They supported a number of Republican candidates. One of their two winning campaigns was for a Republican. In other words, they helped elect as many Republicans as Democrats.

Of course, it's rather disheartening to hear people always trying to put a political spin on these sorts of things. I don't vote for Democrats (or Republicans) and I still support MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC.

What fucking shithole do you live in where there were only two candidates to choose from?

At least vote for a write-in, you lazy bastard! I voted for non-Republicrats when presented with the option, and write-ins otherwise. It took me a few minutes after work. It didn't change the election, but it bought me the right to complain, not only about the establishment politicians that got re-elected, but also the indolent assholes like yourself! :)

In my experience, that's way off.

Most people - about 80% by some estimates - are fucking idiots. They claim loyalty to either the Democrat or Republican party, yet remain largely ignorant of the fact that both parties take the same position on an overwhelming majority of issues, and that neither party's platform is especially aligned with their personal interests. They vote according to their team, even though their team doesn't share their beliefs. Relatively inconsequential issues (gay rights, abortion rights), issues which are unlikely to have any direct personal impact on an overwhelming majority of individuals (a majority of the population is not gay and will not have any abortions), are cited as reasons for supporting one party over another.

And you say it's Lessig that's blind to his own bias. If only the average voter were as "blind".

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Generally speaking, an election is won by the candidate with the largest purse. There are occasionally exceptions, and sometimes a political platform plays a bigger role than campaign funding. However, those are exceptions, not the norm. Any impartial observer of the political process in this country acknowledge this reality.

Some people, such as myself (I support both MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC), feel that this corruption of representative democracy is a threat to our country. An immediate threat, one that is more pressing than the threat posed by a overzealous legislature eager to strip the freedoms of the people by passing dangerous amendments to the Constitution. The democratic process is broken now, today. How do you propose we fix it? Or are you simply saying that you have no problem with the purchase of elected office, and that democracy really isn't worth saving?

I understand that technically, these proposals for campaign finance reform can be considered free speech restrictions. I agree that any curtailment of the rights set forth in the Constitution ought to be well considered. However I feel that, much like restrictions on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, such restrictions are on the whole beneficial to society. Am I missing some unintended consequences that you can see the proposed restriction having? Do you believe that if Lessig were successful, there would be some harmful impact on free speech?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Since when do challengers have more campaign money than incumbents? And how are "their guys" no longer in charge? While MAYDAY PAC's supported candidates did poorly, an overwhelming majority of incumbents were re-elected (I think I heard over 90%). That's because MAYDAY PAC didn't support incumbents (I don't know off-hand how many of their eight candidates were incumbents, but I'd be surprised if there were more than two), they supported reformers.

I'd hope that you and people like you don't vote, but I've seen the election outcome, and, well, fuck.

A bit more in general? Or is there some particular insight that I'm missing that would lead me to also fear the rule of law?

Which part am I to weasel around? The part about the meaning of words being subject to change over time?

You're right, I concede. At the time SOX was drafted, a "tangible object" meant something entirely different than it does today. A lot has changed since 2002, eh?

Also, I truly love your sig.

Digestion is not metabolism.

While I agree that there are forms of life that externalize digestion, I challenge you to show me one that externalizes metabolism. Viruses might be an obvious candidate, except that they're not considered to be forms of life (I believe precisely because they are not capable of metabolism).

But again, I'm not a biologist. My understanding of this subject is informed primarily by the writings of physicist Freeman Dyson.

I thought there were only two necessary processes:
#1 Hereditary reproduction
#2 Metabolism

The reason viruses aren't considered alive is because they don't metabolize. Admittedly, though, I'm not a biologist.

When you said "only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same or that the US is more extreme", I took this to mean that you were implying that the idiot (per his or her idiocy) would be incorrect, and that they (Balaka and the US Armed Forces) are not about the same and that the US is not more extreme. If this what not what you intended to communicate, then I was indeed wrong, and glad to hear that we're both idiots and agree that Balaka and the US Armed Forces are about the same.

Ah, or not. I guess you just favor a style of debate that makes liberal use of non sequitur arguments then?

I similarly question the veracity of your first statement here. A majority of Muslims today will disagree with the claim that Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values.

Why do I have to do that? I would argue that you have to look at the claimed religion of their members, not merely the aims of each group.

Indeed, as both Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in violent conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion adopted by their members.

