For an interesting interpretation of the Cain and Abel story (along these lines), pick up a copy of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Quite an interesting read . . .
While I love SG-1, I also feel that the show is slipping noticeably now that Anderson's role has been reduced. He presence is what really made the team feel like a "team". When he's not around, you kinda get the feeling that the others are just out on a beer run for the boss - the missions don't feel as satisfying, and the drama drops somehow.
What I'd like to see them do, from a plot perspective, is to begin wrapping up the series by tying up all of the loose Goa'uld storylines into a single, massively long story arc that airs over several episodes. Instead of a two-part season finale, how about a seven or ten parter? It'll guarantee ratings as the viewers couldn't afford to miss one episode of the arc (even with Sci-Fi's neverending repeats), and you'd wrap up the series with a bangup sense of accomplishment.
Bill is good at a lot of things...but predicting the future isn't one of them.
I'll say. Here's a personal fave:
"No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."
And somebody correct me if I'm mis-remembering, but didn't he also predict the death of the password back when he was pushing MS Passport some years ago?
Jesus also was from the Middle East, what's your point?
This'll probably light the flames for the fanatics, but . . .
My point is pretty simple: If Jesus was alive today, he'd be much more likely to call himself a liberal than a conservative.
If conservatives would read the other books of the Bible (there's more in there than just Leviticus and Revelations), they'd see that the so-called "moral values" they're being force fed are an abomination of everything that Jesus held dear. What happened to "love one another"? Where does a lie fit on the morality scale? Hell, even Jesus believed in paying taxes ("Give unto Caesar..."). Where is the logic?
The hypocrisy of the religious right in America quite literally offends the hell out of me. Yes, Jesus was from the Middle East, from a time just as politically unstable as today. Yet not once in his teachings did I see a glimpse of the hatred and fear mongering I hear spewing forth from the mouthpieces of the religious right.
What did I see? I saw hope. I saw trust. And I saw a greater faith in humanity than I can ever imagine seeing again.
And unless you have some kind of seizure while wielding the pen, there's no chance of ambiguity
Actually, there were problems in my state (Georgia) a few years before we switched to mystery machine voting where some optical scan ballots were rejected because some folks either didn't fill in the ovals completely, or left stray marks on the paper.
What I don't understand is why don't they just take the "best" features of touchscreens and optical scanning and combine them. The voter uses the touchscreen to select his or her favorite candidate, and the machine prints out a perfectly completed optical scan sheet - fully filled in ovals, no stray marks. The voter gets a verifiable paper printout, the election commission gets a perfectly readable and recordable ballot, and everyone would be happy with the results (well...except the losing candidates, of course).
Just as you say he cannot personally know anyone who has suffered at the hands of the Patriot Act, neither can you say you personally know anyone in China who has suffered at the hands of their government.
The truth, as always, lies between both statements. No one individual's suffering is worth more or less than another's. Abuses have occured in both countries. None of the abuses are excuse-able. However, in spite of them, there are plenty of people in both places who just aren't feeling the overwhelming sense of doom that others project onto them.
Many Americans think the Patriot Act is a "good" thing, others see it as the beginning of the end of all civil liberties. Many Chinese think the suppression of groups like Falun Gong is a "good thing", while others see it as a state mandated termination of religion. The differences are purely subjective, based on cultural, national, and personal differences. This is the world . . .
Come on now. Do you really think Bush has the balls to go after North Korea? The only reason he went after Iraq was that he could - Saddam was about as much of a threat to America as Vanuatu. Best he'll be able to do with North Korea is talk tough and squint.
You have to keep in mind that not all illiteracy is the result of choice. Poverty and mental deficiency/dyslexia (keep in mind that even "W" has admitted to dyslexia. He may not be able to read well, but it sure hasn't affected his ability to function) are two frequent causes/contributors to illiteracy.
Up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, literacy tests were often used as a way to keep black voters from going to the polls in the south. Southern blacks were rural, mostly poor, often deliberately under-educated. Voter tests of this time served to do nothing more than intimidate black voters away from the polls. The end result was massive voter disenfranchisement, and the extension of racial hostilities that persist to this day.
The risks that I'm trying to point out are simple: If someone played the system in their favor before, someone else will do so again. When people start proposing solutions such mandatory voter tests, they fail to ask themselves the crucial question of "How would I feel if this was applied to me? Could I be victimized by the very same tools I use against another?". People never seem to remember that the political landscape has always been a wheel - what goes around, comes around - and that there is a very real possibility that the methods used against another can very easily be turned against themselves.
