Evolution, if I understand it correctly, is a 2 part process at its most basic level. First, mutation must occur. Then, those mutations are proven either viable or non-viable by the developmental and reproductive success of the seminal mutation-carrying organism and its offspring.
The confusion is that the initial mutation was thought to be "completely random" as it is caused by transcription error, virus, irradiation, etc. The subsequent viability of that mutation is based upon a symbiotic relationship between the organism and its environment, once it passes muster by not outright killing or sterilising the carrier/offspring. Therfore the second part, the evolutionary change, is contextual, relevant, and decidedly not "completely random."
An oversight by the guy is what I suspect. He was quoted using broad terms without regard for the frame of reference of the audience who would read his words. If he were speaking to a colleague of his with the same background, knowledge, etc. there would probably be no problem in understanding eachother.
If course I could be completely misunderstanding this as well!:)
That is true, but democrats are trying to eliminate the free market balance you are advocating. Essentially, instead of getting more radio programs to counteract the number and popularity of republican radio programs, the democrats are seeking to use government controls to "balance" things.
All I was saying is if democrats get their way and are successful in interjecting government control into radio, we will all lose because free speech will be abridjed (again!) and God knows wheer that will end.
Go to your banker and say " I lost my job and I can't pay my mortgage." And your banker will say, "What are YOU going to do?"
Go to the same bank and tell them "I don't have enough revenue to repay the $100 million real estate loan you gave me." And the bank president will say to you, "What are WE going to do?"
The Republicans have taken the same exact position you have with regard to their talk radio programs. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking runs contrary to the Democratically supported Fairness Doctrine.
Currently the discussion is about radio, with the supposition that airwaves are a public resource and, therefore, should be more tightly controlled by the government. If it passes into law you should look for the Republicans to attack the newspapers under the idea that the fourth estate has its freedoms and exemptions only if they are impartial. Stories like this one can be used to "expose" widespread liberal bias in print media and justify a crackdown.
The result will most likely be authoritarian censors in all of our news sources. If I were a voting Democrat I would be very careful of supporting the Fairness Doctrine and those who seek to implement it. For when has the government not sought to expand a power the people have granted to them?
Evil is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the character of God, not the absence of God.
Similarly, evil is not a thing, but a potential. As long as God's character exists the potential for acting contrary to it exists. Claiming that God created evil is like claiming that light makes darkness. As for creating evil, the onus of its creation is on the entity who practices it.
It is not necessary to move the rock when you are omnipotent. You can just move the whole universe around it or make an ant specifically designed to move the rock for you.
I believe there should be cursing on TV ALL the time. Add to that graphic depictions of sex and violence.
Television is supposed to be bad for kids right? Too much sitting around makes them obese. Not reading stunts their mental growth to a third grade level. Exclusive near distance focusing weakens their eye muscles.
With cursing all the time on TV it would give parents the perfect excuse to wean their children off of television for good.
Please, we need to do this now. Won't someone think of the children?
Remedial christian education (for Christians): God did not stop Satan from falling. God did not stop Adam or Eve from eating the fruit from the forbidden tree. God does not stop you when you sin. How can you justify trying to limit or control the behavior of other people when even God does not do this?
Are you trying to create a "Christian" government; trying to make a government that is acceptable to God? First, "the whole world is lying in the hands of the wicked one." Second, nothing in the Bible tells you to execute God's plan by changing hte government. Biblical instructions for the spiritual life refer to the individual, not the collective.
Are you trying to help God? By your own admission, He is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, God does not need your help. Better examine your true motives.
Yes, lets. Hmmm...Except for a dwarf who was hit by a seven language large print concordance that fell from a 15th floor library window, no one was killed by the Bible.
However, if we examine the people who start wars and kill on a large scale, they seem to be the same people who try to exert undue dominance over others. It doesn't really matter whether their tool is Communism, Catholicism, Nazism, racial intolerance, or cultural jealousy. They all have in common a power centric viewpoint that excludes personal choice for the individual on both sides of the conflict.
Therefore, we should be very wary of our government's choices with regard to our personal freedoms. The more they try to restrict us and label it an effort to "save the children" or "protect the innocent," etc. the more they start to resemble the governments that lead their people down the path to opression and violence.
Even the Bible is right on this subject. Governments are created to provide personal freedom for the individual. When they start to violate this principle bad things happen. If the GP is so scared of his children hearing a few curse words that he is willing to sacrifice the freedoms of everyone, maybe he shouldn't have children.
