Slashdot Mirror

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59639 among other sources. As it points out, newer turbines are much less prone to causing bird deaths, but even old turbines are often less fearful than people predict when they are put in. Wind turbines make *noise* and this drives birds off, unlike flat panes of glass which are a silent/invisible menace.

In many cases where raptors are absent, it is not necessarily because they are killed, but because they do not like being near the turbines and will go elsewhere. Same result as far as the rats go, of course. I don't support the exclusive use of any technology, though: the solution to pollution is dilution. If we use multiple sources of power, the specific impact of that one source may be reduced to the point where the environment can handle it. Otherwise even acres of solar panels affects albedo and thus climate. If we use wind in conjunction with other things, we provide somewhere for the raptors to go. Learning from the experience in your source (I am having trouble confirming the rat problems from other sources), we need to maybe build a buffer zone around wind farms in rat-prone areas where predator species can have a buffet on the fat ones that come from the rat-preservation zone. Importing snakes might not be a bad bet either...

This is one reason I don't bother the falcons around the farm when I am raising chickens. I take some steps to protect my birds, but I know the raptors are useful in their own right. Same with snakes. If I lose a bird now and then, it is worth the trade.

Dogma of any kind is misplaced. This is a learning experience.

According to this: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59639 it will be required to get a building permit, not optional.

My real problem with Ron Paul is his blind adherence to an idealized concept of the Free Market. He wants to completely disassemble the federal government and turn its powers and responsibilities over to private interests.

The Federal government is already owned by private interests! Are you aware the the Federal Reserve Bank is not actually a government bank? Lobbyists swarm to Washingtong because Washington is giving away handouts in the form of Government contracts and subsidies and tax code tweaking. If Washingtong was not as big and capable of handing out the dough, there would be no corporate interest in Washington. The more government becomes involved in regulation, the more it becomes a power broker which causes special interests to start influencing the whole show. If we get government out of business and back into the role of protecting the people from oppression then we get back on the right track. Ron Paul wants to disassemble the parts of the Federal government that are illegal as defined in the Constitution. All of these bureau's and departments are run by non-elected "officials" but they somehow get to make decisions about the way you run your life and teach your kids etc etc. We need to stop looking for government to solve all of our problems and start solving them ourselves. Maybe the world has outgrown self-government and freedom. Maybe freedom doesn't work, but thats what Ron Paul stands for and thats why I support him.

I mean this is what happens when we trust the government to make our decisions for us. Police don't knock on the door anymore and announce themselves...they burst in guns blazing, and over what??? Read the article.

Another preconceived image of Chuck Norris that people don't see is that of a bible-thumping douchebag. He's afraid that the U.S. government is going to outlaw Christianity, while he believes that the bible *needs* to be tought in public school. He wouldn't create that same secular school program today, it'd be a bible class. listen to what I'm talking about.

At least in America you can name a Teddy Bear "Muhammad" without being put to death... http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59000

In my other reply, I mentioned that Hollywood would have taken liberties with the truth to make a drama. I have never seen the film, but I know Hollywood.

Even after the Clintons left office, they kept the pressure on. When the Enron collapse seemed imminent in November 2001, Robert Rubin called a senior Treasury Department official in the Bush administration and asked him to discourage the bond-rating agencies from downgrading Enron's debt. The Bush Treasury Department refused to intervene on Enron's behalf, and Rubin backed down.

As to Franjo Tudjman, he must have done something right. In November 1996, just months after Brown's death and one week after President Clinton's re-election, Tudjman traveled not to The Hague to be tried as a war criminal, but to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington to have his cancer treated.

Needless to say, none of this - Mozambique, Croatia, Ron Brown, the Hillary connection, the Rubin call, the Bush refusal - makes the Enron movie.

Meanwhile, Gibney chooses instead to implicate both Bush presidents and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a series of tortuous plots that defy common sense and basic chronology. Indeed, Gibney somehow blames the California energy debacle on George W. and Schwarzenegger even though W took office six months after it flared up and Schwarzenegger took office three years after that.

The spirit of Leni Riefenstahl is alive and well. Hooray for Hollywood!


