Interestingly enough, your vindictive way of improving critical thinking in the masses, begs to be applied to the rest of the 'traits' in the gene pool.
Since Homosexuals have 'opted-out' - they also merit no help from society and should be shunned and used to improve the condition of the rest of society. Anyone who disagrees with 'good science' should also be excluded. Anyone who is not tall/strong enough and who does not also own a keen intellect should also be eliminated....unless, of course, you think that these groups should form a sub-species, or that others constitute a higher, super-human race.
I believe from title that both our posts are a joke. But the fact that you were modded '5 insightful' is more disturbing than your joke.
I agree... interestingly, anyone over 65 is automatically enrolled in Medicare, even if they have a 6-digit income. So, if they are already upset or unsatisfied with the heath care system the government offers them, what makes them think that they will be happy when the Government takes over everything?
I guess they assume that if the Government is paying for everything, they can have anything. I just know I will end up paying taxes to buy Cletus' Viagra. The problem, is that if the government is going to take-over the Heath care system, it is to control costs... which means that we will loose some doctors, hospitals, services, and medical research here in the U.S.
I know you had this all wrapped-up and all, but, I think you are going the wrong direction. First of all, America is all about wasting resources. Period. It is what drives our economy, and because the world owns half our economy, the world economy.
That being said, Perhaps, just maybe, the life expectancy problems we have in the United States are due more to lifestyle than health care? Come on, there might be a chance. Maybe that Big Mac doesn't look so good anymore? Don't worry, there's a pill to fix that... and a pill to fix that pill's side effects. There are pills and drugs to regrow your hair, help you feel like you were 18, help you grow, make you happy, relax you, make you forget, color your hair, burn off your extra fat, give you muscles, stretch your face, remove your pain, wake you up, get you high, or relieve the asthma you got from the smoke from the factory that hydrogenates the food you eat.
And if that doesn't work, there are doctors to strip the plaque from the arteries near your heart... which you got from eating the hydrogenated food. Radioactive dyes you can drink to make the cancer glow when they shoot you with x-rays.
Well... enjoy your last can of that 12-pack of Jolt, take two sleeping pills, and call the doctor in the morning as you watch all the pharmaceutical commercials.
One of these days a new study will come out, and we'll realize that the health care system is killing us with it's effort to to keep us from killing ourselves with our lifestyle. And why? because we pay them to, and we pay them well.
Can the states be sued... well... yes and no. Yes, but it would have to be a state-to-state basis, in the state's Supreme Court. No, because Federal law (the U.S. constitution) has no requirement for open public elections. (The only possible exception I could think of would be to ratify an amendment, which bears the wording... the will of the people... which could be grounds for some sort of suit.) The states may have some stipulation in their own state constitution, which could lead to a suit, but the state themselves would have to 'consent' to being sued on this, on one level or another. Federal elections -ie the presidential election- is subject to the electoral college, which, if you read the U.S. constitution, does not have to be based on anything other than what the state legislature decides to send in their electoral votes. End of story. (Right or wrong, that is the law that the united states has worked on for 200 years.) If this is some sort of federal suit, it is a publicity stunt. There is no legal grounding for this case in federal court. State courts... this may be very valid, but it all depends on what the state constitution says in regards to the electoral votes assigned to that state. (see the legal fiasco of Florida in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court told the Florida Supreme court that they could not consider the Federal Constitution in their ruling, because it is not connected and is invalid. That is the only bounds that the U.S. Supreme Court had in the case... anything beyond that was overstepping the Federal Judicial power.)
well... as that is correct, it is worthless. The president can't pardon himself and congress can impeach without a conviction, just like a vote of no confidence. Whereas a president who is impeached cannot pardon the impeachment, an impeachment does not necessarily mean he has been found guilty of lawful wrongdoing. President Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
WHile an impeachment cannot be stricken from the record, the crime that caused the impeachment to happen can. Note: Nixon. Pres. Ford pardoned him, but could not return him to office. So, yes, the impeachment cannot be removed by pardon, but there really is no point to that... save political and social "saving-face." From a legal point of view, it would be a needless power and politically, would be unconscionable.
I don't know what country you live in, but Presidents usually pardon, not on time already spent, but on political and personal obligations or gains. If a special interest group/political movement/personal agenda/political ally or potential ally is connected to a convicted person, then the President pardons them. Usually in the last days of office, but it is actually fairly common during term, you just don't hear about it in the news. The reason why the Judge wanted Libby to go to jail NOW is to force the President to pardon him now, for whatever reason he sees fit, so that the political/personal loyalty or obligation is balanced with the stigma of bad press. You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can. Libby is not the worst criminal to be pardoned, and not the first to be pardoned before spending time in jail, nor will he be the last.
Not to start a flame war or anything, but I find it very interesting that your post embodies the opposite ideal of what is happening in the world today. It also is the opposite of Aristotle's Socrates, in "The Republic", where Socrates, (the scientist of his time - a philosopher), gave his cave analogy and set-up his 'perfect' society under a philosopher (scientist) king, who is required to lie to the populace about the world and their existence. You see, the 'king' would say something is necessary to fix a 'problem' that threatens the society, when in actuality it doesn't threaten anything but may be the direction the king wants the society to go. The people, however, wouldn't change or act accordingly to the kings wishes unless it threatened something they held dear. Thus the 'need' for a lie. What is interesting is that this politician has identified science as starting down that political path that started 2000 years ago. Are they? I am not sure.
