Direct observation is not the only way to support an hypothesis. For instance, we've never directly observed a black hole, though astrophysics suggests they exist. We have, however, seen the indirect evidence via orbits of other stars, and X-ray emissions, which was predicted by theory.
Same with extra-solar planets. We have yet to observe an extra-solar planet directly, yet we know they exist. How? By the variations in orbit of the parent star. How do we know that method works? Because that's how we discovered Pluto, through orbital variations in observable planets.
So. That brings us to evolution.
The theory of evolution results in many predictions that *are* observable. Most of the predictions weren't even known in Darwin's time, or for many years after. One is genetic divergence. If evolution were correct, animals that were closely related would have similar genetic code. This includes introns, or "junk DNA," DNA that has no influence on the genotype of a species.
More importantly, this also includes mitochondria.
Mitochondria are a part of the cell, but they have their own DNA. In sexual reproduction, the zygote gets its mitochondria, and the mitochondrial DNA, from the female gamete (the egg).
Now, if evolution were correct, and all species are related to one another by varying degrees, the closer species would have more similar mitochondrial DNA, while those that are more divergent would have less-common mitochondrial DNA.
With me so far?
Good.
As it turns out, species that have been mapped by evolutionists to be closely related (such as pigs and bears) have fairly similar mitochondrial DNA. There's divergence, but it's fairly small. Animals that are *not* so closely related (such as bears and humans) have a greater divergence. And animals that are not closely related at all (say, bears and salmon) have even greater divergence.
It's these sorts of predictions that support the idea of evolution, and more importantly, *of speciation.* (This is where the IDers and evolutionists really diverge.) So, there's your evidence for evolution, taken directly from the theory, without formal observation of speciation.
This is just one prediction that has proven true. There are many, many others. Basically, modern medicine is based to a large degree on the *assumption* of evolution.
I love newton as much as the next guy... use him every day... but he was wrong, plain and simple.
Only if everything we know is wrong.
Newton's laws are correct. They are also not universal.
They are completely correct, except at extremes-- extreme velocity, extreme mass, extreme distances. This is no different that standard chemistry, which is correct at non-extremes (say, 0 kelvin, or plasma temperatures, or extreme pressures, or.... ). This doesn't make our chemical models of crystalline quartz any less correct.
They are tools that model our universe sufficiently to be useful. That is all we have-- tools to model our universe. Either the tools are useful ("correct"), or they are not.
To say they are not "correct" is to say that we have no knowledge whatsoever. Almost every single physical law we know today is bounded by constraints. There is no single formula, no single concept, no single universal model that works from one end of the spectrum of extremes to the other. At the moment, you can't use our understanding of the forces that hold an atom together to explain galaxies. That's why physicists are so interested in a single Grand Unified Theory. We desire the simplicity of a single description of the universe, rather than this hodge-podge of formula and concepts that work within their own realms, but fall apart outside their bounds.
Hell, we don't even have one single clue about the state of the universe in the first few femtoseconds of existence, so extremes of time also matter.
That certainly doesn't make our current models, including Newton's laws, less correct.
I have never had a case to do IE specific CSS or HTML.
I have. Just recently.
Basically, according the CSS2 (maybe even 1, don't know for sure), you should be able to create a selector for an element with multiple classes, like this:.class1.class2 { display: none; }
However, IE 6 is severely broken in its multi-class handling. Instead of simply adding or removing classes in your javascript and assume it'll render according to your CSS, you have to create a single aggregate class. This increases the size and complexity of both the Javascript and the CSS.
Sounds like you want Jquery. I've only been using it for a few weeks (I've been working on the Drigg javascript), but it's pretty damned cool.
For instance, to remove a particular class from all <p> elements:
$('p.someclass').removeClass('someclass');
To send each element through a javascript function:
$('.someotherclass').each( functionName );
You use CSS-like selectors to target actions.
If you add a class to an element, the browser correctly[1] displays the element with the new class applied. Remove a class, and the style associated with that class is removed from the element. It all behaves exactly as you asked. It's easy. It's intuitive, especially for folks familiar with both the DOM and CSS.
I have no association with Jquery. I just started using their library a couple of weeks ago. I've just been very impressed with their library, so thought I'd spread the Gospel to one who seeks.
[1] Except for IE 6, at least. There's a huge-ass bug in IE 6 multiple-class handling, such that multiple-class CSS selectors ('.class1.class2') don't work. Check out this writeup for more information.
