one man/one woman legally bound works the best, then it has the the right to place that union on a pedestal. Gays like to make this all about them and how they're being persecuted over a "right" that IS new, but there is a line out the door and circling the block twice of relationship configurations society will also not place on "the pedestal".

Like a great number of Americans--though obviously not a majority--I couldn't care less about what gays do in their personal lives, but nor will I pretend there are no consequences for legitimizing 3% of the populations' will over the other 97%.

Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.

I don't expect agreement here, just acknowledgment that there are other points of view, thoughtful and well-intentioned.














>> ^MaxWilder:

QM,
1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.
2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.
3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

This really isn't an issue beyond partisanship. For better and for worse, conservatives are pro-market, anti-regulation. Liberals, as compared to conservatives, are much more pro-regulation. They won't say so in so many words, but liberals would like to see *more* red tape, and more bureaucracy, just so events like these are less likely to happen, even at the cost of some inefficiency.

You can debate the merits of each position until the end of time, but you need to be honest with yourself: this is the cost of letting business do what it wants, relatively free of oversight. Multinational corporations have no concern for the welfare of a town, city, state, or even country, save for what will cost them actual business. As the Exxon Valdez incident proved, you can cause a horrendous environmental catastrophe and still remain in profitable business, so there clearly isn't enough of a bad PR disincentive to actually put in place the expensive safeguards to better prevent these occurrences.

Given that you can't count on BP, or any corporation, to look out for your best interests, you have to have another body step in and fill that role. That's the role of big government, which liberals support, and conservatives do not (with exceptions, like the military).

Obviously voting won't help *right now,* but a shift in the political map today would very likely reduce the chances of this happening 10 years from now, and so on.

When I go back to watch old computer tv shows I am reminded of how drastically things have changed. Calling the past 20 years the Information Age is woefully inadequate to the scale of how much both PCs and the Internet have escalated our lives for better or for worse. The concept of even 1/1000th the potential of Google in 1990 would have resulted in a HOLY SHIT THIS IS AWESOME response back then.

I don't think they are very fair with the Internet rankings though. Certainly the US is not #1 in the world but... Bermuda? That would be like putting 10mbit broadband on Guam and then calling it the largest broadband penetration in the world. Most certainly I take my connection at home with blessings as compared to say, "broadband" in Mexico. (Hint: Honest to goodness telco monopoly)

Of course you can respond. I don't want a concession I haven't earned.

The failure of Circuit City (or any of the others on your list) has had no meaningful impact on reducing corporate abuse. Circuit City was replace by Best Buy, which treats its employees worse than its predecessor. So in this case, 'wallet democracy' has actually made things worse.

This is because "wallet democracy" isn't based on intelligence, wisdom, morality or any kind of desire for social justice, it's based on convenient location, ad campaigns, low prices and blue light specials. These out-of-whack priorities have no real chance at achieving anything positive, and usually end up doing the opposite, by empowering the worst offenders, like Wal*Mart. I've not shopped in a Wal*Mart in over a decade, but still they thrive, despite my furious wallet. I guess the people have spoken, and working class dignity is an inferior candidate to low low prices.

'State's Rights' is another favorite corporate think tank meme, for the simple and obvious reason that corporations would rather face small enemies than large ones. Corporations have vast resources that they can use to bribe desperate states, to pit states against each other, and to punish states that don't toe the line, among other things.

I don't see local politicians being any less susceptible to lobbying; or local voters being any less susceptible to expensive ad campaigns, in fact, small town folk might be more suceptible to the glitz and glamor of corporate favor than their seasoned national counterparts. A few of the larger metropolitan areas might be organized enough to make a stand, but I can't see it realistically living up to your expectations.

Beyond all that, do you ever use the local control you already have?

-Have you ever attended a city council meeting?
-Do you research your local candidates in any depth?
-Do you know the names of local politicians, state senators, state congressmen, local judges and/or city council members?

Anyway, I like the old Clinton quote that goes something like 'there is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is right with America'. For better or for worse, our country is 'our' country, and as long as it remains our country, we have the ability to change it. It's easy to feel down about our country, because we are getting our asses kicked by a very small, but wealthy and powerful segment of our population. If enough of us can figure this out, and are mad enough to do something about it, we win. It's a big if.

(hahaha, nice dick joke)

>> ^blankfist:
To be fair, some have argued health care could be allowed under "the general welfare" of the Preamble.


I think "general welfare" is a very good argument in this case. Perhaps not so much because of our situation today, but because of where we're heading.

For better or for worse, we are beginning the transition to an automated society. Advances in software have allowed individuals to accomplish tasks that would have taken a team of people 10 years ago and this will only continue (or increase). When uncertainty becomes a large part of the economy (recessions, etc) then companies start looking for ways to cut costs. Why pay more for extra workers you no longer need?

