I can't help but wonder if he chose to go into politics after the recent Fermilab budget cuts. Considering the way that the current US congress has butchered science spending (at least relative to operating costs), it would be no surprise if he decided he had to fight the machine from within. I'm not saying an employee (or former employee) of the government can't be taking on The Man when they lobby for more funding. Teachers' strikes are a fine example. But trying to get more funding for a giant research laboratory from the Cold War era is fighting *anything* but the machine.
No Eyes Wide Shut, but your wife doesn't mind a movie where a guy cuts through a womans clothes and rapes her? Replying to my own comment here. Maybe it's because of the giant penis statue in that art lady's house?
2001 and A Clockwork Orange in HD (would buy Eyes Wide Shut for the nudie bits, but wife objects) No Eyes Wide Shut, but your wife doesn't mind a movie where a guy cuts through a womans clothes and rapes her?
A much more common argument from creationists is that it looks like it's 13.73 billion years old, but it actually is only around 6000 years old, and the whole 13.73 billion years business is just there to fool us. This argument always seemed strange to me. If:
1) The universe exists *as if* it had that 13.73 billion year old history 2) The only thing that exists is the present
then in what way could the claim that the universe is "really" 6000 years old actually mean anything? If you have two save files for a game with the same data, one made through playing the game and one written by hand, when they are loaded into memory, is there any difference?
Bugs Bunny wants to know: what happened before the opening credits, and who drew the animator?
Similarly, questions like "what happened before the creation of the universe" and "who created God" are not really meaningful. Why isn't "what happened before" meaningful in either situation? I could easily demonstrate for Bugs Bunny what he is in our universe by creating something similar in his (we're of course operating under the assumption that Bugs Bunny is actually alive and his universe actually exists).
As for "who created", it's just a bad analogy. Bugs asking who drew the animator is like a human asking "who's vagina did God come out of?". A human asking "who created God?" is like Mr. Bunny asking "who created the animator?", a perfectly sound question.
This is a guy who got screwed out of a lot of money because the state took his hard work without giving him a dime. In socialism, a person gets paid for the work they do, which he was, and the product belongs to society. I see nothing even slightly wrong with his "plight". That he saw it as theft does, however, demonstrate how much the capitalist world view was returning to the Soviet Union at that time, which is of course what led to the dismantling of socialism there - the people wanted democracy, the party bureaucrats wanted the become capitalists and gave them capitalism.
The two-headed beast known as Tweedledeeum has something like a 101% chance of winning. Truly, if you don't like the beast, nothing can be a greater waste of your vote than to give it to either of its heads, Dee or Dum. The Iraq War, for instance, is a lost cause and will be given up soon, no matter which branch of rhetoric the president subscribes to. Don't forget that the Vietnam war began under a Democratic president and ended under a Republican one. Despite the common, status-quo-serving wisdom, I insist that the only way for your vote to mean a goddamn thing is to vote for a third party.
(Personally, I'm hoping Cynthia McKinney wins the Green Party nomination. She's the one I'd most like to campaign for, though I'm a big Nader fan too.)
The Court lacks the power of the sword and the power of the purse. They have no enforcement power and no monetary power. They are only as powerful as the other branches let them be. Case in point: the Supreme Court decision of Worcester v. Georgia. The Court ruled that the State of Georgia had no authority to make or enforce laws covering Indian territories. President Andrew Jackson famously replied "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".
It is a very delicate balance. I don't think it's really a matter of balance, despite the "balance of powers" rhetoric. The court, when it does have an effect on the other branches, really only works to retard the efforts of one or both (in the contemporary case of Bush v. the Constitution, it would be Congress). Its political role is really more like a US version of the British House of Lords.
When you're slapped with a restraining order, you get hit with a dDOS, and one of your UPS units "accidentally" ignites , you know you must be doing something right. I have half a mind to make that my new sig.
Have tainted pills come from China before? Not that I know of, but the article certainly didn't say that they have. The point was that it was against what might have been your expectations.
Puerto Rico is part of the USA. There are lots of Puerto Ricans who would be willing to fight you on that. And most USAmericans would disagree too. And anyone who is opposed to colonialism (like myself and Thomas Jefferson) would be thoroughly opposed to that statement (unless you include along with it the demand that PR be recognized as the 51st state).
Another salient FACT is the FACT that the next President will be Republican. Both Obama and Clinton have far too many people who hate them for either of them to win the General Election. While I do appreciate your cynicism (and the FACT that you called the corporate media by their correct name), I think you're wrong here. People, especially those foolish enough to remain Democrats (and ESPECIALLY those smart enough not to) reeaalllly want change. They want a true anti-war candidate, a return of civil liberties (just the ones lost only recently, I mean), universal health care, etc.. The Democratic party doesn't want to give them that, so instead they give them a woman and a black man. Now THAT's change, right? That's, like, inspirational progress!
Anyway, contrary to what you said, I think the Republicans don't have a very good chance. All the front-runners are stay-the-course types when it comes to Iraq, and even the Powers-that-Be know a change is desperately needed there.
