Pangloss

I appreciate that. I've no idea, but if they're not being informed of that option then it's wrong, for the same reason that it's wrong to have school-lead prayer in the classroom. I don't follow this. Surely they can have whatever reason they like for not saying the Pledge? I guess I'm not understanding your point here. Why would they have to exit the classroom? I've heard people recite the pledge while leaving out the word god. I've seen people stand there any not say anything. I don't think it means anything more than when a medal winner doesn't mouth the words to the national anthem on TV at the Olympics (which I always thought looked kinda stupid anyway). I don't know anyone who has told me that they hate Jehova's Witnesses, but it's always been my general impression from the media that the primary cause for people's disparagement of them was the fact that they proselytize door-to-door, which annoys people. Although to be honest I haven't seen that happen in years, and the last preacher I had at my door was, I believe, a Mormon. Go figure. But I don't mean to disparage your concern -- if people hate them just because they won't recite the pledge then they shouldn't do that. There are lots of things that people hate others for -- banning all of them strikes me as going overboard. Wouldn't it make more sense for people to stop hating others over nonsense? And maybe more to the point, won't they just find some other reason to hate the Witnesses? The left can't legislate morality any more than the right can. Interesting post.

Fascinating news out of Redmond today -- apparently Windows Phone 7 will NOT support user application multitasking. It will be limited in basically the same way as the iPhone OS. I've been telling students and friends for over a year now that the fact that Apple limits this in the iPhone OS is a GOOD thing. General reactions have ranged from tolerant nods to outright scoffing, but I've maintained that the theory is sound from an HCI perspective, from a safety perspective, and even from a "common sense" perspective. So I'm feeling a little vindicated to see this news from Microsoft, because apparently they agree. Ironically, the rumor mill has it that iPhone OS 4.0 will include multitasking. (lol) http://www.examiner.com/x-39728-San-Jose-Technology-Examiner~y2010m3d16-Windows-Phone-7-Series-limited-multitasking-no-memory-card-support

Well I admit this is a good point. And I respect the general thrust of your argument in this thread. It's certainly true that what's important to one person is not necessarily the same as what's important to another, and I guess that's both a strength and a weakness in our democracy. It seem to me that part of the problem here is perception -- people feeling cast out because they're surrounded by a group that shares a common value that they're not included on, and they have to listen to them express that common value over and over. That perception may not be entirely real, and it may be missing an important point -- the people surrounding them may not be "trying to convert them". They may simply be expressing themselves freely. So for example let's take a football game in which some of the players are firm believers in an organized religion. To those players, it would seem perfectly normal, and even preferable, to share a common prayer before the game. But that isn't necessarily an example of proselytizing. Part of their religion simply resides in the area of a shared experience -- it's a component in their faith. In this case stopping the officially-lead prayer (but allowing players to group together before the game off to one side, etc) seems like a reasonable compromise, and it is probably the best course of action, because it removes the official aspect of the religious expression and still allows them to continue their shared expression of faith in a manner that's less insulting to non-believers. But it is a reduction -- it's a less powerful event having been taken off the loudspeakers, etc. In the same sense many other liberalizing changes to society have had similar effects. They seem to the left as necessary to level the playing field, and they may well be so. But as with the leveling of any data set, removing lows also means removing highs. This is why I mentioned the example earlier about how politically correct my campus has become. It's become BORING and MUNDANE, because those in charge are so afraid that someone might be offended. That's not to say that many of the restrictions aren't perfectly reasonable and necessary -- obviously you don't want people getting physically hurt, and everybody hates white supremacists, so surely we can leave them out. But why must we also be reduced to mediocrity and boredom? Why can we only get the Dalai Lama as a speaker, but not neo-con founder Richard Perl? Why can we get Nelson Mendala, but not Rush Limbaugh? But hey, perhaps we agree on that, just not that it applies to this case. As I said, I respect your opinion on this and having read this thread I think I understand it better now. It does seem to me that you have a valid point.

On this past Friday morning the American Enterprise Institute held a panel discussion on the history of the filibuster, and it was broadcast on C-SPAN, who has put it on their web site here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/220941 Much of the discussion looks at the existence of evidence that supports various preconceived notions about the filibuster. Perhaps the most interesting part of the discussion is a look at the history of reconciliation featuring former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove, who was present at or presided over many of the events related to its history. (He considers it a monster that has been misused by both parties.) Runs about 90 minutes, and well worth a look.

