I like Jefferson as much as the next guy, maybe more, but is his view the only one that matters? His ideas of government were very different than many of the other Founding Fathers. Our country was founded on a mix of ideologies. We have a mix today. Just because one brilliant and well-respected Founding Father had one view does not make that the only or best view.
I generally agree with the statement, by the way, I just think we need to be cautious in accepting what Jefferson said as canonized scripture.
Which is funny because Johnson is pretty low on the list of "best presidents." FDR and Adams are near the top, at least Adams is near the top 10. Isn't is strange that many of our "best" presidents were the ones who squashed personal liberties (whatever that means) the most?
"How many have been through all 3? (I can't think of any.) How many have polled approval ratings in the low 20s? (Nixon and Harding since polling began almost 90 years ago.)"
You can't forget Truman - he had lower approval ratings at the end of his presidency than Pres. Bush has now (or at least pretty similar). Truman now is considered one of the better presidents we've had.
Yes, the Iraq war was mismanaged early on. Is Pres. Bush to blame? Or is Congress or military leaders (they run the war after all)? Or is it all of the above? The Civil War was mismanaged (on the Union side) too, yet people seem to not blame Lincoln for that (the military gets blamed). How can you blame Pres. Bush for mismanaging a war but not Lincoln? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, yet we usually rank him as the best president we've ever had (and I agree). At the time, Lincoln was widely despised; he barely was re-elected. Is Pres. Bush as good of a president as Lincoln? I can't say without a number of years of hindsight. It's likely that he isn't but we will not know for many years.
You cannot fully judge the efficacy or "goodness" of a presidency while a president is in office. Look at JFK; many people for a long time thought he was the greatest president ever. As we look back, he was pretty good but nothing special (of course, his presidency was short). It's even too early to really rate Clinton's presidency.
Many of the economic problems started before Pres. Bush was president - things often take a long time to take effect.
I, for one, will suspend judgment of where Pres. Bush's presidency "ranks" for at least another 10-15 years when we see the long-term effects. That's context and perspective. Presidents can have short-term effects but the ones that really demonstrate how good they are as a president take a long time to see.
We need some serious patent reform. Patents are good and necessary in general but many of these go too far or are too vague or are not based on working prototypes.
How long before we see a patent on "a system of placing letters and numbers in sequential order in order to convey something meaningful"?
That's heresy! Americans are not allowed to criticize the omnipotent Obama or view/read anything about him except through the properly sanitized mainstream media.
There is a huge difference between searches at airports, which are pseudo-public places (they are relatively secure private property), and a random search in a public place like a street. It is also a far cry from someone coming into your own home - your private property - and searching it or you.
Are you opposed to searches of people going into prisons or government buildings like the Capitol? Do you allow anyone, without discrimination, to come freely into your home (including the drug dealer down the way or the pedophile or a gang banger)? Being searched at an airport is more akin to being searched when entering a court building or a police station or a prison than to being pulled over randomly on the street or having your home invaded for an illegal search.
The funny thing about facts are that they are not necessarily true. Facts are created (fact come from the Latin facere "to do" or "to make"; hence the word "manufacture") by people. Truth is separate from facts. Facts may be true or may closely approximate the truth but they are not the same.
My point is that "ignoring the facts" does not mean that someone is wrong, or what they say is untrue. Note: I'm not attacking science, I am a scientist. I'm just bringing a little philosophy of science (thinking critically about science) into the discussion. I am however, contradicting the view that many people have that fact == truth.
I dislike algebra. Calculus, I love, but algebra...[shudder]. Calculus always made a lot more sense to me than algebra. I get algebra, even linear algebra, but anyone (taking calculus) who scoffs at algebra clearly does not understand math very well.
You may wonder, "What's a clinical psychology student doing talking about algebra and calculus?" I used to be electrical engineering (and took linear algebra) until I saw the light;-) and have used linear algebra in my multivariate statistics courses.
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were leftish. They were socialists, they didn't just say that they were. Communism and socialism are "leftish" ideologies. Fascism is on the other end of the spectrum. The main thing that Hitler and the other 3 had in common was the fact that they were dictators and were all extremists.
