It doesn't seem that odd that the Catholic Church knew of the New World before Columbus since the Vikings were visiting Canada in 1000ad and it was right around that time they were converted. Probablt had missionaries reporting back on things even drawing maps. But no one probably recognized it as anything big.
Actually it might be very favorable. Luther was fairly anti-Semitic from what I remember. And he thought polygamy was ok. Also he was banging a nun wasn't he? I also seem to recall there being some debate about whether he was a little nuts too.
If his hand written notes include a rant against nefarious Jews and a couple mentions of a pink elephant that keeps following him around then it would be somewhat favorable to the Church in that it casts a bad light on Martin Luther.
Crossfire is ok when they have Bob Novak on. He's the only one that isn't a party shill. The rest would defend whatever the party line was even if it included poisoning the milk of school children.
Why is there a need to ban people? I understand why there should be a function where people can ignore certain users, but I see banning used mostly to stifle those who disagree with ops. It is completely unnecessary and stifles the free flow of discussion.
When it comes down to it, even the most crunchy granola eco-friendly environmentalist isn't going to fork over cash for a computer that simply doesn't offer what you can get at Dell for half the price.
Marketing anything as "eco-friendly" doesn't make it all that more enticing. That's why most "eco-friendly" items that find any wide use at all are there because it is regulated to be that way.
Tell you something? No, I think he was trying to make you dead!
Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It has nothing to do with scale. It is natural progression. The buffer for abortion protestors is 100 ft last I've heard, doesn't matter how much of that buffer includes public land. How many feet in a 1/2 mile? Progress.
Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.
Abortion protesters have had to deal with this for some time. They are called "buffer zones."
2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.
You mentioned abortion laws and the second amendment, but the courts have already said the 10th doesn't apply. Bush's judicial apointments get asked about it all the time and if they don't agree it is "settled law" then they don't get confirmed. And the "state's rights" republicans basically have no voice in the Republican Party. They would be "paleo-conservatives" and have been ousted since Reagan by the "neo-conservatives". Neocons are really just New Deal democrats.
3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.
You can blame Bush for appointing Ashcroft. But who can we blame for Congress? The American people.
It isn't like the this is a new thing. I've seen an editorial cartoon from WW2 that had FDR calling Stalin on the phone with the words, "Hey Joe, I can't find our Constitution. Mind if we use yours?"
It's been a steady decline. If you think the trend will ever reverse iself then you are deluded. The American people enjoy government intervening in their lives. It's really funny to see anyone quibble over the next 1% of government encroachment yet still defend the past 60%. We need the fed "helping" to fund education right? We need this. We need that. But wait, not this. Right....
The AMA's campaign against abortion wasn't about enlightening anyone; it was about shutting down competition from non-AMA practitioners who were successfully "treating" conditions such as "obstructed menses".
I've heard that argument made but I don't buy it. If it were a matter of competition then why did they make it illegal rather than making it regulated such that only licensed doctors could "treat" such conditions. They didn't just make it illegal for the uncertified, they made it illegal for everyone.
Most of the arguments against abortion in those times had to do with danger to the woman from e.g. the use of unsanitary instruments.
That was definately a part, but the primary reason listed over and over again is the question of life. Another secondary reason was the fear of immigrants outbirthing the WASPS.
Antibiotics wouldn't be available for the better part of a century. Now that the death rate from legal first-trimester abortion is a small fraction of the death rate from full-term pregnancy, all
of these arguments (which are circumstantial, not moral) point the other way. Accordingly, the argument of the antis has changed.
The argument hasn't changed at all. It is still primarily concerned with that question of life. The title from Horatio Storer's second book is still the defining question, "Is it I?"
To me it seems you've read a few feminist overviews of the period. But really, read some of the primary sources. I'm not saying self interest didn't exist, as it may exist for stem cell scientists trying to obtain grants. But to pass off the whole Physician's Crusade as "self interest" is just false and too easily dismisses a very important part of history.
