"...but you shouldn't dump all your eggs into one basket either."
The way I see it we have plenty of other baskets right now. Coal, oil, natural gas, wind, and solar are all being used right now. There are initiatives to increase green energy in the areas of wind and solar right now. There are new projects designed to take advantage of wave/temperature gradient in the ocean, too.
What the US does not have is an infrastructure that takes advantage of currently usable, well researched nuclear energy technology. You might as well say "Instead of nuclear techniology, why don't we mine helieum from Jupiter?" The advantage of nuclear is that the tech is already known, the reactors are easily assembled, and the fuel is readily available. Geothermal will require research and further expenditure of energy and time to get working at a level that is close to what we could achieve in short order with nuclear.
Not to mention the fact that many geothermal sources are located in national parks or are otherwise surrounded by unviolated nature reserves. If you think getting nuclear power past the environmental groups' lobby will be difficult, try building a power plant on a natural resource.
Never liked dictionary.com. However if you look up the word on m-w.com or wikipedia.com you will see the "young unmarried woman" reference. Hmmm, maybe that is why I don't like dictionary.com.
Just remember that everyone's license plate is the key to a vast wealth of information about an individual. Your public record associated with your license plate will include:
1) The full name of the owner 2) The current address of the owner 3) The vehicle identification number 4) Where your purchased your vehicle 5) How much you paid for it 6) Who holds the loan (if the vehicle is financed)
If someone does something in traffic that you find offensive but not to the level of calling the police, sometimes a nice letter reminding them of the public nature of their personal information is sweet revenge. Maybe something along the lines of how their driving affected you and that someone who was a shade less tolerant could do evil things to them.
Even more fun is to check the public record on their home address and/or correlate marraige records with their names, and send a detailed letter adressed to their significant other asking them to remind their loved one to drive safely.
I would never recommend physical retailiation. However, the fact that someone can find out your address from your license plate is completely unknown to many people. The fear and self doubt that this newfound knowledge engenders can constitute vengeance in itself. Hopefully this will give the person pause every time they open the door and start their car.
Yeah, its technically unmarried and young. It was more of a joke than anything, but you even fall for the stereotypical "girl" means "child" and is therefore derogatory.
However, if you look up the definition of girl it contains the same denoted meaning as senorita.
And implying that Spanish speakers could be sexist? How dare you! My machismo will not allow this!
Oh and tossing in the racial slur in a discussion about stereotypes was brilliant wordplay. Bravo!
Aren't there enough ridiculous stereotypes about homosexuality? Why go asking for a new one in the area of programming?
Personally I think this statement "I think of my code as a letter that I'm writing to the next person who has to work with it" has ALOT more to do with your code being so easily understood than does you sexuality. It just means you are a contientious and empathic person who happens to be a good programmer.
Hmmm, contientious and empathic? Ok maybe being gay has something to do with it.:)
For instance, if you call an American "woman" a "girl" and you get a disaproving frown, ridicule, and maybe a slap (figurative or literal depending on the disposition of said woman.)
Call a Latin "senora" a "senorita" and you get a beautiful smile, a peck on the cheek, and maybe your ass grabbed.
Considering the energy consumed by the plants that made the oil and the energy from food products used in the people who sweat, toil, labor, and cogitate on the subject of oil extraction I would say there is a net loss of usable energy.
What we are really concerned about is energy density and portability, not net surplus. If that was not the main concern we would use electricity for everything. Its much easier to produce.
It's like batteries. We spend more energy making them than they contain, but having the ability to move that energy around easily and have it on demand makes it worth the expense and trouble to create it. Same with oil and petroleum energy products.
Nice posts Doc. I like the clarifying simplicity of vision you provide, if I may be permitted to actually compliment someone in this most contentious of discussions.
As someone else stated, I want to see terrorists killed, but I want to actually know that theyare terrorists first. Surely we need to have a reliable and public method of vetting the government's claims on these people (and anyone else for that matter.)
