He's absolutely right. I was a 3C032 at Gunter Annex for four years, now I'm contractor scum. I've been in and around there for the past ten years. The four years I spent as an enlisted programmer were practically wasted. I did maintenance on an old COBOL program, and it took up about.0001% of my time.
It was still a good experience. I got training in C, C++, x86 assembly, Ada, COBOL, SQL, Oracle Forms. Once I put civvies on I got Java and J2EE training from my employer.
Now that I'm a contractor I'm actually busy, but not so busy that I can't read/.
That doesn't mean they're not still evil, but come on, complain about the evil things they're doing NOW, not the evil things they did five years ago.
Unfortunately, we have to wait for the discovery phase of their next trial to get more recent internal emails. In the meantime, is there some reason to believe that their corporate culture has improved in Ballmer's sweaty hands?
Look- just because something carries a microsoft logo does not instantly make it evil and unstable. Microsoft has made a lot of good things in the past, even if they've also made a lot of shit. No one's perfect, and people seem biased against them for no good reason.
There's a lot of knee-jerking when it comes to Microsoft, but they've earned every bit of it. "Biased for no reason?" Educate yourself.
You have a great deal of enthusiasm for, but little knowledge of, quantum theory and its implications. Current understanding of quantum entanglement indicates that it does not allow transmission of information without a "classical" information channel which would be limited by the speed of light. (c.f. The No Communication Theorem)
This greatly limits the utility of quantum radar, telescopes, teleportation, and any other phenomenon that would make use of entanglement. Of course, if your interpretation is correct, you could just observe it into existence.
If thats the case, while before it might have been impossible to communicate across the universe, now it's possible through quantum entanglement to communicate across infinite distance, which means basically, using our minds we've turned distance into illusion, and space into illusion.
Sorry. Not as we understand it currently. Wishing does not make it so.
And thus, having rationalized his expedition to L. Ron's modernistic office /
cathedral / warehouse / condominium complex, JOE seeks The Answer to
his problem...
JOE:
Oh oh oh
Mystical Advisor
What is my problem, tell me
Can you see?
L. RON HOOVER:
Well, you have nothing to fear, my son!
You are a Latent Appliance Fetishist, It appears to me!
JOE:
That all seems very, very strange
I never craved a toaster
Or a color T. V.
L. RON HOOVER:
A Latent Appliance Fetishist
Is a person who refuses to admit to his or herself
That sexual gratification can only be achieved
Through the use of MACHINES... Get the picture?
JOE:
Are you telling me
I should come out of the closet now Mr. Ron?
L. RON HOOVER:
No, my son!
You must go into THE CLOSET
And you will have
A lot of fun!
That's where they all live
So if you want an
Appliance to love you
You'll have to go in there
N' get you one
JOE:
Well...that seems simple enough...
L. RON HOOVER:
Yes, but if you want a really GOOD one,
You'll have to learn a foreign language...
JOE:
German, for instance?
L. RON HOOVER:
That's right...
A lot of really cute ones come from over there!
(Fifty bucks, please)
And a cheerful group of Appliantologists dance into the room wearing
aluminum foil lab smocks, lock arms in a circle around JOE, making
sure he pays in full, all the while singing with L. RON as he delivers
nis final instructions...
science
c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study,"
So, your statement could be read thusly...
Wow.. I didn't know that suggesting knowledge be kept with knowledge was such a problem for you. Can I ask why you are so upset about my not wanting knowledge to be used to discredit religions? What is it to you exactly that makes you think it is necessary to push knowledge into every aspect of life in order to diminish religion?
It really doesn't sound as pithy when it's put that way. The real problem is a clash of epistomologies. Science is empirical, most religions are relevatory. Science is materialistic, religions are metaphysical. Some people decide that there's heavens, hells, angels, devils, spirits, and demons, despite a complete lack of evidence, because it has been "revealed" in a book. Some people decide that the evidence is all we have to base our knowledge on, and must live with uncertainty and ambiguity.
They both have a place in the world (and I say this as an atheist). Religion reflects our hopes and dreams, and uses parables, imagery, and poetry to tries (with varying success) to guide people to a particular type of moral existence. Science makes models of the world around us based on observation and corrects itself when the models no longer work. Whereas science has given us a very accurate description of the world, from the largest scales to the smallest, it is the gold standard in verifiable, testable, useful knowledge. Religion is strongest when it plays to its strongest messages: "love your enemy", "feed the poor", "do unto others as you would have them to unto you", "judge not lest ye be judged". People are turned off of religion because it seems to have forgotten its core messages and instead wishes to dictate sexuality, usurp politics, corrupt science, and incite hatred of other faiths. Jesus (had he existed) would not be pleased.
