iNow

I'm in Austin, a free-thinking oasis in this rather large state, so fortunately a bit insulated from the rest. However, I understand your point, DH. In fact, your point is part of the problem I have with the current setup and why I often get so frustrated. Swansont - If I read the recent posts about this correctly, they've tried and failed now to pass this at least 3 times. I need to look a little more closely to say with more certainty.

Did you know that Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have constitutions that explicitly forbid atheists from holding state office? Well, they do. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics I must say, it sure is a good thing we have that intelligent piece of writing we like to call the Establishment Clause. Maybe if we pretend it doesn't exist then people can just keep pushing their religion throughout our society until they're forcibly stopped from doing so, and forced to abide by our constitution (or, instead ). Speaking of legality, all laws against atheists holding office were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable by the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins on a first amendment basis. Well, that's good, but then why are they still on the books of those states? I sense some dissonance here. A SCOTUS ruling with no teeth being selectively ignored. To the credit of some brave folks in that state, it appears that Arkansas is at least trying to repeal their law against atheists holding office, but they've been rather unsuccessful in doing so. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/02/an_advocate_for_atheists_in_ar.html Hard to say what was more remarkable about the resolution that was read into the record and referred to committee Wednesday by a member of the 87th Arkansas General Assembly. The resolution itself: HJR 1009: AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AN ATHEIST HOLDING ANY OFFICE IN THE CIVIL DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS OR TESTIFYING AS A WITNESS IN ANY COURT. Or the fact that it was submitted by the Green Party's highest-ranking elected official in America, state Rep. Richard Carroll of North Little Rock, who was elected in November winning more than 80 percent of the vote in his district. Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution states that "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled all such state provisions unconstitutional and unenforceable in a 1961 ruling in a Maryland case: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'" Carroll is merely trying to do some symbolic constitutional housecleaning, but it won't be easy. In 2005, state Rep. Buddy Blair filed a resolution to affirm Arkansas' support for the separation of church and state. The resolution lost 39-44 in the House. And last month, Rep. Lindsley Smith offered a resolution to declare Jan. 29 at Thomas Paine Day in Arkansas. "I consider myself a very religious person," Smith told the committee considering her bill to designate Jan. 29 as Thomas Paine Day in Arkansas. Paine, the colonial patriot who wrote "Common Sense," a pamphlet that built support for the American Revolution. Paine also was a Deist who believed in God but not religion. The proposal died in committee, even after Smith assured her colleagues that she was not an atheist. Which they would have known if they'd read the state constitution. Meanwhile, in a related story, the Arkansas House passed a bill Wednesday allowing people to bring their guns to church. Well... thank goodness. I may not be able to be elected as an atheist, but at least I can bring my gun to church. At least they have their priorities straight. I find it worth mention that even without those laws on the books, this "ban of atheists from public office" is still in practice in all of the 50 states implicitly since public opinion makes it almost impossible for an atheist to get elected to high office. Sad, but true. Hopefully, that's changing, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. What do you think? How far from our founding principles and the rule of law have we strayed? Is this normal for a representative republic, or is America not far off from formalizing its own sweet version of Sharia law under the guise of Judeo-Christian morality?

I believe you mistakenly attributed a quote to me when it actually came from waitforufo. He deserves the praises you offered.

It's a dicey situation to be sure. If the man committed crimes, he should be held accountable. It really is that simple. No president is above the law, or at least, they shouldn't be. We are a nation of laws, and those laws mean nothing if they are selectively enforced or if people in power just "get a pass." While I take the point being made by Pangloss that some of this is motivated purely out of partisan desire for retribution, I think summarily dismissing it entirely as just that misses the underlying point here pretty profoundly. Yes, there is some desire for revenge going on, and much of it is partisan. No question or conflict there. That's true. However, there is more to this onion than JUST revenge. There are some pretty serious questions about legality here (or, more appropriately, illegality), and they should be followed through, no matter who the man is/was. While the sheriff dropped the case due to lack of quality evidence, if they can attempt to investigate Michael Phelps for smoking pot, then SURELY they can investigate Bush for something much more egrarious... like torture and illegal wire tapping of american citizens. I have a hard time seeing how somebody could have ANY other perspective about this unless they themselves are the ones acting in a partisan manner. Tell me if you think I'm out of line, but IMO it doesn't matter what title you've obtained, you're still a citizen of this country and subject to its laws. If there is question that you've broken them, then answers and justice should be pursued. No question. Categorically dimissing the attempt to find those answers is picking and choosing when laws apply, rendering them meaningless and unjust. It's not like we're talking about blow jobs in the oval office here, and EVEN that was investigated.

