Bush probably has an ulterior motive. He'll put all the terrorists and Democrats into space on a colony ship destined for deep space. Perhaps he'll name the ship "Botany Bay."
"Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications."
However, we both agree that all acts of Congress are not constitutional. President Carter's AG claimed FISA violated the Constitution. Clinton's Administration submitted to FISA while simultaneously stating that the President had inherent authority to monitor.
Additionally, "section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance 'without a court order.'" The Authorization of Use of Military Force is an authorization of war. Therefore, we are at war and the President has full use of his war powers under the Constitution.
"Of course visibility to the naked eye is only a very small part of invisibility. This thing probably sticks out like dogs balls on radar."
Hmm. Terrorists hiding in caves probably rely on eyes on target, not radar on dog balls. And, the scale of these is pretty small. So, I'm thinking that "dog balls" aren't that visible on radar.
"Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states."
Except, in many states it is illegal to gamble. So, setting up shop in a state merely exposes the gambling company to state prosecution. It also opens the gambing company to that state's taxation. And, a good federal prosecutor will argue that the entire transaction cycle does not end with the in-state bank account---as it will be wired to the gambling company's main account. The "sham" account issue will end up before a district or federal court judge who will clarify the understanding of the law to reflect that shams are not allowed.
"I don't think there is anyone (english speaking) who wouldn't be able to quote it."
What's funny is I always thought there was meant to be an 'a' in it. When you hear the audio, it sounds like something is missing before the man based on how 'man' was said (to me, it sounds like m-man, which lead me to believe it was a-man). So, whenever I said it, I put the 'a' in there.
So, while you may not think there's anyone, I'm one who would quote with the 'a.'
In other news, "Take the 'L' out of lover, and it's over."
That was just Prince wanting to release albums but not owning his own stage name. Apparently, his earlier contract included the stage name. The contract must have been for albums and term of years, so that when the albums were out he could contract elsewhere, but he couldn't take his name with him.
Or, I suppose you could say that "Prince" was his slave name.
I especially like how inane rhetoric scores high. I assure you, Clinton did jack during his tenure that qualifies as "anti-terrorism." My assurance is based on having paid attention. While perhaps blaming Bush, Younger for not doing anything in nine months, remember that the Clinton staff slipped porn into photo copy paper, stripped "W" off the keyboard, and other actions disruptive of running a government. I remember hearing that the security clearance backlog from Gore resisting the will of the people set the Bush administration back _months_. It takes six months to a year to get a clearance. Rather than start in November, the Bush camp had to wait until well into December
Reagan only broke one union Air Traffic Controllers. AFL/CIO is still strong. In certain circuits, unions are able to spend member's money on any damn thing they want---thanks to a Leftist-held court. Specifically, "there is no fiduciary relationship" between the union leaders and members. How would you like to be told that banks had no fiduciary duty to safeguard money you deposited with them?
Neo-con is a liberal shibbolith, and an oxymoron at that.
With that, I'll wait for the liberal who lacks the acumen to respond to mod me down.
The very title of this news item is hyperbole. The C&D letter clearly states it does not target primary use of podcast (i.e., Podcasting is the method of distributing multimedia files, such as audio or video programs, over the Internet using syndication feeds, for playback on mobile devices and personal computers.)[1] There's even a web site that uses "podcast" in its URL.[2]. Apple is zealously protecting its registered trademarks from a company that pre-loads and resells iPods, which creates an impression on some of a relationship between Apple and that company.
Everybody needs to step away from the keyboard and think things through before they start stammering about how an evil corporation is trying to trademark and deny use of commonly used words. A Trademark is a relationship between the consumer and the company that represents the goodwill fostered by the company. A consumer should expect that an item with a given trademark will be what they expect, and not some two-bit knockoff.
"I do mentally associate much of Fox News with the Two Minute Hate. I concede the doublespeak angle, the use of language to mislead rather than inform."
This really saddens me. You associate Fox News with use of language to mislead. Conversely, you associate other news sources (e.g. CNN, BBC) with language used to inform. Really, how can you tell the difference? What if both are using language to mislead? Two eye witnesses at the scene of an accident will invariably give two different, inconsistent stories. The answer is this: news told from a vantage with which you disagree uses language to mislead. The truth is this: both sides use language to mislead. Until you accept that, you are mentally impaired for you have permitted your passion to obscure your judgement. If you think one side misleads more, then you have not accepted the truth---both sides mislead to their advantage.
