> I guess you're claiming that Obama is a clone of Carter.
Yup.
> Plus this sort of treaty isn't appeasement...
I'll agree that the treaty (to the extent that Obama has actually signed anything at this point) itself isn't appeasement. Being a useful idiot in front of the Russian and International media is appeasement of a sort, however (or put another way "I'll do whatever I need to make people like me").
Also, the fact that he's over there negotiating with the Russians to reduce our strategic nuclear deterrence while completely ignoring the real problems in Iran and North Korea is the same sort of thinking that put Ayatollah Khomeini into power in the late 1970s (Carter's watch).
It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency). Still, I find it a bit disconcerting that he appears not to have noticed that there are now other players in the nuclear proliferation game beyond the US and Soviet Union. I hope he plans to give some recognition to that fact soon, since those other players are not nearly as rational and level headed as the USSR.
Not only that, if this catches on, it'll just be a matter of time before we start running out of bugs in the US and have to start relying on foriegn sources of bugs.
I was teaching computer science at the Air Force Academy a few years back (2004). The Ada zealots were well and firmly entrenched in the Computer Science department, and now occupy its top echelons. I suspect they're still using it as the primary teaching language (though to their credit, they appear to have completely expunged any mention of the programming languages used in these courses).
That said, there is a certain logic in using Ada in an academic setting as well as those requiring high reliability (like a missile's guidance system or an aircraft flight control system). It is rigidly typed, it's not prone to single character errors (the way C-based languages are) and its compilers (the GNU one we were using at least) produced well optimized executables. This made it reasonable use as a teaching language to the cadets as their errors were usually ones of logic, rather than logical errors induced by syntactic oddities. These same characteristics are useful in mission critical applications.
First, my question was rhetorical (a point you seemed to have missed), just as I believe Google's actions in this regard are rhetorical. I can't see that Google has any standing to bring any kind of legal challenge to this. Maybe they can file some sort of amicus brief when the case get heard, but ultimately Google isn't going to be participating at any level in any kind of gay marriage any more than it participates in traditional marriage. I don't seriously believe that this is anything more than a publicity stunt to get some number of its employees and members of the larger California community to feel good about Google.
> Why don't you believe in fighting for ideals? Do you meekly run away from anything that isn't going your way?
Actually I do believe in fighting for my ideals and I know something about doing so. I've served in the US military for almost 20 years. I have lived by my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I see my post here as continuing in that tradition. Google challenging the will of the people of California in court may be legal, but I don't see it as being particularly American.
Question: If Google is really concerned about this, why don't they close down their California offices and move to Massachusetts where gay marriage is a recognized as legal and valid?
... it always seemed to aggravate my carpal tunnel syndrome which has the effect of inducing new stresses to offset those that it supposedly alleviated. Go figure.
... and think you're able to get a security clearance, the US Department of Defense is looking for CS types to work information operations. Recommend talking to a local recruiter to see what might be available.
Okay, thanks. I see, you're not really trying to change the definition of a recession, just the definition of GDP any meaningful definition of recesion relies upon. I think I'll stand by my earlier sarcasm.
Okay, let me shed my sarcasm for a moment. I must have missed some point you were trying to make in your earlier post. I largely agree with what you're saying in your second post. I got the impression that your first post was essentially redefining a recession as something other than the traditional "two quarters of negative real GDP". What did I miss?
Well, let's just keep changing the definition of a recession every time there's a political imperitive to do so. Personally, I don't like the idea of such subjective metrics, but anything that spreads the right message seems to be fine and dandy for people of your ilk, so have at it. I'm sure that in a couple of years you'll be changing your tune.
Actually I think this one is rather apropos. Vampires suck the lifeblood out of their victims, much like the Obama tax policy will suck the lifeblood out of the U.S. economy.
Understood. I was up late writing that response and in retrospect, that part didn't quite come out quite the way I would have liked... I didn't find the words I wanted until well after I pressed the "Submit" button. It was largely in response to your statement beginning "I haven't seen any position from you on that...". So, if I may be permitted to rephrase: "and noting that I'm either unwilling or unable to anticipate your line or argument"
"Was that supposed to mean yes, you *do* intend to imprison incest victims and imprison rape victims who abort, or no you *do not* intend to imprison them?"
This will likely be decided at the state level, and each state will have its own view on this. The pragmatist in me doesn't seriously expect laws will be changed to such an extent anytime soon that this sort of case would appear before a court of law anywhere in the US, so my answer is very hypothetical.
