I see your point, however these two passages are in completely different contexts. In Psalms, Moses is speaking figuratively (as another poster pointed out). In Genesis, the term "day" is actually defined as a period of darkness and light. While the sun and earth may not have been created, it does not necessarily mean that God did not create the world in periods of 24 hours. Also, as another poster noted, there is an order of creation that causes issues if each "day" is a very long period of time (plants could not live long without the sun). This is not necessarily a problem if each "day" is in fact 24 hours. Also, God used the creation sequence to define a week - six days plus the sabbath. This would lend evidence toward the literal 6 day creation.
A belief in creationism is not a disbelief in science -- at least it doesn't need to be. I have a friend who has been doing some very interesting scientific research based upon the principles of Genesis 1. The starting point of his research is that the first verse is mistranslated. Instead of reading "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", he believes it should be rendered "In the beginning God created the matters and the spaces." This also relates to the numerous passages that say that "God spread out the heavens (spaces) and established the earth (matter)". He believes that the "earth" referred to here is not just our planet but the matter that makes up all of the planets and stars. The spaces are elements that occupy what is currently believed to be the vacuum of space (he does not believe that space is, in fact, empty as many other scientists question). So God spread out the spaces and established the matter -- the big bang. It is interesting that when scientists developed models for the big bang, they had to have the particles move much faster than the speed of light for a split second to get the particles to actually form planets and stars. However, if this rate of expansion continued for a 24 hour period, you would end up with a universe very close to the size of our current one.
His research also indicates that light actually travels faster through these spaces than previously thought. This, he believes, explains why the Voyager satellite is "slowing down". It isn't slowing down. The transmissions are simply travelling faster than our current models allow.
Evolution requires some basic assumptions as does creation. However, the study of science is understanding the current workings of the world around us. Evidence that seems to support one could in fact be supported in the other depending on which assumptions you wish to take. I believe that there is a personal God who created this world in six, 24 hour periods. I believe that when He created this world, it was "good" (ie. did not need to evolve to a higher, better state). I believe He created living beings to reproduce "according to their kind" (micro-evolution vs macro-evolution). This does not mean that I throw out all of the scientific evidence (as, sadly, many of my persuasion do), but it means that study it with these foundational assumptions in mind.
My guess is that they are sorting the list roughly by most popular searches in alphabetical order. I see a much more interesting use for this technology: determining which search parameters people are using to search for products your company produces. This could be very useful for web developers trying to boost their search rankings.
This is an interesting thought. I am no where near an expert in photography, but if the light in the street lamp did just burn out (it is hard to tell if it is actually on in the before photograph), could the flash have created a shadow effect on the camera lens. This would certainly explain how the line is so straight. It could just be an anomaly in the process of developing a digital picture. Perhaps someone with more experience with digital photography could shed some light (pun intended?) on this.
Yep. That's pretty much it. We were married in August 2003. *sigh* Here's my badge....
Re:Direct link to the hi-res quicktime video
on
ROTK:EE Trailer Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Our first baby is on the way, so I know I'll never get to do something this irresponsible and useless again.
Funny, our son will be 5 1/2 months old by the time we have our LOTR party, but we are going through with it anyway. It has been a tradition in my house for the past two years to watch whatever extended editions existed at the time (my wife and I actually met at the first one). We look at it as a good time to get together with friends and hang out for a weekend (we will be watching the movies over two days).
Kids don't end the fun; they just change the parameters a bit.
I am not sure of all of the changes, but most of them are not "epic battle" scenes. One of the big ones is the final confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf at Orthanc which is mostly dialog. Also, the scenes at the house of healing will be added which is also dramatic in theme (Eowyn and Faramir). The only battle element I have heard rumors of is the fight between Gandalf and the Witch King, but I have not seen this confirmed.
You obviously did not watch the show or track all of the terrible things that Fox did to it during its short run. First, they put in on a difficult night: Friday. Then they showed all of the episodes out of order. The pilot episode was not actually aired until the last week. It was this episode that explained who everyone was and the basic plot of the show. It made the show somewhat intriguing for those of us who like to solve mysteries but very confusing for everyone else. In addition, the show actually got good ratings, but the executives thought they could make more money with something else.
