You just described my in-laws perfectly. They rarely go out to eat because it is too difficult to decide what to eat. They never go on vacation because it is too difficult to decide where and when. He has worked at a company he dislikes for decades because it is too difficult to decide what other company to work for. They've been trying to decide between getting a master's degree in engineering or business for so long that he could have had both by now.
Meanwhile, they lose thousands in financial investments that were entered too hastily, and are jealous of the fun vacations and outings we do -- with less income -- while they wait for the perfect opportunity to come along. Usually, being able to ignore unimportant problems is a big asset.
Now would take some creativity. Well done.
(You do know nobody ever actually says that, don't you?)
Hence part of the difficulty of the explanation. "Why would the wiggles say it then?", "What kind of people would say it exactly?", etc.
Your comment about the news is all too true. I stopped watching CNN after 2004's hurricane season. They would show a map with one of the hurricanes completely engulfing Puerto Rico (I happen to have friends there) or another Carribean island, and all they would talk about is the damage it might do when it made landfall in the U.S.
I don't know what to do to help the situation, though, other than what I have already been trying: one person at a time.
Give us yanks a break. We have very limited exposure to Australian culture here. The whole of my generation's education is from Crocodile Dundee and Outback Steakhouse commercials, and my daughter's generation doesn't have a clue if it's not on The Wiggles or Koala Brothers.
I lived in Adelaide for a while about 10 years ago, so I often field deep questions on Aussie culture prompted by The Wiggles. Just the other day, I had a 30 minute conversation about the meaning of the phrase "beauty mate," including the important consideration of whether all Australians wiggle their arms up and down like that when they say it, and why not.
My goal for the year is to progress to more serious questions like, "Why do the Wiggles call it the big red car when it is really quite small?" I'm afraid a real discussion about Australian history will require decades more of groundwork, unless Mel Gibson stars in a Hollywood blockbuster named "The Curse of the Toads".
If you talk about illegal file sharing, then you must define illegal file sharing, which implies the necessity of differentiating between fair use and illegal use. I don't think you can get around talking about fair use, whether you want to or not.
I don't normally cite one of my previous comments, but I really liked the idea I had the other day which is sort of a balance between voting directly for issues and voting for representatives, which creates some accountability for elected representatives.
That's completely unconstitutional. They're acting like the 4th and 10th amendments don't even apply to them.
I hope you caught that I was trying to be funny, but I actually had an American roommate react that way in all seriousness once. I was living in Australia about 10 years ago when they passed stricter gun control laws after a shooting rampage in Tasmania. The restrictions were controversial, but were fairly popular there and passed quickly, but wouldn't have lasted a day in the United States.
If money flows between google China and google US, then international commerce is occuring. Within only matches if google China was a completely separate company that just happened to have the same name and business plan, but no profits are sent to the US and the US doesn't invest anything in the Chinese business.
My first digital computer was my fingers, ba da ching! Used C64 and Apple ][ at school. I used to write programs out on paper over the summer, then typed them in when I got back to school. The really difficult algorithms I am still more comfortable putting down on notebook paper first.
I didn't get my own until a secondhand TRS-80 in 1989. Actually typed in a quiz program once that exhausted the memory, but my masterpiece was of course a tetris variation. I don't know what happened to that computer, but my dad found me a TRS-80 laptop secondhand somewhere a few years ago. Ironically, the battery time is an order of magnitude better than my year-old pentium laptop.
printer driver and therefore distills the printer directives into PDF as an image (and not as text)
I don't know about PDF995 specifically, and don't have a windows machine to test it on, but all the printer driver pdf tools I have ever used preserve the text, including a shareware windows one I used several years ago at work. Saving it as an image would be incredibly inefficient, and would make the program completely unusable for anything over a few pages at any decent print resolution.
A postscript printer receives the plain text and layout information, and a single description of each glyph of the font, if it doesn't use one of the standard fonts. The raster conversion is done inside the printer. A typical printer driver pdf creator will take that same postscript information to make the pdf.
I use acroread for my resumé, not because it is uneditable, but because the formatting is consistent. When I used a.doc file, I never knew how it would turn out on someone else's computer with possibly a different version of word. I also make an ASCII version, just in case a web site requires it.
To me, a job search is too personal to leave to a middleman anyway. No one knows better than me what jobs will best fit my qualifications and interests. I do as much networking as possible, and only apply to a specific job that I have pre-screened to make sure I am a good match. The last time I looked for a job (2001), I sent out only 3 resumés, but got 3 interviews and 3 job offers.