Since it's illegal, will the woman go to jail for murder after having an abortion? Will she be executed? Will the woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? What a stupid law. We have enough stupid children on our planet already. If the parent is smart enough to abort it before it's born, then more water and food for the rest of us. Also... DrDNA... would it be possible for you to NOT respond to each and every post made in this thread? I think we all know how you feel on this topic. It might be nice to hear from others.

Start reading at pg 332. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf

Oh, for the love of Zeus, man. How many times are you going to bump this thread to tell me that you like Pioneer's posts? I don't care. I don't like his posts, and I'm not alone in that since this is a SCIENCE FORUM. Let's move on, now, shall we?

Looks like we should have done more to regulate Bernie Madoff and now also Allen Stanford. While the regulators may have missed the red flags, the absence of regulation would hardly have made the situation any better. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahaUscXNr5wY&refer=home Clients of Stanford Group were told their funds would be placed mainly in easily sellable financial instruments, monitored by more than 20 analysts and audited by Antiguan regulators, according to the SEC. Instead, the “vast majority” of the portfolio was managed by Stanford himself and James Davis, the chief financial officer of the Antiguan subsidiary, the SEC said.

Hello, my name is iNow and I'm an idiot.

Yeah... what were they thinking... consulting a nobel prize winning economist for some perspective. Those bastards!! That struck me also. We're all just human, trying to do the best with what we've got. I tend to respect them more after seeing them as real humans and not symbols or ideologues.

Gareth, The way I look at those comments is that sometimes work will increase if you're moving upward (since you have to fight gravity). That's where vector becomes a factor, but it still has nothing to do with "type" of work. Only "amount" of work. And that's really the biggest point. The crucial issue is "amount" of work, not direction of work or "type" of work.

Have you tried granola? Maybe they will have some at the feed store if your grocer doesn't carry it (translation: Move to Canada). This has been a really good discussion so far. Thanks to everyone who has taken part. I tend to agree that part of the problem is our election type. We have the first to the post concept, and also the fact that the party can raise ginormous sums of money for advertising and meet & greets (whereas an individual really cannot, unless you're Ross Perot). Further, the party seems to give cover to the crazies, and bring everyone down with them. Finally, many people really do vote straight party tickets... every year, every election. If they're not voting for the individual, but are instead voting for the party, that's clearly a problem. We need to figure a way out of this, though, and the only people who can change the laws are the ones who benefit from it. We're in a bit of a bind, it would seem.

One thing that the special made clear is that this is especially so when you're talking about the market. It fascinated me how just the slightest "whiff" of non-control caused them to spasm into chaos... How simple rumors were enough to bring down some of the largest corporate entities. Again, though... this is not a thread to rant about the stimulus or bailouts... Could we, please, try to avoid making it yet another one of those and talk about the special referenced in the OP, or the points made within? Pretty please?

Required for what? Sometimes these experiments ARE required, sometimes they are not. Depends on the goal, what is being studied, and whether or not ALL other alternatives have proven unhelpful. The simple fact is that we DO need to use animals in tests, and that we exercise extreme caution to minimize the negative impact to them, and extreme oversight to ensure we only test on them when it's really necessary to do so.

Don't worry, mate... Not only does our system often deserve a dig, but we're trying to understand it, too.

Well, techically you could re-classify, but it wouldn't do you a whole heck of a lot of good, now, would it? I tend to agree with Sisyphus on this one. There's not enough information for me to judge. It's possible that the evidence wouldn't convict him and it would ruin Obamas chances to get things done... It's possible any action right now would ruin Obamas chances to get things done... It's possible Obama will hold this in his back-pocket until later when he needs leverage to get things done. We don't know. I'm not going to let my disgust with Bush cloud my judgement here until I know more about what "here" really is.