Remember, popularity doesn't even determine the longevity of a show. There are the production costs and often the personal whim of the station managers. Also, just because a show stays on the air does not mean it is "superb". Can you really call "Fear Factor" superb?
No, it just means that they don't want to put what is currently a cult favorite against the marketing giant known as Star Wars. Remember, most people have never heard of Firefly, and when put against a major film release, it could easily be lost in the marketing blitz (although I personnally do not care if I ever see Episode III).
It is much better to give Serenity the best chance of exposure. People who never watched the show will not realize how truly great it is. Most people would probably rather watch Star Wars being a known commodity than take a chance with something new and strange.
Certainly not Americans. A lot of damage has been done in dividing our nation, and while Bush certainly needs to make efforts to bridge that gap, the democrats have just as much work to do. What with all of the anti-Bush rhetoric being thrown out, unity is becoming more and more unrealistic. If we are to unite as a nation, both sides need to work together. It cannot be a one-way street.
The thing that tires me is that there are legitimate complaints against Bush, but these are tossed in with bogus accusations that have no basis in fact or are very debatable (ie abortion "rights"). And yet the entire argument is raised to "Insightful" while any counter argument is immediately labelled a "Troll". Can we please separate the partisanship and address the real issues at hand? Can we please stop encouraging the pot shots and start promoting the intelligent posts?
I personally am very much against the Patriot Act. I too feel that the government has overstepped its bounds. However, I also feel that the attacks against Bush on this issue are over-the-top. Was the Patriot Act wrong? Yes. However, the administration has so far shown a lot of restraint in how they have executed the new laws. Does this make them good guys. Not necessarily, but it also does not make Bush the anti-Christ either. Remember, many other congressmen, republicans and democrats, voted for the measure. It was a hasty decision made out of fear, and it is a decision that should be reversed, IMO. However, since I do not believe that Bush should be immediately impeached (or worse), then I am suddenly a right-wing, fascist baby killer who hates freedom and all civil liberties. Bush is certainly not perfect, but is he truly evil incarnate? Does he not have some redeeming qualities?
But that is just my point. This isn't about Bush. This is about how our government functions. The federal government does not have any control over state tax levels. It does not matter if Clinton, Bush, or even Kerry were in the White House... they would have no affect on property taxes.
This point was apparently completely lost because I happened to mention Bush in the post without making a derogatory remark.
I have noticed a very sad trend in Slashdot of late. Some are able to spew forth rhetoric that is entirely flaimbate and based purely on conjecture and get moderated +5 insightful simply because it bashes Bush. But then someone offers a legitimate counter stating facts and they get modded -1 Troll. The days of the relevance of Slashdot appear to be numbered.
This is a totally separate issue. I was talking about state taxes not constitutional amendments. The President and congress have no power over the tax rate given by states.
But as for the later, it is not like this hasn't been done before. The constitution was designed to allow amendments that the states and the populace found to be required over time. Adding a new amendment to the US constitution does not trump state rights. It cannot happen without the approval of the vast majority of the country, therefore the states definitely have a say. I don't really want to get into this issue any further than that(don't have the time).
As a side note, I am really starting to get annoyed at the moderating on Slashdot. What on earth was there in my post that would earn a troll? What, does anything even remotely appearing to support Bush immediately get slapped as a troll these days?
No, but then again, property taxes and zoning changes are handled at the state level. We cannot (and should not) expect Bush to be able to enforce tax breaks in each state without violating the state's rights.
The original poster was claiming that Bush was hurting the poor by not giving a tax break, but Bush can't give the poor a tax break because at the federal level, they are not being taxed. You cannot blame Bush (or any President, for that matter) for something that is completely out of their control. He did what he could. Its up to the states to do the rest.
The problem I see is that they will probably learn all of the wrong lessons from Pixar. Everybody keeps talking about the technology behind these films when the real strength is simple: great story, great characters. I would also add a clean script. They make a movie that all audiences can enjoy without regret. There are no scenes where people are squirming uncomfortably in their seats. It is the combination of these elements that have made Pixar great.