Taken from;
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44355

Hollywood makes entertainment movies. If you want the facts, look elsewhere.

This is truly sad. A university is shouldn't be asked to participate in corporate shenanigans like this.
What they should be doing is pulling funding from universities like U of Delaware for requiring students to adopt the idea that all whites are racists (among other things). Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
They've since stopped this program but why aren't heads rolling over this?

But I've done a few Internet researches. "religion child abuse" for example, yields about 2.5 million Google hits, many on the first few pages are links to scientific papers researching the link between those two. "religion mental illness" yields about 2 mio. pages, again several from the first few pages pointing to scientific journals or papers. If the link is no obvious to you: You certainly would agree that "training" a child in, say, shizophrenia, would be abusive, wouldn't you?

Your "Google Proof" method of affirming your claims is invalid. The majority of pages on the "religion child abuse" search are quoting Dawkins and discussing his claims. Let's look at the first 10 results, shall we?

1. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252 - WorldNetDaily
Discusses Dawkins' series "The Root of All Evil?". Presents comments from a Catholic Church spokesperson in responce. Takes no position on the issue, as good news journalism shold.

2. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html - Time Magazine
A news article about a paricular sect who refuse medical treatment for their children in favour of prayer. This is not common religious teaching, and the article doens't present it as such, but discusses the rights of the parent and changes to the view of "freedom of religion." More about politics then religion.

3. http://www.nospank.net/bottoms.pdf - NoSpank PDF
Bias aleart. NoSpank has a pre-published agenda and have cherrypicked articles to support. That aside, the article doesn't conclude that religion is child abuse, but that when religion is used to abuse it can have worse after affects. I would dispute this article based on the fact that it is published by a non-objective source, but regardless, it doesn't support your initial idea.

4. http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
I won't even bother. Yep - surprise. Richard Dawkins thinks religion is child abuse. But wait a second - it reveals where some of Richard's spite towards the church comes from:

Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion...

This is something I've been searching to find for a while. Reading Dawkins' work, and listening to him talk, I've always thought to myself "someone in the church has hurt him, and he's blaming God for it". And I was right. He speaks like someone who is motivated by bitterness rather then a series of objective findings that lead him to atheism. So he was abused, and blames religion/church/god for it. Maybe laying blame on the abuser who was using their position of responsobility for wrongdoing would be more sensible then a crusade against religion.

5. http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/11/religion-as-child-abuse-and-about-hell.html - Blog post
Not anything approaching authorititive, the author links his own critiques of James Dobson that take read meaning into statements where there are none, and then write a diatribe on that one point. Example? He links an article which looks at the following paragraph:

Some kids can be crushed with nothing more than a stern look; others seem to require strong and even painful disciplinary measures to make a vivid impression. This difference usually results from the degree to which a child needs adult approval and acceptance. The primary parental task is to see things as the child perceives them, thereby

I would say that anything approaching a fanatical belief in anything could be construed to be a mental disorder. Home schooling is permitted in Germany, but not under any/all circumstances.

I think you meant to say "Home schooling is not permitted in Germany, not under any circumstances." Belief that government can fix everything is certainly a mental disorder.

Maybe not. But I did read this snippet about something in Canada.

LOL

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=517 60

Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.

The linked article includes this statement:

"Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized."

I cannot speak for the UK, but I live in Australia and I can tell you that the 30% figure is utter crap - unless it includes getting wedgies in the school yard.

As for the gun lobby myth that violent crime exploded in Australia after gun controls were introduced, check out this bar chart of homicide rates for the period 1989 - 2000. The homicide rate is pretty much constant before and after gun control laws were introduced in 1996 (you can see when the laws were introduced because of the large spike in the homicide rate in Tasmania in 1996, due to the Port Arthur massacre. The gun control laws were introduced immediately after the massacre).

Maybe you will try to claim that the rates went up after 2000, however these figures show that it remained constant until 2004, the latest normalised figures I could find.

You should try getting your information from somewhere that doesn't have ads for books about the duty of self armament on its front page. Gun control laws may not have done much to reduce crime in Australia, but they certainly haven't done anything to increase it, despite a great deal of misinformation from the US gun lobby to the contrary.