Regardless of whether science is beginning to be a political faction, or they already are, or not, the point of the article is that science is kind of in that position at the moment. If all scientists speak with the same voice and say the same thing, they essentially are acting as one person/king/dictator over the scientific society. Whether Global Warming is man-made or dangerous or a bad thing or not, doesn't matter right now, because Science is claiming that it is. Never mind that science has been wrong in the past, what matters is that the scientific community is considering banishment and expulsion of any of its members if they voice a dissenting opinion.
The salient portion of TFA raises this question; is this behavior of the scientific community dangerous to the political structure we currently favor. The rest of TFA is political posturing and propaganda... but even a fool and a political pundit can have a grain of truth in his ramblings. Let's not ignore the pertinent question.
interestingly enough, if it is egotism, the veterans in OZ perpetuate it. When I was down under for two years, all the old diggers could say to me was "if it weren't for you yanks, we would be speaking Japanese. You came when England abandoned us, just in time."
Fact of the matter is, the US was the driving force behind keeping the UK, USSR, AUS, and anyone else against Hitler and the Japanese in the war. They would have all lost to Hitler very quickly if the US had not shipped all the guns, ammo, food, clothing, aircraft, tanks, trucks, etc... for them to fight with, long before Pearl Harbor or the Pacific Theater.
Interesting reply. I did not consider that as your main theme of posting... but a true statement. From a simple intellectual point of view, -realistically- I would think that invading the United States would be a huge undertaking even after the US armed forces were destroyed. The casualties would be horrendous simply to the arrogant/defiant attitude and the weapons that the US populace has. Texas locals probably have the same amount of guns as any given European nation, and that doesn't count in the ghettos of any large city and we have not touched the 'militias' of Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Montana... etc.
The United States faced a similar situation with Japan, which you mentioned, where the expected casualty list of invading the mainland reached over 40,000 in the first day. Pres. Truman decided to drop two atomic bombs, (the entire atomic arsenal at the time), instead. If something like that happened to the US, then I can see the US populace basically laying down their arms... simply because their guns are only affective under two miles and nukes come from further away.
If you understood my post though, you would see the end of the process... and understand that a country will not have to invade the US. I honestly think that the governmental structure is irreparably broken - corrupted - to the point that a fix cannot come from the inside. A grassroots solution is what needs to happen. I will probably not be a part of a militant 'solution' and I am not sure what kind of political solution I would support... again, I, as a politically informed American, don't trust power. Thomas Jefferson, among others, actually said that a republic/democracy could not exist for 200 years without being corrupted, and the only cure he could see was a bloody revolution... every 200 years.
So... how long will the world have to deal with the dangerous American superpower? well... if China is any indicator, the middle east and the American frustrations with that situation, and the current political trend... China will eclipse the US as a world superpower before the US politically melts-down, but that in itself might be enough of a catalyst to get the US unified and moving again. (We have been floundering since the cold war ended, a loose canon looking for a target. Honestly, we miss the wonderful opponent that the USSR was to us. A bi-polar world is more politically stable than a unilateral superpower - but less environmental and social issues are tackled in a bi-polar power struggle.) If trends continue, the US will melt-down in the next 50 years. The US armed services, unless a huge surge in recruitment is met, will have to scale down their activities in one year, (aka - closing foreign bases, retreat from current engagements, forget humanitarian situations... we can't fix them, etc...) Blah, blah, blah... the writing is on the wall, 'Rome' will fall.
But lets be honest, if any other country were at 'the top' of the world, they would be doing the exact same thing - throwing their political weight around. Be glad that the current 'superpower' is designed, politically, to do next to nothing. If, as some claim, President George Bush actually was a dictator, the world would be very different.
The big paradox with American politics is that though we don't approve of congress, (the most powerful branch of our government) we do approve of our own congressman. So, to put our idiocy simply, we don't like congress or what it does, but we sure like our elected congressman. So, bluntly, the grassroots movement you are looking for is going the other way. Does it make sense, No, but it is reality.
Because I don't know which particular piece of legislation was vetoed, I can't say how it affects your country... but it is probably due to economy, the power of the no-longer-almighty dollar.
I know the rest of the world has a hard time understanding the United States governmental structure... it is simply because there is no other, and has been no other, government like it, and it is very different from the type of government the rest of the 'western world' has while, at the same time, looking very similar and using most of the same titles.
This is not to say that the President of the US is a weak position... but most of his power comes from the idea that everyone has that he is all powerful. His power comes from his appeal to the people. The 'veto' power is the check, the insurance, against congress getting anything done. I told you that we didn't trust power, and that our government is designed to keep anything from happening... the veto is simply that, nothing happened. So though congress is the most powerful branch of the US government, there are 535 members of congress, split into two houses (435 in the House, 100 in Senate) that rarely agree with each other. The president, on the other hand, is only one person, thus, 'the most powerful man in America' -- and in some situations, the world.
If you are asking me to apologize that my country is a superpower in international politics, I'll have to be honest and say that I like the current situation. To be fair, anyone on top likes it there, if I were in any other situation, I would feel the same as others outside the US do.
...perhaps the majority of Americans didn't do anything , even when "the Americans realized how bad he was" is simply because the majority of Americans don't vote. And the majority of Americans who do vote aren't politically educated... Perhaps then, the reason why Americans "didn't even protest" is because there was no one moment for realization, and simply that Americans don't see him as "that bad." Do they approve of him?...no... but are those polls for the voting or nonvoting Americans?
