Houston Police Chief Wants Cameras in Homes
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Houston Police Chief Wants Cameras in Homes: "No, you know what this is? I'll tell you...
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18, @04:04AM (#14748490)
... If you expect opposition to your proposal, you propose something even more draconian than your original goal to see how it goes over. This achieves two things, first, it tests the water, just in case people are ready to give in. Second, if the people aren't ready to give in, you scale it back to less draconian, and all of a sudden the scaled back solutions don't seem nearly as bad, and the 'controversial' ideas go forward masquerading as 'reasonable', due to the now common comparison with the 'unreasonable'.
They're hacking us people. They are hacking our minds. They know exactly what they're doing. This isn't tinfoil hat stuff, they have highly paid strategists that study how to pull shit like this off. We're in deep doo doo if we, as a people, don't begin to recognize the nature of this social 'matrix'."
========
\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Remember the Politician-garbage guy..from a few years back?
(Score:5, Insightful) by wideBlueSkies (618979) * 
on Saturday February 18, @10:41AM (#14749741)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 10, @08:00AM)
on Saturday February 18, @10:41AM (#14749741) (Last Journal: Sunday July 10, @08:00AM)
Parent's comment reminded me of a case from a few years back.
There was a congressman...or was it a police chief...who favored the position that once garbage was placed at the curb, it was considered abandoned by the owner, and was not subject to search by warrant. The police could just pick up any given bag of trash and search for evidence...no privacy concerns.
All was well until a local paper picked through his trash and publised the contents...unread magazines and solicitation letters... food boxes...that's what I remember.
Man, was he pissed...and suddenly his view didn't apply to him.
So, hell yes, let's put publicly accessable GPS devices in police cars, let's have webcams in police stations...in every room. Let's watch the watchers.
Also reminds me of that sherrif in Arizona who had webcams in his jail...the man was ahead of his time.
There was a congressman...or was it a police chief...who favored the position that once garbage was placed at the curb, it was considered abandoned by the owner, and was not subject to search by warrant. The police could just pick up any given bag of trash and search for evidence...no privacy concerns.
All was well until a local paper picked through his trash and publised the contents...unread magazines and solicitation letters... food boxes...that's what I remember.
Man, was he pissed...and suddenly his view didn't apply to him.
So, hell yes, let's put publicly accessable GPS devices in police cars, let's have webcams in police stations...in every room. Let's watch the watchers.
Also reminds me of that sherrif in Arizona who had webcams in his jail...the man was ahead of his time.
--
The important thing is not to stop questioning. --Albert Einstein
================
The important thing is not to stop questioning. --Albert Einstein
================
Re:reality
(Score:5, Insightful)If you really look at traffic laws, saftey is not the top priority. Money is. Most people don't weave in and out of lanes for the fun of it. They do it because cops don't enforce the keep to the right policy. Try that on the Autobahn in German. In fact, the unrestricted speed parts of the Autobahn are one of, if not the, safest stretches of highways. Why? 1) Good design 2) strict enforcement of driving habits that actually yield accidents. Speed doesn't kill - the accident does. Speed just makes it more likely you'll be sorry after that accident. Road rage is one thing, but has anyone spent some time investigating why people are getting this rage? Are we all nuts or just sick of other inconsiderate drivers?
How about those seat belt check points? If I don't wear my seat belt, who am I going to hurt? Ok fine, parents can be more responsible for their children. I guess there's a finite chance you could become a missle in an accident and hurt someone else with your flying body. In reality, this is just another cash cow. A few years ago a State trooper was killed in NJ when he was hit at a toll booth checking for seat belts (fell into on coming traffic). Try explaining that one to his family.
...and don't get me started about GEICO (or auto insurance in general).
==========
Re:Cops removed from reality
(Score:5, Insightful)In 25+ years of driving I've been let off exactly one time because I'm not the kind of driver that gets let off with a warning. Just because you've can recall more times than I've ever experienced doesn't make you a better driver or mean that police don't abuse their power. In fact, it's evidence of it.