These excuses are made up merely as an attempt at avoiding the arguments and scientific program they present.
Exactly *how* is ID "scientific?"
Is there evidence to suggest that an intelligent designer is required for life to form and evolve? So far, I've heard (and read) some hand-waving about "irreducible complexity," but in all instances, this has turned out to be merely, "I don't understand it, so God must've done it."
Addressing the shortcomings of our current understanding of evolution is one thing. Claiming those shortcomings indicate a failure of evolution through natural selection as theory is a bit disingenuous. To further claim that they point to a mystical "guiding intelligence" buggers credibility.
Basically, you are trading a natural complexity ("how did this evolve like this?") with a mystical one ("Who created us? And because they are certainly complex than even us, how did *they* get created?")
All you're doing is moving the layer of complexity back a level, and declaring that level off-limits to science. And you're doing this with no real reason. Not only is it *more* complex than *any* "irreducible complexity," but it completely misses the point about what science *is*.
Pray tell, what makes the theory that macroevolutionary changes are caused by random mutations "science", and the theory that macroevolutionary changes are driven by some non-random intelligence "not science"?
Hm. Interesting proposition.
The problem with your statement is that (at least as I defined them in the above)...
Then perhaps you've defined them improperly?
For instance, evolution is not about "random mutations." Mutations themselves are selected upon from viability through adaption. This isn't just white noise. It's white noise with a selection filter that is always changing.
The causes of mutations are much more complex than the old "cosmic rays fucking with your DNA" model a lot of us were taught in secondary school. There's viral genetic migration (in which bits of working DNA are moved from one species to another via a viral vector) to transcription errors (where bits of working code get shuffled around like a deck of cards during meiosis, for instance) to cosmic rays fucking with your DNA. There are probably hundreds of ways DNA can get shuffled and moved and otherwise... well, mutated.
Note that many of these are not purely random. They start from the point of working information getting mixed up. Sometimes that leads to noise, and the resulting DNA is not viable. Othertimes, it might result in cancer, as the resulting cell is no longer capable of restraint of replication. Sometimes else, it might result in a viable cell (in the case of meiosis, a viable gamete, and later a viable zygote). In those cases, viability isn't the issue-- it's an issue of whether or not the mutation results in a phenotype that hinders or helps in the organism's current environment.
Most mutations never make it past the viability test.
Mutations are not "random." There are many layers of filters that pick the real information from the noise. Life conforms to its environment. Therefore, a mutation must fit within its environment, or it just doesn't survive.
That's not randomness at all.
And, assuming a non-random intelligence has guided our evolution, who guided *its* creation? Because obviously it is too complex to have merely evolved.
Competition is basically when a consumer has a choice among products.
In this case, both Microsoft and (especially, in this particular case) Intel use their market clout to *shut out* the OLPC. They are basically buying off governments or distributors to the point that OLPC isn't facing competition-- it's not getting a chance to compete.
That's the problem with unbridled corporatism (which is what we are seeing, rather than capitalism). Corporations get to the point that *they* are afraid to face real competition, so they do what they can to ensure competition never gets a chance to take root. This includes non-market avenues like controlling distribution or buying off governments.
. . . doesn't mean I want them to die broke and penniless, and that did happen a lot more prior to copyright.
Many people died paupers, not just artisans and inventors. Even today, most musicians, authors, poets and inventors die without making much money from their art, while most other folks have a bit more income.
Why artificially limit yourself? These stupid flamefests show off ignorance, laziness, and a pro-wrestling-like mentality. Use them all, as they were meant to be used.
I have seen *way* more improperly-coded applications in Access and Excel than in any other language or programming system. Why is that? Because people are designing "databases" with no fundamental understanding of data management. People code spreadsheets with no real idea of how to identify and correct bugs. They *only* advantage the user has it knowledge of the data. (Which *is* a good thing, granted.)
Further, an access database represents an island of information. They are difficult to connect to the rest of the business knowledge base. They are usable only to one or a few people. This feeds into recreational empire-building.
And the worst part: businesses make actual *business decisions* based on these flawed islands of data.
But, it's up to management to figure out which data is "business-critical," and try to ensure that data is managed by data management professionals. Sure, not all data needs that kind of care. But I'd wager most *interesting* data does.
