If you want abortion to be illegal, join our system, and convince more then 50% that it is wrong.
If only that were good enough. The people in
all 50 states did exactly that. They got their
legislatures to pass laws outlawing at least some
abortions in some circumstances.
Then along comes the Supreme Court, they pull
a "right to privacy" out of their asses (it sure
didn't come from the Constitution) and overrule
the >50% percent judgment of the people from
coast to coast. Presto! Abortion on demand is a nationwide policy. Why? Because King Blackmun said so, that's why.
Don't do it by killing people, harassing
them, and going outside the law.
People should act within the law. It would be
easier for them to do so if their courts also
acted within the law. I believe one reason some of the more extreme anti-abortionists resort to
violence is that the courts have removed from them any hope of achieving their aims through the pursuasive acts of politics.
Myself, I prefer a policy of abortion liberty,
but I recognize that those policies ought to be
crafted by accountable legislatures, not imposed by imperial courts.
Try this variation and see if you change your mind:
Monty shows you 1000 doors and asks you to
pick the one you think hides a car. You pick door 94. Then Monty opens 998 doors. At each door, he checks the number on the door against a little
scrap of paper he has. When Monty is done
opening doors, he has revealed 998 goats, and
left your selection, door 94, and one other
door, door 672, closed.
Monty reminds you that one of the two
remaining closed doors hides the 999th goat, and
the other hides a brand new car! You can keep
your original choice, or change your choice to
door 672.
Should you switch?
If yes, how is this different from the three
door case?
It's obvious that the statistical anomoly is there...
It's the census all over again. The Democrats want to make statistical arguments about why they deserve to win, while the Republicans simply want to count the votes.
When exactly do you think you will be free of this?
We'll be free of this nonsense when the Supreme Court finally comes to its senses and overturns Roe v. Wade turning the issue of abortion policy back to the state legislatures. Then the Supreme Court can actually go back to being the Supreme Court instead of continuing its service as the National Abortion Policy Committee.
The next President will nominate Justices, and will shape the future of the Court, and that will have long-lasting impact of many important matters including voting rights, anti-trust, federalism, search and seizure, establishing free speech protections in electronic media -- the list goes on and on. Do we ever hear a serious discussion about what kind of Supreme Court we want and how it will address these matters? No! Because every time the Supreme Court comes up, we have to retreat to our Pro-Life and Pro-Choice corners and argue about what policies the National Abortion Policy Committee will craft for all of us non-self-governing subjects.
It's time for the Supreme Court to just get out of the abortion policy making business, and go back to being the judicial body it was intended to be.
Re:electorial college ruins it for me
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
One state( can't remember which) at least broke up their electorial votes based on percentage of votes).
No. None of them do that. You are probably thinking of Maine and Nebraska. They use winner-take-all by the whole state to determine the two electors corresponding to their Senators. They then use winner-take-all within each Congressional district to determine each elector corrsponding to a Representative. This does allow for a split in the state's electoral votes, but it doesn't match the popular vote.
Your advice assumes there exists at least one
candidate who deserves my support. I've looked
at them all, and none of them do. How can I
register my preference that they scrap all these
losers and start again? We don't have "None of
the Above" so best I can do is not vote in the
Presidential race.
Bah! Code has to be a form of personal expression and therefore should be protected by First Amendment.
You should read that First Amendment again. It protects freedom of speech. Over the last generation, the courts have read a lot of meaning into that phrase, but to my knowledge they haven't gone anywhere near establishing protection for something as vague, broad, or open ended as personal expression. Colin Ferguson sure didn't find any Constitutional protection for his personal expression of rage when he shot several passengers on a train.
The small amount of case law supporting the position that source == speech is very fresh and tenuous. It's worthwhile for the defendants to cite any precedent which supports their side, but it's a mistake to rely on source == speech as the central support for their defense.
...several researchers and I were able to project that kids were much more likely to have an airplane fall out of the sky onto their heads than to be harmed as a result of going online.
Estimates range from a handful to a few hundred each year...
Just where can I read about these hundreds of children being injured by falling aircraft?
It's pretty poor rhetorical form to accuse others of hysteria while relying on such ludicrous hyperbole. Did a deadline catch you by surprise?
Note to Slashdot editors: Editing means if an article is crap, you don't have to publish it.
You just can't say this didn't deserve a good grade because you don't know the intent of the assignment.
Any teacher in any subject who does not expect good writing skills in all written assignments and does not correct errors in submitted work is doing his or her students a grave disservice. ``Intent'' of the assignment has nothing to do with it.
