"You mean like selling of "indulgences", a common Christian practice over most of the time Christianity has been extant, until just recently?"
Don't you mean a practice that is almost exclusively Catholic and that no protestant group has ever espoused? If you didn't mean that it calls into question your knowledge, motives, and intellectualy honesty.
Also, the Bible states that giving is a response/reciprocation to the principle and application of Grace by God himself. In other words, god has already given the Christian blessings, salvation, even life. Giving to others and the church is a reflection of the thoughts, motivations, attitude, and actions of God himself.
As for the comments about Christian universities and books, books cost money and Christian universities (By the way Duke, Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton were all founded as Christian universities) teach more than religion.
"What about when Christianity gets into the legal system..."
First, many of the things you are upset about are not specifically Christian wrought. Though they are attributable to some christian influence, many are more likely due to common law, the basis of our American law system.
Even then, the ability to criticise looses its punch when you consider this: majority rules in teh US (for the most part), as our elected representatives eek out the will of the people through the political machine. Your protests might carry more weight if Christians, at last count, did not make up more than 70% of the population.
Another issue that might give your argument some weight would be if polygamy was more prevalent in other societies. You might note that even where it is acceptable it is seldom practiced. It is also interesting to note that the regions that we inherited our legal lineage from (Western and southern Europe) do not currently allow polygamy. Since it is accepted in few places and practiced rarely in most of them it is interesting that you would use this as an example. Just because it is prohibited in Christianity does not mean that it is because of Christianity that it is unaccepted.
Also, Sunday closings of some stores may not be entirely attributable to Christian activism. Many municipal governmets regulate weekend workdays as a result of pressure from unions or other groups.
Your factual misrepresentation and your attribution of guilt on the part of Christianity alone in your interpretation of certain social and political instances leads me to believe that you may have let your emotional agenda overwhelm your logic.
There are many reasons to criticise Christians and other religious groups. There are many valid ways to do it as well. I think you may have overstepped the boundaries of both here by not practicing intellectual rigor and honesty.
You know, even if I was to read the bible after taking about 15 hits of acid and then whacking myself in the head with a cinder block I don't think I could come up with anything as convoluted and misconstrued your interpretation. Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is so far from the mark of established and accepted doctrine that it is difficult to imagine it other than an intentional effort to make Christians look bad. Not that they don't do it enough themselves, but adding napalm to the fire is really unnecessary.
"Jesus, after all, told Peter that whatever he said on Earth goes in Heaven"
Notwithstanding the interpretational disregard for the original intent of this verse lets look at some other other quotes. Jesus told everyone that if people believed in him they would be saved from eternal damnation. He also said that those who are saved are in his hands and no one can take them out. Contradictory someone might say? Only if you ignore the fundamental (not fundamentalist mind you) doctrinal basis of Christian theology. Your misinterpretation of a often quoted verse brings it into direct opposition with the entire structure of Christianity and makes it incongrous with the text of the Bible. Try reading up on it a bit.
"So if the Pope excommunicates someone, he's basically damned the person to Hell"
Even Wikipedia disagrees with you on this point. As quoted in Wikipedia and origianlly form the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is held to be indelible." Systematic theology and doctrinal theses say much the same thing. Really, the only person I have ever encountered that thinks this is, well, you and apparently the moderators that modded you up.
"unless you pay them protection money (i.e. tithing) and worship their thug of a deity, said thug will send you to Hell for all eternity."
There are inter denominational debates about requirements for salvation covering such topics as baptism, faith alone, taking the sacraments, confessing verbally, and even some others. However, what is conspicuously absent from the fray is any discussion of tithing. Tithing has its own debate within the circles of the saved, but regardless everyone agrees it is not necessary for salvation. Interestingly, the only person espousing this theological viewpoint I have ever seen in print or in passing is, again, you.
What is agreed on is simple and free for everyone. Works, like tithing and good deeds, are irrelevant and insufficient for salvation to the God of Christianity. Faith in Christ is all that is necessary. Some say you must be baptised as well, and some say that you must confess verbally. I don't ascribe to those tennents myself, though some others do.
