what kind of life and society would we have today if we had?
It would be a lot different, but it might not necessarily be any worse. You would probably still be able to be pretty happy most of the time, you just wouldn't have all the fancy things we have today, and might not have lived as long. You see what you have as the best possible way to live (up till now) because you are living it. It's the same sort of idea that led people to conclude that American Indians and other "uncivilized" people like them needed to be brought into civilized society because it would be better for them. This has all but destroyed the Inuit, Nunavut, and others in northern Canada and the U.S.
Nearly 50% teenagers aged 15-19 have had sex at least once. I highly doubt the number is anywhere near that high for having driven drunk.
Your analogy also fails, in that the fact that you are drunk severely limits your ability to make the decision to drive slow, it even limits your ability to make the decision to not drive at all. I also have not seen any statistics that show "safe driving" while drunk has a 99% chance of preventing an accident. (Where as when used correctly, condoms have a greater than 99% effective rate.)
Being horny might influence your thoughts a little bit, but not to the point that you're going to decide to forego a condom on the spur of the moment (if you have been probably educated about STDs and ways of preventing them, that is).
Currently marriage is entirely up to the states to decide how to handle it. George W. Bush wants the federal government to step in and tell the states how to deal with their citizens in this regard. Anti-federalism at its best.
You propose the opposite, which is still taking away rights from the states: remove any government power to say who can and can't be married.
Perhaps the best solution, but one the government might not like, is if we remove any benefit to the government of marriage, while keeping in place any benefit to those married (legal benefits, not monetary).
The main argument for the government encouraging marriage at all (and thus providing the benefits it does) is that it is overall beneficial to society, families, and children for people to be in such a relationship. People see gay marriage as an antithesis to that goal of marriage, because they feel they do not support traditional family values or proper raising of children.
I think I had a point somewhere, but I forgot where I was going with this.
I was in no way being apathetic. I didn't say "kids are going to have sex, so forget teaching them that abstinence might be preferrably for any number of moral, ethical, (physical or emotional) reason." I said that it is naive to assume that they're not going to have sex because you're only teaching abstinence. You have to accept that it is going to occur so that you can address what to do in the situation that it does occur. There is nothing wrong with informing them sex, the risks involved, and what they can do to reduce those risks.
I'm interested in your plan to stomp out teen sex.
This is exactly the hoary old argument used to sell the original, non-abstinence based sex ed. Which turned out to be spectacularly wrong.
Do you really think that kids are not going to have sex, no matter how much you drill it into their head that it's impossible to be 100% safe doing so? Nothing in life is 100% safe. Do you drive a car? You're taking a big risk everytime you go out on the road, but you still do it. You don't have to ever get in a car to survive, but you still do it.
Should we teach abstinence from driving in school rather than driver's ed? People aged 16-18 are the most likely to be in a collision, yet instead of trying to get them to stop driving, we do our best to teach responsible driving.
In fact, the biggest complaint I have about some of the abstinence based sex ed programs in place in many states is that they forbid teachers from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception, even if the students bring the issue up in class. They have to act like no such thing exists. If two kids are going to have sex, and we have not forbidden to learn about how to reduce their risk of pregnancy or disease, we have seriously failed them. "Abstinence based" sex ed is nothing more than an attempt to push the morals of one group onto everyone else, under the guise of protecting the children from the slim chance that they'll get pregnant or an STD (if whatever device they use is used properly, which if we had taught them, it is highly likely that it would be).
I'd even go to the point to extend that the average voter wants a quick answer to their question, without weighty reasoning, details, and statistics, because they just don't really care beyond the "yes" or "no". This is kind of sad, but to be expected.
The more educated crowd will demand more well thought out responses from the candidates, so that they can fully evaluate their position, look for the weaknesses and strengths in their argument, and make a careful consideration of it.