Normally they're just assumed to be accurate, but it seems to come up from time to time when questions arise that challenge their authenticity. My father was born in the Philippines to an American family. He has a birth certificate, but the original record of authority was lost when the Japanese invaded that country in WW2. So when he happened over the course of 60+ years of living to lose his own copy, and wanted to travel outside of the country, this became a bit of a paperwork nightmare (eventually resolved, though I'm not sure how -- some sort of affidavit from family members, perhaps?). I'm sure this is a fairly common problem -- hospitals burn down all the time; local governments lose records (especially small towns/counties with limited budgets). And there was of course the one-cycle story over Barrack Obama's birth certificate back during the election (which is still a common meme with the far right, alas). For these reasons a national storage of the authoritative record does make practical sense. Of course, that creates a single point of failure! But you can put some money into it and make sure that it has adequate backup, etc, and that takes most of the uncertainty out of the problem.

Over in another thread it was suggested that "the year of our lord" (AD) is no longer really appropriate to the kind of age that we live in today. If you were given the privilege of restarting the calendar beginning from a key date in history, what AD year would you begin it with, and why? Just by way of example, I'll say that I might begin renumbering from 1546, the year of Tycho Brahe's birth, because of his contributions to astronomy and promoting accuracy in the scientific process of visual observation and data recording. What date might you choose?

Exactly! Well-put. Interesting point. Although I actually think it would be kinda fun to consider a new date structure; one that perhaps reflects the new age of science and technology that we live in. But I don't suppose the idea would be very popular. I think I'll start a thread on that.

Sure sure, when it's conservatives who find support on an issue then they're being mislead by demagogues, but when it's liberals who find support on an issue then they're "finally having a voice". (shrug) Okay, it was important to some people. Many things are important to people that the majority doesn't always agree with. That doesn't mean they're being harmed. Just because something matters to you, iNow, doesn't mean that something needs to be done about it.

No, I would have disagreed with inserting it into the pledge. But it was a democratic process and the courts have ruled it okay, so I advocate moving on to more important matters. What about the advocacy and ideology on the other side? You're mistaken to think that there's only one ideological group playing politics with this issue. For decades nobody gave a rat's patootie about that word in the Pledge. Then some liberal advocacy group decided to make it an issue. They decided that it was a good time for the political agenda to tackle that issue, and convinced enough people to go along and make it so. You know, kinda like what Rush Limbaugh does every day. Now you may feel that Rush's issues are poor and yours are grand, but I don't buy that one advocacy group's preference is religious/political and the other's is pure reason. My response to "two can play at that game" is "fine, you two play". And you don't think that opinion is coloring your perception of this issue just a little bit? Interesting. I can't speak for your neighborhood, but that certainly wouldn't be the case in mine, and I don't believe that the police reaction in most cities would be any different from if you went house to house promoting Christianity or any other religion. The decision to put you in the back of the patrol car would be based on how much of a pest you're being, not which religion you're promoting. If it is like that in your neighborhood then I feel for you and recommend you consider moving.

I disagree, and what you're saying is not consistent with recent experiences I've had in witnessing primary school activities and Scouting events. Certainly, though, I believe you if you say that you've seen that happen, and I think it's wrong and should be addressed by your appropriate local event leaders. I certainly wouldn't run an event in which people behaved that way, and I hope you get that worked out. This happens, I agree, but I think it would happen even if the word "god" was removed from the Pledge. I'm no fan of mass appeal or emotional reactions, but people ultimately have to decide whether their leaders are the correct ones. Those choices have to be based on the decisions they witness their leaders making. What's the alternative, Moontanman? I'll agree with you if you say "just stop having people recite the pledge before official events" -- I think it's silly and pointless anyway. Sworn leaders have an oath of office they have to take, why go through the show of a Pledge too? I agree. And they notice what issues their parents obsess on, too.

