Pangloss

I would if it wasn't for the fact that Florida Democrats were behind the measure and supported it. It was only after it passed and the national party started barking that they changed their tune. Party politicing is a different animal at the state level. State legislators are typically part-timers (literally) with no real political future mainly looking to pad their resumes and wallets, and perhaps here and there actually looking out for the state. Which is not that much of a stretch given that that's HOW they pad their resumes and wallets -- by improving the state's business prospects, public appeal, and so forth. Even state Republicans lament the current situation, because it's bad for the state as a whole. So typically a "State X" Democrat has a lot more in common with a "State X" Republican than a "National" Democrat. He's more interested in what a "State X" Republican thinks, and vice-versa, because they probably do business together (or have, or will). And this may sound silly, but what little nationalistic (for lack of a better term) identity still remaining within the states invariably exhibits itself in state politics ahead of anywhere else. So a "State X" Republican wouldn't actually (typically) WANT to do something that might cause grief for a "State X" Democrat at the national level. It would actually be counter-productive. We see another aspect of this sometimes in the redistricting efforts. Those aren't about national politics, they're about local politics. State politics. Yeah there's a desire of a state party to have the national "delegation" (as they often call the conglomerate of all of a state's Democrats and Republicans in Congress) be a majority in their party, but they don't care about national issues, they care about local issues. Put another way, they don't play foul with redistricting because they want to reopen the abortion debate in this country. They play foul with redistricting because they want Federal budget allocations spent one way or another. They're no more invested in who gets to be the next president than you or I. But these are just general trends and don't prove your speculation wrong at all. It's just to show that the motivations are a little different at the state level. As you suggest, there's a reasonably motivation here for state Democrats to want the state to go to a Democrat in 2008, and for state Republicans to want the state to go to a Republican. No question about it.

It'll be an interesting about face if it passes. I'm afraid I don't know much about this one at the moment.

Um, grinding axes with the Bush administration is an international pasttime.

I don't think there's a shortage of hard-working, influential people who lack the Nobel Committee's obvious requirement of being a liberal political activist or having an axe to grind with the Bush administration. How about Bill Gates? Nicholas Negroponte also comes to mind. But of course those guys are politically unacceptable. To the far left, giving a billion dollars away isn't charity, it's guilt amelioration. And don't even get them started on the evils of charging the godawful sum of $100 for a PC! Every child should be given one for free!

Like I said, politically correct parsing and interpretation. Next year it'll go to Jane Doe, single mother of three, struggling to pay her 14% mortgage on her salary as a hairdresser, for exposing the dangers of letting Republicans have power. I don't know, they can do whatever they want I guess. I just think it's a shame to see such a prestigious award reduced to the level of droll partisanship. This suggests to me that it's now little more than a dress-up night for intellectual snobs.

Didn't he already win a Nobel for inventing the Internet? But seriously, what does global warming have to do with peace? If THIS doesn't expose the Nobel process as ridiculously PC, I don't know what will.

That's basically it. The national officials control the convention, which is the place at which the delegates are counted. That's what actually determines who gets to be the party's candidate. The parties do have an obvious right to determine whom they want to put up as their candidate. But their rights are protected under law, to the extent of making it harder for other parties to compete (reducing our options at the poll), and as such opponents have a reasonable legal case for action here. Lawsuits are already flying around, some of them participated in by major elected officials such as Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. There is also a partisan dimension to this, but it doesn't seem to have a whole lot of traction. Some Florida democrats earlier tried to pawn this off as being the fault of state Republicans, who do have majorities in the state legislature (not to mention the governorship). They still maintain that this was a key issue in causing this matter to reach a head, but at this point they're mainly just mad at national Democratic party people.

Oh my god, ParanoiA wants to KILL MY BABIES! But serially, nice post.

Wups, you're right, my bad. I read Niven before I read Heinlein, I'm afraid (though I've read every book by both authors). Chalk it up to the memory of the folly of youth.

