GeorgiaDon

Interesting that you (and Turtle) didn't have money for insurance, yet you had the resources to fully cover damages, medical costs, and lost wages for yourself and any and all second/third parties, had you caused an accident. Surely, if you had caused an accident and put someone in the hospital and out of work, you wouldn't have screwed them over and walked (or run) away from your responsibilities? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So by your own accounting of history: Germany invades France and installs a puppet (Vichy) government. The Vichy govt cedes French Indochina to Japan, who ally with Germany and Italy. The Axis powers (now including Japan) are at war with Great Britain and it's allies. But in your universe, Great Britain and it's allies should have continued to sell oil to Japan? "Boycotting" Japan provided justification for the attack on Pear Harbor etc? Why should anyone have to provide resources to a country that has declared war on them, especially resources that would allow them to prosecute that war? An alternative, but I think more sane, perspective is that Japan was on an expansionist track that would inevitably have brought them into conflict with the US. The US was a relatively small naval power at the time, and the Japanese military recognized (correctly) that they could deliver a crippling blow to that navy by attacking the base at Pearl Harbor, and they believed (incorrectly) that the isolationist sentiment in the US would prevail and the US would simply withdraw and avoid further conflict. Without Pearl Harbor, it might have taken considerably longer for the US to join the conflict (or maybe they would never have joined), by which time the Axis powers would have been even better entrenched and more difficult to defeat. By miscalculating the American response, the Japanese military ultimately ensured it's own defeat. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, your perspective is that it is God who made the old lady run the stop sign? If your goal is to convince anyone that your belief system offers anything constructive, I have to say your approach sucks. Once again you resort to a cartoon of evolution to try to make your superstition look more attractive by comparison, but all you accomplish is to reveal (again) your profound ignorance of the most basic concepts of science. Evolution has nothing to do with "only the strong survive". Biological evolution is about the success of genes in propagating themselves into future generations. Genes that do a better job of conferring attributes to the organism in which they reside, that result in successful reproduction (and so transmission of the gene into subsequent generations) will persist, and genes (or alleles of genes) that do that less well will be out-reproduced, and eventually replaced. However genes don't exist in isolation, they are part of a whole genome and they must be able to work well with all the other genes to produce a successful phenotype, which is why evolution works more at the level of the genotype than the individual gene. All in all a very simple but very powerful idea, supported by mountains of real evidence. Behavior is part of the phenotype too. Individuals that are "stronger" than others of their species, but spend all their energy fighting, will not live long and on average will leave fewer offspring than less violent individuals. Human mental evolution has been dominated by the ability to collaborate and plan (which necessitates both good memory and language). Even a few people, working together, will always be able to prevail over a stronger but solitary aggressor. All the traits that make humans different from other animals are related to our ability to organize into large societies of collaborating individuals, and evolution can easily account for the development of those traits. The mischaracterization of evolution as "only the strong survive" has been a staple of the religious since Darwin's day, as they are threatened by the idea that a simple biological process can explain human nature, and no supernatural intervention is required. Ideas, too, survive by being transmitted to future generations, and in a non-biological sense they too can evolve, in that more successful ideas are retained and less successful ones are replaced. To survive, in the face of a set of ideas (science) that actually produces practical results (technologies), religious ideas will also have to evolve. Perhaps they can survive by retreating even further from the territory covered by science, and dealing only with questions like "why am I here" (in the metaphysical sense, not the biological sense that all your ancestors managed to get laid at least once). Unfortunately some religions seem to be following a strategy of surviving by dictating the violent suppression of competing ideas; either you accept my religion completely (no matter how crazy), or I will kill you. Some do this explicitly, such as the version of Islam followed by the Taliban. The fire-and-brimstone version of Christianity abstracts it some these days, in that they don't threaten physical death, but their threats of eternal torture in the "lake of fire" for those who don't fall in line make them at least kindred spirits to those who threaten physical death. Ultimately it's all about hanging onto their power over other ideas and people. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Max, I'll try to get out to the DZ tomorrow afternoon. Did you see the notice about balloon jumps Aug 14/15? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A false dichotomy, unless one wishes to insist on the literal truth of each word of the Bible. Then you're in some trouble, as the Bible is full of contradictions and is an extraordinarily poor science textbook. I know a lot of people who are committed Christians and who have no issue with evolution. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Actually, I agree with Mike that calling comments "short-sighted" can be a legitimate criticism of the comment. Such a criticism should, however, be given in the context of discussion of strategy or planning. If made to a subordinate, after the fact and in a context that fosters disrespect for established policy, it's a problem. Andy908's post (I think #34 upthread) is the best description of the issue. Mike, what do you think of Andy908's comment (here it is again so you don't have to look it up): Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Where do you get that he is asking to "jump to to the front of the line"? The article states that he has been denied. I am personally all too familiar with "waiting in the line", which involves years of waiting for word of some progress, all the while being unable to get any useful information about your application (or worse, being given wrong information that increases your conviction that your application has been mishandled, but you can't even report your concerns). While you're waiting you get nothing from USCIS, but when they tell you you're denied, then you're denied, it doesn't mean "please stand by". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Max, The problem I see with this is that when people talk of God as the "creator", it is pretty much always in the sense of "creator and designer". The entanglement of God with the concept of a conscious intelligence is even deeper when you get to a personal God who even "marks the fall of a sparrow", and who has a "plan" of which we are all a part. A particle that imparts mass, or charge, or charm, has none of those properties of a self-aware intelligence. A God that is just the "uncaused cause", that started the universe in some physical sense (say, by setting Planck's constant, or by giving electrons and protons equivalent but opposite charge) and who has done nothing since, is not a God that fits with any religious concept, be it Christianity or any other faith. If you talk about a God that can plan, and manipulate events according to that plan, yet be beyond any method of physical detection, that God seems to me to be apart from Nature (i.e. "supernatural") by definition. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That has been my experience also. When I became a citizen I thought I was done with them, but they screwed up my son's naturalization application (100% their mistake), and it took me another year and pushing $1,000 in fees to get them to revisit the application and admit their error. The whole time, we were worried my son would be deported and never be allowed back. Of course, when I suggested they should refund the additional fees I had to pay to appeal their error, they said "we never do that". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's certainly possible. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Here's an interesting story about a guy who was brought to the US from Mexico as a child, graduated high school in Arizona then got an engineering degree from Arizona State University, married and had a child. Rather than continue to live as an illegal alien, he voluntarily returned to Mexico, then applied to immigrate to join his family in Phoenix. His wife and daughter are US citizens (not stated explicitly in the article, but as they are able to drive back and forth across the border to visit him it is a reasonable inference). US immigration has denied his application. They say he has not shown sufficient financial hardship or psychological harm to his family for him to be allowed to join them in the US. WTF? Here is a guy who was brought here as a child, voluntarily left, and now is being refused reentry despite having an American wife and child, and an education that will easily allow him to support himself and his family. Interesting example for all the people who say all the illegal immigrants should leave and come back through the proper channels. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I did. There is not one allegation that anybody actually attempted to vote who should not have. So much for your BS about answering the question and not playing the player. Here's your word for the day. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Can you find a link or reference that identifies even one person who voted illegally due to this alleged "huge voter registration scam"? If I am being paid by Acorn to sign up voters, and I sign up a bunch of fake names so I can get paid more, I have defrauded Acorn. If anyone was victimized by the alleged voter registration fraud, it would be Acorn. I believe that when some instances of fraud were discovered, it was Acorn that reported it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's because "cancer" is really hundreds of different diseases, all of which result in a cell dividing uncontrollably and forming tumors and spreading from site to site in the body. Basically, every cell is capable of dividing, usually a limited number of times, but that division is controlled by dozens (or more) of different genes. Some genes encode proteins that act as "brakes" to inhibit division, others are part of a chain of proteins (a "signaling pathway") that stimulate cells to divide in response to some trigger, such as a hormone. In addition, cells have back-up mechanisms (also encoded by genes) that usually cause malfunctioning cells to die, for example through apoptosis (programmed cell death). So for a cell to become cancerous, these control mechanisms have to be malfunctioning, due either to damage to the DNA sequence (causing the gene to encode a malfunctioning protein) or to inappropriate modification to the DNA such as methylation (a so-called epigenetic modification). It usually takes a number of mutations/modifications to the DNA to cause the cell to go out of control, because of redundancy and "backups" in the system. You have 2 copies of almost all genes (one from each parent, except on the X sex chromosome that you get only from your mother), so BOTH copies of the gene have to be damaged. You may inherit one damaged copy and one good one, in which case you have a predisposition to cancer as only the good copy has to be damaged. At any rate, it may take many years of accumulating damage to the DNA in every cell before enough genes affecting the different parts of the mechanisms controlling division or apoptosis are damaged, but then you get a cell that divides out of control and doesn't die (=cancer). What all that means is that the old way of looking at cancers according to the organ where they started (such as lung cancer) is inadequate, because what you really need to know is what genes have been damaged. If there are dozens of possible genes involved, and you start thinking of all the possible combinations, you soon realize there are thousands of different combinations that can result in cancer. Then you have to figure out how to fix that damage so the cells stop dividing, or how to selectively kill just those cells and leave healthy cells unharmed. That's why ED is an easier nut to crack than "cancer". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I believe you have that exactly backwards. I wonder if that explains your political leanings? I believe I said seeing only black and white is not as good as being able to see the full spectrum of color. My understanding is that reptiles, including turtles, have very good color vision. Perhaps if you take off the sunglasses (metaphorically speaking) you'll find the world is a more interesting place. Not really. I'm always open to well articulated, logical arguments. But then, this is Speaker's Corner, so those tend to be few and far between. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Speaking for myself, running for office (at the national level, maybe state) would involve walking away from a career I have spent all my adult life building. I would have to return the grants that fund my research program, dismiss my graduate students (after they have spent years working towards their degrees), let my technicians go, etc. So, people who depend on me in one way or another would be adversely impacted. If I decided after a term or two, or if term limits forced me to retire from public office (this assuming I was elected in the first place), I would likely never be able to resume my research; once you are out of the field for a while there are too many younger fresh hotshots competing for funding to allow room for an out-of-date oldtimer. What would I get in public office? Constant criticism, obstructionism, attacks from people who are mainly interested in their own power, all so I can pass laws to tell other people how they should live their lives? No thanks. While details would differ, almost everybody is in more-or-less the same position: public office means walking away from your present career, so people who like what they do and have invested a lot in building a career will have little incentive to change career paths. Term limits make it worse, in that you'd have to give up everything for what amounts to a temporary job. So, why aren't you running for office? One more thing, I disagree with (actually, resent) your implication that firefighters, police officers, and the military (women do those jobs too) are the only people who "work hard". Doctors don't work hard? Teachers don't work hard? Only people who make similar career choices to the ones you made "work hard"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well of course. That's why it's the "scentific method": if it smells right to him, it must be true. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Only being able to see in black and white might tend to make you racist. The world is a more interesting place in color. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, lets say for sake of discussion that the original claim of MULTIPLE RANCHES ...TAKEN OVER BY LOS ZETAS was true. Would their be any legal justification to consider this a "foreign invasion" requiring a military response? Wouldn't this be a "home invasion" type crime, handled by local/state law enforcement, with backup from federal agencies if relevant laws were violated (such as crossing state lines)? Wouldn't use of military forces violate the Posse Comitatus Act? No doubt Mexico is going to hell in a handbasket over these drug gangs, but the gangs do not represent the Mexican Government any more than American criminals speak for the US Government. There is a difference between a "home invasion" and an "armed insurrection". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep. Sad all around, nobody needed this distraction from the mission, and what a way to end an otherwise excellent career. Whatever possessed then to allow an embedded reporter? I bet that won't happen again anytime soon. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Mike, are you disputing that the Rolling Stone article exists, or that McChrystal and his staff made the comments ascribed to them in the article? Why do you think he was forced to resign? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well sure the article says that, but the key word here is "implied". That's not the same as saying "everyone who reviewed any aspect of this report agrees completely with the final conclusion", is it? I can understand if the reviewers (or some of them anyway) disagree with the moratorium, but according to the article it seems they weren't asked about the moratorium, they were only asked to review safety procedures. Based on their review, Salazar made a decision that the safety procedures did not provide enough assurance that another accident could not happen, and decided a moratorium was necessary. For some reason (perhaps legitimate) they do not now want to be associated with the moratorium, but the people who would make that implied association are people who do not understand the role of peer reviewers in the process (which admittedly is likely 95% of the population). If you can't accept the possibility that the final policy decision will not be what you would have preferred, you shouldn't agree to participate in the review process I suppose. Are you aware of a specific statement by Salazar that directly states, or implies more directly than just identifying them as reviewers, that these scientists approved of the moratorium? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Off on a tangent a bit but, I would find it hard to cope if I had to do what this young man did regardless of his age. His age would seem to me to make it even harder to live with even though the man is still alive. Why? I doubt he feels anything but "pride" in protecting his family...Plus he must either be lucky, or a good shot, to only wound someone with an assualt rifle! keep in mnd, this is the son of a cop, he deals with the pocibilty pf death eveyrr day...I seriously doubt it bothered him at all! I agree I that he should feel pride in what he did. does not change my point however Seriously, I am trying to understand your point..thats all! why should he feel bad in any way? I am sorry but, for me, even if someone truly has is coming, shooting them and causing serious injury and pain would be something that would bother me for the rest of my life. Life and others (even those I do not know) mean that much to me. Maybe it is my bad thinking it would be the same for many others No Marc, it's not your bad. It's a defining virtue of humans to have some empathy for one another. Even when there is no choice but to harm another to save yourself (or your sister), it's normal to feel upset. There is a term for people who can maim or kill without feeling, they're called psychopaths. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

1. The scientists reviewed the safety recommendations. The article does NOT say they made a recommendation one way or another wrt the moratorium. 2. The politicians/appointed administrators made a decision to issue a moratorium. They published a report that covered the safety issues and their justification for the moratorium. 3. The scientists objected that it was not made explicit that they were not the ones who recommended a moratorium, and that they had just reviewed the safety recommendations and didn't say anything one way or the other regarding a moratorium. Personally I think this thing is politically motivated from top to bottom. I peer review articles for publication in scientific journals all the time, I have 3 of them in my "to do" pile right now in fact. I comment on how clearly the hypothesis is described, whether or not the experiments are well designed to test the hypothesis, and whether the conclusions fit the results. I do not decide whether or not to publish the paper, the editor does that based on my review and that of at least two other reviewers. I can whine if I paper I trashed is accepted for publication, and if it happens a lot I can decline to review for that journal (or editor), but I do not ever make the decision to publish or not, I only can comment on the science. Maybe a paper I liked is refused, because 25 even better papers were submitted at the same time and the journal only has room for 12. That is information the editor has that I don't, which is why they get the final call. Similarly, administrators must weigh considerations a scientist/engineer doesn't have to know about or have to consider. The engineer can say there is only a 1% chance the specified design for a blow-out preventor will fail, but the administrator/politician must weigh the economic consequences if a failure does occur, and decide if a 1% failure rate is an acceptable risk. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)