Such was the expectation of the writers of the constitution, who desperately tried to make it HARD. That they failed is not a surprise - the only positive is that it did take over 200 years.
There is a nasty strand within feminism that regards all men as inherently evil. The prospect of being able to finally declare us redundant is therefore quite attractive to such people.This story is about one who had an abortion just because it was a boy http://www.inquisitr.com/18276...
During the last Gaza war there were a lot of Western News journalist on the ground in Gaza. They knew they were safe from Israeli attacks because Israel was being careful. By contrast there are no journalists in Syria, because they wouldn't be safe there. Always assess the objective facts before adopting an analysis.
The pattern of IRA terrorism in the UK was that almost all bombs were preceded by warnings, complete with passwords to confirm their authenticity, with the result that the number of injuries and deaths were relatively low. Similarly until 911, hijacking always ended in a negotiated exchange or similar, and never the crashing of the plane - which is why the hijackers on that day weren't swarmed over - unless that's what happened to the one in Pennsylvania. Given that the senior counter terrorism officials are used to this model, it remains possible to tweak their tails with false bomb threats. And if you are in charge when such a threat is received, it is... interesting to choose to ignore it.
The break down in the historic consensus about what is right and wrong is, I suspect, at the heart of the matter. The willingness to use the courts to resolve what are political questions - from the days of the New Deal by the right, then over racial segregation in the 1950s, has moved the role of the courts from referee to player. Clear evidence of government over-reach - as demonstrated by Snowden - has delegitimated the Executive branch, whilst noone takes Congress seriously.
So we are left with a system with limited legitimacy being used by partisans whose view are amplified by the internet and horrible amounts of money to achieve far more than the system was designed to allow. The result is cynicism about politicians, no agreed basis on which to make decisions, and a lack of goodwill. The response of many politicians - most obviously Trump, Saunders AND Obama, has been an attempt to offer hope which has or will be proved grossly unrealistic; meanwhile special interests in specific areas get their own way and appear unstoppable.
You're probably right in arguing that the precedent has emerged over the years, and the reality is that the Senate was conceived of as a body very different from what we now have. However my primary point is that the whole system is looking ever less secure, and this area is a clear symptom of that; that's the real problem, which should be worrying us. However because we always focus on the short term, we tend not to address wider concerns.
The suggestion that the Senate has a duty to accept any nomination is flawed. The phrase 'advice and consent' points to a consensus forming model, where all sides agree on a suitable candidate. The fact that the whole process has broken down is a function of the partisanship which George Washington warned against; that the judiciary has become politicised calls the legitimacy of the Republic into question. That's the real issue - for which there is no obvious solution.
Find a country with a more reasonable attitude and good internet links. Not necessarily a null set. However that's not the point of my deeper point; the data should be held subject to a person reporting the country they are located in, and the restriction applied at that point. This would only require a country willing to allow this policy.
It is the US tail wagging the world's dog - and we need to start rejecting this over-reach. In this case the Wikipedia foundation should be off shore from the US and its servers likewise. The material should be held on the servers and either block access from US based IP addresses for specific material, or have a statement requiring you to identify that you are not violating US copyright law before you get access. All this would require is the database of files held to include fields for the copyright expiry date of the material in different countries.
Having got lost recently on a 5 mile trip on a bicycle to an area beyond my usual stamping ground and being forced to resort to a PAPER map, it reminded me that there is always an alternative. However the starting point is to recognise you are lost - which requires some humility...
Perhaps the answer is that people bifurcate because this allows each a better mating strategy; the existence of both group increases the possibilities for non-monogamous behavior, increasing the prospects of otherwise infertile couples of having children...
Given that it would be trivial for consumers to be able to pick the channels they want individually on a website and then pay for them for them individually, the fact that bundling is still occurring is a sign that there's an industry here that deserves disrupting. And lo - Netflicks is doing exactly that. Let's hope for some legislation to mandate a 'pick the channels you want' option...
I believe that UK university student elections have this option, which serves a similar role of expressing a lack of enthusiasm for the options. It doesn't prevent a person from standing again, but if they lost to that vote, they should certainly consider an alternative career.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you're right. The joy of being a pessimist is that you get pleasantly surprised when the worst doesn't happen
Such was the expectation of the writers of the constitution, who desperately tried to make it HARD. That they failed is not a surprise - the only positive is that it did take over 200 years.
There is a nasty strand within feminism that regards all men as inherently evil. The prospect of being able to finally declare us redundant is therefore quite attractive to such people.This story is about one who had an abortion just because it was a boy http://www.inquisitr.com/18276...
