You wouldn't be at all concerned about your government controlling yours and everybody's Internet access? Just wait till some legislative do-gooder slaps restrictions and monitoring on it, in the interest of national security, the Children, etc. of course. I doubt you'd be so enthusiastic about that.
And you do realize that "government-funded", you're still paying for it. You just don't know how much.
If I were you, I wouldn't be comfortable with either.
I think Jews expressed more compassion when Hitler died. Many of the comments here demonstrate a serious need for some perspective, letn alone human decency.
The difference is that the vast majority of us resist those impulses. It's a giant leap to go from thinking of committing violence to actually doing it.
If you want to wallow in self-loathing over the actions of others, be my guest. Don't tell me I should share in your misplaced guilt.
If you're going to hold society at large responsible for every deplorable act committed by individuals, there's no no point in even having a system of laws.
Do the 99.999% of us here who haven't shot anyone a favor, and stop lumping us in with people who made a conscious choice to do evil.
A bigger problem with the system (not quite sure how the electoral college is to blame) is the uneven playing field for third-party candidates. A candidate is not even eligible for federal election dollars unless their party received at least 5% of the vote in the last election cycle.
Now it's not likely that we can (soon) remove that requirement. We can, however, start voting for these parties so that they can at least qualify for those dollars and have a chance at some publicity in the next election.
It's easier to just throw up your hands in frustration and declare the system broken (even if it is) than to make a choice that, while maybe not immediately gratifying, will get things moving in the right direction.
I said no such thing. But since respected climatologists like Al Gore have already declared the debate over, I guess that means we shouldn't consider any other theories.
Theories supported more by consensus than fact aren't very good theories.
"The environmentalists who used to hate nuclear so much will end up being the greatest proponents."
Not likely. Greenpeace opposes Brazilian ethanol development, ffs. I don't see them suddenly coming to their senses and reversing their stance on <scary>NUCLEAR</scary>.
Once upon a time, protestors gladly risked (even baited) arrest to make themselves martyrs for their cause. They were willing to sit in jail and scrifice their time to bring attention to their movement.
Today most protestors seem to do everything they can to protect their anonymity. Being arrested is simply an intolerable inconvenience these days. Self-sacrifice is something to be avoided, not celebrated.
Clue: Protests and other public spectacles rarely affect change in public policy. That doesn't mean that Democracy is dead; it means that that such displays aren't effective in making people sympathetic enough about your cause to change how they vote.
As for the latter half of your rant, just ask any older Chinese person how well collectivism worked during Mao's reign.
This story sounds like a good opportunity to process all this "poisonous" corn into ethanol, but I doubt you'd find much support for that in Greenpeace.
Just like Greenpeace opposes nuclear energy, despite its overwhelming benefits. Greenpeace's stances rarely have any ground in reality or practicality, and I stand by my original assertion that because of that, they are irrelevant.
Come back when they start proposing practical, realistic solutions to our environmental problems.
Why do they oppose Ethanol production in Brazil? I can't imagine why they would believe that continuing to burn fossil fuels and polluting the air is preferable to clearing some rain forest land.
"You need to keep in mind that teachers do not work 40+ hours/week"
If a teacher's work was done once they left the classroom, you'd be correct. Not to question your wife's teaching ability, but I don't know any teachers who don't have to bring work home with them. Grading papers and preparing lessons is most certainly work.
I always thought FDR's attempt to cram through unconstitutional New Deal laws by trying to pack the Supreme Court was a pretty underhanded, corrupt move. Wouldn't you agree?
The bad thing about this administration is that it has a cooperative legislature and largely indifferent judiciary.
I don't presume any familiarity with Canada's criminal justice procedures, but I can't imagine that this evidence would have stood a chance in court if it were law enforcement officers who'd obtained it in such a manner, with no warrant whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure such evidence would never be admissible in a U.S. court... at least I sure hope not!
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't be at all concerned about your government controlling yours and everybody's Internet access? Just wait till some legislative do-gooder slaps restrictions and monitoring on it, in the interest of national security, the Children, etc. of course. I doubt you'd be so enthusiastic about that.
And you do realize that "government-funded", you're still paying for it. You just don't know how much.
If I were you, I wouldn't be comfortable with either.
I believe the term you are looking for is "subsidized".
Government is empowered by people who don't know the difference between subsidized and free. Thanks for doing your part!
I think Jews expressed more compassion when Hitler died. Many of the comments here demonstrate a serious need for some perspective, letn alone human decency.
The difference is that the vast majority of us resist those impulses. It's a giant leap to go from thinking of committing violence to actually doing it.