Or they just don't subscribe to your interpretation of how that word should apply to a democratic government. Secular presence in government does not automatically denote or require lack of religion in any and all all aspects of government, therefore it's not hypocritical to have a secular government in which official documents carry the occasional footprint of one religion or another. I'm sure some will. I'm offended by a lot of what my government does. But as the court pointed out, they're not required to speak the words. How offended can they really be? And maybe more to the point, who cares? If you ask me we spend way too much time these days figuring out who's offended and then going out of our way to address their concerns. Campus functions at the major university where I'm a graduate student are so politically correct that they're tame beyond belief. No partying or gaming or unapproved recreation. Student groups that run the gamut from gay outreach groups to "Women Against Wife-Beaters". Guests that range from Nelson Mendala to the Dalai Lama. I think if someone were to be caught watching a hentai on an iPod half the campus would faint dead away. Anyway, that's how I see the fight against "god" in the Pledge -- PC run amok. Just my two bits, of course. The pledge is optional. Nobody is trying to make you acknowledge their god. Now if the religious right were to somehow get mandatory prayer back in public schools, then I would absolutely object. But this? Nah.

That ruling allows the federal government to attach conditions to federal dollars. It undermines your claim. In fact it doesn't even say "federal funding is okay but not for the purpose of 'general welfare'". In fact it says exactly the opposite -- it says that federal funding MUST support the general welfare. It then goes on to explain exactly why the law doesn't run afoul of the 10th amendment: This is from the Wikipedia, but it's a well-sourced article, so feel free to chase the links down if you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_dakota_v_dole

So where's the problem? They got their money, they kept their "freedom", and if they want to ignore the fact that highway deaths are the lowest they've been since 1954 well, hey, more power to them, right? Just not seeing a usurpation of state's rights here, either on "coercion" or anything else.

Senators Lindsay Graham (Republican) and Chuck Schumer (Democrat) met with President Obama on Thursday to discuss a plan to overhaul immigration based around three points: - Tougher border security - New temporary immigrant workers program - Biometric Social Security card - Path to citizenship for current illegal residents Sound thinking, IMO. What do you think? http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-immigration12-2010mar12,0,5784564.story?track=rss

The oft-lamented-as-liberal 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco has done an about-face and upheld the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/12brfs-PLEDGEOFALLE_BRF.html Of further note: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/03/court-oks-pledge-of-allegiance-use-of-god-on-money-as-constitutional/1 I agree with this decision. IMO the common expression of religious beliefs is not a violation of the establishment clause. What do you think?

I don't see any basis for this in any of the sources you've cited. You've not indicated a constitutional clause, law, supreme court decision or even a statement by the framers that says that the federal government cannot give money to a state government with conditions attached. I don't know about "never again", but I agree with this in general. It's a real problem, made more so by the fact that we don't seem to be very good at solving this kind of problem. We never have before -- it's always seemed to me that the Clinton administration stumbled into it thanks to unexpected income often connected to the dot-com bubble, rather than any sort of financial or budgetary wizardry. I know some disagree on this point, of course.

Passing a law is not an act of coercion. Amending the constitution is not an act of coercion. Giving the states money and then telling them to do something specific (or lose the money) is not an act of coercion (that's a semantic and I understand Mr Skeptic's point, but it's their money and the Constitution does not address that issue; as Skeptic points out they can choose not to accept it). And in the end it's pretty much moot because regardless of what the state does or doesn't want, the final arbiter is the federal. This is as intended, and was firmly established by the civil war. Let's face it -- if the federal government decides that all grass needs to be green, and the supreme court decides that that's constitutional, Kentucky cannot make theirs blue. That's pretty much all there is to it. And you're just not going to get another civil war to fight that one out. You may think you have a popular movement behind you, but it's going to evaporate the moment the budget is balanced. What they're really demanding is a restoration of sane BALANCE. Not a switch from one extreme to another. I didn't say that. Maybe so. So let's not make things worse by telling them that they live in a pure-free-market society when they never have, were never intended to, and never will. I agree. But that's a reason to balance the budget, not eliminate services. You're leveraging a financial need to attack an unrelated ideological desire. But hey, you can fool some of the people some of the time. Any time, man.

And it did this correctly -- in a manner not only allowed but explicitly encouraged by the Constitution. Strict constructionism is not a logical basis for objections to safety regulations. Furthermore, in my opinion what fuels these kinds of constitutionality arguments is a frustration with the inability to convince large groups to agree with one's moral/ethical viewpoints. Instead of being prey to people's ignorance, they leverage it. Rush Limbaugh uses "reason" like this all the time, and in my opinion it's something that normal people like you and I should run away from, not pass along.

