The Bear's Key

Redshifted gravity anyone?

We miscommunicated earlier. I had thought you meant independent voters never wanted the public option because it's a socialist idea and/or European-like. Obviously not, my apologies for the error. Though if you didn't mean the public option, then I dont see where you're getting the socialism "preferences" from. No one's even mentioned those, where do you get such an idea? And how do you consider the bolded socialism? Curious which post did that happen in? The bit of religion I mentioned had to do with an envangelist supportive of lefty causes, getting to the root of problems rather than depending mostly on force. Here's a quote from the article I linked to. Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had left the job feeling that the initiative was not about ''compassionate conservatism,'' as originally promised, but rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way to consolidate and energize that part of the base. ..... Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.''' Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy. ''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.'' Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that. Plus I think you're wrong on several counts. 1. It's very helpful to my friends on the left to see religious people who are sensible. The neoconish ones would like us to believe otherwise, to create the illusion of a vast army of supposedly reason-devoid people we'd be up against. 2. My friends include those on the right as well (including the far spectrum, although I tend to dislike far anything). 3. The bogeyman isn't the religious right, it's the people who've hijacked both religion and the GOP.* It's helpful to my frinds on the right to expose that. 4. I wouldn't care if the Democratic Party crumbled if the Republicans and other parties left with them. I fairly much hate politics. Unfortunately, I continually find it's the left who's more open to that idea, a symptom possibly of how influenced the right is by their party's hijackers. I often ask people. Do yourself a favor and do the same: ask liberals, then conservatives individually -- would they rather all national parties simply didn't exist, or had far less power, instead of today's world situation? Keep in mind this is while Democrats are "in power", I still would bet on liberals being the one to more want the diminishing of parties, unless it's somehow different where you live. Well just claiming Democrats return to power and do X^2 isn't real validation, especially where I showed that Democrats have gone the reverse of what the hijacked Republicans did.** And guess what, instead of the cycle breaking, the hijacked Republican leadership just did worse on its turn next. If you really want even more proof, all I can say is prepare yourself for avalanche. However, that doesn't mean the Democrat leadership are saints. They might also be hijacked, I just see their power as more insignificant....for now. But enlighten us as to how one party can never be far worse than another? It happened in Germany and many places. Often I wonder how: citizens tired of debating politics, or claiming none of the parties are saints. Hell, of course no party's ever a group of saints, but.... It'll be difficult to, when looking over you're having such tons of fun with the straw man. Let's highlight a potent fallacy among the Right. They bemoan how the U.S. is a liberal wasteland, that its government steals money from our paychecks, its government's inefficient, U.S. is full of decadence, its leadership wants our guns, its media's biased and liberal, its justice system weak vs terrorist cases, etc. Yet when liberals point out the flaws of a system (corrupted by the hijacked politicians/religions/economy), of course their view must be America sucks, so why don't they go live elsewhere? So I often ask just that of conservatives who bitch and moan of the nation's state -- if only to jar their beliefs which are set in a concrete of propaganda. The fallacy you've made is because we don't view it as "the U.S. sucks". Rather, its leadership has been corrupted, and often by the very same corrupters who are saying America is great. Please try to understand the strategy in that. If you hijack a good institution and craft a selfish plan, by getting everyone focused on the righteousness and goodness of said institution, and you mask your plan within its righteousness/goodness, blended seamlessly in -- and even maybe wielding power of law -- then you can easily make whoever tries to fight vs your schemes appear to be whatever enemy you'd like them to be. The strategy is two-fold. The hijacker also wants us to believe, mistakenly, it's an insurmountable tide of people we're up against (i.e. the moral majority and the Christian Coalition). Thus instead of pinpointing the actual culprit hijacker(s), we sometimes in error blame the hijacked institution. Can you look beyond that error to the heart of the issue? * (Dems too, worry not ) ** From now on I might use "hijacked Republican leadership/etc" to distinguish them from the valid and important conservative values that do still exist in places.

