Nick Oliva

Chuck posted a very persuasive argument last night that this issue as written is defective on several points.

In response, I have set up two new proposed issues with the language he used at the end of his post. If we accept those issues, we can archive this one and take the debate over there.

One whereIstand note… Chuck doesn’t show up in the "top bloggers" because he took a principled stand that none of the positions satisfied him. I’m going to add the "no position" bloggers to the rankings and include the top three as well. This isn’t happening right now but clearly makes sense… otherwise, we’ll lose the thoughts of people that aren’t happy with our language… and this contradicts the idea of clarifying and refining the language we use.

Tags: Religion by nick
No Comments »

Chuck posted a very persuasive argument last night that this issue as written is defective on several points.

In response, I have set up two new proposed issues with the language he used at the end of his post. If we accept those issues, we can archive this one and take the debate over there.

One whereIstand note… Chuck doesn’t show up in the "top bloggers" because he took a principled stand that none of the positions satisfied him. I’m going to add the "no position" bloggers to the rankings and include the top three as well. This isn’t happening right now but clearly makes sense… otherwise, we’ll lose the thoughts of people that aren’t happy with our language… and this contradicts the idea of clarifying and refining the language we use.

whereIstand Tags

• Chuck
• Does a belief in evolution necessarily contradict a belief in Creation?

Tags: Religion by nick
No Comments »

I’m going to take excerpts from Bush’s speech and comment on them here. I will revise this post as I progress.

I thought if anyone else was interested in doing the same thing we could have some interesting commentary and be fascinated (at least I’m sure I will be) by the different things we each take away from the same words.

Tags: Technology by nick
No Comments »

I’m going to take excerpts from Bush’s speech and comment on them here. I will revise this post as I progress.

I thought if anyone else was interested in doing the same thing we could have some interesting commentary and be fascinated (at least I’m sure I will be) by the different things we each take away from the same words.

whereIstand Tags

• Responses to President Bush

Tags: Technology by nick
No Comments »

It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.

Sandra Day O’Connor

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 03-1693

Justice O’Connor said the country had worked well, when compared with nations gripped by religious violence, by keeping religion "a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat." She added: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" (NY Times)

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.

Sandra Day O’Connor

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 03-1693

Justice O’Connor said the country had worked well, when compared with nations gripped by religious violence, by keeping religion "a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat." She added: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" (NY Times)

whereIstand Tags

• Should public displays of religious content be permitted?

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

The recent Supreme Court decision allowing local and state governments to acquire private properties through eminent domain is not more than additional evidence that all decency has been suppressed in the names of progress, competition, and greed.

What a nice and convenient manner of justifying a confiscation… the new owners will create a public benefit in the form of additional taxes. Great! All we need is a public benefit to justify a taking!

I suppose local and state governments are commonly in the obnoxious habits of carrying on the government’s affaires in ways that do not benefit the public? What a tough standard this new "public benefit" must be to reach! A trash dump has public benefit…no? Prisons have public benefit…no?

Generating taxes is public benefit? I can justify eminent domain partly because, all things considered, most people won’t be so unlucky as to be in the path of a new highway and not have enough power to get it re-routed over the homes of their ex-spouses. But there are a lot of properties in beautiful areas that are not economically well-off yet very pleasant homes for the occupants.

This latest decision is just a license for developers to bypass the people that don’t want to sell. It gives developers undue leverage and influence over the littel guy… "Hey, you’re asking too much… just think of the public benefit that my new development will have…wink, wink."  

It’s a terrible, terrible decision. I think the liberal side of the court carried this one and I find that shameful.

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

The recent Supreme Court decision allowing local and state governments to acquire private properties through eminent domain is not more than additional evidence that all decency has been suppressed in the names of progress, competition, and greed.

What a nice and convenient manner of justifying a confiscation… the new owners will create a public benefit in the form of additional taxes. Great! All we need is a public benefit to justify a taking!

I suppose local and state governments are commonly in the obnoxious habits of carrying on the government’s affaires in ways that do not benefit the public? What a tough standard this new "public benefit" must be to reach! A trash dump has public benefit…no? Prisons have public benefit…no?

Generating taxes is public benefit? I can justify eminent domain partly because, all things considered, most people won’t be so unlucky as to be in the path of a new highway and not have enough power to get it re-routed over the homes of their ex-spouses. But there are a lot of properties in beautiful areas that are not economically well-off yet very pleasant homes for the occupants.