Michigan is a mess in general. This particular problem is just a good illustration of the problem of government education as a whole, as you point out.

... are already here

Now is a good time to read and print...

The good news about nuclear destruction
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=516 48

What to do if a nuclear disaster is imminent!
http://www.ki4u.com/guide.htm

Don't forget to duck and cover.... this keeps you safe from a nuclear blast.

http://www.archive.org/stream/DuckandC1951/Duckand C1951_64kb.mp4

Now is a good time to read and print...

The good news about nuclear destruction
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=516 48

What to do if a nuclear disaster is imminent!
http://www.ki4u.com/guide.htm

-FL

See news and links at 1 and 2

See news and links at 1 and 2

Yes, it's possible to find anything you want in the old testament. I bet I could defend kitten killing somewhere in Job or Exodus or what-have-you. The thing is, being a Christian is a definition that varies as much as interpretation of the Bible. I really don't want to get into a religious interpretation discussion that I'll lose mostly because I don't care, but the New Testament and the Old Testament are opposed on many issues, and in my opinion the beliefs of the New should trump those professed in the Old. Being a Christian is about treating your fellow humans kindly and following the Golden Rule and all that. It's not about shouting over them until they believe what you do, or converting them to your faith or even opposing political goals.

The funniest part about Evangelicals is that they supposedly left the Church because they thought it was too political and beauraucratic, and yet look at what they've become. Superchurches with huge numbers of members, corrupt on money and power, and gasbags on television who spout crazy and incorrect statements. Just look at this and thisto see how dumb and intolerant they've become. It's the Catholic church of the Middle Ages all over again.

Keep in mind, I don't want to group all Evangelicals into this mess. There are a lot out there who really don't care as much about politics and such. But the ones in power and who appear on TV and the vocal minority really smear their name and the name of Christians everywhere and it's disgusting.

Actually, the US is way ahead of them on this one. How can you beat citizens banging on your door and asking for an implant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(hu man)
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=487 60
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,50187,00. html

I agree it can't be long until governments and employers everywhere encourage people to "voluntarily" get chipped.

You'd think the FBI would be a prime customer for something like this, but apparently keeping a huge backlog of documents to translate and a staff that's too small to handle it is more important to the mechanics of their bureaucracy.

The point being, if this tech works, great, but will it be used?

but that still does not make it a sex scandal.

That should have been "but that still does not make it not a sex scandal".

Also, do you have any sources for you $150 million cost for the Clinton Investigation? From the following two sources http://weeklywire.com/ww/09-21-98/nash_politics2.h tml and http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=145 72 it seems the investigation was more like $40 million which is still a lot of money but is over 3 times less than your $150 million figure. I couldn't find any other sources that said anything but $40 million so I am interested in seeing what you can provide.

Therefore, the sexual value of a woman can be computed according to the formula (P*(E/60)*(N*12), wherein P = price per hour, E = length of average sexual encounter in minutes and N = number of monthly encounters. Assuming realistic maximums, this value can be expected to range between 0 and $1.67 million on an annual basis. However, if one assumes that P for the average woman is one-third the overnight rate of a pretty, but non-elite 20-year-old call girl, the sexual value of the average American woman works out to only $1,353.33 per annum.

Dear distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters,

Humanity has arrived at an inflection point in our history, one whose influence will steer our course for decades, or, more likely, centuries. The post-millennial rise of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism tears at the very skirts of the Enlightenment.

Your fellow citizens have twice elected an inarticulate and violent demagogue as President, a man who has expressed deep personal doubts about the validity of the scientific method and its relevance in America's primary-school classrooms. Three-fourths of the adult population profess a belief in angels; two-thirds believe the Christian Bible is the literally-true word of their God. Over half state that humans were created by God in their present form.

One American adult in one thousand can state the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Meanwhile, to the elected representatives of this singularly-unenlightened population, you, America's scientists and engineers, have cheerfully handed control of several thousand thermonuclear weapons.

And now you're bickering endlessly about... whether or not Pluto is a planet.

Cut this shit out. Now. I don't want to live in another Dark Age, or worse, die upon the threshold of one.

