Glenn brought to my attention that Joseph Wilson has announced he may sue Bush and Cheney because of damage done to the career of his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?
PAD
• 
Plenty of blame to go around–it would be nice if Hollywood could even attempt to get things right, since so much of what passes for scientific knowledge comes from pop culture. An army of creationists could hardly have done more damage to my teaching of evolution than the producers of Waterworld have done.
I’m sorry, you’re blaming the entertainment industry for the ignorance of the people? That’s simply ridiculous. Hollywood has no responsibility whatsoever to educate the masses. That’s why it’s called “entertainment”. Sure, it’s great when movies like Good Night, and Good Luck are made that actually present fact, but that is most definitely not Hollywood’s responsiblity.
You mean dogs can’t really build rocketships and fly to the moon to harvest cheese? Goddam that Hollywood!
Ðámņ you Knuckles! You’ve shattered my entire worldview !!
Tim Lynch: I don’t think that a majority of the public is actually hostile to intelligence and accomplishment.
Luigi Novi: Well, obviously, each of us may be biased by our own observations, Tim, but mine say that society is outright contemptous of intelligence. Much, if not most of public discourse and “common wisdom” that I’ve seen favors internally inconsistent arguments composed of unsupported rhetoric and logical fallacies than ones made of actual substance.
I’m sorry, you’re blaming the entertainment industry for the ignorance of the people? That’s simply ridiculous. Hollywood has no responsibility whatsoever to educate the masses. That’s why it’s called “entertainment”. Sure, it’s great when movies like Good Night, and Good Luck are made that actually present fact, but that is most definitely not Hollywood’s responsiblity.
Nor did I say it was–just that it would be “nice” if they bothered to get the occasional fact straight. It’s not like it’s difficult. It’s just pure laziness on their part. The average science fiction writer and/or comic book writer would probably have their script thrown at them by an editor if they were as careless with the facts as some of the writers of blockbusters are.
But I make no claim that this is something that they must be forced to do. Just, again, it would be nice.
That isn’t accurate, Bill. Here is the entire list of those who voted yes:
Actually, I’m pretty sure that the list you have is for a second vote: one that specifically targeted the “bridge to newhere” in Alaska.n The vote I mentioned was limited to a sculpture park, an animal shelter and a parking lot.
Other than that, right on.
a couple of minor points:
George Washington Carver – was born a slave, and received NO formal education until the age of 12, when he went on his own to attend a black school. there was only one teacher for 75 children in a small room. it is unlikely that his science education in that environment was anything but basic.
Thomas Edison – dropped out of school at age 7, and was home-schooled/self taught by his parents from that point on.
Henry Ford – attended a one-room schoolhouse until leaving at age 16 to become an apprentice at a machinist.
Robert Goddard – it is unclear what his early education was like, but his interest in rocketry was not prompted by any science class, but by entertainment (specifically reading the serialized story of ‘war of the worlds’ when he was 16).
Ben Franklin – had a very small amount of formal education beginning at the age of 8, and somewhere around the ages of 10-12 began an apprenticeship with his brother James, a printer. from that point forward he was self-taught.
Brian Greene – was a child prodigy. could multiply 30-digit numbers by the age of five. by the time he was 12 years old, he was being privately tutored by a columbia university professor because he had surpassed the high-school level.
of every u.s. innovator mentioned here, only sylvester james gates seems to have benefitted in any way from formal science education. all of the others brought up are unique individuals who excelled IN SPITE of formal education.
given the examples listed, perhaps it is BETTER that our schools are going downhill – given the evidence we had more innovators when schooling was limited or non-existent.
and one other note – does anyone else find it ironic that one of the primary topics here is the support of teaching scientific method versus something like ID, when evidence given for things like the state of schools (i.e. supporting athletics over academics, or acadamics over athletics) is almost entirely anecdotal?
