"and through sequencing the genome have discovered that there is NO SUCH THING AS RACE."
About 50 years too late or so. Eugenics was the next big thing a century ago, and you had your learned professionals and intelligentsia speaking in favor of antimiscegenation laws and forced-sterilization laws... and that's just in the US.
"It's not SCIENCE that divides people and tells the to slaughter the "others," it's religion."
Then the fact that such atrocities went hand-in-hand with the Industrial Revolution was mere coincidence? What the Alexanders and Caesars and Genghises may have lacked in weapons technology they made up for with manpower, and yet their campaigns, while for the glory of their respective empires and spreading of their ways of life, never had the flavor of being for the sake of a "a pure Macedonian/Roman/Mongolian race and cleanse the world of the Other" and generally didn't care when people of different facial features or skin colors bedded each other. And even the holy wars at their worst respected the idea of conversion to the "proper" religion, generally sparing converts the sword or the flame.
It was progress and science that gave us men with letters after their last names that wrote books upon books about the differences between the "races" and pointed out that, even if they "worshiped correctly," they were still genetically inferior and no amount of human action would change that (e. g. a converted Jew was still, genetically, a Jew), so that it would be best for the "proper" race to remove them from the gene pool outright. They even went so far as to explain class distinction as a natural, scientific fact. It was only in recent decades that scientific findings began to support the egalitarian philosophies that took the world by storm two centuries ago; often, science and learning were used as arguments against the revolutionaries.
The Romans had their slaves, but slavery only took on its characteristic permanence and racial undertones in the age of steam. And I find it hard to believe that a racial minority would maintain its distinction in the Roman republic as long as it has in the American one.
"Hitler used religion"
Hitler used eugenics; a baptized Jew was still a Jew. And they were not alone in the concentration camps, as the Nazis sought to eliminate other genetically inferior people as well, such as homosexuals and gypsies.
"Stalin eliminated religion not to replace it with intellectualism (ever hear of Lysenko?) but rather to replace the power of religion with his own."
And the fact that the Bolshevists made certain that their philosophies had the airs and trappings of scientific research is wholly insignificant?
"Personally, I'd say it's somewhat insulting how the programming turns lightweight and airy once the menfolk have gone off to work,"
If "homemaker-oriented" information were "lightweight and airy," then why are so many Slashdotters still so slovenly and/or still live with their mother? Mocking the exchange of recipe ideas while your own dinner is going to be corn chips and cola?
"for a woman to be topfree anywhere it is legal for a man to be."
War in the middle east, warrantless wiretaps, guns in the streets... and people have to get so married to the political cause of being sans shirt in public that they have to coin the word "topfree" because "topless" just sounds so negative with the -less part? Why not start calling it "toplibre" while you're at it?
My Firefox default dictionary doesn't even recognize the word. I'd wager neither would my parents. So I can't say this neologism is really helping the oh-so-important cause.
Considering how back in February the attempt to remove immunity from the last FISA bill got shot down by about 2:1, that means nothing. Nothing will remove the immunity, and the upshot is that he'll be voting in favor of the piece of legislation that grants it.
Actually, it's far more confusing. Dodd introduced a specific amendment removing the immunity from S.2248, known as S.Amdt 3907. As you can see here, Obama showed up to vote for the amendment (i.e. against immunity), while McCain voted against (i.e. for immunity).
The Democrat majority in the House today is larger than the Republican majority was in 1998.
"or to get anything else done if one angers the party holding the veto."
So principles get sacrificed in the name of "getting things done," things like granting immunity to the telcos? And I'm still expected to back this party?
I realize I'm talking to a committed troll here, but why would somebody that hates Bush vote for the party that has refused to impeach him for two years?
"Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago."
On a completely different bill, S. 2248, which passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. This is H.R. 6304, being hailed and endorsed by House and Senate leaders in both parties as a great compromise.
"For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it."
If the House can change its mind so drastically in four months, why not these men?
My congresscritter, John Mica, is a rather committed republican and a lost cause. Letter-writing campaigns and the like assume that whom you're writing letters to gives a damn. I'd probably have better luck waiting for this to get to the Senate, and I doubt I'm the only one.
"War is ugly... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916"
A war between the Houses Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Osman against Houses Romanov and Windsor. Yay, freedom.
If we had kicked back, relaxed and let these statist colonial empires melt down further, the cause of "freedom" would have been a lot better off, rather than letting the winners hang on to their colonies and in fact colonize the territories of the losers. Probably could have avoided the next war altogether.
"Slander and defamation are not crimes when what is said is true."
True for most (if not all) US states (usually by way of their constitutions), but IIRC most commonwealth realms (at least) don't have such a protection.
Slashdot Mirror
"and through sequencing the genome have discovered that there is NO SUCH THING AS RACE."
About 50 years too late or so. Eugenics was the next big thing a century ago, and you had your learned professionals and intelligentsia speaking in favor of antimiscegenation laws and forced-sterilization laws... and that's just in the US.
"It's not SCIENCE that divides people and tells the to slaughter the "others," it's religion."
Then the fact that such atrocities went hand-in-hand with the Industrial Revolution was mere coincidence? What the Alexanders and Caesars and Genghises may have lacked in weapons technology they made up for with manpower, and yet their campaigns, while for the glory of their respective empires and spreading of their ways of life, never had the flavor of being for the sake of a "a pure Macedonian/Roman/Mongolian race and cleanse the world of the Other" and generally didn't care when people of different facial features or skin colors bedded each other. And even the holy wars at their worst respected the idea of conversion to the "proper" religion, generally sparing converts the sword or the flame.