I am curious, where did you get these beliefs? What church instructed you so? I ask because it is such a travesty of established doctrine that I daresay it crosses the line into heresy.
"Or is there some reason you would present to support the idea that the infiltration of one religion is of more concern than of another?"
How about one where a guy gets convicted of a bogus charge because he picketed a certain religious group that also happens to have vast influence in the court system where he was tried.
Damn man, I have heard that not reading the article is a slashdot norm, I even do it myself at times. However, forgetting what article you are posting under takes this to new heights.
"Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that."
If you are speaking about Christianity then mankind is already damned but not by God. Our seminal human father (Adam) fucked us all when he knowingly chose disobedience to God.
A better analogy is that you have been poisoned and someone is giving away free antidote.
Actually, it is an example of the US government upholding the seperation of church and state. Regardless of the religion's origin, dubious practices, or overtly ominous behaviors (including lawsuits and legal threats), the government respects their self proclaimed status as a religion.
For the thinker it should stand as an example of how the government can be manipulated by evil(smart) people for their own financial good.
Another example, though less sinister, is the Church of the SubGenius. Friends of mine are legal pastors of the Church and can therefore perform wedding ceremonies; yet its origin is just as dubious as the Scientologists'.
So the word for the wise is "Quit the church and start your own damn religion!" Take advantage of the tax-free status of all religions in the US. It might just make you a rich man.
The only reason you do not posess this level of cynicism is your lack of firsthand experience with the fucking end of the stick from someone you thought was a friend at work. In my workign career I have seen people fired, charges borught, and lawsuits flying left and right because of imaginary incidents, mis-perceived slights, and self preservation.
Yes, there are things called friendship and trust, however there are also things called downsizing, layoffs, him-or-you and "if I cut this guy loose I get a promotion" scenarios that can trump your so-called work friendship in a half a heartbeat. If you have friends that will walk off the job so that you can stay, that's great. However, if you don't you might need to reconsider just how far you trust your work friends.
Take care of yourself first and remember that someone's livelihood will always come first in a work relationship. Think about this: Your boss is your friend. The company says that he can get a 20K/year raise if he can get 20hrs/week of unpaid overtime overtime out of his team for the year. What do you think your "friend" will do? Use his friend influence to get you to work more, or forego the raise and risk unemployment out of friendship?
Or, consider: What if upper management said that employees needed to take a 4K/year pay cut, but your boss would get a bonus and possible promotion for each staff member that didn't quit as a result of the pay cuts. Are you 100% sure that your friend would not be swayed by the bonus and possible promotions and would advise you with 100% unbiased motives?
Secretly documenting the things that you do and that other people do is just a nice way of maintaining your status and protecting yourself from the vicisitdes of cutthroat office politicking. Personally I think the guy is a genius.
If you want a friend buy a dog. If you want to work with friends own a pet shop.
If anything, the way this guy documents his work experience probably helps him. If he subconsciously thinks that someone else could be doign the same thing he will be on his best behavior. And his attention to the details of his work life probably makes him more contentious.
The other day I put in a DVD and changed my mind about watching it while the initial "unskippable" commpercials were on. So I hit eject. Eject. Seems simple enough, right? Hit the button and the DVD pops out. Or not.
The fucking thing wouldn't EJECT until the commercial was over. I almost threw my DVD player against the wall right then and there.
Sometimes the tough part is convincing your budding teens that you are actually advising them in an affort to help them. At that age, there is an ingrained (IMHO) belief that parents are just trying to fuck up all of our fun in life.
My wife and I have totally won over our oldest by a few simple excercises. First we have had open and frank converstaions with her about all subjects. She is informed on all the subjects that she has questions about and some that she never did question because we thought it was proper that she was prepared and not ignorant.
