I have to start wondering what there is about his movement that is so attractive to people whose views I find repugnant.
I can tell you exactly what it is.
The constitution was designed to make things difficult for the government with regard to things done in privacy, which is a system of social boundaries well understood both then, and now. It safeguarded your communications, personal records, your home, basically set things up so that in order for the government to come after you, they had to have either someone who would swear a verbal oath or write an affirmation, publicly and personally taking the responsibility for the accusation, a warrant, a description of exactly what they were looking for, and exactly where they were going to look. This is the essence of the 4th amendment.
Today, without the required amendment to change these constitutional requirements, the government has assumed the power to violate the citizen's privacy without warrants, oath or affirmation. Further, as communications matured beyond the papers mentioned in the 4th, and speech as mentioned in the 1st, the government has further violated the obvious implications of the 4th (although we see some activity to protect, such as the telecommunications privacy laws, now cast aside in actuality if not by law.)
The combination of the 1st and the 4th, if obeyed by the government, creates an environment where your privacy and your opinions, presumably as a citizen not actually committing violence against, or otherwise directly harming other citizens, is very well protected. This is a worthy accomplishment, and one you may well be grateful for, especially when you are having discussions about why you despise the current political leadership or the actions of the government. And this is, in fact, why these provisions were deemed so important to the authors of the constitution. The 1st gives you public immunity for anything you say (although there exist many misguided exceptions that have trimmed the 1st back, sad to say.)
Those people you don't like - the white supremacists, people who worship in ways not palatable to you, they want the 1st obeyed, so they can state their positions in public and not have to worry that the government will come after them - "hate speech", that sort of thing. They want the 4th obeyed so they can pursue their private lives in private (and frankly, I'd just as soon they did, most of them) and without feeling like the door is going to be broken down. They also want to be sure they'll get a quick hearing, and a trial, and representation - you know, those things the government is now in the process of eroding.
In an environment where the government actually has to abide by the constitution, the things that benefit you will also benefit those who you don't get along with. Liberty for all, until they directly step on your toes, pretty much. That's why those people are gathering up to support Paul. And if you let them discourage you, you're going to end up with the same situation you have now, where everyone's privacy is at risk of being unconstitutionally sundered at the whim of any law enforcement officer, bounty hunter, or various other arms of government.
Just read a good deal of your website; very amusing.
Good on the whole hooker thing, too. World's oldest profession, and one that's still completely legal as long as you convert the payment to goods and services, e.g., dinner and a movie. I never had any issues with hookers, but I have to say, I haven't much use for pimps.
I have to wonder if you need to have something pointed out to you: businesses are started and run by citizens. There is no line between the two, despite your attempts to draw one
If you think there is no line between a corporation with essentially unlimited funds to expend on pushing representatives this way and that, and a citizen who will bear the brunt of the decisions taken as a direct consequence of those corporate pressures, you're wrong.
Why don't you go see if you can outbid Google for the 700 MHz spectrum? No difference between you and them, after all, right? Oh, wait. Money. Yeah. Ooops. Guess you're not going to do that, after all. You're nothing to them.
Why don't you release software that screws with our computers and get caught, like Sony did and got away without any significant effect? Oh, wait. That's because you'll go to jail and become Leroy's "wife", while Sony just twitches some cash it won't even notice at the problem and it goes away. No difference between you and them. Except you're gonna get some anally injected death-serum for your efforts, of course.
Why don't you sit down with your congress-critter and wine and dine them and supply them with sexual favors and take them on jaunts and "retreats" and "fact finding missions", promise them lucrative speaking engagements and positions on "think tank" boards post-political life? Oh wait, that's because you have no ability to do so, while a corporation (or a PAC) does. So you write a letter to your congresscritter. Guess what? They won't even read it. Some aide will look at it, and maybe, if you're very, very lucky, tick you off in a column of statistics as a fraction of an inkling of a lean this way or that. Meanwhile, said congresscritter is at lunch with Chuckie Corpwhore, Bambi and Hotlips, and just as Bambi nudges those star-class knockers into Mr. congresscritter's arm, Chuckie "suggests" a strategy diametrically opposed to yours. Guess what happens next?
Large corporations may be started by individuals, but like any entity that controls far more resources than the one next to it, they have far more influence than any individual has. In other words, they are different, and your entire thesis is bunk.
Let me see what you say here... You want all the copyrights and patents for software to go away
No. I didn't say that, and I don't want that. Your assertion is groundless. Software patents are wrong, but copyrights are the correct tool for source code protection.
You want no commercials on TV, but still something to watch?
No, I'm fine with commercials. What I'm not fine with is forcing me to accrue time to them when they're irrelevant or not interesting. I won't tolerate that, and they can't make me tolerate it, either.
You want insurance companies to not pre-qualify applicants but still want a rate that's affordable?
No, I want insurance companies and their middlemen to go away, I want us to pool our resources as a society and make sure everyone is covered. The insurance industry has catastrophically conflicting interests; in order to protect the user of the service, they pool fees and spread risk over the users. In order to protect the owners of the service, they work to eliminate risky users. The end result is low risk users, with those at highest risk unprotected. Which is the exact opposite of what we actually need. It is the people who crash that need the airbags. It isn't a matter of higher fees, either - they go without protection, with claims rejected, and so on. The insurance industry is a festering boil on the ass of progress.
You think that America is degenerating because you're not getting everything you want.
No, I think that America is degenerating because our government no longer complies with its constituting authority, which means it has no authority at all, just power. I think that America is degenerating because our citizens have been stripped of their liberties. Because we torture. Because we undertake wars of aggression. Because our personal choices are the subject of wars - wars on sexuality, marriage, drugs and more. Because lawyers have been allowed to run like wild dogs across the idea of personal responsibility. Because the federal government has interfered with, nay, outright stolen, many state's rights. Because of the government's failure to protect property ownership. Because legislators are purchased by corporations. Because of the USAPATRIOT act. Because of the pervasive and nefarious nature of the religious infestation in our legal system. As it happens, I have what I want - I'm 50, debt free, live where I want in the style I want, have a great family and do work I enjoy. However, that doesn't mean I don't notice when the lady down the road loses all her teeth because she can't afford dental work, or when the insurance company won't insure the guy next door for any amount that could possibly be afforded because he's a diabetic, or when some poor bastard is arrested without a warrant and held for years without hearing, or when kids have their lives ruined by a drug charge or for having sex with each other. In short, I think America is degenerating because it fucking well is degenerating. If you don't think it is, I can't account for that, nor do I think your jumping to the conclusion that I am agitating for change because my situation is poor is evidence of very clear thinking. You could have simply asked; instead, you went off the deep end on an entirely irrelevant and incorrect rant.