Bob Woodington:
“of every u.s. innovator mentioned here, only sylvester james gates seems to have benefitted in any way from formal science education. all of the others brought up are unique individuals who excelled IN SPITE of formal education.”
Hi Bob,
The key to your above statement is ‘of every u.s. innovator mentioned here.’ You listed six people out of what is likely just a bit more. U.S. inovators is not a hobby of mine but I’m guessing that more than six Americans have been innovative. Regardless of education.
Hey, does anyone know what Bill Gates’ formal education was?
Luigi Novi (in response to Tim Lynch):
“Well, obviously, each of us may be biased by our own observations, Tim, but mine say that society is outright contemptous of intelligence.”
I agree with you to a point, Luigi. In my observation there is also the habit of choosing to remain ingorant of something so as to be held blameless after it’s occurance. Of course, that’s observational bias at work again, but I beleive that it has some merrit.
mitch,
a question was raised as to how many u.s. innovators were actually “homegrown” – that many, such as alexander graham bell, were actually from another country originally. to answer that, a list of people was presented. if you would like to provide other examples for us as evidence, feel free, but i am suspecting that there is every possibility that the success of the united states as a leader in invention and innovation has much more to do with individual drive (made possible by the individual freedoms that our country provides) as opposed to the quality of government-provided education…
as for bill gates? he discovered his interest in programming computers at the age of 13, when attending a private school. there is no real indication that it was anything other than his personal interest in computers that spurred him on to success. regardless, bill gates has already been discounted as a true “innovator” earlier in this discussion, which is why i did not mention him…
You made a statement, I showed that it was an exaggeration
Except your example had absolutely nothing to what I was saying or the examples I was using. You made a blatant attempt to equate me with people who mistook the restrictions on federal funding with an all-out ban to paint me as either ignorant or dishonest.
Honestly, I expect such strawman arguments from someone like Jerome, but I expected better from you. I see no point in continuing this dialogue anymore.
Den,
Sorry you feel that way. You are still, however, wrong.
I made no attempt whatsoever to paint you as ignorant as dishonest. If anyone took it that way–as, obviously, you did–let me be very clear; I in no way feel that Den thinks that the limits on stem cell research constitute a ban. Nor did I say he did.
What you said was our current government is about as anti-science as you could possibly imagine. That struck me as silly, since there are at this very moment, governments that are more restrictive. Maybe I should have just left it at that but I responded with:… anyone with any kind of imagination imagine a more repressive science policy. Watch and be amazed! Instead of just saying that the government will not give grants to experiments using new stem cell lines…we ban all experiments in stem cells all together, even in the private sector! See how easy it was?
All I was doing was giving an example of how our government could be MORE restrictive. I had no agenda beyond that. I could have written “How about they just ban the teaching of evolution altogether” and it would have been just as valid (and still have nothing to do with your own opinions).
In re-reading what I wrote though, I wonder if you are thinking that when I wrote Instead of just saying that the government will not give grants to experiments you thought that I was saying that YOU said it…I’m saying that’s what the government says. If that’s the reason for your being upset I get it and I’m sorry for the lack of clarity.
Bill, I see now that you first mistake was equating being anti-science with being restrictive on what kinds of research is conducted. What I was trying to convey is that this administration, through the altering of reports and pushing non-science into the classroom, is that this administration is hostile to very idea of the scientific method. This is consistant with Bush’s personal habit of preferring to go with his gut instinct and personal feelings rather than a logical look at the evidence.
So, with that point of view, maybe you can see why I was so offended by your use of the confusion over the stem cell funding issue, because I felt that you were, by implication equating me with people who were confusing the funding restriction to an outright ban.
I hope that clarifies things.
Truce?
Truce. Let laughter and heavy drinking reign throughout the land!
Meanwhile, the crowd from Planet X lets out a soft cheer.
Luigi,
Saw your other post. My email must not have gotten through to you. The girl I know who has the PAD/Todd debates still has them but can’t find them. When she finds them she’ll let me know.