================
[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Re:Now they're moving into the open...
(Score:5, Informative)Is this what you meant? Please note the first three lines (usually omitted in the USA), and that there is no mention of homosexuals. Political correctness is one thing; rewriting history and literature is another.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
- Martin Niemöller, Der Weg ins Freie, (F.M. Hellbach, Stuttgart, 1946)
When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.
=================http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/02/18/064208=
Bin Laden would approve.
(Score:5, Insightful)Defending American values? Well, sheesh. Isn't more than half of the world's porn made in America? Playboy, anybody?
Sounds to me like Bush's stiffs are more interested in re-defining American values rather than in defending the existing ones. Not like "American Values," which seem to include destroying budding democracies and economies around the world by funding evil men like Saddam, and maintaining one of the lowest standards of living in the world's industrialized nations, the shortest number of holidays, largest number of work hours, largest percentage of starving, homeless and illiterate. . . Golly! Let's defend that!
But with some spiffy re-defining and defending of New American Values, why in 50 years, (if there's still a U.S. around in 50 years when the radioactive dust settles and Bush's babies crawl from their luxurious underground retreats), Americans may well be making the best automobiles, watches and repressed sexuality fetish porn in the world, and be putting all their verbs at the end of the sentence where they damned well belong!
Anyway, what exactly does stamping out porn have to do with stopping 'terrorists' blowing up buildings? Heck, Islamic Extremist groups don't like porn either. They say it's a moral corruption. So wouldn't they approve of this latest move by Bush's stiffs?
It's all nuts. None of it makes sense except when viewed through the spyglass of fascism.
I'm sure people laughed at the brownshirts too. Don't give them an inch.-FL
================================
Re:Neat!
(Score:5, Insightful)So now we have our own versions of the Muslim world's "Morality Police"?
The main problem I have with the GOP is this damn puritanism. This is the 21st century, dammit! If we force our views (actually their views, not mine. I have TB's of pr0n) on others, how are we better than the damn Islamist's?
The GOP is liable to take it up the ass big time in November. Hopefully this will clear out some of the ancient old farts so we can later elect younger pols with more of a Libertarian bent.
But I'm not holding my breath...
=================
The (Christian) "religious nuts" to which the GP refers don't recognise separation of church and state, either.
============
Re:Neat!
(Score:5, Insightful) by smokin_juan (469699) on Saturday February 18, @08:15AM (#14749111)
(Last Journal: Sunday December 08, @02:43PM)
on Saturday February 18, @08:15AM (#14749111) (Last Journal: Sunday December 08, @02:43PM)
These situations will not improve until people learn to count higher than two.
===========================
Re:Neat!
(Score:5, Insightful) by roystgnr (4015) <(ude.saxetu.macit) (ta) (rngtsyor)> on Saturday February 18, @09:26AM (#14749395)
(http://slashdot.org/)
<(ude.saxetu.macit) (ta) (rngtsyor)> on Saturday February 18, @09:26AM (#14749395) (http://slashdot.org/)
Unfortunately, the problems with plurality voting are described by game theory, not arithmetic. Everybody knows how to count higher than two; not so many people know the differences between instant runoff, Condorcet, and approval voting.
What's worse: the biggest problem with democracy in America today is apathy, not ignorance. People get furious at anyone who voted for "the other guy"; yet for some reason they take it easy on the more numerous group who couldn't be bothered to vote at all.==
====================
Re:Neat!
(Score:5, Insightful)I was going to say something about how easy and pointless it is to cherry-pick transgressions from any party, but you know what? It doesn't matter.
I don't focking care who's encouraging the brownshirt activity; it just has to stop.
========================
Re:These were county officials, not US Gov't
(Score:5, Insightful)As for the Bush administritation, they just have to create the climate . They certainly won't give every orders. Do you really think Hitler did everything all by himself ? There was a lot of local initiative like this one in Germany in the 1930.
And guess what... The Bush administration did create the climate for such things to happen. So yes it's related to Bush, Ashcroft and all the others.