"And yes, there is the equivalent, many equivalents, of Room 101."
Please show proof of Room 101. This is a conclusory assertion on your part with no real basis in fact. You will likely cite Gitmo and CIA facilities abroad. However, IIRC, Room 101 was used to "re-educate" citizens who disagreed with the party line. Where are the re-education facilities for U.S. citizens? That you are able to freely express dissent exposes the freedom in our country. You have freedom to dissent, evidenced by your post. You do not have freedom to convert dissent into violent action.
"Yes, they listen to our phone calls without a warrant . .."
Yeah---no. Much of the phone call stuff was blown out of proportion. The U.S. was given access by the telcos to who-called-whom. This allowed the U.S. to associate known suspects with those with whom they were communicating. This helped expose terrorist cells. Intercepting some calls based on that association does not equal the government's listening to your phone call without warrant. World Wars I and II were the ultimate in Industrial Age warfare. This modern War Against Global Terrorism is an exemplar of a war fought in the Information Age. You expect that the U.S. government should not be allowed to use any means necessary to root out foreign agents and allies hostile to our country.
We are a tolerant society. When in times of conflict, we accept certain encroachments on our liberties to accomplish the task---look at rationing during WWII. However, our political process is in place. When it is obvious that encroachments have gone too far, or that the government has usurped its perogative, the American people will respond. And no, a few house seats one way or another is _not_ a referendum.
You contemplate that because the Republicans are in power, then government usurpation is only possible through the Repubicans. I put it to you that power corrupts, and had the Democrats been in power post 9-11, then they would be taking the same steps and they would be the alleged usurpers. My conclusion is that the government has not usurped its authority, evidenced by the fact we are able to publically dissent.
"It's interesting that this study was done, and it makes an interesting read, but it produced almost exactly no significant results."
You should have paid attention to Master Yoda when he said, "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." This is what the Pew research revealed. Very telling indeed.
I don't like converting people, either. I'm in my last year of law school (third career move). During my first year, peers complained about Word---they did not have it and could not afford it. Others were having problems with viruses and other IE issues. So, I persuaded several to convert to Firefox and OpenOffice, and most enjoyed the change. This year, I set behind several second-year students. I noticed one of them using OpenOffice and Firefox. I asked him how he came across these products. He told me that one of my peers, who I persuaded, persuaded him to use the products.
I prefer persuasion to conversion. Persuasion engages the mind and logical reasoning. Conversion suggests an emotional change. That said, I'm a convert.
"Nice idea eh? The problem is there are six hydraulic actuators on each wing to make this happen. When one breaks, there's no way to tell which one is bad without pulling all six from the wing and putting each one on a test bench. Testing a single actuator takes about an hour... and Murphy states the bad actuator is the last one you test."
So, what you do is have six test benches, and test them all at the same time. Then, it only takes an hour.
Better yet, use twelve test benches and get the testing done in 30 minutes. You know, you engineers really steam me. Good thing I went to management school so I could help you figure out how to test in 1/12th the time.
"Ownership of the north waters will provide a huge amount of economic and political power to a few countries."
Yeah, no. I believe most of the Arctic Ocean is international waters. There is no control of trade routes in international waters---hasn't been for decades.
What I like is the statement "for most of recorded history." I mean, how many Babylonian sailors attempted to access the North Pole?
"They got to 49 by including several territories."
I saw only American Samoa, Puerto Rico, VI and D.C. as non-states listed. That means _three_ territories and a federal district. Not exactly "several." Regardless, 49 is still a significant number, especially considering that SCOTUS will reject a method of execution when only 13 states still employ it. So, if SCOTUS can engage in a political decision with only 13 states, then why can't Congress legislate at the request of 49 Attorneys General?
I checked to make sure the blue states agreed with this. The Attorneys General of Kal-i-forn-ya and Massatushits both signed off. So, it must not be a violation of civil liberties.
