You seem to have missed my point entirely. Most Christians I meet are anti-non-Christian bigots(hell, a lot of them are anti-everyone but those in my denomination-bigots. I tried coming to a consesus with them and I fail miserably. Why? Because they believe in absolutes, and coming together with an infidel is not part of their ideal for the government. They call it a Christian nation and want to make baptisms a part of the requirement to be a citizen, George Bush the elder said he doesn't even think that atheists are patriots. How am I supposed to react to such bigotry?
Please, Christians in this country love to play the victim, while the persecute those who do not agree with them. I'm sorry, but I am just plain tired of Christians, I'm plain tired of, "Oh, Islam isn't a violent religion, just a few extremists" BS(The extremists are going to a mosque somewhere, and if these muslims aren't complicit they are complacent). I'm just so fucking sick and tired of preachers who say that because I'm a "liberal atheist", HItler and Mother Theresa are equivalent to me. When Christians stop persecuting atheists, when muslims stop blowing themselves up, when Jews stop shooting children in Palestine, when Hindus stop going on rampages murdering people simply because they are of a lower caste, then maybe I will start to "tolerate" religion.
.,$g/Christian/s//Slashdotter/g
/anti-everything but those in my denomination-bigots/s//anti-everything but free source/
I'm not as inclined to think it was such an accident
You think the Ohio govt. ordered the guardsman to fire? The national guard didn't do a very good job, 'cause they only got four of them with their 60 bullets. Obviously it's impossible to know anything, but the likelihood of this is tiny, and not worth arguing. Tiananmen and Kent are not similar incidents.
[Beijing was] responding to percieved domestic instability
Exactly. Beijing felt their power was threatened, and the power was shifting to its people, so they killed them. You then try to draw parallells to this kind of action and executing murderers. Executing murderers is a way to keep the citizenry safe, but it doesn't protect politician's political power. You should stop trying to draw relationships where they are completely different things.
China-haters . . ./I> Keep spitting this innuendo out. We have a saying in America "call a spade a spade." What it means is that you name things for what they are. I don't hate Chinese people, they are people just like me, with the same love of child, fear of death, inate intelligence, etc., but I do hate the Chinese government. I hate the idea of subservience to the state. I hate the penal system over there, in which a person who stole a small amount of money was put in prison for 15 years, and there one of his many trivial tasks was mowing the lawn along with his fellow prisoners. Not mowing as in with a lawn mower, but mowing as in picking individual blades of grass. The message is obvious. Do not think, do not thwart the state. Be subservient to it. That way, our band of hoodlums can continue to maintain control.
[Tiananmen] this isn't over yet by a long shot
I'm not going to hold my breath. It has been several thousands of years.
Apparantly 38 million were killed under Mao Tse Tung. Anecdotally, I discussed this thread with a friend today, and his (chinese) wife, who works for an import export business. She personally knew someone who was executed for stealing from the Chinese government. Another anecdote is a person put in jail for 10 years during the cultural revolution. Somehow, this person holds no bitterness towards Mao Tse Tung. True, my history is weak insofar as China is concerned, but I suspect that the lopsided power of the state for thousands of years there has lead to a culture of resignation and acceptance that for some reason individual rights must be subservient to the state. Until recently, this led to a culture of stagnation. It's not the Chinese people: look at Hong Kong, look at Taiwan. It's the government and its influence to make a culture of resignation.
Look, it is obvious that you have strong feelings for China. Great. You seem to have a lot of energy, and love of China and its culture. So open your eyes. See the gang of hoodlums that control its people for what they are, and then do something about it. Stop trying to reach for strange relationships that don't exist as a way of excusing these barbarians.
To answer your question in the strictest sense, yes.
Yeah, we learned about Kent State in college, and my reaction to it is the same. Tragically, a guardsmen lost his cool and accidentally or otherwise pulled his trigger, which caused a short lived panic among other guardsman. I don't think the Kent State guardsmen had the government's permission to kill the Kent state protesters. That's the sense I'm talking about.
In Tiananmen it was quite a deliberate action, and I'm sure the government made the decision.
[On bringing up Tiananmen] Dragging out the skeletons in other people's closets to incite negative feelings
This sounds strange and racist to me. Do you mean I can't point out that a bunch of my fellow human beings were killed by the brutal Chinese government because they are Chinese, or even more strangely, because they are somehow owned by the Chinese government?
incite negative feelings might give the incitor some sense of power
First, I think you are confused about the topic. You keep trying to convince people that China's human rights record is somehow similar to the US's. In debating against you, I use the good practice of actually bringing up concrete examples rather than making airy abstract reasoning.
Second, you say "skeletons in the closet." That refers first of all to secret things. China did this for the world to see. "This is what we can do to our people to maintain control of our governmnent." Also the phrase refers to things long ago (that's why they are skeletons). Tiananmen happened 15 years ago. Now, if you knew someone who deliberately brutally murdered someone 15 years ago, you might still be wary of them. But when it comes to a government, which is even slower to change, it's as if it happened yesterday. So I think it is quite relevent, and is no skeleton but a good indicator of the Chinese government's character.