Let Pluto be Pluto, whatever Pluto is, and let's put our heads together and figure out how to deal with the delusions we've created for ourselves here on Earth. We need intellectual leadership, not semantic panem et circenses.

Answers? Sorry; you're the scientists, I'm just some obviously-unlaid AC, ranting into the night on Slashdot's nickel. If I had any suggestions, believe me, I'd be making them, but I don't.

But come on. We've got to do something productive here.

There are few words the American Left loves to fling around with such abandon as the word "fascist." According to them, social conservatives, libertarians and the Religious Right are all various brands of fascism, that political ideology which came into such disrepute following the demise of il Duce, Benito Mussolini.

No one in the American Left thinks that libertarians are fascists. Perhaps doomed, naive, ideologues who cannot see the logical conclusion of their avowed economic policies, but people with a deep respect for freedom nonetheless that we can find no fault with. To claim as such is a straw man, or at the very least, the result of arguing with people that don't understand what a Libertarian is. Libertarians don't want the kind of social control that social conservatives want -- that's why they're on opposite ends of the classic two-way axis. They also rarely possess the mild xenophobia, militarism, and demand that the government shepherd them that the people the American Left is really afraid of do possess.

Now, as for the actual argument...

Fascism is an Authoritarian system. It often picks up traits from both the Left and the Right, but it's root are in anti-Communism during the economic and social malaise of the post-WWI period in Europe (and in the US to a lesser degree). Much of the Western world was in the grip of the post-WWI Depression, and many people were of the opinion that Western democracy was a failed and ineffectual form of government. Communist movement (and to a lesser degree anarchist movements) flourished. A lot people with right-wing tendencies rebelled against Communism and sought to create a strong dictatorial government that did not follow Marxist beliefs.

The Manifesto cited was not the core sets of beliefs of the architects of the Fascist Movement within Italy. It was the public, "Vote for us!" PR much like the "smaller government" trope of the modern Republican Party. (Medicare Part D, anyone?) You'll note that in the years to come after they rose to power, much of those Democratic prinicples outlined in the first section went away, and in both Italy and most other Fascist countries, the labor principles were put aside as they quickly formed government-sanctioned industry cartels. They would give people a lot of what they wanted, but they had ZERO tolerance for strikers and for collective bargaining outside of the structured framework they had set up.

Fascists pander to the people for popular support but keep their wealthy friends close and in power, just as the Republicans did with Medicare Part D which is a benefit for old people that is explicitly designed to preserve industry profits. Mussolini rose to power with the blessing of the monarchy who was afraid of Marxists. Hitler's rise to power coincided with the purging of people with more socialist than nationalist leanings in the Nazi Party in the Night of the Long Knives. Unlike Authoritarian Leftist movements, there is no deevolution of power from capitalists to labor.

You see, one core difference between Fascist Authoritarianism and Communist Authoritarianism is that while both believe in centrally controlled economies, Communists believe in the industries being wholly owned and controlled by the State whereas Fascists believe in letting oligopolies be independently owned by friends of the administration and to keep the benefits and ownership of business firmly in the hands of an elite instead of in the hands of the people. It is Crony Capitalism in practice, though with a good bit more state control of production, even if the wealth generated flows into a few hands.

At their end of the political spectrum, Fascism and Communism both start to

What country do you live in? I live in the USA where people voted in a facist administration that thinks the Constitution is a quaint document that is exactly where it belongs in a museum. If we could wrap copper around the founding fathers we wouldn't need foreign oil. Their spinning bodies could power the country for the next thousand years. If you mod this funny you aren't paying attention

1. Fascism isn't a product of the right, it's more leftist. You aren't even using the term correctly.

2. The Bush administration does not compare in ideology to Hitler nor Mussolini. By regurgitating the internet group think you add nothing to the conversation, but you do get a +5 from the other monkeys that agree with you.

3. Clinton and Bush's attempt to pass the line item veto is a much larger violation of the constitution then anything in the patriot act.

4. Yes, our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves, but most likely it would be over congress having surrendered most of its power to the executive branch over the past 80 years. The rest of the rolling would be over social programs like welfare. When you run around quoting Ben Franklin about "Trading freedom for security", do you realize he was talking about taxes?

