Phi for All

Did I say "improved"? I meant "impaled". And I do have a new sticker for you.

Actually, I think we should move beyond both maniacally profit-focused corporations and overly rigid labor unions as well. Neither serve the people of this country as they once did. As for campaign financing, I don't even like campaign committee involvement (though I can't imagine a viable alternative). It all seems to favor the party with the most money, which shouldn't be such a huge part of a representative democracy. It sickens me to think of the billion dollar campaigns that are vying for what will inevitably be more of the same old non-working solutions to ever-evolving problems. I'd like to see all candidates be granted free media exposure as long as it's debating with their opponents or that what they air speaks only about themselves and their representation. If they want to trash their opponents instead, even by implication, they can pay for it from their own warchest. At twice the going rate. Which is another reason why corporations shouldn't be considered people, imo. If they don't treat their companies like a democracy, they shouldn't enjoy the personal benefits of one.

What does freedom mean to you, as a member of your society? Are government controls necessary to preserve it or do they stifle it?

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

One of the things that bothers me about our military structure is the rivalry among our own branch command structures. The sailors resent the jarheads, the grunts resent the flyboys, and instead of a cohesive military force we have splintered groups at troop level, and multiple hands at command level all reaching for the same appropriations dollar. I don't think this is conducive to either efficiency or moral structure. I often wonder how much more effective (and less costly) our military would be today if Senator Symington's proposal for a cohesive military structure, with defenders who can fly, defenders who can sail, defenders who can ground-fight and defenders who can specialize in various combinations, hadn't been shot down by Robert McNamara. Perhaps a consistent ethical message would be more effective when applied to a single Defense Force as opposed to four different branches.

I never said he wasn't a bad guy. But if you call him a monster to justify invading his country, then we should've expected invasions when the US did virtually the same thing to Native Americans at Wounded Knee. Who were the monsters then, and where were the military ethics?

Which is being written up officially as we speak. Hey, those aren't sashes, those are the baldrics we hang our swords on! You're still claiming I stole the Cheese Nips out of your grocery bag?! Ingrate! Who will do it if we don't? Probably the most improved member we've ever had, but he was more fun to pick on when he was in high school. And since he's stopped pestering the Admins for a staff position, he may get one someday. Ahem, I started this one and this one just this morning. Ahem, I started this one and this one just this morning.

I get tired of Hussein's attacks using gas against the Kurds being held up as proof he was a monster. The Kurds in question were near the Iranian border, they were overrun by Iranian forces at the time, and the gas that was used was for area denial, meant to flush out the Iranians who were entrenched in the city. When the enemy runs out coughing, you shoot them with bullets. It can be argued that Hussein's troops didn't know if the Kurds were aiding the Iranians or not. It can be argued that if the Kurds had fled their homes when the gas was lobbed in that they would've been recognized as non-combatants by their lack of Iranian uniforms. The gas Iraq used is only deadly if you continue to breath it. Hussein had no love for the Kurds, it's true, but the stories about him using a deadly gas (which most people confuse with some kind of Hollywood "one whiff and you're dead" type of substance) to kill the Kurds is media spin at it's finest. Hussein was a dictatorial strongman and I'm certainly not unhappy he's no longer in power, but he is dwarfed by some of the African monsters who are allowed to ethnically cleanse their non-oil-rich countries using machetes with clearly immoral, blatantly premeditated intent.

What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court decision to give corporations the rights of People? For reference, it's known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. I feel that it's an atrocity, and according to most polls, nearly 80% of the American public agree with me. Yet the ruling persists, and it's going to profoundly affect the presidential elections this year in ways that can never be appreciated by the real People in this country. For those who feel this is a partisan issue, the ruling basically overturned the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, sponsored jointly by Democrat Senator Russ Feingold and Republican Senator (and former presidential candidate) John McCain. This is strictly corporate maneuvering designed to influence legislation and appropriations in their favor at the expense of the real taxpayers (which many corporations are NOT). Indeed, it has led to forcing the Pentagon to purchase military equipment it doesn't want, doesn't need, and doesn't see a use for. Fortunately, this particular misuse of public funds got overturned, but if Republicans get their way this fall, it will all be back on the table next year. This is what unlimited corporate lobbying has brought us to. Can this really be what the Supreme Court wants for the People it serves?