One thing that really bugs me about 'the rest' of the world is that they are quick to criticize, but slow to educate themselves on what they are criticizing.
Americans in general don't trust power, period. Their government is designed to do absolutely nothing, unless there is an understood need or emergency. In your post you refer to a person as 'he' - I am assuming you mean George Bush. FYI, the president of the United States is essentially a figurehead. He is the top of the executive branch, which means he basically executes the law according to how congress has written it. Congress doles out the money, the president can't. Congress declares war, the president can't. Congress confirms judges, the president only nominates them. Congress approves international treaties, the president can't. The president can recommend laws, propose treaties, deploy small amounts of troops, make flowery speeches and appeal to the public to put pressure on congress to pass what the president thinks is right... but CONGRESS has to do it.
Congress, right now, is in control of the democratic party, the current president's opposition party, and they are the ones declining this environmental policy, not the president....in light of your new education, perhaps the reason most Americans didn't protest is because they understand that it isn't just the president, it is the majority of their government... which, overall, we like better than other governmental types. Why? Like I told you we don't trust power. Can you blame us?
So, in recap... is the current US foreign policy the President's fault? Only about 30-40%. Congress holds the keys, so it is mainly their fault. But don't tell Americans that, they would rather blame the president like the rest of the world.
Do I think that Americans deserve help from the rest of the world? No. Do I think that your point is wrong... not in principal and you are entitled to your opinion, but please understand what you criticize.
...As I live a few miles from Idaho, have lots of friends in Wyoming, and have several friends with ccw permits, you could believe I have seen alot of guns and that I know how to use one. Strangely enough, I have never had a gun pulled on me or been in danger of being shot, here in America. if guns and ammo kill people and people don't kill people, how is it that I am not dead?
This is just plain paranoia and mis-trust of people in general. Things happen. If he had not been able to get the gun, perhaps it would have been a car he drove through a crowd or some other implement. Regardless, I think he would have been able to get his hands on a gun.
I spent two years in Australia, the bad parts of Sydney, (Campbelltown, Bankstown, etc), as well as further south coast and in the Snowy Mountain region. There, in Aus., where guns are practically illegal, I had guns pulled on me, was shot at, and witness gang warfare. Making guns illegal doesn't make them go away or make it impossible to get them. It just makes it impossible to get them legally. Are the people in Oz bad, no. There are just a few bad ones, just like here in the good 'ol US.
Regardless, it is not the gun we are afraid of, it is other people that scare us. Perhaps theodp should realize that people are good too. Relax, if someone really wanted to kill you, there are a million ways they could do it and never touch a firearm.
Your declaration that "tens of millions of Christians" believe as you say does not mean that they do, nor that they are 'true Christians'. Just because I say there are a whole bunch of rabid inbred rednecks in Kentucky who are foaming at the mouth to rebel against the government and rape their mothers doesn't mean that they are the new standard for a 'true Kentuckian'. Even if I have to deal with 'these hordes' every day, and if they are telling me that I am going to burn in hell because I am not inbred still doesn't make my assumption or subsequent labeling of them valid.
This kind of stereotyping makes me less of a person and makes me discriminate against every 'Kentuckian' I think I meet. This is where bigotry comes from.
As much as I see the value of what you are saying, I can only recoil from your logic.
just curious, how does knowing what you will do limit your choice? Just because I know that I will win the lottery, and that I will buy a nice car with that money doesn't mean that it wasn't my choice or that my choice in that is limited.
I would have thought that you would have taken on a harder topic, like all-merciful and just. Think about it. I will not tell you what to believe, find out for yourself.
My apologies to Occam.
I never said anyone should assume God exists, I said they should look at the possibility.
People in general, and science too, have come to a sad place indeed if we now avoid investigating idea's simply because they have "so many side effects."
If that is so, they why don't they consider the possibility that this evidence actually could point to the existence of God? Ockham's razor be damned, I guess.
...you are assuming that we understand true intelligence. What if there really is a God? Is the United States still less intelligent "relative to other western countries"?
Yet, I digress; this study is not even asking the question if God exists, but trying to explain what seems to be a natural tendency to belive in Deity. Why, do you think, they didn't consider the possibility that God does exist? What does Ockham's razor imply?
I find it curious they never entertain the possibility.
I am not sure which side you fall on this one... but the only evidence that is 'speaking' to the scientific world is their own evidence - that there 'is no God.'...but if "the evidence doesn't lie," then one asks why science keeps trying to disprove the existence of God? It's almost as if they don't really believe they succeeded the previous gazillion times.
Let us ask the question few dare to ask; can science prove/disprove the existence of Deity? How does one find logically and quantifiable evidence that is viable to that end?
Believe it or not, there are things that science can't prove/disprove. That's why we have other schools of thought; sociology, philosophy, and, (dare I say it) religion.
"Why do lawmakers always have to over-specify things until the purpose of the law is lost?"
This is over-simplified, but here goes... American laws are made in sub-committees of committees of the legislative body. The committees are packed with 'specialized' delegates, i.e. someone with a political stake or in the pocket of a special interest group, (like Microsoft, OSDL, or Green Peace)....of course that is the federal process, and the states vary in their organization, but it is mostly the same. It all depends on how the states have drawn-up the rules for their specific legislature.