Second, we allow her to make many decisions that we do not agree with 100% (within limits, no need to call CPS). We preface this with discussion of why we think this is the wrong thing for her, caution her about what she needs to be careful of, and most importantly, we tell her in no uncertain terms what we think the outcome will be. This teaches her, in our opinion, responsibility for her actions and the true value of her parent's approval and counsel. The fact that we have made the right call much more often than not with our predictions is well in our favor.
The result? Now all we have to do is caution our daughter about certain actions and behaviors and she does the rest. By the rest I mean that she asks us why we think it is a bad idea and is truly interested in what we think and say. Then she thinks about what we have told her and comes to a decision.
For my wife and I it is the best possible outcome. We dont want automatons for children. People like that make good wage-slaves, but we don't want that limitation to come as a result of our upbringing.
The freedom we give her in certain areas is not only a way to create a free thinking adolescent that is independent and strong, but also a test to see where she is heading mentally and socially. It helps us to figure out where we need to apply gentle pressure and lets us get a good glimpse of what is going on inside her head.
I thought lobbyists were people who used cash, influence, post-office employment/chaiman positions, and whatever they can (hookers, drugs, trained monkeys) to cut through the pesky red tape of the popular vote and get what their clients want directly from lawmakers.
Circumventing the voters is a good reason to register in my opinion. Dumping gifts, cash, lunches, travel, etc. on lawmakers requires this supervision.
Now a blogger: what are they doing? They express an opinion to the public. The public can take it or leave it. There is no pressure and certainly no reward to this behavior on the part of the blog reader. The reader doesn't get lunch, the reader doesn't get free travel, the reader doesn't get shit. Well MAYBE food for thought, but even then there is no guarantee they will agree with what is written on the blog. And have you read some of the political blogs lately? Utter crap is the order of the day. Some of them are so incoherent as to be impossible to agree or disagree with.
Big difference in my opinion between the two. One relies on the influence of cash and power directly on an elected official in an environmet that the voters cannot directly observe. The other is a publicly posted piece of information that anyone can read and make their own decision about. Which is more likely to result in massive disenfranchisement and subversion of the political system? Hmmm....tough one.
I can see them being equal if Blogs had the magical ability to make anyone who reads them believe whatever was written on them. However, since they can't I don't see the parity and therefore don't see the need for this regulation.
If the law passes (it will be back in some form I am sure) I can see it as a bludgeon to hurt bloggers that express an opinion that garners endorsements. If that endoresement is over a certain dollar amount they get flagged as a "lobbyist." This could lead to them being discredited and marginalized in media reports, etc. It would not stop the behavior, it would just give the opposition a stick to beat their competetion with. It would also create credibility issues for some people that could potentially undermine their ability to persuade readers with logic and reason.
Maybe the Democrats voted for this after offering to pay all their sympathetic bloggers $99,999.99 per year? I am sure the Republicans voted against it because none of thier top bloggers will work for less than $100k./cynicism
One party espouses a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The other thinks it is a "living document" that needs to be malleable in the face of the changes in our time.
Both ideas have their drawbacks, but the flexibility of the "living document" approach is such that the Constitution can be bent until it bites its own ass, figuratively speaking. In other words, it is an easy way to idealistically skirt the framer's restrictions and circumvent them without having to go through the cumbersome process of changing the original document. Viva la oppression!
Sufficiently advanced irresponsibility is completely indistinguishable from malice.
Sometimes I get the two confused. Especially when dealing with people who self proclaim that they are above criticism.
By their own estimation, if they are so adept at what they do we have to assume that gaffes of that magnitude are intentional and signify a mindset that creates such things for their own purposes.
The alternative is that they are lying idiots. Either way it paints a dismal picture of those who daily try to feed us their interpretation of the world.
Did you factor in the cost of war in iraq? (everyone says its about oil, you know)
Also you forget to calculate what the future cost of energy is going to be. As the rest of the world catches up technologically their consumption goes up. Existing infrastructure is insufficient to meet the energy needs of a completely industrialized China, not to mention Inida and sundry other nations that are at the cusp of a new consumer based economy. When they get on track with a US style consumption trend (Just look at China's exploding auto industry to get a clue) scarcity and increased development costs of energy companies will drive energy costs through the roof.
