As a libertarian I ought to celebrate a law that protects journalists. Unfortunately, at this time, protecting journalists and their sources sounds a lot like protecting Enron. Left or right, we've all been upset about the state of journalism, yet one thing we've not been short of is anonymous source.
Only 15% of americans truly trust the news providers, and since just about any story you find in the paper or hear on tv requires us trusting the reporter, and their anonymous sources, it doesn't make sense that we should be making it easier for journalists to pursue a hidden agenda. Me, I want it harder for anonymous sources to come forward. If a source has an issue with this or that policy, they should prove the strength of their conviction by allowing themselves to be named instead of hiding in the shadows. Too often journalists end up as tools for agency or bureaucratic agendas and vendettas.
Republicans and Democrats both villified the press over the Plame outing case because it protected itself and refused to expose the truth behind a high level political case. Democrats wanted the press to name the sources so as to nail Libby and by extension Cheney, Republicans wanted the same thing in order exonerate Libby and by extension Cheney. Instead, journalists ended up in jail over an unfounded assumption that they had to protect a political appointee engaging in an inter-departamental rivalry. Many have pointed out that that episode went far to undermine the freedom of the press.
If we want better reporting and more trust in the news, we should demand as much transparency in reporting as possible, not obfuscate the problems. "Don't mind the source behind the curtain!" is the cry of the journalists. "Put your sources where I can see them" is mine.
Demanding transparency and honesty from the government is futile if we don't demand the same thing from the watchdogs.
You can blame this on Rove et al, but you might as well blame it on the rain. Where I work there's a commercial communications service that has many airlines as customers. All the data is clear text over third party communications networks, so nothing sensitive is sent over the system. The technology used is basic off the shelf stuff, no different than any other relatively small s/w product. That hasn't stopped our company's busy bodies from labelling the project ITAR controlled because it happens to have the Air Force as a customer too. It didn't take any govt prodding to cause this nuisance. Now we have signs indicating when 'sensitive' discussions are taking place, they're supposed to be aware of foreign nationals nearby, have special screens on their monitors, etc etc. It's madness.
Net net: it doesn't take any one trying to crack down to make something ITAR controlled and spoil everyone's fun. It's bureaucracy in action, enforcing rules just to satisfy it's own self-worth. Much like Sarbanes-Oxley
What might have been a story about the contest between commercial and subsidized state-run broadband devolved instantly into a senseless argument about Haliburton and socialism.
If the broadband is funded by taxpayers rather than by subscribers, then it is near impossible for any commercial outfit to compete in that market. That's why the vendors fight the subsidization of what would otherwise be a commercial service.
Subsidized industries usually become dependent on subsidies and end up provided a lesser quality product for a higher price. Look at Detroit, Amtrak, Enron ( yes, Enron was subsidized throughout the 90s).
If you think that having users pay for the state managed broadband means that it's unsubsidized, even if it's true now, it won't be true in the future. The cities will find they will be forced to pour non-users' tax money into a system that caters to a minority. That will entrench the state run offering and turn it into a monopoly because costs will be hidden by passing them on to people who couldn't find the internet if the co-ax was attached to his cerebral cortex and wouldn't care if they did.
Even if you want to debate that the value of state-run broadband is higher than a commercial vendor's because it's less efficient ( the Marxist labor theory ), it doesn't address the other issues at stake.
Since breast cancer is not even among the top three causes of natural death among women, but breast cancer is undeniably female specific, it does appear to me to be a sexist issue. If these pink promoters were worried about saving the largest number of women's lives, let alone lives in general, they'd promote heart disease awareness.
According to the CDC, the mortality rate of breast cancer is 1/8 of heart disease for women. So putting any kind of spotlight on breast cancer is merely a way to emphasize women, not a serious attempt to address important health issues.
As a resident of WA state, I've watched the casinos fund most opposistion to gambling and smoking off of the reservation. Stop blaming the moralists, it's all about the cash. Casino cash.
I admit, IANAL, and I didn't read the whole legalese, but it appears the poster didn't even read as much as I did. The ruling is explicitly clear, blow your whistle all you want. If you happen to be a Deputy DA, feel free to inform the LA Times that you think lines were crossed by the police. But do it on your own time and don't claim you're acting on behalf of the Attorney General when you do so.