I would agree with this. The whole thing isn't a problem everywhere. Even in the US.
To the extent that people's religions are denigrated in public schools, and I am sure it has happened, I fully agree that said teacher is out of line. However, if a religious person is offended just by hearing current scientific theories about the origin of species, then I don't consider that a denigration of religion. It should be presented as the best current scientific understanding of speciation.
I wouldn't think they are incompatible.
They most assuredly are. If the bible is to be believed, man was made from dust and had life breathed into him, then woman was made from his rib. Then the animals, as we see them today (funny, no mention of dinosaurs), etc, etc.... If abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are to be believed, life formed from simple chemical bases that started self-replicating, then more successful variants passed on their genes, etc, etc... I can see how one would get those confused.
I use linux and windows and I find ls works good to list the files in a director on linux and dir works good on windows.
That's because they're aliases to nearly identical programs.
Water and agua need the same compartmentalizations,
That's because they're both words for the exact same thing. A better example would be evolution and evolucion.
I'm sure that everyone over 18 has had some experience where they used this sort of thinking.
You don't even need to be religious to see that the commodization of human life, to say nothing of unfettered transhumanism, are not, on their face, good things.
You don't strictly need to be religious to see that, but it really helps.
Considering that transhumanism is nearly the polar opposite of human commoditization, I'd say that you need to investigate both further. The concept of giving people morphological liberty and cognitive freedom is almost completely opposed to the prospect of treating human beings as identical objects of trade. Hell, public schooling does more for human commodification than transhumanism.
I see transhumanism as the logical extension of hearing aids, cochlear implants, glasses, and other technologies that we use to supplement our rather weak and troublesome bodies. I submit that the prospect of transhumanism is, on its face, a very good thing, and will continue apace despite the naysayers. Perhaps if you had parkinsons, deafness, or were partially paralyzed, you would feel differently. The prospect of surpassing human limitations is a cause to celebrate, not to lament.
Call me a pesimist, but I'm more with Bill Joy than Ray Kurzweil.
You're a pessimist, so is Bill Joy, so you're in good company. I respect him, and am better informed by his opinions, but I believe that his fear of new technologies has skewed his comparison of risks versus reward. We create the future through our choices, and despite all the evils of the world, I choose to live in optimism. There is more good in this world than evil. I don't subscribe to the idea of everlasting life, so I want to see this world and its people become more than they currently are. While technology is not always the answer for that, many peoples lives have already been transformed for the better by it. I'll stick with Kurzweil. He has done more for people than Joy (but many thanks for BSD and vi!).
Well, I'd rather have a reply than moderation any day.
I'm familiar with many of the so-called flaws with evolutionary biology that you mention, but you never know when a new piece of evidence is going to arise, so it pays to listen now and again. The trope about macro vs. micro evolution is a particular pet peeve of mine. But, I do think that while healthy skepticism is a very good thing, we must be careful not to go overboard. A Type I error in logic is to accept a falsehood (e.g. creationism). A Type II error is to reject a truth. Through their desire to dethrone modern evolutionary theory, these creationists may inadvertently find some data that is genuinely unaccounted for. I'm not claiming that I.D. or the like qualifies, but in the spirit of scientific inquiry we should be aware of our own biases and keep an eye out for weaknesses in our own positions.
Science is a human enterprise, as is religion, and ego, laziness, and willful ignorance can be found everywhere. If people could just stop fighting over inconsequential matters and instead work on improving the lot of humanity, we'd be in for a much better future.
Evolution has evidence, but evidence does not equal proof.
Proof is for mathematics. When I was taught the scientific method in college, it was made abundantly clear that all scientific knowledge is provisional. Nothing, and I mean nothing is ever considered final. All science is a set of models which are supported by evidence. If contradictory evidence appears, which cannot be explained with the current model, it must either be modified to incorporate the new findings, or be completely supplanted by a new model which can account for the new evidence. This has happened many times in the history of science. For example, Newton's Laws of motion were completely supplanted by general relativity. They're still useful for terrestrial calculations, but they are an incorrect description of the universe. The same process happened with the many models of the nucleus that were put forward.