For the majority people, however, when the candidates go in depth like that, they could make every single bit of their reasoning, statistics, etc. up, but since they kept going on and giving their idea support (valid or not), the average person is likely to see that as proof that they're right, and know what they're talking about. (websites like factcheck.org seek to some extent to inform the public of such fallacies.)
I don't really agree with what the BCRA did. It's a step in the right direction, but it still serves to incredibly strengthen the position of incumbents and the wealthy in elections.
Look at the majority of gubernatioral, congressional, and senate races around the country. There is almost always at least one candidate who has a significantly greater amount of money available to them, and they are almost always leading in the polls. (If they are equals, the incumbent tends to lead.) When was the last time we had a presidential candidate that wasn't already wealthy when they got there?
It's a serious problem, but I have a very hard time advocating a restriction on freedom of speech, especially political speech.
Each year, at least 3 million teenagers contract sexually-transmitted diseases... and those numbers are going up... We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs.
Anyone else fail to see the logic with this statement? "Well, we spent ($100,000,000) last year, and the problem got worse, maybe if throw ($200,000,000) at it this time around it will get better!
Abstinence only education has only served to increase teen pregnancy and STD infection, because they are not being made aware of any alternatives. Kids are going to have sex. If you can't accept that fact, and think you can "educate" them into not having sex, you're foolish. The most reasonable solution is to inform them of all of their options, the risks associated with each, and allow them to make their own decisions. Telling someone that condoms exist doesn't teach them that it is okay to have promiscuous sex anymore than telling them that firearms exist teaches them it is okay to shoot one without regard for the safety of yourself or others.
Your use of the term "legal precedent" seemed to imply that you meant it to be something more than merely persuasive.
You also stated that "precedent has been set" which also implies that the Supreme Court did something they did not (set a precedent for other courts to follow). All they did was allow the lower court's decision to stand within that court's jurisdiction.
You may have intended exactly what I said before, but your choice of words indicated otherwise.
It seems to me, that Kerry (or his staff) is the only one who wrote his responses addressing the intended audience (Mostly non-voting youth). Many of the other responses would be quickly glossed over by anyone under the age of 18 with a less than serious devotion to politics. Most of his answers seemed short, concise, and to the point. Which is what a younger audience demands.
This has entirly to do with campaign finance, and whether Internet ads are included (or excluded) from campaign finance. It has nothing to do with free speech
Campaign finance law is all about free speech. Another poster commented that political speech by private parties is still protected; but that speech by candidates for office is in a position to be regulated. Accepting that statement as true, if you have actually read any campaign finance law (specifically the McCain - Feingold Act passed recently), it specifically restricts the speech of private citizens, basically prohibitting them from mentioning a specific candidate in an ad, among other things.
(Not sure if the "Gun Shows Elect..." ad is airing anywhere other than Ohio, but the ad makes a definite point of mentioning this restriction on their freedom of speech.)
To reiterate, campaign finance reform specifically restricts the freedom of speech of private citizens, and their ability to make statements through the use of public broadcasts.
The Senate voted against it 99-1. No one supported it.
That's funny, because the Senate never even voted on ratification of the treaty. They did vote 95-0 against a bill which sought to enact some of the provisions of the treaty, but they never voted against the treaty itself, because it never reached the floor.
If it's only been decided by one district, and the Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari then it is not binding precedent at all in any circuit except the one where the original decision was.
It might be persuasive, and useful in an argument, but the other circuit courts are not bound in any way to follow it.
Now that the Supreme Court has refused the case, the precident has been set.
Only in the circuit that it was decided in.
I wish people would have a basic grasp of our legal system before they try to post like they know what they're talking about. It also scares me that some of you might actually vote, and don't have a clue how your own system of government works.
Oh okay, no wonder you don't know how the Supreme Court works, you're a political science major.
stare decisis has nothing at all to do with a denial of a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court.