Hi Muzna, I'm glad you came back. I wasn't sure that you would since we hadn't heard from you in a few days, but welcome. Okay, I didn't formally study biology, so note that I am simply an interested layman in this. However, I will pose some ideas, and hope that the community can discuss them, add more of their own, and correct any where I might be mistaken. The confusion really rests on an oversimplification, and even misunderstanding, that "only individuals who are able reproduce will contribute offspring to the next generation," and that "since homosexuals don't tend to reproduce, their genes can't get passed on." That's really not the case. Sex and evolution isn't split down such clearly divided lines like that, and we must account for changes in allele frequency over time for the entire population... basically, think of this at the population level instead of the level of the individual. That answers the logical part of how homosexuality has not been removed from the gene pool, since something can benefit the entire population without necessarily making clear benefit at the level of the individual. Evolution is not all about "passing on MY genes," it's often about "passing on the genes of my GROUP/PACK/FAMILY." Remember that evolution acts on populations as well, and that will help in understanding this. To start things off, one speculation about homosexuality is that it's just an emergent property of our overall sexuality, which rests on a continuum. There is no "one right way" for everyone to have or enjoy sex, but instead a whole range of possibilites for the individual to practic and prefer. I've heard it suggested that a stronger sense of sexuality helped a group of organisms to out-reproduce groups with weaker senses of sexuality, and perhaps homosexuality is an emergent phenomenon of that hyper-sexualized libido. I don't know, but it's at least one way to explain how this could have evolved. Another idea is that it has served social bonding purposes in pack animals. I tend to find this argument most compelling. The idea is that homosexual behavior increases group cohesion and descreases group tension. Obviously, more cohesive and well-functioning groups would outperform groups that are splintered and which have an "every man for himself" mentality. For example, homosexuality could help the females garner favor with each other, and strengthen bonds like friendship, maybe increase the sharing of food and shelter, or care for offspring. Homosexuality could also help males to placate each other, especially dominant males who may kill the other male if his aggression is not checked somehow. Basically, the subordinate male accommodates the alpha male, hence strengthening the bond and saving his life. This obviously would have conferred benefit, as it often would have prevented the subordinate male from being killed. On top of that, though, the males woud also benefit in the same way as females, with greater/stronger friendships, more sharing of resources, and greater protection of family against attack and predation. I briefly mentioned females, and to reinforce that point, you must consider just how important social bonding is for survival. The closer your bond with others in your group, the more help and protection you will receive. It is very likely that homosexual behavior allowed animals to avoid deep tensions and strengthen social ties with their sexuality. The group as a whole was stronger due to homosexuality strengthening bonds and decreasing tensions. This behavior has been observed repeatedly in dolphins, for instance. Often when aggression stirs and danger is present for a dolphin, they will engage in a sexualized response and basically deflate that aggression by providing pleasure. Before long, the attackers and the attacked are frolicking through the water playfully... crisis averted. Another theory mirrors the "grandmother hypothesis," in that homosexuals were hugely beneficial in caring for infant relatives, just like human grandmothers. Obviously, the more care an infant is given, the greater its chances of survival, ergo the homosexual behavior was selected for by the survival of the infant it helped raise. On top of that, the homosexual would not in a position to cuckhold the childs parent (to have that parent cheat on their partner with the person assisting in provision of care). The homosexual animal is a better care-taker in these respects, hence the benefit their offer is to the allele group of their tribe as opposed to their own individual set of genes. This is still a tentative hypothesis, but the idea that survival of the group can be more powerful than survival of individual is well accepted and easily explained. There are some ideas off the top of my head. The biggest issue here (as I see it) is group cooperation, and how group survival was often more important than survival of one single member of that group, and that homosexuality conferred many advantages in that regard (ease of social tension, strengthening of social cohesion and bonds, dealing with survival in environments where mates were in short supply, assistance in child rearing, etc.). Then ultimately, those alleles got selected for since those groups tended to outperform groups with more rigid and puritanical sexual boundaries. Also, I should note... There are over 1500 species which have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. In fact, not one single species we've ever observed has been found NOT to engage in homosexuality. That seems to strengthen the premise of its biological nature. We discussed that some over in this other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36687 Good luck. I hope this has helped or at least steered you in the right direction.

We definitely agree on pretty much everything here, especially about trying to start a discussion based on a questionable premise. I also agree that this premise seems pretty solid (not that questionable), so I'll stop acting like you're my girlfriend where I tend to carry on an argument over nothing for no apparent reason and then get myself into even more trouble.

