iNow

I suppose that's possible, but do you at least have a source so I can read more about it?

Last.

I've always heard good things about Cal Tech for both topics, but can't offer first hand knowledge.

Jackson - None of your post is relevant in the context of Phi's comments. Please, read the article and try again.

I've said many things in this thread. Please quote precisely where you feel I was "bludgeoning the social conservatives into submission." Mr Skeptic was never able to quote a spot in this thread where I was "ramming my superior ideas down their ignorant throats," and I dare say you won't be able to quote a spot where I was doing any bludgeoning. Prove me wrong with a specific quote or two from this thread. Please.

Nonsense, Pioneer. You obviously have zero concept of how to design a relevant scientific study, and you appear quite content to keep spouting the same unfounded ridiculousness you've been spoon fed. The article I shared flatly debunked the post you made, and you made that post IMMEDIATELY after I shared that article. That's just too priceless. Also, I challenge you to find data that religious belief has declined since the 50s. It's practically impossible to have a meaningful dialog with you because a) you make up your own facts, b) you form conclusions counter to reality, and c) you ignore corrections to your faults and keep repeating them. This time, instead of making stuff up, please just read the study: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest. In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.

Your post doesn't even warrant a response. I'll again remove myself from this thread.

I'm asking specifically about this thread, though. I changed my tack, as you're right, it the other thread I focussed too much on emotive charges and labels of bigotry. I'm asking specifically about this thread, though.

You know, I truly thought that Bush didn't have enough time left in office to make my disgust of his style of governance any more intense. I thought wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103359.html?nav=rss_politics The president of the nation's largest general science organization yesterday sharply criticized recent cases of Bush administration political appointees gaining permanent federal jobs with responsibility for making or administering scientific policies, saying the result would be "to leave wreckage behind." "It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments." His comments came as several new examples surfaced of political appointees gaining coveted, high-level civil service positions as the administration winds down. The White House has said repeatedly that all gained their new posts in an open, competitive process, but congressional Democrats and others questioned why political appointees had won out over qualified federal career employees. A source familiar with the situation said the Justice Department raised concerns about the initial plan to hire Akers without opening the position for full competition. A Justice Department spokesman declined to elaborate but said the agency instructed the DEA to make the process fair and open.

I thought this was interesting. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society. It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality. Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills. The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world. “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. “The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.” The study concluded that the US was the world's only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from "uniquely high" adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested. Mr Paul said: "The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America." He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added. “The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.” h/t

From an operational/logistic standpoint, they also wasted a bunch of money that could have been focussed on retooling their machines and/or saving jobs.

Specific amounts to the milliliter and error factors aside, we know that the ice melt contributes to the volume of water in the ocean, and that the melting is happening faster now. Regardless of your specific variables on amount, it's increasing, and studies by the experts align well with each other on these points, and all attribute the change to a warming globe. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/ Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year. Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher than those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level. Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century.

I must concede that I truly don't understand the responses to this thread. I have openly stipulated that I am biased on this issue, but that I would like to hear quality arguments which demonstrate constitutional relevance. I have focussed all of my arguments at the level of the federal constitution, and described how these state level constitutional changes are inconsistent and irreconciliable with the articles and clauses of the federal constitution. I have openly stated how a change to the federal constitution is a possibility which would allow the banning of two people of the same gender to be legally recognized by the states. I have described why I think "waiting another 50 years while hearts and minds are won" is an approach counter to our presently existing legal structure and constitutional arrangement, as well as the setup of our "dual sovereignty with federal level supremancy" governance. Mr Skeptic has accused my focus on the federal and state constitutions in this thread as "ramming my superior ideas down their ignorant throats," and yet he's been awarded the description of "biting his tongue." Again, I truly don't understand the responses to this thread, neither why nor how I'm somehow supposed to be the "bad guy" here. I honestly await a relevant constitutionally based counter argument to any of the points I've made, or an explanation of why/how the supreme court could find in favor of allowing Prop 8 without a federal level constitutional amendment. I am looking for help to understand any reason why such a ban at the state level should be allowed given our legal and constitutional setup.

I'm not quite clear on why you two are suggesting I'm against education on this topic, as that's not the case at all. Education is hugely important, and I think my posts demonstrate a sincere desire for learning and sharing knowledge. The issue is whether or not the state level amendment is constitutional at the federal level. I posit that it's not. I have laid out evidence in support of this position, and I have yet to see a relevant counter argument offered by anyone.