Sorry, I shoulda checked with her before posting about them to you.
Bobb wrote:
Just to take a moment to get back to Robin S. and freedom…
Yeah, I’m lagging behind, and the conversation’s moved on. I’m too stubborn to just acknowledge that and let it drop, though. It’s a curse.
Can’t say you’re wrong…those acts (Brady Bill, DCMA) are infringments on freedom. My view is they’re justified, and rather limited, and that they serve a goal of protecting OTHER freedoms.
One of my cars doesn’t have a CD player. I refuse to listen to music that glorifies lifestyles that I disagree with (which means I had to abandon country radio when I realized that every other song was either about going out and getting drunk or sleeping around). What freedom is protected by stopping me from buying a Casting Crowns or Jeremy Camp CD and putting it on an MP3 player to listen to on my drive to work?
I’ve owned guns (well, a gun) since I was a kid. Though I’ve been hunting, I’ve never actually been able to shoot an innocent creature that I recall (“Hunting” for me is simply carrying a gun into the woods and getting lost for a few hours). I have never had any desire whatsoever to purchase a gun and use it on another living creature, much less another man. Yet, I do enjoy having the guns and shooting them. If I want to purchase a semi-automatic weapon that looks like the kind of gun I’d see in a movie, what does that hurt? What freedom is protected by not allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase a certain type of weapon?
Your problem with them seems to stem from the fact that they are freedoms that you like to excercise more than I do…I’ve no real desire to acquire a firearm (although I’m thinking about it…expanding your family makes you think more about protecting them) and I’m content with not making digital copies of my CDs.
I’m content not to speak out against the Iraq War, because I think that deposing Hussein and helping the Iraqi people gain more freedom is the right thing to do. However, I support the rights of those people who wish to speak out against the war, and I will gladly stand with them to support their rights against anyone who tries to legally silence them. (On the other hand, in cases like that of Jack Thompson and Penny Arcade, I fully support the rights of Penny Arcade and other gamers to shame him into silence.)
I see your point, and I suspect we’ve reached a place where we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I put as high an importance on private property rights and the right to keep and bear arms (which I consider an extension of my right to life, as it gives me the means to defend myself from those who could physically overpower me (i.e., everyone)) as I do on the right to free speech or the right to peacefully assemble.
However, I do think that trying to force a religious doctrine into schools is fundamentally different than trying to balance competing freedoms.
Exactly what religious doctrine is being forced into the curriculum, and to what ONE religion does it belong?
As I understand it, the idea of forcing ID into the classroom is simply making teachers acknowledge that some people believe that creation is the result of action from an intelligent force. This isn’t religious doctrine (“Some people believe X” is fact, even if X is something unbelievably stupid), nor does it belong to any particular religion, as far as I’m aware.
I agree with you that ID doesn’t belong in the science classroom (A class in culture or comparative religion, on the other hand…), but I don’t see it as an endorsement of one religion over another. Obviously, you disagree, and I respect that. I imagine we’ll have to agree to disagree here, as well.
What do you say we join Bill and Den in calling a truce? It’s the weekend. Laughter and heavy drinking (well, heavy drinking of root beer for me, since I don’t much care for alcohol) sound like fine ideas to me.
As I understand it, the idea of forcing ID into the classroom is simply making teachers acknowledge that some people believe that creation is the result of action from an intelligent force.
Robin, I have no problem with discussing ID in a philosophy, social studies, or comparative religion. What I object to is trying to undermine a fundamental pillar of science by introducing an idea that is not a scientific theory into a science class.
Furthermore, specific to the Dover case, I have already posted quotes from the school board supervisors, including one in which one of them admitted to “gleefully” watching as a mural depicting the descent of man was burned.
Based on these on other actions, I am convinced that the people behind this movement, at least in Dover, view ID is simply the first step towards bringing biblical creationism into the science class and heading this country towards a theocracy.
I cannot abide by that.