I've never quite understood why filters haven't been very popular in the desktop computing world. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that over they would require regular maintenance (removing built-up dust) and of course raise the cost of the computer. So in a sense we're all paying for the fact that computers have become a lowest-common-denominator-of-intelligence product. But they do have them, and if you google "computer air filters" you'll see a bunch of products. From what I've seen they're not really good for high-performance computers -- a high-end gaming PC would need to increase its airflow to offset the reduction from the filter. And you'd have to be very aware that it would gradually reduce further over time (until you clean it). Mechanical and chemical engineers have plenty of designs for high-flow-rate filtering techniques that are used in power generation and industrial facilities for tower packing, mist elimination, particle collection and so forth. They also have some pretty good ideas for cleaning (i.e. automated systems that do it for you). It seems to me that an enterprising person could take one or two of those ideas and make a nice product that doesn't greatly impede airflow and keeps itself clean. Probably not a huge idea, but a lot of folks build their own boxes and they love stuff like that.

Here are a couple of good places to start for more in-depth information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_information_technology_topics I'd dive into those and then of course feel free to ask questions.

I couldn't agree more, and I wouldn't be surprised if most folks here agree with you on this point as well. Of course. And as far as I know there aren't any laws on the books that were "done incorrectly" or don't "hold to the procedures available", or were put in place by "coercion" or "force". (Wasn't that your point? Or am I misremembering something from another thread?) Yes, but (IMO) they make them on an issue-by-issue basis. Not on the basis of the kind of over-arching ideological basis that partisans would like for them to make their decisions on. One of the unspoken but ever-present foundations of Rush Limbaugh's program is this sort of seething anger at the behavior of the American people. Things just aren't "the way they ought to be", because the little peons just won't do what they're told! It's quite amusing, really.

There was a report on ABC News the other day in which the reporter spent considerable time challenging Republican congresscritters on the subject of why there was "insufficient regulation" for forcing the drug companies to stop making drugs "whose names all sound alike". Then he actually went into a bit about how WalMart has addressed this by coming up with new pill bottle designs and procedures based on a suggestion from a customer. But rather than take that as a sign that maybe regulation might not be necessary to fix this problem, what was his next step? He went back to Congress to ask why the FDA couldn't make that a regulation! I'm no libertarian -- I believe in regulation. But I just had to shake my head over that one.

Nope, but as iNow said above, it's not a pure capitalist society either. It's a mix, it always has been a mix, and it should remain a mix, IMO. That's not what your article quote says: That's a very different thing from saying that they believe that the US is a socialist nation. And the author of this opinion piece does not cite a source for this "report" so we have no way to know what these people were actually asked. That may even be true, but it has nothing to do with the percentage of the US population that would support one law versus another. Your problem (and your frustration) stems from the fact that the American people aren't willing to accept blanket condemnations of All Things Left/Right of Center. The world is not black and white. It is gray. And in spite of all your efforts to change this (and the efforts of all other partisans, left or right), most Americans still make their decisions at an issue-by-issue level. Not an ideological level.

Well that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, but it does seem to be in direct contradiction to the point iNow made, and I don't understand why a question of "style" comes into play. Either the constitution allows a thing or it does not. The founders were clearly aware of this and were clearly not looking to establish a pure democracy. Your representation of "force" or "coercion" for the establishment of social laws seems to contradict their actual democratic origins.

Okay. Well you're welcome to think what you like, but personally I can't agree with the categorization of "emergency" for an extension of benefits to people who are not disabled or dealing with an immediate disaster. Recipients should nod and say "thank you", not "hurry up and serve me". And if they have to wait a couple of extra days then they should nod and say "thank you, I'll be happy to wait a little longer for this benefit, which is much appreciated", not "OH MY GOD YOU ARE KILLING MY CHILDREN WITH YOUR EVIL AND UNCARING HEART." Not that anyone here was saying that, of course, and I'm sure most unemployment recipients do their best to adapt as fast as they can. I realize that the benefit ran out for everyone (former federal employees, I gather), not just those who'd been sitting on their derrieres for the requisite 18 months before opening the Want Ads. There have probably been bigger service interruptions due to malfunctioning equipment than due to Jim Bunning and his counter-productive podium-pounding.