Political scientist have known for years that the US election system does not capture the "will" of the voter as well as a proportional representation system.
I think the Founders were more knowledgeable of these things than their critics imagine them to have been. (This may be the Arrogance of Modernity rearing its ugly head again.) The article's objections to the current system, I believe, were "known issues" by the Founders and were left there by design. They intended it to be difficult for the masses to effect extreme or sudden changes. They were somewhat afraid of the changing winds of public opinion and referred to pure democracy as "mobocracy" (mob rule). Remember, at first, voting was restricted to male land-owners, and there was no popular election of senators at all.
In proportional representation, there are more likely to be minority parties with elected officials who have extreme/radical viewpoints that are dissimilar to the viewpoints of the "average" voter.
I don't know what kind of voting system Israel has, but you need only to look there to see the danger of having extremely different ideologies in the same government. The Labor Party (liberal, atheist, anti-Zionist) recently broke off (literally resigned and packed up) from the "unity government" that includes the Likud Party (mainstream/conservative, religious, Zionist). IMHO, Israel's political system is still in an early stage of maturation, and it's been acting like a toddler beating itself in the head. The government needs to reorganize around majority core principles like the U.S. did in its early days and, by necessity, force out, or simply let out in the case of Labor, opposing factions into the fringes where they are free to try to battle their way into the mainstream.
Not true. We have SUVs and ATVs (all-terrain vehicles). Not to mention private plains, boats, motorcycles, dirt bikes, jet skis, and snowmobiles. These are all individual modes of transportation (more or less), too.
The reality is that we Americans have chosen reliable private transit over any public transit because it fits our politics and attitude. The lifestyle that flows from democratic principles emphasizes individual choice and personal mobility with the maximum amount of flexibility in all aspects of transportation. That's why we have individually-owned automobiles. We can control our own destiny. We aren't beholden to the sorts of limitations and annoyances that come with communal travel.
Notice how "mass entertainment" in movie theaters is facing a challenge from the home theater trend. People are increasingly choosing to watch movies at home on their DVD players and big-screen TVs with surround sound systems. It puts the individual in control of geographic location of viewing, start time, end time, pausing, instant replays, volume, language, viewing angle, viewing chair/sofa/bed/carpet, lighting, smoking/non-smoking, drinking if you please, any food allowed, and countless other variables that affect the entertainment experience.
it can convince a man to sit around idly while the world 'goes to hell' around him
Sit around idly?? By no means! Idle hands are the devil's workshop. The word church means "the called out ones." Jesus tells us to GO! Go and make disciples of all people - every tribe, tongue, and nation. Feed, clothe, help, encourage, evangelize, teach, give, pray, etc, etc, etc. Anything but idle.
Choosing a religion is not like picking out food on the cafeteria line. We're talking about the most serious issues in all of life.
A true seeker doesn't choose according to his "tastes." Religion is about changing your tastes, not gratifying present tastes, which amounts to nothing more than worship of self.
Literally speaking, if I lived according to my tastes, I would eat nothing but candy corn and jelly-filled, chocolate donuts. Then I would die because of my rejection of wisdom. So it is with choosing religion (except the consequences are infinitely more intense and lengthy).
and have no problem criticizing them (I'm not a practicing Catholic because of some of these reasons).
Really, nomadic, I hope you don't take this in a negative way. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "practicing Catholic." Please correct me if I'm way off base, but I've seen your kind of response before.
Are you saying that you have forsaken faith in the Savior because other Catholics aren't, in your estimation, living morally enough? Have you, in effect, opted for Hell because there were hypocrites in the church?
Jesus said "Follow me" not "Follow people who claim to follow me." Jesus will never let you down. If your faith is in Him, the whole world going to Hell around you (literally and/or figuratively) should have no influence on your beliefs.
Some chapters are omitted from Protestant Bibles... or some chapters are added in Catholic Bibles?
I'm looking at a Jewish Bible right here, and Esther (an Old Testament book) jibes precisely with the King James - same number of chapters and same number of verses in each chapter.
In case you want to verify this, take note of the following: In Christian Bibles, Esther comes between Nehemiah and Job. In the Jewish Bible, Esther (Ester) comes between Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) and Daniel (Dani'el).
