Without disputing what you say about the Bush administration, I would add that the Constitutional crisis we're facing has existed since 1861, when Lincoln used the same excuse (emergency war powers) based on an equally fraudulent war scenario (the enemy attacked our fort which we maintain on their land, the purpose of which is not to protect them from foreign invasion but to collect excise taxes needed to run the national government and fund the military that will ensure that their State may not peacefully secede, irrespective of the right to secession explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence and implicitly enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution) to suspend habeaus corpus, imprison dissenters (including Maryland state legislators and a member of the US Congress) without trial, shut down opposition newspapers who refused to submit to censorship, violate historical principles of the conduct of war by use of slash-and-burn tactics and starvation of the civilian population, and hang after mock trial non-US citizens (Native American chiefs) who happened to side with the Confederacy.
It was Lincoln (the first Republican president, now canonized and worshipped by all statists and both major parties, just as the almost equally tyrannical FDR is today) that used his own war to advance the agenda of empire and unchecked presidential powers, the supremacy of the federal government and the destruction of the principle of State's rights, and set the precedent for the wartime suspension of civil liberties, and excuses for war, of all presidents to follow. Even before Lincoln the Constitution was violated many times, even by Founders who became presidents, SC Justices and Congressmen(e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Louisiana Purchase, and numerous Supreme Court decisions), but Lincoln drove the first nail in its coffin. George Bush is merely the last in a long line of presidents who swore to uphold it, only to trash it the first time it got in his way.
We should always remember: the Executive, the Congress, and the Judiciary are all agents of the government; they have absolutely no incentive to diminish each other's power, and every incentive under our corrupt system to cooperate with each other, so "checks and balances" be damned. The Courts routinely allow the Executive branch's prosecutors to lie amd withhold evidence in order to obtain convictions; the Congress exempts itself and the other Branches, agencies etc. from most of the laws and and regulations it foists on private business and individuals; the Executive assumes powers not in the Constitution without serious opposition from Congress or the courts; the Congress passes Byzantine laws written by unelected bureaucrats that it doesn't even bother to read, and so on ad nauseum. The vast majority of the so-called Free Press is by and large the mouthpiece and cheerleader for one or another Big Government faction, and since almost every honest business depends to some extent on the sanction of goverment to exist, let alone thrive, the private sector has been emasculated and is no longer a force protecting private property rights.
So I would advise not putting any faith or hope into the Courts, or Congress, or any future president doing much of anything to advance anyone's interest but their own, and their interest is to ensure that Uncle Sugar steals the candy from us babies and hands it out to those who will keep them in power. Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Rockefeller, Kerry -- meet the new boss, same as the old boss, and get wise.
Actually, you're the one who made the flip comment about "capitalist propaganda", with vague references to haves and have-nots, etc, so what am I supposed to think about your social agenda? You still haven't explained why you think you're an owner of the IM system someone else produced. Maybe you should read some Bastiat, some Adam Smith, some Ayn Rand, some Murray Rothbard.
Actually, your basic premise is wrong. You can't own something you didn't make yourself except by force. So what you're advocating is robbery. But that's the basic anti-market, socialist position, isn't it?
The ability to communicate over anything more than shouting distance costs money, dude. The entrepreneurs who develop those networks have every right to limit access; if they're too restrictive, they'll pay in the marketplace.
Besides, IM is virtually free to the end user, and lets you make virtually free voice calls. Pennies of your ISP charges cover the cost. Who is the loser in this capitalist scenario?
"From each according to his ability to pay; to each according to his ability to produce." -- K(as in Kosmo)Marx
Bjorn Lonborg (cited in Crichton's book, as I recall) can atest to the tactic of ad hominem attack. Since the release of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" he has been subjected to the most vicious attacks imaginable, including many death threats. You challenge the conventional wisdom at your peril, it seems, even in academia.
I thought Crichton's summarization of his beliefs about global warming was a reasonable recitation of the actual scientific consensus: There is some observed warming; it probably has an anthropogenic component, although the exact amount is uncertain; and the alarmist projections about likely future warming are probably grossly exaggerated. The key words are "some", "probably", "uncertain" and "exaggerated". Contrasted to this, the histrionic claims of the alarmists are instructive to anyone with a scientific bent or background, because serious scientists never do that. They sound like what they more closely resemble, the religious zealots that have plagued us since the dawn of civilization. Believe it or else, Bjorn.
Even if they're eventually proven right, reasonable people can, and should, reject their proposed remedies, and look for smart man-made solutions to man-made problems. Taxing and regulating us into poverty is the worst possible solution, and the first these types usually promote. That's the legacy of socialism, aka anti-capitalism, I'm afraid. Given the last million or so years of natural history, I see no reason at all for pessimism in regard to man's ability to adapt and survive. We'll do it while saving the planet, too, and real science will lead the way.
Although the novel was a typical Crichton made-for-the-movies potboiler, "State of Fear" is still a valuable contribution to the global warming debate. His detractors would like to shut him up, which only proves he struck some nerves and revealed some weaknesses. Yes, it's true that Crichton is not a scientist, but that didn't stop him from meticulously researching the available evidence, sifting out the incredible amount of hysterical nonsense coming from the far left (who have substituted "environmentalism" for their previous failed experiment with socialism, in their insane war against capitalism) and exlaining it all to the intelligent, open-minded reader.
More books like "State of Fear" are needed to counter the pseudoscience in fear-mongering tomes such as "Earth in the Balance" by that famous scientist who invented the internet (now mercifully forgotten). The general public could also benefit mightily from a movie version, which might calm them down after "The Day After Tomorrow".