5. There is plenty of things the Bush administration has done that can be argued are ineffective, or just wrong. Framing your arguement with "OMG BUSH IS FACIST" is worthless.

6. Bring the pirate party to the USA!

Google drops conservative sites from Google News. Interesting that 98% of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats. Also, Al Gore is a senior adviser to Google.

Now, I'm not playing a partisan finger-pointing game. But these kinds of "censorship" tactics give the appearance of "evil" worse than that which they are trying to avoid, IMO. Especially when there seems to be political motives. If some news site posts factual news, real honest truth, then I don't see how you can object to it on any basis just because you don't happen to like it. That holds whether the truth hurts the political Right or the political Left.

I don't see why the Chief Executive seems to have such difficulty enforcing the laws. Isn't that his job? Creating a "path to citizenship"...there already is one. It's called "going home, filling out the paperwork, and waiting like everyone else does". So where exactly is the problem? In 1986 the USGov granted amnesty and promised enforcement after that. Well, 20 years later, and we see how well that worked out. Immigration "reform", bah. How about government reform - anti-incumbent and pro-third-party this November. I'm sick of the lies and abuses from the Duopoly in power.

The founding fathers could hardly predict the technological state of today, but the intent and spirit of the constitution is very clear. It hardly takes any great mind to realize how "papers and effects" translates into digital data.
You are absolutely correct. The intent of the founders can not be denied. If in doubt, read Madison's own words:
"The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized."
So even though privacy is not listed, I'll grant you an implied right to privacy in your own home.
However, phone records are the property of the phone companies. If you want to right down everyone you call and calls you receive, that would be your personal affects and would be protected. But would a ferry receipt from the 1880's be protected? How about a guest log from the local inn or diner? Would these not be the 1800's equivelant of phone records?

These are examples of abuses of power. It most certainly is not legal, and the fact that he got away with it means nothing except just that. Crimes that someone got away with do not change the constitution. They do not mean we should ignore or accept new crimes.
Abe Lincoln wasn't alone. You could chalk up "abuses" by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson as well. (I'm sure there are others, but it's late). These "abuses" are legal by precedent. It is the sworn duty of the Prez to do whatever it takes to defend this country. After reading what Lincoln did, I'd say GWB has been pretty reserved. If the liberty survived Lincoln's and Roosevelt's "abuses", it will survive GWB!
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html has a pretty good read-up on what GWB could do, but hasn't. Maybe he's not the drunk-with-power-red-neck-Nazi every keeps calling him.
We are at war (What was that slogan? No *blank* for Oil!") In a time of war, the Prez is given authority to execute that war. Now if the Prez were to use this authority to spy on John Kerry to get election dirt (see Watergate), or use the FBI and IRS to dig up dirt on political opponents (see FileGate), then that would certainly be an illegal, impeachable offence. But that is not the case here. There are certain "high level government officials" who are leaking classified secrets like a drunken teenager. This can be very dangerous to national security and can get soldiers and civilians killed. In any other time in our history, this would be called treason. Men have been hung for less, so please don't tell me how liberty is being trampled more now than any time in our history, because, even though you don't like it, it's simply not true.

Terrorism has no connections to any religion

Don't be a fucking idiot! Start doing some research on the current state of Islam and you might learn a few things or two. Start off with this link for starters....you lazy bum.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49865

If these guys get their way, it will no longer be possible to ignore the very serious problem they represent. Keep up the appeasement and head-in-sand burying. It seems to be working...

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49865

Did you know that those cartoons were re-prints. They had been published previously in Denmark, even in Egypt (in October 2005!), without the worldwide baying of "muslims" for blood.

See eg http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=487 46

If you ask me (which I know you were going to :0)> ) it is the Islamic states which are using the caricatures as a sort of reverse propaganda (perhaps it's a soviet thing?!?). "Look what you've done, these cartoons give us the right to murder a few people and burn a whole bundle of stuff down ...".

That's what it looks like to me.

Read these:
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryo ne.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/FreeTheSchools.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/Journal0409.htm#GovernmentS chools
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=240 68
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26270

Such as the following?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=386 45

My understanding is that one problem here is that Tamiflu is currently the only drug of any use.