I am in NO WAY joking. What I am saying is factual. The coalition of enemies is real.
WTC terrorist Moussaoui said, "I pray to Allah" for "the destruction of the United States of America." Let me clue you in: this is not a unique thought. There are many millions like him.
The things I have said are widely-known facts. Militant Muslims don't even try to hide their intentions within their own countries. They proclaim peace when speaking in English to Western audiences, but they advocate genocide and hatred in their native language.
They openly proclaim in large gatherings their eternal hatred for America, and they scream passionate vows to destroy America with guns firing in the air and a flaming Uncle Sam on a skewer.
They preach it in the mosques.
They teach it in the schools.
They celebrate it at anti-American/Israeli/Western/ Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/infidel rallies.
They broadcast it over the state-run TV and radio stations.
They print it in the newspapers.
Widespread militant anti-Americanism exists in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, and many other countries in Asia and Africa.
It's not a secret!
It's not merely a suspicion or conspiracy theory. It's just plain fact, and it's out there in the open for everybody to see.
War is not the choice; victory is. There is a real and present danger. If we act now, we get to fight on our terms rather than on theirs (as on 9/11). Either way, there is war.
Oh great strategy. Let's wait until our opponents test some A-bombs on India or Israel before we decide to go to war. You act as if our objective is to fight an even fight. We want every advantage we can get. If Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons (uh oh) and we know that he is trying to obtain them, then the time is ripe to invade! We have a short window of time in which to act. The time to act is now! Unfortunately, we know Saddam already does have biological weapons. That's according to weapons inspectors, but what do they know?
It's time to move in before the situation gets worse. We can opt for x casualties now or possibly x^y casualties later in a nuclear war. It is not in our power to say "Yes war" or "No war." War is here. The question before us is: Will we defend ourselves or be conquered?
This is not wild propaganda. We are fighting against the Anybody But America (& allies) coalition. (Like Microsoft is opposed by the Anything But Microsoft coalition: Oracle, Netscape, Sun, IBM, AOL.) They are different, but they have a common opponent. This unites them. They do have solidarity in this respect. Muslims have declared their intent to turn Great Britain into an Islamic country. In recent days, they've declared their intent to terrorize Australia. They want to destroy America and Israel. They're not even satisfied with "moderate" Muslim countries like Indonesia. No non-Islamic/Wahabi country is safe. They're out for world domination.
The enemy's definition of peace is our destruction. Therefore, we have no choice but to make our definition of peace their destruction. To them, terrorism is worship, and jihad is the highest sanctification of life. (See the "Jihad for Kids" video I linked to in my previous post.)
Read the Daily Alert. Very informative. I signed up for the e-mail newsletter.
Also, they're using Microsoft-authored Java classes using the deprecated applet element.
<applet code="fphover.class"
and they're obviously anti-/. too.;-)
codebase="./"
Worst of all, there's no DOCTYPE declaration, without which, a validator does not know which HTML version to expect. This means that Iraq has no intention of complying with international web standards.
I'm waiting for the U.N. to send in Web Inspectors.
the problem is also, that there is little or no evidence against Saddam.
Little evidence??? I've never seen such willful blindness. I don't know if it's worth my time to counter this. How have you missed all of Bush's speeches, Blair's dossier of declassified intelligence, the numerous denunciations of Saddam by the U.N., and lots of other information coming out from nations around the world? When evidence against Saddam is presented to you guys, it's like putting an eye chart in front of a pack of moles.
Look, Saddam murders his own family members to prove his ruthlessness to potential dissendents. A close advisor once joked to Saddam that he step down from the "presidency." No smiles from Saddam. That guy's gone. And his family.
Saddam's goal is to be worshipped by his subjects. (Yes, subjects, not citizens.) The latest election is proof of this. Some voters pricked their fingers to mark their selection with blood. (In Old Testament-based religion, the shedding of blood signifies the making of a covenant.) He commands an awful lot of power. Saddam even manipulates the U.S. media. Btw, can anybody provide a link to a transcript or summary of any of the Iraqi election debates? I somehow missed them.