The majority of the Slashdot community includes people who are able to think objectively and logically. So it's not surprising to see most of these arguments here. Perhaps we could apply that same reason and thought to the opposing view? There must be some reason why a mass of people would oppose stem cell research...
The opposition arises because the embryo is seen to be an individual. That is what religious opinion on the matter boils down to, that this thing in question is an individual. And that means there is no ontological difference between the embryo and me. I'm just bigger.
It is a little ironic that this is framed as religion vs science because it was really science that influenced opinion on the question of life. During the 19th century embryology was a new field and you had doctors that came to the conlusion that religion was wrong about life beginning at quickening (when fetal movement is first felt) and that the laws of the country were also deficient in that regard. It was the American Medical Association that went about trying to change public opinion and the laws. They actually didn't even get much support from churches at the time. But you'll notice that most of the laws overturned in Roe vs Wade came from this time. So maybe if the AMA hadn't gone around enlightening people in the 1860s then this stem cell issue wouldn't be an issue.
I've helped to archive some of the AMA's stuff on the web. The questions they posed are still very relevent and it's an interesting read. That's really where the whole issue began as I see it.
Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sure, Bush has his reasons. And Chris Reeve has his. Do you think Chris is being compleely objective in weighing the ethical and moral implications of stem cell research? Hell no, he has a vested interest in seeing it get gobs of money regardless of any ethical issues. If it could make him walk again I'm sure he'd throw a grenade into a box of kittens. So let's not pretend that Christopher Reeves is the impartial voice of reason, ok?
Is there any reason to switch from Opera to Mozilla? The only big differences on my machine between Opera and Moz is that Moz is slow and it's a memory hog. And those aren't really good reasons to switch.
Nah. Last I checked he had a love interest. Have her cheat on him with some ensign who later needs his flu shot, but instead of a flu shot Phlox gives him 21st century ebola. And then have it such that everyone on the ship knows what he did, but they can't prove it, so he remains their doctor.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using Webster's. What are you using?
It doesn't seem that odd that the Catholic Church knew of the New World before Columbus since the Vikings were visiting Canada in 1000ad and it was right around that time they were converted. Probablt had missionaries reporting back on things even drawing maps. But no one probably recognized it as anything big.
They are going to have to prioritize what goes online first, and they probably won't start with what is considered heretical. Is that censorship?
If his hand written notes include a rant against nefarious Jews and a couple mentions of a pink elephant that keeps following him around then it would be somewhat favorable to the Church in that it casts a bad light on Martin Luther.
"Ahh - the Luftwaffe, the Washington Generals of
The History Channel." - Homer Simpson
American Gothic - rocked
Brimstone - rocked
Dark Skies - eh, it was watchable
Crossfire is ok when they have Bob Novak on. He's the only one that isn't a party shill. The rest would defend whatever the party line was even if it included poisoning the milk of school children.
The SciFi channel used to run Sightings with Tim White. That didn't fit exactly either, but I enjoyed watching it. Not sure if it is still on.
If all we wanted was oil then why not seize the Saudi oil fields? That would be a cake walk since we already have troops right there.
Let's listen to Europe for our foreign policy. What's that Mr. Chamberlin, peace in our time? Hey France, has Hitler reached the Maginot Line yet?
The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.
Why is there a need to ban people? I understand why there should be a function where people can ignore certain users, but I see banning used mostly to stifle those who disagree with ops. It is completely unnecessary and stifles the free flow of discussion.
Marketing anything as "eco-friendly" doesn't make it all that more enticing. That's why most "eco-friendly" items that find any wide use at all are there because it is regulated to be that way.
UFOs.
Tell you something? No, I think he was trying to make you dead!
It has nothing to do with scale. It is natural progression. The buffer for abortion protestors is 100 ft last I've heard, doesn't matter how much of that buffer includes public land. How many feet in a 1/2 mile? Progress.
Abortion protesters have had to deal with this for some time. They are called "buffer zones."
2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.
