Also do not confuse "old earth" creationists, who by-and-large support evolutionary theory, big bang theory, and other matters of settled science, with "young earth" creationists and ID pseudo-scientists.
And scariest of all? The world still turns, and objective reality refuses to accept that proper science is vital to hold the fabric of space-time together.
Honestly, the only reason anyone ought to care what a politician thinks about creationism is if they decide what's taught in public schools. This is almost always a state matter. Your U.S. Congressman has bunk to do with it.
And if it really, REALLY troubles you that some congressmen are anti-science, I suggest you give equal time to folks like Dennis Kucinich; after all, is seeing UFO's somehow more scientifically acceptable that an ID-proponent?
1) Create a likable character. 2) Create a hideous character. 3) Have Character #2 rape Character #1. 4) Have multiple other people rape Character #1. 5) Kill Character #1 in an ignoble fashion. 6) Choose a new Character #1. Repeat steps 3-5.
"Murphy's Law of George R.R. Martin": If you like a character, that character will be maimed, raped, and/or killed in the next book. There are no exceptions.
Re:Whatever happened to kernel trap?
on
LKML Summary Podcast
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Q: If a flamebaiter posts flamebait in an empty forum, is it really flamebait to begin with?
A: The lotus blossom falls closest to the river.
Re:Whatever happened to kernel trap?
on
LKML Summary Podcast
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Even more hilarious is my GP was modded flamebait, too. Because, you know... I was asking for it.
Oh, please! Just because you submitted a rejected kernel driver for the CueCat, you suddenly think you know something? I'll have you know that I wrote SIX rejected schedulers for 2.4, pigfucker!
[yes, that helped a lot. Thank you.]
Whatever happened to kernel trap?
on
LKML Summary Podcast
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I really enjoyed that site. Especially the flame wars. Now I have to go out and start my own flamewars to get my fix.
That's interesting, according Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] he's been a registered Republican since 1966. He wasn't even elected to the Senate until 1980. So I call gross fabrication (i.e. bullshit). FYI: If you're going to make shit up, don't make it so goddamn trivial to check.
Read the replies. I already conceded this. I was mistaken. He switched to Republican after winning his first office in '65.
He's not getting any.
Right now the White House is saying they promised him nothing. Specter is saying they promised him Obama would campaign for him. There is also a question of expectation, since senate democrats have wanted him for a long time. Joe Biden, even before the election, met with him up to 15 times on the subject. In any event, he's the crucial #59, so it is beyond believability that senate democrats will not make a cushy seat for him.
The real issue is whether he's right when he said that the GOP left him, rather than he left the GOP.
I can agree with this. We were desperate for moderates. The recent election taught us that moderates (remember that McCain considered just such a move in 2001, and many in the GOP believe he still might) do not win campaigns.
I'll only disagree on one point: I do not believe that it was the position of so-con's during the Iraq war that we were on some Christian crusade. I'm from the bible belt, and most of the people I know are church-goers, and I never heard this as a reason to support the war. All I can offer here is anecdotal evidence.
Early support for the Iraq war was broadly bipartisan. To the extent that the administration propagandized the need for invasion, it was largely as an appeal to our sense of righteous indignation. This is an appeal that largely transcends political barriers if you can find the right lever.
Two years into the war, enthusiasm for the war amongst your average church-goer was as low as anyone else; it was merely the statistical fact that most fundamentalist Christians are in the GOP, and the war was broadly viewed as a strictly Republican venture.
This will force the Republican party (now the property of ignorance and corruption) to be more considerate and thoughtful of their positions.
That's the ballsiest, most hypocritical statement I've ever read in my life. You've got a governor going to jail, a senate appointee who paid for his seat, a house minority leader whose husband pulls in millions from government contracts awarded by her committee, and a whole administration that takes the Leona Helmsley view to taxation. That's a whole lot of horse excrement you're throwing around.
This is the most corrupt government since Warren G. Harding.
Everyone wants to make the social conservatives the scapegoats on this, and they don't deserve it. Social conservatives have been loyal to the GOP for 30 years now, and even with 6 consecutive years of legislative and executive GOP control, they failed to win a single significant governmental policy shift in their direction.
If you want to blame anyone, blame neo-con's who pander to all the factions of the "big tent", and then fail to deliver. Neo-conservativism ran on a plank of fiscal responsibility (for fi-con's) and "compassionate conservatism" (for so-con's) in '00, and ended up stiffing them both with ginormous (I can say that, right?) deficits a public ill-will. Even Bush's first stimulus package (which I supported at the time) now smacks, in hindsight, of "little socialism," a taste of how neo-con's really see government's role in "providing for me."
The only significant policy enactment the social conservatives have won in the last 30 years is the billions in African health aid Bush started passing in 2004 (a favorite topic among religious conservatives; not so much to so-cons or mil-cons). Other than that, their support of the GOP has been a wash for them.