The problem with any kind of testing for voter suitability is that someone will always try to game the system. I'll argue that the very fact that someone suggests voter testing is indicative of that person already seeking a method of exclusion. While I hate the term, it is a classic "slippery slope" scenario. Why get into the pain and embarrassment of being forced to undo a mistake, when the easiest solution is to not make one in the first place?
Excluding voters is not the way to a democratic republic.
You're only seeing one side of the issue, that people are going to be excluded from the voting process.
And that's all I need to hear. Rrequiring voters to meet any sort of intelligence or literacy standards is illegal, immoral, and a violation of civil, and democratic rights. Period.
Nobody gets to say who is too smart or too dumb to vote. Period. If you can't get your mind around that fact, or you find it personaly insulting, fine. You're free to leave and find a country that'll do it your way.
What happens when someone just like me gets to change the I.Q. guidelines? Or someone, who in your opinion, is very much worse.
Are you prepared to face being banished to a political wasteland based on somebody else's qualification of your I.Q.? Somehow, I don't think so.
What you fail to see is that every type of reactionary statement (such as this I.Q. requirement) has two sides. What appears positive to you appears fascist as hell to me. Doesn't mean either of us is wrong, it just means we're different. That is what democracy is all about.
Not any linkable that I can find, but from a personal perspective, my district in Georgia has re-adjusted twice now in the last eight years - each time requiring a new trip to a different polling place. At each location I've seen several older folks turned away because they were assigned a new polling place. They complained, but they went on their way without too much fuss as the trip was a relatively short one. As for religious issues, I wonder how some of the Southern Baptists I live near would feel being told their new voting precinct was housed in the Islamic temple down the road . . .
Local municipalities don't run out and get new machines unless they absolutely have to.
Generally true unless the state mandates change, which is what is happening for this election after what could be called a "trial period" with electronic voting machines two years ago. Previously, my last polling place had six document scanner polling booths, and two punch card booths. This year, all primary voting was done electronically, as will be the main event.
I wish that everyone would adopt some sort of universal standard that could be applied nation-wide, but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. With things as fractious as they are now, I can only imagine it'll get worse as each side tries to one-up the other with deliberate confusion intended to drive folks away. God, it's sad.
Yeah, that's even better. Let's also exclude anyone that's ever received a federal farm subsidy, small business subsidy, Fannie Mae/Sallie Mae/Freddie Mac/VA loan, FDIC insurance, corporate tax breaks, child care credits, etc. Let's also exclude anyone whose ever taken any deductions off their federal income taxes. After all, if you don't want the spongers voting, I'm sure you have no problems paying every penny the government asks you to give back.
I challenge anyone to find me ONE human being in the United States that hasn't been touched by the federal government in some way.
The only thing this will do is ensure that Canadians elect the next batch of U.S. officials.
So you're saying that only people who meet your precise definition of "intelligence" should be given the right to vote? If so, I'd like to personally thank you for stepping up to cure all of America's election difficulties with such a simple and sublime solution. Why didn't we think of this before?!? Now all we need to do is amend the Constitution!
I.Q. based? Sweet mother of Christ.
I can think of at least one very prominent U.S. official that has a significant amount of difficulty stringing together a simple sentence. Where would he fall in your criteria?
The problems are not at all related to intelligence, but to simple confusion. Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed to a new church building several miles away because their neighborhood was re-districted after the last election (we won't mention the fact that some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference). Ballets are redesigned with enough frequency to merit their own award show. Touchscreens replace scanners, which replace pull-levers, which replace pencil and paper. Requirements for driver's licenses or no driver's licenses are different from state to state, and, in some instances county to county, or parish to parish. Not all people have, or even need a driver's license, and, like it or not, not everyone living here speaks your particular brand of English - doesn't make them stupid, just different.
You want to eliminate the "dummies" from the process, simply the #@*king thing by making ALL ballots and all procedures, nationwide, identical. You want to eliminate voter fraud and disenfranchisement? Make it a capital crime to take away a citizen's Constitutional right to vote in any size shape or form.
Bush makes bashing trial lawyers a near platform plank, and yet he's already set a raft of them loose. You have got to admire the balls behind the hypocrisy.
To be fair, Kerry has his own legal army as well; but then again, I think he's got a pretty good reason to be cautious.
At the rate we're going, we won't need to vote in 20 years. They'll just have a trial, with the winner take all.
You're right, hesiod. And that's what's sad about this whole mess. Even if there was a draft law passed that made military service mandatory for every U.S. citizen (similar to Israel), the rich would still find a way to dodge it. That's what should piss us off.
Mandating that kids join the lowest ranks isn't going to change how the Generals fight America's war either
The point wasn't to get the generals to change they way they fight the wars, but rather to change the way the politicians think before they start the wars. If its your son or daughter in the line of fire, you're a lot less likely to talk trash to the side holding a gun at their head.