It was progress and science that gave us men with letters after their last names that wrote books upon books about the differences between the "races" and pointed out that, even if they "worshiped correctly," they were still genetically inferior and no amount of human action would change that (e. g. a converted Jew was still, genetically, a Jew), so that it would be best for the "proper" race to remove them from the gene pool outright. They even went so far as to explain class distinction as a natural, scientific fact. It was only in recent decades that scientific findings began to support the egalitarian philosophies that took the world by storm two centuries ago; often, science and learning were used as arguments against the revolutionaries.
The Romans had their slaves, but slavery only took on its characteristic permanence and racial undertones in the age of steam. And I find it hard to believe that a racial minority would maintain its distinction in the Roman republic as long as it has in the American one.
"Hitler used religion"
Hitler used eugenics; a baptized Jew was still a Jew. And they were not alone in the concentration camps, as the Nazis sought to eliminate other genetically inferior people as well, such as homosexuals and gypsies.
"Stalin eliminated religion not to replace it with intellectualism (ever hear of Lysenko?) but rather to replace the power of religion with his own."
And the fact that the Bolshevists made certain that their philosophies had the airs and trappings of scientific research is wholly insignificant?
"Personally, I'd say it's somewhat insulting how the programming turns lightweight and airy once the menfolk have gone off to work,"
If "homemaker-oriented" information were "lightweight and airy," then why are so many Slashdotters still so slovenly and/or still live with their mother? Mocking the exchange of recipe ideas while your own dinner is going to be corn chips and cola?
"for a woman to be topfree anywhere it is legal for a man to be."
War in the middle east, warrantless wiretaps, guns in the streets... and people have to get so married to the political cause of being sans shirt in public that they have to coin the word "topfree" because "topless" just sounds so negative with the -less part? Why not start calling it "toplibre" while you're at it?
My Firefox default dictionary doesn't even recognize the word. I'd wager neither would my parents. So I can't say this neologism is really helping the oh-so-important cause.
"They were asked to help their country and got some bad legal advice."
No, they didn't get "bad legal advice," they got cushy government contracts, while the one that said "no," Qwest, did not.
He's more of an anti-elitist, anti-government rebel than Sir Mick Jagger?
Considering how back in February the attempt to remove immunity from the last FISA bill got shot down by about 2:1, that means nothing. Nothing will remove the immunity, and the upshot is that he'll be voting in favor of the piece of legislation that grants it.
Actually, it's far more confusing. Dodd introduced a specific amendment removing the immunity from S.2248, known as S.Amdt 3907. As you can see here, Obama showed up to vote for the amendment (i.e. against immunity), while McCain voted against (i.e. for immunity).
"51% isn't enough to push an impeachment"
The Democrat majority in the House today is larger than the Republican majority was in 1998.
"or to get anything else done if one angers the party holding the veto."
So principles get sacrificed in the name of "getting things done," things like granting immunity to the telcos? And I'm still expected to back this party?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
Yes, I'm kharma whoring.
Bills don't change number between houses, so you can tell your senator to vote against H.R. 6304.
I realize I'm talking to a committed troll here, but why would somebody that hates Bush vote for the party that has refused to impeach him for two years?
"Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago."
On a completely different bill, S. 2248, which passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. This is H.R. 6304, being hailed and endorsed by House and Senate leaders in both parties as a great compromise.
"For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it."
If the House can change its mind so drastically in four months, why not these men?
"We Dems?" Under Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi?
Ever wonder how this bill passed with flying colors through a House with a clear Democrat majority?
"If the government ever needs help from private indrustry, Indrustry needs to know that it can trust the government,"
And where does the public trust come into this, if at all?
"Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch."
Nah, they'll be too busy campaigning to show up to vote.
H.R. 6304
"Just remember who voted for this when elections come up."
We're talking about Congress here. They have a better chance of dying of old age and/or indicted than of being voted out of office.
My congresscritter, John Mica, is a rather committed republican and a lost cause. Letter-writing campaigns and the like assume that whom you're writing letters to gives a damn. I'd probably have better luck waiting for this to get to the Senate, and I doubt I'm the only one.
"A record-breaking 46% (compared with 31% in the last cycle) of Americans have used the Internet,"
How much of that was just people going to YouTube to see the latest insane rant from the local trailer park, or the latest 'Shop job.
"e-mail or cell phone text messaging to get news about a campaign or to share their views"
How much of that was opt-in?
"Hmmm, Julian day starts at noon."
And you don't think the two are related? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmt
"War is ugly ... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916"
A war between the Houses Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Osman against Houses Romanov and Windsor. Yay, freedom.
If we had kicked back, relaxed and let these statist colonial empires melt down further, the cause of "freedom" would have been a lot better off, rather than letting the winners hang on to their colonies and in fact colonize the territories of the losers. Probably could have avoided the next war altogether.
"Slander and defamation are not crimes when what is said is true."
True for most (if not all) US states (usually by way of their constitutions), but IIRC most commonwealth realms (at least) don't have such a protection.
saying you worked for such a trendy trend-setter like Apple got you laid more.
I'll burn the place down.
In GMT, days start at noon, not midnight.