Everyone consents to be governed by staying in the country.
That only works if: A)There is somewhere else to go where a man can be free. B)The rules you originally consent to remain unchanged. Option A is kinda viable in rural Alaska and the Australian outback, but the careful databasing of all citizens is rapidly destroying that freedom of remoteness. You could practice civil disobedience an refuse to pay taxes to fund a standing army, but even living in the remote wilderness the IRS would track you down and make you submit. Option B doesn't hold true when when things regarded as inalienable rights, become the objects of steady erosion and obscurification. When the way the agreement document (The Constitution) reads and the way it is enacted are so very different, you may have consented to being governed, but you are not getting the government you consented to.
Generally I agree with you, but I think there are two major sources of that problem. First, while Police Officer is a socially respected job, it's go rather median pay ($47,000 median for Patrol Officers) but rather more strenuous job conditions then other median jobs. So it's primary attraction is the fact that it is a position of power attracting the power hungry; some hunger for the power to make the world a better place, but power hungry none the less. The second major source of Police assholism is the nature of the job teaching them to quickly categorize everyone as "good guy" or "bad guy". I personally know an ex-cop (narcotics) who hates anyone in a doo-rag and saggy pants, he realizes that it's prejudice if you ask him directly about it, but as he points out "most of the guys I busted for the last decade look like that". Maybe Police should be on a rotating schedule 3 months on 3 months off, rotating with something that re-enforces the good in everyone, like mentoring kids or something.
I have to wonder if Olympic swimmers know their sport so well, as to be able to be consciously aware of all the tiny little adjustments that help make the difference. I know that the more cycling I do the more aware I am of my pedal cadence and how smooth (or not) my pedal stroke is. An Olympics swimmer spends so much time thinking about their swimming I should hope that they can consciously add finesse where novices like me have trouble not swallowing pool water every fourth stroke.
Seriously. What are they going to do once they have the gun to your head? Pull the trigger? That's when the real revolution begins. People will only accept so much.
If that gun is a Taser, then yes they will pull the trigger, probably after you are already handcuffed. It is a great way to cultivate an attitude of compliance, regardless of things like right and wrong. Notice how the author of the linked article urges people to never challenge a police officer. I agree that one should never physically challenge an officer, but the serf mentality has progressed into not even verbally questioning an officer's actions, all because of the increasing likelihood of getting tasered. No my friend, the police pull the trigger all the time, there is no revolution.
All that is needed is that the leader tells them that certain politician is born again and stands for christian values:D.
Or environmental protection, or "think of the children", or bringing manufacturing jobs back to the USA, or ending the war, or stopping the illegal aliens, or pro choice, or pro life, lower taxes, or tax the rich, or is a devote humanist, or is "tough on crime", or will save our schools, or anything else that is the deciding issue for that particular voter. What is the difference between letting your minister dictate your vote and letting Arianna Huffington dictate your vote? Either a person decides for themselves or they are sheep. Originally the Founding Fathers tried to make provisions so that the sheep couldn't vote, but those provisions were rather racial and sexist and property owner-elitist and so we got rid of them and didn't replace them with any more enlightened voter qualifications, so now we have global politics decide by advertising budgets instead of real debates and the actual ability of the candidates.
"When Metascore implementations form within communities, they will periodically ask the existing government (or other authority) to cede power to the open source communities pertinent to their region."
Yeah, the State and Federal governments are really gonna respect that. There are two scenarios that could realistically happen, One is the perpetual ineffectuallity of something like The Second Vermont Republic. Where it is just ignored until it becomes a joke, or you get The Montana Freemen, where a belief in individual sovereignty is repudiated by Federal Agents with big guns and armored vehicles, while any valid claims for secession are ignored by the media in favor of painting you as nutjobs. You don't actually think that government owned voting machines are ever going to show a vote in favor of secession or major government restructuring do you ?
No if a private citizen does it they go to jail. If it is known to be illegal will any police officers go to jail for doing this? Of course not. Will their commanding officers be removed from police force for negligence of duty in allowing those under them to use illegal tactics? Of course not. Do the police give a shit if this is illegal, if they only get caught occasionally and when they do the suffer no personal penalties? Of course not.
But then the "natural" athletes will bitch and whine about how no one wants to watch or sponsor their league. The doping league will be so much faster, stronger, and injury prone that they will get all the TV ratings. The world doesn't want to watch the second best games. Look at it like this: How many people watch the Para-Olympics on TV? The stories and athletes are just as inspiring or more so, but they aren't quiet as good as the regular Olympics so they get no love.
