Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Gift Horse (Score 1) 303

Someone has been watching too much 24.

Embassy grounds are sovereign soil that belong to the foreign government in question. "Storming" an embassy would essentially be a military invasion of Ecuador, otherwise known as an unprovoked act of war. More than that, it would demonstrate a massive disregard for decades of international law and diplomatic procedure, and open up ALL of the US Embassies worldwide to attack.

Comment Re:The Republican House (Score 1) 227

It's an interesting theory. However, the election needs to end, and the work of government needs to begin at some point. Because of the ubiquity of cameras, Internet, microphones, etc., nobody ever gets to the part where they do the job they were sent to Congress to do, which is fairly well described in the Constitution - passing laws, passing spending bills, etc.

I'm curious as to when you think that the Republican base fell asleep, because even Reagan worked with Tip O'neill to get things done, and the country was far better off for it - they planted the seeds for the largest economic growth the world has ever seen. Even today, all the candidates for the Republican nomination shout from the rooftops about how great Reagan was.

Compromise != surrender, but there's a lot of people in the far right that think it does. As well as the far left, for that matter - they're just not as visible right now.

Comment Re:The Republican House (Score 1) 227

That has a lot to do with the rules established in the House and Senate - which go back to Thomas Jefferson. Literally. The house still uses his rulebook for how to run the shop.

Their "supposed agenda" as you put it, gets shut down in committee long before it can reach the floor. This happens with the ridiculous garbage bills from both fringe edges of the two parties - you'll never get the other side to vote for it in a committee, and it takes only one or two "establishment" candidates as they're known to kill it by saying "nay" when the clerk calls their name.

Sure, you can offer whatever it is as an amendment to some other bill, but those are easily defeated as well if they are even allowed by the Rules Committee. This is the way it's designed to run - it is meant to encourage compromise, working together, and actual governance. However, the "fringe" has grown to the point of being able to disrupt the "establishment" so we get the shit show we have in Congress today. Votes on strict party lines, and the GOP eating their own and slapping moderates with labels like 'RINO' and offering up primary challengers because the guys that the party holds up to be the highest standard - the Reagan Republicans, are Republican In Name Only now due to the massive shift to the conservative.

Actual moderates and congress critters that would like to see the government actually run and accomplish things are a dying breed. They get flanked by their own wingnuts in primaries, and then get bashed for being too [conservative|liberal] in the general once they've survived the primary by pandering to 'the base' with hundreds of hours of YouTube video to back it up.

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 227

I like the concept, but we already have rules that are easily circumvented about "no collusion" between a SuperPAC and a campaign. Laughable loopholes you could fly a C-130 loaded with trucks through.

The problem is that we have elected lawmakers making the election laws. It's a profound conflict of interest that is oft ignored.

Comment Re:Democrats, not the "Electoral System" (Score 1) 227

Except what you are describing is not a primary election. You are describing a general election with some kind of run-off later. That's perfectly fine, but the primaries are specifically to help the parties (and there's nothing saying that the Socialist / Libertarian / Green / etc. parties can't have a primary) figure out who they are running in the general election.

Comment Re:Whoops! (Score 1) 227

There is an interesting legal argument that by not setting open standards for who will be allowed into the debate (polling above X%, etc) that the debate could be seen as an illegal contribution by the media company to the campaigns. This is why CNN et. al. always post these rules, so as to head off any weasel-minded legal nonsense.

Comment Re:ICEd (Score 1) 533

If it's a completely malicious act performed by someone who feels entitled to a particular patch of asphalt that they don't even own, that causes me thousands of dollars worth of damage and depreciation, then yes, they should see the inside of a jail.

If it's an actual accident, then no. The difference should be astoundingly clear - he's not talking about a simple scratch or door-ding, he's talking about rubbing a key down the entire length of the car in order to 'teach someone a lesson'.

Intent matters.

For the record, I don't park in spaces with EV chargers available to them. But costing someone thousands of dollars because you are an entitled prick is not an option in civil society.

Comment Re:Spoiled Californians (Score 1) 533

Also in Ohio.

There are some here, they're starting to pop up here and there. Yes, they are more rare than you will find on the west coast, but they do exist.

(Of course, it depends on where you are in Ohio. If you're out in the Southeast portion of the state, you're probably correct in that there is maybe 1 per 100 sq. miles.)

Comment Re:Talking to someone is mean now? (Score 4, Insightful) 533

Yeah, I didn't understand this either. That seems like the polite, neighborly thing to do with a shared resource. Whoever wrote the summary (if not the article) is a whining hipster douchebag - god forbid you should stop hogging a resource that other people need when you're not using it.

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department