During the last Gaza war there were a lot of Western News journalist on the ground in Gaza. They knew they were safe from Israeli attacks because Israel was being careful. By contrast there are no journalists in Syria, because they wouldn't be safe there. Always assess the objective facts before adopting an analysis.
Observe from Yes Prime Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] You will never trust an opinion poll again
Observe from Yes Prime Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?... You will never trust an opinion poll again
" the Bahamas, where FBI agents took him into custody". There - and I thought that it was an independent country. Will they be getting Medicare soon?
A number of senior administrators in the DoD have been offered jobs at MS...
In other news the UK government announced that it was banning the effects of global warming from the territories of Her Majesty.
The pattern of IRA terrorism in the UK was that almost all bombs were preceded by warnings, complete with passwords to confirm their authenticity, with the result that the number of injuries and deaths were relatively low. Similarly until 911, hijacking always ended in a negotiated exchange or similar, and never the crashing of the plane - which is why the hijackers on that day weren't swarmed over - unless that's what happened to the one in Pennsylvania. Given that the senior counter terrorism officials are used to this model, it remains possible to tweak their tails with false bomb threats. And if you are in charge when such a threat is received, it is... interesting to choose to ignore it.
My point precisely...
One has to admire such entrepreneurship. After all, that what made America great...
The break down in the historic consensus about what is right and wrong is, I suspect, at the heart of the matter. The willingness to use the courts to resolve what are political questions - from the days of the New Deal by the right, then over racial segregation in the 1950s, has moved the role of the courts from referee to player. Clear evidence of government over-reach - as demonstrated by Snowden - has delegitimated the Executive branch, whilst noone takes Congress seriously.
So we are left with a system with limited legitimacy being used by partisans whose view are amplified by the internet and horrible amounts of money to achieve far more than the system was designed to allow. The result is cynicism about politicians, no agreed basis on which to make decisions, and a lack of goodwill. The response of many politicians - most obviously Trump, Saunders AND Obama, has been an attempt to offer hope which has or will be proved grossly unrealistic; meanwhile special interests in specific areas get their own way and appear unstoppable.
Not pretty!
You're probably right in arguing that the precedent has emerged over the years, and the reality is that the Senate was conceived of as a body very different from what we now have. However my primary point is that the whole system is looking ever less secure, and this area is a clear symptom of that; that's the real problem, which should be worrying us. However because we always focus on the short term, we tend not to address wider concerns.
The suggestion that the Senate has a duty to accept any nomination is flawed. The phrase 'advice and consent' points to a consensus forming model, where all sides agree on a suitable candidate. The fact that the whole process has broken down is a function of the partisanship which George Washington warned against; that the judiciary has become politicised calls the legitimacy of the Republic into question. That's the real issue - for which there is no obvious solution.
Find a country with a more reasonable attitude and good internet links. Not necessarily a null set. However that's not the point of my deeper point; the data should be held subject to a person reporting the country they are located in, and the restriction applied at that point. This would only require a country willing to allow this policy.
It is the US tail wagging the world's dog - and we need to start rejecting this over-reach. In this case the Wikipedia foundation should be off shore from the US and its servers likewise. The material should be held on the servers and either block access from US based IP addresses for specific material, or have a statement requiring you to identify that you are not violating US copyright law before you get access. All this would require is the database of files held to include fields for the copyright expiry date of the material in different countries.
Or we can continue to bow before the Empire...
As used by all your favourite tyrants. Buy one now...
Having got lost recently on a 5 mile trip on a bicycle to an area beyond my usual stamping ground and being forced to resort to a PAPER map, it reminded me that there is always an alternative. However the starting point is to recognise you are lost - which requires some humility...
So they are supposedly responsible adults...
evolution in action...
Perhaps the answer is that people bifurcate because this allows each a better mating strategy; the existence of both group increases the possibilities for non-monogamous behavior, increasing the prospects of otherwise infertile couples of having children...
At last we may have reason to vote for Hillary.
Given that it would be trivial for consumers to be able to pick the channels they want individually on a website and then pay for them for them individually, the fact that bundling is still occurring is a sign that there's an industry here that deserves disrupting. And lo - Netflicks is doing exactly that. Let's hope for some legislation to mandate a 'pick the channels you want' option...
I believe that UK university student elections have this option, which serves a similar role of expressing a lack of enthusiasm for the options. It doesn't prevent a person from standing again, but if they lost to that vote, they should certainly consider an alternative career.