Awesome! Hope your Eurotrip is fantastic Yet leaving the U.S. could be just a temporary solution, as it's in the world's best interests for neocons to be exorcized from the Republican Party. Neocons leading the world's most powerful nation has consequences for everyone (and insane benefit/power for that crew). It'd be nice if we got lots more help/initiative from conservatives on this. So...independents already knew full well the kind of laws/ideology they were voting for by selecting Obama and a Democratic majority. It was spelled out before the November election. Great point. Except the neocons (strategically) label them as being the most extremely far left possible. It's basically their signature attack on Dems (and even their own party's Republican moderates) to neoconize the center, and eventually the left. Until all that remains on the ideological scale is the extreme right and their bitter opponents the slightly less extreme right (to be found 1 or two CH away on the scale). Clearly they're about speed, a marathon whirl of abuses + delay tactics, leaving behind obstacles to stall any investigations....so in the end they remain five steps ahead of us. Those roaches are, once more, hidden from the spotlight glare of high office -- for now -- but they don't seem anywhere remotely near to being done, as their current schemes indicate. But it's mainly their philosophy which indicates further action, based on a quote to a reporter by a senior adviser to Bush... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?_r=1 The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality....That's not the way the world really works anymore....We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' It could be the reporter made it up, yet it's besides the point. The neocons truly act in such a manner. An *interesting* bit in that article I liked, behind the scenes we find religious people upset with Bush's views, feeling he catered more to the religious right and not to compassionate conservatism as originally had been promised. Of course the one evangelist advocates "lefty" type issues (social justice), so it's no surprise when his reponse to Bush's praise got him the following... Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that. ''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.'' ........ He is no longer invited to the White House. I did read it, you've erred. The independents voted for Obama after knowing his "determination" for the Public Option. But the link you gave is a poll taken long after the election. So logically, the independents could instead be unhappy that the Public Option was dropped, and the healthcare bill fell short of its promises. In the meantime, all the noise by Fox Tabloids likely distorted a lot of perceptions about the bill, while Obama simply defended too little against their stream of distortions. Ok, so show us where. I think it's more accurate to say Repubs do X (where X = partisan nastiness), Dems return to power and do X^-2. (i.e. kissing ass, except for occasional stupidity by Pelosi/Reid, and the equally occasional courage -- lacking in nastiness -- by people like Alan Grayson)

It's still there, had returned promptly after you got rid of it.