I agree Robin, I think we could go back and forth for a good while longer. And I think, given your latest specifics, we’d agree more on those, but with me still favoring some restrictions.
But do enjoy your weekend. I think we drank the last of the root beer in our house, and I’m do for a (medically directed) glass of wine or two this weekend, but nonetheless, enjoy.
Den wrote:
Robin, I have no problem with discussing ID in a philosophy, social studies, or comparative religion. What I object to is trying to undermine a fundamental pillar of science by introducing an idea that is not a scientific theory into a science class.
As long as that’s the complaint, I agree (mostly. I wouldn’t say “fundamental pillar”, since there are very few ideas I think are basic enough to be a fundamental pillar, but that’s mere semantics). I’ve said several times that I think it’s a stupid idea, I think.
I just can’t see it as a major move toward theocracy or bringing creationism (back?) into science classrooms. I understand why you would, and I don’t doubt that there are some who see as their first step toward doing just that. I imagine, though, that most supporters of requiring ID to be taught are less concerned with indoctrinating other students into Christianity than they are with keeping schools from undermining the beliefs they’re trying to teach their kids. Maybe I’m wrong.
At any rate, Den, I’m out of here for the weekend, and I’m sure by the time I get back, there’ll be another fun debate to take part in. Have a great weekend.
(Same to you, too, Bobb, if you read this…)
A lot of us who oppose creationism in all of its forms are opposed even to the mildest teaching of ID in science classes based on the classic “camel sticking his nose under the tent” hypothesis. I’m less concerned than some because, in this case, there just ain’t no camel. The “evidence” for ID is so incredibly thin that I can’t see much time being wasted on it once I say “And then, some people think none of this could happen without the supernatural!” and then do a softshoe for a couple of seconds to give them time to write it down. That’s pretty much all they’ve got.
(Of course, one possible avenue of attack for the creationists would be to say that each one has to get equal time and since there isn’t anything to say about ID then we also have to keep our discussion of evolution equally brief. But that would pretty much be an admission of irrelevance on their part.).
An interesting article here:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051020-092128-7162r.htm
Obviously the writer has an axe to grind so I’ll take some of the facts with a grain of salt but conversations with people working in the biotech industry have yielded similar stories. When we talk about roadblocks to science and progress we can’t forget the cost of unfair litigation. It’s been decades since thalidomide but every drug is treated as though it is cancer in a bottle. Given the fact that probably NO vaccine will ever be 100% safe for everyone, that some unfortunates will die as a result of getting the vaccine, why would any drug company invest in something that might get them sued out of existence? Especially if there are price controls to limit profits and potentially the threat of the government taking over your patent if you stupidly create something that works too well.
Of course, some drug companies have suppressed info on side effects so we can’t just let them have carte blanc…surely there must be a sane medium.
If we can protect gun manufacturers and big mac cooks from frivolous lawsuits how about the folks who will possibly save our bacon from Avian Flu?
(One aside–I’ve been pushing Avian Flu as The Next Big Thing for so long it isn’t funny but I’m hoping some of my fears were overblown–many of the deaths in the 1918 epidemic were due to the lack of antibiotics. While they do nothing to stop the flu itself, apparently many died from secondary bacterial infections, not the actual flu. So I would expect the death rate to be substantially less even if another 1918 killer evolved, at least in this country).
Unfortunately, Bill, the FDA has found itself in a “dámņëd if you do, dámņëd if you don’t” situation for decades now. Either they’re being accused of dragging their feet and keeping vital new breakthroughs out of patient’s hands or they’re not cautious enough and are too quick to approve drugs and food additives that later turn out to have harmful side effects.
Personally, I’d like to find out what the guy who allowed Olestra on the market was smoking.
And as a state health department employee, I can tell you that everyone here is really crossing their finders that we don’t see another pandemic like the one in 1918. The one thing we know for sure is that we don’t nearly have enough antivirals to go around.