I mean, it's pretty hard to utter the words, "the other political party" without realizing it is a major gaffe. I don't know what kind of dream world you're living in, but can you give me directions?
Actually, before the election season had really started, I thought there was a good chance Rice might run. I know no one's talking about Iraq currently, and that the polls show a race with McCain to be close, but I stand by my long-held prediction that the Republicans don't stand a chance this time. "Stay-the-course" simply cannot win. Both the people and most of the Powers-that-Be have accepted that the war is only hurting us. Our popularity around the world continues to nose-dive, and we need those troops to invade Venezuela, or some other country that is actually a threat to our geopolitical interests rather than just a nice place to have.
Anyway, I thought rice might win because I thought she was the best shot they had (this still operating under the assumption that the Democrats would run a white male again).
Oh, side note: despite the immense unpopularity of the administration, both Rice and Powel remain popular in the polls. Why? Well, Republicans like them for obvious reasons. On the other hand, I think there are quite a number of white liberals who's idea of racial equality doesn't expand beyond seeing a black person in a position they could never have been in before, who's idea of racial equality is so shallow that they'd feel guilty not to pay people like those two respect.
Because he still has a good shot, the only thing holding him back is when news outlets don't mention him at all. In other words, he doesn't have a shot. Ron Paul, though I don't like the guy one bit (anybody who says the Union army was wrong to fight the Civil War is not a person I want anything to do with), is very interesting. He's a long-shot the way Kucinich is a long-shot but he's doing a lot better than Dennis. I think there's a faction of the Republican party (my relatives in Utah, for example) who use the brains in their heads enough to hate the Iraq war, and who hate Bush's attack on civil liberties. They're a minority, and Ron Paul happens to give them a voice - a role I don't think anyone was really expecting someone to play. Make no mistake, the Republican party will adjust and squash him like they did Kucinich after this election. But they'll keep him around. They both serve vital roles to their parties: they keep people in who might otherwise leave.
Also, I think there are some idealistic young people who want something radical and rebellious to believe in but for whatever reason have been turned off from anything socialist.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! Who wants to get stoned and eat tacos!?
I for one welcome out new robot over-... *gets shot, dies*
1) The universe exists *as if* it had that 13.73 billion year old history
2) The only thing that exists is the present
then in what way could the claim that the universe is "really" 6000 years old actually mean anything? If you have two save files for a game with the same data, one made through playing the game and one written by hand, when they are loaded into memory, is there any difference?
... except that Ryerson is in Toronto, Canada. What's your point? Not the US. Wait... since when??As for "who created", it's just a bad analogy. Bugs asking who drew the animator is like a human asking "who's vagina did God come out of?". A human asking "who created God?" is like Mr. Bunny asking "who created the animator?", a perfectly sound question.
People with first class tickets could always just wait to board until everyone else is on.
Yeah, but the fumes will still get you high.
The two-headed beast known as Tweedledeeum has something like a 101% chance of winning. Truly, if you don't like the beast, nothing can be a greater waste of your vote than to give it to either of its heads, Dee or Dum. The Iraq War, for instance, is a lost cause and will be given up soon, no matter which branch of rhetoric the president subscribes to. Don't forget that the Vietnam war began under a Democratic president and ended under a Republican one. Despite the common, status-quo-serving wisdom, I insist that the only way for your vote to mean a goddamn thing is to vote for a third party.
(Personally, I'm hoping Cynthia McKinney wins the Green Party nomination. She's the one I'd most like to campaign for, though I'm a big Nader fan too.)
Not trying to troll, but how do you play an FPS with a joystick?
... the sky is typically blue, the grass is mostly green, and the Pope is Catholic. News at 11: Breaking update on Pope's defecating habits.If I'm left out of the loop because they don't release a PC version, I'll cry.
Anyway, contrary to what you said, I think the Republicans don't have a very good chance. All the front-runners are stay-the-course types when it comes to Iraq, and even the Powers-that-Be know a change is desperately needed there.
Actually, before the election season had really started, I thought there was a good chance Rice might run. I know no one's talking about Iraq currently, and that the polls show a race with McCain to be close, but I stand by my long-held prediction that the Republicans don't stand a chance this time. "Stay-the-course" simply cannot win. Both the people and most of the Powers-that-Be have accepted that the war is only hurting us. Our popularity around the world continues to nose-dive, and we need those troops to invade Venezuela, or some other country that is actually a threat to our geopolitical interests rather than just a nice place to have.
Anyway, I thought rice might win because I thought she was the best shot they had (this still operating under the assumption that the Democrats would run a white male again).
Oh, side note: despite the immense unpopularity of the administration, both Rice and Powel remain popular in the polls. Why? Well, Republicans like them for obvious reasons. On the other hand, I think there are quite a number of white liberals who's idea of racial equality doesn't expand beyond seeing a black person in a position they could never have been in before, who's idea of racial equality is so shallow that they'd feel guilty not to pay people like those two respect.
Also, I think there are some idealistic young people who want something radical and rebellious to believe in but for whatever reason have been turned off from anything socialist.