I agree completely. We should make sure that anyone who is not smart enough is kept down. By the way, I get to define "smart enough."
Seriously, when it comes to education we should be teaching children that if they can't get into Harvard they are not good for anything. Furthermore, if someone else goes to a better school than you, or gets better grades than you, they are going to be better at anything they do in life compared to you. Yes children, work as hard as you like, but if someone else has better grades in college than you, just kiss off whatever you are trying to accomplish beacuse your expereince, work ethic, and character don't mean shit./end sarcastic rant
Come on, man. Do you really believe the crap you are shoveling? Even your "comparison" between McCain and Obama was as slanted as anything I have ever read. Just erase your post and put up "I LOVE OBABMA." It would be more honest. What you wrote was absurd and offensive to anyone who ever tried hard in school.
And not to be rude, but why would anyone take advice on the importance of education from someone who can't get their grammar right?
Let them teach creationism with science. The two things have nothing to do with one another and that will be obvious in a science class moreso than a theology class. When presented dispassionately in a science classroom, creationism might even seem comical.
Not to seem rude, but you remind me of parents that shelter their children from non-Christian influences (no tv, home or Christian schools, no friends that aren't in the same church, no discussion of other religions except in perjorative terms, etc.) I am a firm believer in presenting the facts. The more the better, and the more viewpoints the better. Give children the information and let them decide. Sheltering them just hurts them in the long run.
If that is how you truly feel, why would you support a candidate who intends to open relations with countries that have even more strict religious dogmas than Palin?
In other words, if Palin's foreign policy ability is crippled into uselessness by believing in Creationism, how could you support Obama talking with any leader of a theocratic country? Those leaders, in most cases, will be worse than her in foreign relations as well, so why talk with them?
Also, do you have her on record saying there is 100% no way that evolution is possible? You seem to be painting her as some anti-evolutuion nutcase that wants to shut down teaching science. This is completely different from what she has gone on record for. What she has publicly stated is evolution should be taught in schools and that schools should not disallow discussion of creationism. That policy position is a far cry from the brush you have painted her with.
I would hope you can take your own advice and be open to the possibility you are not correct. Especially when the person you are maligning has already made great concessions toward a middle ground. You may not disrespect Creationists because of their beliefs, but you sure did stereotype one without knowing the facts. I don't know if that is better or worse than disrespect.
Other countries and their citizens will make decisions based on their own best interests. These interests do not always coincide with this country's interests, even if we are allies. Our political systems are different, and for good reason.
When a plurality of our global neighbors prefer a certain candidate it makes me cautious. When a majority of those countries support a candidate, it makes me downright suspicious.
In other words, what country wouldn't want a weak sister installed in the White House? I am sure foreign leaders look at McCain as a formidable foreign policy leader, considering his experience at the receiving end of foreign hospitality during his military career, and his decades of experience in politics.
I am not claiming this is the reason you are supporting Obama, or that you are being disengenuous. However, citing a personal religious belief of the VP hopeful as a reason to not vote for their presidential running mate pales in comparison to the rationale I wrote above. Furthermore, personal religious beliefs may or may not have any influence on actual policy decisions, which are, in my case, what is really important.
Sorry, but what you wrote just looks like an ad hominem attack rather than a valid discussion of the issue.
If someone who earns 60K a year spent 120K on education and someone who makes 30K started working 5 years earlier, where is the equality in taxing them based on their disposable income? The worker with 30K income has a huge head start in snowballing their interest while the 60K worker will not start to accumulate any interest or savings until they have paid off their loans, putting them farther behind the curve. There are numerous examples where people would be screwed utterly by your supposition, and basing it off of "savings" when almost no one in this coutry saves any money is a strech to put it lightly.
Furthermore, those people are not getting screwed. They earn what they earn because of their choices and circumstances, neither of which constitute a screwing. Furthermore, saying that they are not paid less based on the value of their work is inane as well. If their work was that much more valuable they would be paid more. If that is not the case, then we publicity managers for these people, not different tax rates.
"so them donating more to red state (who get the lion's share of government handouts) while conservatives donate to expand their social networks (ie churches) is not a fair system."
First, you need to cite a reference about donating primarily to churhces. The statistics I have seen cite "charitable organizations" not "church." Furthermore, if that were the case the term "church" would definitely come into the discourse, as people would use it, as you have, to give credence to an ulterior self-serving motive behind the donations.