It costs them very little to hold a gun to your head and demand "Hand over the encryption keys."
I wouldn't be surprised if encryption starts becoming the norm, that all encryption keys will be required to be registered with the government. Unregistered encryption will be illegal and the public will applaud as the government sends the men with guns to drag you away, because you will be a "dangerous criminal with suspected connections to child porn and stolen credit card numbers" * * This is how it will show up on your local Evening News.
Seriously, though, if you want to solve the problems of government intrusion, you gotta open source the government.
To make any significant change to the deeper power structures of any large government you need a revolution. People in positions of global scale aren't going to give up that power just because you have a lot of signatures on a petition. You cannot vote high ranking bureaucrats and lobbyists out of power. But for ordinary citizens to attempt to use force to uproot those currently in positions of power would require them to be "terrorists" (gasp!) The only way to take down a large modern government without warfare is to wait for it to collapse under it's own bloated weight like the USSR did.
The United States is going through a transition period. They used to be the center of an empire, with all the wealth in the world flowing to their shores. Soon, they will be just another nation.
I suppose our falling behind in technological infrastructure could be just another sign of Post-Americanism.
just as we cast off our own faith in our gods, cursing them and labeling them as myths, our own creations, built in our own image, will inevitably do the same. The only question is this: will our robots succeed in destroying us, or will we succeed in destroying them?
I don't know if it is a question of destruction or of domination. Will we create a race of AI robots for the sole purpose of enslaving them? If we have the relationship with our robots of Creator/Creation will that make us slave owners once AI achieves sentience? Look at robotic factories, the work long hours for no pay and are modified or replaced or sold at the whim of their owner, if you did that with a person they would be a slave. Of course they are machines not people so it is just a factory not slavery. But if those robots where sentient would it change the moral argument. If that argument concludes that it would in fact be slavery, is there any reason to build AI robots if we cannot treat them as slaves? I don't want to have to allow my Roomba the freedom to go work for someone else, or the right to be paid for it's work.
Why would someone hire you to ghost write a book if they can't get any profit from the actual sale of that book?
Stick an advertisement on the page beginning each chapter, then publish it as a PDF. If it's a good book, then the advertisers will get good exposure. If the advertisers will pay per copy distributed (similar to paying for page views) then the author can make a profit, and with a few well liked books in current distribution make a good living.
you often just don't buy either... I know I never did. It was all about the money... I could get it for free so why pay for it?
It is about money, and about a person's perception of their money. If money is just "what you use to get stuff" then there is little reason to buy. However if money is "a tool to effect the world around you" then there is a solid reason to pay for a game that you enjoy, regardless of if that money goes to a big corp, an indy developer, or shareware donation. Now I don't have a good study to point to but I imagine that thinking of money as a tool of influence is more a trait of the wealthy, as the acquisition of material goods reaches saturation but there is still money to be spent. Conversely, when material needs can't be met money isn't likely to be spent on idealogical matters. I wonder if there is a relationship between disposable income and piracy?
rather then make sure they have a techie in attendance so that they may learn something and find a workaround the issue, Boston's lawyers suggested that burying your head in the sand
If it was lower on the Moh's scale than the other material, it would not cut it.
Since graphene is the sheet form of graphite, and graphite is less than one on the Moh's scale, cutting shouldn't be an issue. But if the graphene condom is made flawlessly, it should never break because it will be the strongest material ever made.
a graphene monolayer condom would be sort of like covering your penis in double-sided adhesive tape.
Soft silicon is often used for sex toys, and when very clean and dry they are also very sticky. As soon as you add a few drops of lubricant, that stickiness vanishes. I'd imagine that it would be the same with a graphene condom. Van der Waals forces don't have much range, so a few microns layering of Glycerin should make that a none issue.
Is there any reason why van der Waals forces would be any strong for a one atom thick material than for a million atom thick material? IANAP
Its not the large corps that are going to suffer. Its the hobby game developers, independent photographers, small bands, and other people that copyright was made to promote.
