Yes, but we didn't send the Enron guys to jail because they're dangerous. We sent them to jail because they were bad (among other reasons.) We could make Enron execs effectively harmless in the future by banning them from certain business positions.
When we talk about sending someone to jail because they're dangerous it usually means preventing them from physically harming people in society at large.
You know sometimes we put people in jail for reasons other than they are dangerous, like to punish them... Otherwise a "white collar criminal" would never have to do jail time.
My reading of the CNN article is that it was struck down because it failed to account for the SLAPS test (standard since Miller v. California.) It seems that the law in the Cornell source I linked has that base covered. I don't know if there are some finer details that escaped me and so maybe you're right and it is unenforceable, but it seems to me that this section has been re-written since the 2002 decision.
I'd be interested if anyone has any more details or a better understanding than I do.
Jesus taught extensively in metaphor. While Christian theology teaches that God the father is the literal father of Jesus, the whole concept could be broached as a metaphor.
Think of it this way. The first commandment is, "I am the lord your God, you shall have no other gods beside me." In my opinion the operative word here is your. Who is God talking to? Moses? The Israelites? All of mankind? The standard answer is, of course, all of man kind, but what if he were only speaking to his chosen people? In fact it seems pretty likely that Jewish scholars believed just that for much of recorded history. They believed that they were to worship Yahweh, and anyone else could worship whatever they wanted. Of course they would never be the chosen people, but that didn't really matter because the Jews have a poorly developed theology surrounding the afterlife, which is the only time any of this really matters.
Enter Christianity and two millennia of apologetics. Christians think they have logic-ed their way to a perfect understanding of God. What nobody thinks about is that all this is predicated on the Israeli concept of Yahweh as the God of the chosen people (but not necessarily the only god.) With that starting point in mind doesn't it make sense that maybe Jesus is the savior of the chosen people, and that all the other peoples of the world have their own paths to salvation? It might not be salvation as you choose to think of it, but what makes you think that you can understand the afterlife at all anyway?
My biggest hang-up with the traditional theology you espouse is that a supposedly loving God is perfectly content to let billions of people suffer in eternal hellfire because they had the misfortune to be born to the wrong family, or at the wrong time in history, or in the wrong geography.
Just for slashdot's education, based on my non-lawyer reading this has been illegal in the US for some time: (a) In General.-- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that-- (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
...
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.-- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
I'm a Christian - Catholic actually (not that that really matters) - myself, and while I tend to agree with most of what you say, I take a bit of a more mystical approach to what God and Jesus are. Specifically it is impossible for us to know anything about the nature of God. It makes about as much sense for us to say, "God is good," as it does to say, "music is delicious." The adjective simply doesn't apply - what is more no adjectives apply to god. I realize that you may not subscribe to my particular theology, but I do have a specific question that your post raised.
You say that Jesus is either God or not God, due to non-contradiction. I don't know which flavor of protestantism theology you hold on to, but catholic dogma holds that Jesus is one person, fully human, and fully divine. Practically the definition of a violation non-contradiction. There are four outs, either Jesus is at least two persons, Jesus is not fully human, Jesus is not fully divine, or non-contradiction doesn't apply to God. I'm curious which out you choose - and as you might guess, each one has problems.
If Jesus is two persons, the divine person couldn't die, and it would be more accurate to say Jesus half-died for our sins - is that a sufficient sacrifice. If Jesus is not fully divine, he wouldn't have the power to redeem us, and honestly we shouldn't be worshiping someone not divine. If Jesus is not fully human he couldn't die at all, and you've already said you think non-contradiction applies, and besides if it didn't Jesus might not be the only way to God.
Could someone go look at a history book and point me to the part that says, "this war was caused solely by religious intolerance."
Here's the thing - war is almost always about things like money or land, and only very occasionally about things like freedom and liberty (those are also usually the ones that don't work out,) and never ever about saving people's souls. Sure a few of the boots on the ground might believe that they are doing god's work, hell even a leader might believe that. But look at any conflict ever, and the real motivation for the people really in power is always money or land, and the power that goes with controlling it.
Don't believe me? Here are a few "religious" or "philosophical" conflicts and a modicum of background.