I just can’t see it as a major move toward theocracy or bringing creationism (back?) into science classrooms.
Um, what part of “cut and paste ‘intelligent design’ for ‘scientific creationism’, what part of classifying intelligent design textbooks as “scientific creationism” by its PUBLISHERS don’t you get?
“What freedom is protected by stopping me from buying a Casting Crowns or Jeremy Camp CD and putting it on an MP3 player to listen to on my drive to work?”
It’s intellectual property, Robin. As you are a firm believer in property rights, you should understand where they are coming from. Because you are copying something that they made and put out for sale, you are, in essence, denying them the profit they should get on the sale of the digital file. That said, I’m not nearly as hardline on intellectual property rights as I appear, but that’s the basic point (and I find it to be oddly valid).
The one thing we know for sure is that we don’t nearly have enough antivirals to go around.
true, but I’ve also read that some flu strains don’t respond well to tamiflu anyway. My suggestion is that people might think about stocking up on antibiotics. If you’re like me you might have a few bottles of various antibiotics lying around, or a prescription that could be refilled. Do it. If the outbreak occurs and you or a family member gets sick, the antibiotics might stop a risky secondary infection.
(The other good news is that many who died in 1918 may have done so due to latent TB infection–while TB is always lurking around on the edges it isn’t much of a danger to most of us here.).
(And I know that my advice above is not what Those In Charge would call “a good idea”. I know you shouldn’t stockpile medicine and taking antibiotics without a doctors orders is a bad idea and it’s this sort of thing that is helping to make antibiotic resistant diseases…I’m just saying, this is what I’m doing. It’s the best i can do for my family, as far as I know. I’m open to and welcome any other suggestions.)
(You might also want to recreate that Y2K stockpile we all went through in January of 2000. Canned food, can opener, that sort of thing. Fill up the bathtub so you have water to flush the toilet.)
(If there are zombies–and wouldn’t that be GREAT?–you are on your own)
There’s no need to fret over these lily-white, corrupt, evil politicians any longer. It seems that this gentleman has come up with a solution to all of our problems:
http://featuringdave.com/logicalmeme/?p=2064
“And we have to start thinking about a solution to the problem. So that these young sisters and brothers are here now, who are 15 16 17 are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.
“Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem. I know it because they have retina scans, racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the ONE person from coming up with the ONE idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve the problem. Now I don’t care whether you clap or not but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not get diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.”
Uh-oh…does this mean my wife will have to start sleeping a locked room so she doesn’t exterminate me while I sleep?
I don’t have time for any lengthy responses at the moment, but there’s one thing I’d like to correct:
Luigi, when you quoted me about society not being actively hostile towards intelligence, you weren’t actually quoting me — ’twas Bill’s response to me that you were quoting from. I see American society as quite hostile towards intelligence much of the time, and at least two of my posts went into that in some detail.
Just in the interests of accuracy, that’s all. 🙂
TWL
Oh THANKS Tim, sic Luigi on me! The man is relentless! 🙂
Bob– yeah, that guy’s an idiot. Insane, actually. I’m embarrassed to say he actually taught classes at NC State fairly recently. Imagine being a white kid (or a sane kid of any race) in THAT class!
My internet-free weekend isn’t getting off to a good start.
I wrote:
“What freedom is protected by stopping me from buying a Casting Crowns or Jeremy Camp CD and putting it on an MP3 player to listen to on my drive to work?”
Knuckles responded:
It’s intellectual property, Robin. As you are a firm believer in property rights, you should understand where they are coming from. Because you are copying something that they made and put out for sale, you are, in essence, denying them the profit they should get on the sale of the digital file. That said, I’m not nearly as hardline on intellectual property rights as I appear, but that’s the basic point (and I find it to be oddly valid).
How would that be preventing them from making a sale? If I could buy the songs digitally (and if downloading on dialup didn’t make it faster to walk the thirty miles to a music store to buy the CD), I’d do that instead of buying a CD, not in addition to. For the most part, I don’t use CDs after the original “rip”.