Does anyone ever get this nagging feeling the Democrat and Republican leadership is playing good cop / bad cop with us? There's nothing idiotic about compromise or bipartisanship. Just add to it some balls with an ounce of courage to stand firm against political shenanigans. Unfortunately, the Dems lost their balls a while ago due to a pre-existing condition. Not true if most voters supported the public option (which is as European-style as they come). Ironically, the GOP got away with their obstructionism in '02... Democratic strategists said that some of the party's senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist -- a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002. Even more ironically, the lawmakers Gang of 14 (anti-filibusters) were *technically* bipartisan, yet actually mostly conservative. They agreed to block the Dems' filibusters of all Bush’s court nominees, except in "extraordinary circumstances" -- so it was labeled as a great example of bipartisanship teamwork, yet was actually more like classic Rove in action. (Paints moderates as "far left", while portraying the Excessive Right as moderates, until finally when the extreme left has vanished, the old moderates now can be painted as the new extreme left. ad infinitum) Once upon a time, filibusters were rare -- until the 70s, at least. Then during Clinton, and Bush W's first six years, it averaged 50 times by Dems per two-year Senate. Until finally, Republicans cranked it up to 139 times in 2007-2008, continuing such a trend in 2009-2010. In other words, the filibuster has changed the Senate's way of voting laws in. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/10/nation/la-na-filibuster10-2010jan10 The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes -- the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster -- has become the minimum required. Instead of needing a simple 51 votes as usual, today it's become 60. And the practice is seemingly being treated by the press as if always in existence. Note too, a certain absense by a "Gang of 14" (mostly) conservative senators attempting to save the day today. Why? Perhaps because it's no longer strategic for conservatives to deny filibusters? Also, let's take a look back on somewhat recent history. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/24/usa1 What's far less well known, though, is that the party has almost as nasty a bugaboo in the House. Republicans there have found stunning success with a procedural tool called the motion to recommit, and they have repeatedly used it to divide the Democratic caucus and block key initiatives. ........ Republicans have mastered the game of crafting MTRs they know will force Democrats to defect to their side or risk political consequences, especially among the 60 or so Democrats who represent "red" districts. More history... June 8, 2001 Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the new majority leader, pledged today that Democrats would not engage in ''payback'' for the way Republicans stalled the confirmation of judges during the Clinton administration, saying, ''We have to break the cycle.'' ........ The bill has gone through several evolutions in recent years, and ''We've compromised as much as I think we possibly can,'' said Mr. Daschle, who became the majority leader this week after Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party and became an independent. ''We can't go any farther to the right because I think we'd lose the middle in the compromise,'' ........ Of 84 nominees to the federal appellate courts, Democrats say, just 46 were confirmed from 1995 through 2000. Some federal appellate judges waited for years for their nominations to go forward. Richard A. Paez, who was nominated for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Mr. Clinton, waited a record 1,506 days until he was confirmed last year. ..... Mr. Daschle spoke today of ''nominees who had waited for over four years without getting a hearing'' after being put forward by Mr. Clinton. He said: ''That's what I'm saying we will not do.'' November 6, 2003 The vacancy rate on the federal bench is at its lowest point in 13 years, because of a recent surge of judges nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate. The intense partisan battle over a handful of judges aside, Bush has already won approval of 168 judges, more than President Reagan achieved in his first term in the White House. And with 68 of his nominees winning confirmation in 2003 as of Wednesday, President Bush has had a better record this year than President Clinton achieved in seven of his eight years in office. ........ The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee lists 39 vacancies among the 859 seats on the U.S. district courts and the U.S. courts of appeal -- a 4.5% vacancy rate. This is the fewest number of vacancies since 1990. October 24, 2007 (Remember the MRTs above, constantly used by Republicans? ) When Democrats were in the House minority, they succeeded only rarely in blocking Republican initiatives with the gambit. ..... Only 14 of the motions, or 7.6 percent of the minority's efforts, prevailed between 1995 and 2006. This year, 16 of the House Republican motions have passed, several with significant support from across the aisle, blocking initiatives large and small. Compare the bolded. And when you say moderates, perhaps it's fair to remember that since the 90s, Dems have walked the walk far more than Republicans in attempts to be moderate? All said, however, I fall in between two opposing sentiments by John Aravosis that I stumbled across in my research... Sentiment #1. Why was George W. Bush seemingly more successful getting some his legislative priorities passed (the two tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug law, No Child Left Behind) than Obama has been, and with smaller GOP majorities in the Senate? While recognizing that Obama has been in office for just 11 months, and that the Medicare prescription-drug fight had nearly the amount of drama this current battle has, perhaps here’s an answer to Aravosis: Democrats actually voted with the Republicans. After all, Ted Kennedy worked with Bush on No Child Left Behind, and numerous Dems backed the tax cuts. By nature, are some Democrats just more willing to want to cut a deal than their current GOP counterparts are? Sentiment #2 ...had the White House chosen to lead on health care reform, had the Congress not chosen to take a back seat to the White House's non-strategy for victory, we could have had a significantly better bill, and it would have passed. It's all well and good to say that the current bill still has some positive things in it - let's be kind and give it a C. But when you could have had an A, and you started out the gate gunning for a C, you don't get our praise. George Bush never settled for a C. ........ The White House and the Congress did a crappy job running the campaign for health care reform. Sentiment #3 You don't praise your kid for getting a C+, or even a B-, on an exam, when they could have had an A, but simply didn't try. ..... This administration is far too consumed with whether it is liked, far too afraid of being criticized, and far too obsessed with about avoiding conflict at all costs. President Obama was handed the presidency by a rather healthy margin, an opposition in utter ruin, a Senate with a filibuster proof majority, a House with overwhelming Democratic control, approval ratings through the roof, and on his signature issue, he dropped the ball for nine months, until the climate was so poisoned by incessant attacks from the right, that he "had no choice" but to cave on the most important promise of his campaign. That is not leadership. And it's not liberalism. Sentiment #4 I've heard people say that it's not fair to criticize the Democrats for botching health care reform because the Democrats never truly had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sure, they have 60 votes in principle, the argument goes, but with Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh counted as four of those votes, it's not really a solid 60. Perhaps. But then how was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate? In fact, during Bush's most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible. ........ How did they do it? Bush was willing to use his bully pulpit to create an environment in which the opposition party feared taking him on, feared challenging his agenda, lest they be seen as unpatriotic and extreme. By going public, early and often, with his beliefs, Bush was able to fracture the Democratic opposition (and any potential dissent in his own party) and forestall any effort to mount a filibuster against the most important items in his agenda. To be fair, in an interview Obama hadn't felt it proper to tell the 46 million without healthcare sorry, we didn't like everything in the bill. (paraphrased) However, I think Obama could've fought a lot harder, and publicly exposed the filibuster's newly obsene discrepancy compared to its historical use. Oh yeah, agreed. But only so long as tort reform doesn't come to mean "let the bad apples f--k us with no consequences to them."

