I'm not going to touch most of your point, since it'd be useless to do so, as you already had formed your opinion before getting your so-called revealing evidence. However, I have one minor point for you: you have quite the job cut out for you to convince the world that Jewish religion came from a bunch of tall tales decided by many committees of fallible men many times over, etc. The Jewish Old Testament is pretty old, far older than what the British library just put online.
So before you decide that - based on a 1600 year old book - that the whole thing is a load of bunk, you might want to reconcile the much older books with the much newer books and see how they fit together. Unless you want to claim that the Jewish OT books were written after the 1st century, too.
Sorry, I was unclear. By "those countries" and "worlds' countries," I was referring to two separate groups... those that dislike the U.S. on principle and those that just dislike the U.S. because of things the U.S. has done that they don't like. It was a quick-reply-ramble.:)
The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do
It does? You mean the more socalistic a country gets, the less it tinkers with the economy?
I'm a conservative and I don't like the U.S. "tinkering" with the economy. But from what I understood, most other free countries tend to be more liberal (significantly) than the U.S. (and a lot of liberals in the U.S. complain about that. Hence the huge push for a national healthcare system at the moment?). And more liberal countries tend to want to regulate the market more. And regulate other things, too.
I'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy.
But lets be honest. How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world?
That depends entirely on which "eyes" you want to look through, does it not?
Frankly, I'm not interested in a world popularity contest. I don't really care if Iran thinks the U.S. is a great nation. Frankly, it won't think the U.S. is a great nation as long as it thinks the entire world should be under Islamic rule. Just an example.
My question is this: how many nations in the world do you think actually want the U.S. to be successful, as opposed to wanting their own country to assume the prominence that the U.S. has enjoyed for a while now? Do you think Britain thought highly of the U.S. in the late 1700s/early 1800s? Do you think most of the world thought highly of the U.S. during World War I/World War II?
If the point of politics is to "look good" to other countries, then politics is severely messed up. If the point, on the other hand, is to do what our country/people think is right to do, then we have a point for discussion. Otherwise, we're just a puppet in a grand popularity contest. And when push comes to shove, when North Korea or some other country decides it wants to rule the world. the Popularity Contest is going to seem pretty silly in comparison to the "Uh, guys, we need to deal with this country forcefully before they decide to blow us all up in because we don't match their ideology." That's kinda what happened in the World Wars. Germany had an ideological difference. They wanted to rule the world with it (it's happened a few times in history...). If we only had "popular" countries (say... countries that decided to disarm...), I'm pretty sure we'd all be speaking German right now. Except for non-Aryan races, who wouldn't exist.
And I'm not going to ask pardon for saying that the human race is capable of doing such awful things in the 21st century. We're quite capable of making some pretty stupid decisions and believing some insanely stupid things. And, IMO, it's insanely stupid to think that if the U.S. were just more popular with the worlds' countries, those countries would like the U.S. better. Nobody, especially those greedy for power, like a powerful country that is able to "threaten" a country. Unfortunately for humanity, it looks like that power is always going to exist; the question is, who has it and what beliefs do they hold to. Some countries are a lot less freedom-loving than others.
But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.
Let's start with talking about the truth about human nature. Human nature is greedy, power-hungry, and wants to rule. Let's not forget that there are countries and people groups out there that pretty much would rather everyone believed (externally) the way they do or die. I'm not using words like "terrorist" or "muslim," because I'm not talking about any specific group. I'm saying that this is human nature, and has been for all of recorded human history. There's a reason you had really powerful nations in history like Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, etc... Germany, Russia, U.S., Korea, Iran... they all have different ideologies, but most countries like to be in control.
