A great many of our inmates have done nothing wrong either. Or they've done a few petty things that in no way justify being locked in a cage for years on end. If you actually look at the way our prisons are run, they are not about protection at all. They are about enriching the owners of private prisons, creating employment for prison guards, and keeping sheriffs/judges/politicians in office by putting up a front of being "tough on crime".
If you actually care, read The New Jim Crow. You'll be surprised at just how unjust our justice system is.
If NASA is allowed to get private space going, then it is a certainty that by 2020, that NASA via private space will be on the moon
Is it? What financial incentive is there for profit seeking organizations to visit the moon in under 8 years? What would "multiple nations" want to use "multiple private space stations" for? And if they do want it, why don't they build them themselves instead of paying a middleman to do it?
This is no certainty anywhere but your head. It allows you, upon the failure of private space exploration to materialize, to blame politics instead of the senseless economics of space.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of space exploration. If I had my way NASA and the DoD would swap budgets. But it is what it is, pure research. Pure research is best done by publicly funded academics.
That's amazing. The FBI must be batting 1000, since there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in 10 years. Imagine that. Absolute perfection from law enforcement. It's almost enough to make you swoon from patriotism.
Voting for the third party is the only thing that can work. Voting for either major party only ensures that the two party hegemony can continue forever. That is throwing your vote away.
On the other hand, if each major party starts losing elections because of third party voters that gives the major parties motivation to address electoral reform.
find who is the most evil guy and vote for the guy who is viable (sigh, sorry, but you know what I mean) and then vote his/her way. ie, vote to make sure the most evil guy does not get in. voting 3rd party does split that and can work against you.
The problem with that is when you have one guy who is 98% evil, and one guy that is 99% evil. Sure, you can keep the 99% evil guy out, but you're still voting for extreme levels of evil.
On the other hand you can realize that it really doesn't matter that much whether the president is 98% or 99% evil. What really matters is getting someone who is 50% or less evil a real chance. That won't happen as long as we keep falling for the good cop/bad cop routine.
For that matter, what is the government forcing Georgetown to do? Absolutely nothing. It's only prohibiting them from forbidding their insurance carriers to offer contraceptive coverage. The only thing the law requires from Georgetown is inaction.
No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience, i.e. to provide health insurance that must includes contraceptives
Of course it is. I have to pay for all sorts of things that violate my conscience. As a matter of fact, the great majority of my tax dollars are spent on things that are absolutely repugnant to my conscience.
Also, remember what the first amendment says. It doesn't say "religious liberty shall be unrestricted". It says "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Laws that give, e.g., the Catholic church special treatment are laws that respect an establishment of religion.
Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.
You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you?
If serving meat had as great of an effect on public health as providing universal birth control, then absolutely.
But I suppose it's OK to force people to act against their conscience, because it's for the common good. Right?
That's the problem! It's for the public good. Why is it that conservatives only object to coercion when the coercion is for the public good? They have no problem forcing people to violate their conscience and pay for harmful wars, or the persecution of Cannabis smokers, etc. But when it comes to a policy that is universally recognized as good for public health, only then do they whine about conscience.
Like it or not, you are paying for the sex lives of others. The poor have sex, and they go to hospitals to give birth. When they can't pay, who do you think pays? You do.
The only question is, are you going to pay for a very expensive birth, and the social problems that come from people with few resourses having large families? Or are you going to pay for the birth control that will save you a lot of money in the long run?
Please just vote third party. It doesn't matter which. As you realize, both major parties are unacceptable. Voting for one over the other is throwing your vote away. The only vote that matters is a vote for change which simply cannot come from either major party.
And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously.
Seriously? A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.
Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.
We have no recourse. If there were recourse in the US we'd have never have gone to Iraq, our jails would be stuffed with bankers, and we'd all be buying pot OTC. What we have instead is tyranny.
What has CAN SPAM done to SPAM? Still exists right? So why should we tolerate that restriction on free speech? It's not doing anyone any good, and just sitting there waiting to be abused.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't they try that with gnutella?
Nice. Now they just need to build in some versioning, so I can hop on one swarm and stay up to date with the entire catalog.
A great many of our inmates have done nothing wrong either. Or they've done a few petty things that in no way justify being locked in a cage for years on end. If you actually look at the way our prisons are run, they are not about protection at all. They are about enriching the owners of private prisons, creating employment for prison guards, and keeping sheriffs/judges/politicians in office by putting up a front of being "tough on crime".
If you actually care, read The New Jim Crow. You'll be surprised at just how unjust our justice system is.
