Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:icing the cake (Score 1) 764 764

You've misinterpreted the statement. Sorry. And you've invented a cross to bear. The scientists at CRU aren't involved in policy. The fluctuations aren't hard to measure. Sports isn't science or even vaguely analogous. Nobody but you brought up Wall St. time frames. Climate scientists aren't environmental scientists. CRU isn't the only center for analysis and the other centers have published their data and methods. So, insightful comment, old chap. You got nothing right!

Comment: Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score 1) 344 344

The cooling nature of some industrial aerosols has been known for a long time. Just last Fall we were treated with the project to pump hundreds of millions of tons of SO2 into the stratosphere via 12 mile long tubes at the poles. In was in the Freakanomics book that was a 9 day wonder everywhere.

Comment: Re:Hard evidence (Score 1) 271 271

The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature

I should think that's implied, given that the restriction on suspending it is located in Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress)

That's why I said "explicitly". Yours is a reasonable conjecture. As was Lincoln's argument: that the rebellion would suspend the execution of all American laws in the areas he (Lincoln) specified in his habeas suspension directives. (It's part of life that a reasonable argument often counters another reasonable argument.) So, the assertion is that Lincoln's a monster for suspending habeas in an area getting ready to rebel? He had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution and to see that all the laws of the US were faithfully executed. To do that he made a questionable assumption about the suspension of habeas. Which is why I labeled the arguments painting Lincoln a monster and a dictator were purely rhetorical.

Contrast Lincoln's carefully constrained application and painful necessity with the Bush administration open-ended rationale and specious levels of threat. There are obviously terrorists seeking to do us damage. We know it. They know we know it. Yet, the courts aren't threatened with closing. We aren't in imminent peril. The Bush people just wanted to press a belief in the Unitary Executive and had a rubber stamp cowardly Congress to effect it.

Comment: Re:Hard evidence (Score 1) 271 271

The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature. It does say though that habeas could only be suspended during times of invasion of rebellion. The Civil War was clearly an instance of rebellion. Lincoln's suspensions were constrained as to time and geography. The arguments painting Lincoln as a usurping monster are purely rhetorical. The Bush suspension of habeas was the product of an attitude looking for an outlet, a bully looking for a weakling. Bush (et al) had a theory of the executive and wanted to exercise it. We aren't being invaded. There is no rebellion. There's no need to treat terrorists as something other than simple criminals.

Comment: Re:Hard evidence (Score 1) 271 271

Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.

Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory. Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.

Somehow that doesn't sound like a reasonable response to a bill that was designed to prevent inquiry into a rotten situation. The courts are where evidence of crimes are supposed to be aired. Take the courts out of the equation and we're left with what?

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.

Working...