So, here is what I think the question really is... now that we have technology that can allow a very small country to threaten the world ("do this or we blow all of you up"), it becomes very important to be able to do more than talk to them or issue warnings/resolutions at them. It's the same as a playground bully. You don't "defeat" the bully by talking to him, making him see the error in his ways and hoping he joins you for a piece of cake and some tea. Bullies won't back down as long as they think they can bully their way out of it. Something has to make them realize this. The question is: who is the one that gets to have the power to stop the bullies, or should we just talk to the bullie
I'm glad I was sufficiently neutral in my post. I'm actually of apparently more or less the opposite worldview as you, yet you found my post rational. This is good.:)
Unfortunately for most of these sorts of discussions, inconsistent people on both sides of the worldview spectrum - shall we say, atheists and theists, for lack of better terms - tend to muddy any conversations with inconsistencies. I mentioned one on the more atheistic side in my original post. I would view "evolutionary theism[/creationism]" as an inconsistency on the theistic side.
Drew was accused of participating in a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide. The case against Drew hinged on the governmentâ(TM)s novel argument that violating MySpaceâ(TM)s terms of service for the purpose of harming another was the legal equivalent of computer hacking.
Longwinded philosophical post. You've been warned.
One simple question. Presuming billions of years to 'create' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all (not even getting into religion here, just theism vs. atheism): why is human technology (technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans) any different in the evolutionary process? And, if that leads to the destruction of the world, is that not simply evolution taking its due course?
In other words: if we are simply using the intelligence nature "gave" us and we happen to destroy the world with it, why should we use our "intelligence" to "help" nature/evolution/etc?
It seems to me that there are two competing worldviews, one that includes responsibility (which implies, somehow, an absolute outside of nature) and one that denies responsibility. On one hand, saying that we are responsible for not destroying the world by abusing it, and on the other hand saying that there is no higher power to answer to and we are just a product of evolution like any other creature for the last X billion years.
To me, it seems inconsistent. Either I am a product of evolution and there is no higher power to be responsible to, thus it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with using my evolutionary-process-given intelligence to genetically modify the nature around me (after all, when the cavemen started using tools to start hunting better, were they not simply "being themselves" and acting as any other animal would? Even if it made some species extinct by eating too many... or something...?), or there is a higher power I am responsible to, in which case my worldview will significantly change... and, in fact, there is a right way to use my intelligence and a wrong way to use my intelligence, and it's not based on survival.
I guess one could argue that how humanity as a whole uses its intelligence/intellect/technology/whatever has direct bearing on survival... however, if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival. I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it. There's no inherent value in it, is there?
This is not supposed to be openly offensive or derogatory of your worldview. I really do want to know what your thinking is on it and am not simply trying to say "Your worldview is stupid.":)
Well, I don't have kids. Nor do my non-existent kids have neopets.;)
I'm not really all that against neopet-esque things. But there does seem to be a trend of having rather ignorant children. As in the old jokes, where it used to be funny, of kids thinking milk came from the milk man and wouldn't believe it could come out of a cow. I realize some of that is simply age, but it sure seems like a lot of kids are getting more and more used to using "technology" with no clue how it works or where it came from, etc. And falling prey to a lot of rhetoric that is easily seen through if you actually know something about, hmmm, nature and How Things Work. Life doesn't have an Autosave feature... and if I tell a kid that and he says "Oh, so it's like a peramdeath world?" I think his level of thinking is not quite the same as mine...
I'm glad your kids have real pets and are responsible. I'm young and don't quite have kids yet, but when I do, I plan on having them be responsible and, shall we say, educated from some place other than wikipedia and World of Warcraft:)
I'm not sure about that. I thought there was something about the equivalent of "trade" vs. sales? Sort of like craigslist? I didn't think those sorts of "sales" counted as a sale, and thus didn't have to be reported for tax by the use tax.
It could be that I'm cynical, but I don't see how bringing in "conservatives[/Christians]" are stupid" helps the conversation. Nor do I see how it is insightful or even on topic.
Or maybe I'm just touchy. But you did even specifically mention politically-correctness and liberal, which is pretty much something conservatives are going to complain about. I don't hear many liberals complaining about liberal media.:)
I'm fairly certain that in most circles it'd be considered a "cheap shot."
