If aliens landed tomorrow and never heard of Jesus before we would have to seriously reconsider Christianity.
I am no religious scholar but that claim seems false. My understanding is that according to scripture Jesus came to earth to address the sins of humanity. Aliens would not be part of that transaction and may have no comparable need to interact with Jesus. So not being familiar with Jesus would prove nothing.
You're overlooking the fact that Jesus is suppoedly the son of God, and that God is an omnipotent being. So you'd think the aliens wuld have some idea about His children.
That also seems to be a faulty assumption. God didn't tell the Hebrews about his children for a long time. Perhaps the aliens are at a similar stage.
But did they solve the origin problem? If God made the universe, then where did God come from? It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that matter and energy just popped into existance from nowhere, but it's a much bigger stretch to suppose that an intelligent and powerful entity popped into existance fully-formed.
Physicists have already addressed that. One model is that the universe is actually part of a multiverse where universes are created all the time. God may merely be part of a pre-existing universe relative to ours.
If aliens landed tomorrow and never heard of Jesus before we would have to seriously reconsider Christianity.
I am no religious scholar but that claim seems false. My understanding is that according to scripture Jesus came to earth to address the sins of humanity. Aliens would not be part of that transaction and may have no comparable need to interact with Jesus. So not being familiar with Jesus would prove nothing.
Clue: Investigating and observing a person is part of that due process. The US Constitution merely puts some restrictions on that investigation. Compelling a person to testify against themselves and having probable cause (a standard well short of proof) before searching a home are notable examples. Observing their public activities, like traveling, and interviewing them in a public space, like in the airport, are allowed.
The presumption of innocence is neatly wrapped up in the Amendments to the Constitution and the "due process" incorporated by reference. It is connected to such a degree that you cannot evade innocent until proven guilty without violating the Constitution.
The presumption of innocence pertains to depriving a person of liberty or property. It obviously does not restrict the government from observing a person. Every person of interest is investigated while in the presumed innocent state.
Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving
You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.
You are assuming that the government would be able to stop it in any event.
Every act of "terror" thwarted since 9/11 has been due to ordinary citizens observing, and in many cases, acting. Your government overlords have done nothing but conditioned you unreasonable searches and unconstitutional "watch lists" are reasonable.
Two non-law enforcement foilings may be understating things, or maybe their definition of terrorism requires an international component. I'm thinking of a times square vendor who tipped off police to a domestic nutcase. In any case there are clearly many examples of government based foilings.
I understand your sentiment and I agree to a certain point. Getting put on a no-fly list should not be done in a casual manner, however I don't think the evidentiary requirement should approach that required for conviction. For example if someone attended certain types of training camps in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal areas I am fine with not allowing that person to get on a plane bound for the US. There are actions that are legal yet sufficiently suspicious or undesirable that disallowing certain privileges, flying to the US in this case, are reasonable. Emphasizing flying to a country being a privilege not a right.
Actually, Constitutionally, not guilty == innocent. Watching someone forever for the slightest slip-up defies that Constitutional mandate.
You are wrong, in both the constitutional and legal sense.
"Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury." http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent
And what if I call your name in as a faulty tip, and the tip is cleared as bogus,...
Then the name should be removed from the list.
On the other hand, if a person did indeed do nothing more than attend "summer camp" in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal regions then they probably should be on a list. How to treat people on that list is an entirely different discussion.
Innocent until proven guilty inversed to the extreme: guilty until proven completely, absolutely, with a cherry on top innocent?
You erroneously equate standards used to put a person in prison with standards used to watch a person. For many years there was no evidence to convict Al Capone of being a gangster but there was a "reasonable suspicion" that led to Al and his minions being observed. You seem to be implying such observations were illegitimate.
That said, are there truly innocent (legally not guilty != innocent) people unjustly on the list? I'm sure there are. Are there other bureaucratic or administrative blunders? I'm sure there are. However these are issues quite separate from having only a "reasonable suspicion standard" for observation. A poor implementation of a reasonable idea does not mean we should ditch the idea, rather we should improve the implementation.
Unionization makes teaching more attractive by preventing a teacher from being fired for taking risks and innovating.
The *current* unions make teaching less attractive because teachers are not reward for superior performance and the goods works of the majority are undermined by the bad works of the incompetent that they are forced to work along side. The incompetent who are rewarded over the good because the incompetent have more time in the chair.