Thanks, yes Edit: oh now it's back

Perhaps annoyance? Or maybe it does serve an evolutionary useful purpose. Our caveperson* ancestor gets frustrated that someone's doing the food gathering in a nincompoop manner, and you do something about it just to make the feeling go away.** Kind of like reacting to pain from your hand touching a hot pan, but way more subtle. * **(Thus danger averted of the village starving....or at least going hungry for the night)

Martin's got it (perhaps unwittingly? ).* I think "Expansion Cosmology" is a really great name, maybe even perfect. Light on the confusion. *(Not quite you sly dog )

I too am getting the "Unread Private Messages" fake out.

You might wanna look through Physics Demystified on Google Books, it's a 577 page book and has lots to preview online at the link. From the "about page"... Now anyone with an interest in the physical sciences can master physics -- without formal training or drowning in a sea of complicated formulas and equations. ..... With "Physics Demystified you master the subject one simple step at a time - at your own speed. Unlike most books on physics, general principles are presented first - and the details follow. In order to make the learning process as clear and simple as possible, heavy-duty math, formulas, and equations are kept to a minimum. ..... Simple enough for a beginner but challenging enough for an advanced student, It has lesson plans and is meant to be for self teaching, introducing just enough math to grasp important concepts in physics. Browse though the Google preview, and if the book seems like your cup of tea, look for it online, where you can find a virtual ton of cheap deals online for the book. ($5 with shipping included for example) Also there are many good, free resources online you can learn the non-mathematical aspects from. A great place to start is Einstein Online. Best luck on your quest, however don't forget to ask questions here, there's a good number of scientifically knowledgeable members willing to help and share that knowledge.