How does Java lock out any developer? If you're a developer, you can learn Java if you don't already know it. If you're unwilling to learn a new language, then *you* are the one selecting yourself out, not the platform.
I had to learn C#. You can cowboy up and learn Java.
The easiest way to hide a fact is misdirection. Before releasing the actual fact, release tons of extravagant misinformation, slanted to views of the various extremes. Then, when the fact is released, everyone overlooks it, or assumes it too is a fake.
Most of what you know is wrong. We live in a misinformation soup. Sorting one fact from another is not only hard, it's damned near impossible. From corporations to politicians, the truth is hidden in billions of falsehoods.
I loved the games so much i named one of our cats ratchet and one of our ferrets clank. His show name is Dr nefarious:D.. Great fun games and the first game my gf ever finished without cheating.
My faves of all time.
My GF loves the game. My wife, on the other hand, hates them.
I too thought it was a step backwards. But that's not a bad thing. I thought Ratchet: Deadlocked was too weapons-oriented; it was fun, but it wasn't spectacular. So I appreciated the straight-forward gameplay.
The thing I disliked: the spaceship flying bits were too lock-step. The dogfights in the PS/2 R&C games were free-form, real dogfights. In ToD, the ship flies itself, and you just aim and shot and dodge.
Otherwise, I absolutely love ToD. It was worth the wait.
The major difference is, if another government spies on me, they'll have to go through my government to extradite me. That means actually going through some sort of court.
However, if my government is spying on me, they can do whatever the hell they want. They can determine I have badmouthed G. W. Bush (by calling him many bad, bad names and exposing his propensity for sheep-dick sucking, which is why he spent so much of his time at his ranch his first 10 months in office). They can determine I am a "dissident." They can ruin my life, or they can send me away to Guantanamo. These are all things they can do without any court, without any writ of any kind whatsoever.
I read the GP post to say that the Constitution isn't just an ideal to strive for; rather, it's a practical recipe for those ideals. To deviate significantly from the Constitution (which is a practical embodiment of the ideals) threatens the idealism of the Constitution, as well.
Long before he became VP, Cheney helped author a report that stated the only way to enact certain legislation preferred by the neo-con right would involve a "Pearl Harbor-like event." The PATRIOT act was one such piece of legislation.
Within *ten months* of Bush's term, we get a Pearl Harbor-like event. Coincidence? Oh, I think not.
(Actually, I don't think it was engineered by the government, either. But consider: bin Laden was trained by the CIA. He worked in Afghanistan on behalf of the United States under Reagan and Bush Sr. He is also still at large, and the US isn't even looking for him. Coincidence? I don't think so.)
There's too much empirical evidence to indicate high-level complicity in the attacks. The current administration had much to gain from the attacks, by their own statements.
Bush's reaction was genuine. He was scared shitless. You should look to Dick Cheney's reaction-- pushing Bush into a war with Iraq within hours of the attack, for instance.
As a disclaimer: I don't really believe there was a conspiracy before 9/11. There was one *after*, and that's the one we should be looking at, but I believe there wasn't one beforehand. I just like a good conspiracy theory to remind folks that sometimes, things are not like they seem. It's good for skepticism.
That attitude is certainly something you may chose for your life but such cavalier disregard for life is not held by responsible people.
Yes. Yes it is.
I am a responsible person. I believe the federal government long ago exceeded its Constitutional authority. I believe this intrusion of privacy goes against everything embodied in the US Constitution.
"Responsibility" != scared shitless.
There are few terrorists among us. Very few. To the point of essential non-existence. Once a decade we have a terrorist attack. Sometimes nobody is killed. Other times, several hundred get killed, including children. Other times, a few thousand get killed.
Once. A. Decade.
Meanwhile, thousands of children die each year from neglect or abuse. Tens of thousands of citizens die from preventable causes simply because they can't afford health care. Yet I don't see us going all nutso because of it. Why's that?
This whole "terrorism" thing is a strawman, used by the government to extend their authority. No more, no less. As a responsible American citizen, it is my duty to uphold the US Constitution. I took an oath when I joined the Army to do so. Though I am no longer in the military, I take that oath seriously.
Don't tell me a responsible person doesn't prefer privacy and liberty above life. "Give me liberty, or give me death," used to mean something in this country.
Or do you consider the American Revolutionary War irresponsible?