=======================
Re:Now they're moving into the open...
(Score:5, Insightful) by GoofyBoy (44399) on Saturday February 18, @08:12AM (#14749097)
(Last Journal: Monday October 11, @08:43PM)
on Saturday February 18, @08:12AM (#14749097) (Last Journal: Monday October 11, @08:43PM)
>you'd see that the officers involved had overstepped their bounds, they arrested no one and they've been reassigned.
1. They thought they were doing the correct thing. This is after their training. After getting approved for acting as a government official. After talking to another trained person (each other). (And MAYBE after talking to other trained persons, including their supervisor.)
2. The librarian, who knows what legal knowlege he had, had to talk to them in private. How did it even get to this point? Even then, they had to call in a police officer.
3. If we hadn't heard of this, would they have been reassigned? Why aren't they let go? Its clear they didn't get their training. Will they ever be in the field again in the future? Are they in a position to use their judgement again, even behind the desk (where they could potentially do even greater damage)?
I don't TRUST the police/law enforment, just because they have a badge and a nice uniform because in the end they are just human, like anyone without a badge and nice uniform. I give them a certain amount of respect, but I give everyone the same amount of respect.
(Police/law enforement don't trust their own either, ask them if they have locks on their lockers in the police station.)
1. They thought they were doing the correct thing. This is after their training. After getting approved for acting as a government official. After talking to another trained person (each other). (And MAYBE after talking to other trained persons, including their supervisor.)
2. The librarian, who knows what legal knowlege he had, had to talk to them in private. How did it even get to this point? Even then, they had to call in a police officer.
3. If we hadn't heard of this, would they have been reassigned? Why aren't they let go? Its clear they didn't get their training. Will they ever be in the field again in the future? Are they in a position to use their judgement again, even behind the desk (where they could potentially do even greater damage)?
I don't TRUST the police/law enforment, just because they have a badge and a nice uniform because in the end they are just human, like anyone without a badge and nice uniform. I give them a certain amount of respect, but I give everyone the same amount of respect.
(Police/law enforement don't trust their own either, ask them if they have locks on their lockers in the police station.)
--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
==================
From the article here [boiseweekly.com] "In the post-9/11 era, even suburban counties have homeland security departments. Montgomery County will not specify how many officers are in the department's security division, citing security reasons. Its annual budget, including salaries, is $3.6 million.
================
===============================
"Hoever, I get so damn tired of being told what rights others have, when it comes out of my pocket."
But it's OK when the rights you enjoy come out of others pockets? You, sir, or madam, frighten me.
Virtually all of the rights we enjoy are, in one way or another, out of the public's pockets. We pay for a military, and (supposedly) law enforcement to, among other things, defend those rights.
Democracy and Freedom are not easy, nor for the faint of heart. These concepts demand that you value those concepts to the extent that the guy next door, whose opinions and tastes and religion you absolutely despise, is worth your defending his rights. This may include his right to condemn your favorite candidate, his right to burn the flag we love in protest, and his right to have access to materials in a public media forum that you don't agree with.
I promise you, there are church ladies out there who are angry that they have to pay for your right to look at 14th-century Italian painters at your library - because there might be pictures of naked chubby girls in there. They resent having to pay for your right to view this trash. Ridiculous? How, exactly, are you any different?
Because, believe me - Your neighbor that you despise may not agree with what you have to say, believe, or have access to in your library either. The very essence of the core of our government, that we all pay lip service to, but let slip away when it gets tough, is the concept of inalienable rights. I can't take your rights - and you can't take mine. And we each have to pay a little for that priviledge.
=======================================
It's tempting to say that - of course 9/11 and other events smoothed the way - but it's not terrorists who want to take away Americans' liberties. It's other Americans. The terrorist scare just gives them a huge gaping window of opportunity, just as the Communist scare set Joe McCarthy up in business.
=================
][][][][][][[][][][]][[][][][][][[]]][[]][[]][][[][]][][[][][][][][]][][[][]
=========================http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/02/18/1356230
If the information the government wanted was a matter of national security ...