Third. From the Chinese nationals I've talked with about Tiananmen, one thing that amazes me is the acceptance of it. There is no outrage. This confounds me. How can it be? If, as you say, this is something to be ashamed of by the government, why aren't the people outraged?
[how long a law taking away human rights could exist in China] Now, THAT is an interesting question.
Now you see, this is a very big difference between the US and China. In the US, the citizens are allowed to have guns. In China, opposition is not allowed. Freedom is granted by the government, is the sense I get. So, I would say until it becomes expeditious for the Chinese government to do something about it.
Here in the United States, the answer is a little different. The answer is "When the ACLU sues you," or ultimately "when the armed US citizenry gets fed up."
Why should that matter? Are you suggesting only the people you know personally deserve to be protected?
Come on. All the guy is saying that there is a big difference between the theoretical (some might say imagined) consequences of the patriot act and the actual effects.
Personally, I also reject the notion that one life is worth ten thousand lives. It's a silly idea promoted by Star Trek in which Kirk was constantly willing to put the entire ship at jeopardy for Spock.
The constitution is pretty clear that people can't be held without due process. Do you really think a law that could circumvents this part of the constitution could last?
Now, do you think in China such a law could exist for a long time?
Do you think that the US government could get away with mowing down and killing US citizens like they did the students in Tiananmen square? My understanding is that the students thought they would be free to leave the square, but I've heard one (only one) first hand account that they were brutally gunned down and were not allowed to leave.
If 99% of all votes were tabulated correctly and fairly
You don't think they were? You believe that over 1 Million votes were tabulated incorrectly?
If I believed what you believe, then I too would have a very different perspective on the election. However, somehow I suspect that the error is more in the.01 percent range (not including voter error, incidentally, like happened in Palm Beach County last year).
The "state" (i.e., the government, not the people of the state) gains little out of giving tax breaks to anyone. The people of the state (the society) gain a lot by making it easier on the parents of a child to raise that child. The child has a better chance of becoming a productive member of the society.
I missed this, in case you are still listening.
The government gets future taxpayers by encouraging couples to procreate, and they also get a good reason to have all kinds of programs and do all kinds of things for children. Anyway, the advantages to the state of people procreating is enormous, especially of allowing the parents to have adequate financial resources to procure the things important in raising children, and having a caretaker (probably a woman) at home.
In general I think your saying things like "you people" is inflamatory and innacurate. I certainly don't share any religious feelings, and I don't think gays will destroy the sacredness of marriage. My reasoning is almost entirely from an economic perspective, not a gay judgemental perspective. While the spread of aids has made me upset with the irresponsible behavior of gays, I don't see it as bad as cigarettes in this society, for example, and I'm an ex-smoker with children who unfortunately saw me smoke.
I also have to question whether a same sex couple is best for children, but mostly I argue on the economic basis. It's hard to get a rational debate on this simple point.
Frankly, I think when you boil the marriage argument down, it is really an economic one. Why else would those who feel rejected/betrayed by the mainstream suddenly almost unanimously argue for acceptance by it, and why would they want it? Notwithstanding those things that do make sense, such as hospital visitation rights, and even some economic things such as joint ownership of homes.
Anyway, as I said, if there were a way to exclude those families from the tax benefits of marriage who never intended to have children, I'm all for it. I just don't want those who put themselves into economic disadvantage for attempting to have children suffer for it. That includes the couple who marries and uses the tax code to prepare for children, and the couple that has had children and suffered the economic damage but no longer has children.
I guess if you question the molding of the state through economic policy, then why would the state penalize two worker families? I think the reason is that there is a desire on the state to have a parent at home raising the children. While there are new laws put in place which I think are damaging to offset these taxes, such as childcare credit, I have to then ask those who are in a household with two parents working, "Why when you married woman, would you think a stranger can raise them better?"
Normally I would be angry at this whole subject and the content coming up on Slashdot as obviously biased tripe, but now I realize how pathetic and sad it is.
Many in this post are suggesting there was malfeasance in the election. Consider for just a moment the affect stealing the election (for someone as weak as Bush?) would have forevermore on the republican party. It would take decades for it to become a semi legitimate party again.
But the people who post to slashdot simply can't accept that their candidate lost. They have to use all of their brain power to discern some conspiracy.
A good republican would say "Great! Let them continue trying to believe these losses aren't because the people don't like their platform, but because they were shouted down by the conservative media, people that just don't understand, because someone cheated them, whatever. Just continue being what you're trying to be. It's worthy and working great for you."
But I'm not a good republican. I argue with my republican friends against bush all the time, and don't really care much for him, except that he is willing to fight for Western Civilization. But in spite of this, there is no way I will vote for the democrats in their current form. Just one example: Democrats rail against corporations because they are too large and powerful, but the largest and most powerful corporation is the US Federal Government.
I'm now becoming worried that the republicans will increasingly dominate the elections in the years to come, and democrats will increasingly become confined to just a few coastal states. This means there will be no competition, and that concerns me, as the current long term war against terror pushes the country further right, potentially to a religious state.
So, if you want, take your intellectual and emotional energy and expend it on conspiracy theories. Don't discover why the platform isn't working. Continue to think the problem is outside, not inside. Claim that you were thwarted by Swift Boat Veterans, whatever, and ignore Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, etc.