This is why I hate op-eds. They only point out the bad without saying anything good and make the solution sound too simplistic. It's also why I hate both extremes of politics.
Indeed? Well perhaps if you reverted to "think, write, post" instead of "write, post, think" you'd feel a little better about yourself.
No. Metamoderation doesn't work. Several reasons. First, the unfairly downrated post is never fixed; so it is forever lost to the conversation (if you don't read at -1 like a sensible person.) Even if it were fixed, metamoderation occurs so late that the conversation is essentially over. This means that in reality, a bad mod is a bad mod forever. Second, though that particular moderator may be suspended for a few months, there is a near-infinite supply of bad moderators - so not only does the bad mod remain, the flood of bad moderations is in no sense ameliorated. Third, most metamoderation is spent (completely wasted, really) on mod-UP mods, which don't hurt anyone, and which disagreeing with doesn't help anyone - all an up mod is, after all, is a moderator saying "I found this more interesting/whatever than its neighbor posts" which you may, or may not, agree with, so the most value it ever has is opinion. Down mods are something else again because they can serve to hide posts for people gullible enough to allow moderation to control what they see.
The only "burr" I carry is the one that regrets the time lost to having to deal with real trolls (GNAA and FP!) because moderation doesn't work, and of course I blame that on the people responsible for the site's code, since they could fix it if they so chose. Make no mistake, I'm not here because slashdot works well, I'm here because the other posters are an unusually interesting group of people that I enjoy interacting with.
I live a similar lifestyle, though not quite as extreme, as even "fixer uppers" around here are still quite expensive and require mortgages.
You may want to consider moving. Out here in Montana, and I suspect in many other places in the Midwest as well, some bargains can still be had. I purchased a sound, 4,200 sq ft building with new electrical service, a new roof, and a new heating system on two large lots for $25,000; by the time we're done with the interior, we still won't have cracked the 50k mark by doing all the work ourselves. Taxes are $1500 a year. Living in 4,200 sq feet, all customized to your specific interests, is like living in your own amusement park. You can see some of what we're doing here on flickr. Don't let carpentry, plumbing or electrical tasks intimidate you - study the methods, peruse the books on the codes, and you're good to go. Time well spent. Plus, the cool things you can do for almost nothing, you could never afford to have carpenters, plumbers and electricians do.
Unless you have a 0% interest loan (not common, but they do occur), the following applies:
The result of you holding on to your cash is that the auto loan's interest costs you money you would otherwise not have to pay.
The only way you can reverse this is if you have that money invested in some manner earning more interest than the auto loan is costing you. This is possible if you have a lot of money so as to command very high interest rates, or the interest rate on the loan is unusually low and free of significant fees.
In other words, if the auto loan is costing you a particular amount in interest over four years, but you are earning less than that over four years from the money you are holding on to, then you are losing money for no particular reason other than hoping the credit industry will look favorably upon you.
Presuming you're not earning interest (for instance, the money is is sitting in a non-earning checking account): If you pay the loan off now and save the payments, if you have 15000 to pay, and 15000 in the bank, and the car loan costs you 300 a year in interest, then you get 16200 in the bank and the lender gets 15000 at the end of the loan period.
But if you follow your strategy, you get 15000 and the lender gets 16200 at the end of the loan period.
If you are earning interest, these numbers become less troublesome, but I would encourage you to do the math specific to your situation because it is a rare situation indeed where the borrower comes out ahead. Also, the numbers I used here are very, very conservative - on a typical US car loan, the numbers are considerably more significant, as are the potential gains to be made by paying off the loan, while the difficulty increases as far as making saved money earn as much as the lender will be taking.
Even if you have a 0% loan:
During the course of the loan period, at least here in the USA, the insurance you must carry on the vehicle is mandated by the company that has an interest in the car, possibly incurring even higher costs. If you wish to sell or trade in the vehicle, there are extra steps to go through because of the stake the lender has in the vehicle. You have an additional monthly bill to deal with. If you pay by mail, every month you take a small, but non-zero risk that one or more of the following will happen because your payment was lost: your credit damaged, your interest rate increased, punitive fees assessed.
So when you say credit is a "tool", perhaps you should look at it a little harder. Who is this tool working for?
You're talking about propaganda. I'm talking about objective information. Two different things. I don't think schools ought to be in the business of propagandizing children. I think they should be in the business of educating them as to facts. There's no downside to a uniform education as to objective facts and basic skills.
Reading. Writing. Computer skills. Mathematics. Science (and lots of it.) Critical thinking. Finance. The facts of history (this is the only really tough area because it is so easily subject to spin.) Civics. Basic life skills - cooking, cleaning, hygiene, budgeting, consequences of becoming a parent.
Not pledging allegiance, prayer, playing sports, art, music, drama, or other personal activities. Those can be pursued by the community, if they are desired, or by the individual.
From this basic, state-provided set of underpinnings, one can go anywhere one wants and extend the education in all manner of custom directions, fill in blanks, etc.
Education shouldn't result in molded kids. It should result in informed kids. Molding is the parent's job.
I personally think that one of the most life-changing decisions you can make (and I have made) is to live without debt. I saved until I could afford my home, then I bought it. I didn't buy something I had to borrow for. I own my vehicles, and I don't accrue credit card or other revolving debt. In this way, my earnings serve my family and I first, my charitable efforts second, and our tax burden third.
Plenty of decisions there that might not be palatable to some; for instance, my house used to be a church, and I had to build an interior for it by hand. I didn't know how - so I learned how and did it. And re-did it, in some cases. I found it quite difficult, but I still have all my limbs and digits, so technically speaking, it went ok.:-) The end result isn't a palace by most people's standards, but by mine, it's a castle. Lots of space, all of it doing just what I want it to, extremely low total cost of ownership, no debt. Plus it looks just a little like a castle, so there are a couple of fringe benefits.
If you don't pay interest, you've really put yourself in a different position as far as supporting the problems this nation has with predatory lenders and all the ancillary hangers-on such as credit agencies and middle-persons. I highly recommend trying this if you think you can pull it off. It takes some of what appears to be sacrifice, in that you don't get what you want when you want it; but then again, you don't get lenders of various stripes taking what can amount to many times the value of the the things you got to have when you wanted them, later on... sometimes interminably if you get too far into the debt loop.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, but his stance on healthcare is a deal breaker for me. If "promote the general Welfare" can't be reasonably and trivially interpreted to mean the health of the citizens, then it never meant anything in the first place as far as I'm concerned.
