The police entered his home because a neighbor reported seeing two men breaking into the home. When the police arrived, they discovered that the front door had been forced open. They entered the home and discovered a man inside, when the man claimed to live there, they requested that he show ID. The man refuses and things escalated from there. Dr. Gates admits that he had forced entry into his house when he got back from his trip because he did not have his house key. The police may have acted inappropriately, but it had nothing to do with the fact that Dr. Gates was black (which is what Obama was implying and why he got in trouble for his statement). The police would have treated anybody who acted the way Dr. Gates did in that circumstance.
In the primary case in your link, the person hid the video recorder. I thought I read a story a couple of months ago where a court in Massachusetts ruled that there is no need for consent when recording in a place where "there is no expectation of privacy". I cannot find the link at the moment. The only link I can find that seems to have relevant information on the subject is not loading currently.
If that is not the case in Massachusetts, it is the only state with a "two party consent" law where it is not. This does not mean that the police do not attempt to intimidate people into not recording them in those states, just that the courts have ruled that the police are in the wrong when they do so (and have handed done some significant penalties for doing so).
I was replying to someone who said that excess CO2 was the only explanation for the melting of the Arctic ice cap that has any evidence supporting it. There is as much evidence that the undersea volcanoes are driving the melting of the polar ice caps as there is that excess CO2 is doing so, especially in light of the recent revelations that all of the global warming computer models understate the amount of heat that is being radiated off into space.
Really? How much energy is being released by the volcanoes under the Arctic? The ones that scientists believed could not exist because the water pressure was too great (not that volcanoes could not exist there, but that this type could not exist there)?
The thing about the statement (as reflected in the translations posted) is that if the government does not arrest her, the statement is not a threat, but if the government does arrest her (which it did), it is a threat.
If the government had not arrested her, they could credibly claim that they are in the process of implementing a system to ensure that the judiciary gives people their rights. By arresting her, they are tacitly admitting that they have no intention of giving people their rights.
Of course, anyone who has been paying attention realizes that this is the case. The structure of government power in Egypt has not changed. All that has changed in who is running things and to be perfectly honest it looks like the military is currently looking for someone to take over who can implement a facade of popular support.
Yes, the influence of the oil companies is tiny when compared to the EPA, the NOAA, NASA, the Sierra Club, Green Peace, the UN, etc. There are an awful lot of organizations that have an amazing amount to be gained by convincing people to buy into AGW.
We do know that it's melting, and the only explanation that has any evidence to support it is that it's due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the undersea volcanoes that were discovered under the Arctic in 2008. The only possible explanation is global warming as a result of man generated CO2 in the atmosphere. We should pass strict government regulation of all aspects of our lives in order to reduce the CO2 emmissions by enough to delay global warming by a decade in order to offset this problem.
The Arctic volcanoes may not be the main contributor to the melting of the polar ice, but it is false to say that the "only explanation that has any evidence to support it" is that it is due to global warming as a result of CO2 emmissions.
Modern American conservatives are for central planning too, when it suits them.
No, they are not. Many (probably most) Republican politicians are for central planning when it suits them. I should have clarified that modern American conservatives do not favor central planning of the economy.
Fascists are central planners like all other left wing ideologies. If you put communists on the left wing and fascists on the right wing it makes for a very narrow political spectrum. From the perspective of modern American conservatives, fascists have more in common with communists and socialists than with the modern American conservatives.
If I recall correctly, there was a governmental group created in the greeater metropolitan area of Portland in the late 90s/early 00s to develop a plan to make Portland a more "sustainable" community. Part of the motivation for creating this group was to prevent Portland from becoming subject to the type of gridlock that most metropolitan areas in the U.S. suffer from. They actually sat down and defined what that would mean in terms of things like highways, public transportation, bike lanes and all of that sort of thing. Then they went out and looked at the other cities and metropolitan areas in the U.S. to see what cities most closely matched their criteria. The answer was Los Angeles (which most people consider to be the model of what the organization was set up to avoid).
When I looked into what the NDP stood for, the only difference I could see between policies that NDP called for and policies that the Democratic Party in the US called for is that the NDP is nationalistic and above board about its segregationism.
All a computer model can do is project the results of the assumptions that were programmed into it. Computer models make it easier (and more practical) to make predictions based on what we know about complex interactions, but if any of the assumptions that are used to program that computer model are invalid, then the results of the model will be invalid. Whether or not the results of this faulty computer model are useful or not depends on how critical the faulty assumption is to those results.
