Actually, sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. The U.S. certainly did exercise sovereignty over Iraq from the invasion through to the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi government. You can't say that Iraq had no sovereign during the invasion and occupation, because the U.S. was the sovereign.
The word can be used to refer to a government's capacity to control its own affairs, but that's a more limited and specific usage.
...even though I was going 70 mph in a convertible with the top down.
Tangentially related, Mr. Mossberg drives a black Benz convertible with a vanity license plate reading "WSJTECH". How do I know? I once cut him off rather sharply on the Clara Barton highway in DC on the way to a company picnic. I only realized it was him later when he grumpily sped past me (cruisin' in my White '91 Toyota Camry) and I saw his vanity tag. Sucka!
Yeah, basically the same deal. Only the Afghans bled the Soviets to death with aid from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China. We've had very minor consequences in comparison.
In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation, it just depended on who held the sovereignty. Saddam did, and then the U.S. military did, and then they handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi government, and the U.S. military remains there at the request of the Iraqi government. That's the de jure explanation, while we all know that the de facto explanation is that the U.S. military still calls a lot of the shots.
Heroin is less damaging than alcohol and less addicting than nicotine.
I find this very hard to believe. Withdrawal from heroin is far more harrowing (and life-threatening) than withdrawal from nicotine.
Also, simply because something is physiologically non-toxic does not mean it's good for you, or even safe to use.
Public policy on drugs is rightfully the area of power politics because of what's involved in the drug business. If you want a picture of what legalized drugs would be like, take Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and the entire Fashion Industry, roll it all up together into one package, and there you have it. It would be a monster with more power, greater reach, and more fundamental ability to control than any other industry in the history of mankind.
It is a culture war, because every war is a culture war. Those sectors that are criminalized for drugs would be criminalized for *insert whatever reason here* if drugs weren't illegal--that's just a fact of politics. Drugs are just one way to do it, and there are plentiful others. Drug use became part of the culture of the disenfranchised--not the other way around--and the system perpetuates it.
I apologize for being sarcastic above. You're quite right, Congress is not enumerated the power to delegate its powers to the executive. It's an unconstitutional abuse that has unfortunately become standard practice through years and years of unchallenged precedent.
I'm not sure that's the case. It wasn't entirely illegal at first. In fact, my father has a certificate that was granted to his grandfather, allowing him to legally dispense cocaine and heroin as a doctor. While racism might have been involved in limited cases, I'm pretty sure that doctors and scientists figured out the very substantial downsides to those particular drugs. They've been controlled substances for a very long time.
I don't see anything in Article I allowing Congress any of the powers granted to it, especially the president.
The enumerated powers of Congress are listed in Article 1 Section 8. The powers of the Executive are vaguely outlined (but not enumerated) in Article 2.
The Constitution's not that long--you don't need a law degree to find that stuff out. It's not like it's some 400+ article European constitution...
Executive orders do not have (and never have had) the force of law. Congress can override them simply by passing a law contradicting the order, and the Supreme Court can strike orders down (and has in the past). The only type of orders that do have force of law are those made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which give the President discretionary powers.
That's no more than a semantic difference. In the U.S., states that go by "Commonwealth" have no substantive or practical statutory differences from other states.
Look, these people *clearly* knew that Apple's possess greater longevity than the equivalent PCs. Thus a four year old iBook would still be quite suitable for their purposes, as informed computer aficionados.
In the United States, you are a citizen both of your State and of the nation. That's a feature of our federal system of government, and reflects the time period when the formerly independent State governments were more powerful than the newly created federal government.
You are attempting to posit that by allowing one substantively distinct form of killing, you must therefore allow for any type of killing to be justified. That's an untenable position.
The fact is that there are substantive differences between different acts of killing. One distinct act is not automatically equivalent (morally, ethically) to another, simply because they both involve killing. You view any killing as an injustice, whereas in certain situations the abeyance of killing could be an equal injustice.
If you believe in no transcendent idea of justice, then you would naturally arrive at your conclusion: all killing must be banned because if there is justification for one killing, all killings could be justified. This is classic, rudderless post-modernism. In reality, situations are differentiable, and justice does not follow the categorical imperative, nor does it follow a post-modern 'solidarity of opinion' (i.e. Rorty).
You are conflating the death penalty and war, two categoroically and substantively different phenomena. The death penalty is applied after someone has been found by a jury of their peers to have committed a capital crime. War follows no such rules of justice, and never has.