The issue I am having trouble with is the "discovery" process that is a part of the juducual system. What problems are going to arise from this unfettered divulgence of information when these trials come around? Is it legal or even advisable to somehow alter some parts of the discovery process to prevent release of information that could then be used against people? Furthermore, if we do allow redaction of sources, names, and places to protect intelligence and military personnel in the field how can we be sure they government isn't just making up the damning parts to secure a conviction? It seems we could too often get in a position where we have to either take someone's word without being able to review the evidence, or alternatively "outing" someone and potentially subjecting many more people to reprecussions at the hands of angry and violent people.
That is the only thing that is troubling to me about the trials of suspected criminals that passed through the hands of intelligence and military personnel.
They use "people" because the constitution starts with "We the people of the United States..." firmly establishing what "the people" means. In other words, they are referring directly to the people of the US, or citizens if you will. As precise as they were with their definitions and language in the Constitution you should be asking why they didn't write "people of other countries suspected of or caught attacking the United States." If they had meant everyone they would have said so in the document, not left vague references to "people."
If you are reading a legal document this is similar to stating which party is which in the early part of the document. Once it is established you can speak more quickly without having to state "John Jones, the defendant, residing at 11381 mockingbird lane Jefferson TX, 77586" each and every time you want to identify that particular person. You can just refer to "the defendant," etc.
PRURIENT: marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire.
So any work that is designed to stimulate sexual desire falls afoul of this statute. That's usefel if you want to make sure you can prosecute anyone at any time. I bet a talented photograpther could compose a picture or or two that fit this definition and not even use any nudity. Oh yeah, WTF was I thinking? Just toss in a product and that's called advertising!
I find it interesting that sex is considered "unwholesome and immoderate" under this definition. It is as if this word is posessed of the singular capability to redefine the moral value set of anyone who uses it. In other words, to use the word properly you must first assume that sexual desire is "immoderate or unwholesome." Its like a catch 22. Using the word in a rule of this nature presupposes that sex is definitionally unwholesome. Sorry I ain't buying your poison today, than you very much Mr. Miller. Makes you wonder if the guy properly flogged himself after his honeymoon.
And even the word itself. Prurient? Who the heck talks like that? When was the last time you used that word in daily discourse? But of course it would be used in this circumstance. Most people can't even define it, much less spell it. I find it very telling that this "rule" is not composed of a simple statement with easily understood words. How about something like this? "If you look at it and you think about sex because of it, it's illegal." Of course, when you put it in those terms it doesn't look so innocent. It looks like what it is, a fraudulent attempt to circumvent constitutional protections on free speech.
Personally, unlike the rest of the sick bastards that inhabit this country, I find sex to be a healthy and even necessary part of the human emotional condition. Prohibiting people from making pictures or images that are designed to make you feel sexy or aroused reeks of the worst form of "thought crime" legislation. While they are at it why doesn't the government make statutes against materials that create other emotional drives? Maybe one for "anger", or "outrage", or how about "rebeliousness against unjust government."
The theory of gravity is the detailed predictive description of the phenomena we call gravity. It is not gravity itself. Gravity is not modified when we change our theory. The map is not the territory. Obvious, but a good distinction to make in discussions like these.
In other words: Gravity is not a theory. Gravity is an observable natural phenomena. We have developed a "theory of gravity" used as a predictive model. However this does not make gravity itself a theory.
As for evolution the same applies. Evolution is a naturally ocurring phenomena. Our theory, and the conflict that most people have with the theory, is that the predictive power of the theory is alot more nebulous than, say, an apple falling on someone's head. Easily demonstrated are the small changes like the one in this story. Much harder to convince people of is that a single celled organism can eventually change into a mammal.
The big bang theory itself still does not explain "how." It says "out of nothing, everything" which, to come full circle, is just a semantic blob. Sure it tries to address how the universe came into its present state, but the actual "how" of the initial conditions are as off limits as the mind of God.
I would venture to say if we understood the "how" of the big bang we would know a heck of alot more about what makes our universe tick and how the parts interact. It would be like (forgive the religious pun) the Holy Grail of physics. Working TOE would be the least beneficial results of that knowledge.