There's been lots of news that Saddam is linked to bin Laden and Palestinian terrorists. These guys are a threat to everybody. It is their explicitly stated goal to destroy the United States. As far as they're concerned, a country either converts to their religion or is targeted for destruction. They call us the Great Satan. They want to kill us. There's absolutely no question about it. What part of "We will kill you!" don't you understand?
I've used uabar, but PrefBar is better! It has UA spoofing and much more. You can toggle popups, Java, JavaScript, cookies, and images. Also, buttons to clear cache, memory, location bar, etc. F8 toggles the PrefBar itself. Highly customizable!
The only bad thing is that if you install a new Mozilla and install PrefBar again, it overwrites your PrefBar settings. You need to find the prefbar.rdf file (that contains your customized settings) in your Mozilla profile folder and make a backup somewhere so you can copy it back after new installations.
"... the newly VBA-enabled version of Microsoft Office, code-named 'Office 1.1' and tells VB-Journal that 'when the huge universe of MS Office documents becomes available for processing by any programmer with a VB script and a bit of intelligence, all sorts of wonderful new things can be invented that you and I can't imagine.'"
True. Just a couple days ago, I saved a doc as Web Page in Word (Office XP) hoping that some clipart would be saved in a web-friendly format. (This was originally made in Publisher, NOT by me.) It didn't work; it saved the images as.wmz! For the web?!
Anyway, there was tons of gibberish in the file, but it displayed fine in IE6. It was a completely blank page in Mozilla! Nothing at all! We always knew the XP didn't stand for cross-platform, but I didn't know it was this bad.
- add a prefetch tag to the banner ads, making it look as though you'd clicked them.
Prefetching does not send the HTTP Referrer header, so the site with the ad banner would not get credit from the advertiser for a supposed click-through.
Not exactly. It was long ago determined that we cannot say for sure what caused the tracks. Basically, though, creationists have ceded the issue. Unfortunately, you will continue to see apologists who didn't "get the memo" or who refuse to believe it. Just point them to the link above and hope that that will suffice for a response.
Indeed, that would be a very, very, very long time for a mummy to remain intact in any recognizable state, much less, well preserved as it is. It's hard for us to even comprehend that kind of length of time. When we discuss science, we routinely speak of these huge, astronomical numbers without really giving them much serious thought. It's just unfathomable to me that we could have this reptile intact with identifiable stomach contents after it ceased life 77 million years ago. If they were saying its age was on the order of 7,700 years, it would be more tenable, but... Hmmm... Maybe we have a "young Earth" after all.
I would prefer not to discuss a person's death in such an irreverent manner, but since you've decided to take the discussion down this path, I'd like to correct you on a point of science.
I think you really mean to say that it's natural selection at work, not evolution. However, even that would be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Political scientist have known for years that the US election system does not capture the "will" of the voter as well as a proportional representation system.
I think the Founders were more knowledgeable of these things than their critics imagine them to have been. (This may be the Arrogance of Modernity rearing its ugly head again.) The article's objections to the current system, I believe, were "known issues" by the Founders and were left there by design. They intended it to be difficult for the masses to effect extreme or sudden changes. They were somewhat afraid of the changing winds of public opinion and referred to pure democracy as "mobocracy" (mob rule). Remember, at first, voting was restricted to male land-owners, and there was no popular election of senators at all.
In proportional representation, there are more likely to be minority parties with elected officials who have extreme/radical viewpoints that are dissimilar to the viewpoints of the "average" voter.
I don't know what kind of voting system Israel has, but you need only to look there to see the danger of having extremely different ideologies in the same government. The Labor Party (liberal, atheist, anti-Zionist) recently broke off (literally resigned and packed up) from the "unity government" that includes the Likud Party (mainstream/conservative, religious, Zionist). IMHO, Israel's political system is still in an early stage of maturation, and it's been acting like a toddler beating itself in the head. The government needs to reorganize around majority core principles like the U.S. did in its early days and, by necessity, force out, or simply let out in the case of Labor, opposing factions into the fringes where they are free to try to battle their way into the mainstream.
