rigorousintuition.ca

seemslikeadream wrote:

• Several readers responding to our editorial Wednesday on Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s “throw up” reaction to fellow Roman Catholic John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech supporting church-state separation criticized The Times for being too soft on the former Pennsylvania senator. Richard C. Armendariz of Huntington Beach wrote:
  
  “There is no way that you can soft-soap Santorum’s remarks that JFK’s speech regarding the separation of church and state made him want to throw up. To argue that Santorum was not completely at odds with the Kennedy statement smacks of an attempt to appease his supporters.
  
  “Santorum’s statement on JFK — in addition to his prior ramblings that President Obama is a “snob” because he wants everyone to go to college, that the president has a phony theology and his view that the free distribution of birth control will lead to increased promiscuity — is sufficient to conclude that Santorum is not fit for any elected office.”
  
  Times editorial writer Jon Healey responds:
  
  The Times’ editorial board looked at Santorum’s comments about the Kennedy speech in isolation because they were emblematic of a more broadly held view among Christian conservatives. Whatever else you may think of Santorum, he is hardly the only person in America complaining that the government has pushed the notion of church-state separation too far.
  
  It’s true that Santorum tried to draw a sharp contrast between his stance on religion in politics and Kennedy’s remarks. In the editorial board’s view, however, Santorum so misconstrued Kennedy’s speech that he missed the common ground the two men occupy. Bear in mind that Kennedy gave the disputed speech to a group of Protestant ministers in Houston, not a gathering of atheists in San Francisco. He was trying to reassure people of faith that their religious liberties would not be diminished if a Catholic became president.
  
  The Christian right talks about religious liberty in a different context today, asserting that Washington is aggressively anti-religion. But even if you hold that view, hostility toward religion isn’t what Kennedy advocated. As The Times noted, Kennedy’s strong stance against the president taking marching orders from the pope, and Santorum’s argument that Washington shouldn’t exclude religious viewpoints from the debate, are opposite sides of the same coin.

Simulist wrote:I wish her brain were as functional as her voice.

We've never been to public school. We've switched between homeschool and Christian school.

compared2what? wrote:At utter random, I'm going all in on no brokered convention for....

Romney/Santorum 2012
____________________

Pretend there's a balloon drop here.

compared2what? wrote:that's a ticket that'll actually get the base out.

U.S. E-Voting System Cracked in Less Than 48 Hours

March 14th, 2012
Via: H-Security:
Researchers at the University of Michigan have reported that it took them only a short time to break through the security functions of a pilot project for online voting in Washington, D.C. “Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server”, the researchers wrote in a paper that has now been released. “We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot.” The hack was only discovered after about two business days – and most likely only because the intruders left a visible trail on purpose.
In 2010, the developers of the municipal e-voting system that enables voters living abroad to vote via a web site, invited security experts to conduct tests. The university researchers say that the project was developed in cooperation with the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation (OSDV) and that other US states have also worked on services similar to Washington’s “Digital Vote-by-Mail Service”. They also praise the system’s transparency as exemplary but point out that its architecture has fundamental security weaknesses and was not able to withstand a shell injection and other common hacker techniques.

Nordic wrote:What's the point? Elections are bogus anyway:

http://cryptogon.com/?p=28047

U.S. E-Voting System Cracked in Less Than 48 Hours

March 14th, 2012
Via: H-Security:
Researchers at the University of Michigan have reported that it took them only a short time to break through the security functions of a pilot project for online voting in Washington, D.C. “Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server”, the researchers wrote in a paper that has now been released. “We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot.” The hack was only discovered after about two business days – and most likely only because the intruders left a visible trail on purpose.
In 2010, the developers of the municipal e-voting system that enables voters living abroad to vote via a web site, invited security experts to conduct tests. The university researchers say that the project was developed in cooperation with the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation (OSDV) and that other US states have also worked on services similar to Washington’s “Digital Vote-by-Mail Service”. They also praise the system’s transparency as exemplary but point out that its architecture has fundamental security weaknesses and was not able to withstand a shell injection and other common hacker techniques.