"She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below."
"You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
And none of them thought it was peculiar that the man was in a boat in the middle of the Texas desert, thust demonstrating the complete ineptitude of both parties.
"But wouldn't it have been better to do this while he was alive?"
When he was alive he was working towards a goal, and such a tribute would therefore have been premature. In short, he simply wasn't done yet and I doubt he'd be able to accept such a tribute because of it.
"The ICC is a court, hence most aspects of the Bill of Rights don't even apply to the ICC."
*ahem*
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...
Who does the indicting in the ICC? I don't think anybody's ever gotten a jury summons from them, grand or petite...
... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
What happens if the person indicted by the ICC has already been acquitted by a US court?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
Again, where's the jury?
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
There go those pesky juries again...
I also find it interesting that, in the ICC, both the judges and the prosecutors are chosen by the same group of people in much the same way, and they often appear to be working together. It can be difficult to say where one group ends and the other begins.
"Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S. refusal to admit the Soviet republics."
I got a good laught out of the way my American Foreign Policy teacher presented this one: "Uncle Joe backed down from this position when it was pointed out that, by that logic, the US should have 48 seats to the Soviet Union's 15."
Vibrate--Nobody else should ever know that your cell phone is ringing, ever.
Caller ID--If the call isn't from a number that you know a truly important call would be coming from, don't answer it. For paranoid parents, if the call isn't from your home number, it's not the babysitter.
Voicemail--If it's important, they'll leave voicemail. If you're really that freakin' curious, you can check your voicemail without anybody else in the room knowing you're listening to your voicemail (don't talk, just push buttons).
"I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it is to have my lectures interrupted by students' cell phones ringing."
I've got you beat there: a professor interrupting a lecture for his cell phone. And the class gets the privelege of shelling out hundreds of dollars per person to listen to his conversation with his daughter for about two or three minutes. Didn't even have the decency to step out of the room to take the call...
"The final debate will suddenly have an unplanned random factor plunged into it enough to totally disrupt the debate."
If a person is incapable of coping with the unplanned, why should they be elected President of the United States?
"Not only would Badnarik's mere presence in the debate be a distraction from the two candidates there,"
As I just said...
"but his input and any obligation on the part of the major-party candidates to respond to it would effectively prevent discussion on the subject of which of the two major-party candidates would offer a better economic policy."
You say this as if the questions to be asked aren't pre-arranged.
"Kerry could still attempt to outline his economic policy. Viewers would not pick up on it. It would be lost in the chaos."
If he is unable adequately express himself to the American people without such a scripted environment, why should we believe he can do better with Congress or other heads of state?
"I believe you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be able to debate."
And you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be recognized as a political party by the State of Arizona. I'd imagine this is a different number used by the CPD. This would be moot except that the corporation in question is accepting money from the State of Arizona in an effort that excludes a political party recognized by said state. You're supposed to meet the state's standards before they're allowed to spend money on you.
"Unless this isn't part of federal law,"
Federal, shmederal. You seem to have forgotten what the word "federal" implies: consituent states are free to operate with a degree of indepencence from the rest of the federation. Unless the Arizona law encroaches on the explicitly delineated powers of the national government, there's nothing anybody in Washington can do about it.
After all, don't forget that the states are still the ones who decide who is an eligible voter and who is not, even in elections for the national government.
"Those little reflections in the matrix also have something to say about a President elected in a year that ends in 0"
Because you're hanging out with the wrong crowd to find people that have heard of the Curse of Tecumseh.
Besides, it's more discriminatory than that, or else Bad Things would have happened to Jefferson (1800) and Monroe (1820). It began with W. H. Harrison, hence the "Curse of Tecumseh" name. And even then, while they may have been elected to a prior term in a year divisible by 20, occasionally Bad Things happened during a later term (Lincoln died after the 1864 election and F. D. Roosevelt died after the 1944 election, who wouldn't even have run in 1940 if he hadn't broken the two-term precedent).
It's interesting to note that the only one of the first twelve constitutional amendments proposed by the first Congress that has not (yet) been ratified was a mechanism for automatically increasing the size of the House with the census. It was still linear so even that would prove to be unworkable today, but it's interesting that it's quite possibly the first outright alteration (as opposed to an addition) of the constitution proposed and passed by Congress.