I liked the movie and the story. And I've never seen Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves, and really don't care to. But I very much doubt it's the same tale, judging from the major details you seem to have overlooked so far. Perhaps you've made those same kind of errors in your movie comparisons? Not everyone agrees. The Science of Avatar (Part II) In there is a link to Part I. Also, I think he put hard thought and work into fitting the science accurately enough, considering the film's setting. Maybe it wasn't clear in the movie, so here: read a script... http://sfy.ru/?script=avatar They couldn't use weapons of mass destruction. The charter allows them to exploit the resources of planets, moons, asteroids... whatever they find... as long as they follow the International Space Resources Treaty, and the other treaties which prohibit weapons of mass destruction and limit military power in space. I think missiles qualify. No, the only things designed as such is equipment on a mission that was supposed to be focused on bridging the gap between the two cultures. And would you foot the expense to send the big stuff from Earth to Pandora, as insurance vs bows & arrows people? Mission planning's often a lot more complex/involved than at first would seem. Cowboys weren't in search of an unobtanium equivalent, and didn't have vastly superior defensive capabilities vs indian weapons -- nor a colonel leading them who's dismissive of attempts to solve the conflicts. With one teeeeeny difference: the larger force didn't have post-21st century technology, flying overhead in safety while raining down explosive hell -- unlike anything seen or fathomed by that entire world. Surely if battling against them, Mel Gibson's face paint would've just become a puddle on the ground along with his face. Then everyone's jaw would drop (permenantly in disbelief), followed by the NORMALLY bravehearted group "flying" to the woods and hills in utter fright/madness. Except that instead of the fallacy (by the clueless) depicting the indians as unfailingly peaceful and wise, his equally naïve fallacy goes the complete opposite and depicts their lot as unfailingly heinous and cruel On that note, maybe South Park's depictions of Mel Gibson were "spot on"? Do you mean about there supposedly being a white guilt fantasy injected into stories? Or just the general points made throughout the article? Like the one hinting there's a debate between people over whether Avatar is racist. I find that to be reflective of how few people actually know what racism is. But the article does claim it's a film about race. I disagree. The film is more about difference of culture and technology backgrounds, and how a few rotten eggs often play the variables so the result is to steal the less technical people's resources (after killing loads of them) without spurring an outcry from the more good-inclined population back home. It's why the supervisor edited reports back to home with "ironfisted" censorship. Thus the film also shows how trickery is used by some in power to commit atrocities in the name of a supposed good. Also how it comes to be possible that something new of beauty -- and unexplored possibilities -- is destroyed. The movie's hint would be about that clueless nature of such "leaders" in charge of important developments. Thus it's less about race, and more about superiority: "I can disrespect you and smash or take any of your stuff, because I'm bigger." It's about going into someone's home -- even if it's outside and has no brick and mortar -- and breaking everything that's very important and sentimental to them. Your article's inaccurate a bit, yet too, it's possible others misinterpret it -- looking at it with resentment-colored glasses. For instance, the article's not claiming the entire scenario's wrong, only that not enough actors who play the heroes are of the same race as the endangered village's. But then protesters might say, "of course, a person of race rises to triumph against the evil white man. How racist." The movie can just make everyone be the same race, however that wouldn't be any more or realistic. In fact, it'd be less realistic if most films did that. Remember the few rotten eggs who often play the variables for atrocities to be tolerated/downplayed? It's easier for such people if our "enemy" looks or speaks differently....and if both, jackpot! Right in the thread is a perfect example. In Braveheart, it's Scottish whites fighting vs oppression by English whites. Another great example is the film Terminator -- ironically, by Cameron -- where it's machines of highly superior capabilities exterminating the non-machines. Also ironically, the day's saved by a machine in Terminator 2. Why is the hero often the same "race" as the oppressors? Because they know the enemy -- a precious advantage. Like someone in G.I. Joe once told us: "knowing is half the battle". The message in Cameron's film is similar to a liberal value found in another story: With great power comes great responsibility. Spidey and other comic heroes would make a magnificent fortune using their far superior powers to build wealth. Instead, Spidey's just about poor. Because yes, stories tend to favor liberal ideals: hard work, study, cultural respect, helping those in need -- especially when defenseless against more powerful takers. Yet it's hard to maybe really believe so....can you name that movie where the greedy banker wins the day against those struggling to pay the mortgage? Or where the superior-enhanced person took the me-me-me aproach to life (encouraged to us by "conservatives"), and so gaining enduring fulfillment? Usually those don't make a great story -- or even ones people can relate to -- do they? Generally, I consider it a mistake and useless trying to feel guilty about past deeds that we from the present had nothing to do with. The people trying to make us feel guilty are probably either clueless or don't like to think very much. However, the guilt from one's steps and/or conveniences knowingly helping to feed that cycle is a different story -- because here we're dealing in the present tense. Yet either way, feeling guilt is a lot more useless than actually doing something about it. That's the error by you and many. We didn't oppress anyone. Not I, or you, Pangloss, ecoli, nor AngryTurtle. It's a few scoundrels in power who must nearly always resort to trickery/deceit to get whoever they can (unwittingly) involved and/or joining their false missions. District 9's not the best movie example for showcasing your "white guilt" hypothesis, as its setting takes place in Johannesburg. Where Africans join the racism and/or xenophobia.... "They're spending so much money to keep them here, when they could be spending it on other things. At least they're keeping them separate from us." "They must just go. I don't know where they go, must just just go." And the corporation that was supposed to help the aliens -- the main guy's philosophy was "the system works this way, and as long as you follow the rules, everything will work." i.e. not racism, just stupidity. The aliens in the movie just want to go home or be left alone, not live with humans. It's not a message about the supposed need for co-living happily together, or white guilt. So in conclusion to all, I think it'd be refreshing to have more fantasy where the beautiful races aren't commonly white, or the hero of a tribe isn't the same race as the oppressed -- any change from the norm....yet that does exist already in good quantity if we take note with our eyes, rather than depend on what commentators are saying. For instance, a hugely popular series is that of a dark elf, whose race is black and their cruel deeds are the height of evil, who mostly live deep underground and periodically go out and massacre the goodly white elves -- after learning in school of their "evil" and blame for the dark elves' plight. They hate light and worship an evil goddess. Their women are dominant, the men are warriors but submissive to them. Yet the one dark elf's inner goodness is so strong, he can't relate and must leave his race. Later, this dark elf's the hero in fighting vs the dark elves. The other races had at first distrusted him and upon encounter often reacted violently, but soon he becomes a legendary hero known and respected widely, even though most of his race is still doing much evil. In another story, Dragonlance Chronicles, the heroes are mixed races -- fighting against other mixed races. Even the leader of the group is a "half-breed" mix, and so often enough is disliked by prejudgers/racists of both his origins. Moreover, in each of those stories, the heroic group is a mix consisting of at least 5 different races and cultures. So is the moral of the story here that perhaps book reading is often more diverse/satisfying than film watching?