That said, I strongly believe in justice tempered with mercy when and where appropriate. I believe that those who perform such abortions should be charged and, if found guilty, sentenced in accordance with applicable laws. As for the victim who requests and receives an abortion under these circumstances, I believe she should at the very least stand trial, though I would only advocate prison terms under very extreme circumstances (none of which can I envision at this time). She should probably undergo counseling (court ordered if necessary), and normally receive either probation or a (possibly conditional) suspended sentence as the details of the case merit. I fail to see how the interests of justice would be served by requiring her to serve a prison sentence under all cases.
"You certainly could reasonably argue that point. However it's a failed argument in any case."
Okay, I see. We're supposed to judge Congress based on their intentions and not on the outcomes of their actions, even when those outcomes run contrary to the enumerated powers? Now I realize that we don't always know what the likely outcome of a particular piece of legislation is... there are always unintended effects. But there are some general rules of thumb that seem to be pretty consistent when it comes to this kind of thing. Things like Socialism, Communism and Fascism have never worked, so let's stop pretending that we can get them to work in this country with the right group of politicians in charge making all of the decisions for us.
As for the various issues you raise in the abortion discussion:
Your notion that a human embryo is somehow the moral equivalent of the automobile accident victim or the tumor you mention is fallacious.
"If I wake up some day and find someone (an actual-PERSON-someone!) has grafted themselves onto my bloodstream... well I kinda sorta *do* have the right to to scrape them off my body. And if that adult actual-PERSON man or woman has liver failure or somesuch and "lacks the ability to survive apart from" that graft to my body, well I do have to right to my own body."
Except that in the case of a pregnancy resulting from consensual sex, the parents (both parents) have already made the choice to engage in risky behavior and they have the responsibility to live up to the consequences of their choice; by consenting, they have implicitly accepted the responsibility of dealing with the outcome. I know that's not what the NOW crowd wants to hear, but their notion of feminism has given men the opportunity to exploit women for their own sexual gratification and not have to live up to the consequences.
In the cases of rape or incest cases you mention I believe that the criminal should be charged with the crimes he has committed and, if found guilty, sentenced in accordance with the law. Under no circumstances should the victim be punished for the crimes of the criminal. This goes for the woman, as well as her child should one result. Why should a child be put to death for the crimes of his/her biological father? While I wouldn't want to make the woman's suffering linger any longer than it already has, abortion leaves scars much harder to deal with than the crime that resulted in the pregnancy. Don't believe me, go visit a Crisis Pregnancy Center (the type that encourages abortion alternatives, not the Planned Parenthood variety). They typically have programs for counseling women who have had abortions. As hard as it is for women to go through a pregnancy under those circumstances, it'll be even harder for most in the long run to abort.
And, since you seem interested in highlighting extreme cases (and complaining that I'm not smart enough to keep up with your dizzying displays of logic), let us not forget the very rare circumstance where the "life of the mother is at risk". I'll concede that there may be instances where medical necessity dictates that a pregnancy be terminated in order to prevent the death of the mother. But I also know that terminating a pregnancy does not necessarily mean killing a baby. The intent should always be to save both the mother and the child and not enter into some knee-jerk reaction to kill the baby because that's somehow the easiest solution.
"You personally get to decide what promotes the general welfare of the United States, and all those people we elected to do that job don't?"
As you seem to be putting it, I'm not in a position to do much about congressional incompetence except vote the incumbents out and hope that the ones going in will take their oaths of office more seriously than those they are replacing.
"Public education is "individual", as if the ED is about tutors?"
I'll assume here that the ED you're talking about here is the United States Department of Education, and not the medical problem Bob Dole was talking about a few years back in those Viagra commercials. If it's not, then I have to admit that I don't understand what you're talking about here. That said, the role of government is to create a regulatory framework within which opportunity (not wealth) is spread around. Providing for individual education is ultimately the responsibility of the parents/guardians of minors, and of the individual upon reaching majority. If parents want to shortchange their children's education by delegating that responsibility to the liberal infested public schools dedicated to spreading the gospel of the State Religion (Secular Humanism), they're more than welcome to do so. If, on the other hand parents decide not to subject their children to that environment, they then have the responsibility to make the sacrifices necessary to provide them with an education more in line with their philosophy or desired outcomes. If they do that, however, they don't get dime one from the Feds and they're better off for it.
