Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7672)	12/20/2005 5:45:07 PM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 541952

You're preaching to the choir, man, Given present methods, it would be very difficult to secure all the borders. But don't say never, unless you discredit our landing on the Moon. Many drug laden private aircraft are nabbed. This I know personally. The latest BS about Bush and NSA spying plays a role in border protection and in what obl is trying to do. Obl is patient. Watching and waiting as we implode with our politics. What many in this country do not understand or won't accept is that there is a price to win a war. Not just dollars and lives of serviceman and women, but home sacrifices as well. We may not be ready yet, but we will be if obl achieves what you say in your post.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7672)	12/20/2005 9:07:36 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541952

And if I wanted to nuke an American city, I would stage a private plane out of the Bahamas with a completely legitimate flight plan to Miami or Atlanta airport, send a Mayday, veer off and set the thing off over downtown at rush hour. Or maybe put it on a ship or boat and sail in to the harbor of a major city or anywhere else that has a high population density near the shore and near an area where the ship or boat would be unlikely to arouse suspision. How will you stop me if my plane and personnel aren't known to you already? I think the most important part is to control the nukes. Once they get out of the bag things get much harder. Tim

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7672)	12/21/2005 1:31:05 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541952

Victors hail US evolution ruling Charles Darwin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is widely accepted by scientists A US court decision to ban the teaching of "intelligent design" has been hailed by anti-creationism campaigners. A federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact in biology lessons. School administrators had argued that life on Earth was too complex to have evolved on its own. Intelligent design activists criticised the ruling, saying it would marginalise beliefs based on religion. For those fighting the policy of the Dover school board, the judicial ruling offered a boost to the constitutional separation of church and state. We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion Judge John Jones A majority of US states have seen some form of challenge to the pre-eminence of Darwinian evolution theory in the curriculum of publicly-funded schools since 2001. "We have a federal judge ruling that intelligent design is in fact non-science and that it is religion," said Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "That's going to be extremely useful as we combat intelligent design in other states." 'Breathtaking inanity' The BBC's James Coomarasamy, in Washington, said the decision by Republican judge John Jones was a landmark ruling and represents quite a blow to religious conservatives. In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief. He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door. The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In a 139-page written ruling regularly studded with criticism of the defendants' arguments, the judge said: "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." Peter Briggs of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, described the ruling as a dangerous precedent. "That's a terribly slippery slope if we're going to say in a democracy, in a free country, that people who are motivated by religion are excluded from the public script." Wider issue The ruling is not binding for schools outside Dover, but it is expected to have an impact in the wider debate over ID and the more overtly religious theory of creationism, which has long been banned from US schools. Earlier this year, the state of Kansas passed into law the requirement that students be told that the theory of evolution was "controversial" when studying biology. In Georgia, a federal court has been considering whether stickers questioning evolution placed on biology textbooks at one school are unconstitutional. ID has also received backing from US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.