As an aside I am continually fascinated at both the depth of faith on the one hand and the certitude of materialism on the other in a place where the origin of all things is so shrouded. We all practice our own brand of arrogance in light of our limited viewpoint.
Please remember that some people will attribute any belief to you and your religion as long as it is inconsistent with logic, easily ridiculed, or silly. Furthermore, if the belief in question does not exist in the Bible or any doctrinal compendium realted to Christianity they are doubly certain that you and every other Christian hold it as sacred. They require no documentation, no vetting, no evidence (circumstancial or otherwise) to become totally convinced that you are a harborer of hypocritical and ignorant thought, only that you profess Christianity.
It's not your fault. Just consider it a part of a myopic malaise that clouds the minds of some of the population. Maybe they used up all their objectivity in science class or something. Whatever the reason, some people are incomparably susceptible to misunderstanding Christianity and inserting wildy hyperbolic attitudes and beliefs into their stereotype of a Christian. In its most irrational and rancorous expressions it kind of reminds me of racists and how they attribute malefic actions and motivations to the innocnet objects of their hatred.
All this conjecture and not a shred of proof and nothing sufficiently catastrophic yet to sate my appetite for self and racial destruction. Fuck it! I wanna see what happens in all the computer-simulated-worst-case, Al-Gore-told-me-so, five-night-CBS-minisieries detail.
I have decided to burn all my trash from this day forward, to drive a Hummer towing a Hummer laden with another Hummer--with the e-brake on, and to install carbon arc lamps in my house and leave them on 24/7. I will sabotage windmills by tebucheting endangered animals into them, crash mercury-containing batteries and CFLs into neighborhood solar cells, and forcibly ram any vehicle that gets better gas mileage than my menage-a-Hummer. I will dump drums of RoundUp on forested mountainsides and take up cropdusting...rainforests...with agent orange.
They say everyone makes a difference. Good. I will be a one man tipping point. All hail the new equlibrium.
I like your analogy. It brings to mind a solution.
When my living room gets hot you know what I do? I open a window.
Now I hear space is really cold too. Furthermore it's all around us. We're literally surrounded by it on both sides! All we need to do is "open a window" to space and we can get everything cooled off. Presto! No more gloval warming!
What we really need is one of those fancy window mount A/C units...
Well, no one in the past has stayed in after defeat was assured. It is a credit to Mrs. Clinton that she was able to fend off all attempts of the party leadership to have her step aside earlier. What remains to be seen is if she deserves the defference she was shown by her party.
Regardless of what Obama does with his campaign the onus is on Mrs. Clinton to support the winner and her party. Considering the destructive things she said and did with regard to Mr. Obama during her campaign, I would say that she has some fences to mend on her own. Her maturity and leadership will be shown in the coming days by how well she supports Mr. Obama on her own initiative without promises of cabinet positions, etc. Of course many will find this dubious knowing Mrs. Clinton's history and propensity for self promotion.
That being said, it will be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to support Mr. Obama because of those self same attacks she made against him. Crossing lines the way she did during her primary campaing makes it hard now to change course and publicly declare support for her previous opponent. Who is going to believe glowing praises for Obama uttered by the same mouth that ridiculed, derided, and tried to drag him down so many times? IMHO this is the crux of the problem with negative campaigning against your own party members.
As for standing against Hilary's attacks, Mr. Obama already did that and won the nomination. He even did so without resorting to the same vituperous negative tactics. The question remains though, has she done irreperable damage to the party by running a divisive and negative campaign? Has she destroyed her party's ability to get into the White House by trashing her opponent? Frankly, I think the poise and positive demeanor I saw from Mr. Obama on those occasions where he came face to face with Mrs. Clinton's bile should more than make up for her attempts to make him look bad.
It is quite possible that Mrs. Clinton's best course of action to help ensure her party wins is to endorse Mr. Obama in clear uncertain terms, ask that her voters support him as if he were her, and then just go away for awhile.