Moor invasion and the reconquista (Spain) - Moors filled a power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman empire - the reconquista was a long process of feudal warfare involving carving out of small kingdoms, pillaging cities and demanding tribute. Eventually motives merged with empire building and the Holy Roman Empire (more empire than holy.) Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Crusades - the middle east at the time was a major crossroads for trade caravans. Anyone who controlled the trade routes stood to make huge profits. Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Thirty years war - All about the structure of Germany, and who controlled what - the French wanted a fractured Germany, the Austrians wanted an Empire. Religious motives (i.e. catholic v. protestant) provided a convenient excuse.
Every war ever involving Israel/Palestine. All about immigration and forced emigration, and which readily identifiable groups control which resources. There is a very small band of hospitable land and lots of desert and mountains. Egypt, Syria, and whoever is supporting the Palestinians this week, want an ally - the Jews ain't it, for a variety of political, reasons relating more to the scarcity of good land than the fact that they are Jews, not Muslims.
The Iraqi civil war (or is it still sectarian violence?) There is a massive power vacuum, because the only source of power (us) doesn't want to be there. Someone will fill it, and once again there is a convenient religious difference so that people can identify and support their friends/village, rather than someone who would distribute resources less favorably.
To any history majors - I realize there are gross simplifications, but the point stands - it's ALWAYS about who has what, not who believes what.
They didn't kill school children for not wearing the veil, they killed them for being part of the wrong group. If it wasn't a "religious" conflict, it would be an ethnic, social, or class struggle. All groups divide us into us v. them mentalities. In some unfortunate cases it is religion in others it is something else (see US civil war, Darfur, Rowanda, Bolshevism , French civil war, Nazism, etc, etc, etc.)
The history of humanity is one of conflict. We should try to minimize it, but blaming it on religion is misunderstanding the problem.
Yeah but morphine, heroine, cocaine, and many, many other drugs have promised pain relief without any side effects. I'm not a doctor, but I'd be surprised if there were ever a drug that didn't have any side effects.
People are complex intertwined systems, you can almost never change something without unintentionally changing something else.
I agree, electronic voting should be better, and faster, but it has been poorly conceived, poorly implemented, and rushed out the door. For God's sake people all you need to to is attach a printer so that I know the machine knows who I voted for - it isn't that complicated.
'We' isn't the people unwilling to adapt, 'we' is every single soul on this rock. And while Global warming may be the big bus that everyone can see, getting out of the way isn't sufficient. In order to head this off a significant portion of the population is going to have to be compelled to stand up and push the bugger.
I whole-heartedly agree that global warming is primarily a political problem, but you seem to gloss over the significance of that problem. That is, of course, that fighting global warming is bad for the economy. Couple that with the tendency to put short term results ahead of long-term gains, and it is easy to see why the US, China, and other countries has put jobs ahead of the environment (for the umpteenth time).
Environmentalists can say that change starts at home until they're blue in the face, get out of the street, as you put it, but that doesn't make it true. Buying a hybrid car, or insulating your house is great and all, but until you realize the staggering amout of emissions that industry accounts for nothing is going to change. All those plastic things that line the shelves of Wal-Mart contribute significantly to your (and my) "carbon-footprint." And since we're not willing to shop and mom-and-pop stores to support something somewhat visible like the local economy, we're not likely to buy more expensive goods for something nebulous, like the environment.
The only way to stem global warming is with broad based government initiatives to reduce carbon emissions.
Umm, maybe by charging them a tax to decentivize driving large, expensive, or impractical vehicles. Kinda like how there is a "gas-guzzler" tax on the Viper (at least where I live), only more effective.
That way if someone really needs an SUV they can pony up and spend the extra bucks - which could be funneled into hybrid or other emissions reducing technology. If someone just wants an Escalade because it looks cool they might change their mind.
The whole idea of using taxes to steer behavior is nothing new, and is nothing that couldn't be applied with a bit more gusto to large vehicles.
I read the article you linked to and it draws a distinction between public, and private individuals. Now, I am not an expert on libel law, but it seems to me that in this case the plaintiff is a private individual (a small business woman, as opposed to a actor, politician, or athlete) meaning the bar for proving libel is much lower.