Keeping that in mind, every law has to 'pass' through the upper committee after the sub-committee, before passing in the full-legislative body. The extra wordiness is to satisfy the other 'specialized' delegates' demands.
To put it simply; They HAVE to make it ridiculously wordy or it will never become a law. There is just too much money involved. This means that all Microsoft, or anyone else, has to do is 'buy' an influential delegate in the sub-committee, or the chair of the committee in order to kill this bill before it is even voted on in the full legislature.
"All the major organized religions seem to want is lots of uneducated children who think they are going to go to 'heaven' when they die."
Actually this kind of 'blind faith' you say that "ALL" major religions advocate is self-defeating. Though I would not be one to underestimate stupid people in mass, it is easy to convince someone who relies on such blind faith... so to keep people from 'defecting' it is important to educate them against your opponents. After all, MOST religion is another form of business, but that characterization is just as unfair as your stereotype in the above quote. This controversy is damaging to science as it takes time and attention away from the real issue. Evolution shouldn't be the debated taboo word that it now is.
Yes, I know I will be modded down, flamed, and socially banned from 'intelligent' debate, but perhaps you will actually read the rest of this to see what I mean. Intelligent design, whatever your feelings on the matter, is actually more logically viable than anyone would like to admit and is possibly the reason why this particular move to be 'politically correct' has arisen in the scientific world. (After all they have to deal with people too, and that's politics.) Society has changed the debate from what it really is to what they want it to be, because of the stronger position. Natural Selection is the new evolution and Intelligent Design is the new 'opiate of the masses' and the mark of the ignorant.
I think this is a shame for two reasons: first; evolution is a good scientific observation. It is testable, provable, and seems to work. Second, this entire debate has arisen out of and perpetuates a misconception of history; Charles Darwin did not 'discover' evolution. His grandfather did. (Erasmus Darwin; also notable is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) Evolution was an accepted, working theory decades before Darwin was born. What Darwin is credited with is the 'discovery' of natural selection. Before natural selection, it was assumed God directed the evolution of species, essentially it was Intelligent Design.
Yup, Natural Selection supplanted Intelligent Design initially, and that should be the only avoided words, if any are to be avoided.
The problem is that Natural Selection and Intelligent Design both have the same 'evidence' and are subject to the same problem; they are logically circular. That doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they currently preclude any effort to both prove and disprove them. You see, we can't observe natural selection in a way that differentiates it from intelligent design. This actual article is 'evidence' of both at the same time. Intelligent design, (or unintelligent as it may turn out to be), because we, presumably intelligent beings, are applying the pressure that causes the microbes to evolve. At the same time, the microbes are reacting to their environment... Natural Selection. Neither theory cancels the other, and both lead to each other. The problem is these theories are logic puzzles, like Schrödinger's cat, which fit the current need. No more, no less. That's why they are still theories after more than a hundred years.
Logically, if you also ascribe to the Heisenberg Principle (another logical puzzle) you also realize that the act of observing changes the environment, determining a certain outcome. How in the world can you then prove Natural Selection other than putting microbes in a closed system box and claiming that they are evolving only according to Natural Selection, as long as no one ever looks, or tries to document, or prove that it is as you say. ID has the same problem.
Kind of makes 'blind faith' take on a new meaning entirely, doesn't it?
This is the reason why you have intelligent people on both sides of this is
Change is not always progress.
If this new voting process is better, then it will play out. I don't mind Europe playing lab-rat for a voting process, but the political structures between Europe's nations and the United States render them incomparable in the voting process. If there is a problem in U.S. voting, it is that only the extreme factions show-up for primary elections.
If you want to change the choice, and understand American politics, you know that the PRIMARY ELECTION is the most important election, not the general election. A no vote or abstinence from the general election is absolutely worthless in a U.S. general election save for voter-turnout gee -wiz info. Anyone trying to "get out the vote" is a shill trying to get their personally selected candidate through the general election.
You want to pick your leader? Vote in the Primary.
Whitewater, thank you. No,I never said congress would do anything... but the media will. There is no depth too low for current political battles. Whether there is substance there or not, expect the mud-flinging to begin with dredging.
Her association with Bill is very telling of how she is. Let us not also forget that if she is elected, Billy-boy will once again be in the White house, and have 'access' to interns. The Democrats do not need another sex scandal. I would actually look for more Watergate investigations or probes. The Clinton's have many scandalous things in their history other than sex. Hillary might simply have too much history to be elected. A stealth candidate like Obama might fare better, depending on what skeletons are in his closet.
...talking about it may make them 'miles ahead,' but in what? Let's face it, there really isn't a powerful lobby pushing for this kind of privacy. It seems to me that most businesses would be against this kind of action. Regardless of what we all would like to think, every candidate needs money to campaign, that money comes from private and public donations, but I think you will find the most money comes from businesses and their interested investors/owners. What do they want? Is a candidate like this just pandering to the masses? if not, where do they get their money? What are their actions? Let$ not forget what rule$ in this country. If a candidate really stands up for the average citizen, I will vote and wish them the best. But keep in mind that there is a reason why the statesman is extinct.
...Amen. Thank you. I think you left one out though...