Unfortunately, that will simply divide the country, and I think the losers will be the democrats.
These thoughts degrade our democracy, by casting doubt upon the process itself. And all for egotistical reasons that don't end up helping the democrat cause. As I was once told, it is time to find the adults (in the debate).
and exit polling had Kerry winning Florida and Ohio both
Exit polls also had Kerry ahead by a huge percentage in Pennsylvania, like 5 or 6 percentage points, and the actual difference was 1 percentage point. I can't remember exactly, but I think the same was true in MI, though bush did lose there by 3 percentage points.
Unfortunately, CNN *changed* their exit poll numbers as it became clear they were wrong, and in each case they moved towards bush, as near as I could tell. (Does anyone know where the original numbers are?)
Personally, while I'm all for an audit, I think the real question is "Why were the exit polls so wrong, and so consistently incorrectly in favor of Kerry?"
I also find it surprising that Florida was so clearly for Bush given how tight it was last time.
I'll bet it is the hispanic community. But really, what is surprising to me, is after Bush took more money to pay for senior's drugs, that Palm Beach County and Broward County trounced bush so badly. If he passed that bill for votes, it certainly didn't work.
So there are 9 choices the boston red sox have predicted.
I wonder if the number of times I masturbated last year % 3 predicts the outcome Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 5 Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 7 Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 11
. ..
I'm sure there are all kinds of random variable that have nothing, or almost nothing to do, with a chance as large as 1/512 that predict the election.
What, that I think that the future of children is important and that we should be circumspect about how and in what environments we raise them?
Well, I would love to go through my personal experiences, but I don't trust the long memory of the net, and it's not right of me to risk exposing people close to me. That's for them to decide.
While I would say you advocate policy by anecdote, I'm glad your wife made it, and I'm truly sorry for what happpened to her foster brother. We can agree on those kinds of things. I'll even accept that your wife's lesbian caretaker had a very positive influence on your wife, and believe there are probably many instances in which homosexual parents are better than the alternative.
I certainly am not saying "take children away from their homosexual parent." What I'm saying is that we dont' know how important the role of male and female figures into a child's psyche, and when it comes to things like adoption, we should be careful. I believe all things being equal, I think the heterosexual adopters are more likely to be the safest thing for the child. I don't know it for sure, which is why I think the issue should be studied. Maybe, as you seem to believe, it isn't important.
I'll bet you believe in all kinds of things. Let's give it a shot.
Women have a unique and valuable perspective.
The experiences of different cultures is important and valuable.
Bush Sucks (well, I might agree on that one).
If you believe these things, then why don't you believe that a child's most intimate exposure to diversity, having a male parent and female parent, are important for the child's future well being?
This is what distrubs me about the modern liberal movement. There are some assumptions that are made, like "There is no difference between men and women," obviously an absurd proposition, that then becomes the basis for all kinds of opinions and policies. You have to test these things before jumping into them headlong. I feel I'm an honest person. Give me the evidence, and I'll reluctantly (because I hate to be wrong) agree and put aside what you view as prejudices.
Re:Incumbents talk about their record
on
Don't Read My Lips
·
· Score: 1
Usually speaking the incumbent is going to talk about what they've done over the last couple years,
I think there is a lot of truth in this. However, Kerry has been in the senate for a lot of years, yet I don't hear him talking a lot about what he has done. Why not? He should be showing how his record of votes, submitted bills, etc., makes him a better choice. But mostly I hear BUSH talking about kerry's past, not kerry, except for the Vietnam distraction.
Check out the stuff kerry has sponsered in twenty years in the senate. It isn't a lot, and except in a couple of cases, it isn't very impressive:
Interesting points. I guess it just shows how hard it is to make these kinds of judgements.
The lessons learned from the twin MER missions and all of the others going on right now are going to benefit us all, public and private sector, in planning future missions and making them more cost-effective and reliable.
Well, that's good provided that there is a significant value to what's being studied and more is going to be spent on it.
I've been trying to figure out "What's a good way of deciding whether Federal money is well spent." I think I figured out how the math makes sense for me.
The US govt. is spending more than federal receipts, so our kids have to pay it off/be burdened by the interest. So, the measure isn't whether there is some other federal program that is more expensive, but whether this particular expenditure will pay off at better than the rate of interest on the debt forever.
I guess in this case, you could argue you might find out something very important about global warming you wouldn't have otherwise, or some other thing like that. Personally, I think that makes the proposition very iffy, especially since you then have to jump over the other burden which is could you do the research later at an even cheaper price tag with the same benefit?
I might argue that with a space elevator, this project would be a lot cheaper, but the project might be delayed a hundred fifty years. Or perhaps you might wait until other commercial efforts make the space proposition easier. When I first saw the White Knight and Spaceship One, I thought to myself (and expressed to my friends), "That's going to work."
Compare that to the shuttle, true, a much more ambitious project, but one that had the fundamental problem of solid boosters that you can't shut off, thousands of tiles all over the body, and engines that really push the envelope. My personal sense is that the shuttle has actually slowed down space exploration.