Ethically, I believe that intellectual property only applies to the fact that it is wrong of me to copy something designed/written/performed by someone else and distribute it to other people without their permission (whether for sale or for free) while keeping a copy for myself (I’m permitted to sell a CD I bought, but not keep a copy). I believe this is also true legally (under the idea of “Fair Use”), but I’m not a lawyer, and could be wrong.
I have no intention of sharing music beyond forcing my friends to listen to the stuff I like when they ride with me. As such, I despise being treated like a criminal.
It’s been decades since thalidomide
I’d never heard of this drug before, but it instantly piqued my interest because my father was born with severe birth defects to his hands and feet. Although, he was born in ’52, so apparently his defects were caused by something else (my mother told me what it was last month, but I can’t recall it now; based on what articles say, it wasn’t thalidomide).
So I would expect the death rate to be substantially less even if another 1918 killer evolved, at least in this country.
While that’s a possibility, I would say it’s not guaranteed.
If there’s one problem the world at large is facing, it’s that antibiotics are become less and less effective because they are too easily prescribed by doctors.
I also think the world at large is going to have to face a real moral problem if the bird flu does become the next pandemic.
And that is: with what little anti-viral supplies we have, who gets them?
If the pandemic is as bad as feared, the baby-boomers and older, and children, are going to be hit hardest, as these groups are always the most vulnerable. But I’m trying to find some data on those infected in Asia to see if this is something that’s killing healthy, younger adults as well. (An interesting bit I found shows the first bird flu stats going back to Scotland in 1959, and it’s the same strain we’re worried about now, H5N1.)
Interestingly, some accounts of the 1918 pandemic I’ve read stated that it was actually people in the prime of life who were hit hardest. That suggests to me some kind of autoimmune reaction–babies and old people have weaker immune systems which, in this case, might actually help.
Thalidomide is STILL one of the best anti-nausea medicines ever invented but it is almost impossible to get, even for cancer patients, due to its terrible reputation. No company wants to take the risk of making it and having some pregnant woman accidentally get a hold of it.
Robin: I’m telling you what the argument is. In essence, just because you are limiting yourself to copying it for yourself only, that doesn’t mean that everyone else that is ripping copies of the same content is doing. I don’t disagree with you (on this issue, anyway), I’m just sharing the argument that the record companies make (and Metallica, for that matter).
Oh THANKS Tim, sic Luigi on me! The man is relentless! 🙂
Hey, I’m happy to take the heat when it’s for something I’m actually professing. 🙂
TWL
Knuckles wrote:
In essence, just because you are limiting yourself to copying it for yourself only, that doesn’t mean that everyone else that is ripping copies of the same content is doing.
See, I just never understood why that means I shouldn’t be allowed to do what I’m doing. In a lot of ways, the logic between gun control and the legal reinforcement of anti-copying devices is the same. Because some people misuse technology, we punish all of them, which is just ludicrous to my mind. It’s like banning cameras because some people take nude pictures of kids.
So your argument would then be that we shouldn’t take any precautions whatsoever? Doesn’t seem to be quite right to me either. And, much like gun control, there ought to be a middle ground.
I’ve never understood people getting wigged out about having to wait three to five days to buy a gun. I mean, hëll, it takes you over a month to buy a house. It should take you a few days to buy a car. I don’t understand why it’s so all-fired important for you to have the right to go out and buy an assault weapon with no background check. I don’t think you should be able to buy a car without a background check. Sure, you’re a responsible gun owner. What is unreasonable about asking you to wait a day or two before you get it? How does that infringe on your freedom?
I don’t want to ban guns by any stretch of the imagination. But does EVERY gun ever made have to be available for purchase to every citizen in the US? My answer to that question is “No, they do not”.
