Yep, you got me there. I was thinking in terms of "physics efficiency" but you're right; we can also be efficient at killing, others and/or ourselves. Perhaps I meant to say "physics" instead of "efficiency"? Or perhaps I should have used more words?
Some European countries have legacy of the past in form of a "state church", where a certain denomination is designated as having some priority status.
State churches seem to be coming back into style, at least with the recent Obama administration prostrating^W capitulating^W compromising with religious corporations, that "certain beliefs can trump citizens' rights."
Some people in these country want sharia law and if that's what their politicians are running on and win on then that's how democracy is supposed to work. Just so long as the voters can always change it.
In a democracy, you're not supposed to be able to use the majority to vote other people's rights away. So, no, sharia law should not be supported in a democratic country; that's not how it's supposed to work. (And, is perhaps why the USA is a "democratic republic"; at its root it's a republic, and we have democracy "for show", just as in that set of states whose electors can decide who to deliver the votes to, regardless of the result of the popular election in that state.)
have long held to this strange doctrine that democracy automatically brings forth economic prosperity and personal freedoms
When we align our policies with efficiency, efficiency tends to be the result. Therefore, I do not think it all that strange. (Although looking at the USA these days says that we've aligned with "efficiency in removing rights"...)
Or anyone could seriously contemplate them joining EU?
Why anyone would want to join the EU and have their sovereignty taken away from them is beyond me. I was heartened over the weekend with news reports of Greek police unions writing warrants for the arrest of international lenders, for the crime of subverting democracy. How're them apples!??!?!
Hey, if the TV can help people understand the power that they have as juries to nullify the law, then I'm all for it. Of course, that's not what you're saying, but one can dream...
The first 20 minutes or so of "Thrive" shows the torus configuration in just about everything -- so I think it's really cool that our universe is also toroidal. ("Thrive": $20 on Amazon, or free via Google or your kooky friend.)
I like appeals that are less "to the man" and more "to the idea"; this is one of the primary reasons that I support Ron Paul. (And I realize that the previous sentence has a little cognitive dissonance embedded; think it through (and/or research), to find resonance.)
Religions do not get to violate laws because of their unproveable belief.
Agreed; I would go farther, and say that even if they were able to prove their beliefs, they still should not get a free pass on violating rights. The way I heard it this morning, the new agreement is "companies that have a strong belief" or something similar. First, humans have beliefs; corporations have no brains to form beliefs with (although Citizens United and previous rulings say that they are immortal humans now). Second, if I ran a corporation I would immediate state that my corporation "believes" that this will reduce our income and increase our expenses, therefore we "believe" strongly against this new unfunded mandate, and we would be exempt. I mean, I just can't reconcile the waffling I heard from the Obama administration with this statement: "more than zero corporations will have to pay."
And within the surge to Republican frontrunner of Santorum, a fundamentalist Catholic who would outlaw not just all contraception, but any sex apart from procreation.
I wonder how he and his ilk would react to the knowledge that some species of fish masturbate above the eggs, in order to fertilize them; or, that a very tiny percentage of those eggs will be viable into adulthood ("won't somebody please think of the children... of the fish...").
He's not any good either -- I like being able to breathe. I can't vote for someone who wants to disband the EPA. Pollution doesn't respect state lines.
Do you mean to say that you think if the EPA is disbanded, there will be no method of filing federal lawsuits to correct misconduct? I assert that we don't need a federal agency to impose its will on the states, in order for one state to find actors in another state at fault for damages. Or, as you assert, do we?
Actually I thought that the War on Terror was just an opportunistic power/money grab. "Something bad has happened, but WE know The Right Way! (TM) to handle situations like this."
I very much agree with you. It's both. Watch "Thrive" ($20 at Amazon, or free at Google).
I had this vision the other day, that Goldman Sachs ("Vampire Squid") is a lot like the aliens in "Cowboys and Aliens": they are sucking up all our gold, and we need to fight against it with advanced technology (e.g., the communication that the Internet makes possible). Watch "Thrive".
it shows how we go through "boom" and "bust" cycles since the last time we implemented a central banking system; and, that this system allows the bankers to scoop up property at pennies on the dollar, by loosening credit so people who earn $10K per year can purchase $2M homes; and then tightening credit, so that those homes are scooped up via foreclosure for pennies on the dollar. Rinse, repeat, and those fucking aliens own our entire country. Watch "Thrive".