That's quite the straw man. Unions are hardly the only way to protect a teacher's job from a wingnut parent. The fact remains that union contracts demonstrably protect the incompetent fairly often, as opposed to the fanciful hollywood-like scenario you present. There are numerous non-union schools, charter for example, filled with innovative teachers covering the "controversial" topics you mention like evolution, women's rights, etc.
How do you fit in that theory countries with excellent education systems (according to the UN) like Finland, Denmark and Sweden, which also have high taxes and government spending?
You don't. Basically a conservative or liberal political perspective is largely irrelevant with respect to education, everyone wants kids to be educated properly. What is different in the US is that we basically have corrupt teacher's unions and a corrupt educational bureaucracy. The US probably spends more money per student than the countries you mention, unfortunately that money does not make it to the classroom. Way too much money goes to administration and incompetent teachers are protected and can't be fired. Unlike the unions of old, US unions are no longer the guardians of their own trade, training/apprenticing the new members, getting rid of those that can not work to required levels of "craftsmanship". Perhaps the unions in the countries you mention are different.
The reason education takes on a liberal vs conservative appearance in the US is basically because the democratic party is in bed with the corrupt teacher's unions. The vast majority of conservatives want to rebuild the educational system to get rid of the current corrupt system. Only a small handful of conservatives get all worked up over evolution, global warming, etc. Regrettably these few nutbags make for better TV and get all the publicity and provide a distorted picture of conservative goals.
Its far more than the cost of labor. When a country is manipulating its currency to an artificially low level then everything paid for in that country is cheaper.
You are using a narrow definition of privacy, many of the users of this site probably have something else in mind. They are not necessarily morons. Most of these people are probably not trying to hide from government, its more likely they don't want to be tracked for advertising and marketing purposes.
Conveniently, we have plenty of shrill talking heads telling us that the private sector is always more efficient. That should be a viable substitute for so called "empirical evidence".
Not really. The article admits that skill levels are not factored into the comparison. The article mentions that the outside contractors may possess superior skill levels and be better trained and that there may be savings related to having more capable people running and implementing a project. I'm not claiming this is necessarily the case, I'm just saying the it is premature to make claims as to whether money is being well spent or wasted. I know some very highly skilled people who work in a government IT job, however I've also met some that were more comparable to DMV workers.
Perhaps I missed it but its also not clear if the comparison is strictly based on wages vs hourly billing rates or whether other employee benefits are also factored in, social security contributions, insurance , vacation, retirement contributions (if not a full pension), etc.
US books are open. Private companies' books are not. Definition of Ponzi scheme involves fraud; how can you have fraud when the books are open? Perry and other illiterates are not questioning the values in the books; therefore Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. Any questions?
Social Security is not a ponzi scheme but Congress may be running it like one.
The fraud is that money is collected for one purpose but spent for another. For example when the boomers were in their working years the social security surplus was spent by Congress elsewhere. Congress left IOUs. If those IOUs are not somehow paid back then there was fraud. Given that the only solutions being proposed for upcoming shortfalls is to collect more revenue or to reduce benefits the "run like ponzi scheme" meme is plausible.
My big bitch is that Jeusuy McAnnRaynd is the last person in the world I'd ever expect to be busy out there *defending* the scientific method. It's like previously KKK Democrats taking credit for the civil rights movement.
It is indeed a cold day in hell.
Parent is definitely Insightful Flamebait.
No. The GP is correct. Good science gets distorted by politics and fashion. The Big Bang theory was initially dismissed by the scientific elite because it was developed by a member of the clergy and "smelled of creationism". Grad students are often told not to pursue an area of interest or curiosity because it is out of fashion or unpopular with those who award grants, and conversely if you submit a grant app in this topic with this goal you will find many more funding opportunities.
Real scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. However the degree of human responsibility is an open question. While it is certainly plausible that humanity has made a significant contribution it is worthwhile to investigate other causes. Good luck getting funding though - some will label you a denier simply for asking if humanity is not the prime cause. Whether human activity, changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors we should look at them all. Doing so increases our understanding and leads to better predictive models.
Vote them out. Vote them all out. And keep doing it until we find some representatives who are more interested in solving the nation's problems than playing political games with American lives as the pieces.