It's just simple exposure. Advertisers don't even have to be overt about it. We like things that we are more familiar with, regardless of "conscious" awareness or not.
I'll do it. They come from these things on the Rover called wheels. When the Rover moves, the tread on the wheels leaves a pattern, an imprint (or a "footprint" if you will, although since it didn't come from a foot it shouldn't be called a footprint), in the dirt.:)
Maybe we could seed the moon to terraform it. Since we don't have the ability yet to do terraforming like in science fiction, we might be able to put various carbon compounds or other substances to change the concentration of atmospheric compounds to make it more amenable for life.
Now all the tinkering is just done in labs that have access to "controlled" substances. It has the same effect. We have regulations to stop people who are a few neurons shy of a full brain (probably from playing with too many chemicals) harming themselves or others. There are many responsible people who can tinker with chemicals but there are many irresponsible ones who would end up seriously harming themselves or others, accidentally or on purpose.
Exactly! I do neuroimaging research and I'd love to have something like this to help with our renderings of brain structures. It would make some of my work much easier.
That was only one of the many religious groups though (and one of the smaller ones). Most came to America because they wanted to be able to practice their religions as they saw fit without clashing with state-sponsored religions and governments. Religions were not usually the problem, governments were usually the problem (which is why the colonies revolted from England and started a new government).
Except that the religious groups who came to America came of their own free will.:) Granted, they might have been killed if they stayed in Europe but they were not being forced to America like criminals were being forced to Australia. Besides, we had plenty of criminals who were forced to come to America.
Most of them just need fathers around. The fathers don't even necessarily have to spank them, just discipline them. The problem is that we have far too many single-parent households and single-parenting is linked with increased rates of child misbehavior and teenage delinquency.
Most people (in the world), at least all of the governments that participate in the U.N. did (most of the time based on their own intelligence), believed there were WMD in Iraq. That was not an exclusive belief to the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
I like Jefferson as much as the next guy, maybe more, but is his view the only one that matters? His ideas of government were very different than many of the other Founding Fathers. Our country was founded on a mix of ideologies. We have a mix today. Just because one brilliant and well-respected Founding Father had one view does not make that the only or best view.
I generally agree with the statement, by the way, I just think we need to be cautious in accepting what Jefferson said as canonized scripture.
I agree. The best evidence that nerds are good with politics is that none of us are politicians. Q.E.D.
Which is funny because Johnson is pretty low on the list of "best presidents." FDR and Adams are near the top, at least Adams is near the top 10. Isn't is strange that many of our "best" presidents were the ones who squashed personal liberties (whatever that means) the most?
"How many have been through all 3? (I can't think of any.) How many have polled approval ratings in the low 20s? (Nixon and Harding since polling began almost 90 years ago.)"
You can't forget Truman - he had lower approval ratings at the end of his presidency than Pres. Bush has now (or at least pretty similar). Truman now is considered one of the better presidents we've had.
Yes, the Iraq war was mismanaged early on. Is Pres. Bush to blame? Or is Congress or military leaders (they run the war after all)? Or is it all of the above? The Civil War was mismanaged (on the Union side) too, yet people seem to not blame Lincoln for that (the military gets blamed). How can you blame Pres. Bush for mismanaging a war but not Lincoln? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, yet we usually rank him as the best president we've ever had (and I agree). At the time, Lincoln was widely despised; he barely was re-elected. Is Pres. Bush as good of a president as Lincoln? I can't say without a number of years of hindsight. It's likely that he isn't but we will not know for many years.
You cannot fully judge the efficacy or "goodness" of a presidency while a president is in office. Look at JFK; many people for a long time thought he was the greatest president ever. As we look back, he was pretty good but nothing special (of course, his presidency was short). It's even too early to really rate Clinton's presidency.
Many of the economic problems started before Pres. Bush was president - things often take a long time to take effect.
I, for one, will suspend judgment of where Pres. Bush's presidency "ranks" for at least another 10-15 years when we see the long-term effects. That's context and perspective. Presidents can have short-term effects but the ones that really demonstrate how good they are as a president take a long time to see.
Bravo. A truly beautiful post on /. Seriously, it was very nice. :)
We need some serious patent reform. Patents are good and necessary in general but many of these go too far or are too vague or are not based on working prototypes.
