~Di

I most definitely am not imposing my view on everyone else. Please explain why insisting that someone else's sense of morality being codified into law is the same has having no law whatsoever affecting what consenting, competent adults do with their own bodies. You are implying that having no law to control people's abilities to do with their own bodies what they wish is enforcing my wishes on others. That is rubbish. When there is no law in place, people are free to indulge or not indulge in such activity. Both sides can satisfy their own morality. When there is a law in place, people are persecuted and prosecuted unless they conform to the law, so only one side has their wishes being met. And frankly I do not believe that EVERYONE belived in some religion when modern laws were introduced (and you cannot possibly have any evidence to support that) because those who did not believe in religion, and who were vocal about it, were usually summarily slaughtered for heresy. Therefore, it was unwise for anyone who didn't share the communal religious belief to say so. I see areas of this globe that are going back to those old ways, unfortunately.

Wow... just wow... prejudiced much? An entire speech on taking the Moral high ground, ending it with a National Slur and Insult, well done, that truly shows your enlightenment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you cant differ teasing from prejudice, then I pity ya as well... (I was expecting that kind of reaction, thanks for giving me satisfaction, pal) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know, ramza, I don't know where you get your information on American and Americans, but you really ought to do us all a favor and change your sources. You consistently make statements of "fact" about my country which are not only inaccurate but frequently assinine... ala "George Bush re-introduced the death penalty" and a bunch of gobblygook about California laws that are absolute rubbish (I live in California, btw). Then you make a totally bigoted statement about America which you admit was done solely to annoy others and so that you could taunt us again if someone objects to your rudeness. I respectfully request that you reconsider your behavior here. It does not reflect well on you or your own country.

My view on this is the same as my view on illegal drugs... I do not want a paternal government to decide what consenting, legally competent adults can and cannot do with their own bodies. If women wish to become prostitutes for whatever reason, despite the obvious risks to their health and well being, the government has no business telling them they cannot. If men wish to use the services of prostitutes for whatever reason, despite the obvious riks to their health and well being, the government has no business telling them they cannot. The problem is not, in my mind, that religions have chosen to demonize this particular "profession". The problem is that religion has had the power to take their objection to it and codify it into law, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of society as a whole. I am all for freedom of religion for all. I'm also for freedom FROM religion for all, which means that laws which impose religious edicts on the rest of society ought to be outlawed, dang it. So sayeth me.

From what I heard on CNN this morning, the Governor of his state can replace him only if: (A) He dies; or (B) he resigns. Even if he is in a coma for years, he will still hold on to that seat until the end of his term. I think the legislators had to create that law to protect themselves, since they so frequently appear to be comatose themselves that they feared someone would oust them before they actually came to and, you know, actually decided to do something.

Hiro!!! Yes!!! GO HIRO BABY!!! Take THAT all you Hiro-haters out there.

No sidestep at all, sugar-bug! Apples and oranges. Just as I think laws prohibiting drug use (or suicide or prostitution or any damned thing that a person does to himself that doesn't infringe on the rights of others) are wrong, I also think making Joe the Bartender liable for Dennis the Drunk's behavior is flat out wrong. Repeal both laws. Allow people to make their own mistakes, and hold them personally accountable for any harm they do to others. Period.

There is a huge difference between a paternalistic government legislating what competent, consenting adult citizens can and cannot do with and to their own bodies, and legislating what activities an impaired person, either drunk or stoned, can do in public that will affect other citizens. Hence, it is legal to drink alcohol; it is not legal to drive a car while intoxicated. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for people who use drugs. If they want to use them, fine. Make drugs legal, cut out the criminal middle-men, open a bunch of rehab centers paid for by the cost of now-legal drugs (whether paid for by drug users, taxpayers or both) and the cost savings from the judicial and penal system of incarcerating millions of non-violent drug offenders for decades and decades and decades. To me it's a no brainer. People have a right to make bad choices about their own bodies and their own personal habits. They have to pay the consequences for those choices in the way of being socially ostracized (smokers!) and being held accountable if their choices affect others (driving while under the influence, or being unable to function at one's job)... but it wouldn't be any different than it is now. People can drink and smoke, but they have to pay the social and legal price if their habit infringes upon others. Just add drug users to that list. There simply is no down-side that I can see, other than people continue to want to use the power of government to press their personal morality on all of society... at enormous, ENORMOUS cost to us all.

@Arkazon: Since you don't seem to be interpreting anything I say as I meant it to be interpreted, perhaps Meta will do a better than getting my position across because, in a nutshell, he has done so above... and much more concisely than I could.