You can't have a weak federal government and consistant laws through out the country. If the drug laws are up to the states, you'll get 50 different sets of drug laws.
Exactly! And, once we eliminate the TSA, we'll again have "freedom of movement", so we can vote with our feet when our state decides to go rogue. Not all states will have the same destructive policies -- you're absolutely right. Those with less destructive policies will see more growth.
I agree; the Federal Government has no business regulating sales that are outside of their Constitutional purview. Yes, the states should legislate against whatever they are capable of, and they will compete for citizens. Much, much better than the US bleeding citizens. (Meant initially only "losing to emigration", but now I see that it fits with the treatment of us as well.)
And, now that I've read your link, I will pay less attention to your posts. It attempts to character assassinate Ron Paul by watching the movements of some of his supporters. Really, you can do better.
I'd rather have the relative equality we have today, than more theoretical freedom with less enforcement of civil right violations.
I'm not sure I follow. He wants to do away with vice drug laws. Through selective enforcement of these same laws, we put far more blacks than whites in prisons, even though the usage rates are about the same for blacks and whites. How can you say we have more equality today, than we would with these laws off the books? Ron Paul is a champion of civil rights, in this regard.
Exactly. I realized while thinking last night (and already posted in a separate thread this evening) that the "War on Terror" is really a "War on Consequences". (Pogo was right, except that we don't recognize that we're at war with ourselves.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, you got me there. I was thinking in terms of "physics efficiency" but you're right; we can also be efficient at killing, others and/or ourselves. Perhaps I meant to say "physics" instead of "efficiency"? Or perhaps I should have used more words?
If genetics has any indication, your daughter won't be interested in politics. She'll be involved in retail sales near a large body of salt water.
Some European countries have legacy of the past in form of a "state church", where a certain denomination is designated as having some priority status.
State churches seem to be coming back into style, at least with the recent Obama administration prostrating^W capitulating^W compromising with religious corporations, that "certain beliefs can trump citizens' rights."
Some people in these country want sharia law and if that's what their politicians are running on and win on then that's how democracy is supposed to work. Just so long as the voters can always change it.
In a democracy, you're not supposed to be able to use the majority to vote other people's rights away. So, no, sharia law should not be supported in a democratic country; that's not how it's supposed to work. (And, is perhaps why the USA is a "democratic republic"; at its root it's a republic, and we have democracy "for show", just as in that set of states whose electors can decide who to deliver the votes to, regardless of the result of the popular election in that state.)
have long held to this strange doctrine that democracy automatically brings forth economic prosperity and personal freedoms
When we align our policies with efficiency, efficiency tends to be the result. Therefore, I do not think it all that strange. (Although looking at the USA these days says that we've aligned with "efficiency in removing rights"...)
Or anyone could seriously contemplate them joining EU?
Why anyone would want to join the EU and have their sovereignty taken away from them is beyond me. I was heartened over the weekend with news reports of Greek police unions writing warrants for the arrest of international lenders, for the crime of subverting democracy. How're them apples!??!?!
juries now expect DNA evidence in trivial cases
Hey, if the TV can help people understand the power that they have as juries to nullify the law, then I'm all for it. Of course, that's not what you're saying, but one can dream...
Perhaps they dropped it on top of some poor sucker/s to seed the weapon?
All pumps need priming...
It's a secret society of knights [...]
Yes, yes I heard that as "k-nig-hts"</nee>, thankyouverymuch</elvis>
toroidal in 4 dimensions
The first 20 minutes or so of "Thrive" shows the torus configuration in just about everything -- so I think it's really cool that our universe is also toroidal. ("Thrive": $20 on Amazon, or free via Google or your kooky friend.)
I like appeals that are less "to the man" and more "to the idea"; this is one of the primary reasons that I support Ron Paul. (And I realize that the previous sentence has a little cognitive dissonance embedded; think it through (and/or research), to find resonance.)
Or a more recent meme: FSM FTW!
Religions do not get to violate laws because of their unproveable belief.