I was in 7th grade. I had Miss Gooldy for English. In her class we had a standing weekly assignment known as ``Thursday writing.'' Every Thursday, each student was to turn in at least four pages of written material. You could write on any topic you wanted. You could write stories, plays, essays, poetry, book reports -- anything at all as long as you filled at least four pages. This was one of the best assignments any teacher ever gave me throughout my education. Students could volunteer to read their assignments aloud before the class if they wished, although no one suggested anything as silly as extra credit for such a trivial task.
Where does a 13-year-old come up with enough creativity to fill four pages a week? He cribs from the popular culture, of course. In 1980, the popular culture was defined by the question ``Who shot J.R.?'' I fulfilled four weeks of my Thursday writing assignments with a serial tale about the shooting of a classmate with the initials K.R. and the subsequent investigation, entitled -- you guessed it -- ``Who Shot K.R.?'' Every character in the story was a real person in my school.
Reading news stories like this one makes me enormously thankful that I grew up in a time when teachers, principals, police, and judges all had a good measure of common sense and judgment, and when teachers actually expected their students to write well to receive a high (not to mention perfect) grade. I read my serial aloud weekly to the pleasure of my classmates, my teacher, and myself. Miss Gooldy never would have thought to see me as a threat who needed to be jailed. And she never would have given that ``scary story'' from Texas any grade higher than a C+.
Thank you, Miss Gooldy, wherever you are. And ``Nuts!'' to every fool involved in this fiasco in Texas.
I get my news now from National Peoples (er) Public Radio...
That's generally good advice, IMHO, but this time they were nearly as bad as the rest of them. NPR devoted 20 minutes, a full one-third, of their Saturday program All Things Considered to coverage of the JFK, Jr. story. At this point there really was nothing of substance to report other than the plane is missing and rescue teams are searching for it. But they went on and on. A lengthy phone interview with a search and resuce spokesman detailing the number and types of craft involved in the rescue operation. A retrospective on the Kennedy family through history. A lengthy excerpt of the remarks JFK, Jr. made at his mother's funeral. And on and on...
To blunt my criticism, I'll confess that Saturday was a rather slow news day. Another 20 minutes of the program was dedicated to a feature story on communities whose economy is based on the timber industry. But it's normal for NPR to provide deep coverage of "smaller" stories. It's not as normal for them to follow the hype of the Techno-tragedy events. I was disappointed in them.
Slashdot Mirror
If only that were good enough. The people in all 50 states did exactly that. They got their legislatures to pass laws outlawing at least some abortions in some circumstances.
Then along comes the Supreme Court, they pull a "right to privacy" out of their asses (it sure didn't come from the Constitution) and overrule the >50% percent judgment of the people from coast to coast. Presto! Abortion on demand is a nationwide policy. Why? Because King Blackmun said so, that's why.
Don't do it by killing people, harassing them, and going outside the law.
People should act within the law. It would be easier for them to do so if their courts also acted within the law. I believe one reason some of the more extreme anti-abortionists resort to violence is that the courts have removed from them any hope of achieving their aims through the pursuasive acts of politics.
Myself, I prefer a policy of abortion liberty, but I recognize that those policies ought to be crafted by accountable legislatures, not imposed by imperial courts.
Monty shows you 1000 doors and asks you to pick the one you think hides a car. You pick door 94. Then Monty opens 998 doors. At each door, he checks the number on the door against a little scrap of paper he has. When Monty is done opening doors, he has revealed 998 goats, and left your selection, door 94, and one other door, door 672, closed.
Monty reminds you that one of the two remaining closed doors hides the 999th goat, and the other hides a brand new car! You can keep your original choice, or change your choice to door 672.
Should you switch?
If yes, how is this different from the three door case?
How about a followup story where you untangle all this alphabet soup?
Ah yes, Ann Uumellmahaye...
Er, that's Anne Uumellmahaye.
Jeez, learn to spell!
Oh, so you want to use chrons , do you?
It's the census all over again. The Democrats want to make statistical arguments about why they deserve to win, while the Republicans simply want to count the votes.
We'll be free of this nonsense when the Supreme Court finally comes to its senses and overturns Roe v. Wade turning the issue of abortion policy back to the state legislatures. Then the Supreme Court can actually go back to being the Supreme Court instead of continuing its service as the National Abortion Policy Committee.
The next President will nominate Justices, and will shape the future of the Court, and that will have long-lasting impact of many important matters including voting rights, anti-trust, federalism, search and seizure, establishing free speech protections in electronic media -- the list goes on and on. Do we ever hear a serious discussion about what kind of Supreme Court we want and how it will address these matters? No! Because every time the Supreme Court comes up, we have to retreat to our Pro-Life and Pro-Choice corners and argue about what policies the National Abortion Policy Committee will craft for all of us non-self-governing subjects.
It's time for the Supreme Court to just get out of the abortion policy making business, and go back to being the judicial body it was intended to be.