WRT colonization, you have a really huge hurdle to overcome there. My theory is that we will never move human bodies around in any meaningful way in the heavens, but rather will find it cheaper to move micro machines around that build a replicator, then we will beam instructions to the replicator, and the replicator will build versions of whatever the current life form is/whatever works there.
I don't know how far away that is, but I suspect it is really far away, and then probably things will be so different and miniaturized that the real question might by "why do it at all."
However, I think children are innocent, and just because we believe something to be true, doesn't mean we should use our new found social anxiety of fairness towards gays.
So I personally beleive we as society should err on the side of caution, in the event that a mommy or daddy role model is intrinsic to the healthy adulthood of a child.
But it's obvious you don't frequently associate with many gay couples, so how would you know?
You don't have any idea of my personal situation.
Luckily for those people, it is not up to you to 'encourage' anything, and we don't need to wait around for you to become convinced. As Americans we are free to make most of those decisions for ourselves, except when the government prevents things like marriage.
Let me ask you this, what happens if it turns out to be really important for children to have both a mommy and a daddy? Would that change your opinion?
In your opinion, do you believe that it is OK for children to grow up without a mommy? What about without a daddy? Which one sex is expendable?
It could be that you are right. I just don't think it is so obvious.
I am absolutely certain that the gender or sexuality of a parent does not matter when it comes to being a good parent.
Hmm. I didn't think we were talking about being a good parent. I thought we were talking about what is best for the child. I think two good parents, one of either sex are best for chidren.
The problem is that not everything that involves the space program is done for (or will result in) financial gain. For example, consider the recent Mars rover missions. By all accounts, these missions have increased our knowledge of the Red Planet by several times more than all of the previous missions combined.
So explain why it is important that we increased our knoweldge of the red planet several times over, how it was worth $820 Million, and why it was important to do it right now (instead of waiting until space exploration was say ten times cheaper)?
If you look at clovers, most of them have three leaves. But every once in a while you find one with four leaves.
So, I'm saying "Yeah, sometimes gays adopt/have kids from previous relationships, etc.", but I'm saying I don't think it occurs that often. I'm also not convinced that it's a good thing, because I believe there are differences in the sexes, and I'm not convinced growing up in unisex relationships is a great idea.
It might or might not be better to grow up in a unisex environment with two parents than by a single parent. I don't have enough information. Certainly, I don't think we as a society should encourage either single parents or unisex parents until more is known about the sex roles in raising children.
Why can't the laws, if we're really trying to make it easier for children to grow up with a family, just address whether someone has children, and not address the gender of the parents?
Actually, there are several reasons. First of all, there is nesting, that should happen before kids occur. Even though you aren't pregnant, you are entering the reproductive cycle.
Secondly, for some families it is very difficult for the woman to become pregnant. Third, it is probably more expensive to have all these additional laws than to just have the obvious law.
But really, I do think that if it were possible to make some magic law that excluded heterosexuals from never reproduced from the magic pile of tax $, sure, I agree. They should just get the unions too. But bear in mind, those heterosexuals who have reproduced deserve the tax break, since they have suffured the economic damage of having kids.
My point is that anyone who is a decent parent will answer that the most important thing is their child, and the gender or sexuality of that parent does not matter.
Do you really believe this? In some very small percentage of cases it may be true, but in general men and women are very different. Most men are attracted to women, not men. That alone should convince you they are different in a fundamental way.
If it's for the purpose of reproduction, then why do we allow people who CAN NOT EVER REPRODUCE to get married?
I think the reason is that it would be really meanspirited to do so. Say for instance a woman and man are married. They get the marriage breaks (health care, lower taxes when only 1 works). Now the woman becomes pregnant, but in a horrible accident, she loses the baby and becomes sterile. Now you have to tell her "Oh, and that marriage break you got, give it back?" I think that's just too hard. What about a woman who devoted her life to raising kids, and then the kids are gone from the home? Her chances of getting a job with health care is greatly diminished.
"CLEARLY not viewed as such by the laws of the land" Are you Serious? Fortunately, I'm still married and so haven't run into these laws, but I suspect there are an enormous number of laws dealing with children of divorcing parents.
I especially have a problem with that idea when it is espoused by people who are not also arguing that all marriages between people who can not or choose not to have kids be revoked.
I just think it is hard to make the laws. I don't see why a couple that never intends to have kids should get the tax breaks. But, I do think they should have all the benefits of a union, such as hospital visits, etc.
I have a child of my own, and that's the answer you'll get from me Are you a gay man? Does your child live with you? Do you think your child could suffer because of lack of a mother in the relationship? (Note, I would also ask the flip question of a single mother, and I think the answer would be "yes, the child suffers.")
Slashdot Mirror
Worse yet, what if they thoroughly believe they can get away with cheating, and end up being right about that?
Then someone will catch them and the American people will punish them by voting them out of office for the next 30 years.
You seem to have missed my point entirely. Most Christians I meet are anti-non-Christian bigots(hell, a lot of them are anti-everyone but those in my denomination-bigots. I tried coming to a consesus with them and I fail miserably. Why? Because they believe in absolutes, and coming together with an infidel is not part of their ideal for the government. They call it a Christian nation and want to make baptisms a part of the requirement to be a citizen, George Bush the elder said he doesn't even think that atheists are patriots. How am I supposed to react to such bigotry?