If you want to wallow in self-loathing over the actions of others, be my guest. Don't tell me I should share in your misplaced guilt.
I'm sorry, but who is "we"?
If you're going to hold society at large responsible for every deplorable act committed by individuals, there's no no point in even having a system of laws.
Do the 99.999% of us here who haven't shot anyone a favor, and stop lumping us in with people who made a conscious choice to do evil.
A bigger problem with the system (not quite sure how the electoral college is to blame) is the uneven playing field for third-party candidates. A candidate is not even eligible for federal election dollars unless their party received at least 5% of the vote in the last election cycle.
Now it's not likely that we can (soon) remove that requirement. We can, however, start voting for these parties so that they can at least qualify for those dollars and have a chance at some publicity in the next election.
It's easier to just throw up your hands in frustration and declare the system broken (even if it is) than to make a choice that, while maybe not immediately gratifying, will get things moving in the right direction.
Socialist = Small Government??? Pass me some of what you're smoking!
Because nothing limits government power quite like expanded social programs and high taxation.
That's just what we need; a party that steals even more money and personal liberty from us.
Guess what? They won't ever have a chance of winning if nobody votes for them.
Thanks for being part of the problem.
Newsflash: China's government isn't particularly concerned about human rights.
Pictures at eleven.
Right, because people can't make rational value judgments about how their taxes are being spent.
If living in your community requires me to buy toys for all the little kiddies, then I don't want to live in your community. Thanks anyway.
I said no such thing. But since respected climatologists like Al Gore have already declared the debate over, I guess that means we shouldn't consider any other theories.
Theories supported more by consensus than fact aren't very good theories.
I love it when people refer to us skeptics as global warming "deniers". Makes a real nice emotional correlation to HOLOCAUST deniers, doesn't it?
Your list of "poisons" is pretty long. Couldn't it be possible that at least a few of them are true? Who's being close-minded now?
"The environmentalists who used to hate nuclear so much will end up being the greatest proponents."
Not likely. Greenpeace opposes Brazilian ethanol development, ffs. I don't see them suddenly coming to their senses and reversing their stance on <scary>NUCLEAR</scary>.
Not to mention that unless the student was over the age of 18, any contract he/she signed would be utterly unenforceable.
Once upon a time, protestors gladly risked (even baited) arrest to make themselves martyrs for their cause. They were willing to sit in jail and scrifice their time to bring attention to their movement.
Today most protestors seem to do everything they can to protect their anonymity. Being arrested is simply an intolerable inconvenience these days. Self-sacrifice is something to be avoided, not celebrated.
Ironic, amusing, and sad at the same time.
Clue: Protests and other public spectacles rarely affect change in public policy. That doesn't mean that Democracy is dead; it means that that such displays aren't effective in making people sympathetic enough about your cause to change how they vote.
As for the latter half of your rant, just ask any older Chinese person how well collectivism worked during Mao's reign.
"How to Turn a Cheapskate Freeloader to Piracy"
Guess which article more people would relate to (or at least more accurately represent).
"Outlawing all combustion."
Thank goodness we have people like you proposing realistic, rational solutions to global warming. I wish you luck.
This story sounds like a good opportunity to process all this "poisonous" corn into ethanol, but I doubt you'd find much support for that in Greenpeace.
Just like Greenpeace opposes nuclear energy, despite its overwhelming benefits. Greenpeace's stances rarely have any ground in reality or practicality, and I stand by my original assertion that because of that, they are irrelevant.
Come back when they start proposing practical, realistic solutions to our environmental problems.
Why do they oppose Ethanol production in Brazil? I can't imagine why they would believe that continuing to burn fossil fuels and polluting the air is preferable to clearing some rain forest land.
Greenpeace is irrelevant. Their sole purpose is to protest technological progress.
"You need to keep in mind that teachers do not work 40+ hours/week"
If a teacher's work was done once they left the classroom, you'd be correct. Not to question your wife's teaching ability, but I don't know any teachers who don't have to bring work home with them. Grading papers and preparing lessons is most certainly work.
I always thought FDR's attempt to cram through unconstitutional New Deal laws by trying to pack the Supreme Court was a pretty underhanded, corrupt move. Wouldn't you agree?
The bad thing about this administration is that it has a cooperative legislature and largely indifferent judiciary.
I don't presume any familiarity with Canada's criminal justice procedures, but I can't imagine that this evidence would have stood a chance in court if it were law enforcement officers who'd obtained it in such a manner, with no warrant whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure such evidence would never be admissible in a U.S. court... at least I sure hope not!