Absolutely, the most critical point is to help remove the disconnect between the knowledgeable and the ignorant. It's not just education access, but making the science ever more digestable to the layman: simple, elegant, brief, accurate. (i.e. a real departure from the easy road in teaching) Please cite what you listed, for better reference. Definitely not. But without the context of the unreleased emails, we're unable to make solid conclusions. Did the hackers release all the information? I sense they were a bit dishonest. I thought hackers usually would reveal all the goods, not pick-and-choose. Yet it doesn't look good for Jones in the OP's link of Washington Post, I admit. But out-of-context info's designed for just that purpose often enough. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the guy did manipulate the situation. Question is, how widespread are such occurences -- especially compared to instances of proper science when its analysis treads on hot-button or politicized issues? Unfortunately here in the U.S. it's given way too much leeway. ...accounts were routinely destroyed, despite a law requiring preservation of presidential records White House: 'We screwed up' on deleted e-mails Senator wants to know why NFL destroyed Patriots spy tapes Agency Admits It Destroyed More Tapes Than Was Previously Believed But they can release it stamped with "faulty data" across the page, just to maintain credibility and/or integrity. My opinion? Usually nothing good results from secrecy into things which have a strong potential for affecting much of the world.

Tie a carrot onto a stick from a headband, next time -- with arms out front as if trying to catch it. Doubt you'll see mad (or expressionless) faces The pic's author seems far less excited about them... A while back my brother was all excited about his new springy running shoes. He was telling me how great these things were and how he could now run like the wind and I should buy some and blah blah blah blah. Then a week later I call him and suddenly he doesn’t want to talk about his new springy running shoes. They’ve apparently been relegated to the closet with all the rest of the crap he’s fallen for over the years. (It’s a big closet and it’s crowded.)

Which is the right thing to do when you feel strongly about it. Changing your mind's one thing -- and which I don't seek. Changing your approach though is a different matter. You can pick something you detest that many other people really haven't tried to forbid, and mandate government to pass laws forbidding it which just causes no end of problems. Or you can seek out the problem's roots and help facilitate ways to drastically reduce its occurence more naturally -- like examining what's broken in the adoption system. I'm curious to know why it's so broken though. Really a shame.

With our level of technology in communications and networking, we should be able to have a system that instantly connects a pregnant woman to an infertile couple looking to adopt. It's supposedly difficult finding children to adopt, so if true, wouldn't it solve both problems at once? That's a wrong approach. You don't really want government to start making decisions of forcing population limits by any means while justifiying controversial ones with improved quality of life, now do you?

Let's begin with that very good observation. No one has absolute proof, just moral stances and different ideas of who's liberty needs to be focused on. Another excellent point, and one which DJBruce expanded on nicely... I feel almost the same exact way, at least in regards to mine ever getting aborted. There are some issues the government needs to stay (reasonably) clear from. And I can't force my beliefs to trespass into the realm of anyone else's bodies. Of course not. Taken to extremes, if the woman decided to abort on a personal whim hours before the delivery, that'd qualify as a no-no. By the way, I think your arguments were laid out in a reasonable tone, and do view your exit from the thread as a loss (for everyone). I'm more than happy to debate with you (friendly and professionally). Tough call. The girl would potentially be sending her father to prison and/or tossing the family into chaos, something that might prevent her from seeking the abortion and thus getting stuck with an incest child. Agreed, but from a medical opinion/standpoint and never from a political one. I've heard the same. But did you ever verify that with the girls, or just automatically believed the random people who said that's the case? i.e. where's the evidence? Not really, many people are concerned over a future life being ended. Less than the mother's. Call it a price for not being informed enough about the woman he gets pregnant. The man's possibly going to agonize the decision, be terribly hurt knowing the woman doesn't share his feelings about it. But unless with medical technology it becomes possible for him to develop the sperm/egg combo within his own body, there isn't much of an option for him. Not really, many people are concerned over liberties trespassed into the mother's bodily processes. As would I, trust me. But I wouldn't resort to legal means, as that's forcing the law into her body's natural processes. A Tripolation said with the qualifier it'd become a human being. Yet I'd add one more: with the qualifier that historically the insect or petri dish cells go on to become a normal, living human within about 9 months. You make a great analogy with the incubator. That's really the crux of the whole issue. But let's not forget though in many cases the woman doesn't entirely lack a choice -- it's not as if the government placed the baby within her to incubate. Although we need to compromise to ever hope lowering the divisiveness of the issue, the truth seems we've already compromised a lot, and keep doing so, while the other side's politicians keep hammering away for yet newer compromises that extend further in until nothing's left in our territory. By compromise I don't mean simply having lost to the other side by default. I mean purposely resigning oneself to accept less than what's really desired, in order for both sides to gain. They must do a compromise as well. To make a choice between which they desire more: to fight sex education, or to protect the unborn. Those goals work against each other too much. Nail on the head. If women laid eggs outside their body, I seriously doubt there's be much resistance against it being illegal to halt an egg's development. (or boil it for lunch) Not to mention sucks to be that baby, who sometimes ends up in a garbage dump, but often enough just suffers malnutrition which can negatively affect their mental development and future long-term health.

