If Bush were less of a bad president, people would not be nearly as excited and over-joyed as they are right now.
You have to realize, going from being kicked in the nuts to not getting kicked in the nuts can seem a lot more like winning the lottery when its been going on for 8 years.
Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.
Coincidentally, you could say the exact same thing about the Bible. Of course, many people seem to think the Bible is also a governing document of this nation, so I suppose it's fitting that they would treat the two the same way.
What is this 'bible' you speak of? Do they have it at Borders?
Don't tell me its some kind of "Chicken Soup for the..." spinoff. Those books are so preachy and the stories are so obviously fake.
But the constitution did not explicitly say "whether you're a man or woman, black or white, gay or straight", did it? I mean, even read literally, it doesn't matter what the constitution says if you don't consider blacks to be humans.
The fourteen amendment was only created after the civil war, don't forget. We fought a war with ourselves to resolve that issue.
Well, we can easily confirm that blacks, gays, and women, are human with science.
The problem there, though, is that our highly religious masses only selectively believe science. They believe it when it puts a cellphone on their ear, but not when it challenges an idea that they wish to 'conserve'.
When facing a large group of complete idiots that agree with each other, would it be effective to teach them if teaching makes their idiocy apparent and embarrassing?
Ignorance----> Indignance -----> Bigotry -----> Death -----> progress.
I'm definitely not a Bush supporter, but I admire how he's handled the transition...
The only thing I wonder about... Bush supposedly blew a kiss out the window of his limo as he left the White house for the last time. Did anyone see if, after blowing the kiss, his hand went to his behind, slightly changing the message?
It wasn't to the white house, it was to the US. I caught a glimpse of his bumper sticker... it said "Fuck this place, I'm moving to Dubai"
You must conveniently forget that he specifically created and tasked an office under his control to produce that bad intelligence at all costs.
You also must conveniently disregard the thousands of african americans who were wrongfully purged from voting registrations in Florida in 2000. As the recount came within under 500 votes difference, the recount was called off by the voting authority in charge (can't remember the cunts name), who also happened to be a major member of the Bush election party.
Sure, when you ignore the facts, you've got a point....:rolleyes:
I'm not insulting you, I'm dealing with your red-herring approach to the argument by pointing at small technicalities to discredit the big picture.
The same happened when you implied that Solar ought not be used instead of current methods because we cannot be sure it is the cleanest and cheapest source of power in existence. You opted for a turd over the diamond because the diamond was not of complete purity. --------------
As for economic payback, unless the middlemen between the manufacturers and the buyers are jacking the system for profits, there really isn't a lot more time-of-use for the panels to pay for those financial factors as well. In that case, competition can easily keep companies from trying to pull huge profits because consumers simply won't pay.
What you've missed in all this is that once the system is paid for, that which comes afterward for the rest of the lifetime of the panel is harnessed at no cost. That energy can be used to produce more panels similar to the concept of compounding interest (you should know this one). In this theoretical system (since we have no real large scale systems like this) at some point the energy surplus will so greatly outweigh the initial investment that costs of most things we know in life can drop dramatically.
You can't suck oil out of the ground at no cost, and as I said before if you take into account the costs of UNDOING combustion, well.... the costs of that energy system are much higher.
I honestly think once energy becomes so available that there is no dire need, the world will find peace that has not been seen in millenia. The barriers to this end lie purely in the minds of the ignorant public. I'm sure without a microscope in every home and school, it may have taken a good amount of time to convince the world about the existence of bacteria; and now we know we have over 150 species on our hands at all times! If you don't have it, get the knowledge and spread it.
Because sometimes, shit happens to the patient and the exact nature of how they're taken to the hospital may prevent them from carrying their EHR with them. In that case it'd really suck for the hospital if they didn't have the record on file or access to another hospital that did. Maybe the patient is severely allergic you're about to give him. Added to whatever current condition the patient has, you might kill him.
I'd prefer to OPT-IN by making my records available to any local hospitals; or at least to opt-in to a national health database system.
The current plans seem to leave no option available other than---your records, made public. Yes, they pretend the records will be private, but how many large databases of information get compromised every single day? I'm not even 30 yet and I've received at least 5 (that I can remember) notices from places that keep my information private, alerting me that it has been compromised.