How long before we see a patent on "a system of placing letters and numbers in sequential order in order to convey something meaningful"?
"Obama's got big-ol' ears"
That's heresy! Americans are not allowed to criticize the omnipotent Obama or view/read anything about him except through the properly sanitized mainstream media.
I laughed. On the inside. Before I cried.
Just kidding, I love a good pun.
Yes, but smaller frontal lobes, which are what really matter.
There is a huge difference between searches at airports, which are pseudo-public places (they are relatively secure private property), and a random search in a public place like a street. It is also a far cry from someone coming into your own home - your private property - and searching it or you.
Are you opposed to searches of people going into prisons or government buildings like the Capitol? Do you allow anyone, without discrimination, to come freely into your home (including the drug dealer down the way or the pedophile or a gang banger)? Being searched at an airport is more akin to being searched when entering a court building or a police station or a prison than to being pulled over randomly on the street or having your home invaded for an illegal search.
The funny thing about facts are that they are not necessarily true. Facts are created (fact come from the Latin facere "to do" or "to make"; hence the word "manufacture") by people. Truth is separate from facts. Facts may be true or may closely approximate the truth but they are not the same.
My point is that "ignoring the facts" does not mean that someone is wrong, or what they say is untrue. Note: I'm not attacking science, I am a scientist. I'm just bringing a little philosophy of science (thinking critically about science) into the discussion. I am however, contradicting the view that many people have that fact == truth.
I dislike algebra. Calculus, I love, but algebra...[shudder]. Calculus always made a lot more sense to me than algebra. I get algebra, even linear algebra, but anyone (taking calculus) who scoffs at algebra clearly does not understand math very well.
;-) and have used linear algebra in my multivariate statistics courses.
You may wonder, "What's a clinical psychology student doing talking about algebra and calculus?" I used to be electrical engineering (and took linear algebra) until I saw the light
Which is why I cook my meat. :)
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were leftish. They were socialists, they didn't just say that they were. Communism and socialism are "leftish" ideologies. Fascism is on the other end of the spectrum. The main thing that Hitler and the other 3 had in common was the fact that they were dictators and were all extremists.
It's just simple exposure. Advertisers don't even have to be overt about it. We like things that we are more familiar with, regardless of "conscious" awareness or not.
I'll do it. They come from these things on the Rover called wheels. When the Rover moves, the tread on the wheels leaves a pattern, an imprint (or a "footprint" if you will, although since it didn't come from a foot it shouldn't be called a footprint), in the dirt. :)
Well, it's either that or Martians.
Maybe we could seed the moon to terraform it. Since we don't have the ability yet to do terraforming like in science fiction, we might be able to put various carbon compounds or other substances to change the concentration of atmospheric compounds to make it more amenable for life.
I wouldn't be opposed to that. That's just hard to set up in real life. :)
Now all the tinkering is just done in labs that have access to "controlled" substances. It has the same effect. We have regulations to stop people who are a few neurons shy of a full brain (probably from playing with too many chemicals) harming themselves or others. There are many responsible people who can tinker with chemicals but there are many irresponsible ones who would end up seriously harming themselves or others, accidentally or on purpose.
Exactly! I do neuroimaging research and I'd love to have something like this to help with our renderings of brain structures. It would make some of my work much easier.
Yeah, but nothing downstairs will work. ;-)
That was only one of the many religious groups though (and one of the smaller ones). Most came to America because they wanted to be able to practice their religions as they saw fit without clashing with state-sponsored religions and governments. Religions were not usually the problem, governments were usually the problem (which is why the colonies revolted from England and started a new government).
Except that the religious groups who came to America came of their own free will. :) Granted, they might have been killed if they stayed in Europe but they were not being forced to America like criminals were being forced to Australia. Besides, we had plenty of criminals who were forced to come to America.
Most of them just need fathers around. The fathers don't even necessarily have to spank them, just discipline them. The problem is that we have far too many single-parent households and single-parenting is linked with increased rates of child misbehavior and teenage delinquency.
Most people (in the world), at least all of the governments that participate in the U.N. did (most of the time based on their own intelligence), believed there were WMD in Iraq. That was not an exclusive belief to the U.S.