Phi for All

Political reform is NEVER unrealistic on any level. I just happen to believe in the rolling boulder theory. It is difficult to sway public opinion in a major way just as it is tough to alter the course of a huge boulder rolling down a hill. The best you can hope for (without upsetting everything, good and bad) are small, gradual changes which alter its course favorably. Personally, I think many of our governmental systems and procedures have been in place so long that everybody involved in them knows exactly how much they can get away with. It's unfortunate that the same process that allows for efficiency also breeds corruption. It's easy to get mired in systems that help and hinder at the same time. Take the budget process. It encourages departments to spend up to the budgetary limits (or more) to justify the same money (or more) for next year. Often funds are spent unnecessarily but the alternative, rewarding managers for cutting expenses, usually means more money for the manager at a cost to departmental service quality. I'm still wrestling with this one, tbh. Part of me thinks we should push gradually for change and part of me thinks that will benefit those who look for exploitable areas. Maybe we need to turn Wash DC upside down and shake it vigorously. Whatever scum is still clinging afterwards MUST be evil.

I like what Pangloss said about personal messages from someone you know and care about, letting the non-voter know, "Hey, it's important to me, will you take a few hours out of your year and vote for my sake?" I don't think this approach has ever been tried on a national basis. Have you read the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell? It would take some heavy Connectors and a few Salesmen to make such a grass roots, personal approach successful, but I think it could really catch on. Figure a way to remove the chain-letter stigma and the former non-voter may just rise up and feel good about his own power, possibly for the first time in his life.

I think the idea of throwing your vote away on a third party is all illusion. If a third party could come up with a strong, just platform that pushed all the right buttons for voter dissatisfaction, then made a huge appeal to the non-voting block to get involved and vote to help themselves, and finally convince everyone that their polls showed they had at least 30% support instead of the typical 1-5% that third parties usually get, they could pull it off. Showing the public that they are being taken seriously by tens of millions of people is the key. Then it's not throwing your vote away.

You can Search the entire site, Search a particular forum or sub-forum, or even Search a particular thread for information that may have been covered in the past. Center of the Earth weightless hole digging thread

I've been piping AirAmerica through your computer while you sleep. You still keep your laptop next to the bed, right? mwahaha I think we should start (or join) a non-partisan, grass-roots voter shockwave through the political system, calling for a major denouncement of DeLay's sort of tactics, which are probably more mainstream than we realize. Don't let it become a rallying point for any one party, make it more of a citizen awareness campaign. We provide links to congressional offices and samples of form letters for people to endorse. We shoot for the moon, asking for total political reform, knowing that we will ultimately achieve only two goals: a) politicians will curb the corruption for a year or two, and b) we will raise the awareness level of a few thousand more voters. [/rabble rousing]

It could also be argued that, since many terrorists are religious fanatics who feel western encroachment in their political (and thus religious) affairs prompts terrorist action, the amount of terrorism would decline if we were suddenly no longer interested in their countries.

If someone told me they were "going to park", I might assume they meant "going to park my car somewhere". In this case, the distinguishes between a noun and a verb to the listener. If they said "going to the park", it would change the meaning completely, and would imply either the closest park or one we had frequented previously. It is a small word, but makes English a bit easier.

This is a big part of what angers me about voters in this country. The majority rarely think beyond the next tankful in their SUVs. And they've forgotten their true power, their brain combined with their vote. Excellent example, Aardvark. Easy money always seems to corrupt the easiest. Hard work for what you get seems to keep the mind clearer, and makes for a more grateful person, or country it seems.

I wouldn't change it at all. My second assumption was a complete error on my part, and has left me hiding in the basement in shame ever since I peeked at razorfane's answer.

I don't mean to interrupt the smart-is-what-you-achieve argument here, but I think we are probably not smarter in the sense gaara seems to mean. We are certainly more educated as a species, but our seemingly improved intelligence is mostly specialized and a person from 2000 years ago would probably laugh at our inability to live in his world. As Cadmus points out, we have evolved by 50+ generations, so we are most likely slightly smarter, but I think our superiority is mostly education and knowledge, not capacity for intelligence.

[hide]I assumed that the contestants would use only what they brought to the duel, the two glasses of water, and that they would not have time to go to another well to save themselves. I further assumed that water from the wells was the only source of water on the island. Therefore, if the princess drank a little from her own glass before the duel, she would be saved when she drank the witchy water. Then, if she drank ALL the witchy water during the duel, the witch would have none left to cure herself after drinking the princess's water.[/hide]

You're probably not going to find many airwavers here, since I would imagine that those without cable are also more likely not to be connected to the internet in any form either (except Mokele, who has his priorities straight).

razorfane, I like your answer as well. There are 2 things we don't know that would tell us who is right: [hide]Onset time of the poison (how quickly it takes effect), and whether the island has non-poisonous wells.[/hide]

[hide]The princess secretly drinks from her own glass just before the duel, knowing that, in order to win, the witch will brink water from well #8. Then, in the duel, she makes sure to drink all the water from the glass the witch gives her so the witch can't save herself.[/hide]

Here is a great solution for a capatalist economy. Have temp agencies (who regularly screen for good employees anyway) do all of your permanent hiring from an approved set of non-discrimanatory criteria. The agencies could be audited for fair practices rather than individual companies, saving government costs. The agency's fee could be adjusted down since they are only doing the actual hiring and are not providing employees like their regular service does. Large companies can scale down their human resource departments to cover the extra cost of hiring this way. And the human resource people could go to work for the expanded temp agencies.

Thank you, Coral, for focusing on a solution rather than the problem. Here's a thought: what if all job interviews were conducted anonymously, via internet or chatroom, so that race and gender could play no part in the decision?

Let's go with mine so younger member's parents continue to view us as an educational resource. And for you parents of teenagers who are reading this, we want you to know that certain vulgar words like ****, ****, ***** and **** will automatically be blanked out, replaced by asterisks in the actual post. You can't protect your children from all of the internet's vulgarity, but you can rest assured they won't get that **** here.

Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well fallacies, as well as just being your same old argument.

BTW = By the way J/K = Just kidding OTOH = On the other hand PM = Personal Message IRC = Internet Relay Chat LOL = Laughing out loud ROFL = Rolling on the floor laughing WTF = Where's THAT from?!?

You can use the search tools to search the whole site, or search each forum and subforum, and even search within a thread for the info you're looking for. I'm not sure I would trust a single pdf that purported to be able to teach everything about biochemistry, or any other area of science for that matter. I'm afraid you'll have to dig.

To me, the circumstances leading to a need for affirmative action is like catching someone cheating at a race. In this instance you can't disqualify the runner, so you penalize him. It would be unethical to just say, sorry, we won't cheat from here on in, just allow us this lead we've got and we'll call it even. I've tried to explain it several ways. Are you going to continue using the same argument? No, because I don't view it the way you do, hence the reason I call affirmative action remedial. It rectifies a bad situation.

Except the horse.

Feathers. Small ones. Down.

* gasp * What do you charge to add letters to someone's name?