DISQUS

Yes, intelligence is not sufficient to determine whether somebody is presidential material. But are you implying that it's not necessary either?

It's hard to pin down what we're thinking when we say `that person is smart.' Some just go by credentials, which I'd say you're right to question. Diction is also a lousy means of measuring intelligence (though in another sense of `diction' that's what the SAT does). But other measures make more sense, like having quick responses to surprises, or offering new syntheses of old ideas, or generally being able to quickly thread things together to form a complex thought. I would say that these sorts of intelligence _are_ necessary for a president (but still not sufficient).

Meanwhile, Gov. Palin refused to go off-script in the debate ("I'm not gonna answer that question"), and has famously fumbled when attempting to do so. I want a President who has the intelligence/reflexes/social wit/whatever to go off-script and present ideas apropos to the situation.

Let me add to the chorus in saying that this is the allocation of resources, not censorship. The typical school library is painfully limited, and a hundred new books on the shelves means a hundred old books tossed out (and time spent by the librarian doing all the processing). When resources are so limited, there's no censorship in setting standards and limits---you could say that it's resource constraints that are doing the censoring here. Are the standards biased and aimed at an agenda? That's always possible, but the Coalition, the Post, and this writeup fail to show much of any evidence that this is the case.

You can always buy another card. In fact, Metro is planning on making the cards free and allowing you to buy them at more venues, so this'll be easier. Remember that the DC metro has as many MD/VA commuters as residents, and has to be tourist-friendly, so it'll be a long time before access is closed to Smartrip users only, let alone state-IDs only.

I hate to defend Richard "Dick" Cheney on anything, but he doesn't actually live at the Naval Observatory. I believe his house is the one at 34th and Mass with the semicircular drive, and it's not obscured. Though, the general consensus seems to be that the Naval Observatory is Mr. Cheney's "undisclosed location", so maybe he hangs out there all day long.

Fed Circuit judges take great pains to avoid policy arguments in their rulings. I think if you asked the judge why s/he allowed patents like these to stand (sorry, s/he'd lean heavily on how the patent has broken no rules, has correctly been put through the system, et cetera. To me, their interest is much more in maintaining and/or expanding the patent system then looking at the system's effects on the non-patent world.

As for the part in the Constitution (Art. I, sec 8.8) that says that patents shall be granted to promote the progress of science and useful arts---which implies that a patent system that does not promote progress is unconstitutional---judges often take the attitude that that part of the Constitution is either unenforceable or just rhetorical fluff. It amazes me how much effort has gone into making sure that patent rulings in no way consider whether the patent, or any aspect of the patent system, is at all beneficial.

As for how anyone could seriously support the Federal Circuit's patent rules, it seems the Supreme Court isn't, and is slowly but surely reversing the CAFC's expansions of patent law---often via arguments that rightly include a policy component.