Tamiflu is a generic antiviral/antflu agent which has not been effective against avian flu in any practical tests.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=477 25
Relenza is the other main antiviral drug which may be an effective palliative. It's worth remembering though, these drugs will not prevent the spread of a pandemic.

They may at best alleviate the illness of some of the victims, but that's it. In other words, they're a pharmecutical companies' ideal medicine - vital to save the patient, but won't stuff up the market.

Serves that Professor right for belonging to the wrong party. The proper handling for leftist frauds (aka originalist thinkers) is to give them pay raises.

The University of Colorado at Boulder decided to give Professor Ward Churchill a raise, recognizing his creativity in falsely claiming to be a native american, fabricating a special ops military career, stealing other people's art and claiming it as his own, "borrowing" others written works and in general, being an intellectual fraud. Investigations into his education have raised questions about the legitimacy of his degrees.

Unfortunately, the year-long "investigation" by his peers down here has mostly been an attempt to placate critics until the complaints die down (actually some have suggested it's more about telling the governor and the state to stay out of how UCB runs their university). Apparently it is acceptable to be a white man who steals from native american peoples and cheats students, universities and society in general as long as one is a politically correct "progressive" person.

THIS JUST IN!!!

Onion satire lost on more than two people:

one reference: In 1998, controversial minister Fred Phelps posted the Onion article '98 Homosexual-recruitment drive nearing goal on his God Hates Fags website as proof that homosexuals were indeed actively trying to get straight people to join their ranks.

two refererences: On June 7, 2002, Reuters reported that the Beijing Evening News republished, in the international news page of its June 3 edition, translated portions of a story from The Onion (they were apparently unaware of The Onion's satirical nature). The story discusses the U.S. Congress's threats to leave Washington for Memphis, Tennessee or Charlotte, North Carolina unless Washington, DC built them a new Capitol building with a retractable dome. The article is a parody of U.S. sports franchises' threats to leave their home city unless new stadiums are built for them. The Evening News is Beijing's most popular newspaper, claiming a circulation of 1.25 million.

three references: In late March 2004, Deborah Norville of MSNBC presented as genuine an Onion article claiming that 58 percent of all exercise done in the United States is done on television. [2] (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opin ion/8266998.htm?template=contentModules/printstory .jsp)

four references, AH! AH! AH! (cue thunder): Columnist Ellen Makkai and others who believe the Harry Potter books recruit children to Satanism have also been taken in by the Onion's satire, using quotes from an Onion article as evidence for their claims. [3] (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm) [4] (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25 446)

Just send this delightful fellow (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44 779) along for the ride.

Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

I care more about liberty than about democracy. If you (and a majority of your peers) decide to limit my freedom, I don't really care if you did it democratically or not. Curtailing liberty is wrong. Those who would do so should not be allowed to participate.

Funny, I just read this which is exactly the same idea. Quite the day when a libertarian links to CommonDreams to make a point. Here's another link showing that unfettered democracy is not the best idea. A majority is not right simply because it is a majority.

"The meaning of the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court judges interpret it to mean. By definition they can't be wrong."

Not necessarily, though that is what the courts and lawyers would have us believe. The courts have assumed this role ever since Marbury vs Madison but several parts of the Federalist Papers imply otherwise. Simply put, if the Judiciary can enforce its interpretation of the constitution on the other two branches then those branches are not really separate branches of government. Take a look at this essay by Alan Keys. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=434 72 While you might not agree with the specific position he takes in this case, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. He makes a very good point about the separation of powers.

Last few years? It's been happening longer than that.

how sure are you?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=421 12

I don't see anything wrong with government endorsing "religion" when it's plainly recognized as being beneficial to citizens individually as well as corporately. People of moral character tend to be harder workers and better citizens. Religion promotes moral behavior. Religious people have also (historically) tended to have more stable marriages, which is good for society. (Within the last decade this has become less true, but society has become dramatically less religious overall within this time as well, so I think there's some correlation.) I don't see anything wrong with government promoting values that produce a stable and productive society, and saying these values are taught in your local $HOUSE_OF_WORSHIP. It's only when government promotes one path of religious expression over all others, or quashes certain paths of religious expression, that there are problems.

