Evangelical Christians are a larger percentage of the electorate than I (as an atheist) would prefer, but they are far from a majority in this country. Even if they were able to wield power far in excess of ther size, they are by no means a monolothic block. A large percentage of them, believe it or not, respect the order of law and don't actually want a theocracy in this country (even if they do hold some moral beliefs informed by their religion that I disagree with). Not many of them would want a religiously annointed, unelected leader. Believe it or not.
Just as proof, I'm one. Thanks for saying this. "Christians" that chant the Bush Jr. mantra like he's the second coming of Christ Himself really make me wonder if they're worthy of the name. I think Jesus would want His people to be active in politics, just like they should be active in every area of life - but I would be the last to say that Jesus' message is best spread through political agendas.
Keep voting Democrat and a police state is what you'll get, too.
You're fooling yourself if you think they're much different. Both major parties want to increase government power. That power can then be abused by anyone who happens to grab it. The only solution is to strip government of its excessive power, and strictly limit it to legitimate functions that we the people authorize it to do. Much like the Constitution actually intended. *gasp* What a concept!
If you enjoy freedom and you're not voting Libertarian or Constitution, you're wasting your vote. It's quite obvious we don't get more freedom by voting for the incumbent Duopoly.
I can understand the pragmatic view Apple has taken with the x86 decision. (I don't like it, either, but I understand it.) PPC is, like m68k before it, in just about every conceivable way related to elegant design far superior to x86. The only problem is there are lots of people pushing x86 forward, and only a very few working on PPC. Even though x86 is hobbled by a legacy design, it can still have an advantage. It's sad.
But why abandon Open Firmware? It was designed to be hardware independent, and several big players besides Apple are using it. By analogy, it's the same. New, forward-thinking design being scrapped in favor of crappy old design. Unlike the chip issue though, there's absolutely no reason to ditch OF.
After we got rid of my wife's Wintel box I hoped to never have Windows nor Intel in my house again. After using OS X it would be awful hard to go back to Linux on AMD or something like that, so I suppose I'll suck it up in a couple years when I need a new Mac(intel). But I do question some of Apple's reasoning.
Exactly. We wouldn't have many of the great Disney classics like Cinderella if the original story had still been under the same kind of copyright that Disney wants for its own works. Disney obviously benefited from works that had gone into the public domain, stories that are part of our common heritage and culture. After 75 years, Mickey Mouse is part of the popular culture. In a very real sense, he "belongs" to everyone now. It's time to let Mickey go to the people. Copyright is supposed "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". 75 years is more than enough.
Who said ICANN approved this so we can try to keep people away? Having a virtual red-light district will probably attract as much business as it keeps away. It makes porn easy to find, and who else would want the stigma of a.xxx domain (except maybe promoters of a Vin Diesel or Ice Cube movie)? Kjella is right - porn sites might buy a.xxx in addition, but they won't give up their current names. Porn is seductive and its purveyors like the business they get from people tripping into it.
Personally, I think eliminating "generic" TLDs and going to country-code TLDs only wouldn't be a bad idea. Let each individual nation decide, according to its own laws and "community standards", how trademarks in domain names as well as issues like these should be addressed.
-CRTs aren't limited to 18 (eek) or 24bit color, tend to have better color accuracy, wider gamut...
Bah. This is not a concern. Most people in office settings only need 4-bit color. If they think they need more than that, they're spending too much time surfing the web for pretty pictures. Remove all but 512kB of VRAM from work PCs.
Federalism is a system of gov't in which power is shared between a central authority and its constituents. It is expressly not a consolidation nor abdication of power to a central authority. The Constitution makes it clear that ultimate authority resides in We, the People - the federal government has only those powers delegated to it. Delegated - meaning they can be resumed by the States or the people if they see fit.
As far as A4S1 goes, Congress may regulate how the acts and records are proven, not how the States create them. As I read it, any State can say, "This is our driving license. Other States have to honor it, according to the Constitution. If the fed wants to set up a process to verify this license, fine, but you have to accept it." To use this clause in the way you suggest, the Congress might as well be writing all the laws for all 50 States. It would be akin to saying, "We can only prove your act/record/proceeding to other States if it conforms to what we tell you." That effectively strips all power from States, clearly not the intent.