I see the same thing happening with LOTR as well. "Oh, well they are so much better than Star Wars because they used models as well as blue screen. We just need to use models." Forget the models. Forget the technology. You can make a great movie with pencil sketches if it has great characters and a great story. Once you have these components, the technology and art helps you to tell the movie in a more believable way. But it starts with the basics of good storytelling. Without that, you end up with "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Pearl Harbor".
But what tangible affect on the day-today lives of those Christians do those issues really have? None. None at all. They're not gonna get an abortion, nor will they marry a same-sex partner.
So, just because I am not personally going to rape and kill beautiful young women, I shouldn't try to pass laws against someone who will? While you may have a point with homosexuality (more about that later), you show a real misunderstanding on the issue of abortion. In the minds of those who are pro-life, abortion is murder of an innocent life, plain and simple. This is there position which explains the urgency of their stand.
Regarding homosexuality, think for a minute how upset you feel that fundamentalist Christians subject you to their own sense of morality. Now flip that around and consider how those Christians feel to have a judge somewhere tell you that you must accept and recognize behavior that runs directly against the morals you believe in. It is the same anger and frustration going in the opposite direction.
So... does having a president in office supporting those views really change much? Not a whit.
Actually, it results in a very substantial change. One of the Presidents primary responsibilities is to appoint Supreme Court justices. It was the Supreme Court that made abortion legal in the first place. Court appointments can have ramifications that will last for far more years than the current president's tenure.
All this said, the moral issues should not be the only point for debate, but they are certainly important to many people. Remember that to many personal honesty, integrity, and respect is more important than making money.
As to whether Bush was better than Kerry in this issue, it was truly hard to tell. Quite honestly, I still do not understand Kerry's stance on homosexual marriage, and I know very little about his character. When it comes to moral issues, Bush has a much clearer presentation which really made him the only choice in the election for those who considered morality most important.
This is truly a call for information. While I understand (and agree with) the problems with the touch screen voting, why do the states not use the methods we used here in Montana -- scanned sheets? These are the same style forms that all of us have used in standardized tests for years where you fill in the circle with a #2 pencil for the candidate or issue you want. It is simple to understand and fill out, it gives us a paper trail for verification, and they can be quickly scanned and tabulated. Am I missing somthing here?
If I had lived in Nebraska or South Dakota I could just as well have stayed at home and not voted since the outcome of those states are already set.
Being a resident of a state in this condition (Montana), I understand the regret that my vote is unnecessary given the overwelming support for my chosen candidate (if only I could vote in Michigan...). However, this is not the fault of the electoral college, nor does it make my vote less important.
If it were not for the electoral college, my vote would actually be worth less than it is today. Montana has less than 1 million people, and yet we have 3 electoral votes. This makes our votes worth just a little more, and for us, this is a very good thing. Otherwise, the election really would only matter in New York, California, and Texas (possibly Pennslyvania and Florida). As it is, this election could be decided in Iowa or Wisconsin or even Hawaii (that's my personal choice -- cliff hangers are fun:-) ).
The electoral college just like our congress (with each state having 2 Senators) is designed to try to balance the power between states and popular vote.
We are worse than a 3rd world country. Which other developed country has as much problems with their elections as we do? Not a single one!
Now this one is just way out there. Are you kidding me? We have had peaceful elections for over 200 years. Even with our problems in the last election, was there a civil war? Was there a military uprising (and please hold off on the conspiracy/radical anti-Bush talk -- lets be real here)? While most of Americans (popular vote) did not want Bush as president, our country kept trucking along despite what some would call the "wrong" decision. The process was actually fairly painless compared to the rioting and fighting that happens in many other countries.
Do not get me wrong. Our election system definitely needs improvements, and both parties are guilty of improper tactics. The new paper-less voting, I feel, is a big mistake and needs a serious redesign (and yes, I am a Bush supporter). I don't like voting fraud in any shape or form even if it might help my cause. However, to say that our elections are worse than a 3rd world country is simply ridiculous. And the fact that this post got a +5 insightful... scary?
Umm, they did this over the period he was FREAKING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Not true. Check the site again.
Gallery of the US Senate in 2003
This is data collected from last year not this year. Granted, he may have been gearing up for this, but has he been campaigning full time for two full years?