Because of Paul's present declared stance on healthcare, my vote will go to Kucinich. If Paul becomes more enlightened on this issue (which I doubt, as this is a matter of considerable self-interest to him), I'd be very pleased to vote for him.
While I agree with Paul that the present government mismanagement of healthcare is reprehensible, I don't think that means that the best way to handle it is to let the individual citizen play Russian Roulette.
Sadly, electing a president is only a fraction of what needs be done, and the races in the senate and house do not get the attention they need to elect candidates that would let a president actually accomplish a serious reform platform they were elected on. Assuming such a president can even be elected, which is optimistic to say the least.
It's mainly about DRM, you're writing about copyright.
Tell me something, then. DRM (Digital RIGHTS management) is managing exactly what rights?
C'mon, Bob, ten seconds, The question is, what's your name? Eight seconds Bob, you can do it... you know this one, Bob... [ a nod to Cheech and Chong ]
What I'm getting at is that your comment is a boilerplate "insightful" comment
Oh. I see. You think slashdot moderation works, therefore you think that posts are designed for the approval of these moderators. Well, sadly, slashdot moderation does not work, and never will, until or unless it provides for (a1) recovery of posts lost to bad mods, or (a2) stops downgrading good posts (moderator accountability is key here), and (b) actually uplifts all the posts worth reading. In the meantime, all savvy slashdot readers read at -1 so they don't miss all the great posts that the manifestly broken slashdot moderation lets fall by the wayside. So, no, not posted for any reason to do with "karma." Bzzzt.
...karma whoring is gay.
And try not to be so homophobic, eh? I know it's tough, but you can probably manage it if you try. Because being homophobic is boilerplate for declaring one's self an unvarnished idiot.
For me, it means looking for a mix of libertarian and social service ideals. They're tough to find in one package. I think this is because the libertarians have a lot of trouble understanding certain things. Such as, that people need safety nets in extremis, good "roads" for goods, communications, data and themselves, sewage and other utility infrastructure, a uniform and detailed general education, medical care and a stable currency everyone uses, and that they inherently need all these things regardless of their economic condition on the one hand... While on the other, the republicrats can't seem to understand that the the right to tell someone else what to do outside of as it addresses directly interfering with one another or government's legitimate service to the people was never delegated to the government in any form, nor should it be.
But that's just me. Certainly elections resulting in this type of candidate being elected would represent a huge change; and it approximates what I'd like to see. Others have to answer the question of what they'd like to see and vote accordingly. What I'm suggesting is that if we really look at our current situation, what is going on is not what we'd really like to see.
If you can't see that the post is on-topic, then you should go read the FA. You might find some vague reference to the effects of copyright interpretation and enforcement on reading, which, you may recall, is something a person, a citizen, does. You also, if you work *really* hard, might recall that copyright is enforced top down by the feds. Using the constitution as the base authority. Go ahead. Read. Or work for comprehension. Or both. We'll wait. [ whistles ]
There's no irony in it at all. You see that "limited time" clause? That's what is changing to the public's detriment. I would know - I own a literary agency.
What I said was "emphasis on copyright benefiting the business interests any any expense to the citizen's interests is the exact same change in emphasis" which is not the same thing as blaming copyright for problems. I don't think copyright, per se, is a bad thing at all. What I think is specifically a bad thing are the changes in copyright law that provide rights far beyond the period where most material will be germane to the culture that has evolved since the material was produced. If the material is no longer germane, it is, by definition, no longer promoting the "useful arts."
I didn't suggest a revolution. I said that the level of annoyance wasn't sufficient to get the citizens up in arms, and I suggested people use the vote. Not exactly a "revolutionary" strategy. Perhaps you need to polish those reading skills a little.
Have your silly revolution. NOTHING will change in the long run, nor even in the short run
Oh, I don't know. I think the British found their relationship with us slightly changed due to revolution. I think simply voting in the right people could do it; we may have to write in candidates for many positions, but other than that, the means is staring us in the face. The question isn't whether this can effect change; the question is will enough of the population become aware of the problem such that they'll use it? That's where my doubts kick in.
I'll tell you what is happening here. It's the same thing that is happening on other fronts - precisely the same thing.
The constitution was written with the idea of the government serving and protecting the people, watching out for their welfare, arranging things so that this was first and foremost concern in those areas the government operated.
This emphasis on copyright benefiting the business interests any any expense to the citizen's interests is the exact same change in emphasis we have seen for the takings of land, the decreases in freedom of speech, the ridiculous idea that software can and/or should be patentable, the intent to force you to wait through commercials, the powers allowed to the insurance companies to pre-qualify applicants, the insane readings of the commerce clause that allow the government to attack the citizen for any act at all, the outright hijacking of the news outlets by commercially oriented entities — the problem is that it is like the tale of boiling a lobster. It's all annoying, but none of it is annoying enough, by itself, to really get the citizens up in arms.
America is degenerating quickly. If you think your vote counts, you'd better start using it differently at every level. Because the "same-old, same-old" is what got us here.
With each passing day, the probability of these constants suddenly (or even gradually) changing becomes less likely.
Evidence from space reaches us "today" as testimony to the stability of the constants, coming from a huge range of times ranging from just a few years ago (Proxima Centuri) to about 12...14 billion years ago.
If instead you leave them to have their beliefs...
Yes, here's what happens:
You are forced to lose worktime (Sundays, holidays, etc)
You must conform to their idea of what marriage means
Selling, owning, and using sex toys ends up as crime
Their smarmy, idiotic mottoes and symbols end up all over your money, your country, your legal system
Your science class gets infected with fictional accounts
"Witches" get burned
"Demons" get exorcised
The gullible are robbed
Teachers are threatened with death over naming teddy bears mohammed
Atheists get blamed for the ills of the world
In many states people who don't believe in god are discriminated against by law.
Religion imposes its own arbitrary moral values in the form of laws restricting peoples' freedom
Atheists are forced to subsidize religion via taxes and the politically correct "gag order"
Religion curtails freedom of speech and freedom of expression
Religion is actively and aggressively promoting war, conflict, oppression and prejudice
Religion stifles progress in all areas of science and society
People like Darwin are repressed (or burned at the stake, as Lucilio Vainini was.)