When you can arbitrarily attribute thoughts, motivations, and actions to people it is easy to view them in a way that releases your conscience from accountability. One way to short circuit this biologically reinforced tribal mechanism is to actually get to know some people who are serious about Christianity.
Your version of what believers think and teach is artificially mocked up to appear more simplistic, ridiculous, and wacky than it actually is. What happened to you to color your generalizations and cause you to buy into a false stereotype I cannot fathom. However, you might find some solace by seeking to understand people that are Christians, rather than attacking them for characteristics they do not posess.
Case in point, you refer to me in a context of "you believers" and say I attribute emotions and characteristics to my chosen diety that you think should not be present in a diety. The problem with this statement is this: the Bible teaches emotionality is an attribute of the human body. Therefore, God does not have emotions as humans do.
So, not only are you wrong, but you are guilty of stereotyping, straw-manning, oversimplification, and not even knowing about what you are criticising. I am sure you could find quite a few valid things to criticise about Christianity and believers if you took the time to understand them. Until then you will just look silly when you open your mouth to ridicule believers.
This story is worthless without said profane pictures. Otherwise how can I acurately judge whether or not this person deserves to eat his own excrement. I need pictures dammit!! (Preferrably linked through Google images for the sake of almighty Irony.)
Even the Bible makes no claim of a "Bearded sky wizard." You also expect things from God that would not be expected if you understood what the Bible says.
If you want to attack something you should know about it at least at a fundamental level. Either you are engaging in a deliberate straw man attack or you are ignorant of what you are condemning. Either way your arguments reflect poorly on you.
Slashdot Mirror
If you simply enter a house, stand around inside, and leave when asked without breaking anything, you have committed no crime.
:)
I have GOT to try that! Where do you live?
"...but you shouldn't dump all your eggs into one basket either."
The way I see it we have plenty of other baskets right now. Coal, oil, natural gas, wind, and solar are all being used right now. There are initiatives to increase green energy in the areas of wind and solar right now. There are new projects designed to take advantage of wave/temperature gradient in the ocean, too.
What the US does not have is an infrastructure that takes advantage of currently usable, well researched nuclear energy technology. You might as well say "Instead of nuclear techniology, why don't we mine helieum from Jupiter?" The advantage of nuclear is that the tech is already known, the reactors are easily assembled, and the fuel is readily available. Geothermal will require research and further expenditure of energy and time to get working at a level that is close to what we could achieve in short order with nuclear.
Not to mention the fact that many geothermal sources are located in national parks or are otherwise surrounded by unviolated nature reserves. If you think getting nuclear power past the environmental groups' lobby will be difficult, try building a power plant on a natural resource.
Never liked dictionary.com. However if you look up the word on m-w.com or wikipedia.com you will see the "young unmarried woman" reference. Hmmm, maybe that is why I don't like dictionary.com.
Just remember that everyone's license plate is the key to a vast wealth of information about an individual. Your public record associated with your license plate will include:
1) The full name of the owner
2) The current address of the owner
3) The vehicle identification number
4) Where your purchased your vehicle
5) How much you paid for it
6) Who holds the loan (if the vehicle is financed)
If someone does something in traffic that you find offensive but not to the level of calling the police, sometimes a nice letter reminding them of the public nature of their personal information is sweet revenge. Maybe something along the lines of how their driving affected you and that someone who was a shade less tolerant could do evil things to them.
Even more fun is to check the public record on their home address and/or correlate marraige records with their names, and send a detailed letter adressed to their significant other asking them to remind their loved one to drive safely.
I would never recommend physical retailiation. However, the fact that someone can find out your address from your license plate is completely unknown to many people. The fear and self doubt that this newfound knowledge engenders can constitute vengeance in itself. Hopefully this will give the person pause every time they open the door and start their car.
Yeah, its technically unmarried and young. It was more of a joke than anything, but you even fall for the stereotypical "girl" means "child" and is therefore derogatory.
However, if you look up the definition of girl it contains the same denoted meaning as senorita.
And implying that Spanish speakers could be sexist? How dare you! My machismo will not allow this!
Oh and tossing in the racial slur in a discussion about stereotypes was brilliant wordplay. Bravo!