Sorry, I left my clue-by-four at work. You're the second poster to make a similar silly statement. The current state of U.S. Patent law allows any innovation that ever-so-slightly increments the prior art to be useful. Sure, there were methods of shipping books to library patrons or casettes to blind people, but that is not Netflix's patent. Netflix came up with the novel idea of using the Internet to let you rent movies. Sure, it's close to other technology, and most of what they do was possible with pre-existing technology.
The point is, dare I say it, synergy. They took several existing technologies and put them together in a novel way. Poof! A patentable idea. They filed the patent, which takes a few years to fit through the pipes. Once granted, they can go tell others who have since tried to hop on the bandwagon to cease-and-desist or pay-up. Any infringement between filing and granting is moot.
Conversely, Blockbuster cannot sue for renting VCR or DVDs. Others were doing it before they were. They also did not file a patent. Even if they did, that patent would have expired by now. I mean, I rented videos in 1981, so if the patent existed then, it would have expired a few years ago. Then again, the business-process patent was not legal then, so they couldn't. You can't sue when you don't have a patent.
So, you're entire "oh yeah?! Well, then counter sue based on a stupid premise" argument fails.
If you don't like the business patent, then why don't you and several million of your friends lobby your Congressman and Senator to change the flipping law?! Stop whining about it. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
"Bush has destroyed a huge budget surplus and left trillions in debt to my kids. His deliberate neglect has more or less wiped one whole American city right off the map."
Um. No. The bugest surplus was already in the trillions. The present government is only continuing in the big spending behavior the Democrats made famous. The last time our nation had a budget surplus (i.e. had no debt), it was 1964. Then came the Johnson-era bribe-the-poor spending which Liberals insist can't go away. I remember comparing numbers at one point that showed that if you removed all that Great Society spending (and its decendants), then we would still have a budget surplus. This comparison predated Bush, so I'm not sure of its present accuracy.
For those who complain about the current debt, then remember what you know about personal finance. To end debt you've got to stop spending first. So, stop complaining about the lack of government-funded fetal stem cell research and underspending on welfare, medicare, socialized medicine, and social security.
And, I remember the Carter Era, too. While he was elected because of Nixon's behavior, he did a lousy job. Other posters were right about his inadequacies and lack of leadership. While Congress in the Reagan era gave us bigger deficits, he did pull us out of the abyss. Double-digit inflation ended because of his leadership.
You're comparing the technological pullback of a centuries-long autocratic dynasty with the short-lived executive (8 years) of the United States. There is a significant difference between the two that might go unnoticed in your commentary. First, there is a thriving market economy that seems now to be the primary pusher of technology in the United States. Because the government withdraws funding does not mean our entire society is suddenly unable to progress. I will admit the government does give a large injection of funds, but that's only because it has a large amount of our income withdrawn by taxes. You see, people in the United States have a lot more control over the economy than they did in Imperial China.
Second, this is much ado about nothing. Bush closed the doors, which is his perogative as the Executive. Lobby your congressman to inject a few lines into a bill that requires they be open by law. Suddenly, the problem of Executive fiat in this situation is gone. It's the wonder of our republican form of government. The President's authority in this matter is limited to what Congress will grant him. Since he is presently granted fiat in closing the libraries, he closes them. Of course, there are those whose ideological inclinations support my.sig line who will balk that this would not work.
Finally, we are reading an article that is obviously skewed in the direction of an environmentalist PAC. Perhaps we should hear both sides of the story---or is the witch hunt too far underway to surrender to reason?
"I think that one of the problems in this country (the US) is that we do not take grade school science seriously enough. We need those science classes to engage the kids and hopefully inspire some of them to a career in some scientific field."
Yes, yes. But if you remember yesterday's story, so few Americans believe in Evolution. So, if you start swelling the ranks of scientists, there might be fewer scientists who believe in Evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush probably has an ulterior motive. He'll put all the terrorists and Democrats into space on a colony ship destined for deep space. Perhaps he'll name the ship "Botany Bay."
This is a war on Terra.
". . . color me Sceptical."
I'm sorry. I have the Crayola 2048 box of crayons. I don't see Sceptical. Is it more reddish or bluish?
"Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications."
t ml?id=110007734
However, we both agree that all acts of Congress are not constitutional. President Carter's AG claimed FISA violated the Constitution. Clinton's Administration submitted to FISA while simultaneously stating that the President had inherent authority to monitor.