Agreed; I would go farther, and say that even if they were able to prove their beliefs, they still should not get a free pass on violating rights. The way I heard it this morning, the new agreement is "companies that have a strong belief" or something similar. First, humans have beliefs; corporations have no brains to form beliefs with (although Citizens United and previous rulings say that they are immortal humans now). Second, if I ran a corporation I would immediate state that my corporation "believes" that this will reduce our income and increase our expenses, therefore we "believe" strongly against this new unfunded mandate, and we would be exempt. I mean, I just can't reconcile the waffling I heard from the Obama administration with this statement: "more than zero corporations will have to pay."
And within the surge to Republican frontrunner of Santorum, a fundamentalist Catholic who would outlaw not just all contraception, but any sex apart from procreation.
I wonder how he and his ilk would react to the knowledge that some species of fish masturbate above the eggs, in order to fertilize them; or, that a very tiny percentage of those eggs will be viable into adulthood ("won't somebody please think of the children ... of the fish ...").
:)
Thought that thought does suggest that we might find a good automotive metaphor to explain it.
(And that's not an exhaustive list of the word play we might make here.)
Just letting you know that there are witnesses to your humour. :)
Exactly! Chilling effect, written into data limits.
He's not any good either -- I like being able to breathe. I can't vote for someone who wants to disband the EPA. Pollution doesn't respect state lines.
Do you mean to say that you think if the EPA is disbanded, there will be no method of filing federal lawsuits to correct misconduct? I assert that we don't need a federal agency to impose its will on the states, in order for one state to find actors in another state at fault for damages. Or, as you assert, do we?
Actually I thought that the War on Terror was just an opportunistic power/money grab. "Something bad has happened, but WE know The Right Way! (TM) to handle situations like this."
I very much agree with you. It's both. Watch "Thrive" ($20 at Amazon, or free at Google).
I had this vision the other day, that Goldman Sachs ("Vampire Squid") is a lot like the aliens in "Cowboys and Aliens": they are sucking up all our gold, and we need to fight against it with advanced technology (e.g., the communication that the Internet makes possible). Watch "Thrive".
it shows how we go through "boom" and "bust" cycles since the last time we implemented a central banking system; and, that this system allows the bankers to scoop up property at pennies on the dollar, by loosening credit so people who earn $10K per year can purchase $2M homes; and then tightening credit, so that those homes are scooped up via foreclosure for pennies on the dollar. Rinse, repeat, and those fucking aliens own our entire country. Watch "Thrive".
You can't have a weak federal government and consistant laws through out the country. If the drug laws are up to the states, you'll get 50 different sets of drug laws.
Exactly! And, once we eliminate the TSA, we'll again have "freedom of movement", so we can vote with our feet when our state decides to go rogue. Not all states will have the same destructive policies -- you're absolutely right. Those with less destructive policies will see more growth.
Vote Ron Paul, and move to New Hampshire.
I agree; the Federal Government has no business regulating sales that are outside of their Constitutional purview. Yes, the states should legislate against whatever they are capable of, and they will compete for citizens. Much, much better than the US bleeding citizens. (Meant initially only "losing to emigration", but now I see that it fits with the treatment of us as well.)
And, now that I've read your link, I will pay less attention to your posts. It attempts to character assassinate Ron Paul by watching the movements of some of his supporters. Really, you can do better.
(Love your sig, have thought the same many times. :)
It takes a lot more than a leader to have a revolution.
Actually, I would say a leader is required and sufficient for a revolution -- the outcome depends on the quality of the leader.
I'd rather have the relative equality we have today, than more theoretical freedom with less enforcement of civil right violations.
I'm not sure I follow. He wants to do away with vice drug laws. Through selective enforcement of these same laws, we put far more blacks than whites in prisons, even though the usage rates are about the same for blacks and whites. How can you say we have more equality today, than we would with these laws off the books? Ron Paul is a champion of civil rights, in this regard.
Not conspiracy, just unintended consequences.
Exactly. I realized while thinking last night (and already posted in a separate thread this evening) that the "War on Terror" is really a "War on Consequences". (Pogo was right, except that we don't recognize that we're at war with ourselves.)
I just saw today that Romney's superpac is mostly made up of Wall Street investors. Maybe someone should Occupy him?
Well, in keeping with your signature, I thought your last quoted sentence fed nicely into those picket signs that said "Marry me, Rick!"
At any rate, we have no good choices.
You mention "someone you love smokes pot." Vote Ron Paul.
Or Anwar Al-Awlaki.