were giving Bush a free ride without asking any particularly pointed questions about the various crimes against humanity and violations of the constitution?
Despite congressional approval and a UN resolution, the press still hammered Bush on the legality of the Iraq war. Meanwhile, Obama attacked Libya without congressional consent and kept it up for over 60 days (War Powers Act violation), and when confronted by even his own party in Congress, he basically said "It's legal because I say it is." We didn't hear much uproar in the press over that, even though Candidate Obama had strongly disapproved of such actions.
They also hammered Bush on Guantanamo, but not much for the guy who's kept it running despite promises otherwise.
And then they want to judge you based on performance metrics where the biggest variable is entirely outside of your control: what kind of home the student goes back to at the end of the school day.
We won't disagree there, but that isn't what I was talking about. A 5th grade teacher making that much mid-career has no reason to complain about how much he's making. But this guy was.
The entire charter school movement is about putting public money in private hands while breaking the teachers unions, period.
You have the breaking union part right, unions being considered an impediment to education.
Because fighting with them is the same thing as opposing their existence. Not.
And if FDR had his way, they wouldn't exist. And Reagan was a former union boss himself (although not a public one). I'm not much of a Reagan fan.
The average union worker wants a fair days pay for a fair days work, same as you. But when he organizes to negotiate for it, then he becomes a monster in your eyes.
Difference between public and private union. In a private union, the union negotiates with the company on the allocation of the company's money. Both have an interest in getting the best deal, both protect their own interests. In a public union, the union works with the politician to give them both the best deal, paid for the taxpayers who get screwed. The taxpayer money is funneled back from the union to the politicians to help ensure the taxpayers' interests don't get a seat at the table.
When the rich son of a board member starts bullying your kid, what are you going to do about it? When your daughter turns out to be dyslexic but Kaplan has cut all special education to save a few bucks, what are you going to do about it?
When the rich son of the public school board member starts bullying your kid, what are you going to do about it? When your daughter turns out to be dyslexic, but the board has cut special education to pay for union excesses, administrator pay and perks, what do you do about it?
Ooo! Anecdote time, can I play?
One anecdote about a worker, which could have been resolved with a lawsuit. This versus a founder of teacher unions in this country giving his opinion on the role of the union. All anecdotes aren't equal.
Who do you guys think you're kidding with this crap?
It shows the Democrats were in the pockets of the bankers as much as anybody.
ACORN is required by law to hand in all voter registration forms, even the ones signed "Mickey Mouse".
This is about ACORN helping a guy claiming to be a pimp of underage illegal alien kids defraud the government, and various other successful stings along the same line. That is what finally killed the organization. No Democrat wanted to be associated with an organization that would do that.
Classic winger tactic, projecting your worst flaws on to those you are attacking.
There's the little problem of a leaked Senate Democrat memo saying they must oppose him because of his race, they can't give the Republicans that advantage.
Muslims not in power = benign Muslims in power = dangerous
Take prayer for example. Great if Muslims aren't in power. But if they are, I wouldn't suggest trying to do anything during the time the Muslims are praying. Or the declaration of belief. Minority Muslims are fine with you not declaring that belief, and will accept you as their friend and neighbor. Majority Muslims may just kill you for that, especially if you used to believe, but no longer do.
Biden was constantly interrupting Ryan, 82 times in fact. His condescending laughs weren't good either. He came off as a petulant bully, and he failed in his promise to keep 100% factual. And Ryan had the best zingers, about Biden needing to come from behind (due to Obama's loss), and about Biden's propensity of sticking his foot in his mouth (Biden has had some bad gaffes, and in a couple cases flat-out contradicted Obama's positions).
The Senate Democratics discussed limiting filibuster a couple years ago. The great idea that senators must remain on the floor to keep up the filibuster was proposed. The leadership decided against it, and true reform of filibuster was shelved.
Why?
Obvious, they were afraid that if they Republicans gained the majority, then the Democratic minority would lose the ability to, as you say, "hold our nation's economy and credit rating hostage on multiple occasions to force their minority positions through."
Neither side wants to reform because they know they would lose power as the minority, which they surely would be at some point in the future. This is the reason the "nuclear option" wasn't used over Democrat filibusters of judicial nominees during Bush.
The GOP plays non-stop obstructionism, and then blames the Dems for not getting anything done.
Then explain the lack of a budget. Under Senate rules, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered, cannot be stopped. Again: The Republican Senate minority does NOT have any procedural means to stop a budget resolution that has been introduced by the Democratic majority.