I would be interested to hear about the evidence that you claim contradicts Darwinian evolution. It is possible, but unlikely, that it is impossible to account for using the current theory. However, it is just that kind of evidence that propels science forward. Many biologists would love to find something that truly contradicts evolutionary theory, because it is the outlying cases that give new insights. I freely admit that there is institutional inertia when long-standing theories are challenged, but science is (in the long term) a self-correcting enterprise. Younger, more ambitious scientists come along to challenge long-held theories in order to be published and make a name for themselves. This means that creationism (even repackaged creationism) has little chance of supplanting current biological thinking. As was explained to me by Eugenie Scott, director of the NCSE, creationists seem to believe that if they poke enough holes in Darwinian Evolution, intelligent design will become the de-facto model, but to supplant Darwin, Intelligent Design must amass a greater body of evidence behind it, and give greater explanatory power than the current theory. Currently, it does neither, and it is far more likely that contradictory evidence will simply lead to a more robust theory of Darwinian Evolution.
However, you need to stop looking for "proof" in science, there are only models, backed by evidence.
But hey, I'm starting to respect those monsters. They really do come out with a lot of money in the end. It may be evil to screw over your own clients, and to do so for a living, but they do make a great living. Now maybe I wouldn't do the same for twice the money, but they are often talking about ten times the money. That gives me pause....
Sounds like you're on a bad path. It's easy to trade your morals for money, just like they did. No wonder you're such a loyal Micro-shill. I'd give up that business if I were you. Spend more time with your family. Or piss your self-respect away for a pile of money that can't buy you what you're missing.
I have a strong suspicion that the next President, whoever she may be, will be briefed on all this stuff and will say, "God damn, unchecked power in a unitary executive branch is really useful! Give me voice transcripts from RNC headquarters for the last 72 hours and a small coffee." I predict that for at least the duration of life on Earth, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President.
The point was to show that in a society with firearms (in other words, all of them), you are much safer if you are one of the ones with the firearms. You are safer still if you live in a society that allows everyone to have firearms. Then you don't know who has them and who doesn't.
Somalia and Afghanistan have a great many guns, however I don't know of anyone who would consider them models of public safety. Public safety seems to me to be far more dependent on a healthy society where economic mobility is available, public institutions like courts and schools function, and resources like water and food are plentiful. Of course, you're correct that all societies have firearms available at some level, and they can be useful for self-defense, but if you suddenly need to use one, it doesn't make any sense to say that you're in a much safer society.
I own a gun, and I learned to use it properly in the military. I've shot recreationally since I was a teenager. I recognize that they are just a tool, and that good or bad intent lies behind the trigger, not in it. I also acknowledge that it is your right to arm yourself and provide for your your own defense. Of course, all rights entail responsibilities, such as the obligation to learn to handle a gun safely, and to learn the legal ramifications of its use. That said, I'm glad that you don't own a gun, and I wish you would stop trying to be an advocate for them, because your post makes you sound like you don't have the emotional maturity to own a water pistol.
But how are you going to continue being productive without an educated workforce?
From a corporate perspective, we already have more than enough science-educated individuals to fill out the available slots. What they need is a large workforce of less-than-literate workers to stock shelves, bag groceries, and push mops. People with a more rounded education would quickly become bored and restless if forced to do menial labor, so it's in their interests not to have them educated properly in the first place.
From a governmental perspective, uneducated people are easier to control. You spoon-feed them ideas and play on their fears. In despotic countries which have undergone a revolution, it is a common step to execute intellectuals to prevent dissent. With an established government, and government schooling, it's easier just to give them a poor quality education in the first place.
It seems to me that your problem is not so much with the American government, but the populace who elected not only GWB, but every single member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
That's a pretty fair assessment. My problem is not with our system of democracy, but with masses of poorly educated people who are easily swayed by their fears and appetites rather than following their philosophy and convictions. I also have a problem with the entire political class. Politics should be about informing, serving, and uniting the public; not selling our system of laws to the highest bidder.
I'm so sorry, democracy hasn't worked out for you. Maybe another country with some other form of government would better suit your needs. I hear Hugo Chavez is going to do away with those pesky, "increasingly phony" elections. Maybe you would be happier in Venezuela or Cuba.
No thanks, I prefer to clean up my own house. If increasing evidence of fraud in our national and local elections doesn't raise your ire, then it is clear that you're no friend of democracy. You're just another apologist. (P.S. not everyone who disagrees with you comes from the left, you have a terrible nose for politics)
In short, if you are hampering the war effort in the US, you are helping those that fight against the US. Are you implying that supporting America's enemies is somehow patriotic?
