If I had a dime for every idealist slashdotter claiming to be the true libertarian, I'd have enough money to force entire populations into what amounts to slavery (unless some meddling government were to regulate me). Let Norway have this debate. Let them discover on their own that this is a bad idea. They're big boys and girls now.
It wasn't modded down. It was posted anonymously, presumably out of fear of moderation. I don't know why that other post was modded up, but at least they were logged in. No guts, no glory.
What's really weird is that the very same Republican is now trying to eliminate that section of the bill. It makes you wonder what games the Republicans are playing these days. Could this be an attempt to sabotage a bill that would harm their precious lobbyists?
According to your logic, the entire Bush administration and every congressperson and senator who supported them are RINOs. That would be roughly the entire Republican party. Don't even try to use the "Democrats made me do it" argument either. Republicans had control for a solid four years, and those were the worst four years the first and fourth amendments have ever seen. Yeah, the state of free speech is pretty grim in this country right now, but your "conservatives" are way too preoccupied with attacking abortion and homosexuality to care about free speech. That's just liberal intellectual elite stuff, remember? True patriots are supposed to go along with whatever the President says, remember? If you question the government the terrorists win, remember? We need to use government resources to spy on anti-war groups, remember? If all of that is okay then why is the sky falling as soon as some questionable language gets into a bipartisan bill?
The really weird thing is that neither side of the political spectrum dare oppose the whole "sex offender" legal agenda thing. Its a bit like global warming. Groupthink.
You got it backward. Global warming is contested by politicians, but accepted by the brains in the field. Sex offender registries are contested by the brains but generally accepted by politicians.
Furthermore, you don't seem to know what 'groupthink' means. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but it had to be said.
Whether it's okay to be pedantic about grammar or not, your analysis is flawed. There is no justification in English for forming possessive pronouns with an apostrophe. You are arguing to make "it" the lone exception to this rule by extrapolating a pattern from a different class of words. While tempting and perhaps even natural, it does not stand up to a basic examination of the underlying pronoun grammar.
Wait, so you mean to tell me that maybe, just maybe, Exxon has a good reason to fund investigations that would otherwise go undone because of the irrational bias towards the catastrophic models of climate change?
I didn't see that anywhere in the article. As far as I can tell, you've invented it. The rest of your post is full of similar inventions and outright paranoia about some kind of scientific conspiracy. This article is about the dirty tactics used by ExxonMobil to discredit Global Warming. It is not about new research they've funded or scientific papers they've published. Take your holy war against the scientific community elsewhere.
What an amazing coincidence that the so-called "sacred cow topics" happen to coincide with areas where scientific consensus clashes with the Republican agenda. Banal topics like climatology and evolution suddenly become "sacred" the moment some politician with a lust for power decides to attack them.
Can any idiot can easily comprehend climate dynamics, ocean currents, the effect of temperature variation on flora and fauna, and how all of these will affect humans? If it were so simple then more people would understand it. As it is, you have to put forth some effort to learn about it. It's too bad so many people think Global Warming is an article of faith that you either accept or reject, with no further research required.
P.S. Since when do hippies try to avoid things that are bad for business? Must hippies be the stand-in bad guys for absolutely every vice?
No one said boo in WWII when 17,000 died in a few months
Actually, people were extremely upset in the months after WWII began. Hitler claimed that the invasion of Poland was an act of self-preservation but everyone knew that he really wanted to expand his dominion. In the end, WWII was a tremendous disaster. The death toll was huge and it didn't get Hitler anything but an early grave. I'm not sure I'd put even the Iraq War in the same category of disaster as WWII.
Every history book on the Iraq War is going to mention 9/11, just as every history of World War I mentions Francis Ferdinand. The plain truth is that 9/11 was used to stir up fanatical nationalism and loyalty to the central government, which set the stage for the abuses of power that led to the Iraq War. I'm not saying that 9/11 was necessary for Bush's plan; it was simply available. Similarly, the assassination of Francis Ferdinand was not necessary for WWI to ignite.
I suppose comparing the Iraq War to 9/11 shows how we've become that which we despise.
It makes perfect sense to compare two deadly events by counting deaths. For example, the Asian tsunami was far deadlier than hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make hurricane Katrina justified, but it does give one some perspective.
In this case, it's clear that Bush is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden. The comparison suggests that we reevaluate our priorities.
Well... one could argue that this is only fair... since the Government pays for the USGS, and so has the fullest right to make sure that it soesn't say anything that might life difficult for the current adminstration.
Does the Government have the fullest right to make sure that the postal service doesn't deliver any letters that might be harmful or embarrassing to the current administration? Or does the Government serve the People, and therefore have no right to censor studies paid for by the People's money?
What's wrong with the peer review system already in place? Is it broken in some way that can only be mended by giving high-ranking government officials more power?
And this will be met with millions of slashdotters claiming that their civil rights are being taken away because the administration gets to control what kinds of information comes out of one of the agencies it controls.
I really get a kick out of how this is presented, as if it is obvious that the administration should have complete control over what the unwashed masses know about their own government's operation. It's something I've never understood about conservatives, and I'm not likely to get a real explanation any time soon.
I'm sorry, I must have confused your post with a relevant one. Since slander has nothing to do with the topic, I assumed that you meant to say something a little more pertinent. My mistake.
How sad that scientists of all people have to preemptively defend against attacks from the Right. Whenever there's new information about evolution, global warming or even human biology there's a certain level of anti-intellectual backlash to be expected. How did it come to this?
I think the point is that conservative voters are more likely to support these kinds of things. It's pretty obvious that Clinton and Lieberman aren't trying to win over any liberal intellectuals with all this "family values" posing.