From the ruling
(a) Two inquiries guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See Pickering, supra, at 568. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on the employer's reaction to the speech. See Connick, supra, at 147. If the answer is yes, the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the government employer had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. See Pickering, supra, at 568. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker's expressions and employment. Without a significant degree of control over its employees' words and actions, a government employer would have little chance to provide public services efficiently. Cf. Connick, supra, at 143. Thus, a government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its employer role, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect its operations. On the other hand, a citizen who works for the government is nonetheless still a citizen. The First Amendment limits a public employer's ability to leverage the employment relationship to restrict, incidentally or intentionally, the liberties employees enjoy in their capacities as private citizens. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597. So long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively. See, e.g., Connick, supra, at 147. Pp. 5-8.
When I read this, it's seems pretty sensible. Say you're working for BestBuy, and you tell a customer that the widescreen TV they're looking at is actually a refurb being sold at full price. You just blew the whistle on your boss while on his time.
This ruling states that BestBuy ( if it were a public company as in a truly communist state ) could discipline you for undermining the company while being paid to represent the company. No one argues that this is BestBuy's right. The same goes with the LA Attorney General's office. If you are subpenoed to talk about a case, that doesn't make it your job to hand over physical evidence that would torpedo the case. Your job is to talk about the case. You can even talk about the memo you wrote, but the memo is the official property of the AG's office. The onus is on the defense then to subpenoa the memo itself as evidence.
It clearly looks like this Deputy DA overstepped his authority here. That sounds shitty, but I'm not advocating his silence. But if he wanted a protected way to let the defense know the police broke the law, he could have done it in some way as a private citizen and the Supreme Court would probably not have bothered to hear the case, letting stand the ruling in favor of the Deputy.
The largest wars are usually between the biggest trading partners. These are the nations with the shared but competing goals and interests. Look at Europe's long history. The same is true with Japan, with Iraq, Iran, Egypt. Interdependence does not preclude conflict, but it actually provides a useful indicator of where to look for future conflicts.
The anti-sat laser race began years ago. Whilst the US was cutting back defense research into all but the most pork laden projects, China was pushing a serious military space strategy. This included new ICMBs, satellite and anti-sat and guidance technology. All very dual use for their manned program, but by comparison we've been looking the other way whistling whilst a non-democratic expansionistic country that tends to threaten our major trading partners and threaten first strike nuclear assaults against the US is building weapons to cripple the US military.
My response to reading the article: duh!
Here are some recent articles on the developments in China. The US is not starting this race, but it'd be nice to keep up regardless.
The world is, a dangerous place. As with Sudan and Iran, the UN is no deterrent to aggression. Enlightened self-interest directs us to investigate these types of systems for the same reasons we investigate lethal pathogens. Surviving them requires understanding them even if we never intend to use them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02105397_volcano01m.html
Actually, scientists are finding that even sulphur poor volcanos like Mt St Helens put out more polution than all the industry and cars in the state. And that measurement was only for a partial year. Moreover, they have to guess at the upper range because you can't meter the output of a volcano effectively.
This means that volcanos are hardly considered 'chump change' when it comes to adding to 'global warming'.
I guess I'd be more concerned about my rights of dissent if there weren't so many awards going around for famous people performing in big movies about how the government stifles dissent.
Wake me when a/street legal/ car with an alternative fuel that costs within fifty cents of gasoline. I wonder how much acceleration and fuel economy came from leaving off things like airbags and other equipment the government requires the auto makers to install. I'm not saying the regulations on safety are bad, just that the article was very much out of perspective.
I also suggest that their school's economics and science curriculum be reviewed. They're 'energy' companies, not just 'oil' companies. That means that they want to develop and distribute any fuel, not just oil. If the market moved to hydrogen, ethanol, soybeans, or grass clippings, you'll see that the big investors in the production and distribution of those fuel will look awfully similar.
I think you hit it on the head. One of the consistent, proveable, faults of the Bush administration is its tendency to hand out posts to less than fully qualified candidates. Harriet Myers being a great example.