Yup, in the United States of America, voters in two major states will not be allowed to have a say in their states' primaries. And those are voters in the Democratic Party -- that stalwart defender of freedom and opposition to those evil conservatives. This bizarre sequence of events is happening because of issues regarding the scheduling of primaries. In essence it has become a battle over who holds power in the Democratic Party -- national or local officials. Essentially what's happened is that state officials moved the primaries ahead of February 5th, which is the date that the party decreed that state elections must follow. The reason for that date is that it allows Iowa and New Hampshire to remain the first states with primaries. That's not about tradition, it's about national determination. These two primaries really have nothing to do with those two states -- it allows centralization of focus. The media can focus all of its attention in one place and therefore so can the candidates. But many states now believe that this kind of primary system robs their citizens of having any impact on the determination of candidates. I agree with this position. It's wrong to let two states decide whom I get to vote for. So Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up ahead of the decreed date. The result is that the national Democratic Party has taken two actions: 1) Delegates from these states will not be counted. 2) Candidates were asked to sign pledges not to run in these states' primaries. The party can't actually stop the states from having primaries, but now what's the point? I had predicted earlier (as many had) that the party would be unable to get the candidates to sign those pledges, but apparently all the candidates are too busy seeing the benefits of the current system to care about the rights of individuals. And the news media is playing along by barely reporting the story, because quite frankly the current system is much better for them as well. Yeah. Democrats think that. Democrats. How 'bout that.

Hehe, I've always loved that acronym. All hail Larry Niven!

I accept your apology on behalf of the GWBAS! (grin) I like a good comedic jab as much as anybody, but do people just not remember that Jimmy Carter used to call it "nookyuller" too? And he studied Nookyuller Engineering at Georgia Tech, and ended up getting a degree in physics!

There's actually a system in most cities that triggers radar detectors and other devices with the system built into it (some car makers put it in the radio, I believe) to go off with a special signal whenever triggered. It was intended to be used for public safety events, but the only time I've ever seen it go off is in front of a fire or police station. The best part is that the technology is dirt cheap to implement. It's basically just an open broadcast at a specific power and frequency setting. When the unit detects it at a certain power level, it goes off. So you could put the transmitted in ALL cars and add maybe a dollar to the cost of the car, and the users could front the cost of the receiver. It'd basically just be a pager-sized object that they'd clip to their belt.

Healthcare in Europe isn't free.

On a more positive note, the UN and current US administration appear to be making progress with North Korea. A new treaty was announced last week in which they promised to give up all nuclear development. Unfortunately it did not address existing weapons, but it seemed to me like a step in the right direction.

I don't. In fact I expect numerous civilians will die any time that situation comes up, and while I think it sad, I don't feel in the least bit responsible for it, nor do I regret it. On the contrary, I rejoice in the birth of a new democracy, and honor those who died to create it. Freedom isn't free. That having been said, if they can't discriminate between valid targets and innocent people on the streets, then I'm all for beefing up their equipment, improving their training, and whatever else we can do SHORT of hindering our efforts in the arena. Or if we find that they have a problem with wanton shooting, then we need to fix that problem with appropriate enforcement.

Well on that I agree 100%, because what evidence do I have for my suspicion? None. God knows it's not enough to run the risk of ruining a guy's career over, or ignite a major press incident for my school (assuming I'm the dean or whatever). I would have spoken with the students, assured them that their personal beliefs are not being insulted by the institution, and if they weren't willing to accept the possibility that there was just a miscommunication then I would get them a resit with a different teacher. And I would talk to the first teacher in my office and make sure they understand school policy in this area. I'd listen to both parties but I wouldn't fire the guy without some serious evidence. I hope I've just cleared that up above, but let me just add that when I talk about forcing viewpoints I'm talking about the statements that people have made right here in this thread that students cannot learn western history without formally rejecting any beliefs they may have in religion. That's not a "poor choice of words", and quite frankly those people don't need you to be their apologist because their position is politically correct and acceptable on this forum. They're quite comfortable making statements like that around here. I think that's a shame, and I will continue to speak out against that point of view on these boards.