Now while the article paints the landscape of libel law as a boggy quagmire, it seems in this case at least that libel is still libel. While opinion may be protected, I think that you'd have a hard time defending the position that the statement "person x is a con-artist," is an not a statment of fact, especially if it stands alone. If the Simpson's, said it, they'd probably get away with it by calling it satire (and they should,) but in my mind, making an internet post that says, "person x is a thief" is the same as printing fliers and hanging them in the neighborhood - malicious libel. If I wrote a newspaper review of a restaurant that said, "The clam chowder was devoid of flavor, except for a hint of old shoe leather," it would be opinion, and (as I understand it) protected by libel law. On the otherhand, if I wrote, "I would avoid Restaurant R, unless you enjoy e-coli." I'd probably get sued and lose. This woman made the equivalent of the latter statement.
While the point about juries not understanding libel is taken, note that portion you quoted talks about the media appealing verdicts. In this particular case the media is not at trial, and the defendant didn't have the resources or the will to defend herself the first time, it seems unlikely that she will be able to mount an effective appeal.
While I think that the award is outrageous, and unneccessary, and also that the defendnt was a victim of circumstances (she didn't even know about the trial due to Katrina,) bear in mind that it has never been legal to publish whatever you feel like about someone else.
Libel is libel, and while you can defend yourself by demonstrating that your statements are true, you better have some decent evidence if you are goiing to call someone who runs a buisness a crook, theif, and con-artist.
The news here isn't that free-speach is being eroded, it is that juries apperently think that libel is worth 11 million.
Ok, this isn't directed at you, but your comment just made me hit my tipping point.
There are more reasons for punishment than whatever quint notion springs into your mind first. We don't send people to prison just to rehabilitate them, we don't send them just to punish them, we don't send them just to teach a lesson. The truth is a combination of all of them, so please, future posters, whenever there is a story regarding prison, don't start a post with, "How is this supposed to [insert why you think punishment exists here] them.
That would be true only in the abscence of competition. If Mitsubishi and Sumsung are both making it the price should decrease until both companies both make what they consider to be an acceptable profit margin. If these displays really do come to market, and really are better than plasma (2 big ifs, I know) it probably will kill plasma.
I can't speak for the OP, but I was saying Kim Jong-Il was a lunatic before we invaded Iraq. In fact, I remember saying to quite a few people when we did invade Iraq, that somebody did a risk-reward analysis or the 'axis of evil,' and Iraq came out waay ahead.
As dumb as not having an exit strategy in Iraq was it would be much, much dumber to attack N. Korea or Iran. Iran is looking for an excuse to "wipe Isreal off the map," and nobody knows what Kim Jong-Il would do if provoked, but it would probably involve a mushroom cloud.
Of the axis of evil Iraq was the least threatening, but it is no wonder we didn't go after the other two.
While I think this entire policy is unnecessary, one interesting thing that I recall from the previous article was that if your food preference could indicate religion it would not be revealed. For instance a request for hillal food would not be disclosed, but a request for vegetarian would be.
MEDICINE: Francis M. Fesmire of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, for his medical case report "Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage"; and Majed Odeh, Harry Bassan, and Arie Oliven of Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, for their subsequent medical case report also titled "Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage. REFERENCE: "Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage," Francis M. Fesmire, Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 17, no. 8, August 1988 p. 872. "
But how far is the vote tracable? To the precint, or to the voter. If it is tracable to the precinct I have no problem with that (provided that there is no time stamp, or other info which could identify the voter,) but if it is tracable to the voter, then you are installing a system where someone in power could have proof that so-and-so voted a certain way. Say for instance you are a diebold employee, do you really want someone to be able to check if you voted republican, like a good corporate citizen?
Secret ballots will never be totally fraud-proof, but IMO they are a fundementally better system than tracable ballots. With enough improvements in secret ballots fraud can hopefully someday be more difficult then it is worth. With a tracable system, someone will always be able to look up your vote.
I honestly don't see why there is any problem whatsoever with an electronic voting machine that has been proposed multiple times, that prints a ballot, behind glass - so the voter can verify that the vote was recorded correctly, that is then deposited into locked ballot box. The machines memory can be used for a initial tally, and if necessary, the paper ballots can be counted.
When you say, "Any secret ballot voting system is flawed." Are you implying that making everyone's vote public, or having a vote receipt, would be a better solution. If so, I can't disagree more. Sure we wouldn't have the same problems, but we would have a whole host of at least equally serious different problems. Vote buying, intimidation, and ostracizing immediately spring to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but we didn't send the Enron guys to jail because they're dangerous. We sent them to jail because they were bad (among other reasons.) We could make Enron execs effectively harmless in the future by banning them from certain business positions.