While it is the large corps that have destroyed copyright through overexpansion, I don't think this has ruined the scene for independent creators, but what it means to be successful as an artist is starting to change. Of the last ten CDs I've bought, seven have been purchased directly from the artist (usually while they were playing on a subway platform, usually for $10). I think the modern move away from paying for creative content owned by big corporations frees up those dollars for buying creative content from local artists. Local artists then give places regional flavor and culture (severely missing from the world these days) The changes taking place seems to slowly be smoothing out the income progression for artists, it's not just a bipolar jump between the poverty of the unknown and the riches of the famous. Along with losing that sudden jump comes the loss of the ability for an artist to make one or two great pieces, charge a fortune for them and then be set for life. Artists will have to work every day just like everyone else, always producing new content to sell just like a farmer must always produce new food to sell. I don't think the mainstream stardom is going to vanish quickly, but I think that is going to slowly fad in favor of more regional and local talent.
In modern American politics, it's not about being right so much as it is about winning, about defeating the other team.
That's because the two "teams" aren't different enough ideologically to make it about anything other than winning. Regardless of who wins this next election: the government will grow larger, the nanny state will increase, the Bill of Rights will be chipped slowly away, wealth will become more concentrated, the US will meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations, public education will decline in quality, police forces will become more militant, incarceration rates will remain the highest in the industrialized world, and the failed War on Drugs will continue. All of these are problems that have spanned both Republican and Democratic power in both the Whitehouse and Congress. But the powers in those parties have already agreed on that direction for the country and options on those issues will not be offered to the American people.
sidenote: Because they also agree that "one man-one vote" will never go away, third parties are rendered moot.
it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to encourage your supporters to make use of that professional work.
My problem with it is that sound-bites (or the text equivalent) are not political discussion, they are advertising. By adding more advertising noise into the forums where discussion should be taking place, this approach is dumbing down the voter's actual political awareness even more. By instructing and encouraging such a focused forum spam campaign, this distorts any possible consensus coming out a discussion on those selected forums. By contrast, here on Slashdot it frequently happens that someone makes a point that is embraced by the community, but is quite different from the stance of big media or the press release.
If the "Spread the Word" program has no other effect than to get a supporter to calm down long enough to think before they speak, it's probably worthwhile. A well-considered argument or phrase - even if the considering was done by someone else;-) - is usually better than a knee-jerk response.
That is what I mean about McCain insinuating that his supporters are stupid, this "talking points" thing is most effective when the best the supporter can come up with on their own is "a knee-jerk response".
Are party supporters allowed to have their own opinion these days? Anecodatal evidence suggests that there is a hive mind forming.
Are the bulk of McCain supporters intelligent and informed enough to make an actual contribution to a political discussion without help? Apparently, John McCain doesn't think so. This is tantamount to telling his supporters "You are too stupid to discuss my campaign without help."
God is everywhere and everything, literally, because all of reality is *composed* of God?
I rather like the idea, but I would add to it that God is more than the sum of all reality. You cannot have a loving relationship with the physical universe or group consciousness, those things are unable to know you as an individual and unable to love you. God seeks a loving relationship with each person. While God is in the flowing stream, the stream does not love you. While God is in each person, each person does not love you. Even those people who do love us, that love is a reflection of Divine Love. Things like love and intention require consciousness and I feel that at least that aspect of God is missing from the idea of "We, and everything around us *is* God?" I would say that: We, and everything around us *is part of* God.
By the way, myowntrueself, Thank you for the thoughtful, thought provoking questions.
if there is no connection to the document known as 'the bible' can a person still know the word of god?
Yes a person can know some of the word of God, since I don't think God suddenly got shy and stopped choosing to speak to people. For example, I believe that much of the writings of C.S.Lewis (his non-Narnia works) reflect a great deal of God's wisdom that he gave to C.S.Lewis and Lewis conveyed in his writings. I think that anyone of any religion can pray in earnest and be heard by God, and (God willing) can hear God. I have a very simple test when it comes to matters like that, If I could do it, then God can do it. I could conceivably be go any where in the world and establish a positive relationship with any person in the world. That said, I think Christianity is the best way for a person to build the desire to have a relationship with God. Buddhism is great for learning to achieve a prayerful state, but it centers that state around the self instead of God. Humanism is great for doing good works, but based solely on humanity and nothing on glorifying the Creator by helping to steward Creation. Science is wonder of gaining insight into the beauty of Creation, but fails to connect that to the beauty of the Creator. I think a person can (and if they desire a rich rewarding life, should) pursue all of these paths to bettering themselves, but I think only Christianity actively encourages a loving relationship with God that ties together and enriches the other pursuits.