I don't see anything wrong with government endorsing "religion" when it's plainly recognized as being beneficial to citizens individually as well as corporately. People of moral character tend to be harder workers and better citizens. Religion promotes moral behavior. Religious people have also (historically) tended to have more stable marriages, which is good for society. (Within the last decade this has become less true, but society has become dramatically less religious overall within this time as well, so I think there's some correlation.) I don't see anything wrong with government promoting values that produce a stable and productive society, and saying these values are taught in your local $HOUSE_OF_WORSHIP. It's only when government promotes one path of religious expression over all others, or quashes certain paths of religious expression, that there are problems.
I very much disagree with those (atheists, secularists) that say promoting religion, even as a concept, is wrong. A government without good values, that doesn't recognize a clear distinction between good and evil, is a bad government. These values are taught by religions. It is possible to have good/moral atheists and secularists, but they lack a structure for their values that exists beyond themselves. I believe there are absolutes. Atheism/secularism lend themselves to moral relativism. How can there be justice in a society where what was wrong yesterday is not wrong today? It doesn't make sense. Sound government has to be grounded in foundational truths.
Should religious symbols be permitted on public land? Absolutely. Religious has played an extremely influential part in our history and culture. America, by and large, is a religious people. (The Supreme Court agreed, at least in 1892.) To not acknowledge (or permit acknowledgment of) this is intellectually dishonest. Should government compel everyone to attend Mass on Sunday, or close down a synagogue? Absolutely not. It's not government's business how anybody chooses (or doesn't choose) to approach God.
I, too, wish the CP and LP could work more closely together. (We're not the first, either.) Many of their goals are the same. The LP arrives at "freedom is a good" from humanistic reasoning. The CP arrives at the same conclusion from divine mandate. Obviously there are going to be a few differences in philosophy, and a few disagreements as to what freedom means. But for the most part, when you cut through the myths the two believe about the other, both parties want basically the same thing: freedom to live your own life as you wish, without government butting in with onerous regulations. In my experience, the CP is often willing to work with Libertarians. However, I find that the LP is often anti-religious, to the point where even working with a religious group toward a common goal isn't possible.
You're quite wrong about the CP. Christians care very much about freedom of religion. If you recall your history, religious persecution was a foundational reason many left Europe for America in the first place.
Also, if you read your history a bit more carefully, you'll note that a key reason for the 1st Amendment anti-establishment clause was to protect various state-sanctioned religions. Yes, several states had official religions in 1787. They just didn't want one imposed from a federal level. Did those states prohibit people from exercising other religions? No (though there were occasional aberrations).
The CP does have Jewish members, FYI. In no other nation in history is religious freedom protected as much as it is in "Christian" America. Christians aren't going to jeopardize that. Freedom of conscience is very important to Christians.
Read rbullo's links. Get yourself informed. FairVote.org, the Green party, the Libertarian party...they're all well-meaning and well-intentioned, but they're also all misinformed. Instant Runoff Voting does nothing except disguise the very same problems we currently have with simple plurality voting.
We have term limits. It's called the ballot box. If some official is doing a good job (hey, it could happen), the people should not be artificially and arbitrarily prevented from supporting him again.
The real problem is the voting system that enforces the Duopoly. Fix the system, preferably by implementing Condorcet voting, and open it up to real choice. There are other candidates, with other valid viewpoints. Why shouldn't they be heard?
We want everyone to be able to vote honestly, sincerely. Yet we have a voting system that prohibits that. Voting your conscience shouldn't mean "wasting" your vote. Unfortunately, so many have bought into the lie that they don't understand that not voting your conscience is what really wastes your vote!
Vote your conscience. Vote third party. And petition your legislators for voting reform!
Don't vote for any Democrat or Republican. They're all so party-line that they're almost interchangeable. If you want real change, you have to vote for something different. Vote third party. Americans deserve more than just two choices!
You can't abolish parties. People have a right to associate with whom they wish. As long as there is an advantage to having numbers on your side, parties will form. We just need people to develop a spine, and stand for their principles. If that means they have to buck the parties, then buck the parties, or find a new one.
So anything crossing state lines is subject to federal laws? That's hardly the limited government (with only specific, enumerated powers) the Founders intended, which leads me to believe you're misinterpreting the meaning of that clause. That's more like nationalism/centralism, not federalism. Federalism implies the states are sovereign.
Yup, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them anymore. The goals are slightly different, but they both believe in using government power to force the outcome. That's not right. Increased government power is a limit on freedom. I say, vote Constitution or Libertarian.