It isn't a huge issue today, but it will be much more obvious in 20 years or so. Technology isn't going away, and the population isn't decreasing anytime soon. As companies find ways to automate many of their activities for less cost, the job pool shrinks. Businesses will always need to hire people, but they won't need as many of them so it becomes a little harder to find employment. As more people end up jobless their lack of medical coverage definitely becomes a "general welfare" issue, strengthening the argument for a federal program.


I don't see this as a question of whether or not health care and basic necessities should be provided... it's a question of how to do it effectively and least expensively. Will businesses cover the unemployed? Can a government system be effective? How are taxes handled with a smaller employment base?

I don't think the business-centric model is sustainable because it assumes there are enough jobs for everyone to participate. Many people like the Darwinian aspect, but that doesn't take into account the political unrest that can appear if enough people are jobless and lack outside support. Some would say "that's their problem, let them fix it", but the free market doesn't function as well in times of political turmoil.


Having said that, deficit spending is not sustainable either. That is the most difficult portion of this issue. I do not share the opinion that government can not be efficient, but I do agree that efficiency is not its default state (poor design mainly). I couldn't tell you which options will lead to the best result, but I am strongly convinced that any plan which doesn't provide for the unemployed will ultimately fail.

Good stuff from all sides here.

I voted "Pretty good." He's not McCain, and I don't see how he would have handled the economic crisis we're in any better. Granted, that's not saying a lot. But I have a feeling that Obama is treating this better than McCain treated the 8 planes he crashed over his military career. Things are hard, and we've been saying "the end has to be in sight, the bottom has to hit, and then it's only back up from there" for a while now. But I'm still optimistic that things can get fixed soon.

In other important, direction-changing news, Al Franken was finally confirmed his senate seat today. The Democrats finally control both houses with a 2/3rds majority. Unless a democrat decides to turn coat, the threat of filibuster that has prevented the president from taking quicker action is no longer a viable tactic. One can hope that the coalition will finally (and quickly) right the damage inflicted by 30 years of Fiscal Conservative Policy, but I have my reservations. The GOP is all but resigning themselves to the loony bin, and it sure is fun watching that elephant writhe in introspective agony. Even Cantor was saying that he misses Obama reaching out to him like he did earlier in the presidency (even though they gave him nothing for his efforts... priceless)

I don't see the GOP gaining many (if any) seats in either house in 2012. Ensign should resign now if he wants to help his party at all, but he won't because he's a hypocrite and a coward, just like Sanford, and that pride will cost the party his seat (and maybe more collateral damage) when the time comes for him to have to prove to Nevada that he isn't a total fuck-up. Here in California, the only serious contender I'm hearing to challenge Boxer is Carly Fiorina (the fuck-up former CEO of California-based Hewlett-Packard. I went to a school with a lot of HP employees, not one had any kind words for her.)

So we'll have a few years at the very least to see what Obama can do for the country without the GOP being as much of an obstacle, for better or for worse. I'm pretty positive that he can do a lot of good, and that things will happen a little more quickly now that the playing field has change so drastically recently. There's still a lot for him to do for me to want to vote "awesome" in a future poll, but I'm very happy with how he's handling the crisis in Iran (hands-off is the only way to handle the hot-potato. The Iranian people have to make change on their own, but the damage done to the legitimacy of their theocracy is already permanent).

Kickass!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

Ah roomie zoom zim, I'm all to be wet
To rhymealinda I remember umm, when we first met
In eighty-two back in school used to play up all the fools
Sometimes you'd be my number fives sometimes you'd be my twenty-two
But umm, screw the dumbshit, cause little rhymea's true
I can't wait to say I do and oh yeah honey there's no due
I got my chariot, rollin, now I'm mic controllin
Got some spunk in my funk, I can't wait to put some soul in
We're rollin all strikes, we're havin little tykes
One is little mike the other's ike I'm sure that you would like
To hold em, or maybe stroll em on their little bikes
When they're born, I've sworn, to bring em up right
You know, dope is how I breed em, beats is what I'll feed em
They'll be healthy like a health nut I'm sure you shake your butt
(kick the verse preacher) and I won't disperse
Here's my life rhymealinda for better or for worse

Well it's done she tagged me, duck duck goose
I'm batter up I can't sleep the fly brotha must produce
The power pack and I'm stacked like a forty-five mag
Straight up tennis shoes in my pants there's a sag
Droppin so much grammar gotta slam it down my mouth
Shup? I met a slut she, put me in the rut g
With the dip that was down with me from the whole front
Now front me never too cool how-ever
I gotta get the bread, gotta get the butter
Fix it up eat down throw it in the gutter
(gutter dreamed it) sour, (creamed it) gotta
Skinny-dipped into her ass as if it was a pool of water
Now the water's gettin hotter so I bought her a new ring
Maybe a love ballad is the song I sing
I gotta kiss her ass my tongue I hold before I curse
If you really want me bitch, take me for better or for worse