That said, all I was pointing out is that conservatives give more money to "help people" than liberals do, in addition to paying their taxes. To adress this imbalance why don't liberals use a system that most liberals believe in already, namely the taxation system. If not that, then give more to charity. Either way, saying that you are concerned with fairness and helping people and then not backing it up sounds just a little hypocritical. Liberals even have a higher average income than conservatives and they still lag behind by about 30% on donations to charitable institutions.
Part of what you wrote really confuses me though. I see you saying that government handouts are a bad thing if they go to political rivals. By this statement I would posit that any liberal elected should make sure to not increase taxes until government handouts to red states are equalized with blue states, as an increase in taxes could also mean an increase in handouts to red states. Regardless, if tax donations are a benefit to people in need, why would you bring political leanings into it? Are people who vote in red states less worthy of government assistance? That is what you seem to be saying, since liberals tend to have higher income in general than conservatives. Do you really mean that we need to help people in need unless they are conservatives?
Also, saying liberals believe in fairness is silly and misleading. Liberals believe in what they believe in and call it fairness. Conservatives believe in what they believe in and call it fairness, too. Calling it fairness does not make it so.
"Ultimately the questions for conservatives is whether they believe that people have an inherent right to live, even if at the lowest standards of living, or if people that can work or can find work do have that right. Because if they do have a right to live, then we must be prepared to give those people some amount of charity."
And the question for liberals is if you believe that greater taxation will lead to the alleviation of society's ills, why haven't you filled out the box on your W2 labeled "additional contribution" with a number that is a considerable percentage of your income?
Conservatives already donate a much greater percentage of their income to charity. If that avenue is inefficient or irrelevant when compared to redistribution through the government, why are no liberals eschewing their tax breaks for mortgage interest, children, etc. and paying the maximum taxes they can?
I daresay the answer is most liberals want someone else taxed at a higher rate to support their ideas of right and wrong.
The "war" was no such thing. I believe that it was a fabrication meant to misdirect the population's thoughts and emotions into a controllable course. In essence, through the cathartic sessions of "two minutes hate" the people's dangerous and explosive tendencies were wasted on invisible and ultimately non-existant enemies while the government that enslaved them was left unscathed.
I liken this to the constant bickering between the political parties in this country. Although they are seperated by a mere cats whisker on the political continum, they nontheless keep the people distracted and enraged by outlandish threats of "eight more years of Bush" and "socialism." Meanwhile the congress and senate are passing bills which furively sap the freedoms of the people. Not to mention the juducial system running amok; doing its damndest to over-rule not only the other two branches of the government, but also the popululous.
Its not as sleek a design as Orwell envisoned, but it is alot easier to pull off.
Your thought experiment lacks symetry with reality. If you eliminate details at whim there is no truth in the analogy.
You miss the whole point. The dumbass who hacked her account is the one who goaded this whole circus into action. When he posted the emails on a public website he was dancing for bears in a three piece steak suit. Nobody had to call the police, they saw it themselves.
If some guy hacked your emails and found a way to get half the US interested in looking at them on a public website he would probably get prosecuted in the same way. Flaunting the law in front of the public is just inviting a legal ass whoopin.
I will cut Hanlon's throat with his stupid razor. A better saying would be:
Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be adequately explained by being a lazy halfass with no foresight.
Stupidity is a genetic heritage that most people are endowed with at birth (some of us get it from auto/pedestrian accidents later in life), and is therefore excusable. Being a lazy halfass is a trained skill smart people learn from decades of interaction with corporate PHB's and marketing reps. However, even though marketing droids and PHB's are ubiquitous and unavoidable, being a lazy haflass is inexcusable.
We had a whole cadre of students at my highschool we dubbed the "Xerox Club." They were mostly asian students on the honor roll. The name came from their talent at "distributing" homework assignments. One or two people would do the homework assignement, a couple would check for errors, and then about 30-40 kids would systematically copy the assignments in their own handwriting and turn them in.
I wondered how they maintained their grade averages when it came time to do the tests but they had that covered too. Improvised test keys were circulated from one class to the next and multiple choice answers were transmitted from student to student in class by a system of hand signals. I even saw students engraving answers for other students on wooden pencils using a mechanical pencil tip as a stylus.