Then yeah, google should hand it over immediately, no questions asked ...
Yeah, according to the DHS, everything is a matter of national security. They use it as an excuse for just about everything they want to do, without being subject to scrutiny.
========================
=================
Or am I just cynikal?
From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all.
Google claims to be fighting the good fight of protecting their users' data, but how different is the data that the government wants, from the data the Google itself uses to comprise the various lists of most popular searches, the 'popular topics' are in news.google.com, etc? I'm not sure that I'd like my search to be part of such a public display. Is Google's users' data being user improperly in that case, too?
The way I see it is that Google is simply grandstanding. There have been some voices recently that Google has been getting too powerfull and encompassing. They have your email, they know what you search for, and they search your entire hard drive and call back home with their toolbar.
From what I understand, the government asked them for similar search data, with no identifying information, for their own statystical analysis. Is this Google's chance to get back to the good graces of the Internet's geeks, stick to their missions to "do no evil" and retain their image of the anti-corporation, the underdog, and the rebel, while trying to get back to their $150 billion market cap?
=================
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
==================
Not only porn
(Score:5, Interesting) A federal employee gets hassled by Homeland Security for antiwar stickers on his car. Is it a mistake, a new rule, or the part of a trend of the First Amendment being bullied out of existence? Read the transcript, read the rules and decide for yourself
================
I have an idea that will save $3.6M/year...
(Score:5, Funny)================
Re:Hypocrisy
(Score:5, Funny) by Council (514577) <rmunroe@gDEBIANmail.com minus distro> on Saturday February 18, @08:18AM (#14749118)
(http://www.xkcd.com/)
<rmunroe@gDEBIANmail.com minus distro> on Saturday February 18, @08:18AM (#14749118) (http://www.xkcd.com/)
If you've got your dick in your hand while you look at it it's porn.
Great. Well, as of last night, Better Homes and Gardens and the American Machinist's Handbook are both porn.
And stop looking at me like that.
Great. Well, as of last night, Better Homes and Gardens and the American Machinist's Handbook are both porn.
And stop looking at me like that.
--
xkcd [xkcd.com] - a webcomic of romance and Fourier transforms
xkcd [xkcd.com] - a webcomic of romance and Fourier transforms
===============================
Re:Porn @ the Library
(Score:5, Insightful)But it's OK when the rights you enjoy come out of others pockets? You, sir, or madam, frighten me.
Virtually all of the rights we enjoy are, in one way or another, out of the public's pockets. We pay for a military, and (supposedly) law enforcement to, among other things, defend those rights.
Democracy and Freedom are not easy, nor for the faint of heart. These concepts demand that you value those concepts to the extent that the guy next door, whose opinions and tastes and religion you absolutely despise, is worth your defending his rights. This may include his right to condemn your favorite candidate, his right to burn the flag we love in protest, and his right to have access to materials in a public media forum that you don't agree with.
I promise you, there are church ladies out there who are angry that they have to pay for your right to look at 14th-century Italian painters at your library - because there might be pictures of naked chubby girls in there. They resent having to pay for your right to view this trash. Ridiculous? How, exactly, are you any different?
Because, believe me - Your neighbor that you despise may not agree with what you have to say, believe, or have access to in your library either. The very essence of the core of our government, that we all pay lip service to, but let slip away when it gets tough, is the concept of inalienable rights. I can't take your rights - and you can't take mine. And we each have to pay a little for that priviledge.
=======================================
Re:Terrorist have won
(Score:5, Insightful)=================
][][][][][][[][][][]][[][][][][][[]]][[]][[]][][[][]][][[][][][][][]][][[][]
=========================http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/02/18/1356230
PR Stunt ...
(Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18, @08:57AM (#14749285)
I am amazed that people do not see Google's action for what it is -- a huge and hugely inexpensive public relations stunt. From a legal standpoint, Google does not have much ground to stand on. Yahoo and Microsoft realized this and that is why they complied. However, from a public relations point of view, it costs Google a small handful of hours of legal time and in return, Google gets featured on Slashdot and the countries newspapers, television and radio outlets, in addition to all over the internet numerous times. In the vast majority of cases, Google will be featured as the do-gooder ("do no evil") standing up to the U.S. Government on the public's behalf meanwhile making its competitors (Yahoo and Microsoft) look bad in the public eye.
In the end, expect Google to comply with the DOJ's request but only after getting all the (almost) free publicity it can from this. I hope that there are some writers of marketing and public relations books paying attention to this stunt because this has got to be one of the best (and least expensive) public relations coups in recent history.
=================
Re:PR Stunt ...
(Score:5, Insightful)If the information the government wanted was a matter of national security
Then yeah, google should hand it over immediately, no questions asked
Yeah, according to the DHS, everything is a matter of national security. They use it as an excuse for just about everything they want to do, without being subject to scrutiny.
========================
Warning! PDF behind article link!
(Score:5, Informative) [this is bad] (yes, I am a member)
Link to the blogger post [blogspot.com], that's the article, and THEN the pdf [blogspot.com]! Thank you!
(karmawhoring)
Here's a portion of the introduction:
Link to the blogger post [blogspot.com], that's the article, and THEN the pdf [blogspot.com]! Thank you!
(karmawhoring)
Here's a portion of the introduction:
- I. INTRODUCTION
Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results, but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason. The Government's demand for disclosure of untold millions of search queries submitted by Google users and for production of a million Web page addresses or "URLs" randomly selected from Google's proprietary index would undermine that trust, unnecessarily burden Google, and do nothing to further the Government's case in the underlying action.
Fortunately, the Court has multiple, independent bases to reject the Government's Motion. First, the Government's presentation falls woefully short of demonstrating that the requested information will lead to admissible evidence. This burden is unquestionably the Government's. Rather than meet it, the Government concedes that Google's search queries and URLs are not evidence to be used at trial at all. Instead, the Government says, the data will be "useful"
=================
Laughable
(Score:5, Insightful)From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all.
Google claims to be fighting the good fight of protecting their users' data, but how different is the data that the government wants, from the data the Google itself uses to comprise the various lists of most popular searches, the 'popular topics' are in news.google.com, etc? I'm not sure that I'd like my search to be part of such a public display. Is Google's users' data being user improperly in that case, too?
The way I see it is that Google is simply grandstanding. There have been some voices recently that Google has been getting too powerfull and encompassing. They have your email, they know what you search for, and they search your entire hard drive and call back home with their toolbar.
From what I understand, the government asked them for similar search data, with no identifying information, for their own statystical analysis. Is this Google's chance to get back to the good graces of the Internet's geeks, stick to their missions to "do no evil" and retain their image of the anti-corporation, the underdog, and the rebel, while trying to get back to their $150 billion market cap?
=================
Re:Laughable
(Score:5, Insightful)How much disconnect is there between the DoJ finding search strings interpreted by them as criminal activity, and their demanding the IP addresses that made them? And why do so many people still trust the intentions of our government?
=============
Completely different
(Score:5, Insightful) by typical (886006) on Saturday February 18, @10:53AM (#14749808)
(Last Journal: Wednesday June 22, @07:54PM)
on Saturday February 18, @10:53AM (#14749808) (Last Journal: Wednesday June 22, @07:54PM)
But there is a difference.
With the RIAA, a crime had been committed, and Yahoo was asking to not turn over information identifying the offenders (more or less, yes, this is simplified).
In this case, the government has *no* committed crime, and is not trying to track down any criminals. They are simply trying (or at least, this is their justification) to obtain Google's search data to support GOP initiatives to spread pornography filters based on the fact that N% of searches return pornography hits.
My take is that Google is completely in the right. The federal government has absolutely no right to that data, nor do I want them to be able to subpoena it.