No, DrP, you're treating it as simple choice like running out to get more eggs from WIC. A much simpler task is to just get the morning after pill, wouldn't it? Hmmm...if that industry were caught lobbying to make abortion illegal, then it'd be a good lesson for both sides in the economics of politics. In that case I agree with you. Reading bascule's first link I got the impression the ban's for government funded... Under the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), abortion would not be paid for in plans offered by a government-run insurance system. Also, people who took federal subsidies to buy insurance would not be able to use the money to buy such coverage. But I'm still unsure of the bill's outcome. Depends on what they mean by "exchange" in your link. In any case, if it turns out you're correct, I'd guess it's part of various sneaky attempts to indirectly begin phasing out abortions in small increments.

Because abortion's such a divisive issue lacking great potential for humanity (unlike stem cell research), I think it's a good enough compromise where abortion's legal but the woman must pay for her own abortion in normal pregnancies, or even buy medical coverage that does.

It depends. You do live in Australia so it's possible that many nuances simply escape you. But you might remember this... Seems to be the norm. It's like the Dems try to play the game more fair with a party that might just be out to destroy them. Look at how many conservative Democrats there are in our government. Now compare to how many liberal Republicans there were in the Bush years and even now. Remember too during 2000-2006, which party controlled everything but also did nothing...* This Republican-led, do-nothing Congress is on its way home for a five-week vacation. I'm sure while there, they'll be glad to explain to their constituents why they need so much rest in a year in which they will work fewer than 80 days. It's an illness of both parties -- to do "nothing" -- yet each with different symptoms. The Republicans were in lockstep a great portion of their leadership (yet still failed). Where the Dems' main problem is they've been playing kiss-ass, let's-not-anger-the-Republicans. In other words, being pussies. Also the Dems attempted to include Republicans in the decision making process. Yet all they've gotten in return has been interruptions, fear-mongering, twisted facts, and a near circus. But the Republican -- while in majority -- demanded things with no regard to what Democrat leaders thought or uproared about. The Republicans were solidly partisan -- quite like robots or Borg -- for much of six years. Democrats are going to lose numbers after one year in power, thanks to outright misinformation in constant waves of propaganda vs Dems, a lot of it with beginnings disguised as news. I'm pissed at the Dems for having given the (neoconned) Republican leadership so much time and benefit of doubt. As a result they've both screwed up healthcare so the final bill's now a joke and one more nail in the coffin for Dems. Finally, I believe they're unable fix much without a spine in place against fabricated rhetoric. Still, I believe no one party should control all of government -- especially in the most powerful nation and/or the one with most foreign influence. Also, I strongly disagree that it's just politics. No, it's been about lying in a very hurtful manner to the nation's well-being. I'd say politics is mainly about conflict or disagreement in policy...it's certainly not about screwing the nation with lies in order to benefit a handful of people who continually bribe our elected officials. It's not about sabotage of the other party on a mass scale. It's not about disrespecting the constitution and our wishes. But as to the OP of the thread, yes, Alan Grayson has a spine. In another vid, he gets tough on the Federal Reserve. So does Bernie Sanders. mXmNpdYpfnk P8p0nBa866E However it's not politics wouldn't you agree? But considering how much Republicans supposedly oppose the Federal Reserve, how about we see their grilling of the Fed as well? And the conservatives like to speak about teaching someone how to fish instead of just handing someone a fish, therefore the person can now fish and eat the rest of their life. Sounds nice, almost like a platitude really. I'm not seeing them introduce any major/widespread programs for teaching how to "fish", do you? Theoretically, it'd be only a for a short time, as many people would quickly learn to become self-sufficient. No? While I disagree with handouts as being the main answer to reduce poverty, some help must be given. At least Dems are putting forth methods to combat the problems. But too often the Republicans are just putting forth methods to combat the Dems. *And then Lou Dobbs proceeds to blast Democrats as well.

Or keep in mind there's still E-Z. And AA-ZZ; AAA-ZZZ; AAAA-ZZZZ; etc. I didn't forget options, just highlighted the two given and the contradiction in them. Might it be you're concentrating too much on violence....and so browsing a thin avenue of possibility for solutions? What if the task forces on deciding how to end the war, had instead collected all the tremendous potential energy -- from all the meetings, simulations, conferences, group brainstorms, organizing, preparing equipment, testing for unforeseeable circumstances, mobilizing units, billions of $$, whatever -- and put their all into a nearly 100% peaceful, non-violent way to end the conflict in a manner acceptable to both sides and clever enough to work. Laughable huh? Yes, it seems of course. Maybe the leaders we've elected until now are inadequate for the job of crafting peaceful but firm, tactful yet expertly quick and potent resolutions without brutal violence and/or collateral killings. The exact opposite might be all they're really familiar with, learned since a young age (..or freshman in Congress). Their mentality perhaps stuck in an old world of violent paths.