That's nonsensical. If he didn't vote because he wasn't present, how can you assume that means he would've voted according the majority opinion? It's not like he abstained, he just wasn't there.
It is not assumed that he would have voted for the majority, but rather he effectively voted for the majority. By not voting, he made no effort to contradict the majority, therefore he made it easier for them to win.
Now I am certain to upset many of the Bush-bashers out there, but I believe this site brings up some interesting things to consider about Kerry.
However, one should interpret "Not Voting" as letting the majority vote for you. Since the majority is Republican, the fact that Kerry often did not vote means that he is
effectively the most central of all Democrats, based on all the votes cast in 2003.(emphasis added)
While another poster claimed this was showing bias toward Kerry, really this is more condemning than anything. Kerry's record clearly shows that he has liberal leanings.
Poole claims that Kerry is liberal but not extreme, Clinton, Jackman & Rivers say that it's hard to say
due to his absenteeism but also that Kerry is not extreme.(emphasis added)
The point here is not that Kerry is liberal or moderate, but that his inaction makes him effectively the most central democrat as well as the least influential senator. If I were a resident of Massachusetts, I would be very upset that my representative didn't even bother to even try to represent me before congress. If he was working at a "real job", he certainly wouldn't be up for a promotion.
Now Bush may have made some serious mistakes, and I won't even claim that I agree with him on every issue. However, Kerry's record does not exactly lend himself to being a "desirable" candidate. He had far too many missed votes last year, and he was a no-show to many of his committee meetings. He claims that he can get congress and other nations to work together, but he has no record of being able to accomplish this during his tenure in the Senate. In any job, you must first prove yourself where you are at before you can expect to be promoted and given increased responsibility. Given his record, I would question whether he really deserves another term as Senator.
Personally, I find it sad that the Democrats could not come up with a better candidate to run against Bush. It saddens me even more that such a poor candidate as Kerry is staying close in this election merely because many voters want anyone but Bush. Well, we might just get that wish. Are we really sure that we want it?
Oops... I see now that I missed your point entirely. However, once again, I have to disagree. See my other post
regarding the quality vs speed. I don't believe that speed is the central issue here.
The IOI is one of five brains-over-brawn Olympiads; other games test kids' skills in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.
This new breed of olympic games are not just about computers, but they cover many different intellectual fields. While there may be some corporate sponsorship, the goal here seems to be rather benign. It is simply an attempt to create an international competition that tests the intellect rather than the physical shape of the body. Does this make it any less competitive or worthwhile? To define quality purely in the physical realm is very narrowminded... though the standard olympic games would be a far sight more fun to watch!
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, however these two passages are in completely different contexts. In Psalms, Moses is speaking figuratively (as another poster pointed out). In Genesis, the term "day" is actually defined as a period of darkness and light. While the sun and earth may not have been created, it does not necessarily mean that God did not create the world in periods of 24 hours. Also, as another poster noted, there is an order of creation that causes issues if each "day" is a very long period of time (plants could not live long without the sun). This is not necessarily a problem if each "day" is in fact 24 hours. Also, God used the creation sequence to define a week - six days plus the sabbath. This would lend evidence toward the literal 6 day creation.
A belief in creationism is not a disbelief in science -- at least it doesn't need to be. I have a friend who has been doing some very interesting scientific research based upon the principles of Genesis 1. The starting point of his research is that the first verse is mistranslated. Instead of reading "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", he believes it should be rendered "In the beginning God created the matters and the spaces." This also relates to the numerous passages that say that "God spread out the heavens (spaces) and established the earth (matter)". He believes that the "earth" referred to here is not just our planet but the matter that makes up all of the planets and stars. The spaces are elements that occupy what is currently believed to be the vacuum of space (he does not believe that space is, in fact, empty as many other scientists question). So God spread out the spaces and established the matter -- the big bang. It is interesting that when scientists developed models for the big bang, they had to have the particles move much faster than the speed of light for a split second to get the particles to actually form planets and stars. However, if this rate of expansion continued for a 24 hour period, you would end up with a universe very close to the size of our current one.