Slashdot Mirror
For an interesting interpretation of the Cain and Abel story (along these lines), pick up a copy of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael . Quite an interesting read . . .
Kudos to Sci-Fi. We should also remember to throw a little credit to Showtime for getting the show started in the first place.
While I love SG-1, I also feel that the show is slipping noticeably now that Anderson's role has been reduced. He presence is what really made the team feel like a "team". When he's not around, you kinda get the feeling that the others are just out on a beer run for the boss - the missions don't feel as satisfying, and the drama drops somehow.
What I'd like to see them do, from a plot perspective, is to begin wrapping up the series by tying up all of the loose Goa'uld storylines into a single, massively long story arc that airs over several episodes. Instead of a two-part season finale, how about a seven or ten parter? It'll guarantee ratings as the viewers couldn't afford to miss one episode of the arc (even with Sci-Fi's neverending repeats), and you'd wrap up the series with a bangup sense of accomplishment.
I'll say. Here's a personal fave:
And somebody correct me if I'm mis-remembering, but didn't he also predict the death of the password back when he was pushing MS Passport some years ago?
Maybe we should start trolling with "AOL is dying"...
This'll probably light the flames for the fanatics, but . . .
My point is pretty simple: If Jesus was alive today, he'd be much more likely to call himself a liberal than a conservative.
If conservatives would read the other books of the Bible (there's more in there than just Leviticus and Revelations), they'd see that the so-called "moral values" they're being force fed are an abomination of everything that Jesus held dear. What happened to "love one another"? Where does a lie fit on the morality scale? Hell, even Jesus believed in paying taxes ("Give unto Caesar..."). Where is the logic?
The hypocrisy of the religious right in America quite literally offends the hell out of me. Yes, Jesus was from the Middle East, from a time just as politically unstable as today. Yet not once in his teachings did I see a glimpse of the hatred and fear mongering I hear spewing forth from the mouthpieces of the religious right.
What did I see? I saw hope. I saw trust. And I saw a greater faith in humanity than I can ever imagine seeing again.
Actually, there were problems in my state (Georgia) a few years before we switched to mystery machine voting where some optical scan ballots were rejected because some folks either didn't fill in the ovals completely, or left stray marks on the paper.
What I don't understand is why don't they just take the "best" features of touchscreens and optical scanning and combine them . The voter uses the touchscreen to select his or her favorite candidate, and the machine prints out a perfectly completed optical scan sheet - fully filled in ovals, no stray marks. The voter gets a verifiable paper printout, the election commission gets a perfectly readable and recordable ballot, and everyone would be happy with the results (well...except the losing candidates, of course).
Both of you need to try to be a little relative.
Just as you say he cannot personally know anyone who has suffered at the hands of the Patriot Act, neither can you say you personally know anyone in China who has suffered at the hands of their government.
The truth, as always, lies between both statements. No one individual's suffering is worth more or less than another's. Abuses have occured in both countries. None of the abuses are excuse-able. However, in spite of them, there are plenty of people in both places who just aren't feeling the overwhelming sense of doom that others project onto them.
Many Americans think the Patriot Act is a "good" thing, others see it as the beginning of the end of all civil liberties. Many Chinese think the suppression of groups like Falun Gong is a "good thing", while others see it as a state mandated termination of religion. The differences are purely subjective, based on cultural, national, and personal differences. This is the world . . .
Come on now. Do you really think Bush has the balls to go after North Korea? The only reason he went after Iraq was that he could - Saddam was about as much of a threat to America as Vanuatu. Best he'll be able to do with North Korea is talk tough and squint.
Some might argue that simply having Windows XP means the users have already screwed themselves.
You have to keep in mind that not all illiteracy is the result of choice. Poverty and mental deficiency/dyslexia (keep in mind that even "W" has admitted to dyslexia. He may not be able to read well, but it sure hasn't affected his ability to function) are two frequent causes/contributors to illiteracy.
Up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, literacy tests were often used as a way to keep black voters from going to the polls in the south. Southern blacks were rural, mostly poor, often deliberately under-educated. Voter tests of this time served to do nothing more than intimidate black voters away from the polls. The end result was massive voter disenfranchisement, and the extension of racial hostilities that persist to this day.
The risks that I'm trying to point out are simple: If someone played the system in their favor before, someone else will do so again. When people start proposing solutions such mandatory voter tests, they fail to ask themselves the crucial question of "How would I feel if this was applied to me? Could I be victimized by the very same tools I use against another?". People never seem to remember that the political landscape has always been a wheel - what goes around, comes around - and that there is a very real possibility that the methods used against another can very easily be turned against themselves.