When we talk about sending someone to jail because they're dangerous it usually means preventing them from physically harming people in society at large.
You know sometimes we put people in jail for reasons other than they are dangerous, like to punish them... Otherwise a "white collar criminal" would never have to do jail time.
My reading of the CNN article is that it was struck down because it failed to account for the SLAPS test (standard since Miller v. California.) It seems that the law in the Cornell source I linked has that base covered. I don't know if there are some finer details that escaped me and so maybe you're right and it is unenforceable, but it seems to me that this section has been re-written since the 2002 decision.
I'd be interested if anyone has any more details or a better understanding than I do.
Jesus taught extensively in metaphor. While Christian theology teaches that God the father is the literal father of Jesus, the whole concept could be broached as a metaphor.
Think of it this way. The first commandment is, "I am the lord your God, you shall have no other gods beside me." In my opinion the operative word here is your. Who is God talking to? Moses? The Israelites? All of mankind? The standard answer is, of course, all of man kind, but what if he were only speaking to his chosen people? In fact it seems pretty likely that Jewish scholars believed just that for much of recorded history. They believed that they were to worship Yahweh, and anyone else could worship whatever they wanted. Of course they would never be the chosen people, but that didn't really matter because the Jews have a poorly developed theology surrounding the afterlife, which is the only time any of this really matters.
Enter Christianity and two millennia of apologetics. Christians think they have logic-ed their way to a perfect understanding of God. What nobody thinks about is that all this is predicated on the Israeli concept of Yahweh as the God of the chosen people (but not necessarily the only god.) With that starting point in mind doesn't it make sense that maybe Jesus is the savior of the chosen people, and that all the other peoples of the world have their own paths to salvation? It might not be salvation as you choose to think of it, but what makes you think that you can understand the afterlife at all anyway?
My biggest hang-up with the traditional theology you espouse is that a supposedly loving God is perfectly content to let billions of people suffer in eternal hellfire because they had the misfortune to be born to the wrong family, or at the wrong time in history, or in the wrong geography.
Just for slashdot's education, based on my non-lawyer reading this has been illegal in the US for some time:
...
(a) In General.-- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.-- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
source
(emphasis mine)
I'm a Christian - Catholic actually (not that that really matters) - myself, and while I tend to agree with most of what you say, I take a bit of a more mystical approach to what God and Jesus are. Specifically it is impossible for us to know anything about the nature of God. It makes about as much sense for us to say, "God is good," as it does to say, "music is delicious." The adjective simply doesn't apply - what is more no adjectives apply to god. I realize that you may not subscribe to my particular theology, but I do have a specific question that your post raised.
You say that Jesus is either God or not God, due to non-contradiction. I don't know which flavor of protestantism theology you hold on to, but catholic dogma holds that Jesus is one person, fully human, and fully divine. Practically the definition of a violation non-contradiction. There are four outs, either Jesus is at least two persons, Jesus is not fully human, Jesus is not fully divine, or non-contradiction doesn't apply to God. I'm curious which out you choose - and as you might guess, each one has problems.
If Jesus is two persons, the divine person couldn't die, and it would be more accurate to say Jesus half-died for our sins - is that a sufficient sacrifice. If Jesus is not fully divine, he wouldn't have the power to redeem us, and honestly we shouldn't be worshiping someone not divine. If Jesus is not fully human he couldn't die at all, and you've already said you think non-contradiction applies, and besides if it didn't Jesus might not be the only way to God.
Could someone go look at a history book and point me to the part that says, "this war was caused solely by religious intolerance."
Here's the thing - war is almost always about things like money or land, and only very occasionally about things like freedom and liberty (those are also usually the ones that don't work out,) and never ever about saving people's souls. Sure a few of the boots on the ground might believe that they are doing god's work, hell even a leader might believe that. But look at any conflict ever, and the real motivation for the people really in power is always money or land, and the power that goes with controlling it.
Don't believe me? Here are a few "religious" or "philosophical" conflicts and a modicum of background.