His research also indicates that light actually travels faster through these spaces than previously thought. This, he believes, explains why the Voyager satellite is "slowing down". It isn't slowing down. The transmissions are simply travelling faster than our current models allow.
Evolution requires some basic assumptions as does creation. However, the study of science is understanding the current workings of the world around us. Evidence that seems to support one could in fact be supported in the other depending on which assumptions you wish to take. I believe that there is a personal God who created this world in six, 24 hour periods. I believe that when He created this world, it was "good" (ie. did not need to evolve to a higher, better state). I believe He created living beings to reproduce "according to their kind" (micro-evolution vs macro-evolution). This does not mean that I throw out all of the scientific evidence (as, sadly, many of my persuasion do), but it means that study it with these foundational assumptions in mind.
What exactly are you referring to here? I read the passage, and I don't see where it would contradict the view that a day in the Bible is 24 hours.
My guess is that they are sorting the list roughly by most popular searches in alphabetical order. I see a much more interesting use for this technology: determining which search parameters people are using to search for products your company produces. This could be very useful for web developers trying to boost their search rankings.
This is an interesting thought. I am no where near an expert in photography, but if the light in the street lamp did just burn out (it is hard to tell if it is actually on in the before photograph), could the flash have created a shadow effect on the camera lens. This would certainly explain how the line is so straight. It could just be an anomaly in the process of developing a digital picture. Perhaps someone with more experience with digital photography could shed some light (pun intended?) on this.
Yep. That's pretty much it. We were married in August 2003. *sigh* Here's my badge....
Funny, our son will be 5 1/2 months old by the time we have our LOTR party, but we are going through with it anyway. It has been a tradition in my house for the past two years to watch whatever extended editions existed at the time (my wife and I actually met at the first one). We look at it as a good time to get together with friends and hang out for a weekend (we will be watching the movies over two days).
Kids don't end the fun; they just change the parameters a bit.
I would blame it on the long wait between the theatrical release and the extended edition.
I am not sure of all of the changes, but most of them are not "epic battle" scenes. One of the big ones is the final confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf at Orthanc which is mostly dialog. Also, the scenes at the house of healing will be added which is also dramatic in theme (Eowyn and Faramir). The only battle element I have heard rumors of is the fight between Gandalf and the Witch King, but I have not seen this confirmed.
You obviously did not watch the show or track all of the terrible things that Fox did to it during its short run. First, they put in on a difficult night: Friday. Then they showed all of the episodes out of order. The pilot episode was not actually aired until the last week. It was this episode that explained who everyone was and the basic plot of the show. It made the show somewhat intriguing for those of us who like to solve mysteries but very confusing for everyone else. In addition, the show actually got good ratings, but the executives thought they could make more money with something else.
Remember, popularity doesn't even determine the longevity of a show. There are the production costs and often the personal whim of the station managers. Also, just because a show stays on the air does not mean it is "superb". Can you really call "Fear Factor" superb?
No, it just means that they don't want to put what is currently a cult favorite against the marketing giant known as Star Wars. Remember, most people have never heard of Firefly, and when put against a major film release, it could easily be lost in the marketing blitz (although I personnally do not care if I ever see Episode III).
It is much better to give Serenity the best chance of exposure. People who never watched the show will not realize how truly great it is. Most people would probably rather watch Star Wars being a known commodity than take a chance with something new and strange.
Certainly not Americans. A lot of damage has been done in dividing our nation, and while Bush certainly needs to make efforts to bridge that gap, the democrats have just as much work to do. What with all of the anti-Bush rhetoric being thrown out, unity is becoming more and more unrealistic. If we are to unite as a nation, both sides need to work together. It cannot be a one-way street.
The thing that tires me is that there are legitimate complaints against Bush, but these are tossed in with bogus accusations that have no basis in fact or are very debatable (ie abortion "rights"). And yet the entire argument is raised to "Insightful" while any counter argument is immediately labelled a "Troll". Can we please separate the partisanship and address the real issues at hand? Can we please stop encouraging the pot shots and start promoting the intelligent posts?
