You call current moral an 'evolution'? One man's evolution is another's rapid descent.
Anyway, the "church of old times" sponsored an enormous quantity of art that happened to depict figures in the nude. As did religious confraternities and civic organizations.
Now, if you want to talk about some of the more ascetic strains of the reformed churches in Northern Europe, that's another issue. They loathed what they saw as the pagan excesses of religious art. Many of them were against representational art entirely. Many statues on the outside of the C of E Cathedral of Canterbury, for example, are still half-destroyed by philistine iconoclasts of the regime of Oliver Cromwell.
The Nation Review is a conservative journal. But they publish folks who aren't traditional conservatives, sometimes quite often.
Most of the writers are highly critical, incidentally, of the Republican Party. And they often promote ideas acceptable, or at least interesting, to a thoughtful leftist. For example, they are highly critical of the "war on drugs".
This is beside the point, though. The author of the article is an intelligent libertarian who voted for Nader. It's not a knee-jerk conservative response.
One the contrary, the Executive has an elaborate apparatus in place for dealing with disasters. It was by no means obvious after the first plane hit that it was a terrorist attack. I, you, and everybody else had no idea it was anything other than a tragic, horrible accident.
In such a case, the President surely would have played a role. Later, though. New York has a mayor, and a state governor whose job is to respond immediately to tragic disasters like crashed planes. It became a matter of imminent Federal concern when it was no longer an isolated event. And the President responded appropriately.
It's a well-reasoned analyis, one of many available. Even the latest Newsweek (hardly a right-wing journal) took down some of Moore's for egregious falsehoods.
A troll is somebody who posts irrelevant nonsense. My post was nothing of the sort - it was an interesting refutation of the movie. You can disagree with it if you like, but calling it a 'troll' says much more about you than it does about the issue at hand.
It's so sad that you can only resort to pseudo-psychologizing snarkiness when you don't have a point. My original post has been modded down several times.
At the moment you looked, some kind meta-mods disagreed. Thank goodness there are a few fair minded folks reading slashdot, to balance the anti-dissent crowd.
I've read slashdot since 1997 for the interesting tech stories. In that time it's become, politically, too much of an echo chamber. Hardly a substantial exchange of views. I know politics isn't the primary bailiwick of the site, but one might expect more fromk seemingly intelligent readers.
Finny how people mod down my relevant and informative post as a "troll". Here's a link again: Fifty-Six Deceits in F911
Go ahead and suppress dissent. You'll only be proving your liberal bona fides. You aren't interested in the truth, only in pushing your nutty-conspiracy political agenda.
Really, it's very sad that the Left has swooned for such a thoroughly discredited movie. Is there an honest case for leftism in this election? We won't find out as long as we're arguing about Michael Moore.
There is a thorough analysis of the tenuous relationship between the movie and the facts here: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm It's really quite a takedown. Anybody who sees the movie should also read such a comprehensive analysis, for balance.
The linked article was written by Dave Kopel a former Assistant Attorney General of Colorado. He is a libertarian. Like Michael Moore, he endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, so he's hardly a firebreathing Republican (though some of the magazine he publishes in are right-wing)
Does the Charter you're referring to have legal standing similar to the US Constitution? Is it a sort of ultimate authority, by which the Canadian judiciary is bound to test legislation?
The reason I ask is that most countries don't use their written constitution (if they have one) the same way the US does. They treat it more like we do the Declaration of Independence - nice inspiring thoughts, but with no legal standing.
Go read back issues of Time or Newsweek, for example. Here's the result of one quick Nexis search:
In 1975, Newsweek reported in "The Cooling World" that scientists were predicting a new ice age:
"The evidence in support of [global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. i A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop in average ground temperature in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. i Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult they will find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
So are you suggesting that we shouldn't build Iraq? Or that we should give the contracts to France and Germany?
Haliburton may get contracts through USAid, but Cheney won't benefit, of course, because he had to sever all financial ties before taking office.