Calls for regulation on 'spin', 'National Security', 'lying', 'marketing', and all other forms of 'speech' (other than when under oath - before a judicial body) - is called CENSORSHIP....none of this means you have to believe anything said, marketed, broadcast, printed, etc... Whether you believe any of this is your choice. Don't like it? Don't buy it. The ads will disappear if no one buys it.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, your vindictive way of improving critical thinking in the masses, begs to be applied to the rest of the 'traits' in the gene pool.
...unless, of course, you think that these groups should form a sub-species, or that others constitute a higher, super-human race.
Since Homosexuals have 'opted-out' - they also merit no help from society and should be shunned and used to improve the condition of the rest of society.
Anyone who disagrees with 'good science' should also be excluded.
Anyone who is not tall/strong enough and who does not also own a keen intellect should also be eliminated.
I believe from title that both our posts are a joke. But the fact that you were modded '5 insightful' is more disturbing than your joke.
I agree... interestingly, anyone over 65 is automatically enrolled in Medicare, even if they have a 6-digit income.
So, if they are already upset or unsatisfied with the heath care system the government offers them, what makes them think that they will be happy when the Government takes over everything?
I guess they assume that if the Government is paying for everything, they can have anything. I just know I will end up paying taxes to buy Cletus' Viagra.
The problem, is that if the government is going to take-over the Heath care system, it is to control costs... which means that we will loose some doctors, hospitals, services, and medical research here in the U.S.
I know you had this all wrapped-up and all, but, I think you are going the wrong direction.
First of all, America is all about wasting resources. Period. It is what drives our economy, and because the world owns half our economy, the world economy.
That being said, Perhaps, just maybe, the life expectancy problems we have in the United States are due more to lifestyle than health care? Come on, there might be a chance. Maybe that Big Mac doesn't look so good anymore? Don't worry, there's a pill to fix that... and a pill to fix that pill's side effects. There are pills and drugs to regrow your hair, help you feel like you were 18, help you grow, make you happy, relax you, make you forget, color your hair, burn off your extra fat, give you muscles, stretch your face, remove your pain, wake you up, get you high, or relieve the asthma you got from the smoke from the factory that hydrogenates the food you eat.
And if that doesn't work, there are doctors to strip the plaque from the arteries near your heart... which you got from eating the hydrogenated food. Radioactive dyes you can drink to make the cancer glow when they shoot you with x-rays.
Well... enjoy your last can of that 12-pack of Jolt, take two sleeping pills, and call the doctor in the morning as you watch all the pharmaceutical commercials.
One of these days a new study will come out, and we'll realize that the health care system is killing us with it's effort to to keep us from killing ourselves with our lifestyle. And why? because we pay them to, and we pay them well.
Can the states be sued... well... yes and no. Yes, but it would have to be a state-to-state basis, in the state's Supreme Court. No, because Federal law (the U.S. constitution) has no requirement for open public elections. (The only possible exception I could think of would be to ratify an amendment, which bears the wording... the will of the people... which could be grounds for some sort of suit.)
The states may have some stipulation in their own state constitution, which could lead to a suit, but the state themselves would have to 'consent' to being sued on this, on one level or another.
Federal elections -ie the presidential election- is subject to the electoral college, which, if you read the U.S. constitution, does not have to be based on anything other than what the state legislature decides to send in their electoral votes. End of story. (Right or wrong, that is the law that the united states has worked on for 200 years.)
If this is some sort of federal suit, it is a publicity stunt. There is no legal grounding for this case in federal court. State courts... this may be very valid, but it all depends on what the state constitution says in regards to the electoral votes assigned to that state.
(see the legal fiasco of Florida in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court told the Florida Supreme court that they could not consider the Federal Constitution in their ruling, because it is not connected and is invalid. That is the only bounds that the U.S. Supreme Court had in the case... anything beyond that was overstepping the Federal Judicial power.)
well... as that is correct, it is worthless. The president can't pardon himself and congress can impeach without a conviction, just like a vote of no confidence. Whereas a president who is impeached cannot pardon the impeachment, an impeachment does not necessarily mean he has been found guilty of lawful wrongdoing. President Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
WHile an impeachment cannot be stricken from the record, the crime that caused the impeachment to happen can. Note: Nixon. Pres. Ford pardoned him, but could not return him to office. So, yes, the impeachment cannot be removed by pardon, but there really is no point to that... save political and social "saving-face." From a legal point of view, it would be a needless power and politically, would be unconscionable.
I don't know what country you live in, but Presidents usually pardon, not on time already spent, but on political and personal obligations or gains. If a special interest group/political movement/personal agenda/political ally or potential ally is connected to a convicted person, then the President pardons them. Usually in the last days of office, but it is actually fairly common during term, you just don't hear about it in the news.
The reason why the Judge wanted Libby to go to jail NOW is to force the President to pardon him now, for whatever reason he sees fit, so that the political/personal loyalty or obligation is balanced with the stigma of bad press. You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can. Libby is not the worst criminal to be pardoned, and not the first to be pardoned before spending time in jail, nor will he be the last.
Not to start a flame war or anything, but I find it very interesting that your post embodies the opposite ideal of what is happening in the world today. It also is the opposite of Aristotle's Socrates, in "The Republic", where Socrates, (the scientist of his time - a philosopher), gave his cave analogy and set-up his 'perfect' society under a philosopher (scientist) king, who is required to lie to the populace about the world and their existence. You see, the 'king' would say something is necessary to fix a 'problem' that threatens the society, when in actuality it doesn't threaten anything but may be the direction the king wants the society to go. The people, however, wouldn't change or act accordingly to the kings wishes unless it threatened something they held dear. Thus the 'need' for a lie. What is interesting is that this politician has identified science as starting down that political path that started 2000 years ago. Are they? I am not sure.