The welfare of the individual is not the same as the general welfare of the United States. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the country, not the welfare of the individual; responsibility for providing for the welfare of the individual rests with the individual, not the government. I'd be hard pressed to find a case where the Congress has overreached its Constitutional restrictions in this regard where the outcome wasn't worse than whatever was being addressed... most (if not all) of the efforts the Federal Government has embarked upon to enhance individual welfare have had a largely detrimental effect on the general welfare of the United States.
"Providing for the welfare of the individual, as well as providing them with an education, falls under general welfare."
The section you site clearly states "general welfare of the United States". I'd argue that Federal funding of schools (and the Federal mandates that come along with them) have diminished the standards of education in the United States, not improved them as proponents would have you believe when they ask for more money. Likewise individual welfare programs create an unhealthy dependence upon the Fenderal Government and encourage people to leave the workforce and live off the dole. Neither of these outcomes is consistent with promoting the general welfare of the United States.
"The unborn are not legally considered 'people,' so abortion isn't unconstitutional any more than hunting animals is."
And the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision found that slaves were property, and not legally considered people either, and not meriting the legal protections or guarantees under the Constitution. Does a Supreme Court case finding in one direction or another actually make something right? No. What's legal and what's right are not always the same thing. And even though the 13th Amendment formally abolished slavery, it was only because the Supreme Court didn't do its job by adhereing to what the Constitution said about not infringing upon individual liberty without due process that the 13th Amendment became necessary.
Now I know some will argue (as they have already done in this thread) that an embryo is just a clump of cells. And in one regard people who claim that are right. But, that notion diminishes the fact that from the point of conception that clump of cells has a unique genetic human identity. It is at that point not just a "potential" person, but a unique living person, just as alive as you or me. It only lacks the ability to survive apart from its mother.
Slashdot Mirror
> I guess you're claiming that Obama is a clone of Carter.
Yup.
> Plus this sort of treaty isn't appeasement...
I'll agree that the treaty (to the extent that Obama has actually signed anything at this point) itself isn't appeasement. Being a useful idiot in front of the Russian and International media is appeasement of a sort, however (or put another way "I'll do whatever I need to make people like me").
Also, the fact that he's over there negotiating with the Russians to reduce our strategic nuclear deterrence while completely ignoring the real problems in Iran and North Korea is the same sort of thinking that put Ayatollah Khomeini into power in the late 1970s (Carter's watch).
It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency). Still, I find it a bit disconcerting that he appears not to have noticed that there are now other players in the nuclear proliferation game beyond the US and Soviet Union. I hope he plans to give some recognition to that fact soon, since those other players are not nearly as rational and level headed as the USSR.
Not only that, if this catches on, it'll just be a matter of time before we start running out of bugs in the US and have to start relying on foriegn sources of bugs.
... even if they haven't got a clue as to how financially reckless they're being. You kind of have to admire that.
Why isn't this posted as "Idle"?
"(though to their credit, they appear to have completely expunged any mention of the programming languages used in these courses)"
By which I meant their course descriptions posted to the web, not the courses themselves... that would be silly.
I was teaching computer science at the Air Force Academy a few years back (2004). The Ada zealots were well and firmly entrenched in the Computer Science department, and now occupy its top echelons. I suspect they're still using it as the primary teaching language (though to their credit, they appear to have completely expunged any mention of the programming languages used in these courses).
That said, there is a certain logic in using Ada in an academic setting as well as those requiring high reliability (like a missile's guidance system or an aircraft flight control system). It is rigidly typed, it's not prone to single character errors (the way C-based languages are) and its compilers (the GNU one we were using at least) produced well optimized executables. This made it reasonable use as a teaching language to the cadets as their errors were usually ones of logic, rather than logical errors induced by syntactic oddities. These same characteristics are useful in mission critical applications.
given what's crawled out of IL in recent weeks.
First, my question was rhetorical (a point you seemed to have missed), just as I believe Google's actions in this regard are rhetorical. I can't see that Google has any standing to bring any kind of legal challenge to this. Maybe they can file some sort of amicus brief when the case get heard, but ultimately Google isn't going to be participating at any level in any kind of gay marriage any more than it participates in traditional marriage. I don't seriously believe that this is anything more than a publicity stunt to get some number of its employees and members of the larger California community to feel good about Google.
> Why don't you believe in fighting for ideals? Do you meekly run away from anything that isn't going your way?