Sometimes I hate being right so often. http://www.cnbc.com//id/29243063 GM, Chrysler Seek Nearly $22 Billion More US Aid General Motors and Chrysler LLC requested nearly $22 billion in combined additional U.S. government aid and have reached a tentative deal with the United Auto Workers union to reduce labor costs. The two automakers, which have so far received $17.4 billion from the U.S. Treasury, also announced sweeping restructuring that included capacity reduction and job cuts. GM is seeking a total of up to $30 billion in U.S. government aid, more than double its original request -- and said it would run out of cash as soon as March without new federal funding. "I think this is a perilous road," said Alan Lancz, president at Alan B Lancz & Associates Inc. "This is a situation where we really have to decide whether we are throwing good money after bad."

Maybe this will give you some ideas: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/25/make-a-mousetrap-pow.html You can probably use the ideas he gives to move the wheels to make the rotor blades spin. Also, remember that the shape of the rotor blades matters. Wrong shape will result in no lift.

I definitely agree. In fact, many of the (I'll call them) classic Republicans are already advocating a split from the (I'll call them) insane religiot republicans. Newt Gingrich himself began doing this after the election, and I commend him for it. It's time they stop worrying about opposing stem cell research or shooting abortion doctors, and come back to the actual values which represent conservatism in the fiscal sense. Back to the thread, I'm not looking for an exact number that works best. I'm simply trying to explore some ideas, to hash out where we seem to be consistently failing, and to work with each other to posit ideas that can make things better for all of us.

The whole program is available for viewing at the following: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/ This was an amazingly well told story, and was doubly dramatic because it was all real and being experienced by all of us right now. We've all been hearing about the economic issues in sound byte fashion... little piece-meal nuggets of information here and there, but nothing cohesive or anything which threaded it all together. Well, in classic Frontline fashion, the history of the situation is brought together with interviews and insights few have heard. They focused heavily on the battle between systemic risk and moral hazard... how Paulson was a classic free-market, anti-regulation republican who believed to his core in moral hazard, but had to face the fact that systemic risk was more important... how he was torn apart by his fellow republicans for his actions with Bear Stearnes, and how he was defended by democrat Barney Frank when nobody else seemed to understand just how bad things had become and why he was doing all of this. "When the situation changes, you have to be willing to change with the situation." ~ Henry Paulson What struck me is how interconnected these entities were, how moral hazard simply wasn't an option, and how significantly the market spiralled downward when they got the sense nobody had a plan that was anything more than reactive. What do you all think? Should we have allowed the great depression so we could stand on our principles? Were these men culpable, or were they simply mortals trying to do the best they could in a very very bad situation? Has the public been treating this situation all too academically and beyond reality, or have those who offer their opinion in opposition spent the time required and analyzed the risk for themselves, suspended their principles, and chosen that the steps which were taken still were not appropriate? Feel free to comment on any part. Also, I strongly encourage you spend the hour to watch the program. IMO, it's a healthy representation of what journalism should be, and what seems so absent from so much of our news lately. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/

Moo, Respectfully, I want to point out that your question is pretty much completely off-topic. The OP explicitly stated that the genetic basis of it was taken as given. I agree with you that there is no final consensus yet, and that both nature and nurture play complex roles. However, it has nothing to do with the issue raised in the OP, or the questions asked based on that premise. Since there is no conclusive evidence that it's NOT genetic (it's not like he's here arguing for a perpetual motion device), perhaps we can explore the issue. Or, maybe I'm just wasting my time since they haven't been back to clarify since the initial responses. That is seeming more and more likely. More available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

I wonder if zero is the best answer to that question. Let every representative be who they are, standing up for their constituents, and do so without any affiliation whatsoever. So, how about it? Is zero viable? Just a bunch of representatives where it doesn't matter what color jersey they have on?

Why does every frakkin thread we have lately turn into personal venting against the stimulus/bailouts? Please, people... There is a topic. Although, it would make for an interesting psychology thread, the fact that no matter how peripherally the stimulus or bailout is mentioned, people start ranting. Bascule (or others) - I don't suppose you've read anywhere that there is a way to recover that money we overpaid for the financial companies?