I got in on the game a bit, being in the AP classes with some of the members of the "club" and also being someone they could come to to get answers to hard questions. I never cheated on tests though, that just wasn't my style. Sadly, many students put in much more work and honest effort and probably lost out on scholarships and grant money due to the top academic percentages being taken away by a bunch of freeloading cheaters.
Actually, the real reason they probably put that in place was so the school could get the maximum money possible from the state. The other side of this perversion of the education system is that some states require attendance be taken at a certain time of the day (say third or fourth period) and after that the school doesn't watch too closely if a student takes off from campus. They have met the requirements for full funding for the entire day so the child's presence is no longer required.
Furthermore, the money issue is the root of the lack of advanced studies classes. It will cost more money to set up the progam and educate those students and the school receives the same funding for a student whether they are a moron or an Einstein.
Otherwise, we're giving up the notion that we're actually trying to teach anything...
I think the school system is not included in the "we" you are talking about. They abandoned that idea decades ago. I can recount from my personal experience and from those of many of my contemporaries (graduated in 91) that the school system was decidely against educating to the level of intelligence of the student and only concerned with cirriculum. In other words, even if a student knew everything that was going to be taught in a certain class they would have zero opportunity to place out of that class and take something challenging or educational. They would be forced to waste an entire semester of their life on that course which provided them absolutely zero education. Sadly, it seems more and more apparent that the "education" system is run by incompetent idiots.
Significant improvement does not show mastery of the subject. Personally I think that if a student can show mastery of the subject he should be able to pass the class. For instance, if you can take the final exam at the beginning of the year and pass it you should receive credit for that calss and be able to take another course. Unfortunately our current flock of teachers and educators do not agree.
Sadly, I think both of us are misunderstanding the goals and methhods of the school systems in the US. Not that I can discern what they are, since they seem to shift and even contradict themselves depending on what aspect of the education system is being focused upon at that moment. However, I think we can honestly say that "education" means something entirely different to the teachers and administrators of the public school system than it does to you, me, or even Webster himself.
Heck yeah it was ingenious. It was a refutation of Obama's entire campaign. Obama says he's for change and then selects a crusty old Washington insider to be his running mate. Compare the fresh (and obviously female) candidate of Palin. Talk about change!
Obama says he has the experience to run the country. McCain selects a running mate (from the distant frozen wastes of ALASKA?!?!) that almost no one has heard of and can mockingly say to the press "Look! I pulled this tart out of my hat and she has more experience than Obama!"
True/not true is not the issue here. It's what you can sell to the public.
Furthermore, it does what every politician in the race wants more than anything else: provides them something to throw around in front of the public to keep them entertained and energized. It also does what every newscaster/paper writer wants as well: allows incendary editorial commentary to masquerade as real news, and that sells advertising. Screw the issues man, our tv-mindfucked zombie citizens want to see virtual bloodshed as the candidates rip into eachother on personal issues. Our politicians are more then eager to reply in kind. It makes it easier when they get into office, the don't have to answer questions about all the promises they had no intention of keeping.
Everyone seems to have the same basic assumption that consuming less fuel is an indesputably positive thing. Have we, as a society, fully explored this almost subconscious devotion to a questionable ideal? I think not.
Personally, I enjoy driving my car and am willing to spend whatever I think necessary on fuel to further that enjoyment. If other people question me on this they do so to their own detriment. Take care of your own house and I will take care of mine.
PArt of my enjoyment comes from my motivation to drive politely with other drivers. This means that if I need to speed up or slow down to accomodate another driver I will do it. I will put the apparent needs and wants of other drivers ahead of any attempted or perceived fuel savings on my part. Seriously, if I save $15.00 a week in gas and piss people off while I am driving that is not worth it to me. Apparently I lack sufficient self-righteousness to gain pleasure from "teaching people a lesson."
Like I said, I enjoy driving and I don't like to make other people's driving a stressful or frustrating experience. Just think to yourself that the other car contains a person with needs wants and desires that you cannot fathom from the distance of 3 car lengths but are just as valid as your own. Internally appealing to "higher standards" of whatever origin (better fuel economy, proper speed, driving technique, etc.) just leads to everyone acting like a total jackass. Other people are more important than petty internal self-considerations, at least for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution, if I understand it correctly, is a 2 part process at its most basic level. First, mutation must occur. Then, those mutations are proven either viable or non-viable by the developmental and reproductive success of the seminal mutation-carrying organism and its offspring.