Now factor in the savings on medical care from reduced pollution. Then you need to adjust for the reduction in initial cost to the next generation of this technology. Toss in some government tax breaks (if we can get the energy company lobbyists out of the Congressmen's collective asses!) and we start to see what could be a great trend.
Our best bet is to shame all those tree-hugging celebrities into installing this system RIGHT NOW. The more rich bastards that get one now, the lower the cost to the regular Joes like you and me tomorrow.
And, while we have the heads of the energy company lobbyists out of the cavernous assholes of our lawmakers, maybe we could inroduce legislation on new home construction that requires some PV cells, etc. It could really help the average cost. More companies would be needed to meet the need, more competetion would result. Again, its better for poor schmucks like me who want this technology but haven't the funds to grab it in the first wave.
The problem is that this law would be a flaming sword in the hands of virtually anyone that wants to pick it up. Combine increasingly partisan and divisive media with itchy-trigger-finger lawsuits and you start to see what kind of mess could occur.
Imagine if every time someone opened their mouth on a media outlet they were subject to threats, lawsuits, fines, etc. Stray one inch into foul territory, or better yet, report truth that ois politically damaging or offensive and watch your career go bye-bye.
In an effort to stay in business broadcasters might even pare down thier language to remove possibly offensive or emotionally stirring terminoligy (a-la 1984). Details would be sparse and certain subjects would be avoided entirely. And God forbid anyone expressing a "party line" viewpoint (especially a minority party!).
I can think of no better way to completely obscure the truth than by frightening people into not talking at all.
"It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth."
Its not sad. Its a fucking travesty and it should piss all of us off in a very serious way.
If prosecutors are willing and able to harrass and persecute a child in this manner, what is going to happen to someone over 30 who looks slightly shady? Not to beat a dead horse but look at Nifong and that whole Duke mess.
Something needs to be done. I'm not saying that I know what it is, but when THIS happens in the "name of justice and truth" it makes me want to reach for my rifle.
I am glad to hear it is in collaboration with Clarke. Reading the first part of your post reminded me of the device called the Omniscio (IIRC) from the book Childhood's End (also by Clarke and a fantastic read). I was about to play the plagarism card when I came across his name on the last line.
It is, however, very interesting to see an author recycle a plot device into a whole novel. I may have to pick it up. Thank for the tip.
The real irony is that the Scarecrow is an allegorical reference to a group of people in the US just before 1900 that were ridiculed by others and called stupid for their beliefs. Each character in the story represents either a person or a group of people on the politcal scene at that time.
The author espoused the beliefs of that group and therefore the Scarecrow doesn't act as if he has no brains. In fact, if you study the movie (or better, the book) you will realize that the scarecrow is the smartest of the bunch. He constantly comes up with the answers that get them out of trouble.
The story is entertaining by itself, but it becomes utterly fascinating if you understand the political allegory behind it. And it leads to all sorts of interesting comparisons when you understand what it was really about and others do not.
I would say what seperates us from the other animals this conversation. To say it another way, it is that we actually save the lives of other humans who are incapable of sustaining themselves.
Other animals just toss those to the wolves (literally) so that they can escape unharmed.
Alternatively, we circle the wagons and will sacrafice our halest and prized to protect one mewling, atrophied, deformed, and retarded offspring.
Some of us just carry that same protective instinct a bit farther, or earlier if you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Dognabbit! Motherchicken, turkey baster, Barbra Striesand!!!
Sorry to be so vile but I thought we were making an omlette.
"You mean like selling of "indulgences", a common Christian practice over most of the time Christianity has been extant, until just recently?"
Don't you mean a practice that is almost exclusively Catholic and that no protestant group has ever espoused? If you didn't mean that it calls into question your knowledge, motives, and intellectualy honesty.