Yes, and many people would have still voted for Bush had they been more informed.
The problem is that almost everyone knows how they feel about the issues, but only the most politically active know how the issues actually map to the candidates. Most people have a general idea of the difference between the political parties, but the difference between two candidates in one party is a mystery. That's the main motivation for the electoral college system, which turned out to not be very effective in protecting the politically ignorant from themselves.
It would be interesting to see a system of voting where people voted for their positions on a long list of issues, and rate how important those issues are to them, then representatives are selected by an algorithm based on how well they match the voters' preferences on the issues. The mapping should be based on documented action wherever possible.
For example, a senator's platform would be based on his votes on bills and a governor's would be based on executive actions, proposals, and vetoes. Some neutral system would obviously need to be worked out to determine the list of issues and how they map to the politician's records, as well as a way to determine a mapping for new politicians without a record.
Done correctly, that would solve the problem of getting representatives that actually represent your preferences, as well as insuring that incumbents actually govern the way they campaign, so they will be able to be re-elected. In addition, candidates would know exactly why or why not they were elected, and ad hominem attacks would become irrelevant.
Character and scandals could still be considered by listing them among the issues. For example, this year's election could have a statement like, "accepted funds from Jack Abramoff." If that issue scores high on enough voter's priorities, then it will make a difference in the outcome. If the candidate's views on abortion or social security are of higher priority, then that would be the determining factor.
Intelligent design does not deny the process of evolution that occurs in nature, as far as I know. The difference is in the "bootstrap" events, by which the first single-celled organism came into existence and managed against insurmountable odds to remain in existence long enough for an ecosystem to form in which evolution was self sustaining. In other words, nature has an extremely strong tendency to select non-life over life.
Point me to the scientific experiments that have shown a single-celled organism can spontaneously form in a completely lifeless environment. Then your argument will have some weight. As it stands, the bootstrapping of life is based on faith for both evolution and ID.
If a distro or individual were really paranoid about security, they could monitor the mailing list and patch within hours. Obviously, there isn't a significant demand for that in a structured distribution, and most people wait for the release, but I've done it early myself for a few of the more annoying bugs.
If you are really paranoid and compile with stack smash protection and position independent code, and run a system with with layers of protection like pax/grsecurity, a lot of those security issues would never affect you, technically giving you a negative patch latency in those cases.
I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that diversity is bad for business interests?! Bush may have a lot of faults, but I think you'd have a hard time proving that discrimination is one of them, despite what Kanye West claims. Look at appointments like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales. Do I even need to mention initiatives like No Child Left Behind and his controversial guest worker proposal? Even if you disagree with those programs, there is no doubt that they are very favorable to minority groups.
They're not talking about guaranteeing a certain percentage of jobs to any minority group. They're only trying to make sure that there isn't a systemic problem with discrimination in hiring of federal contractors. That's a good thing. I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white man, and I don't want to work somewhere with discriminatory hiring practices. I want to be sure that my colleagues and I were hired based on our merits, so that I can have the best possible work environment.
Their more specific definition of applicant makes sense anyway, and I don't think it will really change things. The article gave tips that I was taught in career counseling in high school and college -- nothing new. In the dozen or so jobs I have held since my paper route at age 12, I have never gotten a job that I didn't specifically apply for at a specific company. Does the generic resumé flood technique really work out that often for an applicant or an employer? That's not my experience.
Try getting realy excersise where you can feel your heart pumping.
You can feel your heart pumping if you walk fast enough, especially if you are overweight. Grab a bag of shingles someday, walk with it at a fast pace for a continuous half an hour every day, and then tell me if you still think it isn't exercise.
It is ironic then that the feminists who advocate gender equality in the workplace are the same ones who assert that a career is more important than the traditional woman's role of instilling values in children.
I wrote my senator about this, and he wrote back that he is reserving judgement until he knows the details of the program. I think he has a good point about the public not really knowing the specifics, and maybe we will never know. Personally my level of outrage is on a continuum as follows:
Without warrants, target calls based only on the foreign phone numbers of known terrorists. Only a completely incompetent intelligence agency wouldn't do this.
With warrants based on solid intelligence evidence, target international and domestic phone calls based on the domestic phone numbers of known terrorist associates. Absolutely crucial in preventing terrorist attacks. Everyone is happy but the terrorists.