I personally am very much against the Patriot Act. I too feel that the government has overstepped its bounds. However, I also feel that the attacks against Bush on this issue are over-the-top. Was the Patriot Act wrong? Yes. However, the administration has so far shown a lot of restraint in how they have executed the new laws. Does this make them good guys. Not necessarily, but it also does not make Bush the anti-Christ either. Remember, many other congressmen, republicans and democrats, voted for the measure. It was a hasty decision made out of fear, and it is a decision that should be reversed, IMO. However, since I do not believe that Bush should be immediately impeached (or worse), then I am suddenly a right-wing, fascist baby killer who hates freedom and all civil liberties. Bush is certainly not perfect, but is he truly evil incarnate? Does he not have some redeeming qualities?
But that is just my point. This isn't about Bush. This is about how our government functions. The federal government does not have any control over state tax levels. It does not matter if Clinton, Bush, or even Kerry were in the White House ... they would have no affect on property taxes.
This point was apparently completely lost because I happened to mention Bush in the post without making a derogatory remark.
I have noticed a very sad trend in Slashdot of late. Some are able to spew forth rhetoric that is entirely flaimbate and based purely on conjecture and get moderated +5 insightful simply because it bashes Bush. But then someone offers a legitimate counter stating facts and they get modded -1 Troll. The days of the relevance of Slashdot appear to be numbered.
This is a totally separate issue. I was talking about state taxes not constitutional amendments. The President and congress have no power over the tax rate given by states.
But as for the later, it is not like this hasn't been done before. The constitution was designed to allow amendments that the states and the populace found to be required over time. Adding a new amendment to the US constitution does not trump state rights. It cannot happen without the approval of the vast majority of the country, therefore the states definitely have a say. I don't really want to get into this issue any further than that(don't have the time).
As a side note, I am really starting to get annoyed at the moderating on Slashdot. What on earth was there in my post that would earn a troll? What, does anything even remotely appearing to support Bush immediately get slapped as a troll these days?
No, but then again, property taxes and zoning changes are handled at the state level. We cannot (and should not) expect Bush to be able to enforce tax breaks in each state without violating the state's rights.
The original poster was claiming that Bush was hurting the poor by not giving a tax break, but Bush can't give the poor a tax break because at the federal level, they are not being taxed. You cannot blame Bush (or any President, for that matter) for something that is completely out of their control. He did what he could. Its up to the states to do the rest.
The problem I see is that they will probably learn all of the wrong lessons from Pixar. Everybody keeps talking about the technology behind these films when the real strength is simple: great story, great characters. I would also add a clean script. They make a movie that all audiences can enjoy without regret. There are no scenes where people are squirming uncomfortably in their seats. It is the combination of these elements that have made Pixar great.
I see the same thing happening with LOTR as well. "Oh, well they are so much better than Star Wars because they used models as well as blue screen. We just need to use models." Forget the models. Forget the technology. You can make a great movie with pencil sketches if it has great characters and a great story. Once you have these components, the technology and art helps you to tell the movie in a more believable way. But it starts with the basics of good storytelling. Without that, you end up with "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Pearl Harbor".
So, just because I am not personally going to rape and kill beautiful young women, I shouldn't try to pass laws against someone who will? While you may have a point with homosexuality (more about that later), you show a real misunderstanding on the issue of abortion. In the minds of those who are pro-life, abortion is murder of an innocent life, plain and simple. This is there position which explains the urgency of their stand.
Regarding homosexuality, think for a minute how upset you feel that fundamentalist Christians subject you to their own sense of morality. Now flip that around and consider how those Christians feel to have a judge somewhere tell you that you must accept and recognize behavior that runs directly against the morals you believe in. It is the same anger and frustration going in the opposite direction.
Actually, it results in a very substantial change. One of the Presidents primary responsibilities is to appoint Supreme Court justices. It was the Supreme Court that made abortion legal in the first place. Court appointments can have ramifications that will last for far more years than the current president's tenure.
All this said, the moral issues should not be the only point for debate, but they are certainly important to many people. Remember that to many personal honesty, integrity, and respect is more important than making money.
As to whether Bush was better than Kerry in this issue, it was truly hard to tell. Quite honestly, I still do not understand Kerry's stance on homosexual marriage, and I know very little about his character. When it comes to moral issues, Bush has a much clearer presentation which really made him the only choice in the election for those who considered morality most important.