The confusion is that the initial mutation was thought to be "completely random" as it is caused by transcription error, virus, irradiation, etc. The subsequent viability of that mutation is based upon a symbiotic relationship between the organism and its environment, once it passes muster by not outright killing or sterilising the carrier/offspring. Therfore the second part, the evolutionary change, is contextual, relevant, and decidedly not "completely random."
An oversight by the guy is what I suspect. He was quoted using broad terms without regard for the frame of reference of the audience who would read his words. If he were speaking to a colleague of his with the same background, knowledge, etc. there would probably be no problem in understanding eachother.
If course I could be completely misunderstanding this as well! :)
That is true, but democrats are trying to eliminate the free market balance you are advocating. Essentially, instead of getting more radio programs to counteract the number and popularity of republican radio programs, the democrats are seeking to use government controls to "balance" things.
All I was saying is if democrats get their way and are successful in interjecting government control into radio, we will all lose because free speech will be abridjed (again!) and God knows wheer that will end.
The old adage applies:
Go to your banker and say " I lost my job and I can't pay my mortgage." And your banker will say, "What are YOU going to do?"
Go to the same bank and tell them "I don't have enough revenue to repay the $100 million real estate loan you gave me." And the bank president will say to you, "What are WE going to do?"
The Republicans have taken the same exact position you have with regard to their talk radio programs. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking runs contrary to the Democratically supported Fairness Doctrine.
Currently the discussion is about radio, with the supposition that airwaves are a public resource and, therefore, should be more tightly controlled by the government. If it passes into law you should look for the Republicans to attack the newspapers under the idea that the fourth estate has its freedoms and exemptions only if they are impartial. Stories like this one can be used to "expose" widespread liberal bias in print media and justify a crackdown.
The result will most likely be authoritarian censors in all of our news sources. If I were a voting Democrat I would be very careful of supporting the Fairness Doctrine and those who seek to implement it. For when has the government not sought to expand a power the people have granted to them?
Evil is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the character of God, not the absence of God.
Similarly, evil is not a thing, but a potential. As long as God's character exists the potential for acting contrary to it exists. Claiming that God created evil is like claiming that light makes darkness. As for creating evil, the onus of its creation is on the entity who practices it.
It is not necessary to move the rock when you are omnipotent. You can just move the whole universe around it or make an ant specifically designed to move the rock for you.
I believe there should be cursing on TV ALL the time. Add to that graphic depictions of sex and violence.
Television is supposed to be bad for kids right? Too much sitting around makes them obese. Not reading stunts their mental growth to a third grade level. Exclusive near distance focusing weakens their eye muscles.
With cursing all the time on TV it would give parents the perfect excuse to wean their children off of television for good.
Please, we need to do this now. Won't someone think of the children?
Exactly right.
Remedial christian education (for Christians): God did not stop Satan from falling. God did not stop Adam or Eve from eating the fruit from the forbidden tree. God does not stop you when you sin. How can you justify trying to limit or control the behavior of other people when even God does not do this?
Are you trying to create a "Christian" government; trying to make a government that is acceptable to God? First, "the whole world is lying in the hands of the wicked one." Second, nothing in the Bible tells you to execute God's plan by changing hte government. Biblical instructions for the spiritual life refer to the individual, not the collective.
Are you trying to help God? By your own admission, He is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, God does not need your help. Better examine your true motives.
"Let's compare body counts, shall we?"
Yes, lets. Hmmm...Except for a dwarf who was hit by a seven language large print concordance that fell from a 15th floor library window, no one was killed by the Bible.
However, if we examine the people who start wars and kill on a large scale, they seem to be the same people who try to exert undue dominance over others. It doesn't really matter whether their tool is Communism, Catholicism, Nazism, racial intolerance, or cultural jealousy. They all have in common a power centric viewpoint that excludes personal choice for the individual on both sides of the conflict.
Therefore, we should be very wary of our government's choices with regard to our personal freedoms. The more they try to restrict us and label it an effort to "save the children" or "protect the innocent," etc. the more they start to resemble the governments that lead their people down the path to opression and violence.
Even the Bible is right on this subject. Governments are created to provide personal freedom for the individual. When they start to violate this principle bad things happen. If the GP is so scared of his children hearing a few curse words that he is willing to sacrifice the freedoms of everyone, maybe he shouldn't have children.
I agree completely. We should make sure that anyone who is not smart enough is kept down. By the way, I get to define "smart enough."