You cannot erroneously analogize every type of killing act there is and claim that one must support all killing or no killing--that's philosophically, morally, and practically indefensible. Suicide, murder, war, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, infanticide, negligence: all of them are differentiable, and acceptable to different people for varying (but justifiable) reasons. Your argument is a strawman based on a false premise.
Yo DC/.er! Represent, big ups, what what, shoutout, keep it real, holla at my dog, etc. Tryst is where-it's-at for free wireless.
BTW, I work about 2 blocks from the Caribou Coffee you mentioned, over at a think tank on K St.
All the best.
Re:Excellent example, but a double-edged sword...
on
The Case for Free WiFi?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
A few months ago Tryst started a policy of not offering Wi-Fi on weekends, precisely because of freeloaders taking up all the sofa spots and being anti-social. They allow free wireless on weekdays because it helps them maintain volume through the weekdays, but on the weekend (when they're packed to the gills regardless) I think they'd rather have social (read: paying) customers instead.
However, Tryst is hands down the best hang-out coffee shop in the city, and perhaps even on the eastern seaboard.
Nice to see another DC/.er. Cheers!
Re:I argued about increased business and royalty
on
The Case for Free WiFi?
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
In British Empire, Soviet Russia cliche drags out you!
They just "delinked" the currency because we threatened them with 27% tariffs on their goods if we didn't. The Chinese certainly could dump all their dollar-denominated foreign exchange, but it would hurt them more than it would hurt us, and they know it. If you want to comment on international finance, please pick up a copy of the FT before doing so.
Oh, I agree that there really isn't a great way to indicate the opening of a new pane of content other than what Google did with the DHTML slide-over.
The only other options would be to pop open a window--but then you have to deal with window-targeting nonsense and a totally broken UI-metaphor.
I guess my real beef is: it's trying to do things that applications can do, but without the proper tools to do them. And that's not Google's fault: web standards and scripts aren't particularly powerful yet and don't allow for graceful ways to achieve things that an interface builder for a normal application would. They did the best they could with what meagre tools the web provides them with.
Still, instead of trying to force a smooth sliding effect, they could simply open the left-pane without a big to-do. They could use other visual cues for the user to indicate that this wasn't page-reloaded content (they manage to do this with Gmail fairly well, when switching between conversation and inbox views, without actually reloading the page).
I agree with your distaste for web portals. Still, portals remain quite popular, and I think Google is trying to tap into that area. Yahoo! still remains quite popular because it has portal features.
On the other hand, I don't think that Google as a whole will turn into Yahoo!. The main Google page will likely always stay simple, whereas the personalized homepage is just for people who want portal stuff. The one advantage that a Google RSS/portal has is the same that Gmail has: everywhere you go, regardless of what computer you're on, it's the same interface and setup. You don't need to configure an RSS reader on each computer you use: just go to Google.com/ig. Same with Gmail.
Also, the dhtml sliding options pane on the left is nifty, but I can't help but think that it's going overboard a little bit.
Slashdot Mirror
The word can be used to refer to a government's capacity to control its own affairs, but that's a more limited and specific usage.
Buy a dictionary.
I did mean "de jure," not "du jour". Wikipedia is your friend.
Tangentially related, Mr. Mossberg drives a black Benz convertible with a vanity license plate reading "WSJTECH". How do I know? I once cut him off rather sharply on the Clara Barton highway in DC on the way to a company picnic. I only realized it was him later when he grumpily sped past me (cruisin' in my White '91 Toyota Camry) and I saw his vanity tag. Sucka!
Yeah, basically the same deal. Only the Afghans bled the Soviets to death with aid from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China. We've had very minor consequences in comparison.
A certain musician might want to get muz.iq
In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation, it just depended on who held the sovereignty. Saddam did, and then the U.S. military did, and then they handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi government, and the U.S. military remains there at the request of the Iraqi government. That's the de jure explanation, while we all know that the de facto explanation is that the U.S. military still calls a lot of the shots.
Perhaps we are ego-centric, but our revolution didn't end up in the Paris Commune, the Jacobins, and The Terror.
I apologize for being sarcastic above. You're quite right, Congress is not enumerated the power to delegate its powers to the executive. It's an unconstitutional abuse that has unfortunately become standard practice through years and years of unchallenged precedent.
I'm not sure that's the case. It wasn't entirely illegal at first. In fact, my father has a certificate that was granted to his grandfather, allowing him to legally dispense cocaine and heroin as a doctor. While racism might have been involved in limited cases, I'm pretty sure that doctors and scientists figured out the very substantial downsides to those particular drugs. They've been controlled substances for a very long time.
