posted May 20, 2008 08:39 PM            

Utilitarianism

in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to
produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone
affected by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person should pursue his own
self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts
as right or wrong independently of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that
make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the
Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive

posted May 20, 2008 11:02 PM            

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday approved a five-year, $307 billion farm bill with wide bipartisan support, virtually sealing President Bush’s defeat in a battle over agriculture policy.

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island was one of two Democratic senators who opposed the agriculture measure on Thursday.
Mr. Bush has promised to veto the bill because he says it would not do enough to limit subsidies at a time of record grain prices. His advisers said Thursday that he had every intention of making good on that vow.

The Senate vote, 81 to 15, with 35 Republicans in favor, guarantees an easy override of a veto. The House passed the bill on Wednesday, 318 to 106, also far more than the two-thirds needed to overturn a veto.

Although the measure is universally known as the farm bill, it has far more money to feed the poor, including $209 billion for nutrition programs like food stamps and food banks, according to the Congressional Budget Office, compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs.

“This is a great day for America, not just for farmers and ranchers,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who noted that the bill included money for healthy snacks for schoolchildren, for land conservation and rural development and for producing alternative fuel like ethanol made from switchgrass and other plant matter.

“This is really a farm bill for everyone,” Mr. Harkin said. “I am still hopeful the president will sign it.”

The White House said that there was no reason for lawmakers to be hopeful and that Mr. Bush would veto the bill when he returned from a Middle East trip.

“We will continue to make the case with lawmakers why it is bad for Americans,” said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman.

Mr. Bush’s objections include the failure of the bill to do enough to limit subsidies, which he has said are difficult to justify in such flush times for producers.

The administration had sought an income cap of $200,000 above which farmers could not qualify for farmer-subsidy payments. The bill sent by Congress limits farm income to $750,000 and non-farm income to $500,000.

The $750,000 limit would apply just to so-called direct payments that are disbursed based on acreage, regardless of market conditions or whether the land is actively farmed. The $500,000 limit applies to all programs.

Currently, there is no limit on farm income to qualify for payments. The limit on non-farm income is $2.5 million.

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the senior Republican on the agriculture panel, said Congress would override a veto.

“Obviously, I have been very disappointed in the comments coming out of the White House,” Mr. Chambliss said. “But we do have a strong vote in both the House and the Senate, and I think that shows you that in a complex piece of legislation like this, and it truly is because it touches so many different areas of so many different aspects of agriculture and food production, as well as nutrition and conservation and energy, that there is something in this bill for every member of the House and every member of the Senate.”

posted May 20, 2008 11:10 PM            

In todays world, people don't have good judgement. We already saw the three clowns performance in their campaigns. How can we trust future of America on one man or one woman who is not adept in politics, economics, philosophy, science, military, etc in totality?

Americans need to rethink of changing this very fascist form of government. In the past it worked because presidents respected the constitution and the position. They are of changing characters today.