It's something that worries both his detractors and supporters. For precisely this reason. A more experienced appointee might have avoided sounding like some Kansas school board member while accomplishing the same goals.
I have a service that costs $30 a YEAR that gives me nearly the same functionality. For $99/mo I want to be able to deploy JSF/JSP/Servlet applications with multiple databases and built-in blog software w/ maintenance. With my own domain name. With.Mac I would get a mail account, basic website, some good bandwidth, and some storage space, but not enough to back up my system.
I'd do.Mac for maybe $15/mo, but even $30/mo is too much for what they offer.
I mean, I could almost buy an iPod Shuffle each month instead of having.Mac.
What I like is that Apple is providing public credit for institutions that are pointing out these flaws. Kudos for Apple for this, and double kudos for the third-parties who are assisting the public as a whole.
They'd rather see it in the hands of some organization with a more moderate tendency towards graft, corruption, human rights violations than the United Nations. People who are not in the habit of appointing nations controlled by brutal tyrants to highly visible committees.
Perhaps the Gambinos are available.
Seriously, maybe it's a good idea to skip the idea that the creator retain control. I can see good reasons behind having international control over such an international tool of commerce and speech, rather than any nation having sole control. However, there must be a better option than the United Nations. Putting it in the hands of the United Nations, while inviting corruption, would also mean that such control would quickly become a blunt weapon of international diplomacy. The fact that/Iraq/ under Saddam Hussein was appointed head of the UN 'Conference on Disarmament' is a clear example of just how un-serious the UN is about actual effective government.
So, rather than headlining this article by suggesting the US refuses to hand over control. How about 'US Official Sees No Credible Alternative for Control of the Internet'?
I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised to see that no one here knows that we're/behind/ in this area of technology. China ( who recently threatened to nuke American cities if we helped repel an invasion of one of our biggest trading partners ) has a very robust anti-satellite program. Here's one article that dates back to the Clinton era and which is only one of many articles I've seen in this vein ( http://www.afpc.org/crm/crm153.shtml )
I did a search on this page for 'China' and found no mention. Strictly speaking, space weapons have no particular use. Neither do bombers or missiles. However, the nation that lacks them is ( as we've seen throughout the past century ) likely to lose to the nation(s) that do. If China has anti-satellite weapons, they'll be able to neutralize any nation's ability to detect a missile launch.
WHile you can say 'gee-whiz' at this, not being able to retaliate in kind means that any response to such action will have to be greater to be considered meaningful. Better to be able to take out satellites in retaliation or be able to threaten to than have to level cities because being blinded could be a prelude to a strategic attack.
So while I don't like seeing space militarized, I prefer the US keep pace at least with those nations looking to acquire territory by threat or by force. In China's case, Taiwan, the Spratleys, Bhutan.
You might be surprised but many people believe that ethical behaviour should also be a priority for a company. Perhaps this opinion is more common in Europe.
This might explain Europe's much higher unemployment rates.
For decades Germany had an average of 10% unemployment. Now it's up to 20%. But when a liberal Chancellor tries to make it less expensive to hire new staff, the people protest.
Instead of blaming IBM for laying off unproductive workers, try blaming a system that discourages enterprise. Without enterprise, no growth. Without growth, no jobs.
Two things I find funny about this article and the ensuing discussion:
- The assumption that teaching that our understanding of evolution ( as currently or popularly understood ) is flawed is somehow 'fundamentalist'. In fact, questioning theories is very scientific. The belief that our understanding of evolution is flawless is a basically fundamentalist mindset.
Describing alternative theories of creation in a science class makes perfect sense. How can students learn about the controversy surrounding evolution without being taught that there are alternative theories. ( A science teacher should endorse scientific study of fact not dogmatic argument. That study includes studying ID, if only superficially. ) In my high school bio class we discussed 'spontaneous genesis' in a socratic, scientific fashion. The teacher did not tell us what to believe, only that there was no scientific support for the other theories.
- The assumption that ID, or Creationism, is incompatible with evolution. I have met many Christian, and live with one, who believes that the Design in Intelligent Design mean that the Creator created the rules for evolution. Like building a wind up toy and letting it go do its own things.
