Jury nullification would be another benefit. While the justice system tries to hide this consitutional doctrine and demand that juries be nothing more than "finders of facts", it exists primarily to protect citizens from unjust laws that have been forced upon them. The war on drugs would be a good example of this. If most citizens don't believe that a person should spend 5 years in jail for smoking weed, start acquitting the "guilty" using jury nullification.
Much like the underwear bomber, TSA has this all planned out.
1. Allow terrorist onboard with a weapon hidden at his side. 2. Civilians on plane stop terrorist when he attempts to take over plane. 3. TSA announces that the system worked.
These "reporters" are clearly interfering with step #1.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have more faith in corporations. As you said, it's a pretty well-paved road going both ways.
The thing that makes me more wary of the government is that governments, being the highest power, not only answer to no one, they also have access to the country's resources (military, law-enforcement, tax-collecting, etc..). A corrupt powerful government is inherently more dangerous to personal liberties that a corrupt powerful corporation.
Unfortunately, there are still people out there wearing rose-colored glasses. We can only hope that all the people who think it's a good idea to have bigger government with more authority over our lives will have an event just like this happen to them, so we can get off this road to hell paved by their "best intentions".
I would agree with this premise, depending on who is defining skinny. I know athletic women that are called a "skinny bitch" by people.
This is one of those "best of intentions" ideas that has a basis in, and quickly becomes about, political correctness. While I understand that people have become increasingly overweight and don't like being reminded of that, it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people find certain body types more attractive.
Even in the era of supposed "curvier women" (Marilyn Monroe timeframe), the average waist size of famous actresses, based on dresses they wore, was along the lines of 18 inches. Marilyn herself was tiny and they couldn't even find a manaquin small enough to show her dresses on.
Now, I would completely agree that Kate Moss skinny is, in fact, a problem, and I would definitely not want kids using her as a role model.
I get a dumbfounded look from a cashier every now and then when I give more than owed so I can get a large bill back as change (rather than ones). They'll take, for example, the $22 I gave them for a $16.50 bill and just stand there staring at the money in their hand. Some even go so far as to try to hand me the extra $2 back.
It would never happen. The jobs coming from that $1T would, due to the nature of the work, mainly go to men. For examples of what would happen in the real world, have a read about the feminist pushback to, and subsequent removal/reduction of, the male-friendly portions of the stimulus package that was passed; and that happened even though men were hit far harder by the recession than women.
Very true. In fact, if not for the genetic manipulation of wheat, the people of the world would have actually faced the catastrophic starvation that was a concern in the early-mid 1900's.
For what it's worth, Norman Buraug, the Nobel Peace Prize winning scientist who fathered the Green Revolution, said a year before he died (2003) that GE crops would become the accepted norm in much the same way that genetically engineered antibiotics have been.
Blame it on poor wording. As worded, it reads that the bill would prevent agencies from requiring public access, which would indicate that, had it passed, agencies would not have been able to require public access.
Properly worded, it would have indicated that the bill would have prevented a requirement of public access by government agencies.
Related to this point: A study looking at marriages in Norway and Sweden found lesbian marriages to be almost twice as likely to end in divorce as gay/straight marriages.
Best comment from article about it: A lesbian marrian has *two* ticking time bombs, either of whom could decide at any moment that her partner is repressing and stifling her and that she "needs her own space to find herself".
Oh, the budget will get amended to include them after the elections. Political donors are invested in the company from which the government buys the machines.
First rule of an election year is to understand that anything said, promised or done in favor of the citizens is an attempt to buy their votes. Once the citizens have cast the votes bought by the politicians (foolishly believing anything a politician said), everything will resume it's normal path of securing more power for the government and funneling more money to politically-connected donors.
While I understand their reasons for doing this, it's not going to matter much. We've reached the point in technology where the answer to the Fermi Paradox will be paying us a visit. Technology has advanced far beyond our social evolution and will lead to a catastrophic event, either intentional or accidental, that will decimate or annihilate us. Looking at the big picture of human's existence on Earth, whatever time this might buy us won't matter much, so why bother.
While I agree that this is a popular item on the conservative side of things, I've not seen any mention of it being an "Obama" nanny-state issue, just nanny-state in general. The majority of people who get riled up over this would get riled up over nanny-state issues caused by either the right or left. Personally, I think it's reported more widely and derisively on the right side of things because the left is generally more accepting of higher levels of government involvement in people's lives.
The most frightening thing about this is the sheeple-ish aspect to it.