Let’s put this a different way: you need to be eighteen in most states to buy cigarettes. You need to be 21 to drink. But hey, I’m a 16 year old, and I KNOW that I’m going to drink responsibly. It’s not my fault there’s a bunch of drunken šhìŧhëádš making life miserable for you the store owner. So why don’t you just sell me that six pack? Is that line of reasoning going to fly? I don’t think so.
It’s late, and I’m tired. I hope this makes some sort of idiot savant type of sense. I’m definitely an excellent driver.
So your argument would then be that we shouldn’t take any precautions whatsoever? Doesn’t seem to be quite right to me either. And, much like gun control, there ought to be a middle ground.
I’ve never understood people getting wigged out about having to wait three to five days to buy a gun. I mean, hëll, it takes you over a month to buy a house. It should take you a few days to buy a car. I don’t understand why it’s so all-fired important for you to have the right to go out and buy an assault weapon with no background check. I don’t think you should be able to buy a car without a background check. Sure, you’re a responsible gun owner. What is unreasonable about asking you to wait a day or two before you get it? How does that infringe on your freedom?
I don’t want to ban guns by any stretch of the imagination. But does EVERY gun ever made have to be available for purchase to every citizen in the US? My answer to that question is “No, they do not”.
Let’s put this a different way: you need to be eighteen in most states to buy cigarettes. You need to be 21 to drink. But hey, I’m a 16 year old, and I KNOW that I’m going to drink responsibly. It’s not my fault there’s a bunch of drunken šhìŧhëádš making life miserable for you the store owner. So why don’t you just sell me that six pack? Is that line of reasoning going to fly? I don’t think so.
It’s late, and I’m tired. I hope this makes some sort of idiot savant type of sense. I’m definitely an excellent driver.
Robin, it’s not so much like banning cameras because some people take nude pictures of kids. It’s like banning cameras because a few people take lots and lots and lots of exploitive pictures of lots and lots and lots of kids, so much so that just the existance of cameras puts kind in danger.
I’m not saying that the CD copyright issue is like that in reality, but that’s the argument that record companies have made and sold to congress.
My preference would be to force the record companies to protect themselves. CD technology has been around for close to 20 years, and in most of that time, record companies have spent almost no effort to develop a means to protect their product. It was only a matter of time before someone managed to copy the digital code and make it easily trasnferable. And there’s an obvious market for legal personal copies.
Bill: Totally off-topic, but this reminded me of you and your hero worship (that’s not intended to be derogatory, no matter how it reads) of Ronald Reagan: Pearls Before Swine. I thought this was dámņ funny. Hope you do as well.
And here’s one right back at you. I stumbled across this last night looking for some bad ideas for halloween cosrumes. maybe it was the latness of the hour but I laughed so hard I had tears coming out of my eyes.
http://www.vgg.com/tp/tp_103100_costumes.html
Three things bouncing around the vast wasteland that is my melon–
1. In my sophomore year of high school, I had a VERY Christian teacher for biology. He showed us all the facts, taught us how to make alcohol, and explained all the science. Every once in a while, though, when he was asked where it all came from, he would say that no one really KNOWS, but it made sense to him that there is a Creator. The fact that he was able to teach outside the stuff in the book vastly increased my ewspect for him.
2. Part of the problem with looking for innovations from the US (or anywhere else) is the over-sophistication of most of the science that’s out there. So much has been done that it’s a lot harder for, say, the average patent clerk to really make anything new that is completely original. Most things that come out are just new ways of doing old things. For example, VCRs were identified above as being an American development, but had the Nazis not developed good magnetic tape, it wouldn’t have happened.
3. I’m sure it’s happened before and I was just too self involved to notice, has there ever been a President who more accuratley depicts Douglas Adams’ definition of the job than Bush?
Rat, allowing teachers to introduce elements “off plan” in response to questions is the sign of a good teacher.
Forcing teachers to inject questionable quasi-religious beliefs into the classroom is an abuse of administrative power.
