Mickey

You must be one of those Christ hating pagans I hear so much about who won't allow God in school. I'll pray for you. Seriously, why do so many insist on seeing evolution as such a threat to their faith that they have to demand equal time in a science class? *sigh*

I hope lots and lots of school districts teach this, just not my kids. That should thin out the competition when comes to college and grad school admissions. Here is some info on what is going on in one schoold district in Pennsylvania: Creationism mandated by school district

"Getting thrown out of court on a technicality" is also one of those things that happens a lot more on TV than in real life. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that evidence can't be excluded simply because it was obtained through a warrant that was subsequently found to be invalid. Police are entitled to rely on an otherwise validly issued warrant. The exclusionary rule is really more a creature of state law and it has fallen into disfavor. I am not a criminal lawyer so I can't say for sure but I would think that most terrorists would be up on federal charges so evidence being excluded because the warrant was questionable is not very likely. No matter what system I propose, you'll still be able to conjure up a situation it wouldn't cover. The answer then would be to have no system at all and rely entirely on the investigators to police themselves. I don't believe that is what anyone wants, the dangers to liberty would be just too great. I think a very good system could be set up to handle these issues, not perfect mind you but very, very good.

I think the question is "Who decides whose email can be intercepted?" There is no right to privacy or to be free from searches and seizures that can't be breached under the right circumstances. Was there some reason a warrant could not be issued in the example you give which I assume is a real life one? Getting a warrant can be done quickly and easily. Expedited proceedings and whatnot can be provided for emergencies. The issue has usally been that the investigators should not be the ones to decide whether a search is justified. That would be a chicken guarding the henhouse situation. Of course, in every situation the investigator would conclude that it was warranted. He wouldn't be going after the guy if he didn't right? That is why you have some sort of neutral magistrate to decide that issue. In this age, you could have a digital warrant within minutes if not sooner. Nobody denies that the e-mail should be intercepted, the question is who makes the decision and how. Magistrates almost always, despite what you see on Law and Order, rely on the judgment of the police when it comes to issuing a warrant. Can you imagine the stones it would take for a local magistrate to deny a warrant which a national security agency says is needed to stop a terrorist? It won't happen,

Given the attempt in Pa. of requiring the teaching of "Intelligent Design" which I see as creationism by another name, I thought this would be informative: From Talk.Origins: Claim CI001.1: Intelligent Design (ID) is scientific, not religious. Response: The ID movement is motivated by and inseparable from a narrow religious viewpoint. In the words of its founders and leaders: There's a difference of opinion about how important this debate [advocating intelligent design] is. What I always say is that it's not just scientific theory. The question is best understood as: Is God real or imaginary?" [Phillip Johnson, "The Search for Intelligent Design in the Universe", Silicon Valley Magazine, 9 Jan. 2000.] "We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator. [Phillip Johnson, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator", LA Times, 25 Mar. 2001.] "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." [Phillip Johnson, American Family Radio, 10 Jan. 2003] "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." [Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D., Unification Church, http://www.tparents.org/library/unificatio...ells/DARWIN.htm ] "If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." [William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.] "Intelligent design is the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." [William Dembski, Jul/Aug 1999, Touchstone, 84] Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible. [steve Maynard, Tacoma News Tribune, May 7, 2001, http://www.discovery.org/news/life%27sIntelligentDesign.html ] See Poindexter [2003] for more such quotes. Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add "intelligent design of a Creator" to the science standards of middle and high school [Michigan HB 4946]. Several books on intelligent design are published by InterVarsity Press, which says of itself, WHO IS INTERVARSITY PRESS? We are a publisher of Christian books and Bible studies. As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of life. [iVP n.d.] The video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" purportedly "tells the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful but controversial idea -- the theory of intelligent design." But it was produced by and promoted almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christian organizations [Evans 2003]. The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity [branch 2002]. Their attempt is dishonest propaganda. "The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as 'Intelligent Design' or 'Progressive Creationism.'" [Morris 1999] And despite their claims, the movement has no science. ID is blatantly anti-religious if the religion is one they disagree with. For example Philip Johnson equates theistic evolution (which would include most of Christianity) with atheism because of its acceptance of evolution. Links: Poindexter, Brian, 2003. The horse's mouth. http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/Ho...Mouth-BP007.pdf References: Branch, 2002. Evolving banners at the Discovery Institute. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(5): 12. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...v_8_29_2002.asp Evans, Skip, 2003. Who promotes Unlocking the Mystery of Life? http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...e__7_3_2003.asp IVP Online, n.d. About us. http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/info/aboutus/ Michigan House Bill 4946, July 2, 2003, House introduced bill. http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.a...me=2003-HB-4946 Morris, John D., 1999. Open letter included with mailing of April 1999 Acts and Facts. Poindexter, 2003. (see above)