Aren't there enough ridiculous stereotypes about homosexuality? Why go asking for a new one in the area of programming?
:)
Personally I think this statement "I think of my code as a letter that I'm writing to the next person who has to work with it" has ALOT more to do with your code being so easily understood than does you sexuality. It just means you are a contientious and empathic person who happens to be a good programmer.
Hmmm, contientious and empathic? Ok maybe being gay has something to do with it.
Funny how this bias is also cultural.
For instance, if you call an American "woman" a "girl" and you get a disaproving frown, ridicule, and maybe a slap (figurative or literal depending on the disposition of said woman.)
Call a Latin "senora" a "senorita" and you get a beautiful smile, a peck on the cheek, and maybe your ass grabbed.
Two bishops and a king == mate.
One knight and one bishop and a king == mate (albeit a difficult one).
Two knights and a king == shit.
Theres the difference.
"They try to obfuscate things in the code, and don't leave clear directions for people using it later.""
MYSOGINISTIC TRANSLATOR ENGAGED:
"Girls don't understand advanced coding, even with clear instructions."
Besides, you don't want accomplished coders writing clear code. Who knows what you will get. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/14/0228230
Considering the energy consumed by the plants that made the oil and the energy from food products used in the people who sweat, toil, labor, and cogitate on the subject of oil extraction I would say there is a net loss of usable energy.
What we are really concerned about is energy density and portability, not net surplus. If that was not the main concern we would use electricity for everything. Its much easier to produce.
It's like batteries. We spend more energy making them than they contain, but having the ability to move that energy around easily and have it on demand makes it worth the expense and trouble to create it. Same with oil and petroleum energy products.
Nice posts Doc. I like the clarifying simplicity of vision you provide, if I may be permitted to actually compliment someone in this most contentious of discussions.
As someone else stated, I want to see terrorists killed, but I want to actually know that theyare terrorists first. Surely we need to have a reliable and public method of vetting the government's claims on these people (and anyone else for that matter.)
The issue I am having trouble with is the "discovery" process that is a part of the juducual system. What problems are going to arise from this unfettered divulgence of information when these trials come around? Is it legal or even advisable to somehow alter some parts of the discovery process to prevent release of information that could then be used against people? Furthermore, if we do allow redaction of sources, names, and places to protect intelligence and military personnel in the field how can we be sure they government isn't just making up the damning parts to secure a conviction? It seems we could too often get in a position where we have to either take someone's word without being able to review the evidence, or alternatively "outing" someone and potentially subjecting many more people to reprecussions at the hands of angry and violent people.
That is the only thing that is troubling to me about the trials of suspected criminals that passed through the hands of intelligence and military personnel.
They use "people" because the constitution starts with "We the people of the United States..." firmly establishing what "the people" means. In other words, they are referring directly to the people of the US, or citizens if you will. As precise as they were with their definitions and language in the Constitution you should be asking why they didn't write "people of other countries suspected of or caught attacking the United States." If they had meant everyone they would have said so in the document, not left vague references to "people."
If you are reading a legal document this is similar to stating which party is which in the early part of the document. Once it is established you can speak more quickly without having to state "John Jones, the defendant, residing at 11381 mockingbird lane Jefferson TX, 77586" each and every time you want to identify that particular person. You can just refer to "the defendant," etc.
Forget DNA and RNA. Here is difinitive proof that this came from intelligent life somehwere out there...
"Methylated xanthine derivatives include caffeine..."
Who cares about "complex" when you can have stimulants!
PRURIENT: marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire.
So any work that is designed to stimulate sexual desire falls afoul of this statute. That's usefel if you want to make sure you can prosecute anyone at any time. I bet a talented photograpther could compose a picture or or two that fit this
definition and not even use any nudity. Oh yeah, WTF was I thinking? Just toss in a product and that's called advertising!