This idea attributes the development of fundamental natural laws to a Creator and that evolution is a natural outgrowth. No God design the sparrow, says this camp. The sparrow came about because of evolution on a world, in a universe created by God. The creator may have come up with the basic forces witnessed in the first moment of the Big Bang, and left the rest to sort itself out.
This idea cannot be disproved, and has no scientific answer. Cosmology and quantum physics lead to more theological/philosophical questions than answers.
I personally believe in a chaotic creation, but there is no scientific evidence of that either.
In the end, as a secularist and atheist, I see no particular violation of any church and state boundary in the actions of the school, only bad science education if they refuse to explain the flaws in ID and present it as a True alternative.
http://www.powerlineblog.com and to this day, still start my blogging from there. I don't link to anyone else, because from there I go to:
www.shotinthdark.info, a telling, and entertaining blog with links to everyone pretty much.
www.Vodkapundit is very good, and very entertaining. Quite the libertarian, he is a single issue voter: the war, otherwise he disagrees with just about every politician
www.lileks.com/bleat/ is an entertaining blog. Often political, his is usually just an entertaining take on daily life.
http://www.powerlineblog.com however, is probably the most mature political blog I've seen. Others like throwing bombs, these people discount rumors, and play it safe with interesting and educated analysis.
It should be noted, none of these people are friends of Kos or Talking Points memo, and all consider Sullivan a good writer, but hardly conservative. I liked Sullivan until he began slandering Bush and conservatives in general regarding same-sex issues ( with my libertarian take, I couldn't stomach his partisanship ).
Most shows keep a record of their broadcasts anyway. That's how we have records of, say, the moon landing. This isn't a big onus, it just keeps the studios honest.
If you oppose this because it's government getting involved where it doesn't belong, where do you stand on say, inheritance tax or laws illegalizing throwing aluminum cans into your garbage?
While I believe open source is both a competitive and economically wise strategy, I'm not sure I'm willing to make the same conclusions.
Half the organizations or more listed are all tarred by one article I couldn't find, with no other references to check. The magazine apparently referenced also says the press favors the bush administration ( despite the fact that only 7% of press voted for Bush ) .
Clearly not the most objective journalistic source.
I'm certain that Microsoft does fund a considerable amount of FUD, but I don't think they're alone here. It makes me wonder who funded the research upon which the article was based. Transparency ought to go both ways, not none.
For example, the Citizens Against Government Waste says this about Massachusetts' Freeware Initiative:
As for the argument that open source is better and cheaper, such software has its advantages and should be considered an option. That being said, all but the most die hard Linux fans will admit that some functions are better performed with proprietary software. There is simply no reason to slam the door on proprietary vendors at any level of government. If Massachusetts chose one proprietary vendor as the state's only software provider and excluded open source, CAGW would also object to that.
As one example cited by the author, it turns out that it doesn't look like any kind of passionate pro-M$ screed. If that's what M$ got for their money, M$ would be better off using that money to fix IE.
If something isn't great because it was done by contractors, then why the interest in area 51? It's not like the government owns any airplane factories. Everything that captures the imagination in that desert is done by contractors.
All the projects people like to talk about inside area 51 were all 'initiated' by the government, not 'done' by the government.
Just because the internet wasn't 'done' in area 51 'by the government', doesn't make it any less impressive than the litany of aircraft tested there.
Okay, so you need a pond the size of the Sonora desert to begin working on replacing fossil fuels.
What about the flora and fauna displaced by these ponds? Where will the water come from?
Klamath is a desert, which means there's little enough water for the local fauna. Do you intend to kill off species for this project?
Oil drilling by comparison takes up much less local resources and space. For ANWR, you won't even need to pave a road out to the site.
Interesting idea, good supplement, not an oil killer.
Slashdot Mirror
Only 15% of americans truly trust the news providers, and since just about any story you find in the paper or hear on tv requires us trusting the reporter, and their anonymous sources, it doesn't make sense that we should be making it easier for journalists to pursue a hidden agenda. Me, I want it harder for anonymous sources to come forward. If a source has an issue with this or that policy, they should prove the strength of their conviction by allowing themselves to be named instead of hiding in the shadows. Too often journalists end up as tools for agency or bureaucratic agendas and vendettas.