There will be Christians who will point to scripture and say "no man can go to heaven but through Jesus." They are correct in their words, but not in their idea. Jesus, brought us Forgiveness through his sacrifice. Jesus doesn't need the help of some humans to make Forgiveness possible, it's not a group effort, it's all Jesus. So Forgiveness exists, God doesn't need the help of a person to remind them that forgiveness exists, God knows about Jesus even if a person does not. A person can have no personal knowledge of Jesus and still be forgiven their sins. As to whether any particular person is forgiven, that is God's choice and I'm not about to try to make that choice for God, or judge the wisdom of that choice. Again Christianity will help a person to have a different perspective on sin, and a better personal relationship with God, but a person's Christianity or lack there of does not add to or detract from God's infinite power.
For science, new information enlarges our understanding of the world. For fundamentalist religion, new information only threatens sanctified prejudices.
I add that to your statement hoping to clarify one of the worst misconceptions about Christianity. There are many open minded Christians in America, and new scientific knowledge and understanding often strengthens our faith. I know we (mature open-minded Christians) are not nearly as media present as Fundamentalists, but that does not mean that Fundamentalists speak for all Christians. That is more of a symptom of Christians who publicly identify themselves by one of their other facets (such as their job title), keeping their faith as a personal matter not to be waved about like a flag. Christians who try to live by the ideals of love and forgiveness rather than hiding behind any "sanctified prejudices".
Full disclosure: I am a deacon in my church. Part of that job is helping incorporate new knowledge and understanding into our church's theology. Any minister preaching anti-science rhetoric from our pulpit would definitely be censured and possibly asked to leave by the elders and deacons.
While that snopes link was pretty damned inconclusive (no actual denials of the statement made by anyone of authority), you are right in that I should have checked to see if that quote was verified. That aside, it doesn't change the fact that Bush has treated the Constitution like just a piece of paper, or at best an obstacle to be overcome. When Obama throws in some signing statements and National security letters to further his agendas it will be just as much of a degradation of our freedoms even if the ideal and outcome of the Obama agenda is more palatable.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone consents to be governed by staying in the country.
That only works if: A)There is somewhere else to go where a man can be free. B)The rules you originally consent to remain unchanged. Option A is kinda viable in rural Alaska and the Australian outback, but the careful databasing of all citizens is rapidly destroying that freedom of remoteness. You could practice civil disobedience an refuse to pay taxes to fund a standing army, but even living in the remote wilderness the IRS would track you down and make you submit. Option B doesn't hold true when when things regarded as inalienable rights, become the objects of steady erosion and obscurification. When the way the agreement document (The Constitution) reads and the way it is enacted are so very different, you may have consented to being governed, but you are not getting the government you consented to.
Generally I agree with you, but I think there are two major sources of that problem. First, while Police Officer is a socially respected job, it's go rather median pay ($47,000 median for Patrol Officers) but rather more strenuous job conditions then other median jobs. So it's primary attraction is the fact that it is a position of power attracting the power hungry; some hunger for the power to make the world a better place, but power hungry none the less. The second major source of Police assholism is the nature of the job teaching them to quickly categorize everyone as "good guy" or "bad guy". I personally know an ex-cop (narcotics) who hates anyone in a doo-rag and saggy pants, he realizes that it's prejudice if you ask him directly about it, but as he points out "most of the guys I busted for the last decade look like that". Maybe Police should be on a rotating schedule 3 months on 3 months off, rotating with something that re-enforces the good in everyone, like mentoring kids or something.
I have to wonder if Olympic swimmers know their sport so well, as to be able to be consciously aware of all the tiny little adjustments that help make the difference. I know that the more cycling I do the more aware I am of my pedal cadence and how smooth (or not) my pedal stroke is. An Olympics swimmer spends so much time thinking about their swimming I should hope that they can consciously add finesse where novices like me have trouble not swallowing pool water every fourth stroke.
Seriously. What are they going to do once they have the gun to your head? Pull the trigger? That's when the real revolution begins. People will only accept so much.
If that gun is a Taser, then yes they will pull the trigger, probably after you are already handcuffed. It is a great way to cultivate an attitude of compliance, regardless of things like right and wrong. Notice how the author of the linked article urges people to never challenge a police officer. I agree that one should never physically challenge an officer, but the serf mentality has progressed into not even verbally questioning an officer's actions, all because of the increasing likelihood of getting tasered. No my friend, the police pull the trigger all the time, there is no revolution.