It's an interesting distinction. After pondering it a bit, I would agree that the comparison is not valid and should not be made. The reasons behind the two events seem very different. I don't know that I agree with your blanket castigation of Blackwater and/or the purpose behind contractors. It's not new and it can be handled correctly. I think it's more a matter of whether it was/is being handled correctly. At the moment it doesn't appear to be, but new developments this week may address the issues. I am not particularly concerned about civilian casualties to Blackwater contractors during firefights. All civilian deaths are a tragedy, but I've no particular reason to think that the contractors in question did anything wrong. They should be accountable for any mistakes they make, though, just like anybody else.

Nope. But I get the impression that people like Lockheed and Bascule (whom I do have great respect for personally and in their opinions on many subjects) WOULD attack students in their personal beliefs, because, as they say above, they believe (falsely, IMO) that it's necessary to teach the course. What they're really saying (especially bascule) is that religion is dangerous and detrimental to society, and that we need to not only teach this to our students, but insist that they BELIEVE it. (That's not teaching, it's indoctrination.) That's why I keep harping on this point. My opponents don't seem to be understanding the simple fact that you don't have to beat people into submission in order to teach a course, and that in fact it's a really bad idea. We don't do it that way, we don't ALLOW it to be done that way, and it's dangerous and wrong to do it that way. I've even given two examples of why it would be bad from THEIR perspective. But all I get in return is distortion and misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Frankly it makes me sick. ------------ Lockheed, if you're going to keep saying "we" then I suggest you review these posts, which are clearly not representative of the view you just espoused: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=363285&postcount=87 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=363434&postcount=100 Bascule explicitly and directly espouses the position of demanding that western history cannot be taught without contradicting religious tenets, which, as I have pointed out here is simply not the case. Neither you nor bascule seems capable of responding on that point.

Well I wouldn't mind, but then I don't drive a whole lot compared with most people. Typically 6,000 miles per year, but often a lot less. That's way below the national average, though.

Okay, I appreciate you attempting to explain your point a little more thoroughly, but I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Bay of Pigs is more acceptable because the participants had a vested stake in what happened there, as Cubans?

I disagree, Lockheed, I think you're the ones making straw men by saying that I'm making one point when I'm actually making a different one altogether. Again, my point was that it's not necessary or relevent to the course to say that to this classroom. It's not necessary to prove religion false in order to show the relevence of science to history. It simply is not. When a student asks "well my mommy told me that Adam and Eve were real", you say "well this is the information we have from science, and this is what we're studying in this course; you can investigate that question elsewhere if you like", and then you move on. You've deliberately ignored my examples of politics and abortion, and if you can't refute the relevence of those examples then frankly you've lost this argument. ------- yourdadonapogos, I understand what you're saying and I read those points in the article as well, that's why I've said (several times now) that I'm keeping an open mind and acknowledging certain assumptions and trying to address the wider issue this case raised. So talk to Lockheed and Bascule. They're the ones speaking with authority and making assumptions based on facts not in evidence. All you have are the teacher's statements, which are directly contradicted by the students. He said, they said. That makes Bascule and Lockheed's matter-of-fact statements assumptions.

You'll probably be better off simply replacing the battery. The decline rate on most laptop batteries (lithium ion) is something like 20-30% per year. So if it's two years old it's only got half its original up-time. And it's really consistent, too. I've never seen a two-year-old laptop with the original battery that stayed awake for more than an hour or two, even with conservation features turned on.

How was it different?

As far as I know it isn't. I could point out that James Burke doesn't go out of his way to insult religious people, but that's obvious, and what James Burke does or does not do is irrelevent to the point I raised. This question is irrelvent to the issue I raised and just another example of you deliberately trying to spin and misrepresent what I'm saying.