We get religious persecutions like the Papal and Spanish inquisitions
We get wars like the series of crusades
We get 9/11, the Cole, the earlier WTC bombing, Bali, the French trains
We lose our liberties and get crap like the USAPATRIOT act
We get fucktards who think they talk to god LEADING THE COUNTRY AND CONTROLLING OUR NUKES
Do you punch little kids for getting their photo taken with Santa?
No, and no urge to do so. However, I freely admit to the urge to criticize their parents. The only reason I don't say anything about it is because they're not my kids. My kids, I can assure you, were never subjected to such abuse. "Santa? Oh yeah, well, we lied about that to you." What a great precedent to set. Lying to children is heinous, particularly in the case of parents doing it. The only up side to it is for those kids that have an unusually strong streak of independent thinking, they may generalize it and realize that the stories about "god" have no more basis in fact than Santa does, and free themselves from the generations-long procession of lies and ignorance. Sadly, they have to do it at the expense of their parents credibility, but I suppose since their parents don't have any credibility in the first place, well... there you go.
It doesn't hurt and it does build bridges - that's a good thing.
No. It isn't. Build bridges to truth. Not to lies. Then it's a good thing. Would you build a bridge to Pol Pot over the idea of an agrarian collective, while blithely ignoring the slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions with an estimated death toll of 750,000, perhaps even more? Would you gloss over the fact that he singled out intellectuals for death? What about those who supported Pol Pot and did his bidding? Are they any better? In my view, they're even worse.
I think you might answer that you do not support them and would not "build bridges" to them.
If that's the case, why, considering all the bad things religion has done, and is doing, are you so willing to build bridges to it and the people supporting it?
My theory, which gives you the benefit of the doubt, is you say these things because you haven't really thought the issues through, and you're just regurgitating the politically correct line of "live and let live."
The problem here is the religionists are not just letting the rest of us live unmolested. Therefore, they have not earned the right to be left alone. The ideal of liberty is that my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins. But that is only true if you have not hit me first. The religionists swung first; and that's the end of their right to continue unmolested in their pursuit of their ideas.
No. I wasn't. Neither directly nor indirectly. It was an analogy, delivered with some dry humor. So as to the rest of that... no. Buzz.
I think the problem here is that you are referring to both science and religion as contradictory methods without stating what the common intended end of the methods is.
Easily remedied: both methods purport to (a) describe reality as it is, and (b) provide methods for advancing the condition of humanity. In this pursuit, science actually functions, that is, "it works, bitches"; religion, on the other hand, doesn't. Not a prayer, not a miracle, not even a manifestation by the (various) dark sides. Hence my original remark about praying.
My suggested common end has ontological undertones.
Science has no ontological component or justification; that's just your mind chasing its own tail when you postulate that it does. Science is a method. No more, no less. The goal of that method is to pin down reality as far as possible given the cognitive, perceptual and technical limitations of the beings employing the method. The reason this is worthwhile is because it advances the human condition through such knowledge. Significantly. Often rapidly. Sometimes frighteningly.
Consequently, there is no common end. Just a religious end. It has no place whatsoever in science. Argument for one imaginary story by virtue (and I use the word very loosely) of utilizing reason alone has no more basis in fact than any other; as there is no satisfactory argument for pink unicorns that run upside down along fault lines creating earthquakes, there is no satisfactory argument for god or gods, and for precisely the same reasons: no data. Arguments without data - the ontological argument - are mental masturbation. The fact that you do not recognize this demonstrates a huge gap in your ability to face reality.
The venom and hatred in your posts is a clear as your unwillingness to consider an alternative view.
So, after all the shit that religionists have, and are, putting me through, I should just sit back and go "hey, that's cool", eh? No reason to be annoyed with them? If *I* told *you* what days you could shop for items you wanted, that you had to pay my taxes, what sex acts are ok and in what social situations you may undertake them, who, how many, and of what sex you may marry, and those issues did not concur with what your reason tells you, would you not be annoyed with me?
Now, with regard to the rest of your sally, if you have an alternative view you want me to consider, then here's what you need to do. You need to set up a predicted result of your alternative view. Like, "at 0900 tomorrow night, your monitor will begin weeping tears of blood." Or peanut butter, crude oil, whatever. I, in my turn, will observe my monitor. When said tears materialize, I will agree that you have your finger on something religious and/or supernatural. If they don't - and we have 2000 years of failed predictions in the case of xianity so far, various other lengths for other religious and superstitious outlooks - I'll just add your alternative view to my (huge) file of crackpottery. For my part, my prediction is that the next time the night sky is clear and you are located at a relatively non-light-polluted appropriate viewing position, should you look up, the vast majority of the stars will be in the exact positions predicted for them by science. Also that with DC current, R=E/I, E=I*R, etc. at room temperature. If those don't work out, by all means, feel free to knock science about and think up "alternative views" and again, I'll pay attention.
You know, the idea that the earth sits on the back of a turtle is an alternative view, too. But it isn't getting any play at my house either. Just because you think something up doesn'
Intriguingly, the electrodes detected much greater gamma wave activity in the experienced meditators, and found that this was much better organised and coordinated than in the brains of the novice meditators.
Wow. Focused mental activity produces more mental activity than unfocused mental activity. Eur-fucking-reka.
You're a genius. Next up, Google links to research into if really pissing someone off makes them more angry than just annoying them a little. Youtube film at 11.
I understand the context of your post
No. You don't.
to say what you have said as an apparent endorsement of science is an insult to scientific discovery. Most scientific understanding of existence is based on models and these models are just that. Models
You need to learn the difference between a method that involves induction, testing, falsification and redundancy / reproducability across many experiments by many different experimenters as compared to a method that involves "I believe, and/or some pontificating preacher told me so, therefore it are, amen, lynch the gays."
You hadda go and spoil it, didn't you? I almost had a chunk of plaque detached and on the way to blocking a cranial artery, and you had to calm the AC down. Do you think these posts just create themselves? Man, they're work!
Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs(.) AC, just ignore the parent. You should be pissed. Why, an offtopic post of slashdot? On religion, the ultimate "pretend it isn't there" boogyman? You should be incensed, man! Crazed! C'mon, lets see some real indignation. Let fly. Remember, spittle means never having to water your blood pressure meds!
You know, I did forget to link it, and I was even thinking of the cartoon (and the t-shirt) when I said that. I love that guy's work; best cartoons on the net, bar none, IMHO. In contrition, one of my favorites here.