See, this is something that bugs me. It seems that "real conservatives" get upset about political correctness (which was embraced by the left about as well as "abstinance only" is embraced by the right-- that is, by a very vocal minority), and label the whole "left" ideology as somehow bad.
This is neglecting that it is the ultra-right in this country that are also after prohibition of various things, such as sex, drugs, and privacy. ("Same sex marriage" should also be on that list, but it didn't flow as well.)
It's extremists from *both* sides that are destroying the Constitution. As a "left-leaning" person, I am 100% behind the Constitution, and believe the federal government should be stripped down to the bone and get back to its original charter-- the oversight and regulation of interstate trade.
Otherwise, I'm socially liberal. Go figure.
I imagine if we had a conversation, you'd find we agreed on almost all goals. We'd just differ in our approaches. Me, I don't trust any group bigger than about 5 people-- that especially includes government at all levels, and corporations.
Not all Americans are dumb but there are really a lot of dumb Americans. Though in reality people in general are dumb. Its why propaganda is such an important part of government and why it works so well.
That's just it. Learning the truth about the world is tough. There's a lot of bullshit to dig through, and discerning facts from fiction takes a lot of work. Most Americans (most *people*, I'd wager) would rather the world were simple.
Evangelical Christianity is like that: easy answers to tough questions. Those folks who support G. Bush just because he's our President are also like that: easy answers. Avoid the tough questions altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: because most open source release schedules slip by weeks. Microsoft often slips by years.
Direct observation is not the only way to support an hypothesis. For instance, we've never directly observed a black hole, though astrophysics suggests they exist. We have, however, seen the indirect evidence via orbits of other stars, and X-ray emissions, which was predicted by theory.
Same with extra-solar planets. We have yet to observe an extra-solar planet directly, yet we know they exist. How? By the variations in orbit of the parent star. How do we know that method works? Because that's how we discovered Pluto, through orbital variations in observable planets.
So. That brings us to evolution.
The theory of evolution results in many predictions that *are* observable. Most of the predictions weren't even known in Darwin's time, or for many years after. One is genetic divergence. If evolution were correct, animals that were closely related would have similar genetic code. This includes introns, or "junk DNA," DNA that has no influence on the genotype of a species.
More importantly, this also includes mitochondria.
Mitochondria are a part of the cell, but they have their own DNA. In sexual reproduction, the zygote gets its mitochondria, and the mitochondrial DNA, from the female gamete (the egg).
Now, if evolution were correct, and all species are related to one another by varying degrees, the closer species would have more similar mitochondrial DNA, while those that are more divergent would have less-common mitochondrial DNA.
With me so far?
Good.
As it turns out, species that have been mapped by evolutionists to be closely related (such as pigs and bears) have fairly similar mitochondrial DNA. There's divergence, but it's fairly small. Animals that are *not* so closely related (such as bears and humans) have a greater divergence. And animals that are not closely related at all (say, bears and salmon) have even greater divergence.
It's these sorts of predictions that support the idea of evolution, and more importantly, *of speciation.* (This is where the IDers and evolutionists really diverge.) So, there's your evidence for evolution, taken directly from the theory, without formal observation of speciation.
This is just one prediction that has proven true. There are many, many others. Basically, modern medicine is based to a large degree on the *assumption* of evolution.
I love newton as much as the next guy... use him every day... but he was wrong, plain and simple.
Only if everything we know is wrong.
Newton's laws are correct. They are also not universal.
They are completely correct, except at extremes-- extreme velocity, extreme mass, extreme distances. This is no different that standard chemistry, which is correct at non-extremes (say, 0 kelvin, or plasma temperatures, or extreme pressures, or.... ). This doesn't make our chemical models of crystalline quartz any less correct.
They are tools that model our universe sufficiently to be useful. That is all we have-- tools to model our universe. Either the tools are useful ("correct"), or they are not.
To say they are not "correct" is to say that we have no knowledge whatsoever. Almost every single physical law we know today is bounded by constraints. There is no single formula, no single concept, no single universal model that works from one end of the spectrum of extremes to the other. At the moment, you can't use our understanding of the forces that hold an atom together to explain galaxies. That's why physicists are so interested in a single Grand Unified Theory. We desire the simplicity of a single description of the universe, rather than this hodge-podge of formula and concepts that work within their own realms, but fall apart outside their bounds.
Hell, we don't even have one single clue about the state of the universe in the first few femtoseconds of existence, so extremes of time also matter.