Seriously, when it comes to education we should be teaching children that if they can't get into Harvard they are not good for anything. Furthermore, if someone else goes to a better school than you, or gets better grades than you, they are going to be better at anything they do in life compared to you. Yes children, work as hard as you like, but if someone else has better grades in college than you, just kiss off whatever you are trying to accomplish beacuse your expereince, work ethic, and character don't mean shit. /end sarcastic rant
Come on, man. Do you really believe the crap you are shoveling? Even your "comparison" between McCain and Obama was as slanted as anything I have ever read. Just erase your post and put up "I LOVE OBABMA." It would be more honest. What you wrote was absurd and offensive to anyone who ever tried hard in school.
And not to be rude, but why would anyone take advice on the importance of education from someone who can't get their grammar right?
My reaction? Don't be scared.
Seriously.
Let them teach creationism with science. The two things have nothing to do with one another and that will be obvious in a science class moreso than a theology class. When presented dispassionately in a science classroom, creationism might even seem comical.
Not to seem rude, but you remind me of parents that shelter their children from non-Christian influences (no tv, home or Christian schools, no friends that aren't in the same church, no discussion of other religions except in perjorative terms, etc.) I am a firm believer in presenting the facts. The more the better, and the more viewpoints the better. Give children the information and let them decide. Sheltering them just hurts them in the long run.
If that is how you truly feel, why would you support a candidate who intends to open relations with countries that have even more strict religious dogmas than Palin?
In other words, if Palin's foreign policy ability is crippled into uselessness by believing in Creationism, how could you support Obama talking with any leader of a theocratic country? Those leaders, in most cases, will be worse than her in foreign relations as well, so why talk with them?
Also, do you have her on record saying there is 100% no way that evolution is possible? You seem to be painting her as some anti-evolutuion nutcase that wants to shut down teaching science. This is completely different from what she has gone on record for. What she has publicly stated is evolution should be taught in schools and that schools should not disallow discussion of creationism. That policy position is a far cry from the brush you have painted her with.
I would hope you can take your own advice and be open to the possibility you are not correct. Especially when the person you are maligning has already made great concessions toward a middle ground. You may not disrespect Creationists because of their beliefs, but you sure did stereotype one without knowing the facts. I don't know if that is better or worse than disrespect.
Other countries and their citizens will make decisions based on their own best interests. These interests do not always coincide with this country's interests, even if we are allies. Our political systems are different, and for good reason.
When a plurality of our global neighbors prefer a certain candidate it makes me cautious. When a majority of those countries support a candidate, it makes me downright suspicious.
In other words, what country wouldn't want a weak sister installed in the White House? I am sure foreign leaders look at McCain as a formidable foreign policy leader, considering his experience at the receiving end of foreign hospitality during his military career, and his decades of experience in politics.
I am not claiming this is the reason you are supporting Obama, or that you are being disengenuous. However, citing a personal religious belief of the VP hopeful as a reason to not vote for their presidential running mate pales in comparison to the rationale I wrote above. Furthermore, personal religious beliefs may or may not have any influence on actual policy decisions, which are, in my case, what is really important.
Sorry, but what you wrote just looks like an ad hominem attack rather than a valid discussion of the issue.
If someone who earns 60K a year spent 120K on education and someone who makes 30K started working 5 years earlier, where is the equality in taxing them based on their disposable income? The worker with 30K income has a huge head start in snowballing their interest while the 60K worker will not start to accumulate any interest or savings until they have paid off their loans, putting them farther behind the curve. There are numerous examples where people would be screwed utterly by your supposition, and basing it off of "savings" when almost no one in this coutry saves any money is a strech to put it lightly.
Furthermore, those people are not getting screwed. They earn what they earn because of their choices and circumstances, neither of which constitute a screwing. Furthermore, saying that they are not paid less based on the value of their work is inane as well. If their work was that much more valuable they would be paid more. If that is not the case, then we publicity managers for these people, not different tax rates.
"so them donating more to red state (who get the lion's share of government handouts) while conservatives donate to expand their social networks (ie churches) is not a fair system."
First, you need to cite a reference about donating primarily to churhces. The statistics I have seen cite "charitable organizations" not "church." Furthermore, if that were the case the term "church" would definitely come into the discourse, as people would use it, as you have, to give credence to an ulterior self-serving motive behind the donations.