A simple majority is all that is needed to pass it, the simple majority that Democrats have held for years. However, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has prevented a budget from passing for Obama's entire term, even from a Democrat-controlled House. The reason is simple, they don't want to have to go on record with anything, because they can then later be blamed for it.
And don't cry obstructionism in general. The Democrats did their fair share while Bush was in office. Remember the filibuster of judges for months? They almost caused a constitutional crisis. I say bring back the old-time filibuster. If you want to hold up a bill, then get your happy ass on the podium, and we'll see how long you can stay up there.
I wouldn't put Obamacare under a friendly Congress. The Democrat majority leadership had to strong-arm and bribe a lot of its own people who didn't like the bill. It was pushed through the Senate under a bill for housing tax breaks for servicemembers, and then only because they bribed one senator to have a filibuster-proof majority. In the end the House still had to use the procedural maneuver of "deeming" the full reconciled version passed, instead of just passing it on a vote like they would have if Congress actually supported it.
Enough Democrats (including Hillary and Kerry) voted for the Iraq war that GWB could get away with it.
And Biden. But he wanted you to forget that when he chastized Ryan for voting for the wars.
which forces states and cities to break their union contracts and destroy public education with charter schools if they want to keep getting their federal education money. It's destroying the unions.
1. Break union contracts, good. They are often very costly to the schools. I remember one complaining mid-career 5th grade teacher making over 85,000 in pay and benefits.
2. Destroy public schools, no. Charter schools are public schools, just not government-run schools, but held to the same standards of education.
3. Destroying the unions. I note your sig saying "I wanted an FDR." FDR absolutely opposed the concept of public sector unions, and did not allow them to happen during his tenure. Public sector unions are the union bosses negotiating with the politicians they help put into office how to put more taxpayer money into union coffers, which goes back around to reelecting those same politicians. Do you see the kids anywhere in that equation? It isn't. As one famous teacher union boss said, they'll start looking out for kids when the kids start paying union dues.
Sounds like you're more pro-union than pro-education. You've moved to the left.
Instead of prosecuting the people responsible for the worst financial crisis since the depression
You can't put lawmakers in jail for how they vote. Dodd is retired and Frank will soon, so we won't be able to fire them for preventing the higher oversight sought by Bush. And it would be politcially impossible to prosecute all those bad-credit homebuyers who wanted something for nothing.
the Democrats abandoned ACORN
Because ACORN was obviously willing to help people engage in criminal enterprise. He did do some selective editing, but overall the evidence is quite damning.
Of course the Democrats would never consider a filibuster in a Supreme Court nomination.
Yes they would. They're capable of any underhanded tactic, even racist. They filibustered the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the DC appeals court (first time ever at that level) because he's Hispanic. He was being groomed to be the next Supreme Court justice, but staff notes got leaked that the Democrats did not want the Republicans to appoint the first Hispanic justice to the court. The Democrats wanted that honor for themselves, and were willing to push that date back by years in order to get it. There would be an Estrada instead of an Alito or Roberts.
"Vote for us, because the alternative is horrible" is not a very inspiring reason to vote.
That's true, and applies to the particularly uninspiring Republican side too.
What part? Taxes for other purposes are used to control people in a social experiment. Don't like an activity, tax it more. It's dishonest. If the government prefers the activity not occur, then make it illegal. Otherwise you end up with the sin tax hypocrisy of simultaneously condemning an action and relying on it for general revenue.
This is different from a tax on an activity specifically to pay for the social cost of supporting that activity.
Some animal rights groups exist because PETA members couldn't handle the craziness and hypocrisy, and went off to found their own.
I don't think PETA furthers the goal as a lightning rod. Because of PETA, all other organizations have a harder time convincing potential donors and members that they're reasonable, not connected to or sharing philosophy with the batshit insane PETA.
A couple PETA employees in North Carolina were put on trial for killing cute newborn kittens in the back of their van and throwing them in a dumpster. This after telling the vet they got them from they were going to find a good home for them.
Unfortunately, although the facts of the case as above are known, they were acquitted on killing the kittens. I think one got it for improperly disposing of the bodies though.
Again, not a tax, inapplicable to the discussion. Taxes are for gathering revenue. Other laws, such as criminal laws against murder, have other purposes. The two should not be mixed.