I don't use TPB much so this is the first I've heard of that. How is magnet link support in rtorrent these days?
there is much more analysis than real, meaningful, useful results. So many numbers and pretty graphs, but no conclusions
Funny, that sounds exactly like Wolfram's book.
The first interesting question is, will the real cops co-operate and arrest you?
Yes, yes they will.
What is so odd about this, is that America is within several years of turning space from a cost center
This is nonsense. There's nothing in space we need on Earth.
True monsters are very common. Congress is packed with them.
If NASA is allowed to get private space going, then it is a certainty that by 2020, that NASA via private space will be on the moon
Is it? What financial incentive is there for profit seeking organizations to visit the moon in under 8 years? What would "multiple nations" want to use "multiple private space stations" for? And if they do want it, why don't they build them themselves instead of paying a middleman to do it?
This is no certainty anywhere but your head. It allows you, upon the failure of private space exploration to materialize, to blame politics instead of the senseless economics of space.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of space exploration. If I had my way NASA and the DoD would swap budgets. But it is what it is, pure research. Pure research is best done by publicly funded academics.
From a practical perspective does it matter whether it's stupidity or malice?
WTF Debian? What happened to being the "Universal Operating System"?
That's amazing. The FBI must be batting 1000, since there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in 10 years. Imagine that. Absolute perfection from law enforcement. It's almost enough to make you swoon from patriotism.
What terrorists?
I'm interested to see the text of this email. It's hard to judge just how egregious this behavior is without seeing the actual text.
Voting for the third party is the only thing that can work. Voting for either major party only ensures that the two party hegemony can continue forever. That is throwing your vote away.
On the other hand, if each major party starts losing elections because of third party voters that gives the major parties motivation to address electoral reform.
find who is the most evil guy and vote for the guy who is viable (sigh, sorry, but you know what I mean) and then vote his/her way. ie, vote to make sure the most evil guy does not get in. voting 3rd party does split that and can work against you.
The problem with that is when you have one guy who is 98% evil, and one guy that is 99% evil. Sure, you can keep the 99% evil guy out, but you're still voting for extreme levels of evil.
On the other hand you can realize that it really doesn't matter that much whether the president is 98% or 99% evil. What really matters is getting someone who is 50% or less evil a real chance. That won't happen as long as we keep falling for the good cop/bad cop routine.
For that matter, what is the government forcing Georgetown to do? Absolutely nothing. It's only prohibiting them from forbidding their insurance carriers to offer contraceptive coverage. The only thing the law requires from Georgetown is inaction.
No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience, i.e. to provide health insurance that must includes contraceptives
Of course it is. I have to pay for all sorts of things that violate my conscience. As a matter of fact, the great majority of my tax dollars are spent on things that are absolutely repugnant to my conscience.
Also, remember what the first amendment says. It doesn't say "religious liberty shall be unrestricted". It says "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Laws that give, e.g., the Catholic church special treatment are laws that respect an establishment of religion.
Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.
You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you?
If serving meat had as great of an effect on public health as providing universal birth control, then absolutely.
But I suppose it's OK to force people to act against their conscience, because it's for the common good. Right?
That's the problem! It's for the public good. Why is it that conservatives only object to coercion when the coercion is for the public good? They have no problem forcing people to violate their conscience and pay for harmful wars, or the persecution of Cannabis smokers, etc. But when it comes to a policy that is universally recognized as good for public health, only then do they whine about conscience.
Like it or not, you are paying for the sex lives of others. The poor have sex, and they go to hospitals to give birth. When they can't pay, who do you think pays? You do.
The only question is, are you going to pay for a very expensive birth, and the social problems that come from people with few resourses having large families? Or are you going to pay for the birth control that will save you a lot of money in the long run?
Please just vote third party. It doesn't matter which. As you realize, both major parties are unacceptable. Voting for one over the other is throwing your vote away. The only vote that matters is a vote for change which simply cannot come from either major party.
Exactly. And this is why I install Cygwin on every Windows system I have to use. Bash is pretty much the same everywhere.
And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously.
Seriously? A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.
Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.
Darrell Issa is the jerkoff who thinks it's appropriate to have an all male panel in congress discussing women's health issues.
Ah yes. If only someone had forcibly corrected the writings of Harris and Klebold.
We have no recourse. If there were recourse in the US we'd have never have gone to Iraq, our jails would be stuffed with bankers, and we'd all be buying pot OTC. What we have instead is tyranny.
What has CAN SPAM done to SPAM? Still exists right? So why should we tolerate that restriction on free speech? It's not doing anyone any good, and just sitting there waiting to be abused.