Anyway, if enriching friends is such a high motivation for the administration, why did Haliburton stock go down today, against the best week for stocks since 1982? Seems Cheney's doing an awful job lining their pockets. Fact is, oilmen were happiest when tensions and oil prices were high the past few months. If Iraq starts pumping oil soon like they used to, prices will plummet and American oil interests will lose out 'Big time' (as Cheney would say).
It seems you need to wake up, yourself, and quit passing around hand-me-down Naderite class-warfare and conspiracy nonsense.
Well, actually we have been buying Iraqi oil, under the humanitarian aid program. Right up until the last few weeks.
But you're point is entirely correct. If the US wanted Iraqi oil, then Bush could have just puches the UN into dropping sacntions in place since 1991. Then we;d have had lots of cheap oil.
It shouldn't be forgotten that furing the 80's Saddam was a moderating influence on OPEC, perceived as a sort of level head, kepping prices fairly low. Simple economic motivations would have led us to support Saddam in the 90's and develop a close friendship.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
I'm not sure about lead pins. But all over the Colosseum you can see holes in the stone where something like 300 tons of iron clamps held many of the pieces together. It was hidden by long-removed brickwork. The amazing thing is that the structure is still standing at all. The most obvious missing third of the Colosseum came done in during earthquakes in the ealry 800's, and a nasty one in 1349 (an unfortunate year, since there was also the Black Death) During the middle ages it had been a sort of family fortress for a number of centuries. Actually for two famous families, the Frangipanni(sp?) and the Annibaldi.
Rome reached a nadir of population, at one point having only a few thousand people within the vast ancient walls (down from perhaps nearly a million in the classical period). Most of Rome had returned to nature, with forests and grazing meadows filling the spaces between deeply buried ruins.
Within a century of the Papacy returning to Rome from Avignon (~1380?) the Roman population finally began to grow substantially. Construction of palazzos (which includes everything from really nice houses to outright palaces) became a huge industry. Problem was, ancient Rome had quarried most of hte nearby stone. It was much much cheaper to pull stone off existing nearby ruins.
The Colosseum was the biggest, righest quarry in town. From the late middle ages through the 17th century (but especially in the mid-15th c.) it provided huge amounts of brick, nice 2nd century marble and travertine (literally 'stone of Tivoli, quarried at the town nearby). Much of it got used in the Palazzo Venezia, St. John Lateran, and the Farnese Palace, I think. But folks raided it all the time.
It's interesting that during the Renaissance, they were keen to recreate so much of classical architecture, but didn't preserve one of the greatest monuments. There is a pretty well-known renaissance-era written order from the Vatican, though, that penalized anybody who made off with a fragment of an ancient building if it had a written inscription on it. That was considered valuable and irreplaceable. Ancient writing was considered quite valuable.
Also, in Benvenuto Cellini's famous autobiography (~1560) there is a great scene where he desribes going to the Colosseum at night with some occultist friends. They conjure up som demons, and are about to lose control of them, when suddenly one guy farts all nasty,and pinches a smelly loaf in his pants. Vasari relates how the sudden stink dispelled the unfriendly spirits. They used the Colosseum for this since by the middle ages all memory of its use for games had passed. It was generally assumed to be a temple to the sun god or to the devil. Vasari loved to tell a good story.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln?
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You're vry arrogant in your comments. As it happens, Salon is sitting in some of the most expensive offices in San Fransico. They have two floors in a long term lease, negotiated during the boom, when rent was very high.
But if that wasn't enough - the entire second floor of the offices lays dormant - unused. They can't afford to pay enough people to occupy it.
Now tell me, before I go back to "Fox News.. or Nickelodeon", do you really think they needed all that? Or all the expensive parties they used to throw? Or could they have run the shop from, um.. anywhere else?
Well, that quote doesn't show how any actual policy decisions by the Republican administration helped Enron.