Without warrants, but with solid intelligence evidence, target international phone calls based on the domestic phone numbers of known terrorist associates who are inside the United States, but are not U.S. citizens. Absolutely crucial, and probably legal, but why not get warrants to remove all doubt?
Without warrants, intercept all calls to or from countries with known terrorist cells, and let a computer search for key words to flag for analysis by a human. Not a perfect solution, but a necessary evil with solid precedent.
Without warrants, intercept by computer all calls to or from any foreign country. Probably on solid legal ground, but very shady in the ethical area.
Without warrants, and with only circumstantial evidence, target international phone calls based on the domestic phone numbers of foreign nationals who might know terrorists.Unethical, but foreign nationals are not protected by our constitution, and it may be a necessary evil in wartime.
With warrants based only on circumstantial evidence, target international phone calls based on the domestic phone numbers of American citizens who might know terrorists. Appalling abuse of judicial authority, but at least there is an individual review of each case.
Without warrants, but with solid intelligence evidence, target international phone calls based on the domestic phone numbers of known terrorist associates who are American citizens. Absolutely crucial to prevent terrorist attacks, but not supported by the Constitution without extremely weak justifications. I hate terrorists too, but they deserve the same due process we hope our soldiers would receive, and the same due process murderers, rapists, and drug dealers receive. Swallow your pride and get warrants to remove all ethical doubts and to prevent any possibility of a terrorist being released on a legal technicality.
Without warrants, and with only circumstantial evidence, target international phone calls based on the domestic phone numbers of American citizens who might know terrorists. Completely appalling violation of civil liberties. Grounds for impeachment hearings.
The EU isn't demanding the secret ingredients. They just want detailed instructions so they can prepare the food in a non-Microsoft oven and have it turn out just as good.
Dissent does not imply ignorance. I have read the full text of that decision (twice, if you count just now), the Supreme Court appeal, the cited precedents, and about a dozen other judicial opinions brought to my attention by both Alito's supporters and detractors. I also watched or read the transcript for every word of the confirmation hearing. Trust me, I understand both sides of the argument. An ad hominem attack won't hold water in my case.
The fact that Alito interpreted Justice O'Connor's precedent differently than the other two judges doesn't prove anything either way about the validity of his argument. The majority of the Pennsylvania legislature, and 4 Supreme Court justices, happened to agree with Judge Alito on that point. Granted, the justices weren't in the majority, but a 5-4 decision is strong evidence that neither interpretation of the law was the clear and obvious choice. And don't forget that Judge Alito's interpretation agreed with the entire court except Blackmun on four out of five points under consideration in that case. And keep in mind that Alito decided every other abortion case he heard in favor of abortion rights.
I thank you for proving my original point, though. My intent wasn't to debate if Alito decided Casey correctly or not, but only to illustrate the extreme polarizing effect of his moderately conservative judicial record on abortion.
I challenge you to describe a moderate conservative on abortion if you still think Alito isn't one. Disagreeing with O'Connor on 1/5 of one case in a 15 year career does not describe a fundamentalist. Assuming that anyone who doesn't share your position on abortion would agree with you, if they weren't deliberately ignoring reality, does describe a fundamentalist.
Back to my original point. Judge Alito explains his position better than I can, and covers everything you have mentioned and more. I encourage you to read his opinion for the case. I think it is very difficult to read that opinion, especially considering it is his only anti-abortion opinion in 15 years on the bench, and come away thinking he would vote to overturn or cripple Roe v. Wade. However, that is what people on both sides of the debate are focusing on.
In her shoes, do you find it reasonable to be legally required to notify your husband?
No, but I find it reasonable to be legally required to get an exception from a judge. Those kind of proceedings might be scary, but they are confidential, and that woman needs help. Which is more cruel, to force a woman to confront her problem now, or to send her back to her abuser no questions asked? Overcoming some short term fear is well worth it in the long run. Two women very close to me were victims of abuse (and two others showed symptoms, but I'm not positive because they didn't confide in me), so I'm not talking in hypotheticals here.
And for 2008, I doubt either Condi or Clinton will make it through the primaries.
I'd agree with you if they were men. I think Condi would make a better president than Bush, but she is associated too strongly with his controversial administration. And Clinton is hammered in polls against McCain, and only really gets noticed when she gives off the wall speeches attacking the Bush administration.