All that is needed is that the leader tells them that certain politician is born again and stands for christian values :D.
Or environmental protection, or "think of the children", or bringing manufacturing jobs back to the USA, or ending the war, or stopping the illegal aliens, or pro choice, or pro life, lower taxes, or tax the rich, or is a devote humanist, or is "tough on crime", or will save our schools, or anything else that is the deciding issue for that particular voter. What is the difference between letting your minister dictate your vote and letting Arianna Huffington dictate your vote? Either a person decides for themselves or they are sheep. Originally the Founding Fathers tried to make provisions so that the sheep couldn't vote, but those provisions were rather racial and sexist and property owner-elitist and so we got rid of them and didn't replace them with any more enlightened voter qualifications, so now we have global politics decide by advertising budgets instead of real debates and the actual ability of the candidates.
"When Metascore implementations form within communities, they will periodically ask the existing government (or other authority) to cede power to the open source communities pertinent to their region."
Yeah, the State and Federal governments are really gonna respect that. There are two scenarios that could realistically happen, One is the perpetual ineffectuallity of something like The Second Vermont Republic. Where it is just ignored until it becomes a joke, or you get The Montana Freemen, where a belief in individual sovereignty is repudiated by Federal Agents with big guns and armored vehicles, while any valid claims for secession are ignored by the media in favor of painting you as nutjobs. You don't actually think that government owned voting machines are ever going to show a vote in favor of secession or major government restructuring do you ?
No if a private citizen does it they go to jail. If it is known to be illegal will any police officers go to jail for doing this? Of course not. Will their commanding officers be removed from police force for negligence of duty in allowing those under them to use illegal tactics? Of course not. Do the police give a shit if this is illegal, if they only get caught occasionally and when they do the suffer no personal penalties? Of course not.
But then the "natural" athletes will bitch and whine about how no one wants to watch or sponsor their league. The doping league will be so much faster, stronger, and injury prone that they will get all the TV ratings. The world doesn't want to watch the second best games. Look at it like this: How many people watch the Para-Olympics on TV? The stories and athletes are just as inspiring or more so, but they aren't quiet as good as the regular Olympics so they get no love.
It costs them very little to hold a gun to your head and demand "Hand over the encryption keys."
I wouldn't be surprised if encryption starts becoming the norm, that all encryption keys will be required to be registered with the government. Unregistered encryption will be illegal and the public will applaud as the government sends the men with guns to drag you away, because you will be a "dangerous criminal with suspected connections to child porn and stolen credit card numbers" *
* This is how it will show up on your local Evening News.
Seriously, though, if you want to solve the problems of government intrusion, you gotta open source the government.
To make any significant change to the deeper power structures of any large government you need a revolution. People in positions of global scale aren't going to give up that power just because you have a lot of signatures on a petition. You cannot vote high ranking bureaucrats and lobbyists out of power. But for ordinary citizens to attempt to use force to uproot those currently in positions of power would require them to be "terrorists" (gasp!) The only way to take down a large modern government without warfare is to wait for it to collapse under it's own bloated weight like the USSR did.
The United States is going through a transition period. They used to be the center of an empire, with all the wealth in the world flowing to their shores. Soon, they will be just another nation.
I suppose our falling behind in technological infrastructure could be just another sign of Post-Americanism.
just as we cast off our own faith in our gods, cursing them and labeling them as myths, our own creations, built in our own image, will inevitably do the same. The only question is this: will our robots succeed in destroying us, or will we succeed in destroying them?
I don't know if it is a question of destruction or of domination. Will we create a race of AI robots for the sole purpose of enslaving them? If we have the relationship with our robots of Creator/Creation will that make us slave owners once AI achieves sentience? Look at robotic factories, the work long hours for no pay and are modified or replaced or sold at the whim of their owner, if you did that with a person they would be a slave. Of course they are machines not people so it is just a factory not slavery. But if those robots where sentient would it change the moral argument. If that argument concludes that it would in fact be slavery, is there any reason to build AI robots if we cannot treat them as slaves? I don't want to have to allow my Roomba the freedom to go work for someone else, or the right to be paid for it's work.
Why would someone hire you to ghost write a book if they can't get any profit from the actual sale of that book?