I'm sorry I really should not have phrased it the way I did. I realize that computer models will tell you a lot that you did not know, but they will not tell the people who created them anything they did not know. Computer models may reveal things about the knowledge that the creators had that they had not realized, but they will not reveal new knowledge.
A computer model will not tell me whether people are fat because they don't exercise or they don't exercise because they are fat. I can see a base problem with the model in the summary:
More walking and biking would lead to lower obesity rates for Portlanders. In turn, a fitter population would find walking and biking a more attractive option.
Would a fitter population find walking and biking a more attractive option, or would they find it a less unattractive option? These sound like the same thing, but think of it this way. Two scenarios where you are out looking for a sex partner.
Scenario One: You find yourself in a position where you have a choice of one of two partners. It is pretty clear that either one will go home with you. Do you choose the one that is more attractive or the one that is less attractive?
Scenario Two: You find yourself in a position where you have a choice of one of two partners. It is pretty clear that either one will go home with you. Do you choose the one that is less repulsive or the one that is more repulsive?
In Scenario One, you will probably choose the one that is more attractive. In Scenario Two, a large percentage of the population will choose to go home alone.
I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive. Computer models are very good for developing plans involving things with a lot of complex interactions (like designing airplanes or more fuel efficient cars). The problem is this, if you don't know how to create the design or plan without a computer model, you will not be able to design a computer model that will let you create the design or plan. I can drive a nail through a board to hold that board to another one with a rock, but using a hammer will make it much easier and will likely allow me to hammer the nail in so that it holds the board tighter. But if the nail isn't long enough to go all the through the board and into the one I am trying to attach it to, it doesn't matter if I use a stone or a hammer.
Computer models don't tell you anything you didn't already know. If you are really lucky, they will tell you things you didn't kow you knew. The problem with this sort of model is that if one of your starting assumptions is wrong, all of your conclusions from the model will be wrong.
The only budget that has beean offered by a Democrat in the last two years was most definitely "spend, spend, spend until the money runs out". Many Democrats have said they are willing to support something else, but none of them have been willing to put what that was in writing. There has been no discussion of tax cuts since before Bush left office. There has been discussions of tax increases with the Republicans refusing to raise taxes in a down economy. Maintaining the tax rates instituted under George W. Bush is not a "tax cut". Allowing those tax rates to expire is a tax increase.
Currently spending is about 25% of GDP, historically, spending has been around 20% of GDP. Federal revenues have rarely exceeded 20% of GDP and then only for a very short period of time. The Democrats (often with establishment Republicans going along) have always been great champions of "raise taxes now, cut spending later." Only, then later never comes.
You do realize that the TSA was not Bush's idea, right? The TSA was tacked on to one of the bills by the Democrats and Bush was afraid that opposing it would hurt his re-election chances? Of course, Bush should have held out against it and he can rightly be blamed for not doing so.
I can think of one good case for a no-knock raid...where there is good reason to believe there are potential hostages (who are not also likely accomplices). Other than that, I completely agree about no-knock raids.
The founding fathers did a job on you. There are no "inherent" or "natural" rights independent of any government. That's a bunch of philosophical rhetoric that they used to sell The Constitution. It looks great on paper but in the absence of government or society it's not even worth wiping your bum with it.
In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.
The Founding Fathers believed (accurately, I believe) that even if no one witnessed your actions, you would suffer negative consequences from taking such a course of action. My experience with people who act as if rights only exist insofar as government is willing and able to enforce them is that they are miserable, lonely, unhappy, paranoid people.
Actually, all but nine of them voted to raise the debt ceiling under the Cut, Cap and Balance plan. So, even by your logic, there were only nine advocating default. The rest were saying that if the U.S. government keeps spending at this rate it is going to default, what difference does it make if it does it now or in 5 years? I would argue that the position of the majority of the Democratic politicians in this debate was that we keep on spending until we can't make the payments anymore (and/or no one lend us any money).
So, you are saying that the U.S. government pays out more each month to service its debt than it takes in in tax revenue? That is one of only two ways that failure to raise the debt ceiling would have resulted in a default. The other way was for the Administration to choose to default rather than cut spending somewhere else. This does not mean that I think it would have been a good idea for Congress to not raise the debt ceiling, but if we are going to have this discussion, let's stop with the hyperbole (unless, indeed, the answer to the question I asked to start this post is "yes").