The ironic thing? Specter was one of the architects of the neo-conservative movement in the GOP, and now that the parasite has killed the host, he's moving on. Time will tell if McCain, Snowe, and Collins do the same.
I stand corrected on the first statement. He switched from Democrat to Republican shortly after winning his first elected office in '65. The rest of the post stands.
I'm talking about Specter's perception. I happen to think Arlen Spector's glory days with the democrats will only last until Toomey ousts him in '10. I'm merely arguing that Specter's own perspective may be different.
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP. Now, he's looking at being part of a permanent minority, and the majority party is probably going to give him nicer committee chairs than he could get with the GOP.
Yeah, I think I read about ze evil Jew Illuminati in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Honestly, I thought it was bad enough that slashdotters were willing to share political parties with conspiracy-theory-touting skinheads, but I never thought I'd see Stormfront talking points get +5, Insightful here.
If anything, Israel has been a US proxie in the area for 60 years. Read up about the Yom Kippur war, and the circumscriptions we put on Israel, to our benefit and their detriment (Kissinger's two word command "Don't preempt" and "not one nail" comment).
I'm not convinced that the overall political leaning of Silicon Valley has anything to do with the respective benefits of the parties on the industry. Rather, it just so happens that the industry is made up, largely, of people who live in a pretty liberal area. Silicon Valley leaned Republican back when California, itself, leaned Republican, and hasn't leaned that way since. I live in an southeast red state, and by straw poll, the people involved in the tech industry here have politics that pretty heavily reflect the general population.
Silicon Valley isn't up for grabs because San Francisco isn't up for grabs.
I should qualify that last statement, lest it be interpreted as flamebait. American government was designed so that the US citizenry would lack the power to make huge, profound changes in short periods of time. In a two-party electorate, the party that rules is the one a majority of Americans vote for. In a parliamentary government, any fringe, radical minority can rule government if they pull together enough other disaffected radicals to form a majority coalition. This is how the Nazi's came to power, and, looking at the rise of hard-right ultra-nationalist parties in Europe, may happen again.
The best definition I heard was "limited-democratic federalist republic", though gradual changes made to the system (voting for the name of a president rather than the name of an elector, more assertive central authority) are shaving off the "federalist" part.
It is also may opinion that this system is vastly better than parliamentary government.
Real Americans exist, but everyone else is pretty much terrified of them. Rugged individualism and desire for self-determination are concepts that scare the average citizen, especially considering that the guarantors of these principles are scary guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Also do not confuse "old earth" creationists, who by-and-large support evolutionary theory, big bang theory, and other matters of settled science, with "young earth" creationists and ID pseudo-scientists.
And scariest of all? The world still turns, and objective reality refuses to accept that proper science is vital to hold the fabric of space-time together.
Honestly, the only reason anyone ought to care what a politician thinks about creationism is if they decide what's taught in public schools. This is almost always a state matter. Your U.S. Congressman has bunk to do with it.
And if it really, REALLY troubles you that some congressmen are anti-science, I suggest you give equal time to folks like Dennis Kucinich; after all, is seeing UFO's somehow more scientifically acceptable that an ID-proponent?
Oh, geez. I gotta be so literal.
Ok. Robb Stark wasn't penetrated by icky things. But that dude got raped, numsayin'?
The story is so formulaic. Here's the formula:
1) Create a likable character.
2) Create a hideous character.
3) Have Character #2 rape Character #1.
4) Have multiple other people rape Character #1.
5) Kill Character #1 in an ignoble fashion.
6) Choose a new Character #1. Repeat steps 3-5.
"Murphy's Law of George R.R. Martin":
If you like a character, that character will be maimed, raped, and/or killed in the next book. There are no exceptions.
Q: If a flamebaiter posts flamebait in an empty forum, is it really flamebait to begin with?
A: The lotus blossom falls closest to the river.
Even more hilarious is my GP was modded flamebait, too. Because, you know... I was asking for it.
Oh, please! Just because you submitted a rejected kernel driver for the CueCat, you suddenly think you know something? I'll have you know that I wrote SIX rejected schedulers for 2.4, pigfucker!
[yes, that helped a lot. Thank you.]
I really enjoyed that site. Especially the flame wars. Now I have to go out and start my own flamewars to get my fix.
And so, in winning, you've lost.
Read the replies. I already conceded this. I was mistaken. He switched to Republican after winning his first office in '65.
Right now the White House is saying they promised him nothing. Specter is saying they promised him Obama would campaign for him. There is also a question of expectation, since senate democrats have wanted him for a long time. Joe Biden, even before the election, met with him up to 15 times on the subject. In any event, he's the crucial #59, so it is beyond believability that senate democrats will not make a cushy seat for him.
I can agree with this. We were desperate for moderates. The recent election taught us that moderates (remember that McCain considered just such a move in 2001, and many in the GOP believe he still might) do not win campaigns.
I agree with almost all of your post.