However, I have learned not to underestimate the power of the uneducated electorate. The media is the only source of information for most people, and the media is already hyping the possibility of a woman president. People who don't know anything about their qualifications will think it's a cool idea. I think Boxer would make a better democratic candidate than Clinton though, but then again, most people outside of California haven't ever heard of her.
There are some issues which are matters of opinion, not matters of fact. For example, no one will ever be able to prove whether abortion is wrong or not. It's a matter of personal morals, and no amount of argument is going to change those. You can show what a majority thinks, but that doesn't make something a fact, just a more widely held opinion. And polls don't help much. Consider that a majority feels that abortion is wrong, but another majority feels that abortion should be legal.
Other issues aren't exactly matters of opinion, but also aren't provable either way. For example, we will never know for sure if going to war in Iraq improved things or made them worse in the long run, because we can only speculate what would have happened if we didn't.
The problem comes when people completely polarize, ignore the common opinions they hold, and resist any movement toward middle ground. For example, Judge Alito has been characterized as anti-abortion by both sides. However, his only anti-abortion judicial opinion merely supported a statute requiring the husband to be notified (no consent required) by certified letter, unless a judge approves an exception or the life of the mother is in immediate danger, and that was a dissenting opinion so it had no effect anyway. From my pro-life viewpoint, that seems pretty weak for 15 years on the bench. Trying to put myself in the other side's shoes, I think even the most ardent pro-choice husband would at least want to know his wife was having an abortion.
Remember that "immediate withdrawal" feud? Both sides reacted negatively, completely missing the fact that they were in almost total agreement. Nearly everyone wanted the troops to come home as soon as possible, but felt that immediately was too soon.
There are people that oppose good ideas from the president, just because they don't like the president. Likewise, there are people that support bad ideas from the president, just because they like the president. Those that can rise above the fray are the ones that actually get things done.
The democrat I most admire along those lines is Senator Feingold, even though I frequently disagree with him. He voted against the patriot act when it was highly popular. He voted against going to war in Iraq, but then supported the troops by voting to provide enough budget for the war effort. I think he could have won against Bush in 2004.
I also admire Senator McCain for taking a stand when he thought the president was wrong. There has been a lot of buzz about Condi vs. Clinton in 2008, but the race I would love to see is McCain vs. Feingold.
Didn't think the juxtaposition was intentional. That doesn't mean it can't be funny, or that I disagree with you. I don't know how scientific a study can be where a control group is impossible, though. If sales could be predicted that accurately, there would be a lot less risk in the stock market.
You made me laugh out loud with the juxtaposition of "Except if you are on a college campus" and "unbiased scientific studies at Harvard." Debate 101: attack the credibility of the other guy's sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, they lose thousands in financial investments that were entered too hastily, and are jealous of the fun vacations and outings we do -- with less income -- while they wait for the perfect opportunity to come along. Usually, being able to ignore unimportant problems is a big asset.
Your comment about the news is all too true. I stopped watching CNN after 2004's hurricane season. They would show a map with one of the hurricanes completely engulfing Puerto Rico (I happen to have friends there) or another Carribean island, and all they would talk about is the damage it might do when it made landfall in the U.S.
I don't know what to do to help the situation, though, other than what I have already been trying: one person at a time.
I lived in Adelaide for a while about 10 years ago, so I often field deep questions on Aussie culture prompted by The Wiggles. Just the other day, I had a 30 minute conversation about the meaning of the phrase "beauty mate," including the important consideration of whether all Australians wiggle their arms up and down like that when they say it, and why not.
My goal for the year is to progress to more serious questions like, "Why do the Wiggles call it the big red car when it is really quite small?" I'm afraid a real discussion about Australian history will require decades more of groundwork, unless Mel Gibson stars in a Hollywood blockbuster named "The Curse of the Toads".
If you talk about illegal file sharing, then you must define illegal file sharing, which implies the necessity of differentiating between fair use and illegal use. I don't think you can get around talking about fair use, whether you want to or not.
Oh, please. That's an easy one. You only need to watch one episode of 24 to know that kind of stuff happens all the time ;-)
I don't normally cite one of my previous comments, but I really liked the idea I had the other day which is sort of a balance between voting directly for issues and voting for representatives, which creates some accountability for elected representatives.
I hope you caught that I was trying to be funny, but I actually had an American roommate react that way in all seriousness once. I was living in Australia about 10 years ago when they passed stricter gun control laws after a shooting rampage in Tasmania. The restrictions were controversial, but were fairly popular there and passed quickly, but wouldn't have lasted a day in the United States.