Additionally, "section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance 'without a court order.'" The Authorization of Use of Military Force is an authorization of war. Therefore, we are at war and the President has full use of his war powers under the Constitution.
But, don't take my word for it, here's the word of an expert on the subject: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
I'm sure I'll be modded down for supporting the President's legitimate use of his authority by the guy who can't come up with a reasoned response.
"Of course visibility to the naked eye is only a very small part of invisibility. This thing probably sticks out like dogs balls on radar."
Hmm. Terrorists hiding in caves probably rely on eyes on target, not radar on dog balls. And, the scale of these is pretty small. So, I'm thinking that "dog balls" aren't that visible on radar.
"Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states."
Except, in many states it is illegal to gamble. So, setting up shop in a state merely exposes the gambling company to state prosecution. It also opens the gambing company to that state's taxation. And, a good federal prosecutor will argue that the entire transaction cycle does not end with the in-state bank account---as it will be wired to the gambling company's main account. The "sham" account issue will end up before a district or federal court judge who will clarify the understanding of the law to reflect that shams are not allowed.
"I don't think there is anyone (english speaking) who wouldn't be able to quote it."
What's funny is I always thought there was meant to be an 'a' in it. When you hear the audio, it sounds like something is missing before the man based on how 'man' was said (to me, it sounds like m-man, which lead me to believe it was a-man). So, whenever I said it, I put the 'a' in there.
So, while you may not think there's anyone, I'm one who would quote with the 'a.'
In other news, "Take the 'L' out of lover, and it's over."
"Didn't Prince try this in the 90's?"
That was just Prince wanting to release albums but not owning his own stage name. Apparently, his earlier contract included the stage name. The contract must have been for albums and term of years, so that when the albums were out he could contract elsewhere, but he couldn't take his name with him.
Or, I suppose you could say that "Prince" was his slave name.
I especially like how inane rhetoric scores high. I assure you, Clinton did jack during his tenure that qualifies as "anti-terrorism." My assurance is based on having paid attention. While perhaps blaming Bush, Younger for not doing anything in nine months, remember that the Clinton staff slipped porn into photo copy paper, stripped "W" off the keyboard, and other actions disruptive of running a government. I remember hearing that the security clearance backlog from Gore resisting the will of the people set the Bush administration back _months_. It takes six months to a year to get a clearance. Rather than start in November, the Bush camp had to wait until well into December
Reagan only broke one union Air Traffic Controllers. AFL/CIO is still strong. In certain circuits, unions are able to spend member's money on any damn thing they want---thanks to a Leftist-held court. Specifically, "there is no fiduciary relationship" between the union leaders and members. How would you like to be told that banks had no fiduciary duty to safeguard money you deposited with them?
Neo-con is a liberal shibbolith, and an oxymoron at that.
With that, I'll wait for the liberal who lacks the acumen to respond to mod me down.
No, no, no.
In an official government statistic, 49 percent of official government statistics are wrong.
The very title of this news item is hyperbole. The C&D letter clearly states it does not target primary use of podcast (i.e., Podcasting is the method of distributing multimedia files, such as audio or video programs, over the Internet using syndication feeds, for playback on mobile devices and personal computers.)[1] There's even a web site that uses "podcast" in its URL.[2]. Apple is zealously protecting its registered trademarks from a company that pre-loads and resells iPods, which creates an impression on some of a relationship between Apple and that company.
Everybody needs to step away from the keyboard and think things through before they start stammering about how an evil corporation is trying to trademark and deny use of commonly used words. A Trademark is a relationship between the consumer and the company that represents the goodwill fostered by the company. A consumer should expect that an item with a given trademark will be what they expect, and not some two-bit knockoff.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcasting
[2]: http://www.podcast.net/
"I do mentally associate much of Fox News with the Two Minute Hate. I concede the doublespeak angle, the use of language to mislead rather than inform."
."
This really saddens me. You associate Fox News with use of language to mislead. Conversely, you associate other news sources (e.g. CNN, BBC) with language used to inform. Really, how can you tell the difference? What if both are using language to mislead? Two eye witnesses at the scene of an accident will invariably give two different, inconsistent stories. The answer is this: news told from a vantage with which you disagree uses language to mislead. The truth is this: both sides use language to mislead. Until you accept that, you are mentally impaired for you have permitted your passion to obscure your judgement. If you think one side misleads more, then you have not accepted the truth---both sides mislead to their advantage.