I agree that States have a right to secede if the union no longer serves their purposes. However, I don't think we need to go quite that far. It would be helpful if the States actually had a voice in the federal government, like they were supposed to. Repeal the 17th Amendment. There are several other posts here related to this, with good links.
There wasn't any. It was attached to a "must pass" military appropriations bill. Nobody who cares about his political career is going to block money going to the troops risking their lives, you know? What we need is a constitutional amendment banning unrelated riders from being attached to bills - something requiring that any changes be germane to the original subject and within its scope.
Right on! I sacrificed my last mod point to be able to say the same thing. Democratic populism isn't necessarily a good thing - this is why House members have a mere 2-year term. Senators were supposed to be level-headed senior members of their respective State legislatures, thus granted a 6-year term. Changing the Senate to a popular vote has caused them to be virtually unaccountable (a small body like a State legislature can hold a Senator accountable, but do you think they care what any individual voter things?) petty tyrants. Additionally, popular Senate elections are some of the most expensive campaigns there are. If you want to get big money (and big-monied special interests) out of politics, repeal the 17th! To solve the problem of Senate vacancies, allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement until such time that the State legislature can get its act together to select a permanent one. The governor can already appoint replacements when the legislature isn't in session, so I can't see that this would be a problem.
Senators represent large corporate interests who pay them to vote for corporate interests.
Unfortunately this is very true today.
There isn't a single populist Senator in the Congress
Nor should there be. The House was designed to be the populist chamber of Congress. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, and serve as a barrier against federal usurpations of power.
The problem is the 17th Amendment. Intended to solve a minor procedural problem with filling vacant senate seats, it radically shifted the balance of power and (combined with the 16th Amendment) greatly contributed to the growth in centralized government we've seen since 1913.
Personally, I don't care if they do have a weapon, as long as they don't try to commit any crimes with it. Seriously. Just possessing something doesn't harm anyone.
If one freak did board a plane with a weapon and malicious intent, I'd like to know that the (normal) other 99.9% of the people on board could carry their own for self-defense. And when the odds are 99.9% vs.1%, I know who I'd bet on. But when the odds are 0% vs.1%, I can tell you who'd win that, too - and this answer isn't as nice.
I tried the same thing once, and got the same response.
I'm increasingly convinced I ought to try a run for Congress in 2006. Just so there'd be one guy (in addition to Ron Paul) who wouldn't stand for this junk.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as proof, I'm one. Thanks for saying this. "Christians" that chant the Bush Jr. mantra like he's the second coming of Christ Himself really make me wonder if they're worthy of the name. I think Jesus would want His people to be active in politics, just like they should be active in every area of life - but I would be the last to say that Jesus' message is best spread through political agendas.
Keep voting Democrat and a police state is what you'll get, too.
You're fooling yourself if you think they're much different. Both major parties want to increase government power. That power can then be abused by anyone who happens to grab it. The only solution is to strip government of its excessive power, and strictly limit it to legitimate functions that we the people authorize it to do. Much like the Constitution actually intended. *gasp* What a concept!
If you enjoy freedom and you're not voting Libertarian or Constitution, you're wasting your vote. It's quite obvious we don't get more freedom by voting for the incumbent Duopoly.
I can understand the pragmatic view Apple has taken with the x86 decision. (I don't like it, either, but I understand it.) PPC is, like m68k before it, in just about every conceivable way related to elegant design far superior to x86. The only problem is there are lots of people pushing x86 forward, and only a very few working on PPC. Even though x86 is hobbled by a legacy design, it can still have an advantage. It's sad.
But why abandon Open Firmware? It was designed to be hardware independent, and several big players besides Apple are using it. By analogy, it's the same. New, forward-thinking design being scrapped in favor of crappy old design. Unlike the chip issue though, there's absolutely no reason to ditch OF.
After we got rid of my wife's Wintel box I hoped to never have Windows nor Intel in my house again. After using OS X it would be awful hard to go back to Linux on AMD or something like that, so I suppose I'll suck it up in a couple years when I need a new Mac(intel). But I do question some of Apple's reasoning.
Exactly. We wouldn't have many of the great Disney classics like Cinderella if the original story had still been under the same kind of copyright that Disney wants for its own works. Disney obviously benefited from works that had gone into the public domain, stories that are part of our common heritage and culture. After 75 years, Mickey Mouse is part of the popular culture. In a very real sense, he "belongs" to everyone now. It's time to let Mickey go to the people. Copyright is supposed "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". 75 years is more than enough.