As for not being identifiable, give me a break. You surf sites with ads served by people like Doubleclick and Google Ads. Google can match all past searches from your IP or from a machine with any cookies that they've set on your machine. This is not speculation -- they have specifically stated that they have this ability. It's a pretty good bet that a number of sites on the Web have your real name. Maybe it's not a drop-in "Google has a complete database", but it only takes Google + *one* other website you visit that has your personal name, and there's a damned comprehensive list of your thoughts, research, summary of what you're reading about and so forth available to the federal government.
I don't think that this is a very good thing.
With the RIAA, a crime had been committed, and Yahoo was asking to not turn over information identifying the offenders (more or less, yes, this is simplified).
In this case, the government has *no* committed crime, and is not trying to track down any criminals. They are simply trying (or at least, this is their justification) to obtain Google's search data to support GOP initiatives to spread pornography filters based on the fact that N% of searches return pornography hits.
My take is that Google is completely in the right. The federal government has absolutely no right to that data, nor do I want them to be able to subpoena it.
As for not being identifiable, give me a break. You surf sites with ads served by people like Doubleclick and Google Ads. Google can match all past searches from your IP or from a machine with any cookies that they've set on your machine. This is not speculation -- they have specifically stated that they have this ability. It's a pretty good bet that a number of sites on the Web have your real name. Maybe it's not a drop-in "Google has a complete database", but it only takes Google + *one* other website you visit that has your personal name, and there's a damned comprehensive list of your thoughts, research, summary of what you're reading about and so forth available to the federal government.
I don't think that this is a very good thing.
--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
][][][][][][][][][][][][][][[]][][][]][][[]][][][][][][][][][][]
Cheap Buzzes
(Score:5, Funny)Hmm... using "marijuana muffins" to get a cheap buzz?
Now there's a novel idea...
=============
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=177840&threshold=5&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14750235
Re:Political Correction
(Score:5, Insightful)Since the evidence piled up became so overwhelming that it became perverse to believe otherwise. Without a series of incredible--and extremely unlikely--future discoveries bringing doubt upon the theory, belief otherwise must either be dishonest or purely a matter of blind faith taxed to its extreme.
And personally, I find it interesting how William Lane Craig uses the Big Bang in his version of the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.
"Intelligent design similarly interprets available facts (e.g., the notion of irreducible complexity) and attempts to coordinate them within a unified theory of origins."
Except Intelligent Design has more problems than any conventional scientific theory. To be honest, it has been thoroughly disproved several times over. That it hasn't been abandoned is proof that its proponents either aren't open to reason or aren't concerned with truth.
Basically, the challenge it presents is shallow and weak. If Irreducible Complexity were understood as most do (that there is no evolutionary path for something), it's clearly and provably incorrect. Investigation into the evolution of the bacterial flagella, the blood clotting system, the immune system, and Behe's other examples have all filled in the picture on how these things evolved. As Behe saw in the recent trial, much of this has already made it into textbooks.
If it's understood as Behe put it (that there no evolutionary path that always maintains the function we see now), it's true but also irrelevant and not a challenge to evolution. Evolution doesn't require that this happen.
And finally, Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" relies on Behe to throw out evolution as a likely natural cause. One must have already rejected Evolution for it to work. That is without even going into how its nothing more than a mathematic version of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. At it's simplest it's this: Do you know how this thing could come about naturally by law or chance? No? Then it was designed.
"Neither camp can prove their theory to a scientific certainty (as much as either side wants to believe they can)"
Maybe I don't follow this right. Are you squaring Intelligent Design against the Big Bang? As far as I can tell, there is no position or argument in ID that requires anyone to reject the Big Bang.
"but each should be allowed to make their arguments. Let the arguments be tested and challenged in the public sphere, and learn from the debate."
As is happening. Conferences are held, books are written, talks are given, papers are published, websites serve up evidence and arguments... and nobody has ever tried to stop this.
Of course, some want Intelligent Design to be given a free pass to be included in public school classrooms, bypassing the long, hard process everything else is subject to. That's not debate in the public sphere -- that's giving into all demands but requesting negotiations continue. It's absurd!
posted by USSSlavebation @ 2/19/2006 03:01:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home