It's also very improper to turn stare decisis into a verb. The Supreme Court does not issue a "stare decisis" ruling, any and every ruling they make would be subject to the doctrine of stare decisis. stare decisis is the doctrine that court's use in following precedent. If a lower court follows the Supreme Court's ruling, or the Supreme Court rules along similar lines in the future, then they are following the doctrine of stare decisis.
I think you probably heard the literal translation of stare decisis and thought that it meant the same thing as cert denied.
great many people that have fallen under the impression that Paypal is a "real" bank
Paypal themselves don't want to be considered a real bank (and the government said they aren't, mostly because they don't physically hold your money), that way they are free from regulation.
Well, while you're cashing in a days pay check worth of tax cut, think about Microsoft. They pay no tax at all.
In Bush's own words himself, rich people have lawyers and accountants so they can stick it to you. (That's why we shouldn't raise their taxes and get rid of loopholes like the stock option tax break that allows MS to pay no tax.... I think that's what he meant?)
You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the legal system works. If it is appealed from the 9th circuit and the writ of certiorari is denied by the Supreme Court, then it means that the decision of the 9th circuit court stands in the 9th circuit. It has no bearing on the other federal courts, because the Supreme Court did not make a decision on it. Refusal by the court to hear an appeal should in no way be construed to constitute approval of that decision. There could be any number of reasons they have not choosing to hear it, and they don't have to give any reason at all.
Yeah, I was always under the impression, that while life in the major cities is pretty much like everywhere else; a large majority of Indians are incredibly poor, and have no access to any kind of amenities.
The one thing I don't like about backpacks is that almost always if you set it down on it's back (as is common), then all the weight of all your books is on top of the laptop. If you have to carry a lot of books around all the time, it's not very useful.
Good point, I didn't even think about the 10 MB message limit on gmail. That makes it a lot more difficult and useless (although most mp3s would still fit under the limit)
Slashdot Mirror
what kind of life and society would we have today if we had?
It would be a lot different, but it might not necessarily be any worse. You would probably still be able to be pretty happy most of the time, you just wouldn't have all the fancy things we have today, and might not have lived as long. You see what you have as the best possible way to live (up till now) because you are living it. It's the same sort of idea that led people to conclude that American Indians and other "uncivilized" people like them needed to be brought into civilized society because it would be better for them. This has all but destroyed the Inuit, Nunavut, and others in northern Canada and the U.S.
I have to drive home drunk
When has anyone ever had to drive home drunk?
You mean something like this?
Nearly 50% teenagers aged 15-19 have had sex at least once. I highly doubt the number is anywhere near that high for having driven drunk.
Your analogy also fails, in that the fact that you are drunk severely limits your ability to make the decision to drive slow, it even limits your ability to make the decision to not drive at all. I also have not seen any statistics that show "safe driving" while drunk has a 99% chance of preventing an accident. (Where as when used correctly, condoms have a greater than 99% effective rate.)
Being horny might influence your thoughts a little bit, but not to the point that you're going to decide to forego a condom on the spur of the moment (if you have been probably educated about STDs and ways of preventing them, that is).
Currently marriage is entirely up to the states to decide how to handle it. George W. Bush wants the federal government to step in and tell the states how to deal with their citizens in this regard. Anti-federalism at its best.
You propose the opposite, which is still taking away rights from the states: remove any government power to say who can and can't be married.
Perhaps the best solution, but one the government might not like, is if we remove any benefit to the government of marriage, while keeping in place any benefit to those married (legal benefits, not monetary).
The main argument for the government encouraging marriage at all (and thus providing the benefits it does) is that it is overall beneficial to society, families, and children for people to be in such a relationship. People see gay marriage as an antithesis to that goal of marriage, because they feel they do not support traditional family values or proper raising of children.
I think I had a point somewhere, but I forgot where I was going with this.
(where did your second footnote go to?)
I was in no way being apathetic. I didn't say "kids are going to have sex, so forget teaching them that abstinence might be preferrably for any number of moral, ethical, (physical or emotional) reason." I said that it is naive to assume that they're not going to have sex because you're only teaching abstinence. You have to accept that it is going to occur so that you can address what to do in the situation that it does occur. There is nothing wrong with informing them sex, the risks involved, and what they can do to reduce those risks.
