I have indeed seen the legislation. I keep a close eye on such things. Yes, I'm familiar with the Padilla case. I wholeheartedly agree that we are taking steps in the direction of the Soviets (or Nazis or Ba'athists or Peronistas or... ), and we need to fight them. All the same, we have not yet reached the level of oppression that existed at the height of Soviet Russia.
Finally, for whatever it's worth, as the term is strictly and correctly used, Soviet oppression was not "fascism." Look up the definition of the word, learn its historical usage, before you throw it around as some generic synonym for "oppression." (That said, I don't disagree that fascism does seem to be the direction of the current trend in the U.S.)
What on earth does it mean to say that something "literally seems"? Either you misunderstand the meaning of the word "literally" (a VERY common mistake, and a pet peeve of mine), or you misunderstand the meaning of the word "seem".
Er... and yet the Catholic church is one of the few that has explicitly and officially declared that there is no conflict between Christian faith and the theory of evolution.
Not exactly "creationists", but I've known several atheists who disbelieved the fact of evolution. They had no alternative to offer, but refused to believe that humans could possibly have evolved from "lower" animals. (I seem to recall that even Ayn Rand, about as vehement an atheist as could be, had doubts about the theory of evolution, though I don't recall the reasons.)
If I recall correctly, there's also a wing of the creationist movement that is composed chiefly of Orthodox Jews. Mormons tend to be creationists, and there's intense debate about whether they should be considered Christians, so that's a gray area. I've read the writings of various Wiccans who disavow the theory of evolution and hold that the pagan gods created the world.
But actually, all of that is beside the point. Even if it were true to say that all creationists were Christians, that's not the same as saying that all Christians are creationists. Myself, I'm a Christian evolutionist.
"More highly evolved" is a meaningless concept, or at least badly out of date. Evolution has no "higher" or "lower" levels. It was a human-centric view of evolution that promulgated the idea of "higher" evolution, implying that all life strives to be more and more human. This notion is generally disregarded by the scientific community.
"Evolved for a particular environment", yes, perhaps. To go by skin color alone: Africans and aboriginal Australians evolved in an environment with intense sunlight, and thus have more skin pigmentation to help protect against skin cancers and avoid overdosing on vitamin D. Northern Europeans are evolved for an environment where sunlight is weaker and rarer, and where the temperature often demanded that they cover up much of their skin with clothing for warmth -- and thus have significantly less skin pigmentation, which facilitates a greater capacity for manufacturing vitamin D.
I wasn't suggesting that anything "should be" -- merely pointing out that a Congressional bill is not required for such a story "to have any credibility". From what I understand of the powers of the DHS, such a regulation is entirely within their purview, and would not require Congressional approval.
(For what it's worth, though, what you thought I was suggesting would be consonant with my own preferences... )
The AC is absolutely right -- this is nowhere near the oppression of the Soviet system. However, it is definitely a step in that direction, and a step that I believe we should work strenuously to reverse.
Now I wonder whether, having said that, I have just rendered myself ineligible for approval for travel abroad...
Laws are "enacted completely outside of the constitutional legislative process" every day -- thousands upon thousands of them. They're called "regulations", and they are issued by various federal and state agencies that are staffed by unelected officials -- and DHS is one such agency.
Other examples include EPA regulations, FCC regulations, much of what the IRS decides, NLRB decisions, OSHA rules, etc., etc. The agencies are empowered (at least theoretically) by congressional law, but the regulations they issue are subjected to congressional or judicial scrutiny far more rarely than most people understand. It creates a huge body of law under which we are all required to live -- law issued, and to some degree enforced, by people we cannot unelect or generally hold accountable.
Is there a signup list for that orgy? I'm just askin'...
Re:For those interested in a modern intro to the m
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 1
Also, I mentioned Catholics and you call them a small percentage of Christians, but I'd just like to point out to people not aware of this that here in America, Catholics are not considered Christians because they worship statues and believe that good works will get you into heaven. Don't argue with me about the worshipping statues bit either; argue with all the fundamentalists, since that's their position.
Actually, according to Sister Ann Marie when I was in fourth grade here in America, only Catholics are considered Christians, because only Catholics truly worship God and do His will.
Don't argue with me, argue with Sister Ann Marie. (Best science teacher I ever had, by the way!)
Like so many (or should that read "all"?) classification systems, it all depends on your perspective.
... there's a philosophical gap. In my experience, people who show a deep interest in techie things and people who show a deep interest in being politicians tend to have a fundamental difference in the way they approach the world.
For the politician: nothing exists, or has a particular quality, except as decided by popular belief; people are more real than things; opinions count for more than data; agreement matters more than knowledge; emotional perception is all-important; the many matter more than the one.