That certainly doesn't make our current models, including Newton's laws, less correct.
Yes. We in the US have the best justice money can buy. And the great thing is, since you're not bribing judges, it's not corrupt.
I have never had a case to do IE specific CSS or HTML.
.class1.class2 { display: none; }
I have. Just recently.
Basically, according the CSS2 (maybe even 1, don't know for sure), you should be able to create a selector for an element with multiple classes, like this:
However, IE 6 is severely broken in its multi-class handling. Instead of simply adding or removing classes in your javascript and assume it'll render according to your CSS, you have to create a single aggregate class. This increases the size and complexity of both the Javascript and the CSS.
This has been known since 2005.
Multiple classes are supposed to work in IE7, thankfully. But we'll still have to code for the broken IE6 for several years to come.
This isn't just a minor rendering inconvenience. This is a huge gaping problem for any but the simplest DHTML sites.
Sounds like you want Jquery. I've only been using it for a few weeks (I've been working on the Drigg javascript), but it's pretty damned cool.
.someclass').removeClass('someclass');
For instance, to remove a particular class from all <p> elements:
$('p
To send each element through a javascript function:
$('.someotherclass').each( functionName );
You use CSS-like selectors to target actions.
If you add a class to an element, the browser correctly[1] displays the element with the new class applied. Remove a class, and the style associated with that class is removed from the element. It all behaves exactly as you asked. It's easy. It's intuitive, especially for folks familiar with both the DOM and CSS.
I have no association with Jquery. I just started using their library a couple of weeks ago. I've just been very impressed with their library, so thought I'd spread the Gospel to one who seeks.
[1] Except for IE 6, at least. There's a huge-ass bug in IE 6 multiple-class handling, such that multiple-class CSS selectors ('.class1.class2') don't work. Check out this writeup for more information.
These excuses are made up merely as an attempt at avoiding the arguments and scientific program they present.
Exactly *how* is ID "scientific?"
Is there evidence to suggest that an intelligent designer is required for life to form and evolve? So far, I've heard (and read) some hand-waving about "irreducible complexity," but in all instances, this has turned out to be merely, "I don't understand it, so God must've done it."
Addressing the shortcomings of our current understanding of evolution is one thing. Claiming those shortcomings indicate a failure of evolution through natural selection as theory is a bit disingenuous. To further claim that they point to a mystical "guiding intelligence" buggers credibility.
Basically, you are trading a natural complexity ("how did this evolve like this?") with a mystical one ("Who created us? And because they are certainly complex than even us, how did *they* get created?")
All you're doing is moving the layer of complexity back a level, and declaring that level off-limits to science. And you're doing this with no real reason. Not only is it *more* complex than *any* "irreducible complexity," but it completely misses the point about what science *is*.
Pray tell, what makes the theory that macroevolutionary changes are caused by random mutations "science", and the theory that macroevolutionary changes are driven by some non-random intelligence "not science"?
Hm. Interesting proposition.
The problem with your statement is that (at least as I defined them in the above)...
Then perhaps you've defined them improperly?
For instance, evolution is not about "random mutations." Mutations themselves are selected upon from viability through adaption. This isn't just white noise. It's white noise with a selection filter that is always changing.
The causes of mutations are much more complex than the old "cosmic rays fucking with your DNA" model a lot of us were taught in secondary school. There's viral genetic migration (in which bits of working DNA are moved from one species to another via a viral vector) to transcription errors (where bits of working code get shuffled around like a deck of cards during meiosis, for instance) to cosmic rays fucking with your DNA. There are probably hundreds of ways DNA can get shuffled and moved and otherwise... well, mutated.
Note that many of these are not purely random. They start from the point of working information getting mixed up. Sometimes that leads to noise, and the resulting DNA is not viable. Othertimes, it might result in cancer, as the resulting cell is no longer capable of restraint of replication. Sometimes else, it might result in a viable cell (in the case of meiosis, a viable gamete, and later a viable zygote). In those cases, viability isn't the issue-- it's an issue of whether or not the mutation results in a phenotype that hinders or helps in the organism's current environment.
Most mutations never make it past the viability test.
Mutations are not "random." There are many layers of filters that pick the real information from the noise. Life conforms to its environment. Therefore, a mutation must fit within its environment, or it just doesn't survive.
That's not randomness at all.
And, assuming a non-random intelligence has guided our evolution, who guided *its* creation? Because obviously it is too complex to have merely evolved.