Besides an 'e'?
This is truly a call for information. While I understand (and agree with) the problems with the touch screen voting, why do the states not use the methods we used here in Montana -- scanned sheets? These are the same style forms that all of us have used in standardized tests for years where you fill in the circle with a #2 pencil for the candidate or issue you want. It is simple to understand and fill out, it gives us a paper trail for verification, and they can be quickly scanned and tabulated. Am I missing somthing here?
Being a resident of a state in this condition (Montana), I understand the regret that my vote is unnecessary given the overwelming support for my chosen candidate (if only I could vote in Michigan...). However, this is not the fault of the electoral college, nor does it make my vote less important.
If it were not for the electoral college, my vote would actually be worth less than it is today. Montana has less than 1 million people, and yet we have 3 electoral votes. This makes our votes worth just a little more, and for us, this is a very good thing. Otherwise, the election really would only matter in New York, California, and Texas (possibly Pennslyvania and Florida). As it is, this election could be decided in Iowa or Wisconsin or even Hawaii (that's my personal choice -- cliff hangers are fun :-) ).
The electoral college just like our congress (with each state having 2 Senators) is designed to try to balance the power between states and popular vote.
Now this one is just way out there. Are you kidding me? We have had peaceful elections for over 200 years. Even with our problems in the last election, was there a civil war? Was there a military uprising (and please hold off on the conspiracy/radical anti-Bush talk -- lets be real here)? While most of Americans (popular vote) did not want Bush as president, our country kept trucking along despite what some would call the "wrong" decision. The process was actually fairly painless compared to the rioting and fighting that happens in many other countries.
Do not get me wrong. Our election system definitely needs improvements, and both parties are guilty of improper tactics. The new paper-less voting, I feel, is a big mistake and needs a serious redesign (and yes, I am a Bush supporter). I don't like voting fraud in any shape or form even if it might help my cause. However, to say that our elections are worse than a 3rd world country is simply ridiculous. And the fact that this post got a +5 insightful... scary?
Not true. Check the site again.
This is data collected from last year not this year. Granted, he may have been gearing up for this, but has he been campaigning full time for two full years?
It is not assumed that he would have voted for the majority, but rather he effectively voted for the majority. By not voting, he made no effort to contradict the majority, therefore he made it easier for them to win.
Now I am certain to upset many of the Bush-bashers out there, but I believe this site brings up some interesting things to consider about Kerry.
While another poster claimed this was showing bias toward Kerry, really this is more condemning than anything. Kerry's record clearly shows that he has liberal leanings.
The point here is not that Kerry is liberal or moderate, but that his inaction makes him effectively the most central democrat as well as the least influential senator. If I were a resident of Massachusetts, I would be very upset that my representative didn't even bother to even try to represent me before congress. If he was working at a "real job", he certainly wouldn't be up for a promotion.
Now Bush may have made some serious mistakes, and I won't even claim that I agree with him on every issue. However, Kerry's record does not exactly lend himself to being a "desirable" candidate. He had far too many missed votes last year, and he was a no-show to many of his committee meetings. He claims that he can get congress and other nations to work together, but he has no record of being able to accomplish this during his tenure in the Senate. In any job, you must first prove yourself where you are at before you can expect to be promoted and given increased responsibility. Given his record, I would question whether he really deserves another term as Senator.
Personally, I find it sad that the Democrats could not come up with a better candidate to run against Bush. It saddens me even more that such a poor candidate as Kerry is staying close in this election merely because many voters want anyone but Bush. Well, we might just get that wish. Are we really sure that we want it?
Oops... I see now that I missed your point entirely. However, once again, I have to disagree. See my other post regarding the quality vs speed. I don't believe that speed is the central issue here.
From the article...
This new breed of olympic games are not just about computers, but they cover many different intellectual fields. While there may be some corporate sponsorship, the goal here seems to be rather benign. It is simply an attempt to create an international competition that tests the intellect rather than the physical shape of the body. Does this make it any less competitive or worthwhile? To define quality purely in the physical realm is very narrowminded ... though the standard olympic games would be a far sight more fun to watch!