Interesting concept. Because some individuals, among the wealthiest I would suspect and a small fraction of the global population at that, are privileged enough to be the globally mobile elite, then the concept of individual nations and individual cultures no long matters for the rest of the planet. I beg to disagree. You cannot look at a tiny slice of some of the wealthiest people on the planet and compare them to 99% of the global population. That is a rather narcissistic and misplaced belief, in my opinion. When you say that your privileges, if you have them, are the redsult of personal achievements and not citizenship, that comment alone is demonstrably false. Those who are born in the slums of India, or Indonesia, or the poorer nations of Africa, or even in relatively prosperious but totalitarian nations like China, cannot depend on personal achievement for their lifestyle. Their lifestyle, in fact their privileges or lack thereof, are totally dependent upon a fluke of birth, their citizenship and what privileges their country will allow them to have. And they cannot simply decide from their squalor to become a multi-national citizen because their nation will not allow it. You cannot possibly believe that an individual born in a third world country has the same privilege and opportunity as one born into a prosperous western nation. First, you are stereotyping swaths of the American populace... and stereotyping me as well. I do not life in the "bible belt". I never have. I was born in Los Angeles, a coastal metropolis of liberalism, and now live close to San Francisco, another coastal metropolis of liberal thought. As for bums in L.A., I suspect there are bums on the streets of Europe as well, and probably for the same reason... drug addicts, alcoholics, those who are unwilling and unable to support themselves and who do not meet the criteria for receiving welfare payments exist in nearly every country. They are a fraction of a fraction of the total populace. Those who are "filthy rich" are those whom you use as a reason why responsibility to country is no longer needed. They have "privilege" because of their own accomplishments, yes? The those living in abject poverty are doing so because of their own lack of accomplishment. You cannot extoll those rich folk to prove your point on the one hand, then use them again to prove the opposite point. The U.S. has a hell of a lot of welfare programs, so simply saying that the government doesn't look after the welfare of its populace is again demonstrably untrue. Your entire argument is contradictory. On the one hand, you support individual freedoms to the extent that no government has no right to limit those freedoms or to impose any conditions upon them. On the other, you seem to believe that it's the government's job to provide everything it's citizens need, womb to tomb parenting so to speak. Which is it? Are we free to enjoy the privileges available to us because they are available strictly because of our accomplishement? Or are we as a society responsible to take care of all the needs of all its people, including the bum on the street. You simply cannot have both. A government, which is in itself made up of people, cannot care for everyone else in the country without expecting the entire populace to live up to certain of its responsibilities by contributing, both monetarily and by public service, back to the countr. Do you think welfare checks create themselves, fund themselves, and float to those who need it automatically? No, there are people behind that service. Do you think that a nations borders are secured, that defense of the populace from crime and invasion is something that just happens? No, there are people behind that protection. So what happens to a country when the majority of its population believes as you do, that it is a citizens absolute right to have all the privileges available, but has absolutely no responsibility to either his country or his fellow citizens to ensure others have those same rights? When everyone wants only to take and expects government to care for their every need, then there isn't anyone left to actually do the dirty work necessary to supply those needs. It is a totally self-indulgent train of thought which, if taken by the majority populace of any nation, will ultimately lead to that nation's downfall. Statistically, there is no other option. Answer me this: If you owe your country nothing, then why do you believe your country owes you freedom, protection, education, health care, and welfare checks when the need arises? I submit that if you owe your country nothing, then it owes you nothing as well. Please prove to me how that statement is wrong.

I thought my personal beliefs on the matter of rights versus responsibilities was clarified in my later posts with LoneWolf 16. I am not in favor of a draft, unless the very survival of the nation (or an allied nation, or even the world as we know it!) is at stake. However, the original question was IF the draft was reinstated and IF I was called to serve in a war I dispised and disagreed with, like Iraq, would I serve. I said yes, I would. Because, in a nutshell, I believe that I have a responsibility to serve if called upon rather than simply run to a neighboring country while my friends and family fight in my place. I could go to jail rather than serve, of course, but most folks here did not seem to consider that as a viable option for themselves personally! To answer your question, I believe one has considerable responsibility to one's society... a nation is an extention of community... to support that nation financially (taxes), with time and effort, such as community service, feeding the hungry, joining in groups to clean up highways, search and rescue duty when required, volunteer firefighter, contributing to charities, helping those less fortunate, all manner of ways to participate in and serve one's community... and by participating in the process of running the community, such as participating in elections by understanding the issues and voting, participating in local government to the extend possible, even if that's only attending zoning and PTA meetings... and generally being a productive member of society contributing to rather than draining its resources. I enjoy the fruits of others' service in these and other ways; I enjoy the fruits of a safe, prosperous lifestyle. It's my responsibility as a citizen to obey the laws of the land, even the laws I do not agree with, although it's also my right as a citizen to work toward changing those laws with my vote, or political participation. I know people who simply take all the good stuff of living in a free society, ignore the laws they don't like, never bother to vote or attend a school board meeting or otherwise carry out the responsibility of being a citizen in a democratic society, then they bitch and moan about the way the country is run. They want their "rights" as a citizen; they can't be bothered with their "responsibilities" as a citizen. Well, it doesn't work that way in my mind. In my mind countries are like relatives. Sometimes we appreciate them, sometimes they annoy the snot out of us, but they will always be our relatives. For example, I can lobby Aunt Ellen to use deodorant... please!... and beg Uncle Ned not to drink so much, but basically Aunt Ellen is a good soul who bakes me cookies and Uncle Ned can be counted on to drive me to the doctor when everyone else is busy, so I try to change negatives that I can change and accept the negatives that I can't because I care about them. They are my family. I have a responsibility to them, warts and all. I feel the same about my country. So when people say "I don't owe my country anything", I can't really relate to that. This is why I ask the question.