On a related note. Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems. If you loyally vote for *your* party then your party can ignore you because your vote is secure, and the other party can ignore you because they can do nothing to earn your vote. Those who vote based upon a theoretical party platform are a big part of the problem. People need to make politicians realize that they will cross party lines for the slightest reason. This is the only way to make politicians responsive to the voters, to make politicians fear that there is no base they can rely upon.
Goddamn Republicans beating the same fucking drum they've been beating for 10 years "Lower taxes and remove regulations so corporations can compete!"
Actually the Democrats had a hand in that. The ever popular Bill Clinton signed the laws removing some of the federal regulations that led to the current financial crisis. But there's more. This legislation signed by Clinton also pre-empted the state's ability to regulate in some of these areas. He nullified state regulations that prevented someone from buying insurance for something/someone they did not have a financial interest in. Some of the troublesome financial instruments that were developed required such restrictions be removed.
Buffet is a fraud. He pays less taxes than his secretary/assistant because he pays her in cash and pays himself in stock. Cash and stocks are taxed in different ways. If Buffet was intellectually honest he would be saying tax cash and capital gains at the same level, not increase the marginal tax rates. If Buffet was truly patriotic he would pay himself in cash and pay taxes just like his employees, rather than use loopholes to "cheat" the tax man.
Remember how awful the economy was when Clinton was president?... Going back as far as 1950, higher top marginal rates are (weakly) correlated with improved economic growth, not reduced economic growth
Academic fail.
Those wishing to be intellectually honest would recall that magic phrase so often used in economics, "all other things being equal". Comparisons to the 1950s completely fail in this regard. In the 1950s the US had very little COMPETITION. This dumbest ideas of a CEO would seem to work in an environment were most of the overseas competition had their industrial based bombed into scrap metal.
Ryan is ignorant of economic history. Remember how awful the economy was when Clinton was president?
There is a rather important thing missing from your argument. SPENDING was also addressed in the Clinton era. So those wishing to be intellectually honest in their advocacy of Clinton era policies would advocate both returning to Clinton era tax rates and Clinton era spending levels.
Slashdot Mirror
If aliens landed tomorrow and never heard of Jesus before we would have to seriously reconsider Christianity.
I am no religious scholar but that claim seems false. My understanding is that according to scripture Jesus came to earth to address the sins of humanity. Aliens would not be part of that transaction and may have no comparable need to interact with Jesus. So not being familiar with Jesus would prove nothing.
You're overlooking the fact that Jesus is suppoedly the son of God, and that God is an omnipotent being. So you'd think the aliens wuld have some idea about His children.
That also seems to be a faulty assumption. God didn't tell the Hebrews about his children for a long time. Perhaps the aliens are at a similar stage.
But did they solve the origin problem? If God made the universe, then where did God come from? It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that matter and energy just popped into existance from nowhere, but it's a much bigger stretch to suppose that an intelligent and powerful entity popped into existance fully-formed.
Physicists have already addressed that. One model is that the universe is actually part of a multiverse where universes are created all the time. God may merely be part of a pre-existing universe relative to ours.
If aliens landed tomorrow and never heard of Jesus before we would have to seriously reconsider Christianity.
I am no religious scholar but that claim seems false. My understanding is that according to scripture Jesus came to earth to address the sins of humanity. Aliens would not be part of that transaction and may have no comparable need to interact with Jesus. So not being familiar with Jesus would prove nothing.
The one that requires due process.
Clue: Investigating and observing a person is part of that due process. The US Constitution merely puts some restrictions on that investigation. Compelling a person to testify against themselves and having probable cause (a standard well short of proof) before searching a home are notable examples. Observing their public activities, like traveling, and interviewing them in a public space, like in the airport, are allowed.
The presumption of innocence is neatly wrapped up in the Amendments to the Constitution and the "due process" incorporated by reference. It is connected to such a degree that you cannot evade innocent until proven guilty without violating the Constitution.
The presumption of innocence pertains to depriving a person of liberty or property. It obviously does not restrict the government from observing a person. Every person of interest is investigated while in the presumed innocent state.
Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving
You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.
You are assuming that the government would be able to stop it in any event. Every act of "terror" thwarted since 9/11 has been due to ordinary citizens observing, and in many cases, acting. Your government overlords have done nothing but conditioned you unreasonable searches and unconstitutional "watch lists" are reasonable.