Moor invasion and the reconquista (Spain) - Moors filled a power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman empire - the reconquista was a long process of feudal warfare involving carving out of small kingdoms, pillaging cities and demanding tribute. Eventually motives merged with empire building and the Holy Roman Empire (more empire than holy.) Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Crusades - the middle east at the time was a major crossroads for trade caravans. Anyone who controlled the trade routes stood to make huge profits. Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Thirty years war - All about the structure of Germany, and who controlled what - the French wanted a fractured Germany, the Austrians wanted an Empire. Religious motives (i.e. catholic v. protestant) provided a convenient excuse.
Every war ever involving Israel/Palestine. All about immigration and forced emigration, and which readily identifiable groups control which resources. There is a very small band of hospitable land and lots of desert and mountains. Egypt, Syria, and whoever is supporting the Palestinians this week, want an ally - the Jews ain't it, for a variety of political, reasons relating more to the scarcity of good land than the fact that they are Jews, not Muslims.
The Iraqi civil war (or is it still sectarian violence?) There is a massive power vacuum, because the only source of power (us) doesn't want to be there. Someone will fill it, and once again there is a convenient religious difference so that people can identify and support their friends/village, rather than someone who would distribute resources less favorably.
To any history majors - I realize there are gross simplifications, but the point stands - it's ALWAYS about who has what, not who believes what.
They didn't kill school children for not wearing the veil, they killed them for being part of the wrong group. If it wasn't a "religious" conflict, it would be an ethnic, social, or class struggle. All groups divide us into us v. them mentalities. In some unfortunate cases it is religion in others it is something else (see US civil war, Darfur, Rowanda, Bolshevism , French civil war, Nazism, etc, etc, etc.)
The history of humanity is one of conflict. We should try to minimize it, but blaming it on religion is misunderstanding the problem.
Yeah but morphine, heroine, cocaine, and many, many other drugs have promised pain relief without any side effects. I'm not a doctor, but I'd be surprised if there were ever a drug that didn't have any side effects.
People are complex intertwined systems, you can almost never change something without unintentionally changing something else.
I agree, electronic voting should be better, and faster, but it has been poorly conceived, poorly implemented, and rushed out the door. For God's sake people all you need to to is attach a printer so that I know the machine knows who I voted for - it isn't that complicated.
Records deletion requests all the way down.
'We' isn't the people unwilling to adapt, 'we' is every single soul on this rock. And while Global warming may be the big bus that everyone can see, getting out of the way isn't sufficient. In order to head this off a significant portion of the population is going to have to be compelled to stand up and push the bugger.
I whole-heartedly agree that global warming is primarily a political problem, but you seem to gloss over the significance of that problem. That is, of course, that fighting global warming is bad for the economy. Couple that with the tendency to put short term results ahead of long-term gains, and it is easy to see why the US, China, and other countries has put jobs ahead of the environment (for the umpteenth time).
Environmentalists can say that change starts at home until they're blue in the face, get out of the street, as you put it, but that doesn't make it true. Buying a hybrid car, or insulating your house is great and all, but until you realize the staggering amout of emissions that industry accounts for nothing is going to change. All those plastic things that line the shelves of Wal-Mart contribute significantly to your (and my) "carbon-footprint." And since we're not willing to shop and mom-and-pop stores to support something somewhat visible like the local economy, we're not likely to buy more expensive goods for something nebulous, like the environment.
The only way to stem global warming is with broad based government initiatives to reduce carbon emissions.
I'd like to join the club - and subscribe to its newletter.
Umm, maybe by charging them a tax to decentivize driving large, expensive, or impractical vehicles. Kinda like how there is a "gas-guzzler" tax on the Viper (at least where I live), only more effective.
That way if someone really needs an SUV they can pony up and spend the extra bucks - which could be funneled into hybrid or other emissions reducing technology. If someone just wants an Escalade because it looks cool they might change their mind.
The whole idea of using taxes to steer behavior is nothing new, and is nothing that couldn't be applied with a bit more gusto to large vehicles.
I think that you can ask for a provisional ballot. Absentee ballot is not the proper way to go.
Of course they might not give you a provisional ballot if you are able to use the voting machine, I'm not sure.
correct link
That's gold.
May I ask if it is an original? if not where did it come from?
I read the article you linked to and it draws a distinction between public, and private individuals. Now, I am not an expert on libel law, but it seems to me that in this case the plaintiff is a private individual (a small business woman, as opposed to a actor, politician, or athlete) meaning the bar for proving libel is much lower.