For the techie: things exist, and have immutable qualities; things are more real than people; data counts for more than opinions; knowledge matters more than agreement; emotional perception is irrelevant; the one matters more than the many.
These differences make meaningful "education" a very difficult task, because the techie's impulse is to say "Here is Tab A. Here is Slot B. See how they work?" The politician's reply is either "Not everyone agrees that that's how they work" or else "That's disgusting! Inserting tabs into slots. The very idea!"
So the techie tends to think that the politician's reactions are irrelevant, and gives up on further teaching; and the politician tends to think that the techie's facts are irrelevant, and gives up on further learning.
(As with all generalizations, of course, anyone -- myself included -- could point out glaring counter-examples, so maybe I should just be modded "Full of $#!+".)
Actually (he said, hanging his head in shame), I overlooked that joke altogether. You're right, of course.
Can I blame my density on having had to read the article on a backlit LCD computer screen instead of on a Sony Reader?
Re:We've heard this before...
on
The eBook, Mark 2
·
· Score: 3, Informative
See my reply below to another poster.
My point, which I apparently failed to convey, is that alternative technology exists to accomplish the most common uses of all of the things I mentioned -- and in some cases, has existed for quite some time -- without "replacing" those things in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, the new technology infringes on the size of the market for those things, and yes, some people will opt to use the newer technologies exclusively. But the older technologies have their advantages, too -- whether it be cost, safety, ease of use, familiarity, or simple idiosyncratic aesthetic appeal. As a result, I think that the use of the older technologies is far more likely to last than most of us neophile technogeeks seem to think.
(My mention of transparent glass windows was in reference to a trend some years back, now thankfully largely reversed, toward replacing clear glass in schools and office buildings with, yes, opaque brick, or else opaque glass, in the interest of "reducing distractions" in schools and "increasing productivity" in businesses -- till studies began to show that the end result tended to be exactly the opposite. Most people apparently need distraction occasionally to function at their best.)
Slashdot Mirror
But even Jain nuns' immune systems destroy bacteria and viruses on a regular basis ;)
:-)
Got a study to back up that claim? Maybe they're divinely protected against infection.
But aren't viruses irrelevant to the discussion, since by most definitions they don't qualify as "life"?
Why the hostility?
... ), and we need to fight them. All the same, we have not yet reached the level of oppression that existed at the height of Soviet Russia.
I have indeed seen the legislation. I keep a close eye on such things. Yes, I'm familiar with the Padilla case. I wholeheartedly agree that we are taking steps in the direction of the Soviets (or Nazis or Ba'athists or Peronistas or
Finally, for whatever it's worth, as the term is strictly and correctly used, Soviet oppression was not "fascism." Look up the definition of the word, learn its historical usage, before you throw it around as some generic synonym for "oppression." (That said, I don't disagree that fascism does seem to be the direction of the current trend in the U.S.)
What on earth does it mean to say that something "literally seems"? Either you misunderstand the meaning of the word "literally" (a VERY common mistake, and a pet peeve of mine), or you misunderstand the meaning of the word "seem".
Ah, the treasured Southparkian evolutionary theory ... :-)
Er ... and yet the Catholic church is one of the few that has explicitly and officially declared that there is no conflict between Christian faith and the theory of evolution.
Correction: Reading implies interpreting words into meaning.
Not exactly "creationists", but I've known several atheists who disbelieved the fact of evolution. They had no alternative to offer, but refused to believe that humans could possibly have evolved from "lower" animals. (I seem to recall that even Ayn Rand, about as vehement an atheist as could be, had doubts about the theory of evolution, though I don't recall the reasons.)
If I recall correctly, there's also a wing of the creationist movement that is composed chiefly of Orthodox Jews. Mormons tend to be creationists, and there's intense debate about whether they should be considered Christians, so that's a gray area. I've read the writings of various Wiccans who disavow the theory of evolution and hold that the pagan gods created the world.
But actually, all of that is beside the point. Even if it were true to say that all creationists were Christians, that's not the same as saying that all Christians are creationists. Myself, I'm a Christian evolutionist.
"More highly evolved" is a meaningless concept, or at least badly out of date. Evolution has no "higher" or "lower" levels. It was a human-centric view of evolution that promulgated the idea of "higher" evolution, implying that all life strives to be more and more human. This notion is generally disregarded by the scientific community.
"Evolved for a particular environment", yes, perhaps. To go by skin color alone: Africans and aboriginal Australians evolved in an environment with intense sunlight, and thus have more skin pigmentation to help protect against skin cancers and avoid overdosing on vitamin D. Northern Europeans are evolved for an environment where sunlight is weaker and rarer, and where the temperature often demanded that they cover up much of their skin with clothing for warmth -- and thus have significantly less skin pigmentation, which facilitates a greater capacity for manufacturing vitamin D.
