they did not want a weather vane in the White house
I agree with your basic point that most people in the U.S. are perfectly capable of sound decision-making but please don't try and suggest that Bush doesn't change his mind with at least the frequency of Mr. Kerry.
Do keep in mind that one of the forces stopping 'bible-thumping' presidents from stacking the courts with far-right conservatives has been the advice and consent of the Senate. With the minority's right to filibuster, only candidates with some degree of centrism really stand much of a chance to make it onto the court (Rhenquist, Scalia and even Thomas, while conservative, are definitely constructionists -- the Constitution is very clear about not forgiving government censorship).
The Republican majority, drunk on its own power, is now trying to eliminate the filibuster option for judicial nominees. If this happens, the tyranny of the majority can and will put people on the court who will vote irresponsibly and ignore the word and intent of the U.S. Constitution.
Your point about the court to date is a good one but we must realize that some in Congress are trying desperately to shift this balance.
Yes but your 55 electoral votes represent 35.5M people. The three votes in Wyoming represent 500,000 people (which is, incidentally, fewer citizens than live in the District of Columbia by 100,000 citizens). Per citizen, Wyoming has 3.8 times the power in the Electoral College than does California. The swing-state dynamics change over time; small-state power does not.
California would give its left nut to get rid of the Electoral College; Wyoming will hold on to the death.
Thank God someone here pays attention. Tech is great but politics can shape tech (and vice-versa). You do yourself an enormous disfavor by not paying careful attention to both.
I missed the part where you explained that having a bunch of highly-educated (formally or otherwise), technically astute individuals interested in the governance of their individual countries and the world at large was a bad thing.
Judges cannot 'impose gay marriage from the bench'. They can only rule that a law (or legal action taken by a government body) banning gay marriage contradicts the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. Which it does.
It then falls upon the citizenry to clarify, via the ammendment process, their will regarding gay marriage. In the interim, however, it must be legal because, and you'll hate this part, the Consitution already provides for its legality, Defense of Marriage act notwithstanding.
Repeat after me: the judiciary doesn't make laws. The Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage out of this canard but that doesn't make it true.
Re:Why are Nader voters and his party so cluess?
on
The Hidden Swing State?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What Nader consistently fails to take into account is that shifting the Democratic party further to the left will only increase the fequency with which Republicans get into office. Both parties don't pander to the middle because they like it; they pander because it's the middle that holds all the voters.
Viewed as a distribution, Nader is asking the Democratic party to shift to the left to more accurately suit his own views (and those of, say, 10% max of the Democratic party). Were this to happen, the GOP could easily grapple a few percentage points in the center-left category and nearly force the Democrats out of government entirely.
Not only is Nader's current quest Quixotic at best; his long-term goal is in no part realistic, intelligent or informed. He wouldn't enjoy living in the country that would result from the Democratic Party shifting hard to the left.
Republicans think that Democrats stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes... dead people, illegal aliens, people voting in multiple times in different jurisdictions etc. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
Do you have any proof to this at all? There is plenty of proof about Republican action during the 2000 election (and an attempt at a repeat).
Thank you Slashdot form validator for carefully warning me that everything put between angle brackets is assumed to be HTML instead of being escaped. Christ. Here:
And now, my American duty:
<obligatory "we're number one!"> <obligatory 'saved your asses in WW II' rhetoric> <obligatory denigration of all things French>
Twelve minutes of quotes and clips taken out of context is supposed to change my mind? Do you really think my mind so facile?
Kerry has never backed away from standing behind his vote for Presidential authority to wage war against Iraq. Kerry disagreed with the timing and with the way in which it was executed (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he may have been right).
Kerry voted to let the Executive branch make the decision; he didn't vote on the how and the when. The 'Twelve Minutes' does nothing to clarify this distinction which is so important to the future of America (regardless of who leads us).
You do yourself and Slashdot a disservice by believing that this series of quotes adequately describes Kerry's position when, in fact, it intentionally uses context against Kerry to portray him as waffling when in fact, on this issue, he has not.