(think about it - you hear ten times as many stories about cops shooting unarmed civilians as you do an armed civilian shooting a cop...yet the cop is always painted as the "hero who died in the line of duty"; generally through their own stupidity, like not searching someone they just antagonized and arrested...now if the supposedly unbiased news puts those figures forth, what do you think the real numbers are?).
For not hearing about very many cops that got shot, you sure have your "generally" statements figured out.
Also, cops getting shot at don't usually make good news. Civilians getting shot by cops? Sensational. Great news. I hope neither of us actually believe that most news outlets are actually interested in giving news. Some reporters are, sure. But most news organizations are primarily interested in money... like most people and organizations.
So until normal people decide they (1) won't believe everything they see/read, (2) realize that "greed" is not just a word associated with "Microsoft" or "Wall Street," (3) realize that news organizations are interested in money, and (4) demand real news, refuse to get caught up in sensationalist hype, and research things out for themselves... we will likely continue to have the same news, continue to have the same stupid legislation passed by people that WE ELECTED (apparently because we're stupid enough to believe what someone says, even if their past record defies what they are saying now, as if suddenly faced with a higher-paying-position and corporate sponsors they decide to shape up?)...
All in all, your post seems to be "the cops are after you, organized government is a bad thing, anarchy is the way it needs to be... and if you disagree with me you are a stupid sheep getting herded by the oligarchist rulers." Which is pretty sensational and people like to believe it because then they aren't viewed as sheep anymore.
Luckily for me, people still fear the police. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure I would have died on the California freeways by now. Or gotten robbed of more than just my bike.
Note: I'm not saying I agree 100% with government as a matter of principle or something stupid like that, but I would blame our current legislation status on those that voted. People are swayed by the stupidest things. Like the way someone looks. The color of his skin. The way someone talks. Age. Their position on a single groups' rights. And people believe the silliest things, like huge government programs that won't cost anybody anything. And no, this is not just "anti democrat" or "anti liberal" stuff. Conservatives and republicans do the same stuff, though not usually the same categories.
And frankly, I think a lot of the problems I see (and have commented on) come from education. People don't like history, people don't like listening, people don't like authority. And it seems children are taught to not like history (or at least not care about it), not like to listen, not like authority, not to take responsibility, not to stand up for what you think is right, not to bother getting out of bed if you don't want to... etc. No wonder they vote the way they do.
I find it interesting that the top countries according to the HDI all seem to rely on countries like the US or the UK when war comes around. Hm. I suppose the argument is that the US and UK deserve or somehow cause the wars, but still. Look at WWII (only used as an example because most people agree it was a Good Thing to get rid of Hitler's Germany). While involved, I doubt Canada, Ireland, and Norway helped a ton.
You can pick racism out of anything if you leave out enough.
Or do I need to remind you that Saruman, who went to the "dark" side, used to be Saruman the White, that Sauron wasn't exactly "brown skinned," that there were evil "men of the north" (white), that Gondor's wacko Steward was white, etc.
Besides. According to Tolkien, he wanted to write mythology for England. England happens to be a land of white people. Middle Earth, IIRC, was supposed to be pre-current-England England. So most of the people are white. Because England is.
But you can think it's racist if you want, I guess. I have a hard time believing that Tolkien, who was in the war fighting against the white supremacist wacko Hitler, was writing from a... Aryan point of view.
Incidentally, mythology of England, since England was a monarchy for quite some time, would have to have some monarchist elements, no? Unless we would like to just rewrite history while we write the "fairy tales" of a long time ago. I'm sure they could have voted Sauron out of office.:)
Brass and wood-wind musical instruments are substantially influenced by the player. A person with no pitch can't play a flute well, for example, though they could still be a good violinist.
What? Violins are very easy to change the pitch, simply from slightly "missing." In my experience (as a brass player, music major, etc), violinists have to have better
pitch or they sound awful. A mediocre flautist is more bearable than a mediocre violinist.