Er... yes, it does. Ahhh, in that case, nice move! Okay, I think I understand.

True. However, freedom is not absolute, is it? Not in the USA, not in Europe, not anywhere on the planet! You are not free to say or do anything which infringes upon the rights of others. Nor are you free to indulge yourself in any activity the government will not allow, even if said activity affects nobody but yourself... i.e., you cannot use drugs the government has banned, you cannot prostitute yourself or secure a prostitute, you cannot even eat trans-fat in NYC!! So my question still comes down to a simple one: With our citizenship comes certain rights; does it also come with responsibilities? If so, what responsibilities do we have toward the country and the society in which we live?

Wow. Some of the replies here have really given new meaning to the saying, "Narcissism is its own reward." Do y'all truly believe that you are entitled to enjoy all "rights" your country can bestow without having any "responsibilities" whatsoever? Seriously? Or am I misunderstanding? Edit: Is your complaint solely about being forced into the military, either because of the danger or because it goes against your personal morals, or do you feel you shouldn't have to perform any service at all for your country beyond paying your taxes? I'm really quite curious about this.

People agree that genocide is represensible... and yet nobody really wants to do anything about it. Witness Rwanda and Darfur and Sudan... and the bitterness still felt when something actually was done about the attempted genocide in the Balkans. Having rescued the persecuted Muslims in Kosovo (after ignoring the slaughter in Bosnia and Croatia), we now are in the position of trying to prevent the persecuted from committed their own genocide on those who persecuted them. Perhaps that is where the reticence to get involved stems from, the knowledge that once we "save" one side from the other, we then become permanently responsible for both sides. So the slaughter goes on in far corners of the earth, while we as a species primarily ignore it in favor of typing pompous platitudes about how awful such things are and how hypocritical some folks are, or making stretched attempts to justify and/or glorify our own bloody history. I too have often wondered where the Neanderthal went... and had the prickly sensation that my own ancestors probably had a bit to do with their passing.

I honestly think if we de-criminalized drug use and emptied the prisons of the population that was there for drug-related crime (not crimes supposedly caused by drug use, i.e., robbery, etc... just crimes relating to possessing and selling drugs), there would be a windfall of tax money available to supply free drugs to addicts via medical means and have a chunk left over for free rehab centers. I do believe that most addicts want to kick the habit; they simply do not have the means or the support to do so. I think we as a society should take that role. In the end, there would be fewer drug addicts, no drug-related crime or crime bosses, and taxpayers would have fatter wallets!

I just wanna hug him. He's that loveable. Yeah, I got tingles down my spine when I saw the last painting. I'm like, OMG, you GO HIRO BABY!!! God, four weeks seems like such a long time...

OMG. Who cannot love Hiro?? He's... he's.... he's sweet.

We are not talking about the same thing. My explanation was centered on how the intrusions could cost large sums of money even if no data was touched, since some were saying that they didn't have to spend money fixing anything if the hacker hadn't done anything. I don't understand why I cannot express myself clearly enough on this issue, lol. That is exactly one of my main points. Nobody knows the details, so how can any of us make an informed argument about how damaging or non-damaging the attacks were? How can we be outraged when we know nothing about what was actually done, or the results? First, those consequences are not unheard of. Hacking has cost people tons of money, and more than one company has had to close down when their system was compromised. Second, how can you possibly say that is not the case here, when you've already conceded that none of us know anything about the details of what the hacker did? *boggle* I don't disagree in principle. But again, the devil is in the details. Yep, that's probably best.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was trying to be light-hearted. If I failed in that regard, I apologize for expressing myself poorly. You, on the other hand, are deliberately trying to be rude and insulting, as you have done with me many times in the past. You do not have to like me, but please stop the personal attacks.