Regardless of whether science is beginning to be a political faction, or they already are, or not, the point of the article is that science is kind of in that position at the moment. If all scientists speak with the same voice and say the same thing, they essentially are acting as one person/king/dictator over the scientific society.
Whether Global Warming is man-made or dangerous or a bad thing or not, doesn't matter right now, because Science is claiming that it is. Never mind that science has been wrong in the past, what matters is that the scientific community is considering banishment and expulsion of any of its members if they voice a dissenting opinion.
The salient portion of TFA raises this question; is this behavior of the scientific community dangerous to the political structure we currently favor. The rest of TFA is political posturing and propaganda... but even a fool and a political pundit can have a grain of truth in his ramblings. Let's not ignore the pertinent question.
interestingly enough, if it is egotism, the veterans in OZ perpetuate it. When I was down under for two years, all the old diggers could say to me was "if it weren't for you yanks, we would be speaking Japanese. You came when England abandoned us, just in time."
Fact of the matter is, the US was the driving force behind keeping the UK, USSR, AUS, and anyone else against Hitler and the Japanese in the war. They would have all lost to Hitler very quickly if the US had not shipped all the guns, ammo, food, clothing, aircraft, tanks, trucks, etc... for them to fight with, long before Pearl Harbor or the Pacific Theater.
Interesting reply. I did not consider that as your main theme of posting... but a true statement. From a simple intellectual point of view, -realistically- I would think that invading the United States would be a huge undertaking even after the US armed forces were destroyed. The casualties would be horrendous simply to the arrogant/defiant attitude and the weapons that the US populace has. Texas locals probably have the same amount of guns as any given European nation, and that doesn't count in the ghettos of any large city and we have not touched the 'militias' of Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Montana... etc.
The United States faced a similar situation with Japan, which you mentioned, where the expected casualty list of invading the mainland reached over 40,000 in the first day. Pres. Truman decided to drop two atomic bombs, (the entire atomic arsenal at the time), instead. If something like that happened to the US, then I can see the US populace basically laying down their arms... simply because their guns are only affective under two miles and nukes come from further away.
If you understood my post though, you would see the end of the process... and understand that a country will not have to invade the US. I honestly think that the governmental structure is irreparably broken - corrupted - to the point that a fix cannot come from the inside. A grassroots solution is what needs to happen. I will probably not be a part of a militant 'solution' and I am not sure what kind of political solution I would support... again, I, as a politically informed American, don't trust power. Thomas Jefferson, among others, actually said that a republic/democracy could not exist for 200 years without being corrupted, and the only cure he could see was a bloody revolution... every 200 years.
So... how long will the world have to deal with the dangerous American superpower? well... if China is any indicator, the middle east and the American frustrations with that situation, and the current political trend... China will eclipse the US as a world superpower before the US politically melts-down, but that in itself might be enough of a catalyst to get the US unified and moving again. (We have been floundering since the cold war ended, a loose canon looking for a target. Honestly, we miss the wonderful opponent that the USSR was to us. A bi-polar world is more politically stable than a unilateral superpower - but less environmental and social issues are tackled in a bi-polar power struggle.) If trends continue, the US will melt-down in the next 50 years. The US armed services, unless a huge surge in recruitment is met, will have to scale down their activities in one year, (aka - closing foreign bases, retreat from current engagements, forget humanitarian situations... we can't fix them, etc...) Blah, blah, blah... the writing is on the wall, 'Rome' will fall.
But lets be honest, if any other country were at 'the top' of the world, they would be doing the exact same thing - throwing their political weight around. Be glad that the current 'superpower' is designed, politically, to do next to nothing. If, as some claim, President George Bush actually was a dictator, the world would be very different.
The big paradox with American politics is that though we don't approve of congress, (the most powerful branch of our government) we do approve of our own congressman. So, to put our idiocy simply, we don't like congress or what it does, but we sure like our elected congressman. So, bluntly, the grassroots movement you are looking for is going the other way. Does it make sense, No, but it is reality.
Because I don't know which particular piece of legislation was vetoed, I can't say how it affects your country... but it is probably due to economy, the power of the no-longer-almighty dollar.
I know the rest of the world has a hard time understanding the United States governmental structure... it is simply because there is no other, and has been no other, government like it, and it is very different from the type of government the rest of the 'western world' has while, at the same time, looking very similar and using most of the same titles.
This is not to say that the President of the US is a weak position... but most of his power comes from the idea that everyone has that he is all powerful. His power comes from his appeal to the people. The 'veto' power is the check, the insurance, against congress getting anything done. I told you that we didn't trust power, and that our government is designed to keep anything from happening... the veto is simply that, nothing happened. So though congress is the most powerful branch of the US government, there are 535 members of congress, split into two houses (435 in the House, 100 in Senate) that rarely agree with each other. The president, on the other hand, is only one person, thus, 'the most powerful man in America' -- and in some situations, the world.
If you are asking me to apologize that my country is a superpower in international politics, I'll have to be honest and say that I like the current situation. To be fair, anyone on top likes it there, if I were in any other situation, I would feel the same as others outside the US do.