That said, all I was pointing out is that conservatives give more money to "help people" than liberals do, in addition to paying their taxes. To adress this imbalance why don't liberals use a system that most liberals believe in already, namely the taxation system. If not that, then give more to charity. Either way, saying that you are concerned with fairness and helping people and then not backing it up sounds just a little hypocritical. Liberals even have a higher average income than conservatives and they still lag behind by about 30% on donations to charitable institutions.
Part of what you wrote really confuses me though. I see you saying that government handouts are a bad thing if they go to political rivals. By this statement I would posit that any liberal elected should make sure to not increase taxes until government handouts to red states are equalized with blue states, as an increase in taxes could also mean an increase in handouts to red states. Regardless, if tax donations are a benefit to people in need, why would you bring political leanings into it? Are people who vote in red states less worthy of government assistance? That is what you seem to be saying, since liberals tend to have higher income in general than conservatives. Do you really mean that we need to help people in need unless they are conservatives?
Also, saying liberals believe in fairness is silly and misleading. Liberals believe in what they believe in and call it fairness. Conservatives believe in what they believe in and call it fairness, too. Calling it fairness does not make it so.
"Ultimately the questions for conservatives is whether they believe that people have an inherent right to live, even if at the lowest standards of living, or if people that can work or can find work do have that right. Because if they do have a right to live, then we must be prepared to give those people some amount of charity."
And the question for liberals is if you believe that greater taxation will lead to the alleviation of society's ills, why haven't you filled out the box on your W2 labeled "additional contribution" with a number that is a considerable percentage of your income?
Conservatives already donate a much greater percentage of their income to charity. If that avenue is inefficient or irrelevant when compared to redistribution through the government, why are no liberals eschewing their tax breaks for mortgage interest, children, etc. and paying the maximum taxes they can?
I daresay the answer is most liberals want someone else taxed at a higher rate to support their ideas of right and wrong.
The "war" was no such thing. I believe that it was a fabrication meant to misdirect the population's thoughts and emotions into a controllable course. In essence, through the cathartic sessions of "two minutes hate" the people's dangerous and explosive tendencies were wasted on invisible and ultimately non-existant enemies while the government that enslaved them was left unscathed.
I liken this to the constant bickering between the political parties in this country. Although they are seperated by a mere cats whisker on the political continum, they nontheless keep the people distracted and enraged by outlandish threats of "eight more years of Bush" and "socialism." Meanwhile the congress and senate are passing bills which furively sap the freedoms of the people. Not to mention the juducial system running amok; doing its damndest to over-rule not only the other two branches of the government, but also the popululous.
Its not as sleek a design as Orwell envisoned, but it is alot easier to pull off.
Your thought experiment lacks symetry with reality. If you eliminate details at whim there is no truth in the analogy.
You miss the whole point. The dumbass who hacked her account is the one who goaded this whole circus into action. When he posted the emails on a public website he was dancing for bears in a three piece steak suit. Nobody had to call the police, they saw it themselves.
If some guy hacked your emails and found a way to get half the US interested in looking at them on a public website he would probably get prosecuted in the same way. Flaunting the law in front of the public is just inviting a legal ass whoopin.
I will cut Hanlon's throat with his stupid razor. A better saying would be:
Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be adequately explained by being a lazy halfass with no foresight.
Stupidity is a genetic heritage that most people are endowed with at birth (some of us get it from auto/pedestrian accidents later in life), and is therefore excusable. Being a lazy halfass is a trained skill smart people learn from decades of interaction with corporate PHB's and marketing reps. However, even though marketing droids and PHB's are ubiquitous and unavoidable, being a lazy haflass is inexcusable.
Woah! It was meant to be funny in a dry sort of way. Next time I will use more emoticons! :)
Um, the camera is mounted above the screen. So, the camera was pointing not at the porn but at the person watching the porn.
Let me state that again: The camera, being on a laptop, was pointing at the lower abdomen of the man who was watching porn, alone.
The frustrating part probably had to do with intently looking for clues to the thief's whereabouts while dodging man splatter flying at the screen.
We had a whole cadre of students at my highschool we dubbed the "Xerox Club." They were mostly asian students on the honor roll. The name came from their talent at "distributing" homework assignments. One or two people would do the homework assignement, a couple would check for errors, and then about 30-40 kids would systematically copy the assignments in their own handwriting and turn them in.