Also, the Bible states that giving is a response/reciprocation to the principle and application of Grace by God himself. In other words, god has already given the Christian blessings, salvation, even life. Giving to others and the church is a reflection of the thoughts, motivations, attitude, and actions of God himself.
As for the comments about Christian universities and books, books cost money and Christian universities (By the way Duke, Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton were all founded as Christian universities) teach more than religion.
"What about when Christianity gets into the legal system..."
First, many of the things you are upset about are not specifically Christian wrought. Though they are attributable to some christian influence, many are more likely due to common law, the basis of our American law system.
Even then, the ability to criticise looses its punch when you consider this: majority rules in teh US (for the most part), as our elected representatives eek out the will of the people through the political machine. Your protests might carry more weight if Christians, at last count, did not make up more than 70% of the population.
Another issue that might give your argument some weight would be if polygamy was more prevalent in other societies. You might note that even where it is acceptable it is seldom practiced. It is also interesting to note that the regions that we inherited our legal lineage from (Western and southern Europe) do not currently allow polygamy. Since it is accepted in few places and practiced rarely in most of them it is interesting that you would use this as an example. Just because it is prohibited in Christianity does not mean that it is because of Christianity that it is unaccepted.
Also, Sunday closings of some stores may not be entirely attributable to Christian activism. Many municipal governmets regulate weekend workdays as a result of pressure from unions or other groups.
Your factual misrepresentation and your attribution of guilt on the part of Christianity alone in your interpretation of certain social and political instances leads me to believe that you may have let your emotional agenda overwhelm your logic.
There are many reasons to criticise Christians and other religious groups. There are many valid ways to do it as well. I think you may have overstepped the boundaries of both here by not practicing intellectual rigor and honesty.
"depending on how you read the Bible"
You know, even if I was to read the bible after taking about 15 hits of acid and then whacking myself in the head with a cinder block I don't think I could come up with anything as convoluted and misconstrued your interpretation. Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is so far from the mark of established and accepted doctrine that it is difficult to imagine it other than an intentional effort to make Christians look bad. Not that they don't do it enough themselves, but adding napalm to the fire is really unnecessary.
"Jesus, after all, told Peter that whatever he said on Earth goes in Heaven"
Notwithstanding the interpretational disregard for the original intent of this verse lets look at some other other quotes. Jesus told everyone that if people believed in him they would be saved from eternal damnation. He also said that those who are saved are in his hands and no one can take them out. Contradictory someone might say? Only if you ignore the fundamental (not fundamentalist mind you) doctrinal basis of Christian theology. Your misinterpretation of a often quoted verse brings it into direct opposition with the entire structure of Christianity and makes it incongrous with the text of the Bible. Try reading up on it a bit.
"So if the Pope excommunicates someone, he's basically damned the person to Hell"
Even Wikipedia disagrees with you on this point. As quoted in Wikipedia and origianlly form the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is held to be indelible." Systematic theology and doctrinal theses say much the same thing. Really, the only person I have ever encountered that thinks this is, well, you and apparently the moderators that modded you up.
"unless you pay them protection money (i.e. tithing) and worship their thug of a deity, said thug will send you to Hell for all eternity."
There are inter denominational debates about requirements for salvation covering such topics as baptism, faith alone, taking the sacraments, confessing verbally, and even some others. However, what is conspicuously absent from the fray is any discussion of tithing. Tithing has its own debate within the circles of the saved, but regardless everyone agrees it is not necessary for salvation. Interestingly, the only person espousing this theological viewpoint I have ever seen in print or in passing is, again, you.
What is agreed on is simple and free for everyone. Works, like tithing and good deeds, are irrelevant and insufficient for salvation to the God of Christianity. Faith in Christ is all that is necessary. Some say you must be baptised as well, and some say that you must confess verbally. I don't ascribe to those tennents myself, though some others do.
I am curious, where did you get these beliefs? What church instructed you so? I ask because it is such a travesty of established doctrine that I daresay it crosses the line into heresy.