I didn't mean to make any claims regarding motives of the hostile parties, or tolerance of other religions in their ranks, nor do I think this is relevant to the argument I set forth. If anything, the US Armed Forces' reluctance to appear "too Christian" would seem to indicate that they're keenly aware that people might make the very comparison I'm making.

So is that the criteria for a group being religious? Not a majority of their members proclaiming being members of a given religion, but instead a stated desire to establish a theocracy? Perhaps we just disagree on what it means to be religious, and this is the reason why we're in disagreement.

I looked up religious demographics in the US Armed Forces. Roughly 70% Christian. That's my evidence for them being as Christian in membership as Balaka is Muslim (though Balaka is closer to 100% Muslim). I don't see a qualitative difference between 70% homogeneity and 100%.

The only one that can interpret language is a person. Which is why such an approach is generally referred to as the rule of man, as opposed to the rule of law. Clearly written legislation doesn't need interpretation, it only needs application.

Legislation that is ambiguous, which is what you seem to be describing, is precisely that which does need interpretation, and indeed is unfit for rule of law, and is useful only for the rule of man, by definition.

SOX is being applied to exactly what it says to apply it to. Tangible objects. A "reasonable person" (to borrow your phrase) would agree that a fish is indeed a tangible object, and that it is not a bizarre over-broad "interpretation" to say so.

Here, by talking about what was "meant to" be, you are ascribing intent to the legislators that drafted SOX. On what basis? Is your basis for ascribing such intent stronger than the definitions of the words "tangible" and "object"? Can you set forth sufficient evidence to make a convincing argument that the legislators meant not what they wrote, but instead what you say they meant? In short, you're arguing that the legislators drafted an erroneous law, and that you know what they meant. This is why such a position is referred to as rule of man, because application of the law depends not on the actual text of the law (which you argue is faulty) but on man (you and your subjective claims of intent).

But don't you see that that's exactly what you're doing? Instead of abiding by the actual text of the law (a fish is a tangible object), you're bending the law to your will (by saying that the law means to only address tangible objects in the context of documents and records in the financial industry) when the text itself says something completely different. If indeed your claim of the legislators intent is correct and the text of the law is overly broad, the legislators are the ones who ought to draft a corrected bill for the Congress to pass. It shouldn't be on you, me, or the judiciary to do so. We're not Congress.

Quite discernible? By whom, people? That's my point. You're okay with allowing arbitrary judiciary to "interpret" laws quite liberally, to ascribe intent to legislators under the assumption that judges always meet everyone's criteria for being reasonable. Those that prefer the rule of law over the rule of man argue the opposite, that the judiciary are (often) unelected and therefore not accountable to the people, and consequently should not be afforded this much power within our government. They (and I) argue that it is the sole and exclusive responsibility of our legislature to create legislation that is clear and unambiguous such that the judiciary need only apply it without any need for interpretation.

Useful links: Originalism is what you appear to favor, yet you've cited no references regarding your claims of legislative intent. If indeed the legislators who drafted SOX didn't intend for it to be applied to fish, it would strengthen your position if you could provide evidence of this intent. I would be okay with that, because then we're still talking about the legislators and their law, not your preferences or my beliefs. In the absence of such evidence, I opt for textualism, as I believe that going by the text of the law is better than going by what you, I, or anyone else subjectively feels the law "should mean". Maybe you're right, and maybe the guys behind SOX didn't intend for it to be applied to fish. I'd even go so far as to say this is likely. However, the legislative process shouldn't be about what some guy thinks, what some person feels, what is likely. It should be about the law, it should be grounded in reality, and it should have a factual basis.

Argumentum ad hominem is an informal fallacy. That is, whether or not a person that comes to this conclusion is an idiot is irrelevant to the validity of the conclusion.

Here are some statements of fact. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces are groups of individuals that have a religious majority among them. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion of their respective majority.

If the US Armed Forces are "not true Christians" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Christianity, then it stands to reason that the Balaka are "not true Muslims" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Islam. To say otherwise is to embrace a blatant disregard for reason.

You seem to be arguing that the rule of law is not possible, and that consequently the rule of man is preferable. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, as that's an debate too long for the scope of a slashdot discussion.

Is the title of a law legally binding? Or is it the content that's relevant? Does Megan's Law only apply to people named Megan?

I think you're confusing yourself with irrelevant parts of the law. There's also the way the law keeps referring to "tangible objects". Do you have any reason to believe that a fish is not a tangible object?