I wondered how they maintained their grade averages when it came time to do the tests but they had that covered too. Improvised test keys were circulated from one class to the next and multiple choice answers were transmitted from student to student in class by a system of hand signals. I even saw students engraving answers for other students on wooden pencils using a mechanical pencil tip as a stylus.
I got in on the game a bit, being in the AP classes with some of the members of the "club" and also being someone they could come to to get answers to hard questions. I never cheated on tests though, that just wasn't my style. Sadly, many students put in much more work and honest effort and probably lost out on scholarships and grant money due to the top academic percentages being taken away by a bunch of freeloading cheaters.
Actually, the real reason they probably put that in place was so the school could get the maximum money possible from the state. The other side of this perversion of the education system is that some states require attendance be taken at a certain time of the day (say third or fourth period) and after that the school doesn't watch too closely if a student takes off from campus. They have met the requirements for full funding for the entire day so the child's presence is no longer required.
Furthermore, the money issue is the root of the lack of advanced studies classes. It will cost more money to set up the progam and educate those students and the school receives the same funding for a student whether they are a moron or an Einstein.
Otherwise, we're giving up the notion that we're actually trying to teach anything...
I think the school system is not included in the "we" you are talking about. They abandoned that idea decades ago. I can recount from my personal experience and from those of many of my contemporaries (graduated in 91) that the school system was decidely against educating to the level of intelligence of the student and only concerned with cirriculum. In other words, even if a student knew everything that was going to be taught in a certain class they would have zero opportunity to place out of that class and take something challenging or educational. They would be forced to waste an entire semester of their life on that course which provided them absolutely zero education. Sadly, it seems more and more apparent that the "education" system is run by incompetent idiots.
Significant improvement does not show mastery of the subject. Personally I think that if a student can show mastery of the subject he should be able to pass the class. For instance, if you can take the final exam at the beginning of the year and pass it you should receive credit for that calss and be able to take another course. Unfortunately our current flock of teachers and educators do not agree.
Sadly, I think both of us are misunderstanding the goals and methhods of the school systems in the US. Not that I can discern what they are, since they seem to shift and even contradict themselves depending on what aspect of the education system is being focused upon at that moment. However, I think we can honestly say that "education" means something entirely different to the teachers and administrators of the public school system than it does to you, me, or even Webster himself.
Heck yeah it was ingenious. It was a refutation of Obama's entire campaign. Obama says he's for change and then selects a crusty old Washington insider to be his running mate. Compare the fresh (and obviously female) candidate of Palin. Talk about change!
Obama says he has the experience to run the country. McCain selects a running mate (from the distant frozen wastes of ALASKA?!?!) that almost no one has heard of and can mockingly say to the press "Look! I pulled this tart out of my hat and she has more experience than Obama!"
True/not true is not the issue here. It's what you can sell to the public.
Furthermore, it does what every politician in the race wants more than anything else: provides them something to throw around in front of the public to keep them entertained and energized. It also does what every newscaster/paper writer wants as well: allows incendary editorial commentary to masquerade as real news, and that sells advertising. Screw the issues man, our tv-mindfucked zombie citizens want to see virtual bloodshed as the candidates rip into eachother on personal issues. Our politicians are more then eager to reply in kind. It makes it easier when they get into office, the don't have to answer questions about all the promises they had no intention of keeping.
Everyone seems to have the same basic assumption that consuming less fuel is an indesputably positive thing. Have we, as a society, fully explored this almost subconscious devotion to a questionable ideal? I think not.
Personally, I enjoy driving my car and am willing to spend whatever I think necessary on fuel to further that enjoyment. If other people question me on this they do so to their own detriment. Take care of your own house and I will take care of mine.
PArt of my enjoyment comes from my motivation to drive politely with other drivers. This means that if I need to speed up or slow down to accomodate another driver I will do it. I will put the apparent needs and wants of other drivers ahead of any attempted or perceived fuel savings on my part. Seriously, if I save $15.00 a week in gas and piss people off while I am driving that is not worth it to me. Apparently I lack sufficient self-righteousness to gain pleasure from "teaching people a lesson."
Like I said, I enjoy driving and I don't like to make other people's driving a stressful or frustrating experience. Just think to yourself that the other car contains a person with needs wants and desires that you cannot fathom from the distance of 3 car lengths but are just as valid as your own. Internally appealing to "higher standards" of whatever origin (better fuel economy, proper speed, driving technique, etc.) just leads to everyone acting like a total jackass. Other people are more important than petty internal self-considerations, at least for me.