Actually I do believe in fighting for my ideals and I know something about doing so. I've served in the US military for almost 20 years. I have lived by my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I see my post here as continuing in that tradition. Google challenging the will of the people of California in court may be legal, but I don't see it as being particularly American.
Question: If Google is really concerned about this, why don't they close down their California offices and move to Massachusetts where gay marriage is a recognized as legal and valid?
Answer: They're just grandstanding.
... it always seemed to aggravate my carpal tunnel syndrome which has the effect of inducing new stresses to offset those that it supposedly alleviated. Go figure.
... and think you're able to get a security clearance, the US Department of Defense is looking for CS types to work information operations. Recommend talking to a local recruiter to see what might be available.
... I object to your derrogatory and inflamatory efforts to drive my net asset value down.
If it's getting warmer, wouldn't this happen all by itself?
Okay, thanks. I see, you're not really trying to change the definition of a recession, just the definition of GDP any meaningful definition of recesion relies upon. I think I'll stand by my earlier sarcasm.
Okay, let me shed my sarcasm for a moment. I must have missed some point you were trying to make in your earlier post. I largely agree with what you're saying in your second post. I got the impression that your first post was essentially redefining a recession as something other than the traditional "two quarters of negative real GDP". What did I miss?
Well, let's just keep changing the definition of a recession every time there's a political imperitive to do so. Personally, I don't like the idea of such subjective metrics, but anything that spreads the right message seems to be fine and dandy for people of your ilk, so have at it. I'm sure that in a couple of years you'll be changing your tune.
Actually I think this one is rather apropos. Vampires suck the lifeblood out of their victims, much like the Obama tax policy will suck the lifeblood out of the U.S. economy.
Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?
Very well said, but I'd like to add to your comment:
"There is a separation between church and state. Religion has no business in government."
Likewise, government has no business in religion, such as forcing the religion of secular humanism on its citizens.
"...but I was not hurling gratuitous insults..."
Understood. I was up late writing that response and in retrospect, that part didn't quite come out quite the way I would have liked ... I didn't find the words I wanted until well after I pressed the "Submit" button. It was largely in response to your statement beginning "I haven't seen any position from you on that...". So, if I may be permitted to rephrase: "and noting that I'm either unwilling or unable to anticipate your line or argument"
"Was that supposed to mean yes, you *do* intend to imprison incest victims and imprison rape victims who abort, or no you *do not* intend to imprison them?"
This will likely be decided at the state level, and each state will have its own view on this. The pragmatist in me doesn't seriously expect laws will be changed to such an extent anytime soon that this sort of case would appear before a court of law anywhere in the US, so my answer is very hypothetical.
That said, I strongly believe in justice tempered with mercy when and where appropriate. I believe that those who perform such abortions should be charged and, if found guilty, sentenced in accordance with applicable laws. As for the victim who requests and receives an abortion under these circumstances, I believe she should at the very least stand trial, though I would only advocate prison terms under very extreme circumstances (none of which can I envision at this time). She should probably undergo counseling (court ordered if necessary), and normally receive either probation or a (possibly conditional) suspended sentence as the details of the case merit. I fail to see how the interests of justice would be served by requiring her to serve a prison sentence under all cases.
"You certainly could reasonably argue that point. However it's a failed argument in any case."
Okay, I see. We're supposed to judge Congress based on their intentions and not on the outcomes of their actions, even when those outcomes run contrary to the enumerated powers? Now I realize that we don't always know what the likely outcome of a particular piece of legislation is... there are always unintended effects. But there are some general rules of thumb that seem to be pretty consistent when it comes to this kind of thing. Things like Socialism, Communism and Fascism have never worked, so let's stop pretending that we can get them to work in this country with the right group of politicians in charge making all of the decisions for us.
As for the various issues you raise in the abortion discussion:
Your notion that a human embryo is somehow the moral equivalent of the automobile accident victim or the tumor you mention is fallacious.
"If I wake up some day and find someone (an actual-PERSON-someone!) has grafted themselves onto my bloodstream... well I kinda sorta *do* have the right to to scrape them off my body. And if that adult actual-PERSON man or woman has liver failure or somesuch and "lacks the ability to survive apart from" that graft to my body, well I do have to right to my own body."