You are taking things out of context, as no individuals have actually seen their belongings or personal data messed with in any way. There is no such sense of personal distress or violation for anyone. It was just organizational damage. As much as you might dislike crime in any shape or size, appealing to emotion still makes for a fallacious argument. And you are taking my analogy out of context. I was responding to those who basically said that since he didn't destroy any data, then nothing was lost. I explained in words I thought folks could relate to what costs the intrusion itself would incur even if no data was disturbed. And by the way, nobody here knows whether any data was disturbed or not. The stories I read indicated a "loss of data"... people are pretty much inferring the details, as far as I can see. As for as "organizational damage" not affecting individuals, I beg to differ. Organizations consist of individuals. Lots of individuals. Over 150 government computers were hacked, including (but not limited to) the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, NASA and various military. How do you personally know that individual's personal data on those computers has not be compromised or copied? Payroll records. Background information. Tax data. Social security numbers. Bank account numbers. If the "organizational damage" causes the organization to close down for a period of time, paychecks stop for everyone who works there. That's pretty personal. And in this case, the "organizational damage" might actually have compromised national security. There really has been no confirmation by US officials of exactly what kind of damage has or has not been caused... for obvious reasons... so I think the presumption that this guy's little forays have not harmed individuals has no real basis in fact. Okay. How many years in jail do you think each count of computer hacking should have? Two? Three? A couple of months? Would you think more years appropriate if somebody lost a whole bunch of money? If people lost jobs? If a security breach led to people dying? Where is your personal line, and how much jail time would you recommend? I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curious. Punishment for various criminal behaviors, from computer hacking to murder, are often points of disagreement. 'Tis the nature of the beast. So based on your best guess of how much or how little damage he might have done (which nobody can really know until the trial, I suppose) how much time do you think this guy ought to get?

Okey-dokey, let's analyze that big, bad number 54. Let's say that the maximum sentence for each count of hacking is only about 3 years. So 9 counts of hacking x 3 years = 27 years. That leaves another 27-year maximum for a major felony, conspiracy (actually, I'm pretty sure the maximum for conspiracy is more than that, but math is math!). The more times you hack, the more counts of hacking, the more time you serve. If you conspire with others to hack, you get a big fat conspiracy which basically doubles your time. The moral of the story is not to make a club where you and others conspire to hack into other people's computers lots and lots of times. Then nobody has to ever be outraged on your behalf while ignoring the outrage of the real victims, whose computers were hacked. The end.

*shudder* I remember that. A whole bunch of people behaved really badly, IMHO... not that I ever wore a halo myself, but that was just... wrong. Not the old board's finest hour, for sure. Hehe, Coran and I had a ... special relationship. Yes, he had the morals of an alley cat, but since I couldn't get Kivan's mind off his dead wife... well, a girl needs comfort, y'know? Initially I thought poor Coran's fate in BGII (and Lanfear's, for that matter!) was kinda cruel... but eventually I realized the appropriateness of the love-em-and-leave-em Casanova being betrayed by the one woman he came to truly love, and being murdered by the one woman who truly loved him. A dog killed by an even bigger dog. Ah, the irony. P.S. - Heya, Dave. So good to see you again!

Geez, some of you are simply determined to ignore anything that doesn't support your personal outrage. I wish Grommy or some other lawyer would chime in here. If I'm wrong, he could point out where I'm misinterpreting the law, and if I'm right, maybe y'all would listen to him. Meanwhile, I'll try this again one last time. The 54-year maximum is what journalists have said by adding together the maximum sentence for all 9 counts, and presuming they would run consecutively (which is not always the case) rather than concurrently (which is not infrenquently done). So your outrage is premature. Each count of computer hacking probably has a light min-max (relatively speaking). There are nine such counts. The conspiracy charge, however, is a major felony. It probably has a maximum sentence of at least 2-3 decades. There is one such count. Conspiracy is a big deal. Breaking into government computers is a big deal. It wasn't just NASA; it was also the US military and at least 150 other governmental computer systems. Even if no data was touched (which is not the case), those breakins cost nearly two million bucks to repair the damage and the potential damage done. So your outrage is misplaced. It will take years before there will be any trial here in the USA, because it will take years for his current Romanian computer hacking charges to be resolved. Also, there's no assurance that Romania will extradict this guy, so he may never be held accountable for his actions on this side of the pond. So your outrage may be useless. Even if he is extradicted years from now, he will in all probability strike a deal with the prosecutor on at least the conspiracy charge, and never see the inside of a courtroom. So your outrage will have been in vain. That is all. Really.

Gonna be a long, dull winter... I can't wait until the next episode. I'm so hooked.

... and the Canadians and Mexicans are not still occupying their ill-gotten plots of land? Either I'm totally missing your point, or I'd like to share what you are smoking. (w00t) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Either that or you didn't read the title of the topic before you start using personal insults. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There was nothing that could remotely be construed as a personal insult in that. I'll bow out of the discussion at this point.