I find it interesting that sex is considered "unwholesome and immoderate" under this definition. It is as if this word is posessed of the singular capability to redefine the moral value set of anyone who uses it. In other words, to use the word properly you must first assume that sexual desire is "immoderate or unwholesome." Its like a catch 22. Using the word in a rule of this nature presupposes that sex is definitionally unwholesome. Sorry I ain't buying your poison today, than you very much Mr. Miller. Makes you wonder if the guy properly flogged himself after his honeymoon.
And even the word itself. Prurient? Who the heck talks like that? When was the last time you used that word in daily discourse? But of course it would be used in this circumstance. Most people can't even define it, much less spell it. I find it very telling that this "rule" is not composed of a simple statement with easily understood words. How about something like this? "If you look at it and you think about sex because of it, it's illegal." Of course, when you put it in those terms it doesn't look so innocent. It looks like what it is, a fraudulent attempt to circumvent constitutional protections on free speech.
Personally, unlike the rest of the sick bastards that inhabit this country, I find sex to be a healthy and even necessary part of the human emotional condition. Prohibiting people from making pictures or images that are designed to make you feel sexy or aroused reeks of the worst form of "thought crime" legislation. While they are at it why doesn't the government make statutes against materials that create other emotional drives? Maybe one for "anger", or "outrage", or how about "rebeliousness against unjust government."
No No No NO!
The theory of gravity is the detailed predictive description of the phenomena we call gravity. It is not gravity itself. Gravity is not modified when we change our theory. The map is not the territory. Obvious, but a good distinction to make in discussions like these.
In other words:
Gravity is not a theory. Gravity is an observable natural phenomena. We have developed a "theory of gravity" used as a predictive model. However this does not make gravity itself a theory.
As for evolution the same applies. Evolution is a naturally ocurring phenomena. Our theory, and the conflict that most people have with the theory, is that the predictive power of the theory is alot more nebulous than, say, an apple falling on someone's head. Easily demonstrated are the small changes like the one in this story. Much harder to convince people of is that a single celled organism can eventually change into a mammal.
The big bang theory itself still does not explain "how." It says "out of nothing, everything" which, to come full circle, is just a semantic blob. Sure it tries to address how the universe came into its present state, but the actual "how" of the initial conditions are as off limits as the mind of God.
I would venture to say if we understood the "how" of the big bang we would know a heck of alot more about what makes our universe tick and how the parts interact. It would be like (forgive the religious pun) the Holy Grail of physics. Working TOE would be the least beneficial results of that knowledge.
As an aside I am continually fascinated at both the depth of faith on the one hand and the certitude of materialism on the other in a place where the origin of all things is so shrouded. We all practice our own brand of arrogance in light of our limited viewpoint.
Please remember that some people will attribute any belief to you and your religion as long as it is inconsistent with logic, easily ridiculed, or silly. Furthermore, if the belief in question does not exist in the Bible or any doctrinal compendium realted to Christianity they are doubly certain that you and every other Christian hold it as sacred. They require no documentation, no vetting, no evidence (circumstancial or otherwise) to become totally convinced that you are a harborer of hypocritical and ignorant thought, only that you profess Christianity.
It's not your fault. Just consider it a part of a myopic malaise that clouds the minds of some of the population. Maybe they used up all their objectivity in science class or something. Whatever the reason, some people are incomparably susceptible to misunderstanding Christianity and inserting wildy hyperbolic attitudes and beliefs into their stereotype of a Christian. In its most irrational and rancorous expressions it kind of reminds me of racists and how they attribute malefic actions and motivations to the innocnet objects of their hatred.
All this conjecture and not a shred of proof and nothing sufficiently catastrophic yet to sate my appetite for self and racial destruction. Fuck it! I wanna see what happens in all the computer-simulated-worst-case, Al-Gore-told-me-so, five-night-CBS-minisieries detail.
I have decided to burn all my trash from this day forward, to drive a Hummer towing a Hummer laden with another Hummer--with the e-brake on, and to install carbon arc lamps in my house and leave them on 24/7. I will sabotage windmills by tebucheting endangered animals into them, crash mercury-containing batteries and CFLs into neighborhood solar cells, and forcibly ram any vehicle that gets better gas mileage than my menage-a-Hummer. I will dump drums of RoundUp on forested mountainsides and take up cropdusting...rainforests...with agent orange.