This applies across the board. I'm sure you are only thinking in context along with your political beliefs and this one case. But realize this concept of justice does't care about your side. Think of a gaming censorship bill that is defended in court using research done by scientists hired by the Family Research Council that says gaming turns kids violent. Think of a case backed by the research of the scientists working at the Institute for Creation Research (they do exist) showing how "Intelligent Design" really is real science with no religious component. I would certainly want the judge to consider my request for background communications and documentation relating to the research, because they are very good at BSing, and that material will be helpful to expose any BS to the court.
This is about justice, not politics. If I want judges to have the ability to decide whether such evidence is admissable, then judges gets to decide in all cases, not just ones where I want to see the evidence.
The concept is fundamentally broken on many levels. You lay out practical problems, and there are also problems of authoritarianism. You define what constitutes a "sin" and you get to punish the wayward followers and unbelievers for committing the sin. Someone once said the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, and its promotion or use for any other purpose is inherently wrong in a free society.
Any type of law that discourages rather than encourages more voting is an assault on democracy and a nod to totalitarianism.
Non-citizens can't vote, felons can't vote in most states. These are nods to totalitarianism?
In the framework of the book, the government must provide the opportunity to everyone to earn the right to vote. And that leads to the most basic question: Is the power to have influence over your fellow citizens by means of voting or serving in government something that should be handed out to everybody without regard to their demonstrated willingness to serve that society? Or should such power be earned?
It's not a nod to totalitariansim as long as the *opportunity* to earn that power is equal as in the book, and all other rights of non-voters are protected. Our country was founded on equal opportunity, but in recent years that has been warped to mean equal results.
Any type of law that encourages people who really don't care to vote, or are completely ignorant of anything, is an assault on a well-functioning democracy. I've heard "man on the street" interviews, and they are scary regardless of who is doing them. I really liked the multiple people who said they'll be voting for Obama, and they think his VP candidate Paul Ryan is great, and that (in 2012) they won't be voting for Sarah Palin. These are people who should not have any input into how our government is run. They obviously don't care enough about their country to become minimally informed of what they're voting for, yet their vote will count the same as the most intelligent, well-informed patriot in the country.
Would it have been the best use of our nation's resource - me and others like me - to take someone headed for science and engineering, and park him behind a gun?
You too good to fight for your country? Are you like John Kerry, thinking only stupid people enlist? I enlisted, and I was a high-scoring total geek. It surprised the hell out of them to find out I could also shoot better than most.
Seriously, in the book federal service can be accomplished using science, engineering or even teaching skills instead of shooting things. A person with engineering skills might find himself an engineer on a spaceship, or back on Earth designing them. And they didn't want cannon fodder in the infantry either, unlike the movie. The training was extremely rigorous, designed so that most candidates fail.
As far as taxes, that's forcibly taking from citizens. It does not fit into the model of being willing to sacrifice for the society. Donating heavily to the goverment, or to charity, would. Now where is George Soros donating some of his billions directly to the treasury or to charity? Instead, he uses that money to elect people who will forcibly take that money from others. OTOH, he has enough influence over the Democrats to make sure the tax laws don't take any more than he wants to give, so for himself, you could say he is giving willingly. One rule for the ultra-rich...
I thought it was a didactic essay by Heinlein about corporal punishment and military citizenship. Surprisingly, some of his other books did a complete 180 such as SiaSL
The contradiction is only apparent since that is not what ST was about. It was about the idea that you cannot have social responsibility without first being willing to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good, and that letting those who aren't willing to do so have a say in the society is detrimental. In the novel, such willingness is shown through federal service, but that service was not necessarily military. Also, about military citizenship, people in the military were not allowed to vote. It is only after service that franchise is gained, so nobody in the service can be running the country.
This novel is similar to SiaSL in that contemporary social norms are challenged. In our democracy it's automatically assumed to be a fundamental right that everybody gets to vote, and Heinlein challenges this. Also at the time our army was a conscripted force, still mostly segregated by race, and with deep divides on ethnicity. Women at the time had a very peripheral role in the military. Heinlein used the concept of a completely volunteer force that is integrated by race and ethnicity, and in which women serve equally. The idea of a free person is taken so far that a soldier could legally quit to avoid being sent into battle, since you can't force a person to be willing to sacrifice for the good of the society. Many concepts of the novel were quite socially progressive for its time, and some these are still now.
And of course the strongest connection between the two novels is that Hershal in SiaSL and the teacher in ST are both considered to be the voice of Heinlein speaking through his characters.
The movie started off as a meaningless Sci-Fi action flick called But Hunt or something like that. Then sometime during production they got the rights to Starship Troopers and superficially added a few elements of the book to the movie. Verhoeven never read the whole book, and most of the writers had never even heard of it.
