from: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=387487&cid=21680537

innocent people simply because guilty people use
This is WAR-fare, not LAW-fare.
We are not establishing guilt or innocence.

Tibet decided to get too moral for their own good, and if they are really really good maybe in their next life they will come back as a country.
India decided to go in for a pacifist religion. First they got raped by the Mughals from the north-east; then they got raped by the Muslims from the north-west; and finally the English raped them from the south.
It was so bad even Gandhi said the Jews should have gone gleefully into the ovens (something Europe agreed with but not out of pacifism.)

For a bunch of Leftist who scream on and on about Darwinism, you seem to have missed the point that survival is what matters most.
Of course, to many Leftists screaming on and on is what matters most.

Also with a Europe/Blue State birthrate hovering at 1.2 (versus the replacement rate of 2.1) you seem to have missed the whole reproduction angle of Darwin too.

from: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/25/2040200

One would do well to actually read 1984 (as opposed to just scream its title every time the Right does something you don't like).

1984 was an comment by Orwell on the Communists. Orwell, himself a socilaist, learned to hate and fear the Communists after the Spanish Civil War.

Big Brother was an obvious stand-in for "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

In 1984 you will see:
* The Ministry of Truth, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent Reugter's Photoshopping of pictures from the Israel/Lebanon war; Dan Rather's falsification of documents)
* NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the politically correct language redefinition we experienced in the 70s/80s e.g. "differently abled" for "handicapped", in Sweden "husmor" replaced by "hemmafru" or their English cognates "housewife" with "stay-at-home-mom")
* DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "homosexuality is something you are born with" and "homosexuality is a personal and private decision"; or "racism is always wrong" and "affirmative action is the right thing to do")
* ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime ... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one)
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
* furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"

We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.

Is your hate politically correct hate?
Do you believe that racism is wrong unless you hate white people?
Do you believe that sexism is wrong unless you hate men?
Do you believe that sexual discrimination is wrong unless you hate heterosexuals?
Do you believe that religious intolerance is wrong unless you hate Christians?
Do you believe that freedom of speech involves censoring offensive non-Politically Correct speech?
Do you believe that DoubleThink is hard and that DoubleThink is easy?
Do you keep such an open mind that your brain fell out or so open that any piece of garbage can blow in?
Are you a hypocrite and a bigot? Do your friends praise you for it and call you morally superior? Do you think that your bigotry makes you a better person than others?

If your hate is politically correct hate then the Democratic Party is the party for you.

In response t: http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/08/you_can_try_mak_1.php

Nice thought.
Unfortunately, it will never happen.

The airlines view their "customers" as an inconvenience. And, passengers respond in kind.

I don't remember when you could go to the airplane without going through a metal detector. Of course, on the upside they have stopped asking the 2 stupid questions: "Did you pack your bags?" "Has anyone asked you to carry items on this flight?". Great great so you are admitting that all this hassle was worthless and you're just going to fall back to honesty as a terrorist prevention measure? Great.
Well, at least with the post-911 regulations they cut those insulting questions out.

What this will result in is not more conveniences, but more selling opportunities. More opportunities to get abused by the angry waitress on the plane. Remember after 911 the "flight attendants" decided to take out their fears and aggressions on the passengers? I do.

I also remember being physically shoved off an airplane because they miscounted; while I tried to explain that my wife had to get off the plane with me (I had the only set of keys to the house BTW.). I wasn't trying to stay; I just wanted to tell that lady in that seat that we're getting off the plane. Now if I had shoved back what do you think would have happened? Probably the same thing that happened to the guy behind me who said "What the Hell" when the stewardess yanked (and I mean yanked) his luggage out of this hand. His ticket was voided and he was "banned" from the airline. He was also told he was NOT allowed to see the manager. And this was pre-911.

All I want on my flight (and in life in general) is to be left alone. I want the pilot to stop acting like a tour guide. If he would just shut up I could go to sleep. I try not to bother anyone. I wish they would try to not bother me.

Yeah, I fear that soon my iPod (with my audiobook) and my physical book will no longer be allowed on the plane. Then I'll have no way to escape the stale air, the smelly seats, and the guy that has reclined his chair to the point that I wonder if I am supposed to give him a shave (more power to the airlines that stop reclining seats).

I check everything. I just sit down, shut up, and read as soon as I can get on the plane. And, I don't stop until I am at the next airport.

I love international flights (aside from LAX security, but you know). International flights at least don't beat you with a stick. I like nothing more than paying $300-$500 for domestic flights only to get abused by the staff. Really wasn't there a "common carrier" legal standard for the treatment of passengers?

The airlines are not going to change who they are. Not as long as Chapter 11 is available to them. (Let them fail and let something else move in.)