The problem with any kind of testing for voter suitability is that someone will always try to game the system. I'll argue that the very fact that someone suggests voter testing is indicative of that person already seeking a method of exclusion. While I hate the term, it is a classic "slippery slope" scenario. Why get into the pain and embarrassment of being forced to undo a mistake, when the easiest solution is to not make one in the first place?
Excluding voters is not the way to a democratic republic.
And that's all I need to hear. Rrequiring voters to meet any sort of intelligence or literacy standards is illegal, immoral, and a violation of civil, and democratic rights. Period.
Nobody gets to say who is too smart or too dumb to vote. Period. If you can't get your mind around that fact, or you find it personaly insulting, fine. You're free to leave and find a country that'll do it your way.
Way to miss the point, let's try again:
What happens when someone just like me gets to change the I.Q. guidelines? Or someone, who in your opinion, is very much worse.
Are you prepared to face being banished to a political wasteland based on somebody else's qualification of your I.Q.? Somehow, I don't think so.
What you fail to see is that every type of reactionary statement (such as this I.Q. requirement) has two sides. What appears positive to you appears fascist as hell to me. Doesn't mean either of us is wrong, it just means we're different. That is what democracy is all about.
Generally true unless the state mandates change, which is what is happening for this election after what could be called a "trial period" with electronic voting machines two years ago. Previously, my last polling place had six document scanner polling booths, and two punch card booths. This year, all primary voting was done electronically, as will be the main event.
I wish that everyone would adopt some sort of universal standard that could be applied nation-wide, but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. With things as fractious as they are now, I can only imagine it'll get worse as each side tries to one-up the other with deliberate confusion intended to drive folks away. God, it's sad.
Yeah, that's even better. Let's also exclude anyone that's ever received a federal farm subsidy, small business subsidy, Fannie Mae/Sallie Mae/Freddie Mac/VA loan, FDIC insurance, corporate tax breaks, child care credits, etc. Let's also exclude anyone whose ever taken any deductions off their federal income taxes. After all, if you don't want the spongers voting, I'm sure you have no problems paying every penny the government asks you to give back.
I challenge anyone to find me ONE human being in the United States that hasn't been touched by the federal government in some way.
The only thing this will do is ensure that Canadians elect the next batch of U.S. officials.
Wha . . .?
So you're saying that only people who meet your precise definition of "intelligence" should be given the right to vote? If so, I'd like to personally thank you for stepping up to cure all of America's election difficulties with such a simple and sublime solution. Why didn't we think of this before?!? Now all we need to do is amend the Constitution!
I.Q. based? Sweet mother of Christ.
I can think of at least one very prominent U.S. official that has a significant amount of difficulty stringing together a simple sentence. Where would he fall in your criteria?
The problems are not at all related to intelligence, but to simple confusion. Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed to a new church building several miles away because their neighborhood was re-districted after the last election (we won't mention the fact that some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference). Ballets are redesigned with enough frequency to merit their own award show. Touchscreens replace scanners, which replace pull-levers, which replace pencil and paper. Requirements for driver's licenses or no driver's licenses are different from state to state, and, in some instances county to county, or parish to parish. Not all people have, or even need a driver's license, and, like it or not, not everyone living here speaks your particular brand of English - doesn't make them stupid, just different.
You want to eliminate the "dummies" from the process, simply the #@*king thing by making ALL ballots and all procedures, nationwide, identical. You want to eliminate voter fraud and disenfranchisement? Make it a capital crime to take away a citizen's Constitutional right to vote in any size shape or form.
He would either be very naive . . . or very, very dangerous.
So then why, exactly did we invade Iraq?
Funny, isn't it?
Bush makes bashing trial lawyers a near platform plank, and yet he's already set a raft of them loose. You have got to admire the balls behind the hypocrisy.
To be fair, Kerry has his own legal army as well; but then again, I think he's got a pretty good reason to be cautious.
At the rate we're going, we won't need to vote in 20 years. They'll just have a trial, with the winner take all.
You're right, hesiod. And that's what's sad about this whole mess. Even if there was a draft law passed that made military service mandatory for every U.S. citizen (similar to Israel), the rich would still find a way to dodge it. That's what should piss us off.
Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
You said it . . .And I'll add one often overlooked:
It was hard for some older folks to simply pull the lever.
Oh, I don't know. Some of the laborers working on cleaning those shiny things for sub-minimum wage might have a different opinion of this . . .
The point wasn't to get the generals to change they way they fight the wars, but rather to change the way the politicians think before they start the wars. If its your son or daughter in the line of fire, you're a lot less likely to talk trash to the side holding a gun at their head.