The variables don't fit. A. You have a people who'll never surrender. B. Thus your new plan is for them to surrender. Let's make some calculations. The benefit of doubt towards one side + blind distust towards another = strength for propaganda (...not implying that you have blind distrust) One guess...what's the equation like at the time of fighting against Japan? While I can more easily give the benefit of doubt to WW2 leaders, I can't to their advisors. To most I can, just not all of them. The kind of people lying about WMD (thus helping launch a war that killed great numbers of people) didn't begin existing in government only after Y2K. And the public had much less information. You might ask how we're ever going to prevent anything with decisions made behind closed doors. After the fact, we'll could once again give the benefit of doubt...until the next time....and the next. How often did such attacks occur before the nukings though? And might not such a deterrence vs attack be a great motivator for using the nukes, in order that foreign policies can go unchallenged (aka on a field day)?

The "Man arrested for being naked in his own house" thread prompted the subject. While looking up instances/tolerances of public nudity in Europe, I found something interesting online (warning: two naked people). Had to google translate the page yet it didn't get entirely translated, but it seems to be talking about a movie poster with genitilia fully in view (scroll to bottom of webpage), and how possibly it got torn down by an offended group. From previous hearsay, I would've imagined Germany's more accustomed than the U.S. to occasional billboards or advertisements with nudity. Maybe the puritans are gaining numbers there? Or just maybe, Germany wasn't ever really more tolerant of such? Maybe readers from over there can enlighten us Now as for the rest of Western Europe and a few parts of the globe, I'm under the impression people are less uptight over nudity in designated areas. Supposedly there's more naked beaches in Europe -- as well in Brazil. Supposedly more of certain naked events or parades in broad daylight. Also I've seen on TV shows and heard from visitors to France how you might see a women's breasts on a primetime TV ad, or very steamy innuendo. Please help list (or clear up for us) the ways nudity is handled in different parts of the world. Thanks

Dogs Cats . . Also here's an extra that doesn't qualify as smart, but what they're doing is generally viewed in a human light.

True for some people, but not everyone's affected like that. Some feel pleasant highs and/or sensations, while others feel very much the exact opposite. Which could be due to physiology. And if so, likely it's not a universal problem. Better place is Amsterdam where pot is legal in coffee houses. Amsterdam's main attractions, including its historic canals, the Rijksmuseum, the Van Gogh Museum, Hermitage Amsterdam, Anne Frank House, its red-light district, and its many cannabis coffee shops draw more than 3.66 million international visitors annually, as of 2009.[11] Interestingly, another "vice" of theirs -- brothels in the red light district -- seems to be on a decline. All by its own maybe? While 26 percent of the tourists come to the district to have a "look", the number of brothels is decreasing sufficiently for the Chamber of commerce to sound the alarm.[107] And surely there's problems. But on closer inspection, do they have more society problems (caused by weed) than us? http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html The study compared the cannabis (marijuana and hashish) habits of users in Amsterdam and San Francisco to test the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health. "We compared representative samples of experienced marijuana users to see whether the lawful availability of marijuana did, in fact, lead to the problems critics of the Dutch system have claimed," said Reinarman. "We found no evidence that it does. In fact, we found consistently strong similarities in patterns of marijuana use, despite vastly different national drug policies." Highlights of the study include: • The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco. ........ • About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview. • Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods. The Netherlands effectively decriminalized marijuana use in 1976, and it is available for purchase in small quantities by adults in licensed coffee shops; in the United States, marijuana use carries stiff criminal penalties, and more than 720,000 people were arrested for marijuana offenses in 2001. The study was funded by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Dutch Ministry of Health. Note the study's funded by government, in part by a subset agency of the National Institutes of Health. If researchers in government are free to be honest about their studies, we're better able to deal with those studied problems. The problem is others also see first hand what criminalization of pot -- as the first solution -- can do not just to individuals and families, but to prison overcrowding, justice, and society. Well, if he's going against 1) politicians skewing or hiding results, or 2) against government, would be different things. The issues are very emotive for both sides. Thus facts with objectivity are crucially necessary -- especially when it can have very wide social implications.