In fact, most news accounts have pointed out that when Ken Lay came calling for help, pre-collapse, the administration told him to get lost. The only guy who lifted a finger for him was Robert Rubin, former Treasury Sec. for Clinton.
As for the Energy policy Panel, it did have Enron advisement, among many others. But, for example, one of the biggest requests of the Enron guys - support for the Kyoto "anti-global warming" Treaty - was refused by the Bush Admin.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be too young to remember this, but the internet predates the world wide web. By a considerable amount!
oh, to have mod points to boost this lovely little flower!
I've heard of him. He didn't create the internet.
Not just that, but it was harder to pirate on overformatted disks.
You call current moral an 'evolution'? One man's evolution is another's rapid descent.
Anyway, the "church of old times" sponsored an enormous quantity of art that happened to depict figures in the nude. As did religious confraternities and civic organizations.
Now, if you want to talk about some of the more ascetic strains of the reformed churches in Northern Europe, that's another issue. They loathed what they saw as the pagan excesses of religious art. Many of them were against representational art entirely. Many statues on the outside of the C of E Cathedral of Canterbury, for example, are still half-destroyed by philistine iconoclasts of the regime of Oliver Cromwell.
I sincerely doubt Pio Nono had a statue covered in Naples. You're passing along rank speculation.
All economies run on credit. It's a basic unit of modern finance. I can't imagine an economy without it.
I think you mean the US government is borrowing too much. Maybe. But by historical standards, not really.
If you think he, or any president, could persuade 67 senators, you don't know much about the Senate, or US government.
Very clever, Mr. Coward.
The Nation Review is a conservative journal. But they publish folks who aren't traditional conservatives, sometimes quite often.
Most of the writers are highly critical, incidentally, of the Republican Party. And they often promote ideas acceptable, or at least interesting, to a thoughtful leftist. For example, they are highly critical of the "war on drugs".
This is beside the point, though. The author of the article is an intelligent libertarian who voted for Nader. It's not a knee-jerk conservative response.
One the contrary, the Executive has an elaborate apparatus in place for dealing with disasters. It was by no means obvious after the first plane hit that it was a terrorist attack. I, you, and everybody else had no idea it was anything other than a tragic, horrible accident.
In such a case, the President surely would have played a role. Later, though. New York has a mayor, and a state governor whose job is to respond immediately to tragic disasters like crashed planes. It became a matter of imminent Federal concern when it was no longer an isolated event. And the President responded appropriately.
It's a well-reasoned analyis, one of many available. Even the latest Newsweek (hardly a right-wing journal) took down some of Moore's for egregious falsehoods.
A troll is somebody who posts irrelevant nonsense. My post was nothing of the sort - it was an interesting refutation of the movie. You can disagree with it if you like, but calling it a 'troll' says much more about you than it does about the issue at hand.
At the moment you looked, some kind meta-mods disagreed. Thank goodness there are a few fair minded folks reading slashdot, to balance the anti-dissent crowd.
I've read slashdot since 1997 for the interesting tech stories. In that time it's become, politically, too much of an echo chamber. Hardly a substantial exchange of views. I know politics isn't the primary bailiwick of the site, but one might expect more fromk seemingly intelligent readers.
Go ahead and suppress dissent. You'll only be proving your liberal bona fides. You aren't interested in the truth, only in pushing your nutty-conspiracy political agenda.
Really, it's very sad that the Left has swooned for such a thoroughly discredited movie. Is there an honest case for leftism in this election? We won't find out as long as we're arguing about Michael Moore.
The linked article was written by Dave Kopel a former Assistant Attorney General of Colorado. He is a libertarian. Like Michael Moore, he endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, so he's hardly a firebreathing Republican (though some of the magazine he publishes in are right-wing)
Does the Charter you're referring to have legal standing similar to the US Constitution? Is it a sort of ultimate authority, by which the Canadian judiciary is bound to test legislation?
The reason I ask is that most countries don't use their written constitution (if they have one) the same way the US does. They treat it more like we do the Declaration of Independence - nice inspiring thoughts, but with no legal standing.