People can work together irrespective of their beliefs in areas that aren't affected by those beliefs
Look, you could work with Hitler or Pol Pot or modern day equivalents of them in areas where you don't conflict if you choose to — the point is, you shouldn't. It isn't all about "getting along." When someone is lying to children (or adults who think like children), it isn't a great idea to go along. Eventually, they'll base real world decisions on the bullshit they've been fed, and then we have trials about evolution, books being banned, stores closing 1/7th of the time, rampant sexual repression, brittle and narrow marriage standards, the loading of tax shares onto the shoulders of others, open homophobia and veiled homophobia AKA "don't ask, don't tell", preachers bilking old ladies out of their savings, the inquisitions, "witches" bing burned, teachers being put to death for naming teddy bears Mohammed, world leaders doing things because "god talks to them", proclamations that hurricane victims "deserved" it because they're sinners, and so on.
Getting along is overrated. Some motherfuckers just need a good stiff punch in the head.
As for being topical, at this point in history, science is the light, and religion is the dark. I choose not to forget the dark while it remains a threat or even just an annoyance. By the way, you are aware it is Sunday, right? Religion is 100% topical here in the USA today. By religious decree.
Seriously? The hottest in history? Have you watched much porn? I mean, I'm all for declaring Ms. Hayes a valuable resource of Montana, certainly more valuable than, say, a politician, but she certainly has some competition in the porn world. How about Asia Carrera - totally smoking hot and a mensa member to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
I can tell you exactly what it is.
The constitution was designed to make things difficult for the government with regard to things done in privacy, which is a system of social boundaries well understood both then, and now. It safeguarded your communications, personal records, your home, basically set things up so that in order for the government to come after you, they had to have either someone who would swear a verbal oath or write an affirmation, publicly and personally taking the responsibility for the accusation, a warrant, a description of exactly what they were looking for, and exactly where they were going to look. This is the essence of the 4th amendment.
Today, without the required amendment to change these constitutional requirements, the government has assumed the power to violate the citizen's privacy without warrants, oath or affirmation. Further, as communications matured beyond the papers mentioned in the 4th, and speech as mentioned in the 1st, the government has further violated the obvious implications of the 4th (although we see some activity to protect, such as the telecommunications privacy laws, now cast aside in actuality if not by law.)
The combination of the 1st and the 4th, if obeyed by the government, creates an environment where your privacy and your opinions, presumably as a citizen not actually committing violence against, or otherwise directly harming other citizens, is very well protected. This is a worthy accomplishment, and one you may well be grateful for, especially when you are having discussions about why you despise the current political leadership or the actions of the government. And this is, in fact, why these provisions were deemed so important to the authors of the constitution. The 1st gives you public immunity for anything you say (although there exist many misguided exceptions that have trimmed the 1st back, sad to say.)
Those people you don't like - the white supremacists, people who worship in ways not palatable to you, they want the 1st obeyed, so they can state their positions in public and not have to worry that the government will come after them - "hate speech", that sort of thing. They want the 4th obeyed so they can pursue their private lives in private (and frankly, I'd just as soon they did, most of them) and without feeling like the door is going to be broken down. They also want to be sure they'll get a quick hearing, and a trial, and representation - you know, those things the government is now in the process of eroding.
In an environment where the government actually has to abide by the constitution, the things that benefit you will also benefit those who you don't get along with. Liberty for all, until they directly step on your toes, pretty much. That's why those people are gathering up to support Paul. And if you let them discourage you, you're going to end up with the same situation you have now, where everyone's privacy is at risk of being unconstitutionally sundered at the whim of any law enforcement officer, bounty hunter, or various other arms of government.
Just read a good deal of your website; very amusing.
Good on the whole hooker thing, too. World's oldest profession, and one that's still completely legal as long as you convert the payment to goods and services, e.g., dinner and a movie. I never had any issues with hookers, but I have to say, I haven't much use for pimps.
If you think there is no line between a corporation with essentially unlimited funds to expend on pushing representatives this way and that, and a citizen who will bear the brunt of the decisions taken as a direct consequence of those corporate pressures, you're wrong.
Why don't you go see if you can outbid Google for the 700 MHz spectrum? No difference between you and them, after all, right? Oh, wait. Money. Yeah. Ooops. Guess you're not going to do that, after all. You're nothing to them.
Why don't you release software that screws with our computers and get caught, like Sony did and got away without any significant effect? Oh, wait. That's because you'll go to jail and become Leroy's "wife", while Sony just twitches some cash it won't even notice at the problem and it goes away. No difference between you and them. Except you're gonna get some anally injected death-serum for your efforts, of course.
Why don't you sit down with your congress-critter and wine and dine them and supply them with sexual favors and take them on jaunts and "retreats" and "fact finding missions", promise them lucrative speaking engagements and positions on "think tank" boards post-political life? Oh wait, that's because you have no ability to do so, while a corporation (or a PAC) does. So you write a letter to your congresscritter. Guess what? They won't even read it. Some aide will look at it, and maybe, if you're very, very lucky, tick you off in a column of statistics as a fraction of an inkling of a lean this way or that. Meanwhile, said congresscritter is at lunch with Chuckie Corpwhore, Bambi and Hotlips, and just as Bambi nudges those star-class knockers into Mr. congresscritter's arm, Chuckie "suggests" a strategy diametrically opposed to yours. Guess what happens next?
Large corporations may be started by individuals, but like any entity that controls far more resources than the one next to it, they have far more influence than any individual has. In other words, they are different, and your entire thesis is bunk.
No. I didn't say that, and I don't want that. Your assertion is groundless. Software patents are wrong, but copyrights are the correct tool for source code protection.
No, I'm fine with commercials. What I'm not fine with is forcing me to accrue time to them when they're irrelevant or not interesting. I won't tolerate that, and they can't make me tolerate it, either.
No, I want insurance companies and their middlemen to go away, I want us to pool our resources as a society and make sure everyone is covered. The insurance industry has catastrophically conflicting interests; in order to protect the user of the service, they pool fees and spread risk over the users. In order to protect the owners of the service, they work to eliminate risky users. The end result is low risk users, with those at highest risk unprotected. Which is the exact opposite of what we actually need. It is the people who crash that need the airbags. It isn't a matter of higher fees, either - they go without protection, with claims rejected, and so on. The insurance industry is a festering boil on the ass of progress.
