Not that I think we should go after Russia, militarily, but the whole oil angle is stupid. We get, what, 2% of our oil from them? Whoopty! Open ANWR and we'll triple what we get from Russia.(Alas--if only the granola eaters would grant us access to our own resources.)
Woops! Wrong thread! Although the principle stands. Unwind the federal gov't from controlling energy, controlling retirement, controlling health care, controlling what we eat, where we smoke, monopolizing eduction, and on and on. (The only thing they don't control are lawyers, it seems.) The only truly "progressive" tack is to increase freedom in this country, and Tyler was right--neither party as a whole is doing that.
No, I think Abe was cool. And I don't think we should do nothing. I think we should act to unwind the command-and-control nature of the federal gov't, and this is a perfect example. If Louisiana wants the freedom to teach intelligent design, then the Feds should let them and shut the hell up. If the LA law turns out to be a bad idea, then the parents and legislative process in LA will take care of it.
What the hell is so good about "progressive" anyway? The Founding Fathers pretty much got it right a couple hundred years ago. I'd rather just return to their ideals than "progress" to the same-old, same-old statist crap the rest of the civilized world is choking on.
It's not a waste if it's the will of the LA residents.
What's stupid is the US Supreme Court striking down any state laws that do not violate the Constitution--and only a paranoid socialist would think that this law somehow establishes a religion.
So let me get this straight... the child exploiters/consumers are committing atrocious crimes, so the NY Attorney General's solution is to extort private companies into policing the Internet.
And for a million dollars that, one way or another, will all get passed on to ISP customers.
Thanks a million, Cuomo. You tyrannical ass.
Information in China is not free because people in China are not free.
Correct. Therefore the geniuses over at OpenOffice.org, a product promoting and celebrating freedom, are going to hold their next convention, OOoCon, in Beijing.
The laws of physics are the same there are they are here. The same chemicals in the same conditions don't magically behave differently because it's a different planet.
Individual chemicals, no. But entire systems can be night and day from each other. As others have pointed out here, we don't even have the first clue as to how Earth's environment works, what with self-regulating feedback systems and all.
Extrapolation from one to the other -- even today -- could be dangerous to one's career.
Quite the opposite. Coming up with ridiculous, unprovable claims about the weather is a resume enhancer nowadays. And if you can come up with inventive ways to cripple or destroy world economies as a result of those fantasy crises, well hell!, they'll give you a Nobel Peace Prize!
I actually agree with you to an extent. I don't think the Founders would have condoned foreign entanglements, such as Bosnia, in which we have no national interest, or at least national security interest; or alliances such as the UN, NATO, or ANZUS. And I also cede your point that they had little need of a standing army, and that they were not interested in war.
But you're confusing principles with their application. To the Founders, government's raison d'être was the protection of liberty, and protection from foreign threats clearly falls within that purview. In their day, they had little need of a standing army because, aside from the long arm of the British navy, the oceans kept the US relatively safe. But if thy had had enemies that could incinerate US cities with the press of a button from the other side of the globe (e.g. during the Cold War) they absolutely would have approved of a big army and cutting-edge national defense system.
Nevertheless, I think you missed my original point: any heavily-populated country that is based on individual freedom will create enough wealth to easily afford a strong military.
Bull. First, the US is not an empire; it's a standard for freedom in the world. (At least it was before socialism took hold.) Second, military spending is not an economic burden. The largest black hole of gov't spending (and growing out of control) is entitlement programs--stealing money from productive people through punitive taxation and giving it to unproductive people. The US gov't wouldn't have any problem increasing military spending if it stuck to its job (protecting people, property, and liberty as the Founders intended) and got out of the business of robbing some citizens on behalf of other citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I think we should go after Russia, militarily, but the whole oil angle is stupid. We get, what, 2% of our oil from them? Whoopty! Open ANWR and we'll triple what we get from Russia.(Alas--if only the granola eaters would grant us access to our own resources.)
Woops! Wrong thread! Although the principle stands. Unwind the federal gov't from controlling energy, controlling retirement, controlling health care, controlling what we eat, where we smoke, monopolizing eduction, and on and on. (The only thing they don't control are lawyers, it seems.) The only truly "progressive" tack is to increase freedom in this country, and Tyler was right--neither party as a whole is doing that.
No, I think Abe was cool. And I don't think we should do nothing. I think we should act to unwind the command-and-control nature of the federal gov't, and this is a perfect example. If Louisiana wants the freedom to teach intelligent design, then the Feds should let them and shut the hell up. If the LA law turns out to be a bad idea, then the parents and legislative process in LA will take care of it.
What the hell is so good about "progressive" anyway? The Founding Fathers pretty much got it right a couple hundred years ago. I'd rather just return to their ideals than "progress" to the same-old, same-old statist crap the rest of the civilized world is choking on.
It's not a waste if it's the will of the LA residents.
What's stupid is the US Supreme Court striking down any state laws that do not violate the Constitution--and only a paranoid socialist would think that this law somehow establishes a religion.
So let me get this straight... the child exploiters/consumers are committing atrocious crimes, so the NY Attorney General's solution is to extort private companies into policing the Internet. And for a million dollars that, one way or another, will all get passed on to ISP customers. Thanks a million, Cuomo. You tyrannical ass.
Information in China is not free because people in China are not free.
Correct. Therefore the geniuses over at OpenOffice.org, a product promoting and celebrating freedom, are going to hold their next convention, OOoCon, in Beijing.
<Sigh>
The laws of physics are the same there are they are here. The same chemicals in the same conditions don't magically behave differently because it's a different planet.
Individual chemicals, no. But entire systems can be night and day from each other. As others have pointed out here, we don't even have the first clue as to how Earth's environment works, what with self-regulating feedback systems and all.
Extrapolation from one to the other -- even today -- could be dangerous to one's career. Quite the opposite. Coming up with ridiculous, unprovable claims about the weather is a resume enhancer nowadays. And if you can come up with inventive ways to cripple or destroy world economies as a result of those fantasy crises, well hell!, they'll give you a Nobel Peace Prize!
I actually agree with you to an extent. I don't think the Founders would have condoned foreign entanglements, such as Bosnia, in which we have no national interest, or at least national security interest; or alliances such as the UN, NATO, or ANZUS. And I also cede your point that they had little need of a standing army, and that they were not interested in war.
But you're confusing principles with their application. To the Founders, government's raison d'être was the protection of liberty, and protection from foreign threats clearly falls within that purview. In their day, they had little need of a standing army because, aside from the long arm of the British navy, the oceans kept the US relatively safe. But if thy had had enemies that could incinerate US cities with the press of a button from the other side of the globe (e.g. during the Cold War) they absolutely would have approved of a big army and cutting-edge national defense system.
Nevertheless, I think you missed my original point: any heavily-populated country that is based on individual freedom will create enough wealth to easily afford a strong military.
Bull. First, the US is not an empire; it's a standard for freedom in the world. (At least it was before socialism took hold.) Second, military spending is not an economic burden. The largest black hole of gov't spending (and growing out of control) is entitlement programs--stealing money from productive people through punitive taxation and giving it to unproductive people. The US gov't wouldn't have any problem increasing military spending if it stuck to its job (protecting people, property, and liberty as the Founders intended) and got out of the business of robbing some citizens on behalf of other citizens.