Considering how even stuff like, say, being a stripper, is construed as protected speech, then, one might say we're going to far lengths.
Haliburton may get contracts through USAid, but Cheney won't benefit, of course, because he had to sever all financial ties before taking office.
Anyway, if enriching friends is such a high motivation for the administration, why did Haliburton stock go down today, against the best week for stocks since 1982? Seems Cheney's doing an awful job lining their pockets. Fact is, oilmen were happiest when tensions and oil prices were high the past few months. If Iraq starts pumping oil soon like they used to, prices will plummet and American oil interests will lose out 'Big time' (as Cheney would say).
It seems you need to wake up, yourself, and quit passing around hand-me-down Naderite class-warfare and conspiracy nonsense.
-Matthew
But you're point is entirely correct. If the US wanted Iraqi oil, then Bush could have just puches the UN into dropping sacntions in place since 1991. Then we;d have had lots of cheap oil.
It shouldn't be forgotten that furing the 80's Saddam was a moderating influence on OPEC, perceived as a sort of level head, kepping prices fairly low. Simple economic motivations would have led us to support Saddam in the 90's and develop a close friendship.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
-Matthew
Rome reached a nadir of population, at one point having only a few thousand people within the vast ancient walls (down from perhaps nearly a million in the classical period). Most of Rome had returned to nature, with forests and grazing meadows filling the spaces between deeply buried ruins.
Within a century of the Papacy returning to Rome from Avignon (~1380?) the Roman population finally began to grow substantially. Construction of palazzos (which includes everything from really nice houses to outright palaces) became a huge industry. Problem was, ancient Rome had quarried most of hte nearby stone. It was much much cheaper to pull stone off existing nearby ruins.
The Colosseum was the biggest, righest quarry in town. From the late middle ages through the 17th century (but especially in the mid-15th c.) it provided huge amounts of brick, nice 2nd century marble and travertine (literally 'stone of Tivoli, quarried at the town nearby). Much of it got used in the Palazzo Venezia, St. John Lateran, and the Farnese Palace, I think. But folks raided it all the time.
It's interesting that during the Renaissance, they were keen to recreate so much of classical architecture, but didn't preserve one of the greatest monuments. There is a pretty well-known renaissance-era written order from the Vatican, though, that penalized anybody who made off with a fragment of an ancient building if it had a written inscription on it. That was considered valuable and irreplaceable. Ancient writing was considered quite valuable.
Also, in Benvenuto Cellini's famous autobiography (~1560) there is a great scene where he desribes going to the Colosseum at night with some occultist friends. They conjure up som demons, and are about to lose control of them, when suddenly one guy farts all nasty,and pinches a smelly loaf in his pants. Vasari relates how the sudden stink dispelled the unfriendly spirits. They used the Colosseum for this since by the middle ages all memory of its use for games had passed. It was generally assumed to be a temple to the sun god or to the devil. Vasari loved to tell a good story.
But if that wasn't enough - the entire second floor of the offices lays dormant - unused. They can't afford to pay enough people to occupy it.
Now tell me, before I go back to "Fox News.. or Nickelodeon", do you really think they needed all that? Or all the expensive parties they used to throw? Or could they have run the shop from, um.. anywhere else?
-Matthew
This is a lame attempt at moral equivalence. Are you really comparing the US vs. Japan in WWII to Hussein vs. Israel (or whomever)? Please.
Only in the latest election cycle. In fact, big corporations usually fund both parties, but favor the one they expect to win the next election cycle.
In fact, most news accounts have pointed out that when Ken Lay came calling for help, pre-collapse, the administration told him to get lost. The only guy who lifted a finger for him was Robert Rubin, former Treasury Sec. for Clinton.
As for the Energy policy Panel, it did have Enron advisement, among many others. But, for example, one of the biggest requests of the Enron guys - support for the Kyoto "anti-global warming" Treaty - was refused by the Bush Admin.
So really, you have no point.