So, basically, you're above the peons, only you can make sense of all of the data. It is not for the legal deciders of fact in a case to see this information. It's not for the judge, whose job is to vet what is and is not relevant to a case, to decide whether they get to see this information. They should only be able to see what the scientists decide they should see.
I bet everyone who has ever been involved in a court case wishes they had this special legal status, akin to executive privilege, that the scientists are seeking.
Nether would really consider each other part of the same religion.
Yes, they do. Both believe in Jesus Christ as the savior = Christian. Muslim sects believe in Allah as the one true god and Mohammed as his prophet = Muslim. Sunnis, Shias and others may disagree on a lot of things, but this is basic for any Muslim.
Other people don't get to declare what *your* religion is.
Depends on where you live. If Obama lived in various places in the world he would be a Muslim, or dead.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite congressional approval and a UN resolution, the press still hammered Bush on the legality of the Iraq war. Meanwhile, Obama attacked Libya without congressional consent and kept it up for over 60 days (War Powers Act violation), and when confronted by even his own party in Congress, he basically said "It's legal because I say it is." We didn't hear much uproar in the press over that, even though Candidate Obama had strongly disapproved of such actions.
They also hammered Bush on Guantanamo, but not much for the guy who's kept it running despite promises otherwise.
Budget reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered.
It can also be said that the more the majority tries to rule by a "tyranny of the majority" standard, the more the filibuster is necessary to invoke.
We won't disagree there, but that isn't what I was talking about. A 5th grade teacher making that much mid-career has no reason to complain about how much he's making. But this guy was.
You have the breaking union part right, unions being considered an impediment to education.
And if FDR had his way, they wouldn't exist. And Reagan was a former union boss himself (although not a public one). I'm not much of a Reagan fan.
Difference between public and private union. In a private union, the union negotiates with the company on the allocation of the company's money. Both have an interest in getting the best deal, both protect their own interests. In a public union, the union works with the politician to give them both the best deal, paid for the taxpayers who get screwed. The taxpayer money is funneled back from the union to the politicians to help ensure the taxpayers' interests don't get a seat at the table.
When the rich son of the public school board member starts bullying your kid, what are you going to do about it? When your daughter turns out to be dyslexic, but the board has cut special education to pay for union excesses, administrator pay and perks, what do you do about it?
One anecdote about a worker, which could have been resolved with a lawsuit. This versus a founder of teacher unions in this country giving his opinion on the role of the union. All anecdotes aren't equal.
It shows the Democrats were in the pockets of the bankers as much as anybody.
This is about ACORN helping a guy claiming to be a pimp of underage illegal alien kids defraud the government, and various other successful stings along the same line. That is what finally killed the organization. No Democrat wanted to be associated with an organization that would do that.
There's the little problem of a leaked Senate Democrat memo saying they must oppose him because of his race, they can't give the Republicans that advantage.
Muslims not in power = benign
Muslims in power = dangerous
Take prayer for example. Great if Muslims aren't in power. But if they are, I wouldn't suggest trying to do anything during the time the Muslims are praying. Or the declaration of belief. Minority Muslims are fine with you not declaring that belief, and will accept you as their friend and neighbor. Majority Muslims may just kill you for that, especially if you used to believe, but no longer do.
Biden was constantly interrupting Ryan, 82 times in fact. His condescending laughs weren't good either. He came off as a petulant bully, and he failed in his promise to keep 100% factual. And Ryan had the best zingers, about Biden needing to come from behind (due to Obama's loss), and about Biden's propensity of sticking his foot in his mouth (Biden has had some bad gaffes, and in a couple cases flat-out contradicted Obama's positions).
The Republican candidate I wanted could write a bubble sort.
The Senate Democratics discussed limiting filibuster a couple years ago. The great idea that senators must remain on the floor to keep up the filibuster was proposed. The leadership decided against it, and true reform of filibuster was shelved.
Why?
Obvious, they were afraid that if they Republicans gained the majority, then the Democratic minority would lose the ability to, as you say, "hold our nation's economy and credit rating hostage on multiple occasions to force their minority positions through."
Neither side wants to reform because they know they would lose power as the minority, which they surely would be at some point in the future. This is the reason the "nuclear option" wasn't used over Democrat filibusters of judicial nominees during Bush.
Then explain the lack of a budget. Under Senate rules, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered, cannot be stopped. Again: The Republican Senate minority does NOT have any procedural means to stop a budget resolution that has been introduced by the Democratic majority.