Even according to the current administration, Al-Quaeda has only become larger and stronger since the beginning of the GWOT. I believe that prosecuting this sham of a war supports their cause far more efficiently than fighting terrorism through our intelligence apparatus. Iraq has become a recruiting poster for global jihad, even among muslims who were not previously radical.
Um, George Bush decisions with Congressional backing is what makes up America's policies. GWB is the lawfully elected president of the US. So, while GWB is not America, he represents the the will of a majority of Americans.
You're right. Congress is complicit in his crimes. GWB represents almost exactly half (2000 was a statistical tie) of the citizenry who can be bothered to turn out in increasingly phony elections. And many of those who voted for him can hardly stomach his policies any more (i.e. paleoconservatives). Saying that he "represents the will of a majority of Americans" is rhetorical nonsense when he has a 33% approval rating.
Slashdot Mirror
He's absolutely right. I was a 3C032 at Gunter Annex for four years, now I'm contractor scum. I've been in and around there for the past ten years. The four years I spent as an enlisted programmer were practically wasted. I did maintenance on an old COBOL program, and it took up about .0001% of my time.
It was still a good experience. I got training in C, C++, x86 assembly, Ada, COBOL, SQL, Oracle Forms. Once I put civvies on I got Java and J2EE training from my employer.
Now that I'm a contractor I'm actually busy, but not so busy that I can't read /.
Unfortunately, we have to wait for the discovery phase of their next trial to get more recent internal emails. In the meantime, is there some reason to believe that their corporate culture has improved in Ballmer's sweaty hands?
Um...how does their active involvement make it less likely that it's some kind of Microsoft plot?
There's a lot of knee-jerking when it comes to Microsoft, but they've earned every bit of it. "Biased for no reason?" Educate yourself.
And Silverlight is "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" personified, just like DirectX, JDirect, IE4, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
The best thing that Microsoft has did for computing to drive down the cost of commodity hardware, which is something Apple would never have done.
Actually, if IPv6 is adopted, we'll see companies (even individuals!) sitting on ~5x10^28 unused IP addresses! Greedy bastards.
Then look up the No Communication Theorem and see how it can't.
You have a great deal of enthusiasm for, but little knowledge of, quantum theory and its implications. Current understanding of quantum entanglement indicates that it does not allow transmission of information without a "classical" information channel which would be limited by the speed of light. (c.f. The No Communication Theorem)
This greatly limits the utility of quantum radar, telescopes, teleportation, and any other phenomenon that would make use of entanglement. Of course, if your interpretation is correct, you could just observe it into existence.
Sorry. Not as we understand it currently. Wishing does not make it so.
FZ > ALL
And thus, having rationalized his expedition to L. Ron's modernistic office / cathedral / warehouse / condominium complex, JOE seeks The Answer to his problem...
JOE: Oh oh oh Mystical Advisor What is my problem, tell me Can you see?
L. RON HOOVER: Well, you have nothing to fear, my son! You are a Latent Appliance Fetishist, It appears to me!
JOE: That all seems very, very strange I never craved a toaster Or a color T. V.
L. RON HOOVER: A Latent Appliance Fetishist Is a person who refuses to admit to his or herself That sexual gratification can only be achieved Through the use of MACHINES... Get the picture?
JOE: Are you telling me I should come out of the closet now Mr. Ron?
L. RON HOOVER: No, my son! You must go into THE CLOSET And you will have A lot of fun! That's where they all live So if you want an Appliance to love you You'll have to go in there N' get you one
JOE: Well...that seems simple enough...
L. RON HOOVER: Yes, but if you want a really GOOD one, You'll have to learn a foreign language...
JOE: German, for instance?
L. RON HOOVER: That's right... A lot of really cute ones come from over there! (Fifty bucks, please)
And a cheerful group of Appliantologists dance into the room wearing aluminum foil lab smocks, lock arms in a circle around JOE, making sure he pays in full, all the while singing with L. RON as he delivers nis final instructions...
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/frank_zappa/a_token_of_my_extreme.html
So, your statement could be read thusly...
It really doesn't sound as pithy when it's put that way. The real problem is a clash of epistomologies. Science is empirical, most religions are relevatory. Science is materialistic, religions are metaphysical. Some people decide that there's heavens, hells, angels, devils, spirits, and demons, despite a complete lack of evidence, because it has been "revealed" in a book. Some people decide that the evidence is all we have to base our knowledge on, and must live with uncertainty and ambiguity.