I've been reading a really excellent article in Yes! magazine about ways to relax the stranglehold corporations have on our economy, our politics and our lives. Being in business my whole life, I fully recognize the need for corporate charters, but I feel they have become far too influential in the legislative process that's designed to regulate them and assure proper checks and balances. My biggest concern is that when profit is the single motivating drive for corporate existence, all the other reasons for loving a capitalist economy are jeopardized. Job security, stability, compensation, environmental concerns, efficiency, quality, long-term goals, emotional and personal investment, all these important considerations fall off the table when stockholders and corporate boards are looking only at the bottom line. It's not enough to simply tighten regulations. That's just another opportunity for slick lawyers and special interest groups to influence legislators in their favor. To truly flourish as a society, what we need is to realize businesses that focus solely on profit are not generative enough for successful modern economies. We can't sustain positive growth when so many jobs are destroyed each year, even if they're replaced. We need to start asking ourselves if our own investments in time, loyalty, hard work, happiness, social structure, health and well-being -- what some would call real wealth -- are equal or greater than the money that Wall Street financiers solely (and soullessly) worship. I encourage you to read this article and let me know what you think. I'll highlight my favorite bit: http://www.yesmagazi...1d-corporations

! Moderator Note Due to the mix of religious and biological questions being asked, I'm moving this to Religion.

Since you're not super strong, I would subdue you with a net, put you in a box and fill the box with quick-drying concrete and drop you in the ocean, just to shut you up. Since everyone would be seriously tired of you trying to force your opinion on us, people would cheer for me and give me lots of gifts. I would probably give all their gifts to some little girl.

They do not like green brains with beer, they do not like them Sam, I fear.

They would not eat them in their ships, they would not eat them with some chips.

Personally, I don't think morals and ethics have a high priority in the modern US military. As was mentioned before, at the troop level, following orders and esprit de corps often take precedence and morality can't truly thrive in an environment like that. Soldiers are too often asked to do things that haunt them for life, and to me that haunting has a moral and ethical basis. At the command level, morality becomes even fuzzier. Justification takes precedence, selling wars to politicians so the politicians can sell them to the public so the public can tell themselves it's all to protect us from possible but improbable invasion by ideals and fanatics. Morality can't be spread over large groups, it's primarily an individual concept. When there is power involved, the larger the group the more morality becomes an obstacle to overcome on the way to the primary, secondary and tertiary goals. Most of what our military has done in the last century has had multiple objectives, and moral concerns weren't really on the list. In the modern age, I think the military is being used to justify the sale of arms as a primary goal. Weaponry is a huge business, and when business needs a boost, smart management goes out and creates a new market. The War on Terror is perfect for the arms business. The enemy is small and manageable, they create intense emotions that can be used to manipulate the citizenry into footing the bill. The best part is the terrorists own fervor, which guarantees that the more weaponry you use on them, the bigger they get while still being broken up into manageable groups. Just as the War on Drugs creates an immense revenue stream for prisons, the War on Terror is one of the best branded, most insanely lucrative marketing campaigns that arms manufacturers have ever conceived. I have a lot of respect for what our soldiers do at their level, and I think a great many of them are ethical individuals, but I think war these days is too profit-oriented to ever be considered an ethical endeavor. And consider this as well, the military is basically a tool; it's the people using the tool that are supposed to have the morals to wield it ethically.

Unreliable?! I think you mean infallible. It must be because hours were much shorter back then. Does the Bible ever mention how many hours were actually in a day? Because the days must have been incredibly long if the world was created 4000 years before Jesus.

Doesn't that show how smart they are?

swansont missed that class. You should hear him try to say "physicist" after a six-pack and a box of Chablis.

Sorry, double entendre.

A lot of English is about proper pronouns. A little English makes your balls stay where you want them.

They forgot some of my favorites: "If you don't think America should be the world's police but support having a military budget greater than the next 14 highest countries, join the party!" "If you're smart enough to be wealthy but don't want to support public education so others can become smart enough to be wealthy, join the party!"

Modern dancing is nothing more than defying gravity and gravitas at the same time.

Fold a road map up the wrong way and you've got kryptonite for engineers.

You're creating a dichotomy by limiting the possible answers to yes or no. There are other possible answers (such as "We don't know yet"), so your dichotomy is false. Do you understand?

! Moderator Note n4t3, I thought disabling the donations link in your OP was a subtle way of reminding you of our "no advertising" rule. We don't know you and the staff wishes to protect the membership from scammers and spammers (which we get an unbelievable amount of). Please refrain from asking for any more donations. We wish your colleague well and hope for a swift and full recovery. I appreciate your taking note and responsibility for your personal attack. It is one of the things that makes discussions different here at SFN.