Certainly, security in a police state is much easier to achieve than in an open society. The needs of security and the needs of an open society have to be balanced. You know the old line, "those that would trade their freedom for security deserve neither" or something like that. Being a free society has costs and sometimes the price paid seems too high. The way to try and reach a sensible balance between the two would require some toned down rhetoric to begin with. On the one hand, a person is not a gestapo officer reborn to suggest some restrictions nor is one a terrorist sympathizer for holding the view that one or another initiative goes too far. Remember Ashcroft basically accusing anyone who had problems with the Patriot Act of bringing comfort to America's enemies? At the same time, I am sure the left accused him of being a good little Nazi plenty of times. How, in that environment, is anything approaching a consensus, a resolution of such a difficult issue, ever to be achieved? The recent election was replete with the same stuff. Kerry wanted to destroy the entire Patriot Act (not even remotely true) and Bush wanted to suspend the constitution in its entirety (only partly true ).

The history of security agencies from the CIA to the FBI shows that in fact they will spy on US citizens who aren't doing anything "wrong". Hoover's files on all potential political enemies are more than legendary, they are fact. Bugging Martin Luther King while at the same time ignoring organized crime are just some examples of past abuses. That doesn't mean that the current version of these agencies are capable of that kind of thing. It does mean however that concerns about such abuses are not entirely unfounded. What do you mean by "doing anything wrong"? Would an internet subscription to "Girls of the Ivy League" be "wrong"? Somethings are private and yet not "wrong". I am sorry but I absolutely do not trust that such information would not be "leaked". We are talking about an agency, the CIA, that couldn't keep the identity of one of their agents from being leaked as part of a political pay-back or set up depending on who you believe. Why would I trust them not to disclose embarassing though perfectly legal activity if the agency or an individual in the agency saw some reason to do so?

what does that have to do with the way I feel? I do not just follow the RNC blindly. 158903[/snapback] You support the party which opposes civil unions so your support of such unions is largely academic. If you voted for Republican candidates and did nothing to prevent the party from taking that position in its platform, you have done as much to prevent such unions as those who sharply oppose them. I doubt the party would ever listen to me but they might listen to its members/supporters. What is the distinction between a "civil union" carrying all the legal rights of a marriage and a "civil marriage" carrying all the rights and the actual word "marriage" that leads you to support one and not the other? Seriously, I never understood Kerry's distinction here nor the President's, help me out.

Good enough for me.

Good enough for me.

Lets see, you respond to his comment with "tripe", "Blame America First" and "Anti-American" and you are surprised you received an aggressive response? If you are going to dish it, take it.

I was out last night messing with more xmas lights and I couldn't even hang on to the staple gun and it had a freaking handle on it.

Guard. The O-line played better but it is not exactly a dominating unit. Maybe a CB. Remember, by starting Troy at FS, we just lost a CB from the depth chart so we are short one.

I am probably the last one to notice this so at the risk of screaming the obvious, lets talk about the crossing route, you know the play, where Moulds runs a delay pattern across the field about 1 yard past the line of scrimmage. Sometimes he makes the catch but it is 5 yards short of the first so you want to throw your chili-cheese fries into the cheap seats (at least until you remember how much they cost and how they are the only "cheat" you allow youself on the freaking South Beach diet). Sometimes they don't connect due to a bad throw, a lousy non-catch or good coverage. Sometimes he makes the grab and breaks one and sometimes its Evans now instead of Moulds. It seems like we run this thing to death. My theory is that we run it because it works now and then but more importantly, it is a good option when the rush is on and Drew needs to get rid of it. He always knows that pattern is there so he can check down to it quick and dump the ball to avoid disaster without even having to think about it. I think that is why we include that as one of the patterns on so many of the pass plays, it is a reliable safety valve basically. We usually end up punting but every so often, it breaks. That and Shelton out of the backfield seem to be the dump offs against biltzes that have beat the protection scheme. Next time you see that play fail to get the yardage needed, realize that Bledsoe knew that was likely the case when he threw it, he was just playing it safe when no one else was open while at the same time giving us a chance at a play if Moulds or Evans breaks that first tackle. It is like throwing it out of bounds but retaining a small chance of still getting the needed yardage.