A simple majority is all that is needed to pass it, the simple majority that Democrats have held for years. However, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has prevented a budget from passing for Obama's entire term, even from a Democrat-controlled House. The reason is simple, they don't want to have to go on record with anything, because they can then later be blamed for it.
And don't cry obstructionism in general. The Democrats did their fair share while Bush was in office. Remember the filibuster of judges for months? They almost caused a constitutional crisis. I say bring back the old-time filibuster. If you want to hold up a bill, then get your happy ass on the podium, and we'll see how long you can stay up there.
I wouldn't put Obamacare under a friendly Congress. The Democrat majority leadership had to strong-arm and bribe a lot of its own people who didn't like the bill. It was pushed through the Senate under a bill for housing tax breaks for servicemembers, and then only because they bribed one senator to have a filibuster-proof majority. In the end the House still had to use the procedural maneuver of "deeming" the full reconciled version passed, instead of just passing it on a vote like they would have if Congress actually supported it.
And Biden. But he wanted you to forget that when he chastized Ryan for voting for the wars.
1. Break union contracts, good. They are often very costly to the schools. I remember one complaining mid-career 5th grade teacher making over 85,000 in pay and benefits.
2. Destroy public schools, no. Charter schools are public schools, just not government-run schools, but held to the same standards of education.
3. Destroying the unions. I note your sig saying "I wanted an FDR." FDR absolutely opposed the concept of public sector unions, and did not allow them to happen during his tenure. Public sector unions are the union bosses negotiating with the politicians they help put into office how to put more taxpayer money into union coffers, which goes back around to reelecting those same politicians. Do you see the kids anywhere in that equation? It isn't. As one famous teacher union boss said, they'll start looking out for kids when the kids start paying union dues.
Sounds like you're more pro-union than pro-education. You've moved to the left.
You can't put lawmakers in jail for how they vote. Dodd is retired and Frank will soon, so we won't be able to fire them for preventing the higher oversight sought by Bush. And it would be politcially impossible to prosecute all those bad-credit homebuyers who wanted something for nothing.
Because ACORN was obviously willing to help people engage in criminal enterprise. He did do some selective editing, but overall the evidence is quite damning.
Yes they would. They're capable of any underhanded tactic, even racist. They filibustered the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the DC appeals court (first time ever at that level) because he's Hispanic. He was being groomed to be the next Supreme Court justice, but staff notes got leaked that the Democrats did not want the Republicans to appoint the first Hispanic justice to the court. The Democrats wanted that honor for themselves, and were willing to push that date back by years in order to get it. There would be an Estrada instead of an Alito or Roberts.
That's true, and applies to the particularly uninspiring Republican side too.
What part? Taxes for other purposes are used to control people in a social experiment. Don't like an activity, tax it more. It's dishonest. If the government prefers the activity not occur, then make it illegal. Otherwise you end up with the sin tax hypocrisy of simultaneously condemning an action and relying on it for general revenue.
This is different from a tax on an activity specifically to pay for the social cost of supporting that activity.
Some animal rights groups exist because PETA members couldn't handle the craziness and hypocrisy, and went off to found their own.
I don't think PETA furthers the goal as a lightning rod. Because of PETA, all other organizations have a harder time convincing potential donors and members that they're reasonable, not connected to or sharing philosophy with the batshit insane PETA.
A couple PETA employees in North Carolina were put on trial for killing cute newborn kittens in the back of their van and throwing them in a dumpster. This after telling the vet they got them from they were going to find a good home for them.
Unfortunately, although the facts of the case as above are known, they were acquitted on killing the kittens. I think one got it for improperly disposing of the bodies though.
Again, not a tax, inapplicable to the discussion. Taxes are for gathering revenue. Other laws, such as criminal laws against murder, have other purposes. The two should not be mixed.
This is about taxes. Do we have a murder tax?
This applies across the board. I'm sure you are only thinking in context along with your political beliefs and this one case. But realize this concept of justice does't care about your side. Think of a gaming censorship bill that is defended in court using research done by scientists hired by the Family Research Council that says gaming turns kids violent. Think of a case backed by the research of the scientists working at the Institute for Creation Research (they do exist) showing how "Intelligent Design" really is real science with no religious component. I would certainly want the judge to consider my request for background communications and documentation relating to the research, because they are very good at BSing, and that material will be helpful to expose any BS to the court.
This is about justice, not politics. If I want judges to have the ability to decide whether such evidence is admissable, then judges gets to decide in all cases, not just ones where I want to see the evidence.