The Kerry campaign and Democrats in general are also guilty of this tactic; in both cases it tarnishes American politics. If Bush wins, I hope you enjoy the America you find in 2008.
Do you really believe that? Could John Kerry ever get elected standing up on a podium and suggesting that we all just 'get over it' and retrain to fit a changing workforce? Of course not. Bush has proven his willingness for protectionism when it's politically expedient; John Kerry has yet to get a chance to do so. I say we give it to him -- can he really be less objective than George Bush?
No modern President has ever been held accountable to what he has said on the campaign trail; remember George Bush the uniter? -j
You're, of course, correct but this is the whole point behind the peer-review process in science. Trust but verify. Twenty Nobel laureates pissing on your parade would seem to me to be a pretty negative peer-review. -j
India somehow manages to function as a state even though their government holds something on the order of 17 languages to be 'official.' They function so well, in fact, that they're taking 'our' jobs. Not bad for a state so-burdened with eight times the number of common tongues found in the States, eh?
Language and culture are intertwined; there are words and phrases in every language that express ideas English has never adequately addressed (and vice-versa). You do yourself and those who seek shelter here an enormous disservice by claiming that asserting the dominance of English (itself an overly-complex and difficult language to learn) would fix any real world problem. -j
* Creative labor jobs outsourced, America left with pure labor or pure creative jobs.
And yet thanks to Bush's recent immigration policy shift, pure labor jobs will be handed over to a 'temporary workforce' culled from nearby foreign lands willing to do jobs 'Americans don't want' which should be read as 'Jobs that don't pay a living wage.'
Slashdot Mirror
Well thank goodness that is easy!
and thank God this one wasn't patented!
You don't know it wasn't -- patents can take years to publish.
Don't you have a World Bank protest to get to? ;P
they did not want a weather vane in the White house
I agree with your basic point that most people in the U.S. are perfectly capable of sound decision-making but please don't try and suggest that Bush doesn't change his mind with at least the frequency of Mr. Kerry.
Oh and this is fricken well done.
Do keep in mind that one of the forces stopping 'bible-thumping' presidents from stacking the courts with far-right conservatives has been the advice and consent of the Senate. With the minority's right to filibuster, only candidates with some degree of centrism really stand much of a chance to make it onto the court (Rhenquist, Scalia and even Thomas, while conservative, are definitely constructionists -- the Constitution is very clear about not forgiving government censorship).
The Republican majority, drunk on its own power, is now trying to eliminate the filibuster option for judicial nominees. If this happens, the tyranny of the majority can and will put people on the court who will vote irresponsibly and ignore the word and intent of the U.S. Constitution.
Your point about the court to date is a good one but we must realize that some in Congress are trying desperately to shift this balance.
Yes but your 55 electoral votes represent 35.5M people. The three votes in Wyoming represent 500,000 people (which is, incidentally, fewer citizens than live in the District of Columbia by 100,000 citizens). Per citizen, Wyoming has 3.8 times the power in the Electoral College than does California. The swing-state dynamics change over time; small-state power does not.
California would give its left nut to get rid of the Electoral College; Wyoming will hold on to the death.
Love your post (and heartily second the sentiment) but:
There should be acceptance of all viewpoints.
Tolerance. Not acceptance.
Thank God someone here pays attention. Tech is great but politics can shape tech (and vice-versa). You do yourself an enormous disfavor by not paying careful attention to both.
The both lie. The question then becomes - how will either govern? You've had four years to watch Bush; how's that working out for you?
I missed the part where you explained that having a bunch of highly-educated (formally or otherwise), technically astute individuals interested in the governance of their individual countries and the world at large was a bad thing.
Judges cannot 'impose gay marriage from the bench'. They can only rule that a law (or legal action taken by a government body) banning gay marriage contradicts the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. Which it does.