Not true. We have SUVs and ATVs (all-terrain vehicles). Not to mention private plains, boats, motorcycles, dirt bikes, jet skis, and snowmobiles. These are all individual modes of transportation (more or less), too.
Notice how "mass entertainment" in movie theaters is facing a challenge from the home theater trend. People are increasingly choosing to watch movies at home on their DVD players and big-screen TVs with surround sound systems. It puts the individual in control of geographic location of viewing, start time, end time, pausing, instant replays, volume, language, viewing angle, viewing chair/sofa/bed/carpet, lighting, smoking/non-smoking, drinking if you please, any food allowed, and countless other variables that affect the entertainment experience.
Sit around idly?? By no means! Idle hands are the devil's workshop. The word church means "the called out ones." Jesus tells us to GO! Go and make disciples of all people - every tribe, tongue, and nation. Feed, clothe, help, encourage, evangelize, teach, give, pray, etc, etc, etc. Anything but idle.
A true seeker doesn't choose according to his "tastes." Religion is about changing your tastes, not gratifying present tastes, which amounts to nothing more than worship of self.
Literally speaking, if I lived according to my tastes, I would eat nothing but candy corn and jelly-filled, chocolate donuts. Then I would die because of my rejection of wisdom. So it is with choosing religion (except the consequences are infinitely more intense and lengthy).
Really, nomadic, I hope you don't take this in a negative way. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "practicing Catholic." Please correct me if I'm way off base, but I've seen your kind of response before.
Are you saying that you have forsaken faith in the Savior because other Catholics aren't, in your estimation, living morally enough? Have you, in effect, opted for Hell because there were hypocrites in the church?
Jesus said "Follow me" not "Follow people who claim to follow me." Jesus will never let you down. If your faith is in Him, the whole world going to Hell around you (literally and/or figuratively) should have no influence on your beliefs.
Look! It's still there in the KJV! Scroll down about 1/3 of the page and you'll seen Esther with ten chapters.
It's been in every version of the Bible I've ever seen, including the 1889 Darby Bible. Of course, the additional apocryphal text is not there.
Some chapters are omitted from Protestant Bibles... or some chapters are added in Catholic Bibles?
I'm looking at a Jewish Bible right here, and Esther (an Old Testament book) jibes precisely with the King James - same number of chapters and same number of verses in each chapter.
In case you want to verify this, take note of the following: In Christian Bibles, Esther comes between Nehemiah and Job. In the Jewish Bible, Esther (Ester) comes between Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) and Daniel (Dani'el).
WTC terrorist Moussaoui said, "I pray to Allah" for "the destruction of the United States of America." Let me clue you in: this is not a unique thought. There are many millions like him.
The things I have said are widely-known facts. Militant Muslims don't even try to hide their intentions within their own countries. They proclaim peace when speaking in English to Western audiences, but they advocate genocide and hatred in their native language.
They openly proclaim in large gatherings their eternal hatred for America, and they scream passionate vows to destroy America with guns firing in the air and a flaming Uncle Sam on a skewer.
- They preach it in the mosques.
- They teach it in the schools.
- They celebrate it at anti-American/Israeli/Western/ Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/infidel rallies.
- They broadcast it over the state-run TV and radio stations.
- They print it in the newspapers.
Widespread militant anti-Americanism exists in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, and many other countries in Asia and Africa.It's not a secret!
It's not merely a suspicion or conspiracy theory. It's just plain fact, and it's out there in the open for everybody to see.
War is not the choice; victory is. There is a real and present danger. If we act now, we get to fight on our terms rather than on theirs (as on 9/11). Either way, there is war.
It's time to move in before the situation gets worse. We can opt for x casualties now or possibly x^y casualties later in a nuclear war. It is not in our power to say "Yes war" or "No war." War is here. The question before us is: Will we defend ourselves or be conquered?
This is not wild propaganda. We are fighting against the Anybody But America (& allies) coalition. (Like Microsoft is opposed by the Anything But Microsoft coalition: Oracle, Netscape, Sun, IBM, AOL.) They are different, but they have a common opponent. This unites them. They do have solidarity in this respect. Muslims have declared their intent to turn Great Britain into an Islamic country. In recent days, they've declared their intent to terrorize Australia. They want to destroy America and Israel. They're not even satisfied with "moderate" Muslim countries like Indonesia. No non-Islamic/Wahabi country is safe. They're out for world domination.