There are arguments for a cube root formula here and there that sounds reasonable, but I don't see it happening any time soon, what with the House of Representatives becoming a career often spanning decades (why bother with the biennial elections at that point?). It would reduce the power and influence of individual members of Congress, and I give it as much a chance of passing Congress as, say... a repeal of the federal law that requires single-member districts (now that would kill gerrymandering in its tracks).
If states start making noise about calling for a constitutional convention in which to propose such an amendment, the House might take action, but otherwise...
"everyone is judged by the standards of the least free country"
I'm tempted to say this isn't a case of "standards of the least free country" so much as "standards generally accepted in the (industrialized) world." For better or for worse, the US has some relatively unique views on speech and what is considered "free," distinct from most (if not all) European countries and even other North American countries. Either you try to hammer out some basic global standards that can be stomached by everybody to some extent, or you force everybody to conform to US laws. Which is the lesser of two evils?
"wouldn't be anywhere near as polarized as it is now."
Polarized? How so?
I'm beginning to think that, instead of talking about Red and Blue states, we should discuss Purple and Green states*. Really, the only thing the candidates seem to say consistently is "I'm not the other guy! He's a Republican/Democrat and I'm a Democrat/Republican!"
I can see it now... "Who takes blue is Democrat, follows Democrat candidate. Who takes cloth for Democrat candidate is Democrat candidate. Democracts follow Democrat candidate!"
*(A certain St. Patrick's Day song has now been forever ruined for me...)
"good news for all the crazy slashdotters who want an iPod but feel dirty using Apple's DRM"
What part of "I don't pay money for DRM" don't you understand? I don't care where in the equation the DRM came from, I will not pay money for either DRM software or the DRM hardware required to run it.
The only "exception" I have to this rule is with DVDs: I'll buy a DVD so long as it's not published by a member of the MPAA, and even then I play it on a region-free DVD player.
Slashdot Mirror
"She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below."
"You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
And none of them thought it was peculiar that the man was in a boat in the middle of the Texas desert, thust demonstrating the complete ineptitude of both parties.
Washington State, British Columbia... what's the difference?
"But wouldn't it have been better to do this while he was alive?"
When he was alive he was working towards a goal, and such a tribute would therefore have been premature. In short, he simply wasn't done yet and I doubt he'd be able to accept such a tribute because of it.
Sounds familiar...
They also produce those damned ditech.com commercials...
*ahem*Who does the indicting in the ICC? I don't think anybody's ever gotten a jury summons from them, grand or petite... What happens if the person indicted by the ICC has already been acquitted by a US court?Again, where's the jury?There go those pesky juries again...
I also find it interesting that, in the ICC, both the judges and the prosecutors are chosen by the same group of people in much the same way, and they often appear to be working together. It can be difficult to say where one group ends and the other begins.
"Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S. refusal to admit the Soviet republics."
I got a good laught out of the way my American Foreign Policy teacher presented this one: "Uncle Joe backed down from this position when it was pointed out that, by that logic, the US should have 48 seats to the Soviet Union's 15."
Gotta love Uncle Joe... or else...
Am I the only person to figure this chain out?
"I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it is to have my lectures interrupted by students' cell phones ringing."
I've got you beat there: a professor interrupting a lecture for his cell phone. And the class gets the privelege of shelling out hundreds of dollars per person to listen to his conversation with his daughter for about two or three minutes. Didn't even have the decency to step out of the room to take the call...
"The final debate will suddenly have an unplanned random factor plunged into it enough to totally disrupt the debate."
If a person is incapable of coping with the unplanned, why should they be elected President of the United States?
"Not only would Badnarik's mere presence in the debate be a distraction from the two candidates there,"
As I just said...
"but his input and any obligation on the part of the major-party candidates to respond to it would effectively prevent discussion on the subject of which of the two major-party candidates would offer a better economic policy."
You say this as if the questions to be asked aren't pre-arranged.
"Kerry could still attempt to outline his economic policy. Viewers would not pick up on it. It would be lost in the chaos."
If he is unable adequately express himself to the American people without such a scripted environment, why should we believe he can do better with Congress or other heads of state?
"I believe you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be able to debate."
And you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be recognized as a political party by the State of Arizona. I'd imagine this is a different number used by the CPD. This would be moot except that the corporation in question is accepting money from the State of Arizona in an effort that excludes a political party recognized by said state. You're supposed to meet the state's standards before they're allowed to spend money on you.