When I lived down south, I learned pretty quickly that down there the Civil War was still a "recent" memory. It was like it happened yesterday. I couldn't go more than 2 or 3 days without it coming up. Up north, besides history classes and the occasional TV broadcast of Gone With The Wind, it never came up. Slavery and Jim Crow is that way for African Americans. It is more of a "recent" memory, a living, breathing thing, the effects of which are still all around them. For whites, it is all ancient history, something that is over and done with long ago. I imagine Jews feel the same about the holocaust. For them, it was yesterday. That doesn't mean that others don't appreciate these events but it does mean that people have sensitive spots when it comes to their history.

No, no, no, no, no. Don't you get it? America is either 100% pure, unblemished, solid gold good or it is an evil empire. You either love America and deny its every fault, no matter how small or you are an America hating swine. You either acknowledge your homeland's divine perfection or you are an anti-American, acid dropping sodomite. Here is how the jingometer works: You say: "It is too bad that we gave Native Americans blankets from a TB asylum leading to an epidemic that killed thousands." The Jingometer tranlates that to: "Death to America" You say: "Slavery was bad, I wish we got rid of it sooner." The Jingometer translates that to: "I hate America." You say: "I'm glad Jim Crow went down in the 1960's." The Jingometer translates: "I want to overthrow America." You see, it is not what you say that matters, what they hear is filtered first through the jingometer which knows what you really mean no matter how much you deny it.

Just so I know for future reference, what is more American, pretending we have never, ever done anything wrong, ever or being secure enough in what America is now that one is able to acknowledge its past mistakes as well as honor its past glories? I just want to know so I can get a head start on developing amnesia when it comes to Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow. I want to be a good student of history and understand the past so as to have a better perspective on the present but Lord knows I don't want to do that at the risk of being called "Anti-American" or being part of the "Blame America First Crowd" so help me out. That is a lot of history to start forgetting so I want to get a jump on it. Obviously, there is no way a person can love their country, study its achievments and understand its faults all at the same time. I want to be like you, I want to be able to bark like a seal and poke out "Yankee Doodle" on a set of bicycle horns with my nose and slap my fins together in exchange for the dead fish that is nationalism inspired historical ignorance. Teach me, I am ready to learn.

I thought Willis was fast until I saw Evans on that reverse, man that guy makes the Flash look like a rusty shopping cart. So figured Willis was fast for a RB, no fair comparing him to a WR. Of course, then I saw Williams come on in releif. Faster than a water bug that kid is. Willis will get all of his speed back but until that happens, I'll take that stiff arm anyday.

John Leypoldt, worst kicker to ever keep making the roster somehow.

Man, any Bills fan that doesn't know that needs to hit the books. How embarassing.

Yeah, but maybe it is trading one losing strategy for another even more "losinger" than the last one.

There are few rules which make sense all the time. The incidents you mention are all valid but were stories that simply could not be obtained without the reporter going under cover or otherwise becoming central to the story. Certainly though, you do see that a reporter who is more concerned, for example, with his own fame and prestige, might be willing to present as true things that are not? These are the kinds of ethical dilemmas that are discussed in journalism school precisely because there is no "one size fits all" answer. I am more than ready to admit that there are plenty of times where the reporter becoming part of the story is not only defensible but just what was needed in the situation. By the same token, there are plenty of situations where it is an obstacle to good journalism. This is more true now when so many so quickly disregard any report from a source they don't find credible even if the story reported is as tight as it can be. It would be nice if all stories were taken on their merits or lack thereof but for good or ill, that is not true anymore. The most important story can end up having no effect on public opinion if the reporter is perceived to have no credibility. Thanks for the list, that was instructive.

Pet theory I have not yet researched but no body cares about that here : NY and other large states in terms of population get consistently screwed in terms of the money they pay in federal taxes and the federal spending returned. The states are divided into creditor and debtor states. That is states that get back more than what they pay and those that get less. Wouldn't NY and California and other more populous states be in better shape and their local and state taxes lower if more of their federal tax dollars come back to their own state? If that were so, shouldn't republican and democratic congressman from those states band together and use their votes to insure a more balanced distribution of revenue among the states? Why are so many of our own congressman voting to give our money to Wyoming?

How should they try and pierce the well crafted veils of these pseudo events? I'm stumped.

Maybe we should just throw some velvet ropes around those areas, charge admission and save oursleves all that indignant strutting, right and left.