They say everyone makes a difference. Good. I will be a one man tipping point. All hail the new equlibrium.
I like your analogy. It brings to mind a solution.
When my living room gets hot you know what I do? I open a window.
Now I hear space is really cold too. Furthermore it's all around us. We're literally surrounded by it on both sides! All we need to do is "open a window" to space and we can get everything cooled off. Presto! No more gloval warming!
What we really need is one of those fancy window mount A/C units...
"In other words: The purpose of child-porn laws is to generate votes."
If that really was true then every law made could be made for that same purpose.
Hmmmm.
OH SHIT!!! You're right!
Well, no one in the past has stayed in after defeat was assured. It is a credit to Mrs. Clinton that she was able to fend off all attempts of the party leadership to have her step aside earlier. What remains to be seen is if she deserves the defference she was shown by her party.
Regardless of what Obama does with his campaign the onus is on Mrs. Clinton to support the winner and her party. Considering the destructive things she said and did with regard to Mr. Obama during her campaign, I would say that she has some fences to mend on her own. Her maturity and leadership will be shown in the coming days by how well she supports Mr. Obama on her own initiative without promises of cabinet positions, etc. Of course many will find this dubious knowing Mrs. Clinton's history and propensity for self promotion.
That being said, it will be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to support Mr. Obama because of those self same attacks she made against him. Crossing lines the way she did during her primary campaing makes it hard now to change course and publicly declare support for her previous opponent. Who is going to believe glowing praises for Obama uttered by the same mouth that ridiculed, derided, and tried to drag him down so many times? IMHO this is the crux of the problem with negative campaigning against your own party members.
As for standing against Hilary's attacks, Mr. Obama already did that and won the nomination. He even did so without resorting to the same vituperous negative tactics. The question remains though, has she done irreperable damage to the party by running a divisive and negative campaign? Has she destroyed her party's ability to get into the White House by trashing her opponent? Frankly, I think the poise and positive demeanor I saw from Mr. Obama on those occasions where he came face to face with Mrs. Clinton's bile should more than make up for her attempts to make him look bad.
It is quite possible that Mrs. Clinton's best course of action to help ensure her party wins is to endorse Mr. Obama in clear uncertain terms, ask that her voters support him as if he were her, and then just go away for awhile.
When you can arbitrarily attribute thoughts, motivations, and actions to people it is easy to view them in a way that releases your conscience from accountability. One way to short circuit this biologically reinforced tribal mechanism is to actually get to know some people who are serious about Christianity.
Your version of what believers think and teach is artificially mocked up to appear more simplistic, ridiculous, and wacky than it actually is. What happened to you to color your generalizations and cause you to buy into a false stereotype I cannot fathom. However, you might find some solace by seeking to understand people that are Christians, rather than attacking them for characteristics they do not posess.
Case in point, you refer to me in a context of "you believers" and say I attribute emotions and characteristics to my chosen diety that you think should not be present in a diety. The problem with this statement is this: the Bible teaches emotionality is an attribute of the human body. Therefore, God does not have emotions as humans do.
So, not only are you wrong, but you are guilty of stereotyping, straw-manning, oversimplification, and not even knowing about what you are criticising. I am sure you could find quite a few valid things to criticise about Christianity and believers if you took the time to understand them. Until then you will just look silly when you open your mouth to ridicule believers.
This story is worthless without said profane pictures. Otherwise how can I acurately judge whether or not this person deserves to eat his own excrement. I need pictures dammit!! (Preferrably linked through Google images for the sake of almighty Irony.)
Even the Bible makes no claim of a "Bearded sky wizard." You also expect things from God that would not be expected if you understood what the Bible says.
If you want to attack something you should know about it at least at a fundamental level. Either you are engaging in a deliberate straw man attack or you are ignorant of what you are condemning. Either way your arguments reflect poorly on you.
Only a fool will criticise loudly things they obviously have no understanding of.