From a philosophical standpoint, I have a hard time believing that a child with such minimally developed brain function is not able to be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society. Convicting them to a life in prison under adult laws would prevent them from doing exactly that, though. Tough call. I'm more on the side of "let's treat them and make them better" than "let's punish them and take their life away." I tend to lean that way with adults as well, but I concede that it's a difficult balance to find. Strangely, I feel pretty bad for this kid.

That's a tremendously interesting point, Pangloss. "It's not my fault I chose wrongly on this issue, it was those evil partisan spinsters distracting me." I think there's valid reason to suggest that the spinsters drive that partisan wedge between us for explicitly that reason. I just am not ready to attribute my own mistakes to the "noise" in the system, but I find the central point you're making to be incredibly thought provoking.

Yes, I completely agree, and that's almost verbatim what I said in post #42 above. Where's the issue again? Also, are you going to clarify where it was you think I was cramming my "superior ideas" down the throats of the "ignorant?"

Please be so kind as to clarify for all of us precisely which part of my argument on the constitutionality of all of this you are summarily dismissing as "superior ideas" being forced "down their ignorant throats."

That is one possible way, but not the most likely. It could be a factor in the change, but the most likely explanation has more to do with how weather patterns around other parts of the globe are shifting, but I suppose you're free to make up just about anything up that you want. Facts and reality have never slowed you down before.

For the record, our executives last week all took a 10% pay cut so we could save more peoples jobs. I respect this. When you look at the extravegance of the auto execs compared against this, it's out of touch in the extreme, almost cartoonish.

Opinions mean nothing. The facts disagree with you. It's sad really if you look at the world so uncritically. Here's data against the sun doing it: Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics Sun not to blame for global warming. A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Here's data against natural cycles: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html Attribution of polar warming to human influence Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures, and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level. Those are just two among literally millions of pieces of evidence in support of my position.

We may just have to disagree then, as I simply cannot fathom how anyone would argue in favor of accepting a state level constitutional amendment which is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the federal constitution, especially since the federal constitution represents the supreme law of the land per the Supremecy Clause in Article VI. Problems don't often fix themselves, they must be tackled head on. Ignoring the issue and sticking your head in the sand like ostriches are not viable solutions (unless you're a top executive in Detroit).

Sure is a good thing that's not the argument I was making then, isn't it? Also, you were not talking about "judicial restraint." You explicitly said "legislating from the bench," which is what prompted my comments on that topic.

I wouldn't think it matters. No matter how rigid your material, the force must still transmit atom by atom down the line like a wave. Per your question on the "extra force," I would guess much of it would create instability and dissipate as heat.

Ah, yes and no. As I mentioned before, the federal constitution takes precendance over a state constitution as outlined by the Supremecy Clause in Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it. I think you will notice that I've been arguing primarily from a federal level on these points. This means that any amendments to the state constitution can still be overturned by SCOTUS. That would be the "no" part of my response to your point. For the "yes" part, you would, of course, be correct if we amended the federal constitution in this way. I see that as much less likely, but indeed possible. If the country as a whole (the majority against whose tyranny the minority has been maximally protected) chose to amend the federal constitution to disallow two people of the same gender from marrying, then they could certainly do so. There is, however, a caveat in that the new amendment must not conflict with existing amendments, nor create ambiguity in application of any previously existing law or provisions. The constitution (and, perhaps more appropriately, those sworn to protect it) cannot allow provisions that are mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable to exist simultaneously. For these reasons, I see an amendment of this sort at the federal level as very unlikely to happen, since such a provision would, in fact, appear to conflict with the aforementioned Establishment Clause and the Equal Protections Clause. So, the odds are against such an amendment making it into the federal constitution, but I grant you that it is, in theory, at least possible, just at an incredibly low order of probability. Additionally, if such an amendment were successfully passed, it could later be reversed as you suggest by a new amendment from the people, much like the 21st amendment reversed the 18th amendment, which prohibited the possession and sale of alcohol. TBH, I'm not at all swayed by this "legislating from the bench" nonsense. It's the same stupid argument that the whackos who think a clump of undifferentiated cells deserve the same rights as a fully developed and grown human being, or folks who want to see creationism taught in the classrooms alongside evolution (do they want to teach the stork theory of childbirth, too?). It's a farse and a smoke screen to hide the fact that they don't have a meritorious argument in support of their position. The purpose of the supreme court is to rule on the intent of the law and uphold the constitution. That's what is going on here, and trying to cast the justices in the dim and derogatory shadow of "activism" is weak, wrong, and completely hypocritical considering your repeated reminders about the need to win "hearts and minds."