If money flows between google China and google US, then international commerce is occuring. Within only matches if google China was a completely separate company that just happened to have the same name and business plan, but no profits are sent to the US and the US doesn't invest anything in the Chinese business.
I didn't get my own until a secondhand TRS-80 in 1989. Actually typed in a quiz program once that exhausted the memory, but my masterpiece was of course a tetris variation. I don't know what happened to that computer, but my dad found me a TRS-80 laptop secondhand somewhere a few years ago. Ironically, the battery time is an order of magnitude better than my year-old pentium laptop.
A postscript printer receives the plain text and layout information, and a single description of each glyph of the font, if it doesn't use one of the standard fonts. The raster conversion is done inside the printer. A typical printer driver pdf creator will take that same postscript information to make the pdf.
I use acroread for my resumé, not because it is uneditable, but because the formatting is consistent. When I used a .doc file, I never knew how it would turn out on someone else's computer with possibly a different version of word. I also make an ASCII version, just in case a web site requires it.
To me, a job search is too personal to leave to a middleman anyway. No one knows better than me what jobs will best fit my qualifications and interests. I do as much networking as possible, and only apply to a specific job that I have pre-screened to make sure I am a good match. The last time I looked for a job (2001), I sent out only 3 resumés, but got 3 interviews and 3 job offers.
The problem is that almost everyone knows how they feel about the issues, but only the most politically active know how the issues actually map to the candidates. Most people have a general idea of the difference between the political parties, but the difference between two candidates in one party is a mystery. That's the main motivation for the electoral college system, which turned out to not be very effective in protecting the politically ignorant from themselves.
It would be interesting to see a system of voting where people voted for their positions on a long list of issues, and rate how important those issues are to them, then representatives are selected by an algorithm based on how well they match the voters' preferences on the issues. The mapping should be based on documented action wherever possible.
For example, a senator's platform would be based on his votes on bills and a governor's would be based on executive actions, proposals, and vetoes. Some neutral system would obviously need to be worked out to determine the list of issues and how they map to the politician's records, as well as a way to determine a mapping for new politicians without a record.
Done correctly, that would solve the problem of getting representatives that actually represent your preferences, as well as insuring that incumbents actually govern the way they campaign, so they will be able to be re-elected. In addition, candidates would know exactly why or why not they were elected, and ad hominem attacks would become irrelevant.
Character and scandals could still be considered by listing them among the issues. For example, this year's election could have a statement like, "accepted funds from Jack Abramoff." If that issue scores high on enough voter's priorities, then it will make a difference in the outcome. If the candidate's views on abortion or social security are of higher priority, then that would be the determining factor.
Point me to the scientific experiments that have shown a single-celled organism can spontaneously form in a completely lifeless environment. Then your argument will have some weight. As it stands, the bootstrapping of life is based on faith for both evolution and ID.
If you are really paranoid and compile with stack smash protection and position independent code, and run a system with with layers of protection like pax/grsecurity, a lot of those security issues would never affect you, technically giving you a negative patch latency in those cases.
They're not talking about guaranteeing a certain percentage of jobs to any minority group. They're only trying to make sure that there isn't a systemic problem with discrimination in hiring of federal contractors. That's a good thing. I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white man, and I don't want to work somewhere with discriminatory hiring practices. I want to be sure that my colleagues and I were hired based on our merits, so that I can have the best possible work environment.
Their more specific definition of applicant makes sense anyway, and I don't think it will really change things. The article gave tips that I was taught in career counseling in high school and college -- nothing new. In the dozen or so jobs I have held since my paper route at age 12, I have never gotten a job that I didn't specifically apply for at a specific company. Does the generic resumé flood technique really work out that often for an applicant or an employer? That's not my experience.
You can feel your heart pumping if you walk fast enough, especially if you are overweight. Grab a bag of shingles someday, walk with it at a fast pace for a continuous half an hour every day, and then tell me if you still think it isn't exercise.
It is ironic then that the feminists who advocate gender equality in the workplace are the same ones who assert that a career is more important than the traditional woman's role of instilling values in children.
The EU isn't demanding the secret ingredients. They just want detailed instructions so they can prepare the food in a non-Microsoft oven and have it turn out just as good.