The concept is fundamentally broken on many levels. You lay out practical problems, and there are also problems of authoritarianism. You define what constitutes a "sin" and you get to punish the wayward followers and unbelievers for committing the sin. Someone once said the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, and its promotion or use for any other purpose is inherently wrong in a free society.
Non-citizens can't vote, felons can't vote in most states. These are nods to totalitarianism?
In the framework of the book, the government must provide the opportunity to everyone to earn the right to vote. And that leads to the most basic question: Is the power to have influence over your fellow citizens by means of voting or serving in government something that should be handed out to everybody without regard to their demonstrated willingness to serve that society? Or should such power be earned?
It's not a nod to totalitariansim as long as the *opportunity* to earn that power is equal as in the book, and all other rights of non-voters are protected. Our country was founded on equal opportunity, but in recent years that has been warped to mean equal results.
Any type of law that encourages people who really don't care to vote, or are completely ignorant of anything, is an assault on a well-functioning democracy. I've heard "man on the street" interviews, and they are scary regardless of who is doing them. I really liked the multiple people who said they'll be voting for Obama, and they think his VP candidate Paul Ryan is great, and that (in 2012) they won't be voting for Sarah Palin. These are people who should not have any input into how our government is run. They obviously don't care enough about their country to become minimally informed of what they're voting for, yet their vote will count the same as the most intelligent, well-informed patriot in the country.
You too good to fight for your country? Are you like John Kerry, thinking only stupid people enlist? I enlisted, and I was a high-scoring total geek. It surprised the hell out of them to find out I could also shoot better than most.
Seriously, in the book federal service can be accomplished using science, engineering or even teaching skills instead of shooting things. A person with engineering skills might find himself an engineer on a spaceship, or back on Earth designing them. And they didn't want cannon fodder in the infantry either, unlike the movie. The training was extremely rigorous, designed so that most candidates fail.
As far as taxes, that's forcibly taking from citizens. It does not fit into the model of being willing to sacrifice for the society. Donating heavily to the goverment, or to charity, would. Now where is George Soros donating some of his billions directly to the treasury or to charity? Instead, he uses that money to elect people who will forcibly take that money from others. OTOH, he has enough influence over the Democrats to make sure the tax laws don't take any more than he wants to give, so for himself, you could say he is giving willingly. One rule for the ultra-rich...
The contradiction is only apparent since that is not what ST was about. It was about the idea that you cannot have social responsibility without first being willing to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good, and that letting those who aren't willing to do so have a say in the society is detrimental. In the novel, such willingness is shown through federal service, but that service was not necessarily military. Also, about military citizenship, people in the military were not allowed to vote. It is only after service that franchise is gained, so nobody in the service can be running the country.
This novel is similar to SiaSL in that contemporary social norms are challenged. In our democracy it's automatically assumed to be a fundamental right that everybody gets to vote, and Heinlein challenges this. Also at the time our army was a conscripted force, still mostly segregated by race, and with deep divides on ethnicity. Women at the time had a very peripheral role in the military. Heinlein used the concept of a completely volunteer force that is integrated by race and ethnicity, and in which women serve equally. The idea of a free person is taken so far that a soldier could legally quit to avoid being sent into battle, since you can't force a person to be willing to sacrifice for the good of the society. Many concepts of the novel were quite socially progressive for its time, and some these are still now.
And of course the strongest connection between the two novels is that Hershal in SiaSL and the teacher in ST are both considered to be the voice of Heinlein speaking through his characters.
He is a D&D-playing, video game-producing geek.
The movie started off as a meaningless Sci-Fi action flick called But Hunt or something like that. Then sometime during production they got the rights to Starship Troopers and superficially added a few elements of the book to the movie. Verhoeven never read the whole book, and most of the writers had never even heard of it.
So, basically, you're above the peons, only you can make sense of all of the data. It is not for the legal deciders of fact in a case to see this information. It's not for the judge, whose job is to vet what is and is not relevant to a case, to decide whether they get to see this information. They should only be able to see what the scientists decide they should see.
I bet everyone who has ever been involved in a court case wishes they had this special legal status, akin to executive privilege, that the scientists are seeking.
That's exactly what they get when they participate in the legal system.
Yes, they do. Both believe in Jesus Christ as the savior = Christian. Muslim sects believe in Allah as the one true god and Mohammed as his prophet = Muslim. Sunnis, Shias and others may disagree on a lot of things, but this is basic for any Muslim.
Depends on where you live. If Obama lived in various places in the world he would be a Muslim, or dead.