In fact, one of my cellist friends in school commented that he had to be able to sing every note he played on the cello, or he wouldn't hit it in tune.
Provides... how about, appropriates. I'm not sure the government "provides" money. I'm fairly certain I "provide" the government with the money that it uses.
I feel like "no new taxes" and "not paid for with your taxes but with [insert another source of presumed governmental income]" is always stated as the funding for any government project. I don't know how they can say that with a straight face when most states' budgets seem to already be in a budget deficit, not to mention an actual funds deficit.
But then, I'm a fiscally conservative Californian and likely just bitter with the last "hey look, we fixed the budget!" statements from the legislature.
This is a strange question. "Ok, so it's slow on mainstream Linux distros. I bet its slow on Vista, too!" I don't think it IS as slow on Vista, but I fail to see how that question does anything but try to say "Vista is just as bad as Linux."
Which, considering the fact that most geeks are more of the opinion that "Vista is a garbage can in comparison to the Taj Mahal/Buckingham Palace/[Insert Expensive Cool Place] that we call Linux," seems to be rather fruitless. Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Linux isn't necessarily better in everything than Windows.:) Which is fine with me, who uses both quite extensively.
How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?
If you are supposed to fighting for my liberties, I hope you don't take a "neutral" stance on whether or not I should receive said liberties.
The problem is, the ACLU isn't just about liberties. They have a political position, and certain things rub their political position the wrong way. They are all for liberty and freedom, to a fault IMO, with some aspects (e.g., abortion). Totally not in some other cases (e.g., homeschooling/gun laws).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to touch most of your point, since it'd be useless to do so, as you already had formed your opinion before getting your so-called revealing evidence. However, I have one minor point for you: you have quite the job cut out for you to convince the world that Jewish religion came from a bunch of tall tales decided by many committees of fallible men many times over, etc. The Jewish Old Testament is pretty old, far older than what the British library just put online.
So before you decide that - based on a 1600 year old book - that the whole thing is a load of bunk, you might want to reconcile the much older books with the much newer books and see how they fit together. Unless you want to claim that the Jewish OT books were written after the 1st century, too.
Sorry, I was unclear. By "those countries" and "worlds' countries," I was referring to two separate groups... those that dislike the U.S. on principle and those that just dislike the U.S. because of things the U.S. has done that they don't like. It was a quick-reply-ramble. :)
.. doesn't have a "save" feature like most CRPG's do. Think before you act. And, by the way, "talking" is acting...
The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do
It does? You mean the more socalistic a country gets, the less it tinkers with the economy?
I'm a conservative and I don't like the U.S. "tinkering" with the economy. But from what I understood, most other free countries tend to be more liberal (significantly) than the U.S. (and a lot of liberals in the U.S. complain about that. Hence the huge push for a national healthcare system at the moment?). And more liberal countries tend to want to regulate the market more. And regulate other things, too.
I'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy.
But lets be honest. How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world?
That depends entirely on which "eyes" you want to look through, does it not?
Frankly, I'm not interested in a world popularity contest. I don't really care if Iran thinks the U.S. is a great nation. Frankly, it won't think the U.S. is a great nation as long as it thinks the entire world should be under Islamic rule. Just an example.
My question is this: how many nations in the world do you think actually want the U.S. to be successful, as opposed to wanting their own country to assume the prominence that the U.S. has enjoyed for a while now? Do you think Britain thought highly of the U.S. in the late 1700s/early 1800s? Do you think most of the world thought highly of the U.S. during World War I/World War II?