Except that in the case of a pregnancy resulting from consensual sex, the parents (both parents) have already made the choice to engage in risky behavior and they have the responsibility to live up to the consequences of their choice; by consenting, they have implicitly accepted the responsibility of dealing with the outcome. I know that's not what the NOW crowd wants to hear, but their notion of feminism has given men the opportunity to exploit women for their own sexual gratification and not have to live up to the consequences.
In the cases of rape or incest cases you mention I believe that the criminal should be charged with the crimes he has committed and, if found guilty, sentenced in accordance with the law. Under no circumstances should the victim be punished for the crimes of the criminal. This goes for the woman, as well as her child should one result. Why should a child be put to death for the crimes of his/her biological father? While I wouldn't want to make the woman's suffering linger any longer than it already has, abortion leaves scars much harder to deal with than the crime that resulted in the pregnancy. Don't believe me, go visit a Crisis Pregnancy Center (the type that encourages abortion alternatives, not the Planned Parenthood variety). They typically have programs for counseling women who have had abortions. As hard as it is for women to go through a pregnancy under those circumstances, it'll be even harder for most in the long run to abort.
And, since you seem interested in highlighting extreme cases (and complaining that I'm not smart enough to keep up with your dizzying displays of logic), let us not forget the very rare circumstance where the "life of the mother is at risk". I'll concede that there may be instances where medical necessity dictates that a pregnancy be terminated in order to prevent the death of the mother. But I also know that terminating a pregnancy does not necessarily mean killing a baby. The intent should always be to save both the mother and the child and not enter into some knee-jerk reaction to kill the baby because that's somehow the easiest solution.
"You personally get to decide what promotes the general welfare of the United States, and all those people we elected to do that job don't?"
As you seem to be putting it, I'm not in a position to do much about congressional incompetence except vote the incumbents out and hope that the ones going in will take their oaths of office more seriously than those they are replacing.
"Public education is "individual", as if the ED is about tutors?"
I'll assume here that the ED you're talking about here is the United States Department of Education, and not the medical problem Bob Dole was talking about a few years back in those Viagra commercials. If it's not, then I have to admit that I don't understand what you're talking about here. That said, the role of government is to create a regulatory framework within which opportunity (not wealth) is spread around. Providing for individual education is ultimately the responsibility of the parents/guardians of minors, and of the individual upon reaching majority. If parents want to shortchange their children's education by delegating that responsibility to the liberal infested public schools dedicated to spreading the gospel of the State Religion (Secular Humanism), they're more than welcome to do so. If, on the other hand parents decide not to subject their children to that environment, they then have the responsibility to make the sacrifices necessary to provide them with an education more in line with their philosophy or desired outcomes. If they do that, however, they don't get dime one from the Feds and they're better off for it.
Bravo! Spoken in the true spirit of a moderate!
The welfare of the individual is not the same as the general welfare of the United States. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the country, not the welfare of the individual; responsibility for providing for the welfare of the individual rests with the individual, not the government. I'd be hard pressed to find a case where the Congress has overreached its Constitutional restrictions in this regard where the outcome wasn't worse than whatever was being addressed... most (if not all) of the efforts the Federal Government has embarked upon to enhance individual welfare have had a largely detrimental effect on the general welfare of the United States.
"Providing for the welfare of the individual, as well as providing them with an education, falls under general welfare."
The section you site clearly states "general welfare of the United States". I'd argue that Federal funding of schools (and the Federal mandates that come along with them) have diminished the standards of education in the United States, not improved them as proponents would have you believe when they ask for more money. Likewise individual welfare programs create an unhealthy dependence upon the Fenderal Government and encourage people to leave the workforce and live off the dole. Neither of these outcomes is consistent with promoting the general welfare of the United States.
"The unborn are not legally considered 'people,' so abortion isn't unconstitutional any more than hunting animals is."
And the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision found that slaves were property, and not legally considered people either, and not meriting the legal protections or guarantees under the Constitution. Does a Supreme Court case finding in one direction or another actually make something right? No. What's legal and what's right are not always the same thing. And even though the 13th Amendment formally abolished slavery, it was only because the Supreme Court didn't do its job by adhereing to what the Constitution said about not infringing upon individual liberty without due process that the 13th Amendment became necessary.
Now I know some will argue (as they have already done in this thread) that an embryo is just a clump of cells. And in one regard people who claim that are right. But, that notion diminishes the fact that from the point of conception that clump of cells has a unique genetic human identity. It is at that point not just a "potential" person, but a unique living person, just as alive as you or me. It only lacks the ability to survive apart from its mother.