Well this is the final chapter hello?
Of me, we're going to rack up who is this?
In tune, in tune, in tune, a button why are you calling my house?
A button, a button! oh c'mon, honey who is this? what?
Would you come along with me down mike is that you?
The lane and I will pick your brain oh my god. who is this?
I won't be good like you think I will I'll fucking call the cops
I'll take a hammer and start to drill don't call my house
Your skull, and then I'll really start oh my god, what is this
Picking, your brains cells, I will be what? I'm gonna call the cops
Licking, mmm mmm mmm mmmm! *slurp* okay? quit fucking around
You taste so intelligent, ahhhhhh hello, who is this?
Yes yes yes, you trusted me, now help, who is this? what
I busted thee, top of your skull are you doing? why are you
You thought the day was going to be calling me?
Dull? ? I'll make it very exciting
I took your fingers then I started who are you? why are you
Biting, and then I scraped the meat calling my house?
Off, the bone, of your leg stop calling here!
Ahhahhh, you tried to make me beg don't call here anymore
But I had to insist, I had to insist
Iayaay, run up your pussy with my fist aieeeeeeeeeeeee!
Okay, I think we've gone a little bit I'm gonna call the cops!
Overboard, don't stop it yet fuck you don't call my house!!

Yo, I'm audi geee
No doubts manufactured
No ahh copies, we can't ahh, do copies
No copies, okay
Oh, so you expect me to do some type of freak show?
That's what it really is huh?
Is that what you want? what you talkin about?
What you talkin bout nigga?
Whatchu know bout the problems of l.a.?
I'ma tell you what's wrong with the problems
Of the people in the l.a.
See the brothers needs some type of education
And you know, some type of foundation, in the, uhh
Community, cause the mute-co, duhh, the community
Grows like seeds, and the seeds will not fall from
The tree if you don't water the grass
So nigga get off your rusty black asssahhhh
Like this... nanananananana, like this
You can get with this, or you can get with that
I think you get with this because fat lip's fat
Fat fat fat fat fat fat fat *echoes* *laughter*
Uhhh, okay ummm, okay uhh, keep going keep going keep going
Keep going, ay romye romye, come here come here c'mere c'mere c'mere
C'mere c'mere (ok ok aiyyo yo yo yo) c'mere for a second
Aiy rhasaan, rhasaan, imani, imani I think you should
*music stops* oh, duhh!

While Shawn/Vecini/Zek did a fine job describing the hard-line Isreali side of the debate, he did VERY little to describe the hard-line Arab position the Isrealis are forced to deal with.

Whether you think the 'world' should have given the Jews Isreal after World War 2 or not is academic. What is done is done and Isreal - for better or for worse - is there to stay. No amount of hand-wringing, moaning, and bellyaching is going to change that fact. Unless you subscribe to the need for a second holocaust then Isreal as a Jewish State is an immutable reality that must be accepted.

The REAL problem here is not Isreali 'lopsided responses' when attacked. The real problem is the fact that Isreal is making a VERY simple request. "Accept Isreal as a Jewish State". And that simple request is flatly rejected by Palestine, Iran, Egypt, and pretty much every player in the game. I mean, get real. Isreal could respond to Arab attacks by lobbing kittens, cottonballs, and dryer lint and they'd still get massive hate for it.

It is all well and good to belly ache about the ‘hardline Isreali stance’. But to completely ignore that the hardline Arab stance is FAR more extremist does nothing to advance this discussion. Until the Arab world is willing to go on the record and acknowledge Isreal as an official Jewish state then there is really nothing to discuss at all. If they can’t even bring themselves to allow Isreal to EXIST then this whole issue is pointless. There can be no peace when the hardline Arab position is so extreme. And you know what? That ISN'T Isreal's fault.

until the underlying conditions change, niether will militias OR drug problems. Fix poverty, education, and equal opportunity and watch people do better instead of worse. maybe this person should work on those things.

Good riddance to both. I love Choggie before he became all angsty and rude.

As for Necro Editing: Lockdown and put a lid on it now. For better or for worse what work was put in by both are just... needed, for lack of better term. We went through this (sorta) when snake plissken decided to do the same. It's childish: Basically throwing a temper tantrum because mommy wants to leave the toy store.

I didn't find his ethics any different than that of an average human being. He probably gives to charity a similar fraction of his assets as most people. Everyone here could probably save poor little Ubutu's life back in Africa by say giving up Starbucks and donating the money. What does that mean? Should we all give up designer coffee? Can I have coffee if I send Ubutu some money? But then couldn't I always send more money by not having coffee? It's like the last scene from Schindler's list - you can always save another life by doing a little more. Most people in the west have to live with this paradox - that we choose to pursue pleasures that are decadent in comparison to the life lead by masses around the world. I don't know how else to deal with this paradox than to accept that I'm a prick and come to peace with what little I do to help my fellow human being; maybe even try to do a little more today than I did yesterday but like most 'noble' goals I fail at that on most days.

So in summary - for better or for worse, this guy is no different than most of us. No different in his ethics I mean - he is obviously much smarter and more gifted than most of us