Let me spell this out for you real simple. Insurance and medicine are still generally private in the US. With most anyone who deals with records at hospitals having access to the centralized database, your records are now available to and resting within the responsibility of thousands and thousands of people; none of which are perfect, or even necessarily 'good' people.
Your medical history is as private as your anus, your porn favorites, and that little thing your wife loves you to do. Would you like thousands of people to have the ability to make your anus public with the click of a mouse? What about your history of alcoholism and drug abuse?
Privacy must be protected. Given a centralized system that is accessed or even developed by humans, we will not have any privacy. Even if all but one of those with access is a good person, that one person, acting on deliberate interests, or possibly manipulative interests (medical espionage) like needing money, drug abuse, companionship, etc, can make anything in that database available to anyone who asks them for it.
Think about that for a minute... If it doesn't bother you yet, you're too young to have any medical history worth keeping private.
I completely agree. I do not understand, whatsoever, how it is burdensome for a patient to bring their medical records to their doctor. The doctor and/or hospital keep those records privately; access and review/add to them when necessary--- and if the patient needs to see another doctor, they can get a copy and carry them on over to the new doctor.
This is how it already works; this is NOT a big deal.
So by subsidizing oil and artificially keeping the price low, how is that a smart move? You've tried to denounce the obviously necessary move to get online with today's technology. The costs of all those things would not go up, had we a better transportation infrastructure like trains instead of diesel trucks. And cars that utilize electricity, and clean, endless sources of that electricity such as the methods that have been available for over 2 decades now.
What, in all your wisdom of foresight, do you propose? Akin to our failing economy right now, you've defended delaying the inevitable by throwing money at oil (subsidies). Our economy deserves to fail, along with our current energy systems that will not let go and make way for better chioces.
When celery costs $3, that gives the people all that much more reason to demand real solutions.
In metaphor: We're staring at a serious wound here, now it is bleeding and the future can only be worse. You've defended the idea to put another Dora the Explorer bandaid on it and hope for the best. I've said we need to flush it with alcohol first, endure some pain, and start dealing with it.
I understand technicalities, but I'm talking about reality, where you make mental effort to at least correlate and understand the concept that the author is attempted to present (such as using the common factor between combustion force and watts... joules) . Or go even further and attempt to calculate and account for those factors. But, based on your surface attack via technicality, sure I'm wrong...
My friend's father built an electric porche from a kit car in ~1995 for about $15k. It still runs today, and has about a 250 mile range. What you are asking for has been accomplished time and time again for over a decade; the limitation is one's ability to actually look into it and speak to true professionals that are working on these projects. What you are regurgitating is mainstream media pundit blather. If you would talk to people in the field, you would learn much more than what Slashdot, Wikipedia, or CNN could ever tell you.
As for your very WRONG statements about solar panels, I will reference you to a wide-scope analysis of solar panels. With panels averaging between 25-30 years of service and the general payback time between 2-5 years, the glaring and obvious point is that the energy harnessed for the following 20 years is nearly effortless and has relatively no impact on our environment. What kind of energy does it cost to UNDO combustion? lol. People still don't weigh that consideration into energy efficiency, though they frown at the warming future.
Read the article, you will be enlightened. Solar is only one of many options we've had for over 2 decades. One of the major barriers to change is the public ignorance of the current state of technology. Another being the evident tendency to accept what the guy on TV says as truth and move along with the rest of the day.
Don't you realize that solar panels are at least a BETTER source than coal and natural gas? Your last line basically argues that solar panels are not a good choice because we cannot be sure that it is the cheapest, cleanest source of power. That is like arguing that, when choosing between a turd or a diamond, that the diamond's clarity is not completely perfect, and that we should accept the turd until such diamond is found.
unfortunately.. you don't understand whats going on.... the man being selected for the DOE position is a scientist, not a politician. And while preparing to become a politician, he still made progress as a scientist.
It says who did the work. Steven Chu. He will soon become a politician who has actually done something in life.
I agree. There are a bagillion simple and free formats that pretty much all people are able to view with. From what I understand, most the porn sites use these because I've been able to view porn from a PC, Mac, and my Ubuntu laptop. Wtf happened to the obama/youtube connection?