I'm interested in your plan to stomp out teen sex.
This is exactly the hoary old argument used to sell the original, non-abstinence based sex ed. Which turned out to be spectacularly wrong.
Do you really think that kids are not going to have sex, no matter how much you drill it into their head that it's impossible to be 100% safe doing so? Nothing in life is 100% safe. Do you drive a car? You're taking a big risk everytime you go out on the road, but you still do it. You don't have to ever get in a car to survive, but you still do it.
Should we teach abstinence from driving in school rather than driver's ed? People aged 16-18 are the most likely to be in a collision, yet instead of trying to get them to stop driving, we do our best to teach responsible driving.
In fact, the biggest complaint I have about some of the abstinence based sex ed programs in place in many states is that they forbid teachers from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception, even if the students bring the issue up in class. They have to act like no such thing exists. If two kids are going to have sex, and we have not forbidden to learn about how to reduce their risk of pregnancy or disease, we have seriously failed them. "Abstinence based" sex ed is nothing more than an attempt to push the morals of one group onto everyone else, under the guise of protecting the children from the slim chance that they'll get pregnant or an STD (if whatever device they use is used properly, which if we had taught them, it is highly likely that it would be).
I'd even go to the point to extend that the average voter wants a quick answer to their question, without weighty reasoning, details, and statistics, because they just don't really care beyond the "yes" or "no". This is kind of sad, but to be expected.
The more educated crowd will demand more well thought out responses from the candidates, so that they can fully evaluate their position, look for the weaknesses and strengths in their argument, and make a careful consideration of it.
For the majority people, however, when the candidates go in depth like that, they could make every single bit of their reasoning, statistics, etc. up, but since they kept going on and giving their idea support (valid or not), the average person is likely to see that as proof that they're right, and know what they're talking about. (websites like factcheck.org seek to some extent to inform the public of such fallacies.)
I don't really agree with what the BCRA did. It's a step in the right direction, but it still serves to incredibly strengthen the position of incumbents and the wealthy in elections.
Look at the majority of gubernatioral, congressional, and senate races around the country. There is almost always at least one candidate who has a significantly greater amount of money available to them, and they are almost always leading in the polls. (If they are equals, the incumbent tends to lead.) When was the last time we had a presidential candidate that wasn't already wealthy when they got there?
It's a serious problem, but I have a very hard time advocating a restriction on freedom of speech, especially political speech.
And I apologize for being a bit short.
I have nothing against those who have attained a lesser height than myself (6').
Each year, at least 3 million teenagers contract sexually-transmitted diseases... and those numbers are going up... We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs.
Anyone else fail to see the logic with this statement? "Well, we spent ($100,000,000) last year, and the problem got worse, maybe if throw ($200,000,000) at it this time around it will get better!
Abstinence only education has only served to increase teen pregnancy and STD infection, because they are not being made aware of any alternatives. Kids are going to have sex. If you can't accept that fact, and think you can "educate" them into not having sex, you're foolish. The most reasonable solution is to inform them of all of their options, the risks associated with each, and allow them to make their own decisions. Telling someone that condoms exist doesn't teach them that it is okay to have promiscuous sex anymore than telling them that firearms exist teaches them it is okay to shoot one without regard for the safety of yourself or others.
Your use of the term "legal precedent" seemed to imply that you meant it to be something more than merely persuasive.
You also stated that "precedent has been set" which also implies that the Supreme Court did something they did not (set a precedent for other courts to follow). All they did was allow the lower court's decision to stand within that court's jurisdiction.
You may have intended exactly what I said before, but your choice of words indicated otherwise.