This latest decision is just a license for developers to bypass the people that don’t want to sell. It gives developers undue leverage and influence over the littel guy… "Hey, you’re asking too much… just think of the public benefit that my new development will have…wink, wink."  

It’s a terrible, terrible decision. I think the liberal side of the court carried this one and I find that shameful.

whereIstand Tags

• Should local and state governments be able to use eminent domain to acquire and transfer properties for private uses that have public benefits?

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

Well, the long awaited ability to edit published posts is here at last. As with all other enhancements, since it’s new and not tested by others, it may break. Give me a call if it does and I’ll comiserate with you… I won’t be able to fix whatever problems occured until tonight, but I’ll share your pain.

As with all future enhancements, this only works in the "new user interface". You have to be on the permanent link to the post you want to edit. The most simple thing if you don’t know how to arrive at this is to be signed in and change your URL to the permanent link… if it’s entry #1394 you want to edit, enter /1394 after the website address.

Editing works just like entry so there shouldn’t be anything confusing. Here’s what’s different:

• Make sure you copy whatever you are editing and save it on your computer… just in case.
• When you "click to revise" the current edition is copied into an editor as a draft. You can add a title, pictures, edit formats, edit content, preview, etc. Please make sure you preview before you post!
• If you "delete" you are deleting the "draft revisions"…you cannot delete a published post.
• When you post, your draft becomes your final. When you are signed in and looking at your own posts (on the post itself, not the issue, etc.) you will see all prior revisions. Every original "posted" is always retained. Currently, only the blogger can see his old versions. I’m going to add functionality so everyone can see every previous version. This will happen retroactively, so nothing you do will permanently hide something you published.
• Make sure to use this to fix spelling or grammatical errors, bad links, formatting, etc. and not to change content because you thought of more interesting things to say… at least that’s the way I think it should be used. Use your judgment.
• [Update 7:30 AM] Every updated post will show an edition number at the top right when it’s displayed. Everyone sees this already. Also, it’s customary to mark your updates along the lines of what I just did here… and often updates include new information which pretty much overrides what I said in the previous bullet.

Hope this helps. Let me know if it’s confusing.

And just in case you were forgetting Machu Picchu… (I just think this is silly…I’m not an Inca freak!)

Tags: Technology by nick
No Comments »

Well, the long awaited ability to edit published posts is here at last. As with all other enhancements, since it’s new and not tested by others, it may break. Give me a call if it does and I’ll comiserate with you… I won’t be able to fix whatever problems occured until tonight, but I’ll share your pain.

As with all future enhancements, this only works in the "new user interface". You have to be on the permanent link to the post you want to edit. The most simple thing if you don’t know how to arrive at this is to be signed in and change your URL to the permanent link… if it’s entry #1394 you want to edit, enter /1394 after the website address.

Editing works just like entry so there shouldn’t be anything confusing. Here’s what’s different:

• Make sure you copy whatever you are editing and save it on your computer… just in case.
• When you "click to revise" the current edition is copied into an editor as a draft. You can add a title, pictures, edit formats, edit content, preview, etc. Please make sure you preview before you post!
• If you "delete" you are deleting the "draft revisions"…you cannot delete a published post.
• When you post, your draft becomes your final. When you are signed in and looking at your own posts (on the post itself, not the issue, etc.) you will see all prior revisions. Every original "posted" is always retained. Currently, only the blogger can see his old versions. I’m going to add functionality so everyone can see every previous version. This will happen retroactively, so nothing you do will permanently hide something you published.
• Make sure to use this to fix spelling or grammatical errors, bad links, formatting, etc. and not to change content because you thought of more interesting things to say… at least that’s the way I think it should be used. Use your judgment.
• [Update 7:30 AM] Every updated post will show an edition number at the top right when it’s displayed. Everyone sees this already. Also, it’s customary to mark your updates along the lines of what I just did here… and often updates include new information which pretty much overrides what I said in the previous bullet.

Hope this helps. Let me know if it’s confusing.

And just in case you were forgetting Machu Picchu… (I just think this is silly…I’m not an Inca freak!)

whereIstand Tags

• Images

Tags: Technology by nick
No Comments »