I did a quick google and found:
"Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/30-terrorist-plots-foiled-how-the-system-worked
Two non-law enforcement foilings may be understating things, or maybe their definition of terrorism requires an international component. I'm thinking of a times square vendor who tipped off police to a domestic nutcase. In any case there are clearly many examples of government based foilings.
I understand your sentiment and I agree to a certain point. Getting put on a no-fly list should not be done in a casual manner, however I don't think the evidentiary requirement should approach that required for conviction. For example if someone attended certain types of training camps in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal areas I am fine with not allowing that person to get on a plane bound for the US. There are actions that are legal yet sufficiently suspicious or undesirable that disallowing certain privileges, flying to the US in this case, are reasonable. Emphasizing flying to a country being a privilege not a right.
Actually, Constitutionally, not guilty == innocent. Watching someone forever for the slightest slip-up defies that Constitutional mandate.
You are wrong, in both the constitutional and legal sense.
"Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent
And what if I call your name in as a faulty tip, and the tip is cleared as bogus, ...
Then the name should be removed from the list.
On the other hand, if a person did indeed do nothing more than attend "summer camp" in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal regions then they probably should be on a list. How to treat people on that list is an entirely different discussion.
Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving
You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.
Innocent until proven guilty inversed to the extreme: guilty until proven completely, absolutely, with a cherry on top innocent?
You erroneously equate standards used to put a person in prison with standards used to watch a person. For many years there was no evidence to convict Al Capone of being a gangster but there was a "reasonable suspicion" that led to Al and his minions being observed. You seem to be implying such observations were illegitimate.
That said, are there truly innocent (legally not guilty != innocent) people unjustly on the list? I'm sure there are. Are there other bureaucratic or administrative blunders? I'm sure there are. However these are issues quite separate from having only a "reasonable suspicion standard" for observation. A poor implementation of a reasonable idea does not mean we should ditch the idea, rather we should improve the implementation.
Unionization makes teaching more attractive by preventing a teacher from being fired for taking risks and innovating.
The *current* unions make teaching less attractive because teachers are not reward for superior performance and the goods works of the majority are undermined by the bad works of the incompetent that they are forced to work along side. The incompetent who are rewarded over the good because the incompetent have more time in the chair.
That's quite the straw man. Unions are hardly the only way to protect a teacher's job from a wingnut parent. The fact remains that union contracts demonstrably protect the incompetent fairly often, as opposed to the fanciful hollywood-like scenario you present. There are numerous non-union schools, charter for example, filled with innovative teachers covering the "controversial" topics you mention like evolution, women's rights, etc.
how's that 'representative democracy' working out for 'ya?
Its working out extremely well if anti-counterfeiting legislation is near the top of our list of concerns.
How do you fit in that theory countries with excellent education systems (according to the UN) like Finland, Denmark and Sweden, which also have high taxes and government spending?
You don't. Basically a conservative or liberal political perspective is largely irrelevant with respect to education, everyone wants kids to be educated properly. What is different in the US is that we basically have corrupt teacher's unions and a corrupt educational bureaucracy. The US probably spends more money per student than the countries you mention, unfortunately that money does not make it to the classroom. Way too much money goes to administration and incompetent teachers are protected and can't be fired. Unlike the unions of old, US unions are no longer the guardians of their own trade, training/apprenticing the new members, getting rid of those that can not work to required levels of "craftsmanship". Perhaps the unions in the countries you mention are different.
The reason education takes on a liberal vs conservative appearance in the US is basically because the democratic party is in bed with the corrupt teacher's unions. The vast majority of conservatives want to rebuild the educational system to get rid of the current corrupt system. Only a small handful of conservatives get all worked up over evolution, global warming, etc. Regrettably these few nutbags make for better TV and get all the publicity and provide a distorted picture of conservative goals.
Its far more than the cost of labor. When a country is manipulating its currency to an artificially low level then everything paid for in that country is cheaper.
You are using a narrow definition of privacy, many of the users of this site probably have something else in mind. They are not necessarily morons. Most of these people are probably not trying to hide from government, its more likely they don't want to be tracked for advertising and marketing purposes.
Conveniently, we have plenty of shrill talking heads telling us that the private sector is always more efficient. That should be a viable substitute for so called "empirical evidence".