I live in an earthquake zone and I sure as hell do not count on what the government predicts to determine my actions. It's as bad as people who expect the government to come in after a major disaster and take care of them. Hope you enjoy drinking your own piss.
What does it say about the state of humanity that people working for the government say, "Nothing to see here, move along." and people just abandon any sense of personal responsilbity towards their own safety. I can only hope that governments start telling people to go jump off cliffs so we can weed those people out.
Just to play devil's advocate. If regulators had not kept AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile, AT&T would have been able to use the additional spectrum available to them from that merger to help solve this issue. In fact, this is one of the very issues AT&T was trying to solve by acquiring T-Mobile.
Your likely response would be to mention what could happen if there was a lack of competition, and there are valid points there. However, that does not change the fact that regulators did just keep AT&T from doing something that was, among other things, intended to help correct this issue.
This might be a dup post. I posted as an AC mistakenly the first time:
The operation under Bush was called "Wide Receiver", not "Gunrunner". It was a much smaller operation and included working with the Mexican government to capture the gun-walkers. Estimates are that 200 weapon got through untracked as a result of the Mexican government not properly intercepting the smugglers they were informed of (including when and where they crossed the border). Those failed interceptions caused a recommendation that the weapons no longer be allowed to go south across the border.
This is opposed to the estimated 2000 weapons that F&F allowed to walk across with no attempt to track or involve the Mexican government in any way. Comparing the two operations is disingenuous.
One's purpose was to allow the Mexican government to intercept and arrest the gun-walkers. The other...well, no one seems to be able to explain how it had any valid law-enforcement purpose for it. In fact, the whistleblowers said that was nothing they could do from a law-enformcement viewpoint once the weapons went across the border.
I'm usually not a conspiracy-type of person, but I've come to believe that I have a pretty good idea what Obama meant when he told the Brady group that he was working "under the radar" on gun control.
"This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate." Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison said in a statement. "Regulatory and policy uncertainties" made it impossible to raise capital to quickly rescue the operation, he said.
The same environmental and labor groups that champion the cause of green energy have created so much regulation that even a half-billion-dollar-subsidized, presidential-pet, green-energy company can't make it.
* The title credit goes to Glenn Reynolds, but I thought it was appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Jury nullification would be another benefit. While the justice system tries to hide this consitutional doctrine and demand that juries be nothing more than "finders of facts", it exists primarily to protect citizens from unjust laws that have been forced upon them. The war on drugs would be a good example of this. If most citizens don't believe that a person should spend 5 years in jail for smoking weed, start acquitting the "guilty" using jury nullification.
Much like the underwear bomber, TSA has this all planned out.
1. Allow terrorist onboard with a weapon hidden at his side.
2. Civilians on plane stop terrorist when he attempts to take over plane.
3. TSA announces that the system worked.
These "reporters" are clearly interfering with step #1.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have more faith in corporations. As you said, it's a pretty well-paved road going both ways.
The thing that makes me more wary of the government is that governments, being the highest power, not only answer to no one, they also have access to the country's resources (military, law-enforcement, tax-collecting, etc..). A corrupt powerful government is inherently more dangerous to personal liberties that a corrupt powerful corporation.
Beautiful beating of that straw-man.
Unfortunately, there are still people out there wearing rose-colored glasses. We can only hope that all the people who think it's a good idea to have bigger government with more authority over our lives will have an event just like this happen to them, so we can get off this road to hell paved by their "best intentions".
...I want to know what type of computer simulations this type of controller technology will lead to.
I would agree with this premise, depending on who is defining skinny. I know athletic women that are called a "skinny bitch" by people.
This is one of those "best of intentions" ideas that has a basis in, and quickly becomes about, political correctness. While I understand that people have become increasingly overweight and don't like being reminded of that, it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people find certain body types more attractive.
Even in the era of supposed "curvier women" (Marilyn Monroe timeframe), the average waist size of famous actresses, based on dresses they wore, was along the lines of 18 inches. Marilyn herself was tiny and they couldn't even find a manaquin small enough to show her dresses on.
Now, I would completely agree that Kate Moss skinny is, in fact, a problem, and I would definitely not want kids using her as a role model.
I get a dumbfounded look from a cashier every now and then when I give more than owed so I can get a large bill back as change (rather than ones). They'll take, for example, the $22 I gave them for a $16.50 bill and just stand there staring at the money in their hand. Some even go so far as to try to hand me the extra $2 back.
It would never happen. The jobs coming from that $1T would, due to the nature of the work, mainly go to men.