If the point of politics is to "look good" to other countries, then politics is severely messed up. If the point, on the other hand, is to do what our country/people think is right to do, then we have a point for discussion. Otherwise, we're just a puppet in a grand popularity contest. And when push comes to shove, when North Korea or some other country decides it wants to rule the world. the Popularity Contest is going to seem pretty silly in comparison to the "Uh, guys, we need to deal with this country forcefully before they decide to blow us all up in because we don't match their ideology." That's kinda what happened in the World Wars. Germany had an ideological difference. They wanted to rule the world with it (it's happened a few times in history...). If we only had "popular" countries (say... countries that decided to disarm...), I'm pretty sure we'd all be speaking German right now. Except for non-Aryan races, who wouldn't exist.
And I'm not going to ask pardon for saying that the human race is capable of doing such awful things in the 21st century. We're quite capable of making some pretty stupid decisions and believing some insanely stupid things. And, IMO, it's insanely stupid to think that if the U.S. were just more popular with the worlds' countries, those countries would like the U.S. better. Nobody, especially those greedy for power, like a powerful country that is able to "threaten" a country. Unfortunately for humanity, it looks like that power is always going to exist; the question is, who has it and what beliefs do they hold to. Some countries are a lot less freedom-loving than others.
But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.
Let's start with talking about the truth about human nature. Human nature is greedy, power-hungry, and wants to rule. Let's not forget that there are countries and people groups out there that pretty much would rather everyone believed (externally) the way they do or die. I'm not using words like "terrorist" or "muslim," because I'm not talking about any specific group. I'm saying that this is human nature, and has been for all of recorded human history. There's a reason you had really powerful nations in history like Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, etc... Germany, Russia, U.S., Korea, Iran... they all have different ideologies, but most countries like to be in control.
So, here is what I think the question really is... now that we have technology that can allow a very small country to threaten the world ("do this or we blow all of you up"), it becomes very important to be able to do more than talk to them or issue warnings/resolutions at them. It's the same as a playground bully. You don't "defeat" the bully by talking to him, making him see the error in his ways and hoping he joins you for a piece of cake and some tea. Bullies won't back down as long as they think they can bully their way out of it. Something has to make them realize this. The question is: who is the one that gets to have the power to stop the bullies, or should we just talk to the bullie
What makes it intrinsic?
I'm glad I was sufficiently neutral in my post. I'm actually of apparently more or less the opposite worldview as you, yet you found my post rational. This is good. :)
Unfortunately for most of these sorts of discussions, inconsistent people on both sides of the worldview spectrum - shall we say, atheists and theists, for lack of better terms - tend to muddy any conversations with inconsistencies. I mentioned one on the more atheistic side in my original post. I would view "evolutionary theism[/creationism]" as an inconsistency on the theistic side.
[/ramblings]
While I disagree, apparently, with your worldview, at least it's more consistent than most... well, from the little facets that we see of them.
Drew was accused of participating in a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide. The case against Drew hinged on the governmentâ(TM)s novel argument that violating MySpaceâ(TM)s terms of service for the purpose of harming another was the legal equivalent of computer hacking.
Longwinded philosophical post. You've been warned.
One simple question. Presuming billions of years to 'create' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all (not even getting into religion here, just theism vs. atheism): why is human technology (technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans) any different in the evolutionary process? And, if that leads to the destruction of the world, is that not simply evolution taking its due course?
In other words: if we are simply using the intelligence nature "gave" us and we happen to destroy the world with it, why should we use our "intelligence" to "help" nature/evolution/etc?
It seems to me that there are two competing worldviews, one that includes responsibility (which implies, somehow, an absolute outside of nature) and one that denies responsibility. On one hand, saying that we are responsible for not destroying the world by abusing it, and on the other hand saying that there is no higher power to answer to and we are just a product of evolution like any other creature for the last X billion years.
To me, it seems inconsistent. Either I am a product of evolution and there is no higher power to be responsible to, thus it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with using my evolutionary-process-given intelligence to genetically modify the nature around me (after all, when the cavemen started using tools to start hunting better, were they not simply "being themselves" and acting as any other animal would? Even if it made some species extinct by eating too many... or something...?), or there is a higher power I am responsible to, in which case my worldview will significantly change... and, in fact, there is a right way to use my intelligence and a wrong way to use my intelligence, and it's not based on survival.