No, I think that America is degenerating because our government no longer complies with its constituting authority, which means it has no authority at all, just power. I think that America is degenerating because our citizens have been stripped of their liberties. Because we torture. Because we undertake wars of aggression. Because our personal choices are the subject of wars - wars on sexuality, marriage, drugs and more. Because lawyers have been allowed to run like wild dogs across the idea of personal responsibility. Because the federal government has interfered with, nay, outright stolen, many state's rights. Because of the government's failure to protect property ownership. Because legislators are purchased by corporations. Because of the USAPATRIOT act. Because of the pervasive and nefarious nature of the religious infestation in our legal system. As it happens, I have what I want - I'm 50, debt free, live where I want in the style I want, have a great family and do work I enjoy. However, that doesn't mean I don't notice when the lady down the road loses all her teeth because she can't afford dental work, or when the insurance company won't insure the guy next door for any amount that could possibly be afforded because he's a diabetic, or when some poor bastard is arrested without a warrant and held for years without hearing, or when kids have their lives ruined by a drug charge or for having sex with each other. In short, I think America is degenerating because it fucking well is degenerating. If you don't think it is, I can't account for that, nor do I think your jumping to the conclusion that I am agitating for change because my situation is poor is evidence of very clear thinking. You could have simply asked; instead, you went off the deep end on an entirely irrelevant and incorrect rant.
Indeed? Well perhaps if you reverted to "think, write, post" instead of "write, post, think" you'd feel a little better about yourself.
No. Metamoderation doesn't work. Several reasons. First, the unfairly downrated post is never fixed; so it is forever lost to the conversation (if you don't read at -1 like a sensible person.) Even if it were fixed, metamoderation occurs so late that the conversation is essentially over. This means that in reality, a bad mod is a bad mod forever. Second, though that particular moderator may be suspended for a few months, there is a near-infinite supply of bad moderators - so not only does the bad mod remain, the flood of bad moderations is in no sense ameliorated. Third, most metamoderation is spent (completely wasted, really) on mod-UP mods, which don't hurt anyone, and which disagreeing with doesn't help anyone - all an up mod is, after all, is a moderator saying "I found this more interesting/whatever than its neighbor posts" which you may, or may not, agree with, so the most value it ever has is opinion. Down mods are something else again because they can serve to hide posts for people gullible enough to allow moderation to control what they see.
The only "burr" I carry is the one that regrets the time lost to having to deal with real trolls (GNAA and FP!) because moderation doesn't work, and of course I blame that on the people responsible for the site's code, since they could fix it if they so chose. Make no mistake, I'm not here because slashdot works well, I'm here because the other posters are an unusually interesting group of people that I enjoy interacting with.
You may want to consider moving. Out here in Montana, and I suspect in many other places in the Midwest as well, some bargains can still be had. I purchased a sound, 4,200 sq ft building with new electrical service, a new roof, and a new heating system on two large lots for $25,000; by the time we're done with the interior, we still won't have cracked the 50k mark by doing all the work ourselves. Taxes are $1500 a year. Living in 4,200 sq feet, all customized to your specific interests, is like living in your own amusement park. You can see some of what we're doing here on flickr. Don't let carpentry, plumbing or electrical tasks intimidate you - study the methods, peruse the books on the codes, and you're good to go. Time well spent. Plus, the cool things you can do for almost nothing, you could never afford to have carpenters, plumbers and electricians do.
Unless you have a 0% interest loan (not common, but they do occur), the following applies:
The result of you holding on to your cash is that the auto loan's interest costs you money you would otherwise not have to pay.
The only way you can reverse this is if you have that money invested in some manner earning more interest than the auto loan is costing you. This is possible if you have a lot of money so as to command very high interest rates, or the interest rate on the loan is unusually low and free of significant fees.
In other words, if the auto loan is costing you a particular amount in interest over four years, but you are earning less than that over four years from the money you are holding on to, then you are losing money for no particular reason other than hoping the credit industry will look favorably upon you.
Presuming you're not earning interest (for instance, the money is is sitting in a non-earning checking account): If you pay the loan off now and save the payments, if you have 15000 to pay, and 15000 in the bank, and the car loan costs you 300 a year in interest, then you get 16200 in the bank and the lender gets 15000 at the end of the loan period.
But if you follow your strategy, you get 15000 and the lender gets 16200 at the end of the loan period.
If you are earning interest, these numbers become less troublesome, but I would encourage you to do the math specific to your situation because it is a rare situation indeed where the borrower comes out ahead. Also, the numbers I used here are very, very conservative - on a typical US car loan, the numbers are considerably more significant, as are the potential gains to be made by paying off the loan, while the difficulty increases as far as making saved money earn as much as the lender will be taking.
Even if you have a 0% loan:
During the course of the loan period, at least here in the USA, the insurance you must carry on the vehicle is mandated by the company that has an interest in the car, possibly incurring even higher costs. If you wish to sell or trade in the vehicle, there are extra steps to go through because of the stake the lender has in the vehicle. You have an additional monthly bill to deal with. If you pay by mail, every month you take a small, but non-zero risk that one or more of the following will happen because your payment was lost: your credit damaged, your interest rate increased, punitive fees assessed.
So when you say credit is a "tool", perhaps you should look at it a little harder. Who is this tool working for?
You're talking about propaganda. I'm talking about objective information. Two different things. I don't think schools ought to be in the business of propagandizing children. I think they should be in the business of educating them as to facts. There's no downside to a uniform education as to objective facts and basic skills.
Reading. Writing. Computer skills. Mathematics. Science (and lots of it.) Critical thinking. Finance. The facts of history (this is the only really tough area because it is so easily subject to spin.) Civics. Basic life skills - cooking, cleaning, hygiene, budgeting, consequences of becoming a parent.
Not pledging allegiance, prayer, playing sports, art, music, drama, or other personal activities. Those can be pursued by the community, if they are desired, or by the individual.
From this basic, state-provided set of underpinnings, one can go anywhere one wants and extend the education in all manner of custom directions, fill in blanks, etc.
Education shouldn't result in molded kids. It should result in informed kids. Molding is the parent's job.
Nicely said.
I personally think that one of the most life-changing decisions you can make (and I have made) is to live without debt. I saved until I could afford my home, then I bought it. I didn't buy something I had to borrow for. I own my vehicles, and I don't accrue credit card or other revolving debt. In this way, my earnings serve my family and I first, my charitable efforts second, and our tax burden third.
Plenty of decisions there that might not be palatable to some; for instance, my house used to be a church, and I had to build an interior for it by hand. I didn't know how - so I learned how and did it. And re-did it, in some cases. I found it quite difficult, but I still have all my limbs and digits, so technically speaking, it went ok. :-) The end result isn't a palace by most people's standards, but by mine, it's a castle. Lots of space, all of it doing just what I want it to, extremely low total cost of ownership, no debt. Plus it looks just a little like a castle, so there are a couple of fringe benefits.