No. None of them do that. You are probably thinking of Maine and Nebraska. They use winner-take-all by the whole state to determine the two electors corresponding to their Senators. They then use winner-take-all within each Congressional district to determine each elector corrsponding to a Representative. This does allow for a split in the state's electoral votes, but it doesn't match the popular vote.
See here for more information.
Your advice assumes there exists at least one candidate who deserves my support. I've looked at them all, and none of them do. How can I register my preference that they scrap all these losers and start again? We don't have "None of the Above" so best I can do is not vote in the Presidential race.
Can they sue you for underpayment during the decades we ran deficits?
I'm all for returning "the People's money" to the People, just as soon as we're done paying the People's debts!
Bah! Code has to be a form of personal expression and therefore should be protected by First Amendment.
You should read that First Amendment again. It protects freedom of speech. Over the last generation, the courts have read a lot of meaning into that phrase, but to my knowledge they haven't gone anywhere near establishing protection for something as vague, broad, or open ended as personal expression. Colin Ferguson sure didn't find any Constitutional protection for his personal expression of rage when he shot several passengers on a train.
The small amount of case law supporting the position that source == speech is very fresh and tenuous. It's worthwhile for the defendants to cite any precedent which supports their side, but it's a mistake to rely on source == speech as the central support for their defense.
At long last, illiteracy need not be a barrier to college admission.
Estimates range from a handful to a few hundred each year...
Just where can I read about these hundreds of children being injured by falling aircraft?
It's pretty poor rhetorical form to accuse others of hysteria while relying on such ludicrous hyperbole. Did a deadline catch you by surprise?
Note to Slashdot editors: Editing means if an article is crap, you don't have to publish it.
... The Next Generation.
Why are the Boy Scouts of America concerned about this?
The primary requirement for Mensa membership is not having acheived a high score on an ``intelligence'' test.
The primary requirement for Mensa membership is an irresistable need to let other people know you achieved a high score on an ``intelligence'' test.
:)
You just can't say this didn't deserve a good grade because you don't know the intent of the assignment.
Any teacher in any subject who does not expect good writing skills in all written assignments and does not correct errors in submitted work is doing his or her students a grave disservice. ``Intent'' of the assignment has nothing to do with it.
What grade would you give the ``scary story''?
I was in 7th grade. I had Miss Gooldy for English. In her class we had a standing weekly assignment known as ``Thursday writing.'' Every Thursday, each student was to turn in at least four pages of written material. You could write on any topic you wanted. You could write stories, plays, essays, poetry, book reports -- anything at all as long as you filled at least four pages. This was one of the best assignments any teacher ever gave me throughout my education. Students could volunteer to read their assignments aloud before the class if they wished, although no one suggested anything as silly as extra credit for such a trivial task.
Where does a 13-year-old come up with enough creativity to fill four pages a week? He cribs from the popular culture, of course. In 1980, the popular culture was defined by the question ``Who shot J.R.?'' I fulfilled four weeks of my Thursday writing assignments with a serial tale about the shooting of a classmate with the initials K.R. and the subsequent investigation, entitled -- you guessed it -- ``Who Shot K.R.?'' Every character in the story was a real person in my school.
Reading news stories like this one makes me enormously thankful that I grew up in a time when teachers, principals, police, and judges all had a good measure of common sense and judgment, and when teachers actually expected their students to write well to receive a high (not to mention perfect) grade. I read my serial aloud weekly to the pleasure of my classmates, my teacher, and myself. Miss Gooldy never would have thought to see me as a threat who needed to be jailed. And she never would have given that ``scary story'' from Texas any grade higher than a C+.
Thank you, Miss Gooldy, wherever you are. And ``Nuts!'' to every fool involved in this fiasco in Texas.
I wonder what Judge Whitten would think of the classic school yard ditty
?Do you trust the non-open-source, proprietary
software that tabulates the ballots now?
You keep using that phrase.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
That's generally good advice, IMHO, but this time they were nearly as bad as the rest of them. NPR devoted 20 minutes, a full one-third, of their Saturday program All Things Considered to coverage of the JFK, Jr. story. At this point there really was nothing of substance to report other than the plane is missing and rescue teams are searching for it. But they went on and on. A lengthy phone interview with a search and resuce spokesman detailing the number and types of craft involved in the rescue operation. A retrospective on the Kennedy family through history. A lengthy excerpt of the remarks JFK, Jr. made at his mother's funeral. And on and on...
To blunt my criticism, I'll confess that Saturday was a rather slow news day. Another 20 minutes of the program was dedicated to a feature story on communities whose economy is based on the timber industry. But it's normal for NPR to provide deep coverage of "smaller" stories. It's not as normal for them to follow the hype of the Techno-tragedy events. I was disappointed in them.