GeorgiaDon

I didn't say that, or anything close to that. I can't imagine why you would say such a thing unless you have some sort of a pre-conceived agenda or a serious problem comprehending written English. If you are convinced that Russia is not a major (or the major) instigator of the conflict in the Ukraine I don't know what planet you're living on. Even if we were to accept your premise that the Ukraine is having a "civil problem" that just happens to be on it's Russian borders by some strange coincidence, it remains to be demonstrated what would be the advantage to NATO of admitting as a member a country undergoing a civil war. How would that country be able to meet it's obligations as a member to contribute forces to the collective defense of all NATO members? 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 offer us any examples of countries being admitted to NATO when they are already at war? Membership in NATO is supposed to be a deterrent to would-be aggressors, as they would have to take into consideration that an attack on one member would be an attack on all of them. Membership after you are already at war, solely to force other countries to back you up, is not how it works. As it is, unfortunately for the Ukraine the rest of the world is free to apply a cost-benefit analysis to the situation. What is the cost of committing supplies, intelligence, or troops to the Ukraine, and what is the risk, and what is the risk involved in allowing Russia to essentially annex much of the country? I think Europe should take the lead, as Europe is most at risk from Russian expansionism, but on the other hand Europe has allowed itself to become dependent on Russian energy supplies. I see little reason to suspect that Russia poses a direct threat to North America, and so little benefit (but lots of risk) to the US providing more than equipment and information. 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)

Do you think it is a particularly smart or safe thing to do to push a truck on a dark road at night with no lights? Would you encourage your children to walk in the middle of the road at night without any lights, or would you reprimand them if you found them doing that? I wonder, if the driver was not drunk (and assuming nobody killed him), if he would have even been charged with anything. Amongst the million and one reasons why it is a terrible idea to drive impaired, is the simple fact that if you have an accident that is completely the fault of the other driver, and there was nothing anyone could have done to avoid it, you will still be blamed for it because you were impaired. Similarly, people who leave the scene of an accident are always held responsible regardless of who actually caused the accident. 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'd agree with this. There's another part to the story, I think, that hasn't gotten much discussion. If I understand things correctly, the dad and his sons were driving and ran out of gas when they were close to home. Dad and the boys were pushing the truck, at night on a dark road with no lights on the truck or the boys, no one behind them with a flashlight to warn oncoming drivers. The guy who hit them happened to have been drinking, but it seems to me any one of us could have been driving there that night and hit those kids. Perhaps if the guy had not been drinking he would have been able to react fast enough to swerve around the car, but if your first indication that there is an (essentially) stopped car in the middle of the road is when it comes within range of your headlights it's unlikely you'll be able to brake to a complete stop in time to avoid hitting it, even if you are completely sober. I think the dad was reckless and also shares some of the blame for his kid's death, frankly. 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)

Unlike concrete rebound hammer, which is indeed an ideal solution for all problems. For example, concrete rebound hammer could smash the door, allowing the victims to escape before the bad guys show up. Alternatively, concrete rebound hammer could pound the bad guys into protoplasmic ooze, flatten their gun into aluminum foil, wrap up the goo in the foil, and slam it into the sun. QED. 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)

Your premise is flawed. Virtually all the "liberals" I know have no objection to law-abiding sane citizens owning firearms. However, it seems these days that objecting to being murdered in your seat as you are enjoying a movie is sufficient to be labeled "anti-gun". 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)

Or, perhaps a fruit cake. Fruit cake makes a great projectile. A fruit cake to the head or testicles would incapacitate any would-be assassin. 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)

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)

In the greater scheme of things, probably more relevant.Last year the Canadian War Museum had an exhibit commemorating the 100 year anniversary of the war of 1812. They had three separate exhibits, covering the war from the British, American, and Native American perspectives. From the British perspective the conflict in North America was definitely a sideshow. From the American and present-day Canadian perspective the consequences were greater, as the war largely determined the present-day border. Typically for the British they threw their colonists under the bus, unnecessarily ceding territory despite the fact that the Canadians effectively repelled American attempts at invasion and held territory well into the Ohio Valley. From the Native American perspective the war was a disaster, as it led to the British abandoning their alliances with various Native American tribes, leaving them to the genocidal impulses of the "Great Betrayer" (Andrew Jackson), ultimately manifested in the Trail of Tears. I was surprised at how much of the present political landscape of North America can be traced to the 1812 War. 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)