If you don't pay interest, you've really put yourself in a different position as far as supporting the problems this nation has with predatory lenders and all the ancillary hangers-on such as credit agencies and middle-persons. I highly recommend trying this if you think you can pull it off. It takes some of what appears to be sacrifice, in that you don't get what you want when you want it; but then again, you don't get lenders of various stripes taking what can amount to many times the value of the the things you got to have when you wanted them, later on... sometimes interminably if you get too far into the debt loop.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, but his stance on healthcare is a deal breaker for me. If "promote the general Welfare" can't be reasonably and trivially interpreted to mean the health of the citizens, then it never meant anything in the first place as far as I'm concerned.
Because of Paul's present declared stance on healthcare, my vote will go to Kucinich. If Paul becomes more enlightened on this issue (which I doubt, as this is a matter of considerable self-interest to him), I'd be very pleased to vote for him.
While I agree with Paul that the present government mismanagement of healthcare is reprehensible, I don't think that means that the best way to handle it is to let the individual citizen play Russian Roulette.
Sadly, electing a president is only a fraction of what needs be done, and the races in the senate and house do not get the attention they need to elect candidates that would let a president actually accomplish a serious reform platform they were elected on. Assuming such a president can even be elected, which is optimistic to say the least.
Tell me something, then. DRM (Digital RIGHTS management) is managing exactly what rights?
C'mon, Bob, ten seconds, The question is, what's your name? Eight seconds Bob, you can do it... you know this one, Bob... [ a nod to Cheech and Chong ]Oh. I see. You think slashdot moderation works, therefore you think that posts are designed for the approval of these moderators. Well, sadly, slashdot moderation does not work, and never will, until or unless it provides for (a1) recovery of posts lost to bad mods, or (a2) stops downgrading good posts (moderator accountability is key here), and (b) actually uplifts all the posts worth reading. In the meantime, all savvy slashdot readers read at -1 so they don't miss all the great posts that the manifestly broken slashdot moderation lets fall by the wayside. So, no, not posted for any reason to do with "karma." Bzzzt.
And try not to be so homophobic, eh? I know it's tough, but you can probably manage it if you try. Because being homophobic is boilerplate for declaring one's self an unvarnished idiot.
I meant what I said, which was fairly general.
For me, it means looking for a mix of libertarian and social service ideals. They're tough to find in one package. I think this is because the libertarians have a lot of trouble understanding certain things. Such as, that people need safety nets in extremis, good "roads" for goods, communications, data and themselves, sewage and other utility infrastructure, a uniform and detailed general education, medical care and a stable currency everyone uses, and that they inherently need all these things regardless of their economic condition on the one hand... While on the other, the republicrats can't seem to understand that the the right to tell someone else what to do outside of as it addresses directly interfering with one another or government's legitimate service to the people was never delegated to the government in any form, nor should it be.
But that's just me. Certainly elections resulting in this type of candidate being elected would represent a huge change; and it approximates what I'd like to see. Others have to answer the question of what they'd like to see and vote accordingly. What I'm suggesting is that if we really look at our current situation, what is going on is not what we'd really like to see.
If you can't see that the post is on-topic, then you should go read the FA. You might find some vague reference to the effects of copyright interpretation and enforcement on reading, which, you may recall, is something a person, a citizen, does. You also, if you work *really* hard, might recall that copyright is enforced top down by the feds. Using the constitution as the base authority. Go ahead. Read. Or work for comprehension. Or both. We'll wait. [ whistles ]
There's no irony in it at all. You see that "limited time" clause? That's what is changing to the public's detriment. I would know - I own a literary agency.
What I said was "emphasis on copyright benefiting the business interests any any expense to the citizen's interests is the exact same change in emphasis" which is not the same thing as blaming copyright for problems. I don't think copyright, per se, is a bad thing at all. What I think is specifically a bad thing are the changes in copyright law that provide rights far beyond the period where most material will be germane to the culture that has evolved since the material was produced. If the material is no longer germane, it is, by definition, no longer promoting the "useful arts."
I didn't suggest a revolution. I said that the level of annoyance wasn't sufficient to get the citizens up in arms, and I suggested people use the vote. Not exactly a "revolutionary" strategy. Perhaps you need to polish those reading skills a little.
Oh, I don't know. I think the British found their relationship with us slightly changed due to revolution. I think simply voting in the right people could do it; we may have to write in candidates for many positions, but other than that, the means is staring us in the face. The question isn't whether this can effect change; the question is will enough of the population become aware of the problem such that they'll use it? That's where my doubts kick in.
I'll tell you what is happening here. It's the same thing that is happening on other fronts - precisely the same thing.
The constitution was written with the idea of the government serving and protecting the people, watching out for their welfare, arranging things so that this was first and foremost concern in those areas the government operated.
This emphasis on copyright benefiting the business interests any any expense to the citizen's interests is the exact same change in emphasis we have seen for the takings of land, the decreases in freedom of speech, the ridiculous idea that software can and/or should be patentable, the intent to force you to wait through commercials, the powers allowed to the insurance companies to pre-qualify applicants, the insane readings of the commerce clause that allow the government to attack the citizen for any act at all, the outright hijacking of the news outlets by commercially oriented entities — the problem is that it is like the tale of boiling a lobster. It's all annoying, but none of it is annoying enough, by itself, to really get the citizens up in arms.
America is degenerating quickly. If you think your vote counts, you'd better start using it differently at every level. Because the "same-old, same-old" is what got us here.
Evidence from space reaches us "today" as testimony to the stability of the constants, coming from a huge range of times ranging from just a few years ago (Proxima Centuri) to about 12...14 billion years ago.
Yes, here's what happens:
No, and no urge to do so. However, I freely admit to the urge to criticize their parents. The only reason I don't say anything about it is because they're not my kids. My kids, I can assure you, were never subjected to such abuse. "Santa? Oh yeah, well, we lied about that to you." What a great precedent to set. Lying to children is heinous, particularly in the case of parents doing it. The only up side to it is for those kids that have an unusually strong streak of independent thinking, they may generalize it and realize that the stories about "god" have no more basis in fact than Santa does, and free themselves from the generations-long procession of lies and ignorance. Sadly, they have to do it at the expense of their parents credibility, but I suppose since their parents don't have any credibility in the first place, well... there you go.