.,$g/Christian/s//Slashdotter/g
/anti-everything but those in my denomination-bigots/s//anti-everything but free source/
/baptism/s//open source/
/infidel/s//Bill Gates/
/Islam/s//Microsoft/
/religion/s//company/
Please, Christians in this country love to play the victim, while the persecute those who do not agree with them. I'm sorry, but I am just plain tired of Christians, I'm plain tired of, "Oh, Islam isn't a violent religion, just a few extremists" BS(The extremists are going to a mosque somewhere, and if these muslims aren't complicit they are complacent). I'm just so fucking sick and tired of preachers who say that because I'm a "liberal atheist", HItler and Mother Theresa are equivalent to me. When Christians stop persecuting atheists, when muslims stop blowing themselves up, when Jews stop shooting children in Palestine, when Hindus stop going on rampages murdering people simply because they are of a lower caste, then maybe I will start to "tolerate" religion.
etc.
I'm not as inclined to think it was such an accident
/I>
You think the Ohio govt. ordered the guardsman to fire? The national guard didn't do a very good job, 'cause they only got four of them with their 60 bullets. Obviously it's impossible to know anything, but the likelihood of this is tiny, and not worth arguing. Tiananmen and Kent are not similar incidents.
[Beijing was] responding to percieved domestic instability
Exactly. Beijing felt their power was threatened, and the power was shifting to its people, so they killed them. You then try to draw parallells to this kind of action and executing murderers. Executing murderers is a way to keep the citizenry safe, but it doesn't protect politician's political power. You should stop trying to draw relationships where they are completely different things.
China-haters . . .
Keep spitting this innuendo out. We have a saying in America "call a spade a spade." What it means is that you name things for what they are. I don't hate Chinese people, they are people just like me, with the same love of child, fear of death, inate intelligence, etc., but I do hate the Chinese government. I hate the idea of subservience to the state. I hate the penal system over there, in which a person who stole a small amount of money was put in prison for 15 years, and there one of his many trivial tasks was mowing the lawn along with his fellow prisoners. Not mowing as in with a lawn mower, but mowing as in picking individual blades of grass. The message is obvious. Do not think, do not thwart the state. Be subservient to it. That way, our band of hoodlums can continue to maintain control.
[Tiananmen] this isn't over yet by a long shot
I'm not going to hold my breath. It has been several thousands of years.
Apparantly 38 million were killed under Mao Tse Tung. Anecdotally, I discussed this thread with a friend today, and his (chinese) wife, who works for an import export business. She personally knew someone who was executed for stealing from the Chinese government. Another anecdote is a person put in jail for 10 years during the cultural revolution. Somehow, this person holds no bitterness towards Mao Tse Tung. True, my history is weak insofar as China is concerned, but I suspect that the lopsided power of the state for thousands of years there has lead to a culture of resignation and acceptance that for some reason individual rights must be subservient to the state. Until recently, this led to a culture of stagnation. It's not the Chinese people: look at Hong Kong, look at Taiwan. It's the government and its influence to make a culture of resignation.
Look, it is obvious that you have strong feelings for China. Great. You seem to have a lot of energy, and love of China and its culture. So open your eyes. See the gang of hoodlums that control its people for what they are, and then do something about it. Stop trying to reach for strange relationships that don't exist as a way of excusing these barbarians.
To answer your question in the strictest sense, yes.
Yeah, we learned about Kent State in college, and my reaction to it is the same. Tragically, a guardsmen lost his cool and accidentally or otherwise pulled his trigger, which caused a short lived panic among other guardsman. I don't think the Kent State guardsmen had the government's permission to kill the Kent state protesters. That's the sense I'm talking about.
In Tiananmen it was quite a deliberate action, and I'm sure the government made the decision.
[On bringing up Tiananmen] Dragging out the skeletons in other people's closets to incite negative feelings
This sounds strange and racist to me. Do you mean I can't point out that a bunch of my fellow human beings were killed by the brutal Chinese government because they are Chinese, or even more strangely, because they are somehow owned by the Chinese government?
incite negative feelings might give the incitor some sense of power
First, I think you are confused about the topic. You keep trying to convince people that China's human rights record is somehow similar to the US's. In debating against you, I use the good practice of actually bringing up concrete examples rather than making airy abstract reasoning.
Second, you say "skeletons in the closet." That refers first of all to secret things. China did this for the world to see. "This is what we can do to our people to maintain control of our governmnent." Also the phrase refers to things long ago (that's why they are skeletons). Tiananmen happened 15 years ago. Now, if you knew someone who deliberately brutally murdered someone 15 years ago, you might still be wary of them. But when it comes to a government, which is even slower to change, it's as if it happened yesterday. So I think it is quite relevent, and is no skeleton but a good indicator of the Chinese government's character.
Third. From the Chinese nationals I've talked with about Tiananmen, one thing that amazes me is the acceptance of it. There is no outrage. This confounds me. How can it be? If, as you say, this is something to be ashamed of by the government, why aren't the people outraged?
[how long a law taking away human rights could exist in China] Now, THAT is an interesting question.