Who said ICANN approved this so we can try to keep people away? Having a virtual red-light district will probably attract as much business as it keeps away. It makes porn easy to find, and who else would want the stigma of a .xxx domain (except maybe promoters of a Vin Diesel or Ice Cube movie)? Kjella is right - porn sites might buy a .xxx in addition, but they won't give up their current names. Porn is seductive and its purveyors like the business they get from people tripping into it.
Personally, I think eliminating "generic" TLDs and going to country-code TLDs only wouldn't be a bad idea. Let each individual nation decide, according to its own laws and "community standards", how trademarks in domain names as well as issues like these should be addressed.
What about a vindiesel.xxx fan site?
Bah. This is not a concern. Most people in office settings only need 4-bit color. If they think they need more than that, they're spending too much time surfing the web for pretty pictures. Remove all but 512kB of VRAM from work PCs.
;)
Federalism is a system of gov't in which power is shared between a central authority and its constituents. It is expressly not a consolidation nor abdication of power to a central authority. The Constitution makes it clear that ultimate authority resides in We, the People - the federal government has only those powers delegated to it. Delegated - meaning they can be resumed by the States or the people if they see fit.
As far as A4S1 goes, Congress may regulate how the acts and records are proven, not how the States create them. As I read it, any State can say, "This is our driving license. Other States have to honor it, according to the Constitution. If the fed wants to set up a process to verify this license, fine, but you have to accept it." To use this clause in the way you suggest, the Congress might as well be writing all the laws for all 50 States. It would be akin to saying, "We can only prove your act/record/proceeding to other States if it conforms to what we tell you." That effectively strips all power from States, clearly not the intent.
I don't see anything wrong with government endorsing "religion" when it's plainly recognized as being beneficial to citizens individually as well as corporately. People of moral character tend to be harder workers and better citizens. Religion promotes moral behavior. Religious people have also (historically) tended to have more stable marriages, which is good for society. (Within the last decade this has become less true, but society has become dramatically less religious overall within this time as well, so I think there's some correlation.) I don't see anything wrong with government promoting values that produce a stable and productive society, and saying these values are taught in your local $HOUSE_OF_WORSHIP. It's only when government promotes one path of religious expression over all others, or quashes certain paths of religious expression, that there are problems.
I very much disagree with those (atheists, secularists) that say promoting religion, even as a concept, is wrong. A government without good values, that doesn't recognize a clear distinction between good and evil, is a bad government. These values are taught by religions. It is possible to have good/moral atheists and secularists, but they lack a structure for their values that exists beyond themselves. I believe there are absolutes. Atheism/secularism lend themselves to moral relativism. How can there be justice in a society where what was wrong yesterday is not wrong today? It doesn't make sense. Sound government has to be grounded in foundational truths.
Should religious symbols be permitted on public land? Absolutely. Religious has played an extremely influential part in our history and culture. America, by and large, is a religious people. (The Supreme Court agreed, at least in 1892.) To not acknowledge (or permit acknowledgment of) this is intellectually dishonest. Should government compel everyone to attend Mass on Sunday, or close down a synagogue? Absolutely not. It's not government's business how anybody chooses (or doesn't choose) to approach God.
I, too, wish the CP and LP could work more closely together. (We're not the first, either.) Many of their goals are the same. The LP arrives at "freedom is a good" from humanistic reasoning. The CP arrives at the same conclusion from divine mandate. Obviously there are going to be a few differences in philosophy, and a few disagreements as to what freedom means. But for the most part, when you cut through the myths the two believe about the other, both parties want basically the same thing: freedom to live your own life as you wish, without government butting in with onerous regulations. In my experience, the CP is often willing to work with Libertarians. However, I find that the LP is often anti-religious, to the point where even working with a religious group toward a common goal isn't possible.
You're quite wrong about the CP. Christians care very much about freedom of religion. If you recall your history, religious persecution was a foundational reason many left Europe for America in the first place.
Also, if you read your history a bit more carefully, you'll note that a key reason for the 1st Amendment anti-establishment clause was to protect various state-sanctioned religions. Yes, several states had official religions in 1787. They just didn't want one imposed from a federal level. Did those states prohibit people from exercising other religions? No (though there were occasional aberrations).