...perhaps the majority of Americans didn't do anything , even when "the Americans realized how bad he was" is simply because the majority of Americans don't vote. And the majority of Americans who do vote aren't politically educated... Perhaps then, the reason why Americans "didn't even protest" is because there was no one moment for realization, and simply that Americans don't see him as "that bad." Do they approve of him? ...no... but are those polls for the voting or nonvoting Americans? ...in light of your new education, perhaps the reason most Americans didn't protest is because they understand that it isn't just the president, it is the majority of their government... which, overall, we like better than other governmental types. Why? Like I told you we don't trust power. Can you blame us?
One thing that really bugs me about 'the rest' of the world is that they are quick to criticize, but slow to educate themselves on what they are criticizing.
Americans in general don't trust power, period. Their government is designed to do absolutely nothing, unless there is an understood need or emergency. In your post you refer to a person as 'he' - I am assuming you mean George Bush. FYI, the president of the United States is essentially a figurehead. He is the top of the executive branch, which means he basically executes the law according to how congress has written it. Congress doles out the money, the president can't. Congress declares war, the president can't. Congress confirms judges, the president only nominates them. Congress approves international treaties, the president can't. The president can recommend laws, propose treaties, deploy small amounts of troops, make flowery speeches and appeal to the public to put pressure on congress to pass what the president thinks is right... but CONGRESS has to do it.
Congress, right now, is in control of the democratic party, the current president's opposition party, and they are the ones declining this environmental policy, not the president.
So, in recap... is the current US foreign policy the President's fault? Only about 30-40%. Congress holds the keys, so it is mainly their fault. But don't tell Americans that, they would rather blame the president like the rest of the world.
Do I think that Americans deserve help from the rest of the world? No. Do I think that your point is wrong... not in principal and you are entitled to your opinion, but please understand what you criticize.
This is just plain paranoia and mis-trust of people in general. Things happen. If he had not been able to get the gun, perhaps it would have been a car he drove through a crowd or some other implement. Regardless, I think he would have been able to get his hands on a gun.
I spent two years in Australia, the bad parts of Sydney, (Campbelltown, Bankstown, etc), as well as further south coast and in the Snowy Mountain region. There, in Aus., where guns are practically illegal, I had guns pulled on me, was shot at, and witness gang warfare. Making guns illegal doesn't make them go away or make it impossible to get them. It just makes it impossible to get them legally. Are the people in Oz bad, no. There are just a few bad ones, just like here in the good 'ol US.
Regardless, it is not the gun we are afraid of, it is other people that scare us. Perhaps theodp should realize that people are good too. Relax, if someone really wanted to kill you, there are a million ways they could do it and never touch a firearm.
Your declaration that "tens of millions of Christians" believe as you say does not mean that they do, nor that they are 'true Christians'. Just because I say there are a whole bunch of rabid inbred rednecks in Kentucky who are foaming at the mouth to rebel against the government and rape their mothers doesn't mean that they are the new standard for a 'true Kentuckian'. Even if I have to deal with 'these hordes' every day, and if they are telling me that I am going to burn in hell because I am not inbred still doesn't make my assumption or subsequent labeling of them valid.
This kind of stereotyping makes me less of a person and makes me discriminate against every 'Kentuckian' I think I meet. This is where bigotry comes from.
As much as I see the value of what you are saying, I can only recoil from your logic.
just curious, how does knowing what you will do limit your choice?
Just because I know that I will win the lottery, and that I will buy a nice car with that money doesn't mean that it wasn't my choice or that my choice in that is limited.
I would have thought that you would have taken on a harder topic, like all-merciful and just.
Think about it. I will not tell you what to believe, find out for yourself.
My apologies to Occam.
I never said anyone should assume God exists, I said they should look at the possibility.
People in general, and science too, have come to a sad place indeed if we now avoid investigating idea's simply because they have "so many side effects."
If that is so, they why don't they consider the possibility that this evidence actually could point to the existence of God? Ockham's razor be damned, I guess.
...you are assuming that we understand true intelligence. What if there really is a God? Is the United States still less intelligent "relative to other western countries"?
Yet, I digress; this study is not even asking the question if God exists, but trying to explain what seems to be a natural tendency to belive in Deity. Why, do you think, they didn't consider the possibility that God does exist? What does Ockham's razor imply?
I find it curious they never entertain the possibility.
I am not sure which side you fall on this one... but the only evidence that is 'speaking' to the scientific world is their own evidence - that there 'is no God.' ...but if "the evidence doesn't lie," then one asks why science keeps trying to disprove the existence of God? It's almost as if they don't really believe they succeeded the previous gazillion times.
Let us ask the question few dare to ask; can science prove/disprove the existence of Deity? How does one find logically and quantifiable evidence that is viable to that end?
Believe it or not, there are things that science can't prove/disprove. That's why we have other schools of thought; sociology, philosophy, and, (dare I say it) religion.
"Why do lawmakers always have to over-specify things until the purpose of the law is lost?"
...of course that is the federal process, and the states vary in their organization, but it is mostly the same. It all depends on how the states have drawn-up the rules for their specific legislature.
This is over-simplified, but here goes... American laws are made in sub-committees of committees of the legislative body. The committees are packed with 'specialized' delegates, i.e. someone with a political stake or in the pocket of a special interest group, (like Microsoft, OSDL, or Green Peace).
Keeping that in mind, every law has to 'pass' through the upper committee after the sub-committee, before passing in the full-legislative body. The extra wordiness is to satisfy the other 'specialized' delegates' demands.