Now you see, this is a very big difference between the US and China. In the US, the citizens are allowed to have guns. In China, opposition is not allowed. Freedom is granted by the government, is the sense I get. So, I would say until it becomes expeditious for the Chinese government to do something about it.
Here in the United States, the answer is a little different. The answer is "When the ACLU sues you," or ultimately "when the armed US citizenry gets fed up."
Why should that matter? Are you suggesting only the people you know personally deserve to be protected?
Come on. All the guy is saying that there is a big difference between the theoretical (some might say imagined) consequences of the patriot act and the actual effects.
Personally, I also reject the notion that one life is worth ten thousand lives. It's a silly idea promoted by Star Trek in which Kirk was constantly willing to put the entire ship at jeopardy for Spock.
The constitution is pretty clear that people can't be held without due process. Do you really think a law that could circumvents this part of the constitution could last?
Now, do you think in China such a law could exist for a long time?
Do you think that the US government could get away with mowing down and killing US citizens like they did the students in Tiananmen square? My understanding is that the students thought they would be free to leave the square, but I've heard one (only one) first hand account that they were brutally gunned down and were not allowed to leave.
Fair enough. But it doesn't have much to do with my post, which was to try to point out that the republicans have a huge amount to lose by cheating.
Some people seem to believe they cheated.
If 99% of all votes were tabulated correctly and fairly
.01 percent range (not including voter error, incidentally, like happened in Palm Beach County last year).
You don't think they were? You believe that over 1 Million votes were tabulated incorrectly?
If I believed what you believe, then I too would have a very different perspective on the election. However, somehow I suspect that the error is more in the
I remember they said oil would be gone by the year 2000, but anyway.
So if that argument doesn't work for you then we could use breeder reactors.
I think that ought to last us a few thousand years or so. By then perhaps we will have figured out cold fussion. Who knows.
The "state" (i.e., the government, not the people of the state) gains little out of giving tax breaks to anyone. The people of the state (the society) gain a lot by making it easier on the parents of a child to raise that child. The child has a better chance of becoming a productive member of the society.
I missed this, in case you are still listening.
The government gets future taxpayers by encouraging couples to procreate, and they also get a good reason to have all kinds of programs and do all kinds of things for children. Anyway, the advantages to the state of people procreating is enormous, especially of allowing the parents to have adequate financial resources to procure the things important in raising children, and having a caretaker (probably a woman) at home.
In general I think your saying things like "you people" is inflamatory and innacurate. I certainly don't share any religious feelings, and I don't think gays will destroy the sacredness of marriage. My reasoning is almost entirely from an economic perspective, not a gay judgemental perspective. While the spread of aids has made me upset with the irresponsible behavior of gays, I don't see it as bad as cigarettes in this society, for example, and I'm an ex-smoker with children who unfortunately saw me smoke.
I also have to question whether a same sex couple is best for children, but mostly I argue on the economic basis. It's hard to get a rational debate on this simple point.
Frankly, I think when you boil the marriage argument down, it is really an economic one. Why else would those who feel rejected/betrayed by the mainstream suddenly almost unanimously argue for acceptance by it, and why would they want it? Notwithstanding those things that do make sense, such as hospital visitation rights, and even some economic things such as joint ownership of homes.
Anyway, as I said, if there were a way to exclude those families from the tax benefits of marriage who never intended to have children, I'm all for it. I just don't want those who put themselves into economic disadvantage for attempting to have children suffer for it. That includes the couple who marries and uses the tax code to prepare for children, and the couple that has had children and suffered the economic damage but no longer has children.
I guess if you question the molding of the state through economic policy, then why would the state penalize two worker families? I think the reason is that there is a desire on the state to have a parent at home raising the children. While there are new laws put in place which I think are damaging to offset these taxes, such as childcare credit, I have to then ask those who are in a household with two parents working, "Why when you married woman, would you think a stranger can raise them better?"
Normally I would be angry at this whole subject and the content coming up on Slashdot as obviously biased tripe, but now I realize how pathetic and sad it is.
Many in this post are suggesting there was malfeasance in the election. Consider for just a moment the affect stealing the election (for someone as weak as Bush?) would have forevermore on the republican party. It would take decades for it to become a semi legitimate party again.
But the people who post to slashdot simply can't accept that their candidate lost. They have to use all of their brain power to discern some conspiracy.
A good republican would say "Great! Let them continue trying to believe these losses aren't because the people don't like their platform, but because they were shouted down by the conservative media, people that just don't understand, because someone cheated them, whatever. Just continue being what you're trying to be. It's worthy and working great for you."
But I'm not a good republican. I argue with my republican friends against bush all the time, and don't really care much for him, except that he is willing to fight for Western Civilization. But in spite of this, there is no way I will vote for the democrats in their current form. Just one example: Democrats rail against corporations because they are too large and powerful, but the largest and most powerful corporation is the US Federal Government.
I'm now becoming worried that the republicans will increasingly dominate the elections in the years to come, and democrats will increasingly become confined to just a few coastal states. This means there will be no competition, and that concerns me, as the current long term war against terror pushes the country further right, potentially to a religious state.
