I would welcome some current and active wikipedia information on legislation. It would certainly help raise awareness a little as well as increase access to UNDERSTANDABLE translations for those of us who are watch-dogging our elected officials. It has the added benefit of allowing alternative voices and requests for citations(BS calling). Could any open and truly democratic civilization strive to have any more of a meaningful tool than one that allows an inclusive discussion open to EVERYONE on current legislation? The fathers of democracy could only have dreamed of the potential such a system has. Look at wikipedia's success. It is a perfect example of democracy in action and is not draining tax dollars.
Granted, we have THOMAS but it is a pathetic piece of garbage that you just know is hiding divide by zero SQL errors behind the lame GUI.
The finger mouse was done in the 1990s and was a terrible flop. I had one and it was the worst $30 I ever spent on a peripheral. Hope the new one is better but looks to be built around the same ideas as the old. Wonder if they worked out the "nose scratch" problem. Anywho, appreciated the film relic. Thanks for posting.
I agree. I have supported GWF and now am totally unsure whether I will in the future. What is his salary from the GWF anyway? How much of my money ended up funding his 10K MPH jet (full of sharks with lasers on their heads)?
In Mr. Matherne's defense, he could just be feeling the effects of toxic gasses released by fracking in the 11,000-feet-deep Haynesville Shale deposits. Maybe?
Forgive my ignorance of legal matters, but I have wondered many times if an average joe such as myself (not the infamous AJ from TD) can do anything to contact courts and judges to input opinion and facts so that judges can make informed decisions. Anyone got suggestions on where to start reading? I'd like to avoid being laden by a lifetime of debt to get this answer via university law degree.
"Freedom Fighters" Think about what those words mean when put next to each other. I find it interesting and more than a huge blunder on their part to characterize their detractors as "Freedom Fighters". When I hear those words, I think of the French resistance in WWII or the great and noble William Wallace rather than a bunch of "I want everything for free" pirates; which is how they would have everyone think of downloaders, open source software users, the likes of SOPA/PIPA or Occupy protesters and anyone else who isn't ready to play the MONETIZE THE HUMAN RACE game.
But I digress, and tip my hat to you SMAIS. Even in your blunder you've managed to point out a very real truth. A pair of words that most won't say because the term has been trivialized by the lamestream media, and never use when talking about themselves, even when it is true (talking to you Aaron RIP). My hats off to the people of Iceland. Once again proving what a cool place Iceland is.
The last thing I bought from Electronic Arts was for the Sega Genesis. Must've been 18 years ago. I was shocked to hear that they were still around. Doesn't sound like they will for much longer, though.
And now he is gone. Bullied to death by a fascist AG and an institution of higher learning (lost all respect for MIT). Funny how Rupert Murdoch hasn't spent a day behind bars for his technology breaches which were of PRIVATE information rather than public information like the stuff in JSTOR which is comprised of content originally meant for public and institutional libraries. Much of the research documented in the journals at JSTOR was publicly funded as well. Guess that access to JUSTICE and INFORMATION truly are only for the wealthy and well connected.
We have lost a great mind today. I am very sad. R.I.P. Aaron Swartz
I took the time to read everything you wrote. I think many here are having an issue with what you consider "valid" to mean. Laws regarding the length of a woman's skirt were written to keep men "moral". Thoughts being that they would be "led into temptation" and harm might come to their immortal soul. That position had enough "validity" with enough people get it onto the law books.
To any law enforcement officer, if you ask, "valid" means if it is still on the books, it is still the law. Hypot: Is the officer then, seeing a woman in short pants, violating the law by not citing the woman? Is that a benign violation?
There are some seriously outdated and socially irrelevant laws on the books. There are also some very badly written and just plain bad laws. Violations of those laws ARE benign and trivial. For instance, in some places, there is still a law on the books that prohibits women from wearing short pants. Yes, this is here in the U.S.A. The problem is that laws are made to reflect social and moral beliefs that are different from one person, region, and time period to the next. Since many of these laws are written by religious zealots or those with a monetary interest; progress, advances in knowledge, and logic do not come into play when repealing or rewriting them. What we're left with is a hodgepodge of secular and religious legalisms that are antithetical to reality.
What if lowering the tax rate and simplifying the tax code were to reduce tax fraud and raise revenues? Would you be asking for more IRS workers to conduct more tax audits? What if building sidewalks overpasses or underground streets in school zones reduced car accidents? Would you still be advocating 15mph speed zones? What if legalizing drugs and providing addiction recovery help and other self help systems for drug addicts reduced the amount of drug users and/or drug related crime? Would you still be crying for longer jail terms?
Common sense. This kind of discourse is why I return to TD time and time again. Hope everyone, even AJ and OOTB, has a peaceful and blessed new year.
is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
Our teachers and school staff should be armed and trained to use said arms. If the NRA wants to make a point, let it be that we cannot stop the results of one infraction on the Bill of Rights (Gun Free Zones) by creating another infraction on the Bill of Rights. Newton was as bad as it was because teachers can't carry arms, not because there are too many arms.
As to the NRA and this weak diversionary tactic, I would point out again that creating laws that infringe on the First Amendment is just as bad a solution (and illegal) as one that infringes on the Second. There are no "lesser" or less important rights in that bill.
The founders did not intend for Our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be optional, subject to narrow or restricted interpretation, or subject to change. They were written and written vaguely intentionally with broad meanings to keep government from doing exactly the kinds of things they are doing with Speech (“Anti-Protest” Bill H.R. 347) and now are going to try to do with our arms.