It seems to me, that Kerry (or his staff) is the only one who wrote his responses addressing the intended audience (Mostly non-voting youth). Many of the other responses would be quickly glossed over by anyone under the age of 18 with a less than serious devotion to politics. Most of his answers seemed short, concise, and to the point. Which is what a younger audience demands.
This has entirly to do with campaign finance, and whether Internet ads are included (or excluded) from campaign finance. It has nothing to do with free speech
..." ad is airing anywhere other than Ohio, but the ad makes a definite point of mentioning this restriction on their freedom of speech.)
Campaign finance law is all about free speech. Another poster commented that political speech by private parties is still protected; but that speech by candidates for office is in a position to be regulated. Accepting that statement as true, if you have actually read any campaign finance law (specifically the McCain - Feingold Act passed recently), it specifically restricts the speech of private citizens, basically prohibitting them from mentioning a specific candidate in an ad, among other things.
(Not sure if the "Gun Shows Elect
To reiterate, campaign finance reform specifically restricts the freedom of speech of private citizens, and their ability to make statements through the use of public broadcasts.
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, specifically the section on Electioneering Communications.
The Senate voted against it 99-1. No one supported it.
That's funny, because the Senate never even voted on ratification of the treaty. They did vote 95-0 against a bill which sought to enact some of the provisions of the treaty, but they never voted against the treaty itself, because it never reached the floor.
Come on, you don't see those everyday!
Just in every single other story about Mount St. Helens the past few weeks.
the judge will see that there is legal precident,
If it's only been decided by one district, and the Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari then it is not binding precedent at all in any circuit except the one where the original decision was.
It might be persuasive, and useful in an argument, but the other circuit courts are not bound in any way to follow it.
Now that the Supreme Court has refused the case, the precident has been set.
Only in the circuit that it was decided in.
I wish people would have a basic grasp of our legal system before they try to post like they know what they're talking about. It also scares me that some of you might actually vote, and don't have a clue how your own system of government works.
political science
Oh okay, no wonder you don't know how the Supreme Court works, you're a political science major.
stare decisis has nothing at all to do with a denial of a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court.
It's also very improper to turn stare decisis into a verb. The Supreme Court does not issue a "stare decisis" ruling, any and every ruling they make would be subject to the doctrine of stare decisis. stare decisis is the doctrine that court's use in following precedent. If a lower court follows the Supreme Court's ruling, or the Supreme Court rules along similar lines in the future, then they are following the doctrine of stare decisis.
I think you probably heard the literal translation of stare decisis and thought that it meant the same thing as cert denied.
great many people that have fallen under the impression that Paypal is a "real" bank
Paypal themselves don't want to be considered a real bank (and the government said they aren't, mostly because they don't physically hold your money), that way they are free from regulation.
Well, while you're cashing in a days pay check worth of tax cut, think about Microsoft. They pay no tax at all.
In Bush's own words himself, rich people have lawyers and accountants so they can stick it to you. (That's why we shouldn't raise their taxes and get rid of loopholes like the stock option tax break that allows MS to pay no tax.... I think that's what he meant?)
You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the legal system works. If it is appealed from the 9th circuit and the writ of certiorari is denied by the Supreme Court, then it means that the decision of the 9th circuit court stands in the 9th circuit. It has no bearing on the other federal courts, because the Supreme Court did not make a decision on it. Refusal by the court to hear an appeal should in no way be construed to constitute approval of that decision. There could be any number of reasons they have not choosing to hear it, and they don't have to give any reason at all.
Yeah, I was always under the impression, that while life in the major cities is pretty much like everywhere else; a large majority of Indians are incredibly poor, and have no access to any kind of amenities.
The one thing I don't like about backpacks is that almost always if you set it down on it's back (as is common), then all the weight of all your books is on top of the laptop. If you have to carry a lot of books around all the time, it's not very useful.
Like most things stupid people do:
"Why?"
"Because we can!"
Good point, I didn't even think about the 10 MB message limit on gmail. That makes it a lot more difficult and useless (although most mp3s would still fit under the limit)