"Or is there some reason you would present to support the idea that the infiltration of one religion is of more concern than of another?"
How about one where a guy gets convicted of a bogus charge because he picketed a certain religious group that also happens to have vast influence in the court system where he was tried.
Damn man, I have heard that not reading the article is a slashdot norm, I even do it myself at times. However, forgetting what article you are posting under takes this to new heights.
I salute you Sir!
"Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that."
If you are speaking about Christianity then mankind is already damned but not by God. Our seminal human father (Adam) fucked us all when he knowingly chose disobedience to God.
A better analogy is that you have been poisoned and someone is giving away free antidote.
Actually, it is an example of the US government upholding the seperation of church and state. Regardless of the religion's origin, dubious practices, or overtly ominous behaviors (including lawsuits and legal threats), the government respects their self proclaimed status as a religion.
For the thinker it should stand as an example of how the government can be manipulated by evil(smart) people for their own financial good.
Another example, though less sinister, is the Church of the SubGenius. Friends of mine are legal pastors of the Church and can therefore perform wedding ceremonies; yet its origin is just as dubious as the Scientologists'.
So the word for the wise is "Quit the church and start your own damn religion!" Take advantage of the tax-free status of all religions in the US. It might just make you a rich man.
The only reason you do not posess this level of cynicism is your lack of firsthand experience with the fucking end of the stick from someone you thought was a friend at work. In my workign career I have seen people fired, charges borught, and lawsuits flying left and right because of imaginary incidents, mis-perceived slights, and self preservation.
Yes, there are things called friendship and trust, however there are also things called downsizing, layoffs, him-or-you and "if I cut this guy loose I get a promotion" scenarios that can trump your so-called work friendship in a half a heartbeat. If you have friends that will walk off the job so that you can stay, that's great. However, if you don't you might need to reconsider just how far you trust your work friends.
Take care of yourself first and remember that someone's livelihood will always come first in a work relationship. Think about this: Your boss is your friend. The company says that he can get a 20K/year raise if he can get 20hrs/week of unpaid overtime overtime out of his team for the year. What do you think your "friend" will do? Use his friend influence to get you to work more, or forego the raise and risk unemployment out of friendship?
Or, consider: What if upper management said that employees needed to take a 4K/year pay cut, but your boss would get a bonus and possible promotion for each staff member that didn't quit as a result of the pay cuts. Are you 100% sure that your friend would not be swayed by the bonus and possible promotions and would advise you with 100% unbiased motives?
Secretly documenting the things that you do and that other people do is just a nice way of maintaining your status and protecting yourself from the vicisitdes of cutthroat office politicking. Personally I think the guy is a genius.
If you want a friend buy a dog. If you want to work with friends own a pet shop.
If anything, the way this guy documents his work experience probably helps him. If he subconsciously thinks that someone else could be doign the same thing he will be on his best behavior. And his attention to the details of his work life probably makes him more contentious.
Damn straight.
The other day I put in a DVD and changed my mind about watching it while the initial "unskippable" commpercials were on. So I hit eject. Eject. Seems simple enough, right? Hit the button and the DVD pops out. Or not.
The fucking thing wouldn't EJECT until the commercial was over. I almost threw my DVD player against the wall right then and there.
Sometimes the tough part is convincing your budding teens that you are actually advising them in an affort to help them. At that age, there is an ingrained (IMHO) belief that parents are just trying to fuck up all of our fun in life.
My wife and I have totally won over our oldest by a few simple excercises. First we have had open and frank converstaions with her about all subjects. She is informed on all the subjects that she has questions about and some that she never did question because we thought it was proper that she was prepared and not ignorant.
Second, we allow her to make many decisions that we do not agree with 100% (within limits, no need to call CPS). We preface this with discussion of why we think this is the wrong thing for her, caution her about what she needs to be careful of, and most importantly, we tell her in no uncertain terms what we think the outcome will be. This teaches her, in our opinion, responsibility for her actions and the true value of her parent's approval and counsel. The fact that we have made the right call much more often than not with our predictions is well in our favor.