You mentioned abortion laws and the second amendment, but the courts have already said the 10th doesn't apply. Bush's judicial apointments get asked about it all the time and if they don't agree it is "settled law" then they don't get confirmed. And the "state's rights" republicans basically have no voice in the Republican Party. They would be "paleo-conservatives" and have been ousted since Reagan by the "neo-conservatives". Neocons are really just New Deal democrats.
3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.
You can blame Bush for appointing Ashcroft. But who can we blame for Congress? The American people.
If you threw anything in the Harbor today you'd probably go to jail. Doesn't even matter if it's your tea that you throw in.
It isn't like the this is a new thing. I've seen an editorial cartoon from WW2 that had FDR calling Stalin on the phone with the words, "Hey Joe, I can't find our Constitution. Mind if we use yours?" It's been a steady decline. If you think the trend will ever reverse iself then you are deluded. The American people enjoy government intervening in their lives. It's really funny to see anyone quibble over the next 1% of government encroachment yet still defend the past 60%. We need the fed "helping" to fund education right? We need this. We need that. But wait, not this. Right....
I've heard that argument made but I don't buy it. If it were a matter of competition then why did they make it illegal rather than making it regulated such that only licensed doctors could "treat" such conditions. They didn't just make it illegal for the uncertified, they made it illegal for everyone.
Most of the arguments against abortion in those times had to do with danger to the woman from e.g. the use of unsanitary instruments.
That was definately a part, but the primary reason listed over and over again is the question of life. Another secondary reason was the fear of immigrants outbirthing the WASPS.
Antibiotics wouldn't be available for the better part of a century. Now that the death rate from legal first-trimester abortion is a small fraction of the death rate from full-term pregnancy, all of these arguments (which are circumstantial, not moral) point the other way. Accordingly, the argument of the antis has changed.
The argument hasn't changed at all. It is still primarily concerned with that question of life. The title from Horatio Storer's second book is still the defining question, "Is it I?"
To me it seems you've read a few feminist overviews of the period. But really, read some of the primary sources. I'm not saying self interest didn't exist, as it may exist for stem cell scientists trying to obtain grants. But to pass off the whole Physician's Crusade as "self interest" is just false and too easily dismisses a very important part of history.
The opposition arises because the embryo is seen to be an individual. That is what religious opinion on the matter boils down to, that this thing in question is an individual. And that means there is no ontological difference between the embryo and me. I'm just bigger.
The masses aren't all coming from one side of the political spectrum either. There are Democrats for Life and Libertarians for Life.
It is a little ironic that this is framed as religion vs science because it was really science that influenced opinion on the question of life. During the 19th century embryology was a new field and you had doctors that came to the conlusion that religion was wrong about life beginning at quickening (when fetal movement is first felt) and that the laws of the country were also deficient in that regard. It was the American Medical Association that went about trying to change public opinion and the laws. They actually didn't even get much support from churches at the time. But you'll notice that most of the laws overturned in Roe vs Wade came from this time. So maybe if the AMA hadn't gone around enlightening people in the 1860s then this stem cell issue wouldn't be an issue.
I've helped to archive some of the AMA's stuff on the web. The questions they posed are still very relevent and it's an interesting read. That's really where the whole issue began as I see it.
Sure, Bush has his reasons. And Chris Reeve has his. Do you think Chris is being compleely objective in weighing the ethical and moral implications of stem cell research? Hell no, he has a vested interest in seeing it get gobs of money regardless of any ethical issues. If it could make him walk again I'm sure he'd throw a grenade into a box of kittens. So let's not pretend that Christopher Reeves is the impartial voice of reason, ok?
Is there any reason to switch from Opera to Mozilla? The only big differences on my machine between Opera and Moz is that Moz is slow and it's a memory hog. And those aren't really good reasons to switch.
So the geeky chicks will come over your house to play with your computer?
Nah. Last I checked he had a love interest. Have her cheat on him with some ensign who later needs his flu shot, but instead of a flu shot Phlox gives him 21st century ebola. And then have it such that everyone on the ship knows what he did, but they can't prove it, so he remains their doctor.
They don't have a holodeck yet so there must be tennis courts and swimming pools somewhere on the ship.