I very much disagree with those (atheists, secularists) that say promoting religion, even as a concept, is wrong. A government without good values, that doesn't recognize a clear distinction between good and evil, is a bad government. These values are taught by religions. It is possible to have good/moral atheists and secularists, but they lack a structure for their values that exists beyond themselves. I believe there are absolutes. Atheism/secularism lend themselves to moral relativism. How can there be justice in a society where what was wrong yesterday is not wrong today? It doesn't make sense. Sound government has to be grounded in foundational truths.

Should religious symbols be permitted on public land? Absolutely. Religious has played an extremely influential part in our history and culture. America, by and large, is a religious people. (The Supreme Court agreed, at least in 1892.) To not acknowledge (or permit acknowledgment of) this is intellectually dishonest. Should government compel everyone to attend Mass on Sunday, or close down a synagogue? Absolutely not. It's not government's business how anybody chooses (or doesn't choose) to approach God.

I, too, wish the CP and LP could work more closely together. (We're not the first, either.) Many of their goals are the same. The LP arrives at "freedom is a good" from humanistic reasoning. The CP arrives at the same conclusion from divine mandate. Obviously there are going to be a few differences in philosophy, and a few disagreements as to what freedom means. But for the most part, when you cut through the myths the two believe about the other, both parties want basically the same thing: freedom to live your own life as you wish, without government butting in with onerous regulations. In my experience, the CP is often willing to work with Libertarians. However, I find that the LP is often anti-religious, to the point where even working with a religious group toward a common goal isn't possible.

Seems pretty high since everyone who wanted to see a doctor or get food was FORCED to register to boost the numbers. Oh, and a quick google search on that will show that Al Jazeera seems to be the only source for this information.

And this is a problem why?

Because you don't want to live in a world in which all fossil carbon is present in the atmosphere as CO2. In fact, we aren't even sure whether all coal and oil actually derives from plants in the first place or whether it was ever present in the atmosphere (see here). Or look at Titan--probably an entire planet covered in hydrocarbons and no plants.

Wouldn't the natural carbon cycle eventually fix enough carbon to effectively starve out photosynthesis?

No. Plants are eaten by animals, and animals turn plant matter back into CO2. It's a long-standing equillibrium that has led to the climate and environment we are experiencing today. By adding carbon into the system, we are changing the equillibrium, and the consequences of that are unpredictable, but probably unpleasant.

I found this to be an interesting counter-point to the links you provided. If what the article suggests is true (petroleum being a inorganic substance produced by the Earth itself), then most, if not all environmental treaties would need to be carefully rethought or thrown out.

I will state that I, personally, am no friend of oil entirely. Especially with regard to the means of acquisition and production. My personal preference of an alterative fuel would be Biodeisel. For the reasons of decentralization (both in aquiring the raw materials and production of product), better cohesion of local economies, and locally environmentally sustainable.

I've been so wrong headed, it's terrifying. Thank you, sir, for turning my life around. Your shining example of refusing to stand on the shoulders of giants to instead figure everything out yourself has changed my life already.

And you call yourself literate? I guess you are "basically literate," as you put it, but you have no comprehension skills. I said nothing about "refusing to stand on the shoulders of giants to instead figure everything out yourself."

Name five "giants" at your university. Then tell me what you learn there that I can't from a book or the Internet.

Let us strike down the universities, I say! Sinkholes for valuable money that would be better placed lining the pockets of the proletariat! Education for none!

I agree completely.

But then, I also know who the General was at the battle of Yorktown and how to calculate change for my lunch.

Do you?

I say let's stop subsidizing those who would like to make their living by hiding in school for their whole life. Education for all!

The Republicans haven't stayed true to their platform for quite some years now. The grassroots party activists have great conventions and come up with a great platform, but then endorse candidates based not on how much they will advance that platform but on how "electable" they are. Foolish waste of time, GOP. It's no surprise that there's an exodus from the GOP to the Constitution and Libertarian parties, where people can be found that still stand by their principles.