Stick an advertisement on the page beginning each chapter, then publish it as a PDF. If it's a good book, then the advertisers will get good exposure. If the advertisers will pay per copy distributed (similar to paying for page views) then the author can make a profit, and with a few well liked books in current distribution make a good living.
you often just don't buy either... I know I never did. It was all about the money... I could get it for free so why pay for it?
It is about money, and about a person's perception of their money. If money is just "what you use to get stuff" then there is little reason to buy. However if money is "a tool to effect the world around you" then there is a solid reason to pay for a game that you enjoy, regardless of if that money goes to a big corp, an indy developer, or shareware donation. Now I don't have a good study to point to but I imagine that thinking of money as a tool of influence is more a trait of the wealthy, as the acquisition of material goods reaches saturation but there is still money to be spent. Conversely, when material needs can't be met money isn't likely to be spent on idealogical matters. I wonder if there is a relationship between disposable income and piracy?
rather then make sure they have a techie in attendance so that they may learn something and find a workaround the issue, Boston's lawyers suggested that burying your head in the sand
Remember, it's Boston: the city that is terrified of Cartoon Network. The city that went $8.6 billion over budget on "The Big Dig" which should have cost $6 billion, and it's a piece of crap. Did you really expect competence from that government?
If it was lower on the Moh's scale than the other material, it would not cut it.
Since graphene is the sheet form of graphite, and graphite is less than one on the Moh's scale, cutting shouldn't be an issue. But if the graphene condom is made flawlessly, it should never break because it will be the strongest material ever made.
a graphene monolayer condom would be sort of like covering your penis in double-sided adhesive tape.
Soft silicon is often used for sex toys, and when very clean and dry they are also very sticky. As soon as you add a few drops of lubricant, that stickiness vanishes. I'd imagine that it would be the same with a graphene condom. Van der Waals forces don't have much range, so a few microns layering of Glycerin should make that a none issue.
Is there any reason why van der Waals forces would be any strong for a one atom thick material than for a million atom thick material? IANAP
Its not the large corps that are going to suffer. Its the hobby game developers, independent photographers, small bands, and other people that copyright was made to promote.
While it is the large corps that have destroyed copyright through overexpansion, I don't think this has ruined the scene for independent creators, but what it means to be successful as an artist is starting to change. Of the last ten CDs I've bought, seven have been purchased directly from the artist (usually while they were playing on a subway platform, usually for $10). I think the modern move away from paying for creative content owned by big corporations frees up those dollars for buying creative content from local artists. Local artists then give places regional flavor and culture (severely missing from the world these days) The changes taking place seems to slowly be smoothing out the income progression for artists, it's not just a bipolar jump between the poverty of the unknown and the riches of the famous. Along with losing that sudden jump comes the loss of the ability for an artist to make one or two great pieces, charge a fortune for them and then be set for life. Artists will have to work every day just like everyone else, always producing new content to sell just like a farmer must always produce new food to sell. I don't think the mainstream stardom is going to vanish quickly, but I think that is going to slowly fad in favor of more regional and local talent.
In modern American politics, it's not about being right so much as it is about winning, about defeating the other team.
That's because the two "teams" aren't different enough ideologically to make it about anything other than winning. Regardless of who wins this next election: the government will grow larger, the nanny state will increase, the Bill of Rights will be chipped slowly away, wealth will become more concentrated, the US will meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations, public education will decline in quality, police forces will become more militant, incarceration rates will remain the highest in the industrialized world, and the failed War on Drugs will continue. All of these are problems that have spanned both Republican and Democratic power in both the Whitehouse and Congress. But the powers in those parties have already agreed on that direction for the country and options on those issues will not be offered to the American people.
sidenote: Because they also agree that "one man-one vote" will never go away, third parties are rendered moot.
it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to encourage your supporters to make use of that professional work.
;-) - is usually better than a knee-jerk response.
My problem with it is that sound-bites (or the text equivalent) are not political discussion, they are advertising. By adding more advertising noise into the forums where discussion should be taking place, this approach is dumbing down the voter's actual political awareness even more. By instructing and encouraging such a focused forum spam campaign, this distorts any possible consensus coming out a discussion on those selected forums. By contrast, here on Slashdot it frequently happens that someone makes a point that is embraced by the community, but is quite different from the stance of big media or the press release.