"And yes, there is the equivalent, many equivalents, of Room 101."
Please show proof of Room 101. This is a conclusory assertion on your part with no real basis in fact. You will likely cite Gitmo and CIA facilities abroad. However, IIRC, Room 101 was used to "re-educate" citizens who disagreed with the party line. Where are the re-education facilities for U.S. citizens? That you are able to freely express dissent exposes the freedom in our country. You have freedom to dissent, evidenced by your post. You do not have freedom to convert dissent into violent action.
"Yes, they listen to our phone calls without a warrant . .
Yeah---no. Much of the phone call stuff was blown out of proportion. The U.S. was given access by the telcos to who-called-whom. This allowed the U.S. to associate known suspects with those with whom they were communicating. This helped expose terrorist cells. Intercepting some calls based on that association does not equal the government's listening to your phone call without warrant. World Wars I and II were the ultimate in Industrial Age warfare. This modern War Against Global Terrorism is an exemplar of a war fought in the Information Age. You expect that the U.S. government should not be allowed to use any means necessary to root out foreign agents and allies hostile to our country.
We are a tolerant society. When in times of conflict, we accept certain encroachments on our liberties to accomplish the task---look at rationing during WWII. However, our political process is in place. When it is obvious that encroachments have gone too far, or that the government has usurped its perogative, the American people will respond. And no, a few house seats one way or another is _not_ a referendum.
You contemplate that because the Republicans are in power, then government usurpation is only possible through the Repubicans. I put it to you that power corrupts, and had the Democrats been in power post 9-11, then they would be taking the same steps and they would be the alleged usurpers. My conclusion is that the government has not usurped its authority, evidenced by the fact we are able to publically dissent.
"It's interesting that this study was done, and it makes an interesting read, but it produced almost exactly no significant results."
You should have paid attention to Master Yoda when he said, "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." This is what the Pew research revealed. Very telling indeed.
I don't like converting people, either. I'm in my last year of law school (third career move). During my first year, peers complained about Word---they did not have it and could not afford it. Others were having problems with viruses and other IE issues. So, I persuaded several to convert to Firefox and OpenOffice, and most enjoyed the change. This year, I set behind several second-year students. I noticed one of them using OpenOffice and Firefox. I asked him how he came across these products. He told me that one of my peers, who I persuaded, persuaded him to use the products.
I prefer persuasion to conversion. Persuasion engages the mind and logical reasoning. Conversion suggests an emotional change. That said, I'm a convert.
Hee, hee. Stack the deck!
"Nice idea eh? The problem is there are six hydraulic actuators on each wing to make this happen. When one breaks, there's no way to tell which one is bad without pulling all six from the wing and putting each one on a test bench. Testing a single actuator takes about an hour... and Murphy states the bad actuator is the last one you test."
So, what you do is have six test benches, and test them all at the same time. Then, it only takes an hour.
Better yet, use twelve test benches and get the testing done in 30 minutes. You know, you engineers really steam me. Good thing I went to management school so I could help you figure out how to test in 1/12th the time.
"The US, by contrast, allows each state to dictate which machine or method they utilize under few federal standards."
Damn that Constitution. If only there was some what to ignore it. To the Supreme Court!
Yes, but "women in the military" is much more politically correct than "army of beavers."
"Ownership of the north waters will provide a huge amount of economic and political power to a few countries."
Yeah, no. I believe most of the Arctic Ocean is international waters. There is no control of trade routes in international waters---hasn't been for decades.
What I like is the statement "for most of recorded history." I mean, how many Babylonian sailors attempted to access the North Pole?
"They got to 49 by including several territories."
I saw only American Samoa, Puerto Rico, VI and D.C. as non-states listed. That means _three_ territories and a federal district. Not exactly "several." Regardless, 49 is still a significant number, especially considering that SCOTUS will reject a method of execution when only 13 states still employ it. So, if SCOTUS can engage in a political decision with only 13 states, then why can't Congress legislate at the request of 49 Attorneys General?
I checked to make sure the blue states agreed with this. The Attorneys General of Kal-i-forn-ya and Massatushits both signed off. So, it must not be a violation of civil liberties.