No. It isn't. Build bridges to truth. Not to lies. Then it's a good thing. Would you build a bridge to Pol Pot over the idea of an agrarian collective, while blithely ignoring the slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions with an estimated death toll of 750,000, perhaps even more? Would you gloss over the fact that he singled out intellectuals for death? What about those who supported Pol Pot and did his bidding? Are they any better? In my view, they're even worse.
I think you might answer that you do not support them and would not "build bridges" to them.
If that's the case, why, considering all the bad things religion has done, and is doing, are you so willing to build bridges to it and the people supporting it?
My theory, which gives you the benefit of the doubt, is you say these things because you haven't really thought the issues through, and you're just regurgitating the politically correct line of "live and let live."
The problem here is the religionists are not just letting the rest of us live unmolested. Therefore, they have not earned the right to be left alone. The ideal of liberty is that my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins. But that is only true if you have not hit me first. The religionists swung first; and that's the end of their right to continue unmolested in their pursuit of their ideas.
No. I wasn't. Neither directly nor indirectly. It was an analogy, delivered with some dry humor. So as to the rest of that... no. Buzz.
Easily remedied: both methods purport to (a) describe reality as it is, and (b) provide methods for advancing the condition of humanity. In this pursuit, science actually functions, that is, "it works, bitches"; religion, on the other hand, doesn't. Not a prayer, not a miracle, not even a manifestation by the (various) dark sides. Hence my original remark about praying.
Science has no ontological component or justification; that's just your mind chasing its own tail when you postulate that it does. Science is a method. No more, no less. The goal of that method is to pin down reality as far as possible given the cognitive, perceptual and technical limitations of the beings employing the method. The reason this is worthwhile is because it advances the human condition through such knowledge. Significantly. Often rapidly. Sometimes frighteningly.
Consequently, there is no common end. Just a religious end. It has no place whatsoever in science. Argument for one imaginary story by virtue (and I use the word very loosely) of utilizing reason alone has no more basis in fact than any other; as there is no satisfactory argument for pink unicorns that run upside down along fault lines creating earthquakes, there is no satisfactory argument for god or gods, and for precisely the same reasons: no data. Arguments without data - the ontological argument - are mental masturbation. The fact that you do not recognize this demonstrates a huge gap in your ability to face reality.
So, after all the shit that religionists have, and are, putting me through, I should just sit back and go "hey, that's cool", eh? No reason to be annoyed with them? If *I* told *you* what days you could shop for items you wanted, that you had to pay my taxes, what sex acts are ok and in what social situations you may undertake them, who, how many, and of what sex you may marry, and those issues did not concur with what your reason tells you, would you not be annoyed with me?
Now, with regard to the rest of your sally, if you have an alternative view you want me to consider, then here's what you need to do. You need to set up a predicted result of your alternative view. Like, "at 0900 tomorrow night, your monitor will begin weeping tears of blood." Or peanut butter, crude oil, whatever. I, in my turn, will observe my monitor. When said tears materialize, I will agree that you have your finger on something religious and/or supernatural. If they don't - and we have 2000 years of failed predictions in the case of xianity so far, various other lengths for other religious and superstitious outlooks - I'll just add your alternative view to my (huge) file of crackpottery. For my part, my prediction is that the next time the night sky is clear and you are located at a relatively non-light-polluted appropriate viewing position, should you look up, the vast majority of the stars will be in the exact positions predicted for them by science. Also that with DC current, R=E/I, E=I*R, etc. at room temperature. If those don't work out, by all means, feel free to knock science about and think up "alternative views" and again, I'll pay attention.
You know, the idea that the earth sits on the back of a turtle is an alternative view, too. But it isn't getting any play at my house either. Just because you think something up doesn'
Wow. Focused mental activity produces more mental activity than unfocused mental activity. Eur-fucking-reka.
You're a genius. Next up, Google links to research into if really pissing someone off makes them more angry than just annoying them a little. Youtube film at 11.
No. You don't.
You need to learn the difference between a method that involves induction, testing, falsification and redundancy / reproducability across many experiments by many different experimenters as compared to a method that involves "I believe, and/or some pontificating preacher told me so, therefore it are, amen, lynch the gays."
You hadda go and spoil it, didn't you? I almost had a chunk of plaque detached and on the way to blocking a cranial artery, and you had to calm the AC down. Do you think these posts just create themselves? Man, they're work!
Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs(.) AC, just ignore the parent. You should be pissed. Why, an offtopic post of slashdot? On religion, the ultimate "pretend it isn't there" boogyman? You should be incensed, man! Crazed! C'mon, lets see some real indignation. Let fly. Remember, spittle means never having to water your blood pressure meds!
Fifty, thanks for asking. :-) Look at it this way - I've had a lot more time to watch porn than you have.
I looked at "Kate's Playground"; girl needs to lose the "boy panties", they aren't sexy. Other than that, yep, the lady is a looker.
You know, I did forget to link it, and I was even thinking of the cartoon (and the t-shirt) when I said that. I love that guy's work; best cartoons on the net, bar none, IMHO. In contrition, one of my favorites here.
Look, you could work with Hitler or Pol Pot or modern day equivalents of them in areas where you don't conflict if you choose to — the point is, you shouldn't. It isn't all about "getting along." When someone is lying to children (or adults who think like children), it isn't a great idea to go along. Eventually, they'll base real world decisions on the bullshit they've been fed, and then we have trials about evolution, books being banned, stores closing 1/7th of the time, rampant sexual repression, brittle and narrow marriage standards, the loading of tax shares onto the shoulders of others, open homophobia and veiled homophobia AKA "don't ask, don't tell", preachers bilking old ladies out of their savings, the inquisitions, "witches" bing burned, teachers being put to death for naming teddy bears Mohammed, world leaders doing things because "god talks to them", proclamations that hurricane victims "deserved" it because they're sinners, and so on.
Getting along is overrated. Some motherfuckers just need a good stiff punch in the head.
As for being topical, at this point in history, science is the light, and religion is the dark. I choose not to forget the dark while it remains a threat or even just an annoyance. By the way, you are aware it is Sunday, right? Religion is 100% topical here in the USA today. By religious decree.
Seriously? The hottest in history? Have you watched much porn? I mean, I'm all for declaring Ms. Hayes a valuable resource of Montana, certainly more valuable than, say, a politician, but she certainly has some competition in the porn world. How about Asia Carrera - totally smoking hot and a mensa member to boot.