For examples of what would happen in the real world, have a read about the feminist pushback to, and subsequent removal/reduction of, the male-friendly portions of the stimulus package that was passed; and that happened even though men were hit far harder by the recession than women.
Very true. In fact, if not for the genetic manipulation of wheat, the people of the world would have actually faced the catastrophic starvation that was a concern in the early-mid 1900's.
For what it's worth, Norman Buraug, the Nobel Peace Prize winning scientist who fathered the Green Revolution, said a year before he died (2003) that GE crops would become the accepted norm in much the same way that genetically engineered antibiotics have been.
Not quite right either. It would have prevented a requirement of government agencies to provide public access.
Blame it on poor wording. As worded, it reads that the bill would prevent agencies from requiring public access, which would indicate that, had it passed, agencies would not have been able to require public access.
Properly worded, it would have indicated that the bill would have prevented a requirement of public access by government agencies.
Related to this point: A study looking at marriages in Norway and Sweden found lesbian marriages to be almost twice as likely to end in divorce as gay/straight marriages. Best comment from article about it: A lesbian marrian has *two* ticking time bombs, either of whom could decide at any moment that her partner is repressing and stifling her and that she "needs her own space to find herself".
Oh, the budget will get amended to include them after the elections. Political donors are invested in the company from which the government buys the machines. First rule of an election year is to understand that anything said, promised or done in favor of the citizens is an attempt to buy their votes. Once the citizens have cast the votes bought by the politicians (foolishly believing anything a politician said), everything will resume it's normal path of securing more power for the government and funneling more money to politically-connected donors.
While I understand their reasons for doing this, it's not going to matter much. We've reached the point in technology where the answer to the Fermi Paradox will be paying us a visit. Technology has advanced far beyond our social evolution and will lead to a catastrophic event, either intentional or accidental, that will decimate or annihilate us. Looking at the big picture of human's existence on Earth, whatever time this might buy us won't matter much, so why bother.
While I agree that this is a popular item on the conservative side of things, I've not seen any mention of it being an "Obama" nanny-state issue, just nanny-state in general. The majority of people who get riled up over this would get riled up over nanny-state issues caused by either the right or left. Personally, I think it's reported more widely and derisively on the right side of things because the left is generally more accepting of higher levels of government involvement in people's lives.
The most frightening thing about this is the sheeple-ish aspect to it. I live in an earthquake zone and I sure as hell do not count on what the government predicts to determine my actions. It's as bad as people who expect the government to come in after a major disaster and take care of them. Hope you enjoy drinking your own piss. What does it say about the state of humanity that people working for the government say, "Nothing to see here, move along." and people just abandon any sense of personal responsilbity towards their own safety. I can only hope that governments start telling people to go jump off cliffs so we can weed those people out.
Just to play devil's advocate. If regulators had not kept AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile, AT&T would have been able to use the additional spectrum available to them from that merger to help solve this issue. In fact, this is one of the very issues AT&T was trying to solve by acquiring T-Mobile. Your likely response would be to mention what could happen if there was a lack of competition, and there are valid points there. However, that does not change the fact that regulators did just keep AT&T from doing something that was, among other things, intended to help correct this issue.
This might be a dup post. I posted as an AC mistakenly the first time: The operation under Bush was called "Wide Receiver", not "Gunrunner". It was a much smaller operation and included working with the Mexican government to capture the gun-walkers. Estimates are that 200 weapon got through untracked as a result of the Mexican government not properly intercepting the smugglers they were informed of (including when and where they crossed the border). Those failed interceptions caused a recommendation that the weapons no longer be allowed to go south across the border. This is opposed to the estimated 2000 weapons that F&F allowed to walk across with no attempt to track or involve the Mexican government in any way. Comparing the two operations is disingenuous. One's purpose was to allow the Mexican government to intercept and arrest the gun-walkers. The other...well, no one seems to be able to explain how it had any valid law-enforcement purpose for it. In fact, the whistleblowers said that was nothing they could do from a law-enformcement viewpoint once the weapons went across the border. I'm usually not a conspiracy-type of person, but I've come to believe that I have a pretty good idea what Obama meant when he told the Brady group that he was working "under the radar" on gun control.
"This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate." Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison said in a statement. "Regulatory and policy uncertainties" made it impossible to raise capital to quickly rescue the operation, he said. The same environmental and labor groups that champion the cause of green energy have created so much regulation that even a half-billion-dollar-subsidized, presidential-pet, green-energy company can't make it. * The title credit goes to Glenn Reynolds, but I thought it was appropriate.