Your biology teacher’s approach is, I think, what most people can accept. He’s giving his opinion, and stating is as such.
“I’ve never understood people getting wigged out about having to wait three to five days to buy a gun.”
Because I’m mad NOW.
Truthfully, Thom, that’s something else I’ll never understand. I get mad plenty, and never once have I wished “If I only had a gun…” (I have, on the other hand, wished that I could shoot lasers from my eyes, but I don’t know if that’s quite the same).
“I’ve never understood people getting wigged out about having to wait three to five days to buy a gun.”
I’ll join that sentiment. Although I understand that any restriction to access opens the door to further restriction to access, I’m fairly confident that are legal jurisprudence has recognized that a restriction that effectively serves to prevent something can only be allowed if the authority to prevent that activity also exists.
And Knuckles, your comment does lend support to the expression in the firs X-Men movie that mutant powers might need to be regulated or registered. If we ever do evolve in that spectacular fashion (and I’m torn between wanting Cyclops’ or Colossus’ powers) it would be very interesting to see how much life would imitate art.
I have a super power, but I refuse to register it.
I was just channeling Homer Simpson. 🙂
“FIVE DAYS?! BUT I’M MAD NOW!”
Personally, I agree. I don’t see the big deal about a waiting period.
I’m slipping behind again, but I’d just like to say that I don’t entirely mind the idea of a waiting period, provided that we make an exception for those who’re obviously in danger (people who’ve received threats, or who’ve had to get a restraining order). It would be an annoyance to me if I went to a gun shop to buy a pistol and then had to come back a week later to pick it up, but I can accept annoyances. I’d rather such things were left up to the gun’s sellers, but I concede that they’re a minor restriction that does have a sound reason behind it. On the other hand, I don’t care at all for the idea of anything other than a very basic “background check”. The absolute maximum for a background check, in my opinion, should be two questions:
1.) Is this person currently a fugitive from the law?
2.) Is this person currently serving probation?
(I’m not entirely sold on the second one, honestly.)
I’m also extremely opposed to registration, which I can’t see as anything but a precursor to confiscation.
Off on a complete tangent:
I have been in a situation where I thought to myself, “If I only had a gun…”, though not because I was considering shooting another person. My neighbor owns a Rottweiler that, until last year, he kept unchained. The dog had acted aggressively toward my grandfather several times as he attempted to work with his cattle, even once biting into my grandfather’s steel-toed boot as he rode his four-wheeler through the field. My sister owned a thirteen-year-old Boston Terrier who could barely get around anymore.
My dad was leading our horses (with my sister and our cousin riding them) from his home to my grandfather’s, and the Boston (named Lacey) was following at his heels when the Rottweiler ran out to the road and attacked her. Dad, trying to keep the horses from panicking and throwing the girls, could do little more than stand back and watch as the Rottweiler mauled Lacey. She died as he drove her to the vet.
The Rottweiler’s owner insisted that his dog was an angel, and that we couldn’t prove that he’d killed Lacey. The police and the county dogcatcher both refused to do anything. Eventually, under the threat of a lawsuit, the Rott’s owner agreed to get rid of him. He then proceeded to cage the animal behind his house where we couldn’t see it for a few months before setting it loose again, having assumed (rightly) that we’d be reluctant to do anything after so much time had passed.
The first time I saw the dog after it killed Lacey was when it came streaking out from behind my neighbor’s house, barking angrily, and slammed itself at a full run into the side of my car. My first response (understandably, I think), was “If I only had a gun…”
The dog is tied up now, mostly due to the fact that the owner knows that both my dad and grandfather have started carrying guns when walking (or, in my grandfather’s case, riding his ATV) on that stretch of road.
When you say opposed to registration, what do you mean?
I mean that I can’t think of a single valid reason why it’s any of the government’s business if I own guns, or how many I own.
But it’s their business to know how many cars you own, or how many houses you own? I fail to see the difference.