Republicans and Democrats both villified the press over the Plame outing case because it protected itself and refused to expose the truth behind a high level political case. Democrats wanted the press to name the sources so as to nail Libby and by extension Cheney, Republicans wanted the same thing in order exonerate Libby and by extension Cheney. Instead, journalists ended up in jail over an unfounded assumption that they had to protect a political appointee engaging in an inter-departamental rivalry. Many have pointed out that that episode went far to undermine the freedom of the press.
If we want better reporting and more trust in the news, we should demand as much transparency in reporting as possible, not obfuscate the problems. "Don't mind the source behind the curtain!" is the cry of the journalists. "Put your sources where I can see them" is mine.
Demanding transparency and honesty from the government is futile if we don't demand the same thing from the watchdogs.
Net net: it doesn't take any one trying to crack down to make something ITAR controlled and spoil everyone's fun. It's bureaucracy in action, enforcing rules just to satisfy it's own self-worth. Much like Sarbanes-Oxley
If the broadband is funded by taxpayers rather than by subscribers, then it is near impossible for any commercial outfit to compete in that market. That's why the vendors fight the subsidization of what would otherwise be a commercial service.
Subsidized industries usually become dependent on subsidies and end up provided a lesser quality product for a higher price. Look at Detroit, Amtrak, Enron ( yes, Enron was subsidized throughout the 90s).
If you think that having users pay for the state managed broadband means that it's unsubsidized, even if it's true now, it won't be true in the future. The cities will find they will be forced to pour non-users' tax money into a system that caters to a minority. That will entrench the state run offering and turn it into a monopoly because costs will be hidden by passing them on to people who couldn't find the internet if the co-ax was attached to his cerebral cortex and wouldn't care if they did.
Even if you want to debate that the value of state-run broadband is higher than a commercial vendor's because it's less efficient ( the Marxist labor theory ), it doesn't address the other issues at stake.
According to the CDC, the mortality rate of breast cancer is 1/8 of heart disease for women. So putting any kind of spotlight on breast cancer is merely a way to emphasize women, not a serious attempt to address important health issues.
Go to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health_data_for_all_ages
As a resident of WA state, I've watched the casinos fund most opposistion to gambling and smoking off of the reservation. Stop blaming the moralists, it's all about the cash. Casino cash.
From the ruling
When I read this, it's seems pretty sensible. Say you're working for BestBuy, and you tell a customer that the widescreen TV they're looking at is actually a refurb being sold at full price. You just blew the whistle on your boss while on his time.
This ruling states that BestBuy ( if it were a public company as in a truly communist state ) could discipline you for undermining the company while being paid to represent the company. No one argues that this is BestBuy's right. The same goes with the LA Attorney General's office. If you are subpenoed to talk about a case, that doesn't make it your job to hand over physical evidence that would torpedo the case. Your job is to talk about the case. You can even talk about the memo you wrote, but the memo is the official property of the AG's office. The onus is on the defense then to subpenoa the memo itself as evidence.
It clearly looks like this Deputy DA overstepped his authority here. That sounds shitty, but I'm not advocating his silence. But if he wanted a protected way to let the defense know the police broke the law, he could have done it in some way as a private citizen and the Supreme Court would probably not have bothered to hear the case, letting stand the ruling in favor of the Deputy.
The largest wars are usually between the biggest trading partners. These are the nations with the shared but competing goals and interests. Look at Europe's long history. The same is true with Japan, with Iraq, Iran, Egypt. Interdependence does not preclude conflict, but it actually provides a useful indicator of where to look for future conflicts.
My response to reading the article: duh!
Here are some recent articles on the developments in China. The US is not starting this race, but it'd be nice to keep up regardless.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-07 -27-china-satellites_x.htm m l
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html
http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch4.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-01c.html
http://www.taiwandc.org/twcom/84-no3.htm
http://www.afio.com/sections/wins/1998/notes48.ht
The world is, a dangerous place. As with Sudan and Iran, the UN is no deterrent to aggression. Enlightened self-interest directs us to investigate these types of systems for the same reasons we investigate lethal pathogens. Surviving them requires understanding them even if we never intend to use them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02105397_volcano01m.html
Actually, scientists are finding that even sulphur poor volcanos like Mt St Helens put out more polution than all the industry and cars in the state. And that measurement was only for a partial year. Moreover, they have to guess at the upper range because you can't meter the output of a volcano effectively.