They both have a place in the world (and I say this as an atheist). Religion reflects our hopes and dreams, and uses parables, imagery, and poetry to tries (with varying success) to guide people to a particular type of moral existence. Science makes models of the world around us based on observation and corrects itself when the models no longer work. Whereas science has given us a very accurate description of the world, from the largest scales to the smallest, it is the gold standard in verifiable, testable, useful knowledge. Religion is strongest when it plays to its strongest messages: "love your enemy", "feed the poor", "do unto others as you would have them to unto you", "judge not lest ye be judged". People are turned off of religion because it seems to have forgotten its core messages and instead wishes to dictate sexuality, usurp politics, corrupt science, and incite hatred of other faiths. Jesus (had he existed) would not be pleased.
To the extent that people's religions are denigrated in public schools, and I am sure it has happened, I fully agree that said teacher is out of line. However, if a religious person is offended just by hearing current scientific theories about the origin of species, then I don't consider that a denigration of religion. It should be presented as the best current scientific understanding of speciation.
They most assuredly are. If the bible is to be believed, man was made from dust and had life breathed into him, then woman was made from his rib. Then the animals, as we see them today (funny, no mention of dinosaurs), etc, etc.... If abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are to be believed, life formed from simple chemical bases that started self-replicating, then more successful variants passed on their genes, etc, etc... I can see how one would get those confused.
That's because they're aliases to nearly identical programs.
That's because they're both words for the exact same thing. A better example would be evolution and evolucion.
Absolutely, it's called Cognitive Dissonance, or Doublethink. Politicians and religious folk excel at it.
You don't strictly need to be religious to see that, but it really helps.
Considering that transhumanism is nearly the polar opposite of human commoditization, I'd say that you need to investigate both further. The concept of giving people morphological liberty and cognitive freedom is almost completely opposed to the prospect of treating human beings as identical objects of trade. Hell, public schooling does more for human commodification than transhumanism.
I see transhumanism as the logical extension of hearing aids, cochlear implants, glasses, and other technologies that we use to supplement our rather weak and troublesome bodies. I submit that the prospect of transhumanism is, on its face, a very good thing, and will continue apace despite the naysayers. Perhaps if you had parkinsons, deafness, or were partially paralyzed, you would feel differently. The prospect of surpassing human limitations is a cause to celebrate, not to lament.
You're a pessimist, so is Bill Joy, so you're in good company. I respect him, and am better informed by his opinions, but I believe that his fear of new technologies has skewed his comparison of risks versus reward. We create the future through our choices, and despite all the evils of the world, I choose to live in optimism. There is more good in this world than evil. I don't subscribe to the idea of everlasting life, so I want to see this world and its people become more than they currently are. While technology is not always the answer for that, many peoples lives have already been transformed for the better by it. I'll stick with Kurzweil. He has done more for people than Joy (but many thanks for BSD and vi!).
The Catholic Magisteria would disagree.
Well, I'd rather have a reply than moderation any day.
I'm familiar with many of the so-called flaws with evolutionary biology that you mention, but you never know when a new piece of evidence is going to arise, so it pays to listen now and again. The trope about macro vs. micro evolution is a particular pet peeve of mine. But, I do think that while healthy skepticism is a very good thing, we must be careful not to go overboard. A Type I error in logic is to accept a falsehood (e.g. creationism). A Type II error is to reject a truth. Through their desire to dethrone modern evolutionary theory, these creationists may inadvertently find some data that is genuinely unaccounted for. I'm not claiming that I.D. or the like qualifies, but in the spirit of scientific inquiry we should be aware of our own biases and keep an eye out for weaknesses in our own positions.
Science is a human enterprise, as is religion, and ego, laziness, and willful ignorance can be found everywhere. If people could just stop fighting over inconsequential matters and instead work on improving the lot of humanity, we'd be in for a much better future.
Proof is for mathematics. When I was taught the scientific method in college, it was made abundantly clear that all scientific knowledge is provisional. Nothing, and I mean nothing is ever considered final. All science is a set of models which are supported by evidence. If contradictory evidence appears, which cannot be explained with the current model, it must either be modified to incorporate the new findings, or be completely supplanted by a new model which can account for the new evidence. This has happened many times in the history of science. For example, Newton's Laws of motion were completely supplanted by general relativity. They're still useful for terrestrial calculations, but they are an incorrect description of the universe. The same process happened with the many models of the nucleus that were put forward.