The result? Now all we have to do is caution our daughter about certain actions and behaviors and she does the rest. By the rest I mean that she asks us why we think it is a bad idea and is truly interested in what we think and say. Then she thinks about what we have told her and comes to a decision.
For my wife and I it is the best possible outcome. We dont want automatons for children. People like that make good wage-slaves, but we don't want that limitation to come as a result of our upbringing.
The freedom we give her in certain areas is not only a way to create a free thinking adolescent that is independent and strong, but also a test to see where she is heading mentally and socially. It helps us to figure out where we need to apply gentle pressure and lets us get a good glimpse of what is going on inside her head.
I thought lobbyists were people who used cash, influence, post-office employment/chaiman positions, and whatever they can (hookers, drugs, trained monkeys) to cut through the pesky red tape of the popular vote and get what their clients want directly from lawmakers.
/cynicism
Circumventing the voters is a good reason to register in my opinion. Dumping gifts, cash, lunches, travel, etc. on lawmakers requires this supervision.
Now a blogger: what are they doing? They express an opinion to the public. The public can take it or leave it. There is no pressure and certainly no reward to this behavior on the part of the blog reader. The reader doesn't get lunch, the reader doesn't get free travel, the reader doesn't get shit. Well MAYBE food for thought, but even then there is no guarantee they will agree with what is written on the blog. And have you read some of the political blogs lately? Utter crap is the order of the day. Some of them are so incoherent as to be impossible to agree or disagree with.
Big difference in my opinion between the two. One relies on the influence of cash and power directly on an elected official in an environmet that the voters cannot directly observe. The other is a publicly posted piece of information that anyone can read and make their own decision about. Which is more likely to result in massive disenfranchisement and subversion of the political system? Hmmm....tough one.
I can see them being equal if Blogs had the magical ability to make anyone who reads them believe whatever was written on them. However, since they can't I don't see the parity and therefore don't see the need for this regulation.
If the law passes (it will be back in some form I am sure) I can see it as a bludgeon to hurt bloggers that express an opinion that garners endorsements. If that endoresement is over a certain dollar amount they get flagged as a "lobbyist." This could lead to them being discredited and marginalized in media reports, etc. It would not stop the behavior, it would just give the opposition a stick to beat their competetion with. It would also create credibility issues for some people that could potentially undermine their ability to persuade readers with logic and reason.
Maybe the Democrats voted for this after offering to pay all their sympathetic bloggers $99,999.99 per year? I am sure the Republicans voted against it because none of thier top bloggers will work for less than $100k.
One party espouses a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The other thinks it is a "living document" that needs to be malleable in the face of the changes in our time.
Both ideas have their drawbacks, but the flexibility of the "living document" approach is such that the Constitution can be bent until it bites its own ass, figuratively speaking. In other words, it is an easy way to idealistically skirt the framer's restrictions and circumvent them without having to go through the cumbersome process of changing the original document. Viva la oppression!
Sufficiently advanced irresponsibility is completely indistinguishable from malice.
Sometimes I get the two confused. Especially when dealing with people who self proclaim that they are above criticism.
By their own estimation, if they are so adept at what they do we have to assume that gaffes of that magnitude are intentional and signify a mindset that creates such things for their own purposes.
The alternative is that they are lying idiots. Either way it paints a dismal picture of those who daily try to feed us their interpretation of the world.
Summary: Free speech aint so free if someone is paying you over 100,000 USD per year for it, right?
Did you factor in the cost of war in iraq? (everyone says its about oil, you know)
Also you forget to calculate what the future cost of energy is going to be. As the rest of the world catches up technologically their consumption goes up. Existing infrastructure is insufficient to meet the energy needs of a completely industrialized China, not to mention Inida and sundry other nations that are at the cusp of a new consumer based economy. When they get on track with a US style consumption trend (Just look at China's exploding auto industry to get a clue) scarcity and increased development costs of energy companies will drive energy costs through the roof.