This exclusion of viewership was done deliberately, to drive silverlight popularity/use. The product has been generally failing since inception and needs a big boost. I use the internet usually at least a few hours a day and I've never used silverlight nor been to a website that uses it. Yet if I want to view the inauguration online, this highly unpopular method will be *required*? This is blatant.
but their "top" car must be able to get at least 60mpg (instead of the current U.S. peak of 40mpg). That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ever consider that you can't generally get something for nothing? IE the costs of making a mass market 60mpg car would make it either so expensive or feature sparse that they can't make their development costs back from it?
We're still stuck with physics, thus it's not like we can just legislate a XXX mpg car into existence.
That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ah yes, the ecoleaner 2010. 60mpg, comes standard with 2 speaker radio, 3 star crash rating, carbon fiber construction, no AC, limited heat, all yours for only $50k!
Electrical cars can do much more than 60mpg. And once the new republic of the americas (yes, post revolution) has the ability to use TODAYS TECHNOLOGY, not burdened by the lobbies of century-old-tech like natural gas, coal, and oil... Well then we've got answers.
The costs of many physical products, including cars, are heavily tied to the energy of producing htem. With the current archaic energy systems in the US, energy is expensive, thus products are expensive. Energy is expensive not because it has to be, but because the people selling it want it to be. The people selling it control our politicians, and... go figure.
Even the solar panels from the 90s put out more energy than it costs to produce them and recycle them into new panels, within their lifetime. That is a net positive of relatively 'free energy'.
I guess it is more cost effective big-energy to puppeteer our politicians, than to make the move themselves. We need to demand it. I don't foresee a hoverboard running on coal, do you?
I'm with you on this one. A quick and easy way to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars is this.
1) Remove all oil subsidies and stop using US military and political force to ensure we get good prices. Put the burden of the oil business on the oil business, nothing more.
2) The cost of fuel will go to where it belongs, that way people with 40mpg cars are not subsidizing the cheap cost of gas for those SUV gluttons. (Yes, even $5/gal is cheap in this world)
3) When fuel is not being subsidized to hell with taxpayer dollars in one form or another, it will be quite expensive and people will no longer be able to afford to make stupid decisions. They will either walk more, drive less, carpool, use public transit, or something else, because $10/gallon is too much to pay for.
4) Due to no other option, Public demand for energy that is not based on industrial-revolution-age technology, and based somewhere in the 90s or even today's technology, will rise. People will finally demand widespread public transportation systems. Clean and efficient electricity will finally be here!
But those solar panel and hydroelectric hippies aren't lining the pockets of our decision-makers, and thus it isn't quite in our 'best interest' to do something intelligent quite just yet. Instead we'll find a way to convert corn into fuel and cram the waste of combusting that into the atmosphere as well. I've heard the corn lobby is quite large, no?
But, in 2009, this is what the world looks like when money runs the show. Yay for money!:/
Actually in a very clear case of your civil rights being violated, you can usually get someone else to foot the legal bill. If not, I get to sue for legal fees.
And it all comes out of the state. wasteful, and erroneous government action from the beginning... all the costs come out of the state. Thats you and me, paying taxes, paying for this; think about that.
We aren't getting our money's worth. I'd rather have a childrens hospital built and run, than ultimate security by taking it from you. Yeh, people are dying and there are things like terrorism you can't really avoid. True. But the likelihood of you killing it is basically nil, and there are more important things to be doing than putting our hands on every single square inch of the earth. Lets all just sit the heck down and talk about what we all *need* first. How about we all respect life, home/family, privacy, and community. Get all the major leaders to at least understand and pledge to that concept, and spread it to their people; there would be much less reason to need all this combative interventionism.
a little clarification. I am talking about how, before we started laying out law after law... right in the beginning of the constitution, basically. But, i wanted to point out that we've had some cultural changes that have gotten the constitution amended later down the line, like abolishing slavery, womens rights, etc. Those true constitutional values should also be upheld.
Slashdot Mirror
All right, now how about the separation of corporation and state?
Here here!
How about the separation of 'too many effin lawyers' and state, too?
obama is a secret communist muslim!
What a relief; i thought he was an overt fundamentalist christian.
I think the 5 minutes of Jesus-worship prayer during the inauguration may prove to give some support to that argument.
If Bush were less of a bad president, people would not be nearly as excited and over-joyed as they are right now.
You have to realize, going from being kicked in the nuts to not getting kicked in the nuts can seem a lot more like winning the lottery when its been going on for 8 years.
I thought you had to be American American to become president?
Was he born in Africa or something? Please clarify.
Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.
Coincidentally, you could say the exact same thing about the Bible. Of course, many people seem to think the Bible is also a governing document of this nation, so I suppose it's fitting that they would treat the two the same way.
What is this 'bible' you speak of? Do they have it at Borders?
Don't tell me its some kind of "Chicken Soup for the..." spinoff. Those books are so preachy and the stories are so obviously fake.
But the constitution did not explicitly say "whether you're a man or woman, black or white, gay or straight", did it? I mean, even read literally, it doesn't matter what the constitution says if you don't consider blacks to be humans.
The fourteen amendment was only created after the civil war, don't forget. We fought a war with ourselves to resolve that issue.
Well, we can easily confirm that blacks, gays, and women, are human with science.
The problem there, though, is that our highly religious masses only selectively believe science. They believe it when it puts a cellphone on their ear, but not when it challenges an idea that they wish to 'conserve'.
When facing a large group of complete idiots that agree with each other, would it be effective to teach them if teaching makes their idiocy apparent and embarrassing?
Ignorance----> Indignance -----> Bigotry -----> Death -----> progress.
Why do people hate the 10th amendment?
If it isn't interstate commerce, then the federal government, according to the 10th amendment, lacks jurisdiction.
What you smokin' on?
The only thing I wonder about... Bush supposedly blew a kiss out the window of his limo as he left the White house for the last time. Did anyone see if, after blowing the kiss, his hand went to his behind, slightly changing the message?
It wasn't to the white house, it was to the US. I caught a glimpse of his bumper sticker... it said "Fuck this place, I'm moving to Dubai"
You must conveniently forget that he specifically created and tasked an office under his control to produce that bad intelligence at all costs.
You also must conveniently disregard the thousands of african americans who were wrongfully purged from voting registrations in Florida in 2000. As the recount came within under 500 votes difference, the recount was called off by the voting authority in charge (can't remember the cunts name), who also happened to be a major member of the Bush election party.
Sure, when you ignore the facts, you've got a point.... :rolleyes:
So, whats the difference between less growth with no inflation, or more growth with inflation?
inflation makes that 'more growth' less valuable...
whats the diff?
I agree 100%.
Wtf is the problem here?
I'm not insulting you, I'm dealing with your red-herring approach to the argument by pointing at small technicalities to discredit the big picture.
The same happened when you implied that Solar ought not be used instead of current methods because we cannot be sure it is the cleanest and cheapest source of power in existence. You opted for a turd over the diamond because the diamond was not of complete purity.
--------------
As for economic payback, unless the middlemen between the manufacturers and the buyers are jacking the system for profits, there really isn't a lot more time-of-use for the panels to pay for those financial factors as well. In that case, competition can easily keep companies from trying to pull huge profits because consumers simply won't pay.
What you've missed in all this is that once the system is paid for, that which comes afterward for the rest of the lifetime of the panel is harnessed at no cost. That energy can be used to produce more panels similar to the concept of compounding interest (you should know this one). In this theoretical system (since we have no real large scale systems like this) at some point the energy surplus will so greatly outweigh the initial investment that costs of most things we know in life can drop dramatically.
You can't suck oil out of the ground at no cost, and as I said before if you take into account the costs of UNDOING combustion, well.... the costs of that energy system are much higher.
I honestly think once energy becomes so available that there is no dire need, the world will find peace that has not been seen in millenia. The barriers to this end lie purely in the minds of the ignorant public. I'm sure without a microscope in every home and school, it may have taken a good amount of time to convince the world about the existence of bacteria; and now we know we have over 150 species on our hands at all times! If you don't have it, get the knowledge and spread it.
Because sometimes, shit happens to the patient and the exact nature of how they're taken to the hospital may prevent them from carrying their EHR with them. In that case it'd really suck for the hospital if they didn't have the record on file or access to another hospital that did. Maybe the patient is severely allergic you're about to give him. Added to whatever current condition the patient has, you might kill him.
I'd prefer to OPT-IN by making my records available to any local hospitals; or at least to opt-in to a national health database system.
The current plans seem to leave no option available other than---your records, made public. Yes, they pretend the records will be private, but how many large databases of information get compromised every single day? I'm not even 30 yet and I've received at least 5 (that I can remember) notices from places that keep my information private, alerting me that it has been compromised.