So, he's not belting down scotch? I suppose, then, that he did not work on Landsat 6.
How about Edubuntu?
"I despise with a passion 'business model patents' which basically say 'we figured out how to do business, don't you dare try to compete with us!'"
Then, lobby your Congressman and Senator and change the law. SCOTUS has spoken, and now only Congress can change it. Be part of the solution.
Sorry, I left my clue-by-four at work. You're the second poster to make a similar silly statement. The current state of U.S. Patent law allows any innovation that ever-so-slightly increments the prior art to be useful. Sure, there were methods of shipping books to library patrons or casettes to blind people, but that is not Netflix's patent. Netflix came up with the novel idea of using the Internet to let you rent movies. Sure, it's close to other technology, and most of what they do was possible with pre-existing technology.
The point is, dare I say it, synergy. They took several existing technologies and put them together in a novel way. Poof! A patentable idea. They filed the patent, which takes a few years to fit through the pipes. Once granted, they can go tell others who have since tried to hop on the bandwagon to cease-and-desist or pay-up. Any infringement between filing and granting is moot.
Conversely, Blockbuster cannot sue for renting VCR or DVDs. Others were doing it before they were. They also did not file a patent. Even if they did, that patent would have expired by now. I mean, I rented videos in 1981, so if the patent existed then, it would have expired a few years ago. Then again, the business-process patent was not legal then, so they couldn't. You can't sue when you don't have a patent.
So, you're entire "oh yeah?! Well, then counter sue based on a stupid premise" argument fails.
If you don't like the business patent, then why don't you and several million of your friends lobby your Congressman and Senator to change the flipping law?! Stop whining about it. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
"Bush has destroyed a huge budget surplus and left trillions in debt to my kids. His deliberate neglect has more or less wiped one whole American city right off the map."
Um. No. The bugest surplus was already in the trillions. The present government is only continuing in the big spending behavior the Democrats made famous. The last time our nation had a budget surplus (i.e. had no debt), it was 1964. Then came the Johnson-era bribe-the-poor spending which Liberals insist can't go away. I remember comparing numbers at one point that showed that if you removed all that Great Society spending (and its decendants), then we would still have a budget surplus. This comparison predated Bush, so I'm not sure of its present accuracy.
For those who complain about the current debt, then remember what you know about personal finance. To end debt you've got to stop spending first. So, stop complaining about the lack of government-funded fetal stem cell research and underspending on welfare, medicare, socialized medicine, and social security.
And, I remember the Carter Era, too. While he was elected because of Nixon's behavior, he did a lousy job. Other posters were right about his inadequacies and lack of leadership. While Congress in the Reagan era gave us bigger deficits, he did pull us out of the abyss. Double-digit inflation ended because of his leadership.
Apple == Orange?
.sig line who will balk that this would not work.
You're comparing the technological pullback of a centuries-long autocratic dynasty with the short-lived executive (8 years) of the United States. There is a significant difference between the two that might go unnoticed in your commentary. First, there is a thriving market economy that seems now to be the primary pusher of technology in the United States. Because the government withdraws funding does not mean our entire society is suddenly unable to progress. I will admit the government does give a large injection of funds, but that's only because it has a large amount of our income withdrawn by taxes. You see, people in the United States have a lot more control over the economy than they did in Imperial China.
Second, this is much ado about nothing. Bush closed the doors, which is his perogative as the Executive. Lobby your congressman to inject a few lines into a bill that requires they be open by law. Suddenly, the problem of Executive fiat in this situation is gone. It's the wonder of our republican form of government. The President's authority in this matter is limited to what Congress will grant him. Since he is presently granted fiat in closing the libraries, he closes them. Of course, there are those whose ideological inclinations support my
Finally, we are reading an article that is obviously skewed in the direction of an environmentalist PAC. Perhaps we should hear both sides of the story---or is the witch hunt too far underway to surrender to reason?
"I think that one of the problems in this country (the US) is that we do not take grade school science seriously enough. We need those science classes to engage the kids and hopefully inspire some of them to a career in some scientific field."
Yes, yes. But if you remember yesterday's story, so few Americans believe in Evolution. So, if you start swelling the ranks of scientists, there might be fewer scientists who believe in Evolution.