If the "Spread the Word" program has no other effect than to get a supporter to calm down long enough to think before they speak, it's probably worthwhile. A well-considered argument or phrase - even if the considering was done by someone else
That is what I mean about McCain insinuating that his supporters are stupid, this "talking points" thing is most effective when the best the supporter can come up with on their own is "a knee-jerk response".
Are party supporters allowed to have their own opinion these days? Anecodatal evidence suggests that there is a hive mind forming.
Are the bulk of McCain supporters intelligent and informed enough to make an actual contribution to a political discussion without help? Apparently, John McCain doesn't think so. This is tantamount to telling his supporters "You are too stupid to discuss my campaign without help."
God is everywhere and everything, literally, because all of reality is *composed* of God?
I rather like the idea, but I would add to it that God is more than the sum of all reality. You cannot have a loving relationship with the physical universe or group consciousness, those things are unable to know you as an individual and unable to love you. God seeks a loving relationship with each person. While God is in the flowing stream, the stream does not love you. While God is in each person, each person does not love you. Even those people who do love us, that love is a reflection of Divine Love. Things like love and intention require consciousness and I feel that at least that aspect of God is missing from the idea of "We, and everything around us *is* God?" I would say that: We, and everything around us *is part of* God.
By the way, myowntrueself, Thank you for the thoughtful, thought provoking questions.
if there is no connection to the document known as 'the bible' can a person still know the word of god?
Yes a person can know some of the word of God, since I don't think God suddenly got shy and stopped choosing to speak to people. For example, I believe that much of the writings of C.S.Lewis (his non-Narnia works) reflect a great deal of God's wisdom that he gave to C.S.Lewis and Lewis conveyed in his writings. I think that anyone of any religion can pray in earnest and be heard by God, and (God willing) can hear God. I have a very simple test when it comes to matters like that, If I could do it, then God can do it. I could conceivably be go any where in the world and establish a positive relationship with any person in the world. That said, I think Christianity is the best way for a person to build the desire to have a relationship with God. Buddhism is great for learning to achieve a prayerful state, but it centers that state around the self instead of God. Humanism is great for doing good works, but based solely on humanity and nothing on glorifying the Creator by helping to steward Creation. Science is wonder of gaining insight into the beauty of Creation, but fails to connect that to the beauty of the Creator. I think a person can (and if they desire a rich rewarding life, should) pursue all of these paths to bettering themselves, but I think only Christianity actively encourages a loving relationship with God that ties together and enriches the other pursuits.
There will be Christians who will point to scripture and say "no man can go to heaven but through Jesus." They are correct in their words, but not in their idea. Jesus, brought us Forgiveness through his sacrifice. Jesus doesn't need the help of some humans to make Forgiveness possible, it's not a group effort, it's all Jesus. So Forgiveness exists, God doesn't need the help of a person to remind them that forgiveness exists, God knows about Jesus even if a person does not. A person can have no personal knowledge of Jesus and still be forgiven their sins. As to whether any particular person is forgiven, that is God's choice and I'm not about to try to make that choice for God, or judge the wisdom of that choice. Again Christianity will help a person to have a different perspective on sin, and a better personal relationship with God, but a person's Christianity or lack there of does not add to or detract from God's infinite power.
For science, new information enlarges our understanding of the world. For fundamentalist religion, new information only threatens sanctified prejudices.
I add that to your statement hoping to clarify one of the worst misconceptions about Christianity. There are many open minded Christians in America, and new scientific knowledge and understanding often strengthens our faith. I know we (mature open-minded Christians) are not nearly as media present as Fundamentalists, but that does not mean that Fundamentalists speak for all Christians. That is more of a symptom of Christians who publicly identify themselves by one of their other facets (such as their job title), keeping their faith as a personal matter not to be waved about like a flag. Christians who try to live by the ideals of love and forgiveness rather than hiding behind any "sanctified prejudices".
Full disclosure: I am a deacon in my church. Part of that job is helping incorporate new knowledge and understanding into our church's theology. Any minister preaching anti-science rhetoric from our pulpit would definitely be censured and possibly asked to leave by the elders and deacons.
While that snopes link was pretty damned inconclusive (no actual denials of the statement made by anyone of authority), you are right in that I should have checked to see if that quote was verified. That aside, it doesn't change the fact that Bush has treated the Constitution like just a piece of paper, or at best an obstacle to be overcome. When Obama throws in some signing statements and National security letters to further his agendas it will be just as much of a degradation of our freedoms even if the ideal and outcome of the Obama agenda is more palatable.