Let me spell this out for you real simple. Insurance and medicine are still generally private in the US. With most anyone who deals with records at hospitals having access to the centralized database, your records are now available to and resting within the responsibility of thousands and thousands of people; none of which are perfect, or even necessarily 'good' people.
Your medical history is as private as your anus, your porn favorites, and that little thing your wife loves you to do. Would you like thousands of people to have the ability to make your anus public with the click of a mouse? What about your history of alcoholism and drug abuse?
Privacy must be protected. Given a centralized system that is accessed or even developed by humans, we will not have any privacy. Even if all but one of those with access is a good person, that one person, acting on deliberate interests, or possibly manipulative interests (medical espionage) like needing money, drug abuse, companionship, etc, can make anything in that database available to anyone who asks them for it.
Think about that for a minute... If it doesn't bother you yet, you're too young to have any medical history worth keeping private.
Thank you for clarifying that for him.
The Communists?
But it isn't rare for there to be advanced screenings of a movie a week or two in advance of the public release date.
I wonder if we'll ever see movie cinemas with terminals or similar at them that let you rate a movie as you walk out after seeing it.
I went to google.com
Typed in "inkheart screener"
The very first choice at the top is a bit-torrent search engine.
The page lists a number of different torrents of this movie already being available from screeners and cam rips, etc.
--------------
I think it is safe to say that thousands of people have already seen it by now.
I completely agree. I do not understand, whatsoever, how it is burdensome for a patient to bring their medical records to their doctor. The doctor and/or hospital keep those records privately; access and review/add to them when necessary--- and if the patient needs to see another doctor, they can get a copy and carry them on over to the new doctor.
This is how it already works; this is NOT a big deal.
So by subsidizing oil and artificially keeping the price low, how is that a smart move? You've tried to denounce the obviously necessary move to get online with today's technology. The costs of all those things would not go up, had we a better transportation infrastructure like trains instead of diesel trucks. And cars that utilize electricity, and clean, endless sources of that electricity such as the methods that have been available for over 2 decades now.
What, in all your wisdom of foresight, do you propose? Akin to our failing economy right now, you've defended delaying the inevitable by throwing money at oil (subsidies). Our economy deserves to fail, along with our current energy systems that will not let go and make way for better chioces.
When celery costs $3, that gives the people all that much more reason to demand real solutions.
In metaphor:
We're staring at a serious wound here, now it is bleeding and the future can only be worse. You've defended the idea to put another Dora the Explorer bandaid on it and hope for the best. I've said we need to flush it with alcohol first, endure some pain, and start dealing with it.
I understand technicalities, but I'm talking about reality, where you make mental effort to at least correlate and understand the concept that the author is attempted to present (such as using the common factor between combustion force and watts... joules) . Or go even further and attempt to calculate and account for those factors. But, based on your surface attack via technicality, sure I'm wrong...
My friend's father built an electric porche from a kit car in ~1995 for about $15k. It still runs today, and has about a 250 mile range. What you are asking for has been accomplished time and time again for over a decade; the limitation is one's ability to actually look into it and speak to true professionals that are working on these projects. What you are regurgitating is mainstream media pundit blather. If you would talk to people in the field, you would learn much more than what Slashdot, Wikipedia, or CNN could ever tell you.
As for your very WRONG statements about solar panels, I will reference you to a wide-scope analysis of solar panels. With panels averaging between 25-30 years of service and the general payback time between 2-5 years, the glaring and obvious point is that the energy harnessed for the following 20 years is nearly effortless and has relatively no impact on our environment. What kind of energy does it cost to UNDO combustion? lol. People still don't weigh that consideration into energy efficiency, though they frown at the warming future.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219
Read the article, you will be enlightened. Solar is only one of many options we've had for over 2 decades. One of the major barriers to change is the public ignorance of the current state of technology. Another being the evident tendency to accept what the guy on TV says as truth and move along with the rest of the day.
Don't you realize that solar panels are at least a BETTER source than coal and natural gas? Your last line basically argues that solar panels are not a good choice because we cannot be sure that it is the cheapest, cleanest source of power. That is like arguing that, when choosing between a turd or a diamond, that the diamond's clarity is not completely perfect, and that we should accept the turd until such diamond is found.
...the article didn't say who did the work.
Just the politician whose name is attached to it.
unfortunately.. you don't understand whats going on.... the man being selected for the DOE position is a scientist, not a politician. And while preparing to become a politician, he still made progress as a scientist.