This means that volcanos are hardly considered 'chump change' when it comes to adding to 'global warming'.
I guess I'd be more concerned about my rights of dissent if there weren't so many awards going around for famous people performing in big movies about how the government stifles dissent.
Wake me when a /street legal/ car with an alternative fuel that costs within fifty cents of gasoline. I wonder how much acceleration and fuel economy came from leaving off things like airbags and other equipment the government requires the auto makers to install. I'm not saying the regulations on safety are bad, just that the article was very much out of perspective.
I also suggest that their school's economics and science curriculum be reviewed. They're 'energy' companies, not just 'oil' companies. That means that they want to develop and distribute any fuel, not just oil. If the market moved to hydrogen, ethanol, soybeans, or grass clippings, you'll see that the big investors in the production and distribution of those fuel will look awfully similar.
I think you hit it on the head. One of the consistent, proveable, faults of the Bush administration is its tendency to hand out posts to less than fully qualified candidates. Harriet Myers being a great example. It's something that worries both his detractors and supporters. For precisely this reason. A more experienced appointee might have avoided sounding like some Kansas school board member while accomplishing the same goals.
I have a service that costs $30 a YEAR that gives me nearly the same functionality. For $99/mo I want to be able to deploy JSF/JSP/Servlet applications with multiple databases and built-in blog software w/ maintenance. With my own domain name. With .Mac I would get a mail account, basic website, some good bandwidth, and some storage space, but not enough to back up my system.
I'd do .Mac for maybe $15/mo, but even $30/mo is too much for what they offer.
I mean, I could almost buy an iPod Shuffle each month instead of having .Mac.
What I like is that Apple is providing public credit for institutions that are pointing out these flaws. Kudos for Apple for this, and double kudos for the third-parties who are assisting the public as a whole.
Perhaps the Gambinos are available.
Seriously, maybe it's a good idea to skip the idea that the creator retain control. I can see good reasons behind having international control over such an international tool of commerce and speech, rather than any nation having sole control. However, there must be a better option than the United Nations. Putting it in the hands of the United Nations, while inviting corruption, would also mean that such control would quickly become a blunt weapon of international diplomacy. The fact that /Iraq/ under Saddam Hussein was appointed head of the UN 'Conference on Disarmament' is a clear example of just how un-serious the UN is about actual effective government.
So, rather than headlining this article by suggesting the US refuses to hand over control. How about 'US Official Sees No Credible Alternative for Control of the Internet'?
I know I don't.
I did a search on this page for 'China' and found no mention. Strictly speaking, space weapons have no particular use. Neither do bombers or missiles. However, the nation that lacks them is ( as we've seen throughout the past century ) likely to lose to the nation(s) that do. If China has anti-satellite weapons, they'll be able to neutralize any nation's ability to detect a missile launch.
WHile you can say 'gee-whiz' at this, not being able to retaliate in kind means that any response to such action will have to be greater to be considered meaningful. Better to be able to take out satellites in retaliation or be able to threaten to than have to level cities because being blinded could be a prelude to a strategic attack.
So while I don't like seeing space militarized, I prefer the US keep pace at least with those nations looking to acquire territory by threat or by force. In China's case, Taiwan, the Spratleys, Bhutan.
This might explain Europe's much higher unemployment rates.
For decades Germany had an average of 10% unemployment. Now it's up to 20%. But when a liberal Chancellor tries to make it less expensive to hire new staff, the people protest.
Instead of blaming IBM for laying off unproductive workers, try blaming a system that discourages enterprise. Without enterprise, no growth. Without growth, no jobs.
- The assumption that teaching that our understanding of evolution ( as currently or popularly understood ) is flawed is somehow 'fundamentalist'. In fact, questioning theories is very scientific. The belief that our understanding of evolution is flawless is a basically fundamentalist mindset.