I'll only disagree on one point: I do not believe that it was the position of so-con's during the Iraq war that we were on some Christian crusade. I'm from the bible belt, and most of the people I know are church-goers, and I never heard this as a reason to support the war. All I can offer here is anecdotal evidence.
Early support for the Iraq war was broadly bipartisan. To the extent that the administration propagandized the need for invasion, it was largely as an appeal to our sense of righteous indignation. This is an appeal that largely transcends political barriers if you can find the right lever.
Two years into the war, enthusiasm for the war amongst your average church-goer was as low as anyone else; it was merely the statistical fact that most fundamentalist Christians are in the GOP, and the war was broadly viewed as a strictly Republican venture.
That's the ballsiest, most hypocritical statement I've ever read in my life. You've got a governor going to jail, a senate appointee who paid for his seat, a house minority leader whose husband pulls in millions from government contracts awarded by her committee, and a whole administration that takes the Leona Helmsley view to taxation. That's a whole lot of horse excrement you're throwing around.
This is the most corrupt government since Warren G. Harding.
I meant fi-cons here.
Everyone wants to make the social conservatives the scapegoats on this, and they don't deserve it. Social conservatives have been loyal to the GOP for 30 years now, and even with 6 consecutive years of legislative and executive GOP control, they failed to win a single significant governmental policy shift in their direction.
If you want to blame anyone, blame neo-con's who pander to all the factions of the "big tent", and then fail to deliver. Neo-conservativism ran on a plank of fiscal responsibility (for fi-con's) and "compassionate conservatism" (for so-con's) in '00, and ended up stiffing them both with ginormous (I can say that, right?) deficits a public ill-will. Even Bush's first stimulus package (which I supported at the time) now smacks, in hindsight, of "little socialism," a taste of how neo-con's really see government's role in "providing for me."
The only significant policy enactment the social conservatives have won in the last 30 years is the billions in African health aid Bush started passing in 2004 (a favorite topic among religious conservatives; not so much to so-cons or mil-cons). Other than that, their support of the GOP has been a wash for them.
The ironic thing? Specter was one of the architects of the neo-conservative movement in the GOP, and now that the parasite has killed the host, he's moving on. Time will tell if McCain, Snowe, and Collins do the same.
I stand corrected on the first statement. He switched from Democrat to Republican shortly after winning his first elected office in '65. The rest of the post stands.
I'm talking about Specter's perception. I happen to think Arlen Spector's glory days with the democrats will only last until Toomey ousts him in '10. I'm merely arguing that Specter's own perspective may be different.
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP. Now, he's looking at being part of a permanent minority, and the majority party is probably going to give him nicer committee chairs than he could get with the GOP.
It's not a principled stand; it's politics.
"Not a big fan of Israeli policies" is one thing.
You're spouting Jewish-shadow-government-conspiracy bullshit.
Yeah, I think I read about ze evil Jew Illuminati in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Honestly, I thought it was bad enough that slashdotters were willing to share political parties with conspiracy-theory-touting skinheads, but I never thought I'd see Stormfront talking points get +5, Insightful here.
If anything, Israel has been a US proxie in the area for 60 years. Read up about the Yom Kippur war, and the circumscriptions we put on Israel, to our benefit and their detriment (Kissinger's two word command "Don't preempt" and "not one nail" comment).
I'm not convinced that the overall political leaning of Silicon Valley has anything to do with the respective benefits of the parties on the industry. Rather, it just so happens that the industry is made up, largely, of people who live in a pretty liberal area. Silicon Valley leaned Republican back when California, itself, leaned Republican, and hasn't leaned that way since. I live in an southeast red state, and by straw poll, the people involved in the tech industry here have politics that pretty heavily reflect the general population.
Silicon Valley isn't up for grabs because San Francisco isn't up for grabs.
Ahh a front line coder! Nothing between you and the enemy except your trusty text editor.
In that case, we're gonna have to add a clause to the Geneva convention concerning the use of emacs...
The real solution is to get rid of government-enforced monopolies on utilities.
I should qualify that last statement, lest it be interpreted as flamebait. American government was designed so that the US citizenry would lack the power to make huge, profound changes in short periods of time. In a two-party electorate, the party that rules is the one a majority of Americans vote for. In a parliamentary government, any fringe, radical minority can rule government if they pull together enough other disaffected radicals to form a majority coalition. This is how the Nazi's came to power, and, looking at the rise of hard-right ultra-nationalist parties in Europe, may happen again.
The best definition I heard was "limited-democratic federalist republic", though gradual changes made to the system (voting for the name of a president rather than the name of an elector, more assertive central authority) are shaving off the "federalist" part.
It is also may opinion that this system is vastly better than parliamentary government.
Real Americans exist, but everyone else is pretty much terrified of them. Rugged individualism and desire for self-determination are concepts that scare the average citizen, especially considering that the guarantors of these principles are scary guns.