Really, you do insist on being silly, don't you. Li Po's poem, or Ezra Pound's translation thereof, can stimulate emotion in Croc only because Croc's brain can process the visual input, reference the visual pattern to recognize written language, and connect that language to memories of experiences that stimulate activation of specific neurons and release of neurohormones, which Croc perceives as emotion. The process can be derailed in any number of ways. If Croc does not recognize the language, no feeling of love is elicited. If "love" exists separately from "meat" (a properly functioning brain) why is Ezra Pound's translation needed? Surely the love Li Po invested in his poem would get onto the paper and be felt by Croc even if he could not read Li Po's words? Similarly, any number of physical injuries to the brain could prevent Croc from recognizing the words on the page, even if he could see them perfectly, or prevent him from connecting those words to memories. Other injuries, or even certain drugs, could prevent Croc's neurons from releasing octopamine, or serotonin, or other neurotransmitters and no emotion would be felt, even if Croc was able to read and understand the words perfectly. That would not be true if love was an "entity" with an existence independent of the wiring of the brain. Love, and all other emotions, exist in the brain and nowhere else. 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)

In your own words: "Love is not an emotion except in its crudest sense. Love would be that thing, for example, that keeps a man alive and strong in spirit after enduring seven years of being a POW in North Vietnam. In this case it might be the love of his family. There is no biological component for that." You reject out of hand any possibility that love could have anything to do with biology. No role for neurons, the brain, neurotransmitters, etc. Nothing is left except for magic. You prefer magic. You also resort to the old sophist trick of redefining words when you are losing the argument. Lame. 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)

Your answer is an excellent example of why "intelligent design" should not ever be confused with science, nor should it ever be taught in science class as an alternative to evolution. Any possible outcome of any conceivable experiment is dependent only on the "will of the designer". As a hypothesis, intelligent design is absolutely untestable because it is totally unfalsifiable. Anything and everything can be explained away as the "will of the designer", part of a plan we are, of course, totally incapable of understanding. 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)

If there was a designer with any intelligence, I'm pretty sure they would not have chosen to cobble together a bunch of neurological pathways that also includes a large role for vasopressin in the male, given that vasopressin also controls behaviors such as territoriality and aggression. The overlap between love and territoriality has caused a tremendous amount of grief for women over the millennia. On the other hand, such an overlap is entirely what would be expected of evolution. There is a strong selective advantage in mate guarding, as that helps ensure the paternity of the females offspring. In humans there is an additional advantage to linking mate guarding to factors that foster long-term mate bonding, as long term male participation greatly increases the odds that the offspring will survive to reach reproductive age, ensuring propagation of genes into future generations. In the end, biology always comes down to optimizing transmission of genetic information from generation to generation. An intelligent designer would not be so limited, so we should expect to see things that are designed to function well without regard to how they affect transmission of genes. No examples of such biological processes have ever been discovered. There is no objective reason to prefer the "intelligent designer" model over biological 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)

According to the person who evidently prefers magic to science. 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 for the person having that experience. Love is an interesting analogy. Although it is felt intensely, as is a sense of connection to God by some people, it is nevertheless a physical and biochemical phenomenon entirely resident in the brain. It's perhaps a bit disheartening to have love reduced to neurons and molecules, but that's the reality of it: "Love is a complex neurobiological phenomenon, relying on trust, belief, pleasure and reward activities within the brain, i.e., limbic processes. These processes critically involve oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, and serotonergic signaling. Moreover, endorphin and endogenous morphinergic mechanisms, coupled to nitric oxide autoregulatory pathways, play a role. Naturally rewarding or pleasurable activities are necessary for survival and appetitive motivation, usually governing beneficial biological behaviors like eating, sex, and reproduction. Yet, a broad basis of common signaling and beneficial neurobiological features exists with connection to the love concept, thereby combining physiological aspects related to maternal, romantic or sexual love and attachment with other healthy activities or neurobiological states." (source) Here is another discussion of the topic, packaged for a more general audience. It is, in principle, entirely possible to determine objectively if someone is in love by examining their brain chemistry. It might even be possible to do this non-destructively by using NMR to map oxytocin distribution and levels in the brain, though I have not seen that published. In animal studies, researchers have been able to create or eliminate strong pair bonds by manipulating levels of oxytocin and vasopressin. It is also possible to induce strong spiritual experiences using psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. Some of the participants in the study described the psilocybin-induced hallucinations as the strongest spiritual experience of their lives, with a feeling of direct mind-to-mind connection with every entity and object in the universe. Does this mean that every deep spiritual experience people report means they have been using mushrooms or something like that? No. However, the fact that the experience can be induced simply by manipulating brain biochemistry means that the experience is not proof, or even good objective evidence, of the existence of God. If there is a non-magical explanation of the phenomenon, then it's not unreasonable if some people choose to believe that explanation, even if you personally prefer to interpret it as a real spiritual experience. On the other hand, the availability of a biochemical explanation does not prove that the experience cannot be due to a spiritual connection; it is conceivable that different stimuli could produce the same effect. Again we are left with whatever you personally choose to believe. 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 don't know John...I'm not paid to know the right thing to do. I don't think you can deal with these mindless f*^ks with hellfires. After 9/11 I said this is the war that never ends.So, you don't know what to do, that's above your pay grade, yet somehow you are aware of everything the white house is doing and you are certain that whatever Obama does he is wrong. 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)