The Constitution's not that long--you don't need a law degree to find that stuff out. It's not like it's some 400+ article European constitution...
Executive orders do not have (and never have had) the force of law. Congress can override them simply by passing a law contradicting the order, and the Supreme Court can strike orders down (and has in the past). The only type of orders that do have force of law are those made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which give the President discretionary powers.
That's no more than a semantic difference. In the U.S., states that go by "Commonwealth" have no substantive or practical statutory differences from other states.
Look, these people *clearly* knew that Apple's possess greater longevity than the equivalent PCs. Thus a four year old iBook would still be quite suitable for their purposes, as informed computer aficionados.
In the United States, you are a citizen both of your State and of the nation. That's a feature of our federal system of government, and reflects the time period when the formerly independent State governments were more powerful than the newly created federal government.
Really people. It's almost as if you believe that they haven't thought this through!
The fact is that there are substantive differences between different acts of killing. One distinct act is not automatically equivalent (morally, ethically) to another, simply because they both involve killing. You view any killing as an injustice, whereas in certain situations the abeyance of killing could be an equal injustice.
If you believe in no transcendent idea of justice, then you would naturally arrive at your conclusion: all killing must be banned because if there is justification for one killing, all killings could be justified. This is classic, rudderless post-modernism. In reality, situations are differentiable, and justice does not follow the categorical imperative, nor does it follow a post-modern 'solidarity of opinion' (i.e. Rorty).
You cannot erroneously analogize every type of killing act there is and claim that one must support all killing or no killing--that's philosophically, morally, and practically indefensible. Suicide, murder, war, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, infanticide, negligence: all of them are differentiable, and acceptable to different people for varying (but justifiable) reasons. Your argument is a strawman based on a false premise.
Yo DC /.er! Represent, big ups, what what, shoutout, keep it real, holla at my dog, etc. Tryst is where-it's-at for free wireless.
BTW, I work about 2 blocks from the Caribou Coffee you mentioned, over at a think tank on K St.
All the best.
A few months ago Tryst started a policy of not offering Wi-Fi on weekends, precisely because of freeloaders taking up all the sofa spots and being anti-social. They allow free wireless on weekdays because it helps them maintain volume through the weekdays, but on the weekend (when they're packed to the gills regardless) I think they'd rather have social (read: paying) customers instead.
/.er. Cheers!
However, Tryst is hands down the best hang-out coffee shop in the city, and perhaps even on the eastern seaboard.
Nice to see another DC
In British Empire, Soviet Russia cliche drags out you!
(I apologise)
They just "delinked" the currency because we threatened them with 27% tariffs on their goods if we didn't. The Chinese certainly could dump all their dollar-denominated foreign exchange, but it would hurt them more than it would hurt us, and they know it. If you want to comment on international finance, please pick up a copy of the FT before doing so.
The only other options would be to pop open a window--but then you have to deal with window-targeting nonsense and a totally broken UI-metaphor.
I guess my real beef is: it's trying to do things that applications can do, but without the proper tools to do them. And that's not Google's fault: web standards and scripts aren't particularly powerful yet and don't allow for graceful ways to achieve things that an interface builder for a normal application would. They did the best they could with what meagre tools the web provides them with.
Still, instead of trying to force a smooth sliding effect, they could simply open the left-pane without a big to-do. They could use other visual cues for the user to indicate that this wasn't page-reloaded content (they manage to do this with Gmail fairly well, when switching between conversation and inbox views, without actually reloading the page).
On the other hand, I don't think that Google as a whole will turn into Yahoo!. The main Google page will likely always stay simple, whereas the personalized homepage is just for people who want portal stuff. The one advantage that a Google RSS/portal has is the same that Gmail has: everywhere you go, regardless of what computer you're on, it's the same interface and setup. You don't need to configure an RSS reader on each computer you use: just go to Google.com/ig. Same with Gmail.
Also, the dhtml sliding options pane on the left is nifty, but I can't help but think that it's going overboard a little bit.
http://www.cinescape.com/multimedia/Master_Site/Mo vies/Master_SiteArticle271467.jpg
http://www.cinescape.com/multimedia/Master_Site/Mo vies/Master_SiteArticle271475.jpg
http://images1.moviemarket.co.uk/library/photos/26 5/265053.jpg
The "Cat Lady" is beaten to death by Alex, using a giant white penis sculpture.