"So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which progress in the natural sciences provides the best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world"

10:45:45 PM  What do you think? ( Thoughts) Who linked? []   

NY Times: "Well-educated technology workers have long been at the forefront of American economic growth and innovation. But some of them can't find jobs." [Scripting News]

12:24:40 PM  What do you think? ( Thoughts) Who linked? []   

This opinion from the New York Times couldn't be more biased. The assumption that rejection of almost half the signatures is "constitutional" is bullshit. The fact that they don't mention that the reppair process assumes the signatures are invalid (no presumption of innocence) is proof they are either misunderstanding the issue or openly biased. I fear it's the later. This is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the enemy is Bush. Pity that intelligent people have so little foresight. Chávez and Venezuela will become a huge problem for the US. Alas! they will discover it too late, after too many people has suffered and the US economy gets affected...

The moral relativism in the title is also bullshit. The opposition and the government are not in the same position. While both must obey the law of the land (and neither does), the government has a higher level of responsibility (making others obey the law), so law breaking by members of the government is a much worse offense than by members of the opposition.

All these concepts are well-known and common in law, that the New York Times voluntary ignores them is disgraceful

9:27:47 AM  What do you think? ( Thoughts) Who linked? []