Competition is basically when a consumer has a choice among products.
In this case, both Microsoft and (especially, in this particular case) Intel use their market clout to *shut out* the OLPC. They are basically buying off governments or distributors to the point that OLPC isn't facing competition-- it's not getting a chance to compete.
That's the problem with unbridled corporatism (which is what we are seeing, rather than capitalism). Corporations get to the point that *they* are afraid to face real competition, so they do what they can to ensure competition never gets a chance to take root. This includes non-market avenues like controlling distribution or buying off governments.
. . . doesn't mean I want them to die broke and penniless, and that did happen a lot more prior to copyright.
Many people died paupers, not just artisans and inventors. Even today, most musicians, authors, poets and inventors die without making much money from their art, while most other folks have a bit more income.
Why not:
KDE & GNOME & vi & emacs?
Why artificially limit yourself? These stupid flamefests show off ignorance, laziness, and a pro-wrestling-like mentality. Use them all, as they were meant to be used.
Access *has* solved real-world problems.
It has also caused real-world problems.
I have seen *way* more improperly-coded applications in Access and Excel than in any other language or programming system. Why is that? Because people are designing "databases" with no fundamental understanding of data management. People code spreadsheets with no real idea of how to identify and correct bugs. They *only* advantage the user has it knowledge of the data. (Which *is* a good thing, granted.)
Further, an access database represents an island of information. They are difficult to connect to the rest of the business knowledge base. They are usable only to one or a few people. This feeds into recreational empire-building.
And the worst part: businesses make actual *business decisions* based on these flawed islands of data.
But, it's up to management to figure out which data is "business-critical," and try to ensure that data is managed by data management professionals. Sure, not all data needs that kind of care. But I'd wager most *interesting* data does.
Let's see--
0. DRM throughout the system.
1. If a dialog box pops up, you can't move or resize the parent window. WHY ISN'T THIS FIXED YET?
2. It's slow and bloated, even on modern hardware.
3. Its user interface is inconsistent. (OK, KDE and Gnome are pretty bad this way, too, but OS-X isn't, for instance.)
4. DRM.
5. Intrusive security model.
6. Requires re-training of end-users, which is expensive. (Had to add this one, as it's always used as a "reason" to not move to Linux or OpenOffice.)
7. Invasive anti-piracy model.
8. DRM.
9. No compelling reason to upgrade from XP.
As you can see, there are lots of reasons MS-Windows Vista is not good, even on modern hardware. However, if it floats your boat, continue using it.
I have a similar question. Why's it modded "insightful?"
How does Java lock out any developer? If you're a developer, you can learn Java if you don't already know it. If you're unwilling to learn a new language, then *you* are the one selecting yourself out, not the platform.
I had to learn C#. You can cowboy up and learn Java.
The easiest way to hide a fact is misdirection. Before releasing the actual fact, release tons of extravagant misinformation, slanted to views of the various extremes. Then, when the fact is released, everyone overlooks it, or assumes it too is a fake.
Most of what you know is wrong. We live in a misinformation soup. Sorting one fact from another is not only hard, it's damned near impossible. From corporations to politicians, the truth is hidden in billions of falsehoods.
That's why I live in a fantasy world.
The internet.
I loved the games so much i named one of our cats ratchet and one of our ferrets clank. His show name is Dr nefarious :D.. Great fun games and the first game my gf ever finished without cheating.
My faves of all time.
My GF loves the game. My wife, on the other hand, hates them.
I too thought it was a step backwards. But that's not a bad thing. I thought Ratchet: Deadlocked was too weapons-oriented; it was fun, but it wasn't spectacular. So I appreciated the straight-forward gameplay.
The thing I disliked: the spaceship flying bits were too lock-step. The dogfights in the PS/2 R&C games were free-form, real dogfights. In ToD, the ship flies itself, and you just aim and shot and dodge.
Otherwise, I absolutely love ToD. It was worth the wait.
The major difference is, if another government spies on me, they'll have to go through my government to extradite me. That means actually going through some sort of court.
However, if my government is spying on me, they can do whatever the hell they want. They can determine I have badmouthed G. W. Bush (by calling him many bad, bad names and exposing his propensity for sheep-dick sucking, which is why he spent so much of his time at his ranch his first 10 months in office). They can determine I am a "dissident." They can ruin my life, or they can send me away to Guantanamo. These are all things they can do without any court, without any writ of any kind whatsoever.