Chicken Little is just a typical victim of public schools. Pity him, but pay no attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Without disputing what you say about the Bush administration, I would add that the Constitutional crisis we're facing has existed since 1861, when Lincoln used the same excuse (emergency war powers) based on an equally fraudulent war scenario (the enemy attacked our fort which we maintain on their land, the purpose of which is not to protect them from foreign invasion but to collect excise taxes needed to run the national government and fund the military that will ensure that their State may not peacefully secede, irrespective of the right to secession explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence and implicitly enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution) to suspend habeaus corpus, imprison dissenters (including Maryland state legislators and a member of the US Congress) without trial, shut down opposition newspapers who refused to submit to censorship, violate historical principles of the conduct of war by use of slash-and-burn tactics and starvation of the civilian population, and hang after mock trial non-US citizens (Native American chiefs) who happened to side with the Confederacy.
It was Lincoln (the first Republican president, now canonized and worshipped by all statists and both major parties, just as the almost equally tyrannical FDR is today) that used his own war to advance the agenda of empire and unchecked presidential powers, the supremacy of the federal government and the destruction of the principle of State's rights, and set the precedent for the wartime suspension of civil liberties, and excuses for war, of all presidents to follow. Even before Lincoln the Constitution was violated many times, even by Founders who became presidents, SC Justices and Congressmen(e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Louisiana Purchase, and numerous Supreme Court decisions), but Lincoln drove the first nail in its coffin. George Bush is merely the last in a long line of presidents who swore to uphold it, only to trash it the first time it got in his way.
We should always remember: the Executive, the Congress, and the Judiciary are all agents of the government; they have absolutely no incentive to diminish each other's power, and every incentive under our corrupt system to cooperate with each other, so "checks and balances" be damned. The Courts routinely allow the Executive branch's prosecutors to lie amd withhold evidence in order to obtain convictions; the Congress exempts itself and the other Branches, agencies etc. from most of the laws and and regulations it foists on private business and individuals; the Executive assumes powers not in the Constitution without serious opposition from Congress or the courts; the Congress passes Byzantine laws written by unelected bureaucrats that it doesn't even bother to read, and so on ad nauseum. The vast majority of the so-called Free Press is by and large the mouthpiece and cheerleader for one or another Big Government faction, and since almost every honest business depends to some extent on the sanction of goverment to exist, let alone thrive, the private sector has been emasculated and is no longer a force protecting private property rights.
So I would advise not putting any faith or hope into the Courts, or Congress, or any future president doing much of anything to advance anyone's interest but their own, and their interest is to ensure that Uncle Sugar steals the candy from us babies and hands it out to those who will keep them in power. Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Rockefeller, Kerry -- meet the new boss, same as the old boss, and get wise.
Actually, you're the one who made the flip comment about "capitalist propaganda", with vague references to haves and have-nots, etc, so what am I supposed to think about your social agenda? You still haven't explained why you think you're an owner of the IM system someone else produced. Maybe you should read some Bastiat, some Adam Smith, some Ayn Rand, some Murray Rothbard.
Actually, your basic premise is wrong. You can't own something you didn't make yourself except by force. So what you're advocating is robbery. But that's the basic anti-market, socialist position, isn't it?
The ability to communicate over anything more than shouting distance costs money, dude. The entrepreneurs who develop those networks have every right to limit access; if they're too restrictive, they'll pay in the marketplace. Besides, IM is virtually free to the end user, and lets you make virtually free voice calls. Pennies of your ISP charges cover the cost. Who is the loser in this capitalist scenario? "From each according to his ability to pay; to each according to his ability to produce." -- K(as in Kosmo)Marx
Bjorn Lonborg (cited in Crichton's book, as I recall) can atest to the tactic of ad hominem attack. Since the release of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" he has been subjected to the most vicious attacks imaginable, including many death threats. You challenge the conventional wisdom at your peril, it seems, even in academia. I thought Crichton's summarization of his beliefs about global warming was a reasonable recitation of the actual scientific consensus: There is some observed warming; it probably has an anthropogenic component, although the exact amount is uncertain; and the alarmist projections about likely future warming are probably grossly exaggerated. The key words are "some", "probably", "uncertain" and "exaggerated". Contrasted to this, the histrionic claims of the alarmists are instructive to anyone with a scientific bent or background, because serious scientists never do that. They sound like what they more closely resemble, the religious zealots that have plagued us since the dawn of civilization. Believe it or else, Bjorn. Even if they're eventually proven right, reasonable people can, and should, reject their proposed remedies, and look for smart man-made solutions to man-made problems. Taxing and regulating us into poverty is the worst possible solution, and the first these types usually promote. That's the legacy of socialism, aka anti-capitalism, I'm afraid. Given the last million or so years of natural history, I see no reason at all for pessimism in regard to man's ability to adapt and survive. We'll do it while saving the planet, too, and real science will lead the way.
Although the novel was a typical Crichton made-for-the-movies potboiler, "State of Fear" is still a valuable contribution to the global warming debate. His detractors would like to shut him up, which only proves he struck some nerves and revealed some weaknesses. Yes, it's true that Crichton is not a scientist, but that didn't stop him from meticulously researching the available evidence, sifting out the incredible amount of hysterical nonsense coming from the far left (who have substituted "environmentalism" for their previous failed experiment with socialism, in their insane war against capitalism) and exlaining it all to the intelligent, open-minded reader. More books like "State of Fear" are needed to counter the pseudoscience in fear-mongering tomes such as "Earth in the Balance" by that famous scientist who invented the internet (now mercifully forgotten). The general public could also benefit mightily from a movie version, which might calm them down after "The Day After Tomorrow". Chicken Little is just a typical victim of public schools. Pity him, but pay no attention.