It then falls upon the citizenry to clarify, via the ammendment process, their will regarding gay marriage. In the interim, however, it must be legal because, and you'll hate this part, the Consitution already provides for its legality, Defense of Marriage act notwithstanding.
Repeat after me: the judiciary doesn't make laws. The Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage out of this canard but that doesn't make it true.
What Nader consistently fails to take into account is that shifting the Democratic party further to the left will only increase the fequency with which Republicans get into office. Both parties don't pander to the middle because they like it; they pander because it's the middle that holds all the voters.
Viewed as a distribution, Nader is asking the Democratic party to shift to the left to more accurately suit his own views (and those of, say, 10% max of the Democratic party). Were this to happen, the GOP could easily grapple a few percentage points in the center-left category and nearly force the Democrats out of government entirely.
Not only is Nader's current quest Quixotic at best; his long-term goal is in no part realistic, intelligent or informed. He wouldn't enjoy living in the country that would result from the Democratic Party shifting hard to the left.
render it a straw man.
Much the way you did in suggesting that the Democrats are the only party that seeks redress in the courts?
Republicans think that Democrats stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes... dead people, illegal aliens, people voting in multiple times in different jurisdictions etc. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
Do you have any proof to this at all? There is plenty of proof about Republican action during the 2000 election (and an attempt at a repeat).
Because it wouldn't make any money.
Simple answer: Occam's Razor.
Funny answer:
Maybe these particular bass cross bred with some frogs.
God I've love to see a fish try.
And now, my American duty:
Thank you for your attention.
Twelve minutes of quotes and clips taken out of context is supposed to change my mind? Do you really think my mind so facile?
Kerry has never backed away from standing behind his vote for Presidential authority to wage war against Iraq. Kerry disagreed with the timing and with the way in which it was executed (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he may have been right).
Kerry voted to let the Executive branch make the decision; he didn't vote on the how and the when. The 'Twelve Minutes' does nothing to clarify this distinction which is so important to the future of America (regardless of who leads us).
You do yourself and Slashdot a disservice by believing that this series of quotes adequately describes Kerry's position when, in fact, it intentionally uses context against Kerry to portray him as waffling when in fact, on this issue, he has not.
The Kerry campaign and Democrats in general are also guilty of this tactic; in both cases it tarnishes American politics. If Bush wins, I hope you enjoy the America you find in 2008.
So Mother Nature's down with drinking and driving during the winter?
And don't even get me started on the fact it has multiple GUI API's.
And C/C++ doesn't? What language has only one GUI API??
Do you really believe that? Could John Kerry ever get elected standing up on a podium and suggesting that we all just 'get over it' and retrain to fit a changing workforce? Of course not. Bush has proven his willingness for protectionism when it's politically expedient; John Kerry has yet to get a chance to do so. I say we give it to him -- can he really be less objective than George Bush?
No modern President has ever been held accountable to what he has said on the campaign trail; remember George Bush the uniter?
-j
You're, of course, correct but this is the whole point behind the peer-review process in science. Trust but verify. Twenty Nobel laureates pissing on your parade would seem to me to be a pretty negative peer-review.
-j
India somehow manages to function as a state even though their government holds something on the order of 17 languages to be 'official.' They function so well, in fact, that they're taking 'our' jobs. Not bad for a state so-burdened with eight times the number of common tongues found in the States, eh?
Language and culture are intertwined; there are words and phrases in every language that express ideas English has never adequately addressed (and vice-versa). You do yourself and those who seek shelter here an enormous disservice by claiming that asserting the dominance of English (itself an overly-complex and difficult language to learn) would fix any real world problem.
-j
* Creative labor jobs outsourced, America left with pure labor or pure creative jobs.
And yet thanks to Bush's recent immigration policy shift, pure labor jobs will be handed over to a 'temporary workforce' culled from nearby foreign lands willing to do jobs 'Americans don't want' which should be read as 'Jobs that don't pay a living wage.'
Ugh. Corporate America gets bolder by the day.
-j