So, if you want, take your intellectual and emotional energy and expend it on conspiracy theories. Don't discover why the platform isn't working. Continue to think the problem is outside, not inside. Claim that you were thwarted by Swift Boat Veterans, whatever, and ignore Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, etc.
Unfortunately, that will simply divide the country, and I think the losers will be the democrats.
These thoughts degrade our democracy, by casting doubt upon the process itself. And all for egotistical reasons that don't end up helping the democrat cause. As I was once told, it is time to find the adults (in the debate).
and exit polling had Kerry winning Florida and Ohio both
Exit polls also had Kerry ahead by a huge percentage in Pennsylvania, like 5 or 6 percentage points, and the actual difference was 1 percentage point. I can't remember exactly, but I think the same was true in MI, though bush did lose there by 3 percentage points.
Unfortunately, CNN *changed* their exit poll numbers as it became clear they were wrong, and in each case they moved towards bush, as near as I could tell. (Does anyone know where the original numbers are?)
Personally, while I'm all for an audit, I think the real question is "Why were the exit polls so wrong, and so consistently incorrectly in favor of Kerry?"
I also find it surprising that Florida was so clearly for Bush given how tight it was last time.
I'll bet it is the hispanic community. But really, what is surprising to me, is after Bush took more money to pay for senior's drugs, that Palm Beach County and Broward County trounced bush so badly. If he passed that bill for votes, it certainly didn't work.
So there are 9 choices the boston red sox have predicted.
.
I wonder if the number of times I masturbated last year % 3 predicts the outcome
Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 5
Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 7
Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 11
. .
I'm sure there are all kinds of random variable that have nothing, or almost nothing to do, with a chance as large as 1/512 that predict the election.
Given your additude, I have a pretty good idea.
What, that I think that the future of children is important and that we should be circumspect about how and in what environments we raise them?
Well, I would love to go through my personal experiences, but I don't trust the long memory of the net, and it's not right of me to risk exposing people close to me. That's for them to decide.
While I would say you advocate policy by anecdote, I'm glad your wife made it, and I'm truly sorry for what happpened to her foster brother. We can agree on those kinds of things. I'll even accept that your wife's lesbian caretaker had a very positive influence on your wife, and believe there are probably many instances in which homosexual parents are better than the alternative.
I certainly am not saying "take children away from their homosexual parent." What I'm saying is that we dont' know how important the role of male and female figures into a child's psyche, and when it comes to things like adoption, we should be careful. I believe all things being equal, I think the heterosexual adopters are more likely to be the safest thing for the child. I don't know it for sure, which is why I think the issue should be studied. Maybe, as you seem to believe, it isn't important.
I'll bet you believe in all kinds of things. Let's give it a shot.
Women have a unique and valuable perspective.
The experiences of different cultures is important and valuable.
Bush Sucks (well, I might agree on that one).
If you believe these things, then why don't you believe that a child's most intimate exposure to diversity, having a male parent and female parent, are important for the child's future well being?
This is what distrubs me about the modern liberal movement. There are some assumptions that are made, like "There is no difference between men and women," obviously an absurd proposition, that then becomes the basis for all kinds of opinions and policies. You have to test these things before jumping into them headlong. I feel I'm an honest person. Give me the evidence, and I'll reluctantly (because I hate to be wrong) agree and put aside what you view as prejudices.
Usually speaking the incumbent is going to talk about what they've done over the last couple years,
I think there is a lot of truth in this. However, Kerry has been in the senate for a lot of years, yet I don't hear him talking a lot about what he has done. Why not? He should be showing how his record of votes, submitted bills, etc., makes him a better choice. But mostly I hear BUSH talking about kerry's past, not kerry, except for the Vietnam distraction.
Check out the stuff kerry has sponsered in twenty years in the senate. It isn't a lot, and except in a couple of cases, it isn't very impressive:
http://factcheck.org/article282.html
You can't apply them to an individual case in an attempt to predict the future.
I'm going to stop trying to quit smoking.
Interesting points. I guess it just shows how hard it is to make these kinds of judgements.
The lessons learned from the twin MER missions and all of the others going on right now are going to benefit us all, public and private sector, in planning future missions and making them more cost-effective and reliable.
Well, that's good provided that there is a significant value to what's being studied and more is going to be spent on it.
I've been trying to figure out "What's a good way of deciding whether Federal money is well spent." I think I figured out how the math makes sense for me.
The US govt. is spending more than federal receipts, so our kids have to pay it off/be burdened by the interest. So, the measure isn't whether there is some other federal program that is more expensive, but whether this particular expenditure will pay off at better than the rate of interest on the debt forever.
I guess in this case, you could argue you might find out something very important about global warming you wouldn't have otherwise, or some other thing like that. Personally, I think that makes the proposition very iffy, especially since you then have to jump over the other burden which is could you do the research later at an even cheaper price tag with the same benefit?
I might argue that with a space elevator, this project would be a lot cheaper, but the project might be delayed a hundred fifty years. Or perhaps you might wait until other commercial efforts make the space proposition easier. When I first saw the White Knight and Spaceship One, I thought to myself (and expressed to my friends), "That's going to work."
Compare that to the shuttle, true, a much more ambitious project, but one that had the fundamental problem of solid boosters that you can't shut off, thousands of tiles all over the body, and engines that really push the envelope. My personal sense is that the shuttle has actually slowed down space exploration.