I HATE flying. Actually I am OK with going though the air. It is the airport and 25% of the flight attendants I hate.

.

I am looking to change jobs. My wife gets furious with me when I mention that I am thinking of moving back East so I don't have to fly to the relatives. It would save me $1k-$2k per year in tickets. Given the choice between 8 hours in a plane and 8 hours in a car, I'll take the car. Yeah I like the geography in the Northwest but after my last two experiences, I am ready to move to where I don't have to fly.

I want to thank the NFL for making the SuperBowl increasingly unwatchable.

Every year the game becomes more and more packaged, with less and less time actually spent in the game and more and more time in commercials. Add to that that the game has been a blow out for the last 10 years (well maybe not the last 10. I stopped caring ~4 years ago.) Past the first half, the game is effectively over and no one cares anymore. They have moved on to talking with other people at the party.

The party which is never as good as people build it up to being (partially because of the boring game). Unfortunately, everyone and their mother feel that they need to host a SuperBowl party because it is now an "event." Half the people aren't fans of the sport, let alone the game. We just show up because it is the SuperBowl and we are supposed to care (once upon a time I used to care). 2-5 people spend the entire game in the kitchen making fancy party foods (super-pizza, super-nachos, super-subs, etc.) that no one needs. I just need a bag of chip/crisps in a bowl, please. Of course it is a party where no one gets drunk because it is the middle of the day before we go to work on Monday and we also all know the neo-Prohibitionists in MADD are going to have the cops out with the breath-testers. So, if you have 2 beers and decide to drive you're in for a hefty fine and a lecture. Enjoy your sober mid-day party.

What type of cameras are they using to film football? The game on TV is ultra-shiny in a way that real life isn't. I have been to many NFL games in real life, sat 10 rows off the field. The real life games aren't that glossy and shiny. And that is part of why the games now look so fake on TV. They have the SuperBowl in some city that has no chance of actually playing in the game. The entire field is enclosed and climate controlled. It is (was) the middle of winter and it looks like a bright sunny summer day in Florida on the field. We are never going to have another Ice Bowl. We are never going to have another SuperBowl where the weather matters. No more mud on the field. No more snow, forcing a running game. Just a highly packaged, processed, blah. It is like once we got to eat hand-packed hamburgers and now we get McDonald's Quarter Pounders. It is artificial crap.

Also every 3-5 years they push the SuperBowl back another week. The game used to be in the beginning of January. Now it is in February. It doesn't really matter since it is played in the perpetual astro-turfed summer of the domed field, but it just isn't what it should be.

I guess that gives them more time to set up the half-time show. A show everyone traditionally turns the channel on. And in an effort to get as corporately packaged as possible the half time show is always some weird mixture designed to appeal to every demographic simultaneously. It is always some 45 minute extravaganza that combines Country & Hip-Hop music to the gayest, most Tony award winning choreography imaginable. And if that isn't enough let us throw a huge fireworks show in the middle of the field! Let us also not run the lip-synched sound directly to the TV feed. That way the TV feed can make due with mics on the field, which sounds like they are filming in a cave. Of course, the singers can't lip-synch worth a damn because it very hard to do when you are jumping around the cast of Rent with M80s going off 2 feet away from your head.

You can tell the game isn't what it should be. Instead of following the action on the field, we are treated to a never ending montage of reaction shots from the players looking bored on the sidelines. I guess they can't get into the game either with the 6 million TV timeouts, real timeouts, instant replay time outs, referee timeouts, Coca-Cola timeouts, etc.

Here is how bad the game has become a sizable portion of the US watches the game just to see the commercials. Name one other time that you do this?

I almost NEVER talk to a liberal about politics.

First of all, it is a good way to end a friendship.
Secondly, they will immediately ignore any points you have and start to scream at you that you are a racist, closed-minded, intolerant, bigot, and then they will make up agreements that use as foul language as possible. (Not that my wife hasn't chided me for my frequent Al Swearengen-like [HBO's Deadwood] language, but my goal with the language isn't to be intentionally offensive.) This goes to Democrat rule of debate to "don't play the ball, play the player." If you demonize your opponent you can win regardless of the facts. Also, the Leftsit may also silence their opponent (which often works in my case; I just write you off as worthless).

As such, many conservatives simply avoid liberals. Their friendship or company isn't worth the pain.
Often the goal of liberals is not to win hearts and minds but to come away with a badge of courage and a story to tell their liberal friends. One guy I knew always went to "protests" to incite a riot and get a minor injury. Nothing thrilled him more than being about to show us a red mark on his back from were a police bean bag had hit him. Nothing was actually accomplished by his asinine behaviour, but he "stood up to The Man" and that was what counted. It really annoyed me that Mr. PETA supporter was proud that he threw a newspaper vending machine at a police horse.