I guess one could argue that how humanity as a whole uses its intelligence/intellect/technology/whatever has direct bearing on survival... however, if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival. I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it. There's no inherent value in it, is there?
This is not supposed to be openly offensive or derogatory of your worldview. I really do want to know what your thinking is on it and am not simply trying to say "Your worldview is stupid." :)
Cool. Breading alters genes :)
I know it was a typo. But it was a funny one.
Silly. Obesity comes from not taking a diet pill. Exercise and diet has nothing to do with it!
Wait. You mean I can't believe all the ads?
Well, I don't have kids. Nor do my non-existent kids have neopets. ;)
I'm not really all that against neopet-esque things. But there does seem to be a trend of having rather ignorant children. As in the old jokes, where it used to be funny, of kids thinking milk came from the milk man and wouldn't believe it could come out of a cow. I realize some of that is simply age, but it sure seems like a lot of kids are getting more and more used to using "technology" with no clue how it works or where it came from, etc. And falling prey to a lot of rhetoric that is easily seen through if you actually know something about, hmmm, nature and How Things Work. Life doesn't have an Autosave feature... and if I tell a kid that and he says "Oh, so it's like a peramdeath world?" I think his level of thinking is not quite the same as mine...
I'm glad your kids have real pets and are responsible. I'm young and don't quite have kids yet, but when I do, I plan on having them be responsible and, shall we say, educated from some place other than wikipedia and World of Warcraft :)
[/rambling]
We could just get our kids real pets...
Can the gov't even spell?
Fixed =)
even used stuff from garage sales
I'm not sure about that. I thought there was something about the equivalent of "trade" vs. sales? Sort of like craigslist? I didn't think those sorts of "sales" counted as a sale, and thus didn't have to be reported for tax by the use tax.
It could be that I'm cynical, but I don't see how bringing in "conservatives[/Christians]" are stupid" helps the conversation. Nor do I see how it is insightful or even on topic.
Or maybe I'm just touchy. But you did even specifically mention politically-correctness and liberal, which is pretty much something conservatives are going to complain about. I don't hear many liberals complaining about liberal media. :)
I'm fairly certain that in most circles it'd be considered a "cheap shot."
(think about it - you hear ten times as many stories about cops shooting unarmed civilians as you do an armed civilian shooting a cop...yet the cop is always painted as the "hero who died in the line of duty"; generally through their own stupidity, like not searching someone they just antagonized and arrested...now if the supposedly unbiased news puts those figures forth, what do you think the real numbers are?).
For not hearing about very many cops that got shot, you sure have your "generally" statements figured out.
Also, cops getting shot at don't usually make good news. Civilians getting shot by cops? Sensational. Great news. I hope neither of us actually believe that most news outlets are actually interested in giving news. Some reporters are, sure. But most news organizations are primarily interested in money... like most people and organizations.
So until normal people decide they (1) won't believe everything they see/read, (2) realize that "greed" is not just a word associated with "Microsoft" or "Wall Street," (3) realize that news organizations are interested in money, and (4) demand real news, refuse to get caught up in sensationalist hype, and research things out for themselves... we will likely continue to have the same news, continue to have the same stupid legislation passed by people that WE ELECTED (apparently because we're stupid enough to believe what someone says, even if their past record defies what they are saying now, as if suddenly faced with a higher-paying-position and corporate sponsors they decide to shape up?)...
All in all, your post seems to be "the cops are after you, organized government is a bad thing, anarchy is the way it needs to be... and if you disagree with me you are a stupid sheep getting herded by the oligarchist rulers." Which is pretty sensational and people like to believe it because then they aren't viewed as sheep anymore.
Luckily for me, people still fear the police. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure I would have died on the California freeways by now. Or gotten robbed of more than just my bike.