Slashdot Mirror
The police entered his home because a neighbor reported seeing two men breaking into the home. When the police arrived, they discovered that the front door had been forced open. They entered the home and discovered a man inside, when the man claimed to live there, they requested that he show ID. The man refuses and things escalated from there. Dr. Gates admits that he had forced entry into his house when he got back from his trip because he did not have his house key. The police may have acted inappropriately, but it had nothing to do with the fact that Dr. Gates was black (which is what Obama was implying and why he got in trouble for his statement). The police would have treated anybody who acted the way Dr. Gates did in that circumstance.
In the primary case in your link, the person hid the video recorder. I thought I read a story a couple of months ago where a court in Massachusetts ruled that there is no need for consent when recording in a place where "there is no expectation of privacy". I cannot find the link at the moment. The only link I can find that seems to have relevant information on the subject is not loading currently.
If that is not the case in Massachusetts, it is the only state with a "two party consent" law where it is not. This does not mean that the police do not attempt to intimidate people into not recording them in those states, just that the courts have ruled that the police are in the wrong when they do so (and have handed done some significant penalties for doing so).
I was replying to someone who said that excess CO2 was the only explanation for the melting of the Arctic ice cap that has any evidence supporting it. There is as much evidence that the undersea volcanoes are driving the melting of the polar ice caps as there is that excess CO2 is doing so, especially in light of the recent revelations that all of the global warming computer models understate the amount of heat that is being radiated off into space.
Really? How much energy is being released by the volcanoes under the Arctic? The ones that scientists believed could not exist because the water pressure was too great (not that volcanoes could not exist there, but that this type could not exist there)?
The thing about the statement (as reflected in the translations posted) is that if the government does not arrest her, the statement is not a threat, but if the government does arrest her (which it did), it is a threat.
If the government had not arrested her, they could credibly claim that they are in the process of implementing a system to ensure that the judiciary gives people their rights. By arresting her, they are tacitly admitting that they have no intention of giving people their rights.
Of course, anyone who has been paying attention realizes that this is the case. The structure of government power in Egypt has not changed. All that has changed in who is running things and to be perfectly honest it looks like the military is currently looking for someone to take over who can implement a facade of popular support.
Yes, the influence of the oil companies is tiny when compared to the EPA, the NOAA, NASA, the Sierra Club, Green Peace, the UN, etc. There are an awful lot of organizations that have an amazing amount to be gained by convincing people to buy into AGW.
We do know that it's melting, and the only explanation that has any evidence to support it is that it's due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the undersea volcanoes that were discovered under the Arctic in 2008. The only possible explanation is global warming as a result of man generated CO2 in the atmosphere. We should pass strict government regulation of all aspects of our lives in order to reduce the CO2 emmissions by enough to delay global warming by a decade in order to offset this problem.
The Arctic volcanoes may not be the main contributor to the melting of the polar ice, but it is false to say that the "only explanation that has any evidence to support it" is that it is due to global warming as a result of CO2 emmissions.
Modern American conservatives are for central planning too, when it suits them.
No, they are not. Many (probably most) Republican politicians are for central planning when it suits them. I should have clarified that modern American conservatives do not favor central planning of the economy.
Fascists are central planners like all other left wing ideologies. If you put communists on the left wing and fascists on the right wing it makes for a very narrow political spectrum. From the perspective of modern American conservatives, fascists have more in common with communists and socialists than with the modern American conservatives.
However if you say this in Germany, you are a Nazi.
Of course that brings up the question of what makes the Nazis right wing. What about a socialist being nationalist is "right wing"?
If I recall correctly, there was a governmental group created in the greeater metropolitan area of Portland in the late 90s/early 00s to develop a plan to make Portland a more "sustainable" community. Part of the motivation for creating this group was to prevent Portland from becoming subject to the type of gridlock that most metropolitan areas in the U.S. suffer from. They actually sat down and defined what that would mean in terms of things like highways, public transportation, bike lanes and all of that sort of thing. Then they went out and looked at the other cities and metropolitan areas in the U.S. to see what cities most closely matched their criteria. The answer was Los Angeles (which most people consider to be the model of what the organization was set up to avoid).
When I looked into what the NDP stood for, the only difference I could see between policies that NDP called for and policies that the Democratic Party in the US called for is that the NDP is nationalistic and above board about its segregationism.
All a computer model can do is project the results of the assumptions that were programmed into it. Computer models make it easier (and more practical) to make predictions based on what we know about complex interactions, but if any of the assumptions that are used to program that computer model are invalid, then the results of the model will be invalid. Whether or not the results of this faulty computer model are useful or not depends on how critical the faulty assumption is to those results.