The CP does have Jewish members, FYI. In no other nation in history is religious freedom protected as much as it is in "Christian" America. Christians aren't going to jeopardize that. Freedom of conscience is very important to Christians.
Read rbullo's links. Get yourself informed. FairVote.org, the Green party, the Libertarian party...they're all well-meaning and well-intentioned, but they're also all misinformed. Instant Runoff Voting does nothing except disguise the very same problems we currently have with simple plurality voting.
Really makes me want to run for Congress in 2006. Dr. Paul could use some help.
We have term limits. It's called the ballot box. If some official is doing a good job (hey, it could happen), the people should not be artificially and arbitrarily prevented from supporting him again.
The real problem is the voting system that enforces the Duopoly. Fix the system, preferably by implementing Condorcet voting, and open it up to real choice. There are other candidates, with other valid viewpoints. Why shouldn't they be heard?
We want everyone to be able to vote honestly, sincerely. Yet we have a voting system that prohibits that. Voting your conscience shouldn't mean "wasting" your vote. Unfortunately, so many have bought into the lie that they don't understand that not voting your conscience is what really wastes your vote!
Vote your conscience. Vote third party. And petition your legislators for voting reform!
Don't vote for any Democrat or Republican. They're all so party-line that they're almost interchangeable. If you want real change, you have to vote for something different. Vote third party. Americans deserve more than just two choices!
You can't abolish parties. People have a right to associate with whom they wish. As long as there is an advantage to having numbers on your side, parties will form. We just need people to develop a spine, and stand for their principles. If that means they have to buck the parties, then buck the parties, or find a new one.
So anything crossing state lines is subject to federal laws? That's hardly the limited government (with only specific, enumerated powers) the Founders intended, which leads me to believe you're misinterpreting the meaning of that clause. That's more like nationalism/centralism, not federalism. Federalism implies the states are sovereign.
Yup, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them anymore. The goals are slightly different, but they both believe in using government power to force the outcome. That's not right. Increased government power is a limit on freedom. I say, vote Constitution or Libertarian.
I agree that States have a right to secede if the union no longer serves their purposes. However, I don't think we need to go quite that far. It would be helpful if the States actually had a voice in the federal government, like they were supposed to. Repeal the 17th Amendment. There are several other posts here related to this, with good links.
There wasn't any. It was attached to a "must pass" military appropriations bill. Nobody who cares about his political career is going to block money going to the troops risking their lives, you know? What we need is a constitutional amendment banning unrelated riders from being attached to bills - something requiring that any changes be germane to the original subject and within its scope.
Right on! I sacrificed my last mod point to be able to say the same thing. Democratic populism isn't necessarily a good thing - this is why House members have a mere 2-year term. Senators were supposed to be level-headed senior members of their respective State legislatures, thus granted a 6-year term. Changing the Senate to a popular vote has caused them to be virtually unaccountable (a small body like a State legislature can hold a Senator accountable, but do you think they care what any individual voter things?) petty tyrants. Additionally, popular Senate elections are some of the most expensive campaigns there are. If you want to get big money (and big-monied special interests) out of politics, repeal the 17th! To solve the problem of Senate vacancies, allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement until such time that the State legislature can get its act together to select a permanent one. The governor can already appoint replacements when the legislature isn't in session, so I can't see that this would be a problem.
Unfortunately this is very true today.
Nor should there be. The House was designed to be the populist chamber of Congress. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, and serve as a barrier against federal usurpations of power.
The problem is the 17th Amendment. Intended to solve a minor procedural problem with filling vacant senate seats, it radically shifted the balance of power and (combined with the 16th Amendment) greatly contributed to the growth in centralized government we've seen since 1913.
What?
Other than that, I agree that more IDs and red tape and global policing isn't going to help jack squat.
Personally, I don't care if they do have a weapon, as long as they don't try to commit any crimes with it. Seriously. Just possessing something doesn't harm anyone.
If one freak did board a plane with a weapon and malicious intent, I'd like to know that the (normal) other 99.9% of the people on board could carry their own for self-defense. And when the odds are 99.9% vs .1%, I know who I'd bet on. But when the odds are 0% vs .1%, I can tell you who'd win that, too - and this answer isn't as nice.
I tried the same thing once, and got the same response.
I'm increasingly convinced I ought to try a run for Congress in 2006. Just so there'd be one guy (in addition to Ron Paul) who wouldn't stand for this junk.