Note: I'm not saying I agree 100% with government as a matter of principle or something stupid like that, but I would blame our current legislation status on those that voted. People are swayed by the stupidest things. Like the way someone looks. The color of his skin. The way someone talks. Age. Their position on a single groups' rights. And people believe the silliest things, like huge government programs that won't cost anybody anything. And no, this is not just "anti democrat" or "anti liberal" stuff. Conservatives and republicans do the same stuff, though not usually the same categories.
And frankly, I think a lot of the problems I see (and have commented on) come from education. People don't like history, people don't like listening, people don't like authority. And it seems children are taught to not like history (or at least not care about it), not like to listen, not like authority, not to take responsibility, not to stand up for what you think is right, not to bother getting out of bed if you don't want to... etc. No wonder they vote the way they do.
I find it interesting that the top countries according to the HDI all seem to rely on countries like the US or the UK when war comes around. Hm. I suppose the argument is that the US and UK deserve or somehow cause the wars, but still. Look at WWII (only used as an example because most people agree it was a Good Thing to get rid of Hitler's Germany). While involved, I doubt Canada, Ireland, and Norway helped a ton.
You can pick racism out of anything if you leave out enough.
Or do I need to remind you that Saruman, who went to the "dark" side, used to be Saruman the White, that Sauron wasn't exactly "brown skinned," that there were evil "men of the north" (white), that Gondor's wacko Steward was white, etc.
Besides. According to Tolkien, he wanted to write mythology for England. England happens to be a land of white people. Middle Earth, IIRC, was supposed to be pre-current-England England. So most of the people are white. Because England is.
But you can think it's racist if you want, I guess. I have a hard time believing that Tolkien, who was in the war fighting against the white supremacist wacko Hitler, was writing from a ... Aryan point of view.
Incidentally, mythology of England, since England was a monarchy for quite some time, would have to have some monarchist elements, no? Unless we would like to just rewrite history while we write the "fairy tales" of a long time ago. I'm sure they could have voted Sauron out of office. :)
Brass and wood-wind musical instruments are substantially influenced by the player. A person with no pitch can't play a flute well, for example, though they could still be a good violinist.
What? Violins are very easy to change the pitch, simply from slightly "missing." In my experience (as a brass player, music major, etc), violinists have to have better pitch or they sound awful. A mediocre flautist is more bearable than a mediocre violinist.
In fact, one of my cellist friends in school commented that he had to be able to sing every note he played on the cello, or he wouldn't hit it in tune.
it provides the funding, end of story.
Provides... how about, appropriates. I'm not sure the government "provides" money. I'm fairly certain I "provide" the government with the money that it uses.
I feel like "no new taxes" and "not paid for with your taxes but with [insert another source of presumed governmental income]" is always stated as the funding for any government project. I don't know how they can say that with a straight face when most states' budgets seem to already be in a budget deficit, not to mention an actual funds deficit.
But then, I'm a fiscally conservative Californian and likely just bitter with the last "hey look, we fixed the budget!" statements from the legislature.
This is a strange question. "Ok, so it's slow on mainstream Linux distros. I bet its slow on Vista, too!" I don't think it IS as slow on Vista, but I fail to see how that question does anything but try to say "Vista is just as bad as Linux."
Which, considering the fact that most geeks are more of the opinion that "Vista is a garbage can in comparison to the Taj Mahal/Buckingham Palace/[Insert Expensive Cool Place] that we call Linux," seems to be rather fruitless. Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Linux isn't necessarily better in everything than Windows. :) Which is fine with me, who uses both quite extensively.
How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties ... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?
If you are supposed to fighting for my liberties, I hope you don't take a "neutral" stance on whether or not I should receive said liberties.
The problem is, the ACLU isn't just about liberties. They have a political position, and certain things rub their political position the wrong way. They are all for liberty and freedom, to a fault IMO, with some aspects (e.g., abortion). Totally not in some other cases (e.g., homeschooling/gun laws).