It says who did the work. Steven Chu. He will soon become a politician who has actually done something in life.
I agree. There are a bagillion simple and free formats that pretty much all people are able to view with. From what I understand, most the porn sites use these because I've been able to view porn from a PC, Mac, and my Ubuntu laptop. Wtf happened to the obama/youtube connection?
This exclusion of viewership was done deliberately, to drive silverlight popularity/use. The product has been generally failing since inception and needs a big boost. I use the internet usually at least a few hours a day and I've never used silverlight nor been to a website that uses it. Yet if I want to view the inauguration online, this highly unpopular method will be *required*? This is blatant.
but their "top" car must be able to get at least 60mpg (instead of the current U.S. peak of 40mpg). That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ever consider that you can't generally get something for nothing? IE the costs of making a mass market 60mpg car would make it either so expensive or feature sparse that they can't make their development costs back from it?
We're still stuck with physics, thus it's not like we can just legislate a XXX mpg car into existence.
That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ah yes, the ecoleaner 2010. 60mpg, comes standard with 2 speaker radio, 3 star crash rating, carbon fiber construction, no AC, limited heat, all yours for only $50k!
Electrical cars can do much more than 60mpg. And once the new republic of the americas (yes, post revolution) has the ability to use TODAYS TECHNOLOGY, not burdened by the lobbies of century-old-tech like natural gas, coal, and oil... Well then we've got answers.
The costs of many physical products, including cars, are heavily tied to the energy of producing htem. With the current archaic energy systems in the US, energy is expensive, thus products are expensive. Energy is expensive not because it has to be, but because the people selling it want it to be. The people selling it control our politicians, and... go figure.
Even the solar panels from the 90s put out more energy than it costs to produce them and recycle them into new panels, within their lifetime. That is a net positive of relatively 'free energy'.
I guess it is more cost effective big-energy to puppeteer our politicians, than to make the move themselves. We need to demand it. I don't foresee a hoverboard running on coal, do you?
I'm with you on this one. A quick and easy way to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars is this.
1) Remove all oil subsidies and stop using US military and political force to ensure we get good prices. Put the burden of the oil business on the oil business, nothing more.
2) The cost of fuel will go to where it belongs, that way people with 40mpg cars are not subsidizing the cheap cost of gas for those SUV gluttons. (Yes, even $5/gal is cheap in this world)
3) When fuel is not being subsidized to hell with taxpayer dollars in one form or another, it will be quite expensive and people will no longer be able to afford to make stupid decisions. They will either walk more, drive less, carpool, use public transit, or something else, because $10/gallon is too much to pay for.
4) Due to no other option, Public demand for energy that is not based on industrial-revolution-age technology, and based somewhere in the 90s or even today's technology, will rise. People will finally demand widespread public transportation systems. Clean and efficient electricity will finally be here!
But those solar panel and hydroelectric hippies aren't lining the pockets of our decision-makers, and thus it isn't quite in our 'best interest' to do something intelligent quite just yet. Instead we'll find a way to convert corn into fuel and cram the waste of combusting that into the atmosphere as well. I've heard the corn lobby is quite large, no?
But, in 2009, this is what the world looks like when money runs the show. Yay for money! :/
Actually in a very clear case of your civil rights being violated, you can usually get someone else to foot the legal bill. If not, I get to sue for legal fees.
And it all comes out of the state. wasteful, and erroneous government action from the beginning... all the costs come out of the state. Thats you and me, paying taxes, paying for this; think about that.
We aren't getting our money's worth. I'd rather have a childrens hospital built and run, than ultimate security by taking it from you. Yeh, people are dying and there are things like terrorism you can't really avoid. True. But the likelihood of you killing it is basically nil, and there are more important things to be doing than putting our hands on every single square inch of the earth. Lets all just sit the heck down and talk about what we all *need* first. How about we all respect life, home/family, privacy, and community. Get all the major leaders to at least understand and pledge to that concept, and spread it to their people; there would be much less reason to need all this combative interventionism.
a little clarification. I am talking about how, before we started laying out law after law... right in the beginning of the constitution, basically. But, i wanted to point out that we've had some cultural changes that have gotten the constitution amended later down the line, like abolishing slavery, womens rights, etc. Those true constitutional values should also be upheld.