The fact that Alito interpreted Justice O'Connor's precedent differently than the other two judges doesn't prove anything either way about the validity of his argument. The majority of the Pennsylvania legislature, and 4 Supreme Court justices, happened to agree with Judge Alito on that point. Granted, the justices weren't in the majority, but a 5-4 decision is strong evidence that neither interpretation of the law was the clear and obvious choice. And don't forget that Judge Alito's interpretation agreed with the entire court except Blackmun on four out of five points under consideration in that case. And keep in mind that Alito decided every other abortion case he heard in favor of abortion rights.
I thank you for proving my original point, though. My intent wasn't to debate if Alito decided Casey correctly or not, but only to illustrate the extreme polarizing effect of his moderately conservative judicial record on abortion.
I challenge you to describe a moderate conservative on abortion if you still think Alito isn't one. Disagreeing with O'Connor on 1/5 of one case in a 15 year career does not describe a fundamentalist. Assuming that anyone who doesn't share your position on abortion would agree with you, if they weren't deliberately ignoring reality, does describe a fundamentalist.
Back to my original point. Judge Alito explains his position better than I can, and covers everything you have mentioned and more. I encourage you to read his opinion for the case. I think it is very difficult to read that opinion, especially considering it is his only anti-abortion opinion in 15 years on the bench, and come away thinking he would vote to overturn or cripple Roe v. Wade. However, that is what people on both sides of the debate are focusing on.
No, but I find it reasonable to be legally required to get an exception from a judge. Those kind of proceedings might be scary, but they are confidential, and that woman needs help. Which is more cruel, to force a woman to confront her problem now, or to send her back to her abuser no questions asked? Overcoming some short term fear is well worth it in the long run. Two women very close to me were victims of abuse (and two others showed symptoms, but I'm not positive because they didn't confide in me), so I'm not talking in hypotheticals here.
And for 2008, I doubt either Condi or Clinton will make it through the primaries.
I'd agree with you if they were men. I think Condi would make a better president than Bush, but she is associated too strongly with his controversial administration. And Clinton is hammered in polls against McCain, and only really gets noticed when she gives off the wall speeches attacking the Bush administration.
However, I have learned not to underestimate the power of the uneducated electorate. The media is the only source of information for most people, and the media is already hyping the possibility of a woman president. People who don't know anything about their qualifications will think it's a cool idea. I think Boxer would make a better democratic candidate than Clinton though, but then again, most people outside of California haven't ever heard of her.
Other issues aren't exactly matters of opinion, but also aren't provable either way. For example, we will never know for sure if going to war in Iraq improved things or made them worse in the long run, because we can only speculate what would have happened if we didn't.
The problem comes when people completely polarize, ignore the common opinions they hold, and resist any movement toward middle ground. For example, Judge Alito has been characterized as anti-abortion by both sides. However, his only anti-abortion judicial opinion merely supported a statute requiring the husband to be notified (no consent required) by certified letter, unless a judge approves an exception or the life of the mother is in immediate danger, and that was a dissenting opinion so it had no effect anyway. From my pro-life viewpoint, that seems pretty weak for 15 years on the bench. Trying to put myself in the other side's shoes, I think even the most ardent pro-choice husband would at least want to know his wife was having an abortion.
Remember that "immediate withdrawal" feud? Both sides reacted negatively, completely missing the fact that they were in almost total agreement. Nearly everyone wanted the troops to come home as soon as possible, but felt that immediately was too soon.
There are people that oppose good ideas from the president, just because they don't like the president. Likewise, there are people that support bad ideas from the president, just because they like the president. Those that can rise above the fray are the ones that actually get things done.
The democrat I most admire along those lines is Senator Feingold, even though I frequently disagree with him. He voted against the patriot act when it was highly popular. He voted against going to war in Iraq, but then supported the troops by voting to provide enough budget for the war effort. I think he could have won against Bush in 2004.
I also admire Senator McCain for taking a stand when he thought the president was wrong. There has been a lot of buzz about Condi vs. Clinton in 2008, but the race I would love to see is McCain vs. Feingold.
Didn't think the juxtaposition was intentional. That doesn't mean it can't be funny, or that I disagree with you. I don't know how scientific a study can be where a control group is impossible, though. If sales could be predicted that accurately, there would be a lot less risk in the stock market.
You made me laugh out loud with the juxtaposition of "Except if you are on a college campus" and "unbiased scientific studies at Harvard." Debate 101: attack the credibility of the other guy's sources.