I'm sorry I really should not have phrased it the way I did. I realize that computer models will tell you a lot that you did not know, but they will not tell the people who created them anything they did not know. Computer models may reveal things about the knowledge that the creators had that they had not realized, but they will not reveal new knowledge.
More walking and biking would lead to lower obesity rates for Portlanders. In turn, a fitter population would find walking and biking a more attractive option.
Would a fitter population find walking and biking a more attractive option, or would they find it a less unattractive option? These sound like the same thing, but think of it this way. Two scenarios where you are out looking for a sex partner.
Scenario One: You find yourself in a position where you have a choice of one of two partners. It is pretty clear that either one will go home with you. Do you choose the one that is more attractive or the one that is less attractive?
Scenario Two: You find yourself in a position where you have a choice of one of two partners. It is pretty clear that either one will go home with you. Do you choose the one that is less repulsive or the one that is more repulsive?
In Scenario One, you will probably choose the one that is more attractive. In Scenario Two, a large percentage of the population will choose to go home alone.
I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive. Computer models are very good for developing plans involving things with a lot of complex interactions (like designing airplanes or more fuel efficient cars). The problem is this, if you don't know how to create the design or plan without a computer model, you will not be able to design a computer model that will let you create the design or plan. I can drive a nail through a board to hold that board to another one with a rock, but using a hammer will make it much easier and will likely allow me to hammer the nail in so that it holds the board tighter. But if the nail isn't long enough to go all the through the board and into the one I am trying to attach it to, it doesn't matter if I use a stone or a hammer.
Computer models don't tell you anything you didn't already know. If you are really lucky, they will tell you things you didn't kow you knew. The problem with this sort of model is that if one of your starting assumptions is wrong, all of your conclusions from the model will be wrong.
The only budget that has beean offered by a Democrat in the last two years was most definitely "spend, spend, spend until the money runs out". Many Democrats have said they are willing to support something else, but none of them have been willing to put what that was in writing. There has been no discussion of tax cuts since before Bush left office. There has been discussions of tax increases with the Republicans refusing to raise taxes in a down economy. Maintaining the tax rates instituted under George W. Bush is not a "tax cut". Allowing those tax rates to expire is a tax increase.
Currently spending is about 25% of GDP, historically, spending has been around 20% of GDP. Federal revenues have rarely exceeded 20% of GDP and then only for a very short period of time. The Democrats (often with establishment Republicans going along) have always been great champions of "raise taxes now, cut spending later." Only, then later never comes.
I agree, the only valid reason for a no-knock raid is that lives hang in the balance.
Dennis Kucinich voted for the individual mandate in Obamacare, try again.
Please name one Left Wing politician who wants us to follow the Constitution?
You do realize that the TSA was not Bush's idea, right? The TSA was tacked on to one of the bills by the Democrats and Bush was afraid that opposing it would hurt his re-election chances? Of course, Bush should have held out against it and he can rightly be blamed for not doing so.
I can think of one good case for a no-knock raid...where there is good reason to believe there are potential hostages (who are not also likely accomplices). Other than that, I completely agree about no-knock raids.
The founding fathers did a job on you. There are no "inherent" or "natural" rights independent of any government. That's a bunch of philosophical rhetoric that they used to sell The Constitution. It looks great on paper but in the absence of government or society it's not even worth wiping your bum with it.
In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.
The Founding Fathers believed (accurately, I believe) that even if no one witnessed your actions, you would suffer negative consequences from taking such a course of action. My experience with people who act as if rights only exist insofar as government is willing and able to enforce them is that they are miserable, lonely, unhappy, paranoid people.
Actually, all but nine of them voted to raise the debt ceiling under the Cut, Cap and Balance plan. So, even by your logic, there were only nine advocating default. The rest were saying that if the U.S. government keeps spending at this rate it is going to default, what difference does it make if it does it now or in 5 years? I would argue that the position of the majority of the Democratic politicians in this debate was that we keep on spending until we can't make the payments anymore (and/or no one lend us any money).
So, you are saying that the U.S. government pays out more each month to service its debt than it takes in in tax revenue? That is one of only two ways that failure to raise the debt ceiling would have resulted in a default. The other way was for the Administration to choose to default rather than cut spending somewhere else. This does not mean that I think it would have been a good idea for Congress to not raise the debt ceiling, but if we are going to have this discussion, let's stop with the hyperbole (unless, indeed, the answer to the question I asked to start this post is "yes").