Sounds like an excellent opportunity for the government to gather fingerprints of all its citizens "for their own good". After all, election fraud is bad...almost "It's for the children!" bad.
Of course, a smarter government would find a way to require DNA samples, rather than simple fingerprints, "to prevent election fraud".
Garden Gnomes just showed themselves to be more important to science than Creationalists and global-warming deniers.
Jury nullification would be another benefit. While the justice system tries to hide this consitutional doctrine and demand that juries be nothing more than "finders of facts", it exists primarily to protect citizens from unjust laws that have been forced upon them. The war on drugs would be a good example of this. If most citizens don't believe that a person should spend 5 years in jail for smoking weed, start acquitting the "guilty" using jury nullification.
Much like the underwear bomber, TSA has this all planned out.
1. Allow terrorist onboard with a weapon hidden at his side.
2. Civilians on plane stop terrorist when he attempts to take over plane.
3. TSA announces that the system worked.
These "reporters" are clearly interfering with step #1.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have more faith in corporations. As you said, it's a pretty well-paved road going both ways.
The thing that makes me more wary of the government is that governments, being the highest power, not only answer to no one, they also have access to the country's resources (military, law-enforcement, tax-collecting, etc..). A corrupt powerful government is inherently more dangerous to personal liberties that a corrupt powerful corporation.
Beautiful beating of that straw-man.
Unfortunately, there are still people out there wearing rose-colored glasses. We can only hope that all the people who think it's a good idea to have bigger government with more authority over our lives will have an event just like this happen to them, so we can get off this road to hell paved by their "best intentions".
...I want to know what type of computer simulations this type of controller technology will lead to.
I would agree with this premise, depending on who is defining skinny. I know athletic women that are called a "skinny bitch" by people.
This is one of those "best of intentions" ideas that has a basis in, and quickly becomes about, political correctness. While I understand that people have become increasingly overweight and don't like being reminded of that, it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people find certain body types more attractive.
Even in the era of supposed "curvier women" (Marilyn Monroe timeframe), the average waist size of famous actresses, based on dresses they wore, was along the lines of 18 inches. Marilyn herself was tiny and they couldn't even find a manaquin small enough to show her dresses on.
Now, I would completely agree that Kate Moss skinny is, in fact, a problem, and I would definitely not want kids using her as a role model.
I get a dumbfounded look from a cashier every now and then when I give more than owed so I can get a large bill back as change (rather than ones). They'll take, for example, the $22 I gave them for a $16.50 bill and just stand there staring at the money in their hand. Some even go so far as to try to hand me the extra $2 back.
It would never happen. The jobs coming from that $1T would, due to the nature of the work, mainly go to men.
For examples of what would happen in the real world, have a read about the feminist pushback to, and subsequent removal/reduction of, the male-friendly portions of the stimulus package that was passed; and that happened even though men were hit far harder by the recession than women.
Very true. In fact, if not for the genetic manipulation of wheat, the people of the world would have actually faced the catastrophic starvation that was a concern in the early-mid 1900's.
For what it's worth, Norman Buraug, the Nobel Peace Prize winning scientist who fathered the Green Revolution, said a year before he died (2003) that GE crops would become the accepted norm in much the same way that genetically engineered antibiotics have been.
Not quite right either. It would have prevented a requirement of government agencies to provide public access.
Blame it on poor wording. As worded, it reads that the bill would prevent agencies from requiring public access, which would indicate that, had it passed, agencies would not have been able to require public access.
Properly worded, it would have indicated that the bill would have prevented a requirement of public access by government agencies.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