I would be interested to hear about the evidence that you claim contradicts Darwinian evolution. It is possible, but unlikely, that it is impossible to account for using the current theory. However, it is just that kind of evidence that propels science forward. Many biologists would love to find something that truly contradicts evolutionary theory, because it is the outlying cases that give new insights. I freely admit that there is institutional inertia when long-standing theories are challenged, but science is (in the long term) a self-correcting enterprise. Younger, more ambitious scientists come along to challenge long-held theories in order to be published and make a name for themselves. This means that creationism (even repackaged creationism) has little chance of supplanting current biological thinking. As was explained to me by Eugenie Scott, director of the NCSE, creationists seem to believe that if they poke enough holes in Darwinian Evolution, intelligent design will become the de-facto model, but to supplant Darwin, Intelligent Design must amass a greater body of evidence behind it, and give greater explanatory power than the current theory. Currently, it does neither, and it is far more likely that contradictory evidence will simply lead to a more robust theory of Darwinian Evolution.
However, you need to stop looking for "proof" in science, there are only models, backed by evidence.
Sounds like you're on a bad path. It's easy to trade your morals for money, just like they did. No wonder you're such a loyal Micro-shill. I'd give up that business if I were you. Spend more time with your family. Or piss your self-respect away for a pile of money that can't buy you what you're missing.
Congratulations on starting a successful company! Now could you shut up about how you've started a company for five fucking minutes?
Meh, it's still better than television.
I have a strong suspicion that the next President, whoever she may be, will be briefed on all this stuff and will say, "God damn, unchecked power in a unitary executive branch is really useful! Give me voice transcripts from RNC headquarters for the last 72 hours and a small coffee." I predict that for at least the duration of life on Earth, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President.
Somalia and Afghanistan have a great many guns, however I don't know of anyone who would consider them models of public safety. Public safety seems to me to be far more dependent on a healthy society where economic mobility is available, public institutions like courts and schools function, and resources like water and food are plentiful. Of course, you're correct that all societies have firearms available at some level, and they can be useful for self-defense, but if you suddenly need to use one, it doesn't make any sense to say that you're in a much safer society.
I own a gun, and I learned to use it properly in the military. I've shot recreationally since I was a teenager. I recognize that they are just a tool, and that good or bad intent lies behind the trigger, not in it. I also acknowledge that it is your right to arm yourself and provide for your your own defense. Of course, all rights entail responsibilities, such as the obligation to learn to handle a gun safely, and to learn the legal ramifications of its use. That said, I'm glad that you don't own a gun, and I wish you would stop trying to be an advocate for them, because your post makes you sound like you don't have the emotional maturity to own a water pistol.
From a corporate perspective, we already have more than enough science-educated individuals to fill out the available slots. What they need is a large workforce of less-than-literate workers to stock shelves, bag groceries, and push mops. People with a more rounded education would quickly become bored and restless if forced to do menial labor, so it's in their interests not to have them educated properly in the first place.
From a governmental perspective, uneducated people are easier to control. You spoon-feed them ideas and play on their fears. In despotic countries which have undergone a revolution, it is a common step to execute intellectuals to prevent dissent. With an established government, and government schooling, it's easier just to give them a poor quality education in the first place.
Good point.
That's a pretty fair assessment. My problem is not with our system of democracy, but with masses of poorly educated people who are easily swayed by their fears and appetites rather than following their philosophy and convictions. I also have a problem with the entire political class. Politics should be about informing, serving, and uniting the public; not selling our system of laws to the highest bidder.
No thanks, I prefer to clean up my own house. If increasing evidence of fraud in our national and local elections doesn't raise your ire, then it is clear that you're no friend of democracy. You're just another apologist. (P.S. not everyone who disagrees with you comes from the left, you have a terrible nose for politics)
Even according to the current administration, Al-Quaeda has only become larger and stronger since the beginning of the GWOT. I believe that prosecuting this sham of a war supports their cause far more efficiently than fighting terrorism through our intelligence apparatus. Iraq has become a recruiting poster for global jihad, even among muslims who were not previously radical.
You're right. Congress is complicit in his crimes. GWB represents almost exactly half (2000 was a statistical tie) of the citizenry who can be bothered to turn out in increasingly phony elections. And many of those who voted for him can hardly stomach his policies any more (i.e. paleoconservatives). Saying that he "represents the will of a majority of Americans" is rhetorical nonsense when he has a 33% approval rating.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. - Mark Twain
Nyet!