The enemy's definition of peace is our destruction. Therefore, we have no choice but to make our definition of peace their destruction. To them, terrorism is worship, and jihad is the highest sanctification of life. (See the "Jihad for Kids" video I linked to in my previous post.)
Read the Daily Alert. Very informative. I signed up for the e-mail newsletter.
I'm waiting for the U.N. to send in Web Inspectors.
Little evidence??? I've never seen such willful blindness. I don't know if it's worth my time to counter this. How have you missed all of Bush's speeches, Blair's dossier of declassified intelligence, the numerous denunciations of Saddam by the U.N., and lots of other information coming out from nations around the world? When evidence against Saddam is presented to you guys, it's like putting an eye chart in front of a pack of moles.
Look, Saddam murders his own family members to prove his ruthlessness to potential dissendents. A close advisor once joked to Saddam that he step down from the "presidency." No smiles from Saddam. That guy's gone. And his family.
Saddam's goal is to be worshipped by his subjects. (Yes, subjects, not citizens.) The latest election is proof of this. Some voters pricked their fingers to mark their selection with blood. (In Old Testament-based religion, the shedding of blood signifies the making of a covenant.) He commands an awful lot of power. Saddam even manipulates the U.S. media. Btw, can anybody provide a link to a transcript or summary of any of the Iraqi election debates? I somehow missed them.
There's been lots of news that Saddam is linked to bin Laden and Palestinian terrorists. These guys are a threat to everybody. It is their explicitly stated goal to destroy the United States. As far as they're concerned, a country either converts to their religion or is targeted for destruction. They call us the Great Satan. They want to kill us. There's absolutely no question about it. What part of "We will kill you!" don't you understand?
Maybe pictures will convince you.
Or a video:
Broadband
56K
28K
(Put your name in a blank... and a strip of duct tape over your mouth. Bye bye, 1st Amendment.)
Hmmm The wheelchair is superior to legs for moving about. I'll be a wheelchair user.
The only bad thing is that if you install a new Mozilla and install PrefBar again, it overwrites your PrefBar settings. You need to find the prefbar.rdf file (that contains your customized settings) in your Mozilla profile folder and make a backup somewhere so you can copy it back after new installations.
Ellen Feiss in a butterfly suit. Woohoo!
XSL - the new MS vulnerability?
Anyway, there was tons of gibberish in the file, but it displayed fine in IE6. It was a completely blank page in Mozilla! Nothing at all! We always knew the XP didn't stand for cross-platform, but I didn't know it was this bad.
They would be armed with an intimidating stack of U.N. resolutions and spring-loaded BIC pens (for the enemy to sign with).
= tests a relationship, := assigns a value
Prefetching does not send the HTTP Referrer header, so the site with the ad banner would not get credit from the advertiser for a supposed click-through.
See the Link Prefetching FAQ.
Not exactly. It was long ago determined that we cannot say for sure what caused the tracks. Basically, though, creationists have ceded the issue. Unfortunately, you will continue to see apologists who didn't "get the memo" or who refuse to believe it. Just point them to the link above and hope that that will suffice for a response.
To date, we can't say for sure that they are human tracks. See here.
Indeed, that would be a very, very, very long time for a mummy to remain intact in any recognizable state, much less, well preserved as it is. It's hard for us to even comprehend that kind of length of time. When we discuss science, we routinely speak of these huge, astronomical numbers without really giving them much serious thought. It's just unfathomable to me that we could have this reptile intact with identifiable stomach contents after it ceased life 77 million years ago. If they were saying its age was on the order of 7,700 years, it would be more tenable, but...
Hmmm... Maybe we have a "young Earth" after all.
I think you really mean to say that it's natural selection at work, not evolution. However, even that would be wrong.
Natural selection is a separate proposition from evolution. Because of natural selection, genetic information is not available to later generations of organisms. It is removed, not added.
Idiotic hypotheses die all the time. It's "natural selection" at work.