To put it simply; They HAVE to make it ridiculously wordy or it will never become a law. There is just too much money involved. This means that all Microsoft, or anyone else, has to do is 'buy' an influential delegate in the sub-committee, or the chair of the committee in order to kill this bill before it is even voted on in the full legislature.
"All the major organized religions seem to want is lots of uneducated children who think they are going to go to 'heaven' when they die."
Actually this kind of 'blind faith' you say that "ALL" major religions advocate is self-defeating. Though I would not be one to underestimate stupid people in mass, it is easy to convince someone who relies on such blind faith... so to keep people from 'defecting' it is important to educate them against your opponents. After all, MOST religion is another form of business, but that characterization is just as unfair as your stereotype in the above quote. This controversy is damaging to science as it takes time and attention away from the real issue. Evolution shouldn't be the debated taboo word that it now is.
Yes, I know I will be modded down, flamed, and socially banned from 'intelligent' debate, but perhaps you will actually read the rest of this to see what I mean.
Intelligent design, whatever your feelings on the matter, is actually more logically viable than anyone would like to admit and is possibly the reason why this particular move to be 'politically correct' has arisen in the scientific world. (After all they have to deal with people too, and that's politics.) Society has changed the debate from what it really is to what they want it to be, because of the stronger position. Natural Selection is the new evolution and Intelligent Design is the new 'opiate of the masses' and the mark of the ignorant.
I think this is a shame for two reasons: first; evolution is a good scientific observation. It is testable, provable, and seems to work. Second, this entire debate has arisen out of and perpetuates a misconception of history; Charles Darwin did not 'discover' evolution. His grandfather did. (Erasmus Darwin; also notable is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) Evolution was an accepted, working theory decades before Darwin was born. What Darwin is credited with is the 'discovery' of natural selection. Before natural selection, it was assumed God directed the evolution of species, essentially it was Intelligent Design.
Yup, Natural Selection supplanted Intelligent Design initially, and that should be the only avoided words, if any are to be avoided.
The problem is that Natural Selection and Intelligent Design both have the same 'evidence' and are subject to the same problem; they are logically circular. That doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they currently preclude any effort to both prove and disprove them.
You see, we can't observe natural selection in a way that differentiates it from intelligent design. This actual article is 'evidence' of both at the same time. Intelligent design, (or unintelligent as it may turn out to be), because we, presumably intelligent beings, are applying the pressure that causes the microbes to evolve. At the same time, the microbes are reacting to their environment... Natural Selection. Neither theory cancels the other, and both lead to each other. The problem is these theories are logic puzzles, like Schrödinger's cat, which fit the current need. No more, no less. That's why they are still theories after more than a hundred years.
Logically, if you also ascribe to the Heisenberg Principle (another logical puzzle) you also realize that the act of observing changes the environment, determining a certain outcome. How in the world can you then prove Natural Selection other than putting microbes in a closed system box and claiming that they are evolving only according to Natural Selection, as long as no one ever looks, or tries to document, or prove that it is as you say. ID has the same problem.
Kind of makes 'blind faith' take on a new meaning entirely, doesn't it?
This is the reason why you have intelligent people on both sides of this is
Change is not always progress.
If this new voting process is better, then it will play out. I don't mind Europe playing lab-rat for a voting process, but the political structures between Europe's nations and the United States render them incomparable in the voting process.
If there is a problem in U.S. voting, it is that only the extreme factions show-up for primary elections.
If you want to change the choice, and understand American politics, you know that the PRIMARY ELECTION is the most important election, not the general election. A no vote or abstinence from the general election is absolutely worthless in a U.S. general election save for voter-turnout gee -wiz info. Anyone trying to "get out the vote" is a shill trying to get their personally selected candidate through the general election.
You want to pick your leader? Vote in the Primary.
Whitewater, thank you.
No,I never said congress would do anything... but the media will. There is no depth too low for current political battles. Whether there is substance there or not, expect the mud-flinging to begin with dredging.
Her association with Bill is very telling of how she is. Let us not also forget that if she is elected, Billy-boy will once again be in the White house, and have 'access' to interns. The Democrats do not need another sex scandal.
I would actually look for more Watergate investigations or probes. The Clinton's have many scandalous things in their history other than sex. Hillary might simply have too much history to be elected. A stealth candidate like Obama might fare better, depending on what skeletons are in his closet.
...talking about it may make them 'miles ahead,' but in what? Let's face it, there really isn't a powerful lobby pushing for this kind of privacy. It seems to me that most businesses would be against this kind of action. Regardless of what we all would like to think, every candidate needs money to campaign, that money comes from private and public donations, but I think you will find the most money comes from businesses and their interested investors/owners. What do they want? Is a candidate like this just pandering to the masses? if not, where do they get their money? What are their actions?
Let$ not forget what rule$ in this country.
If a candidate really stands up for the average citizen, I will vote and wish them the best. But keep in mind that there is a reason why the statesman is extinct.
...Amen. Thank you.
...none of this means you have to believe anything said, marketed, broadcast, printed, etc... Whether you believe any of this is your choice.
I think you left one out though...
Calls for regulation on 'spin', 'National Security', 'lying', 'marketing', and all other forms of 'speech' (other than when under oath - before a judicial body) - is called CENSORSHIP.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. The ads will disappear if no one buys it.