Now while the article paints the landscape of libel law as a boggy quagmire, it seems in this case at least that libel is still libel. While opinion may be protected, I think that you'd have a hard time defending the position that the statement "person x is a con-artist," is an not a statment of fact, especially if it stands alone. If the Simpson's, said it, they'd probably get away with it by calling it satire (and they should,) but in my mind, making an internet post that says, "person x is a thief" is the same as printing fliers and hanging them in the neighborhood - malicious libel. If I wrote a newspaper review of a restaurant that said, "The clam chowder was devoid of flavor, except for a hint of old shoe leather," it would be opinion, and (as I understand it) protected by libel law. On the otherhand, if I wrote, "I would avoid Restaurant R, unless you enjoy e-coli." I'd probably get sued and lose. This woman made the equivalent of the latter statement.
While the point about juries not understanding libel is taken, note that portion you quoted talks about the media appealing verdicts. In this particular case the media is not at trial, and the defendant didn't have the resources or the will to defend herself the first time, it seems unlikely that she will be able to mount an effective appeal.
While I think that the award is outrageous, and unneccessary, and also that the defendnt was a victim of circumstances (she didn't even know about the trial due to Katrina,) bear in mind that it has never been legal to publish whatever you feel like about someone else.
Libel is libel, and while you can defend yourself by demonstrating that your statements are true, you better have some decent evidence if you are goiing to call someone who runs a buisness a crook, theif, and con-artist.
The news here isn't that free-speach is being eroded, it is that juries apperently think that libel is worth 11 million.
Ok, this isn't directed at you, but your comment just made me hit my tipping point.
There are more reasons for punishment than whatever quint notion springs into your mind first. We don't send people to prison just to rehabilitate them, we don't send them just to punish them, we don't send them just to teach a lesson. The truth is a combination of all of them, so please, future posters, whenever there is a story regarding prison, don't start a post with, "How is this supposed to [insert why you think punishment exists here] them.
That would be true only in the abscence of competition. If Mitsubishi and Sumsung are both making it the price should decrease until both companies both make what they consider to be an acceptable profit margin. If these displays really do come to market, and really are better than plasma (2 big ifs, I know) it probably will kill plasma.
I can't speak for the OP, but I was saying Kim Jong-Il was a lunatic before we invaded Iraq. In fact, I remember saying to quite a few people when we did invade Iraq, that somebody did a risk-reward analysis or the 'axis of evil,' and Iraq came out waay ahead.
As dumb as not having an exit strategy in Iraq was it would be much, much dumber to attack N. Korea or Iran. Iran is looking for an excuse to "wipe Isreal off the map," and nobody knows what Kim Jong-Il would do if provoked, but it would probably involve a mushroom cloud.
Of the axis of evil Iraq was the least threatening, but it is no wonder we didn't go after the other two.
While I think this entire policy is unnecessary, one interesting thing that I recall from the previous article was that if your food preference could indicate religion it would not be revealed. For instance a request for hillal food would not be disclosed, but a request for vegetarian would be.
But how far is the vote tracable? To the precint, or to the voter. If it is tracable to the precinct I have no problem with that (provided that there is no time stamp, or other info which could identify the voter,) but if it is tracable to the voter, then you are installing a system where someone in power could have proof that so-and-so voted a certain way. Say for instance you are a diebold employee, do you really want someone to be able to check if you voted republican, like a good corporate citizen?
Secret ballots will never be totally fraud-proof, but IMO they are a fundementally better system than tracable ballots. With enough improvements in secret ballots fraud can hopefully someday be more difficult then it is worth. With a tracable system, someone will always be able to look up your vote.
I honestly don't see why there is any problem whatsoever with an electronic voting machine that has been proposed multiple times, that prints a ballot, behind glass - so the voter can verify that the vote was recorded correctly, that is then deposited into locked ballot box. The machines memory can be used for a initial tally, and if necessary, the paper ballots can be counted.
When you say, "Any secret ballot voting system is flawed." Are you implying that making everyone's vote public, or having a vote receipt, would be a better solution. If so, I can't disagree more. Sure we wouldn't have the same problems, but we would have a whole host of at least equally serious different problems. Vote buying, intimidation, and ostracizing immediately spring to mind.