WRT colonization, you have a really huge hurdle to overcome there. My theory is that we will never move human bodies around in any meaningful way in the heavens, but rather will find it cheaper to move micro machines around that build a replicator, then we will beam instructions to the replicator, and the replicator will build versions of whatever the current life form is/whatever works there.
I don't know how far away that is, but I suspect it is really far away, and then probably things will be so different and miniaturized that the real question might by "why do it at all."
Well, I certainly agree with the sentiment.
However, I think children are innocent, and just because we believe something to be true, doesn't mean we should use our new found social anxiety of fairness towards gays.
So I personally beleive we as society should err on the side of caution, in the event that a mommy or daddy role model is intrinsic to the healthy adulthood of a child.
But it's obvious you don't frequently associate with many gay couples, so how would you know?
You don't have any idea of my personal situation.
Luckily for those people, it is not up to you to 'encourage' anything, and we don't need to wait around for you to become convinced. As Americans we are free to make most of those decisions for ourselves, except when the government prevents things like marriage.
Let me ask you this, what happens if it turns out to be really important for children to have both a mommy and a daddy? Would that change your opinion?
In your opinion, do you believe that it is OK for children to grow up without a mommy? What about without a daddy? Which one sex is expendable?
It could be that you are right. I just don't think it is so obvious.
I am absolutely certain that the gender or sexuality of a parent does not matter when it comes to being a good parent.
Hmm. I didn't think we were talking about being a good parent. I thought we were talking about what is best for the child. I think two good parents, one of either sex are best for chidren.
The problem is that not everything that involves the space program is done for (or will result in) financial gain. For example, consider the recent Mars rover missions. By all accounts, these missions have increased our knowledge of the Red Planet by several times more than all of the previous missions combined.
So explain why it is important that we increased our knoweldge of the red planet several times over, how it was worth $820 Million, and why it was important to do it right now (instead of waiting until space exploration was say ten times cheaper)?
If you look at clovers, most of them have three leaves. But every once in a while you find one with four leaves.
So, I'm saying "Yeah, sometimes gays adopt/have kids from previous relationships, etc.", but I'm saying I don't think it occurs that often. I'm also not convinced that it's a good thing, because I believe there are differences in the sexes, and I'm not convinced growing up in unisex relationships is a great idea.
It might or might not be better to grow up in a unisex environment with two parents than by a single parent. I don't have enough information. Certainly, I don't think we as a society should encourage either single parents or unisex parents until more is known about the sex roles in raising children.
Actually, I'm tired of running defense :) Let me turn it back to you with this question:
What compelling interest does the state have in giving couples, gay or not, tax breaks if they are childless and will remain childless forever?
Now, what about giving tax breaks to married couples with children? What does the state get out of it?
> saying that he supports an amendment that would prohibit the recognition of civil unions
Reference please?
Why can't the laws, if we're really trying to make it easier for children to grow up with a family, just address whether someone has children, and not address the gender of the parents?
Actually, there are several reasons. First of all, there is nesting, that should happen before kids occur. Even though you aren't pregnant, you are entering the reproductive cycle.
Secondly, for some families it is very difficult for the woman to become pregnant. Third, it is probably more expensive to have all these additional laws than to just have the obvious law.
But really, I do think that if it were possible to make some magic law that excluded heterosexuals from never reproduced from the magic pile of tax $, sure, I agree. They should just get the unions too. But bear in mind, those heterosexuals who have reproduced deserve the tax break, since they have suffured the economic damage of having kids.
My point is that anyone who is a decent parent will answer that the most important thing is their child, and the gender or sexuality of that parent does not matter.
Do you really believe this? In some very small percentage of cases it may be true, but in general men and women are very different. Most men are attracted to women, not men. That alone should convince you they are different in a fundamental way.
If it's for the purpose of reproduction, then why do we allow people who CAN NOT EVER REPRODUCE to get married?
I think the reason is that it would be really meanspirited to do so. Say for instance a woman and man are married. They get the marriage breaks (health care, lower taxes when only 1 works). Now the woman becomes pregnant, but in a horrible accident, she loses the baby and becomes sterile. Now you have to tell her "Oh, and that marriage break you got, give it back?" I think that's just too hard. What about a woman who devoted her life to raising kids, and then the kids are gone from the home? Her chances of getting a job with health care is greatly diminished.
"CLEARLY not viewed as such by the laws of the land"
Are you Serious? Fortunately, I'm still married and so haven't run into these laws, but I suspect there are an enormous number of laws dealing with children of divorcing parents.
I especially have a problem with that idea when it is espoused by people who are not also arguing that all marriages between people who can not or choose not to have kids be revoked.
I just think it is hard to make the laws. I don't see why a couple that never intends to have kids should get the tax breaks. But, I do think they should have all the benefits of a union, such as hospital visits, etc.
I have a child of my own, and that's the answer you'll get from me
Are you a gay man? Does your child live with you? Do you think your child could suffer because of lack of a mother in the relationship? (Note, I would also ask the flip question of a single mother, and I think the answer would be "yes, the child suffers.")