Slashdot Mirror
But in the US we elect them to our government. Who are the idiots again?
If I had a dime for every idealist slashdotter claiming to be the true libertarian, I'd have enough money to force entire populations into what amounts to slavery (unless some meddling government were to regulate me). Let Norway have this debate. Let them discover on their own that this is a bad idea. They're big boys and girls now.
My thoughts exactly. When I read the GP's first paragraph I thought it was supposed to be ironic! Who in their right mind would suggest such nonsense?
I think you've gotten Karl Marx confused with Jesus Christ.
Man, I've always wanted to say that!
It wasn't modded down. It was posted anonymously, presumably out of fear of moderation. I don't know why that other post was modded up, but at least they were logged in. No guts, no glory.
What's really weird is that the very same Republican is now trying to eliminate that section of the bill. It makes you wonder what games the Republicans are playing these days. Could this be an attempt to sabotage a bill that would harm their precious lobbyists?
According to your logic, the entire Bush administration and every congressperson and senator who supported them are RINOs. That would be roughly the entire Republican party. Don't even try to use the "Democrats made me do it" argument either. Republicans had control for a solid four years, and those were the worst four years the first and fourth amendments have ever seen. Yeah, the state of free speech is pretty grim in this country right now, but your "conservatives" are way too preoccupied with attacking abortion and homosexuality to care about free speech. That's just liberal intellectual elite stuff, remember? True patriots are supposed to go along with whatever the President says, remember? If you question the government the terrorists win, remember? We need to use government resources to spy on anti-war groups, remember? If all of that is okay then why is the sky falling as soon as some questionable language gets into a bipartisan bill?
You got it backward. Global warming is contested by politicians, but accepted by the brains in the field. Sex offender registries are contested by the brains but generally accepted by politicians.
Furthermore, you don't seem to know what 'groupthink' means. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but it had to be said.
No one is blaming the US. It's not always about you.
Whether it's okay to be pedantic about grammar or not, your analysis is flawed. There is no justification in English for forming possessive pronouns with an apostrophe. You are arguing to make "it" the lone exception to this rule by extrapolating a pattern from a different class of words. While tempting and perhaps even natural, it does not stand up to a basic examination of the underlying pronoun grammar.
I didn't see that anywhere in the article. As far as I can tell, you've invented it. The rest of your post is full of similar inventions and outright paranoia about some kind of scientific conspiracy. This article is about the dirty tactics used by ExxonMobil to discredit Global Warming. It is not about new research they've funded or scientific papers they've published. Take your holy war against the scientific community elsewhere.
Research should be done. Paying someone to arrive at a given conclusion is not research.
What an amazing coincidence that the so-called "sacred cow topics" happen to coincide with areas where scientific consensus clashes with the Republican agenda. Banal topics like climatology and evolution suddenly become "sacred" the moment some politician with a lust for power decides to attack them.
Can any idiot can easily comprehend climate dynamics, ocean currents, the effect of temperature variation on flora and fauna, and how all of these will affect humans? If it were so simple then more people would understand it. As it is, you have to put forth some effort to learn about it. It's too bad so many people think Global Warming is an article of faith that you either accept or reject, with no further research required.
P.S. Since when do hippies try to avoid things that are bad for business? Must hippies be the stand-in bad guys for absolutely every vice?
Actually, people were extremely upset in the months after WWII began. Hitler claimed that the invasion of Poland was an act of self-preservation but everyone knew that he really wanted to expand his dominion. In the end, WWII was a tremendous disaster. The death toll was huge and it didn't get Hitler anything but an early grave. I'm not sure I'd put even the Iraq War in the same category of disaster as WWII.
Every history book on the Iraq War is going to mention 9/11, just as every history of World War I mentions Francis Ferdinand. The plain truth is that 9/11 was used to stir up fanatical nationalism and loyalty to the central government, which set the stage for the abuses of power that led to the Iraq War. I'm not saying that 9/11 was necessary for Bush's plan; it was simply available. Similarly, the assassination of Francis Ferdinand was not necessary for WWI to ignite.
I suppose comparing the Iraq War to 9/11 shows how we've become that which we despise.
It makes perfect sense to compare two deadly events by counting deaths. For example, the Asian tsunami was far deadlier than hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make hurricane Katrina justified, but it does give one some perspective.
In this case, it's clear that Bush is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden. The comparison suggests that we reevaluate our priorities.
Look up the word 'ideology'. It does not mean 'bias'. It does not mean 'disruption'. It does not mean 'elite'.
I'm very sorry that your favorite book didn't get a review in the NY Times. Life just isn't fair, is it?
What's wrong with the peer review system already in place? Is it broken in some way that can only be mended by giving high-ranking government officials more power?
I really get a kick out of how this is presented, as if it is obvious that the administration should have complete control over what the unwashed masses know about their own government's operation. It's something I've never understood about conservatives, and I'm not likely to get a real explanation any time soon.
I'm sorry, I must have confused your post with a relevant one. Since slander has nothing to do with the topic, I assumed that you meant to say something a little more pertinent. My mistake.
Yes, everyone has the right to boycott a business. I'm surprised that you'd even consider restricting this right.
How sad that scientists of all people have to preemptively defend against attacks from the Right. Whenever there's new information about evolution, global warming or even human biology there's a certain level of anti-intellectual backlash to be expected. How did it come to this?
I think the point is that conservative voters are more likely to support these kinds of things. It's pretty obvious that Clinton and Lieberman aren't trying to win over any liberal intellectuals with all this "family values" posing.