Now factor in the savings on medical care from reduced pollution. Then you need to adjust for the reduction in initial cost to the next generation of this technology. Toss in some government tax breaks (if we can get the energy company lobbyists out of the Congressmen's collective asses!) and we start to see what could be a great trend.
Our best bet is to shame all those tree-hugging celebrities into installing this system RIGHT NOW. The more rich bastards that get one now, the lower the cost to the regular Joes like you and me tomorrow.
And, while we have the heads of the energy company lobbyists out of the cavernous assholes of our lawmakers, maybe we could inroduce legislation on new home construction that requires some PV cells, etc. It could really help the average cost. More companies would be needed to meet the need, more competetion would result. Again, its better for poor schmucks like me who want this technology but haven't the funds to grab it in the first wave.
Bingo.
The problem is that this law would be a flaming sword in the hands of virtually anyone that wants to pick it up. Combine increasingly partisan and divisive media with itchy-trigger-finger lawsuits and you start to see what kind of mess could occur.
Imagine if every time someone opened their mouth on a media outlet they were subject to threats, lawsuits, fines, etc. Stray one inch into foul territory, or better yet, report truth that ois politically damaging or offensive and watch your career go bye-bye.
In an effort to stay in business broadcasters might even pare down thier language to remove possibly offensive or emotionally stirring terminoligy (a-la 1984). Details would be sparse and certain subjects would be avoided entirely. And God forbid anyone expressing a "party line" viewpoint (especially a minority party!).
I can think of no better way to completely obscure the truth than by frightening people into not talking at all.
"It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth."
Its not sad. Its a fucking travesty and it should piss all of us off in a very serious way.
If prosecutors are willing and able to harrass and persecute a child in this manner, what is going to happen to someone over 30 who looks slightly shady? Not to beat a dead horse but look at Nifong and that whole Duke mess.
Something needs to be done. I'm not saying that I know what it is, but when THIS happens in the "name of justice and truth" it makes me want to reach for my rifle.
"As the boundaries of our culture seemed to have been stretched further and further..."
Yes, and I blame the goatse.
This is my penis and I'll wash it as fast as I want to.
I am glad to hear it is in collaboration with Clarke. Reading the first part of your post reminded me of the device called the Omniscio (IIRC) from the book Childhood's End (also by Clarke and a fantastic read). I was about to play the plagarism card when I came across his name on the last line.
It is, however, very interesting to see an author recycle a plot device into a whole novel. I may have to pick it up. Thank for the tip.
Not to the same extent.
Dolphins have no ACLU.
The real irony is that the Scarecrow is an allegorical reference to a group of people in the US just before 1900 that were ridiculed by others and called stupid for their beliefs. Each character in the story represents either a person or a group of people on the politcal scene at that time.
The author espoused the beliefs of that group and therefore the Scarecrow doesn't act as if he has no brains. In fact, if you study the movie (or better, the book) you will realize that the scarecrow is the smartest of the bunch. He constantly comes up with the answers that get them out of trouble.
The story is entertaining by itself, but it becomes utterly fascinating if you understand the political allegory behind it. And it leads to all sorts of interesting comparisons when you understand what it was really about and others do not.
I would say what seperates us from the other animals this conversation. To say it another way, it is that we actually save the lives of other humans who are incapable of sustaining themselves.
Other animals just toss those to the wolves (literally) so that they can escape unharmed.
Alternatively, we circle the wagons and will sacrafice our halest and prized to protect one mewling, atrophied, deformed, and retarded offspring.
Some of us just carry that same protective instinct a bit farther, or earlier if you will.
Doctors routinely break the membranes of pregnant women to help induce pregnancy. Of course this results in the loss of ALL the amniotic fluid.
Just siphon it off and everyone is happy.
We've heard this sort of thing before.
Yet there it is again. More lying claims of WMDs designed to incite the US into waging an unjustified war against (insert country name here).
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me again and...well...you can't...or something.
Sometimes there are two thieves.