Not really. The article admits that skill levels are not factored into the comparison. The article mentions that the outside contractors may possess superior skill levels and be better trained and that there may be savings related to having more capable people running and implementing a project. I'm not claiming this is necessarily the case, I'm just saying the it is premature to make claims as to whether money is being well spent or wasted. I know some very highly skilled people who work in a government IT job, however I've also met some that were more comparable to DMV workers.
Perhaps I missed it but its also not clear if the comparison is strictly based on wages vs hourly billing rates or whether other employee benefits are also factored in, social security contributions, insurance , vacation, retirement contributions (if not a full pension), etc.
US books are open. Private companies' books are not. Definition of Ponzi scheme involves fraud; how can you have fraud when the books are open? Perry and other illiterates are not questioning the values in the books; therefore Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. Any questions?
Social Security is not a ponzi scheme but Congress may be running it like one.
The fraud is that money is collected for one purpose but spent for another. For example when the boomers were in their working years the social security surplus was spent by Congress elsewhere. Congress left IOUs. If those IOUs are not somehow paid back then there was fraud. Given that the only solutions being proposed for upcoming shortfalls is to collect more revenue or to reduce benefits the "run like ponzi scheme" meme is plausible.
Parent is definitely Insightful Flamebait.
My big bitch is that Jeusuy McAnnRaynd is the last person in the world I'd ever expect to be busy out there *defending* the scientific method. It's like previously KKK Democrats taking credit for the civil rights movement.
It is indeed a cold day in hell.
Parent is definitely Insightful Flamebait.
No. The GP is correct. Good science gets distorted by politics and fashion. The Big Bang theory was initially dismissed by the scientific elite because it was developed by a member of the clergy and "smelled of creationism". Grad students are often told not to pursue an area of interest or curiosity because it is out of fashion or unpopular with those who award grants, and conversely if you submit a grant app in this topic with this goal you will find many more funding opportunities.
Real scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. However the degree of human responsibility is an open question. While it is certainly plausible that humanity has made a significant contribution it is worthwhile to investigate other causes. Good luck getting funding though - some will label you a denier simply for asking if humanity is not the prime cause. Whether human activity, changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors we should look at them all. Doing so increases our understanding and leads to better predictive models.
Vote them out. Vote them all out. And keep doing it until we find some representatives who are more interested in solving the nation's problems than playing political games with American lives as the pieces.
On a related note. Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems. If you loyally vote for *your* party then your party can ignore you because your vote is secure, and the other party can ignore you because they can do nothing to earn your vote. Those who vote based upon a theoretical party platform are a big part of the problem. People need to make politicians realize that they will cross party lines for the slightest reason. This is the only way to make politicians responsive to the voters, to make politicians fear that there is no base they can rely upon.
Goddamn Republicans beating the same fucking drum they've been beating for 10 years "Lower taxes and remove regulations so corporations can compete!"
Actually the Democrats had a hand in that. The ever popular Bill Clinton signed the laws removing some of the federal regulations that led to the current financial crisis. But there's more. This legislation signed by Clinton also pre-empted the state's ability to regulate in some of these areas. He nullified state regulations that prevented someone from buying insurance for something/someone they did not have a financial interest in. Some of the troublesome financial instruments that were developed required such restrictions be removed.
Buffet is a fraud. He pays less taxes than his secretary/assistant because he pays her in cash and pays himself in stock. Cash and stocks are taxed in different ways. If Buffet was intellectually honest he would be saying tax cash and capital gains at the same level, not increase the marginal tax rates. If Buffet was truly patriotic he would pay himself in cash and pay taxes just like his employees, rather than use loopholes to "cheat" the tax man.
Remember how awful the economy was when Clinton was president? ... Going back as far as 1950, higher top marginal rates are (weakly) correlated with improved economic growth, not reduced economic growth
Academic fail.
Those wishing to be intellectually honest would recall that magic phrase so often used in economics, "all other things being equal". Comparisons to the 1950s completely fail in this regard. In the 1950s the US had very little COMPETITION. This dumbest ideas of a CEO would seem to work in an environment were most of the overseas competition had their industrial based bombed into scrap metal.
Ryan is ignorant of economic history. Remember how awful the economy was when Clinton was president?
There is a rather important thing missing from your argument. SPENDING was also addressed in the Clinton era. So those wishing to be intellectually honest in their advocacy of Clinton era policies would advocate both returning to Clinton era tax rates and Clinton era spending levels.