"Unless this isn't part of federal law,"
Federal, shmederal. You seem to have forgotten what the word "federal" implies: consituent states are free to operate with a degree of indepencence from the rest of the federation. Unless the Arizona law encroaches on the explicitly delineated powers of the national government, there's nothing anybody in Washington can do about it.
After all, don't forget that the states are still the ones who decide who is an eligible voter and who is not, even in elections for the national government.
"What possible good could tasting deodorant do? And why would it be tasted in the armpit?"
Spoken like someone who's never had to deal with that particular mishap when a woman is curled up in your arms. I wonder why...
Hey, at least it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard...
"I will supply the bound and gagged - erm, I mean "Jacobean Spacesuited" test pilots."
And his name is Lance Bass!
"Those little reflections in the matrix also have something to say about a President elected in a year that ends in 0"
Because you're hanging out with the wrong crowd to find people that have heard of the Curse of Tecumseh.
Besides, it's more discriminatory than that, or else Bad Things would have happened to Jefferson (1800) and Monroe (1820). It began with W. H. Harrison, hence the "Curse of Tecumseh" name. And even then, while they may have been elected to a prior term in a year divisible by 20, occasionally Bad Things happened during a later term (Lincoln died after the 1864 election and F. D. Roosevelt died after the 1944 election, who wouldn't even have run in 1940 if he hadn't broken the two-term precedent).
It's interesting to note that the only one of the first twelve constitutional amendments proposed by the first Congress that has not (yet) been ratified was a mechanism for automatically increasing the size of the House with the census. It was still linear so even that would prove to be unworkable today, but it's interesting that it's quite possibly the first outright alteration (as opposed to an addition) of the constitution proposed and passed by Congress.
There are arguments for a cube root formula here and there that sounds reasonable, but I don't see it happening any time soon, what with the House of Representatives becoming a career often spanning decades (why bother with the biennial elections at that point?). It would reduce the power and influence of individual members of Congress, and I give it as much a chance of passing Congress as, say... a repeal of the federal law that requires single-member districts (now that would kill gerrymandering in its tracks).
If states start making noise about calling for a constitutional convention in which to propose such an amendment, the House might take action, but otherwise...
"everyone is judged by the standards of the least free country"
I'm tempted to say this isn't a case of "standards of the least free country" so much as "standards generally accepted in the (industrialized) world." For better or for worse, the US has some relatively unique views on speech and what is considered "free," distinct from most (if not all) European countries and even other North American countries. Either you try to hammer out some basic global standards that can be stomached by everybody to some extent, or you force everybody to conform to US laws. Which is the lesser of two evils?
"What about facial recognition software used for this purpose?"
If they were going by a pair of glasses, they may not have had a face left to recognize.
"One of them was having a hard time getting arrested. He kept throwing himself into the riot shields of the police and bouncing off."
I'm glad to see that the Cowboy Neal option will be on this year's presidential ballot...
"Wouldn't more competition improve the political system?"
You see, the Democrats are anti-capitalism, while the Republicans are pro-monopolists, so... no?
"The real problem with the 3rd parties is that the people who are active in them tend to be nutcases."
Strike "3rd" from that sentence and I will agre with you wholeheartedly.
"...It is not user-serviceable without a proprietary toolset."
Hey! We Americans have metric socket sets too, ya know!
"wouldn't be anywhere near as polarized as it is now."
Polarized? How so?
I'm beginning to think that, instead of talking about Red and Blue states, we should discuss Purple and Green states*. Really, the only thing the candidates seem to say consistently is "I'm not the other guy! He's a Republican/Democrat and I'm a Democrat/Republican!"
I can see it now... "Who takes blue is Democrat, follows Democrat candidate. Who takes cloth for Democrat candidate is Democrat candidate. Democracts follow Democrat candidate!"
*(A certain St. Patrick's Day song has now been forever ruined for me...)
"He was the ultimate spoiler."
Bah! He can't hold a candle to Theodore Roosevelt, whose 27.5% in 1912 gave the election to Democrat Wilson.
Oh, wait, that's right, world history doesn't begin until 1939...
"good news for all the crazy slashdotters who want an iPod but feel dirty using Apple's DRM"
What part of "I don't pay money for DRM" don't you understand? I don't care where in the equation the DRM came from, I will not pay money for either DRM software or the DRM hardware required to run it.
The only "exception" I have to this rule is with DVDs: I'll buy a DVD so long as it's not published by a member of the MPAA, and even then I play it on a region-free DVD player.