Describing alternative theories of creation in a science class makes perfect sense. How can students learn about the controversy surrounding evolution without being taught that there are alternative theories. ( A science teacher should endorse scientific study of fact not dogmatic argument. That study includes studying ID, if only superficially. ) In my high school bio class we discussed 'spontaneous genesis' in a socratic, scientific fashion. The teacher did not tell us what to believe, only that there was no scientific support for the other theories.
- The assumption that ID, or Creationism, is incompatible with evolution. I have met many Christian, and live with one, who believes that the Design in Intelligent Design mean that the Creator created the rules for evolution. Like building a wind up toy and letting it go do its own things.
This idea attributes the development of fundamental natural laws to a Creator and that evolution is a natural outgrowth. No God design the sparrow, says this camp. The sparrow came about because of evolution on a world, in a universe created by God. The creator may have come up with the basic forces witnessed in the first moment of the Big Bang, and left the rest to sort itself out.
This idea cannot be disproved, and has no scientific answer. Cosmology and quantum physics lead to more theological/philosophical questions than answers.
I personally believe in a chaotic creation, but there is no scientific evidence of that either.
In the end, as a secularist and atheist, I see no particular violation of any church and state boundary in the actions of the school, only bad science education if they refuse to explain the flaws in ID and present it as a True alternative.
Somewhere, there's an Al-Qaeda cell waiting to take delivery of the new Airbus.
</tacltessness>
http://www.powerlineblog.com and to this day, still start my blogging from there. I don't link to anyone else, because from there I go to:
www.shotinthdark.info, a telling, and entertaining blog with links to everyone pretty much.
www.Vodkapundit is very good, and very entertaining. Quite the libertarian, he is a single issue voter: the war, otherwise he disagrees with just about every politician
www.lileks.com/bleat/ is an entertaining blog. Often political, his is usually just an entertaining take on daily life.
http://www.powerlineblog.com however, is probably the most mature political blog I've seen. Others like throwing bombs, these people discount rumors, and play it safe with interesting and educated analysis. It should be noted, none of these people are friends of Kos or Talking Points memo, and all consider Sullivan a good writer, but hardly conservative. I liked Sullivan until he began slandering Bush and conservatives in general regarding same-sex issues ( with my libertarian take, I couldn't stomach his partisanship ).
Most shows keep a record of their broadcasts anyway. That's how we have records of, say, the moon landing. This isn't a big onus, it just keeps the studios honest. If you oppose this because it's government getting involved where it doesn't belong, where do you stand on say, inheritance tax or laws illegalizing throwing aluminum cans into your garbage?
Half the organizations or more listed are all tarred by one article I couldn't find, with no other references to check. The magazine apparently referenced also says the press favors the bush administration ( despite the fact that only 7% of press voted for Bush ) .
Clearly not the most objective journalistic source.
I'm certain that Microsoft does fund a considerable amount of FUD, but I don't think they're alone here. It makes me wonder who funded the research upon which the article was based. Transparency ought to go both ways, not none.
For example, the Citizens Against Government Waste says this about Massachusetts' Freeware Initiative:
As for the argument that open source is better and cheaper, such software has its advantages and should be considered an option. That being said, all but the most die hard Linux fans will admit that some functions are better performed with proprietary software. There is simply no reason to slam the door on proprietary vendors at any level of government. If Massachusetts chose one proprietary vendor as the state's only software provider and excluded open source, CAGW would also object to that.
As one example cited by the author, it turns out that it doesn't look like any kind of passionate pro-M$ screed. If that's what M$ got for their money, M$ would be better off using that money to fix IE.
All the projects people like to talk about inside area 51 were all 'initiated' by the government, not 'done' by the government.
Just because the internet wasn't 'done' in area 51 'by the government', doesn't make it any less impressive than the litany of aircraft tested there.
Okay, so you need a pond the size of the Sonora desert to begin working on replacing fossil fuels. What about the flora and fauna displaced by these ponds? Where will the water come from? Klamath is a desert, which means there's little enough water for the local fauna. Do you intend to kill off species for this project? Oil drilling by comparison takes up much less local resources and space. For ANWR, you won't even need to pave a road out to the site. Interesting idea, good supplement, not an oil killer.
Everything done in Area 51 is done by contractors. So what's your point?