Neo-neocon's personal behaviour aside, your typical liberal would have ranted and screamed if they found themselves in room with a large number of conservatives. Any polite response from the conservatives would have only egged on the liberal. With no negative consequences, they would have had to ramp up their behaviour. If they had provoked a violent response or been politely expelled this would have only added to their story and confirmed their martyrdom for "speaking truth to power". And, that brings up something in the liberal mind; they want to claim to be a martyr (like Dr. King, etc.) but they don't actually want to suffer real consequences for that martyr status. Doing something that causes them to be expelled from the conference room, causes no real pain, but allows them to claim to be a martyr because their free speech was restricted (ignore that it wasn't a government action), or that they were manhandled (ignore the lack of bruises), etc. My protester-hobbyist acquaintance was thrilled if he got arrested and spent 3 hours in jail/processing without charges. That would be just the best result possible. After all, he had expected to by at the "protest" all day; no time wasted for him. But even more proof that he took it to The Man.

Since the 60s we live in a culture where rudeness is rewarded. The more of an A-hole you are to someone in authority the better morally you are. Since protests in the 60s were rude and right, being rude must therefore be right. And if it is rudeness to someone in authoity or someone conservative it is defiantly unquestionably morally right. They never seem to realize that in the 60s righteousness and rudeness were not a cause and effect relationship. Granted, they often went hand-in-hand, but one didn't cause the other. Nor was rudeness necessary. Dr. King was not rude and he accomplished a great deal.

No one cares if their rudeness actually accomplishes anything. What matters is that they have a story to tell. The Left really doesn't care about the causes they champion. What they really care about is themselves. For example, read this story at http://bojack.xorg/mt-arc/001321.html . Here you have a law professor, who accomplished nothing (Reagan still became Gov, then POTUS), but feels that because he did something inappropriate (ignoring his boss, and "violating someone's free speech rights" [what they would say if it happened to them]) he is morally superior and he gets to revel in that glory some 30 years later. He admits he did something wrong, but he feels he is right because of it. His behaviour, both in cutting short Reagan's speech and retelling the tale, are pure self-centeredness and narcissism.

The average liberal would have gone on a tear, when placed in a room with known outspoken conservatives. Because to them, in their Me culture, (1) rudeness is rewarded, and (2) right and wrong are not based upon WHAT you do, but instead upon WHO you are.

Here

If you put them in jail for life, the Left will complain that life in prison is too hard.

It really never ends with them. They don't feel any need for justice. The criminal didn't hurt them, they are still comfy in their little cocoon.

It is all about being Holier-than-thou. It is all about looking down your nose at other people and saying "I am better than you, because I am [more moral | have higher SAT scores | live in a higher tax bracket | use my Saturdays to go where I don't live, scream, block traffic, and make the real resident's lives miserable]."

Do you think these people really care about the criminal? No. They care about bitching and complaining about society.

1000 years ago they would be walking around in hair-shirts while whipping themselves, still screaming "Look at me! Look at me! I am better than you."
Except 1000 years ago they wouldn't have had TV cameras to turn them into heroes. 1000 years ago they would not have been able to pretend that their narcissistic antics had any relevance to something important like Dr. King. In modern times, they don't have to justify their actions, they can just step on the back of the black man, Dr. King, and use his labour to gain themselves some respect.

However, you cheapen the victims suffering, it will never be too little. I remember, 2 years ago, the guy over in Europe who got convicted of blowing up an airliner. He only served 2 days per life taken. How cheap are the victims lives?

Only if you are of a proper racial or social class are the crimes not enough. White? Male? Christian? No baying at the moon for you to have justice. Instead we have extra time for you based on the colour of your skin, or gender, or beliefs. We have Hate Crime for you.

Why? Because to the Left you are Der Juden, and our hate is politically correct hate.

To think that this involves Justice to the Left really misses their motivations and beliefs.
Elitism first and foremost.
Obsession with caste (be it race, gender, or sexuality) second.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that the Federal Communications Commission did not have the authority to prohibit the manufacture of computer and video hardware that doesn't have copy protection technology known as the "broadcast flag." The regulations, which the FCC created in November 2003, had been intended to limit unauthorized Internet redistribution of TV broadcasts. Some in-depth comments on the rulling can be found by Ernest Miller (with PDF), Donna Wentworth, Boing Boing and in the more MSM CNet

Google News has now added the neo-Nazi white supremacist web site National Vanguard to their index of "legitimate news sources." Evidently explicitly racist websites are news, but blogs are not - unless they're Blogspot blogs, owned by Google.
Why has Google not made their list of "news" sources transparent? And, if Google can create separate categories for each country, does Google refuse to add a separate "Blog" category?