I wasn't suggesting that anything "should be" -- merely pointing out that a Congressional bill is not required for such a story "to have any credibility". From what I understand of the powers of the DHS, such a regulation is entirely within their purview, and would not require Congressional approval.
... )
(For what it's worth, though, what you thought I was suggesting would be consonant with my own preferences
Only until they finish building the fence.
The AC is absolutely right -- this is nowhere near the oppression of the Soviet system. However, it is definitely a step in that direction, and a step that I believe we should work strenuously to reverse.
...
Now I wonder whether, having said that, I have just rendered myself ineligible for approval for travel abroad
Laws are "enacted completely outside of the constitutional legislative process" every day -- thousands upon thousands of them. They're called "regulations", and they are issued by various federal and state agencies that are staffed by unelected officials -- and DHS is one such agency.
Other examples include EPA regulations, FCC regulations, much of what the IRS decides, NLRB decisions, OSHA rules, etc., etc. The agencies are empowered (at least theoretically) by congressional law, but the regulations they issue are subjected to congressional or judicial scrutiny far more rarely than most people understand. It creates a huge body of law under which we are all required to live -- law issued, and to some degree enforced, by people we cannot unelect or generally hold accountable.
"Skipping Bitches" should have been the name for a punk band ...
No, it really is hard to cook up a human.
(Not that I'm speaking from experience, mind you. Honest. Really.)
All those combustible vulpines, contributing to, y'know, global warming and that.
Is there a signup list for that orgy? I'm just askin' ...
Also, I mentioned Catholics and you call them a small percentage of Christians, but I'd just like to point out to people not aware of this that here in America, Catholics are not considered Christians because they worship statues and believe that good works will get you into heaven. Don't argue with me about the worshipping statues bit either; argue with all the fundamentalists, since that's their position.
Actually, according to Sister Ann Marie when I was in fourth grade here in America, only Catholics are considered Christians, because only Catholics truly worship God and do His will.
Don't argue with me, argue with Sister Ann Marie. (Best science teacher I ever had, by the way!)
Like so many (or should that read "all"?) classification systems, it all depends on your perspective.
I read that first as "herpes, dreams, and ambitions." I must be tired.
... and so will the Ritalin prescriptions.
... there's a philosophical gap. In my experience, people who show a deep interest in techie things and people who show a deep interest in being politicians tend to have a fundamental difference in the way they approach the world.
For the politician: nothing exists, or has a particular quality, except as decided by popular belief; people are more real than things; opinions count for more than data; agreement matters more than knowledge; emotional perception is all-important; the many matter more than the one.
For the techie: things exist, and have immutable qualities; things are more real than people; data counts for more than opinions; knowledge matters more than agreement; emotional perception is irrelevant; the one matters more than the many.
These differences make meaningful "education" a very difficult task, because the techie's impulse is to say "Here is Tab A. Here is Slot B. See how they work?" The politician's reply is either "Not everyone agrees that that's how they work" or else "That's disgusting! Inserting tabs into slots. The very idea!"
So the techie tends to think that the politician's reactions are irrelevant, and gives up on further teaching; and the politician tends to think that the techie's facts are irrelevant, and gives up on further learning.
(As with all generalizations, of course, anyone -- myself included -- could point out glaring counter-examples, so maybe I should just be modded "Full of $#!+".)
The Third is arguably the only one still intact.
How about XI, XII, XIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXV, and XXVI?
Of course, if you were talking only about the first ten, then we stand in agreement.
... says the AC.
Thank you! I had just about given up on finding anybody else who had spotted that particular problem with the study.
Actually (he said, hanging his head in shame), I overlooked that joke altogether. You're right, of course.
Can I blame my density on having had to read the article on a backlit LCD computer screen instead of on a Sony Reader?
See my reply below to another poster.
My point, which I apparently failed to convey, is that alternative technology exists to accomplish the most common uses of all of the things I mentioned -- and in some cases, has existed for quite some time -- without "replacing" those things in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, the new technology infringes on the size of the market for those things, and yes, some people will opt to use the newer technologies exclusively. But the older technologies have their advantages, too -- whether it be cost, safety, ease of use, familiarity, or simple idiosyncratic aesthetic appeal. As a result, I think that the use of the older technologies is far more likely to last than most of us neophile technogeeks seem to think.
(My mention of transparent glass windows was in reference to a trend some years back, now thankfully largely reversed, toward replacing clear glass in schools and office buildings with, yes, opaque brick, or else opaque glass, in the interest of "reducing distractions" in schools and "increasing productivity" in businesses -- till studies began to show that the end result tended to be exactly the opposite. Most people apparently need distraction occasionally to function at their best.)