That's the difference.
I read the GP post to say that the Constitution isn't just an ideal to strive for; rather, it's a practical recipe for those ideals. To deviate significantly from the Constitution (which is a practical embodiment of the ideals) threatens the idealism of the Constitution, as well.
At least, that's how I interpreted it.
It was the *real* President. Dick Cheney.
The reports were covered up, not ignored.
Long before he became VP, Cheney helped author a report that stated the only way to enact certain legislation preferred by the neo-con right would involve a "Pearl Harbor-like event." The PATRIOT act was one such piece of legislation.
Within *ten months* of Bush's term, we get a Pearl Harbor-like event. Coincidence? Oh, I think not.
(Actually, I don't think it was engineered by the government, either. But consider: bin Laden was trained by the CIA. He worked in Afghanistan on behalf of the United States under Reagan and Bush Sr. He is also still at large, and the US isn't even looking for him. Coincidence? I don't think so.)
There's too much empirical evidence to indicate high-level complicity in the attacks. The current administration had much to gain from the attacks, by their own statements.
Bush's reaction was genuine. He was scared shitless. You should look to Dick Cheney's reaction-- pushing Bush into a war with Iraq within hours of the attack, for instance.
As a disclaimer: I don't really believe there was a conspiracy before 9/11. There was one *after*, and that's the one we should be looking at, but I believe there wasn't one beforehand. I just like a good conspiracy theory to remind folks that sometimes, things are not like they seem. It's good for skepticism.
That attitude is certainly something you may chose for your life but such cavalier disregard for life is not held by responsible people.
Yes. Yes it is.
I am a responsible person. I believe the federal government long ago exceeded its Constitutional authority. I believe this intrusion of privacy goes against everything embodied in the US Constitution.
"Responsibility" != scared shitless.
There are few terrorists among us. Very few. To the point of essential non-existence. Once a decade we have a terrorist attack. Sometimes nobody is killed. Other times, several hundred get killed, including children. Other times, a few thousand get killed.
Once. A. Decade.
Meanwhile, thousands of children die each year from neglect or abuse. Tens of thousands of citizens die from preventable causes simply because they can't afford health care. Yet I don't see us going all nutso because of it. Why's that?
This whole "terrorism" thing is a strawman, used by the government to extend their authority. No more, no less. As a responsible American citizen, it is my duty to uphold the US Constitution. I took an oath when I joined the Army to do so. Though I am no longer in the military, I take that oath seriously.
Don't tell me a responsible person doesn't prefer privacy and liberty above life. "Give me liberty, or give me death," used to mean something in this country.
Or do you consider the American Revolutionary War irresponsible?
See, this is something that bugs me. It seems that "real conservatives" get upset about political correctness (which was embraced by the left about as well as "abstinance only" is embraced by the right-- that is, by a very vocal minority), and label the whole "left" ideology as somehow bad.
This is neglecting that it is the ultra-right in this country that are also after prohibition of various things, such as sex, drugs, and privacy. ("Same sex marriage" should also be on that list, but it didn't flow as well.)
It's extremists from *both* sides that are destroying the Constitution. As a "left-leaning" person, I am 100% behind the Constitution, and believe the federal government should be stripped down to the bone and get back to its original charter-- the oversight and regulation of interstate trade.
Otherwise, I'm socially liberal. Go figure.
I imagine if we had a conversation, you'd find we agreed on almost all goals. We'd just differ in our approaches. Me, I don't trust any group bigger than about 5 people-- that especially includes government at all levels, and corporations.
But that's just me.
That's fine, until they ship you to Guantanamo. They don't need a reason for that, nor is there any trial preceding your imprisonment.
This is just one piece of a very scary puzzle. Whether they were all designed to fit together, or just happen to fit together, it's all very scary.
Not all Americans are dumb but there are really a lot of dumb Americans. Though in reality people in general are dumb. Its why propaganda is such an important part of government and why it works so well.
That's just it. Learning the truth about the world is tough. There's a lot of bullshit to dig through, and discerning facts from fiction takes a lot of work. Most Americans (most *people*, I'd wager) would rather the world were simple.
Evangelical Christianity is like that: easy answers to tough questions. Those folks who support G. Bush just because he's our President are also like that: easy answers. Avoid the tough questions altogether.
It's not that people are dumb. They're just numb