"The debate over whether there is global warming or not is really over."
You're missing the point there, sonny. The debate is about whether the undisputed warming trend is caused by people or the Sun. If you are going to announce the end of the debate, then why not smack us with some evidence instead of lazily spouting that cultish "debate is over" bologna, and saying that it's "out there, for those who are willing to look."
If you aren't prepared to support your case with evidence and reliable sources, than perhaps you haven't spent enough time talking to your professors about your own work, and about what it truly means to be an academic.
I appreciate your youthful zeal, but, "Dude, some really smart people said so," is not a valid point. Bring something fresh and fact-based to the table instead of rehashing the same tired opposition-silencing techniques of your favorite blog. Otherwise, it's still just your opinion. And even though you're fully entitled to it--and I do celebrate your wonderful and magnificent right to hold any opinion for any reason--you should avoid dressing it up as fact, unless you can prove, with finality, that it is so.
Many proto-fascist policy changes throughout history began as well-meaning and effective preventative measures.
Policy makers (and their dutiful citizen-constituents) must be able to look beyond a policy's immediate usefulness and forsee its possible abuse against its own citizens.
This policy's potential for abuse far outweighs its usefulness.
Not enough people in this country fear the potential horrors that emotion based legislation can bring about. This nation was founded on logical notions of freedom, not on blind dogma.
Seeing how equality is such an easily defined word, I am perplexed at the way it is misinterpreted by our silly nation of feelers.
It means "the same," people. Now you know. The existence of "hate crimes" is only a few steps away from "thought crimes." Stick with the real; banish the dogma.
Jade, if you get past the emotion and really think logically you will see how silly the assertion is that any mainstream-media outlet (video or mass print) besides Fox News conspires with the religious right on anything at all. Don't you see all the angry Bible-thumping that is constantly rallied against TV programming and evil publications?
You guys bought the flim-flam and now you get to be surprised every time the dude takes only one of the two-or-more-stances-per-issue he held throughout the campaign. Given the dearth of good candidates this election, I'm not surprised that people heard what they wanted to hear to justify electing the cool kid. I don't really blame you--how can you resist a candidate who friended you on Myspace?
Seriously though, this is just the beginning of The Chosen One's flip-floppery. He just made far to many promises for one man to keep.
That's great and noble and such, but step 1 in cost-reduction is to reevaluate the definitions of "rights" and "amenities." Where do satellite TV and dessert fall again?