You guys get bent out of shape when the White House doesn't follow legal procedures, then you get your panties in a wad when they do. God forbid they use a drone strike on an ISIS target, and later discover some punk-ass American would-be jihadist from Iowa was at that target. On the other hand that would be a Republican wet dream, wouldn't it. Don This isn't a crime scene. Get real.Scenario 1: white house follows due process. Right-wing response: Obama is a weak-ass pussy, a real man would carpet bomb the bastards! Scenario 2: white house carpet bombs the bastards. Right-wing response: Obama is a murderer with no respect for the law! Do I have that about right? 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)

You guys get bent out of shape when the White House doesn't follow legal procedures, then you get your panties in a wad when they do. God forbid they use a drone strike on an ISIS target, and later discover some punk-ass American would-be jihadist from Iowa was at that target. On the other hand that would be a Republican wet dream, wouldn't 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)

Hey Max, Hope you had a good birthday. 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 thought that might be Ann Coulter, but then I realized she'd never give enough of a shit about ALS patients (or anyone else) to take the challenge. 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)

Renewable energy, and all-you-can-eat! What's not to love? 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)

You would think! But, as we've seen more than once from these folks......... ("inappropriately" is not necessarily "illegally".) If the DA had acted appropriately, she would not have been arrested, convicted and thrown in the hoosegow.In all fairness, I would say it's not very hard to get an indictment from a grand jury. I'm content to say I really don't know if there is anything to the charges, and I'm happy to let the legal process play out. You might know more than I do, but all I have read is that the DA was arrested, not that she had been "convicted and thrown in the hoosegow". An arrest is unseemly, especially for a DA, but perhaps not sufficient to fire them. A DA who has been convicted of DUI would, it seems to me, lose all credibility to prosecute, and so should be required to relinquish their office. 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 governor using his veto to defund targeted offices based on political affiliation of the incumbent? A governor's office closing bridges/roads to communities based on the mayor not endorsing the governor's election campaign? Pass the Tylenol... 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 hope I can be forgiven for speaking up here. If you knew Max personally you would know how out of line your comment really is. You would know a gentle man who goes out of his way to help others. He's always first in line to work with newbies and try to spread his enthusiasm for the sport. I have never seen him be "preachy", harangue anyone about their faith or lack thereof, or even just raise his voice in anger. He takes his faith very seriously, but (as far as anything I have ever seen goes) he applies it to self improvement, not to making demands on others. He knows that my views on religion are basically opposite to his, yet he has never once trotted out the fore-and-brimstone, you better get right with God or burn in hell line of argument. I would be hard pressed to name a more honest or trustworthy person. Normiss, generally I appreciate your posts and perspectives but this time your tip-toeing up to the line of PA comments are way out of line. 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 to be fair I was responding to your statement "let the free market work", which is not quite the same thing as "let the somewhat-but-not-over-regulated market work". I don't think I created a strawman (at least, I didn't mean to), I just assumed you said what you meant, as you usually do. I am glad that we are in agreement that neither a completely unrestrained free market, nor a completely micromanaged-by-government market, are desirable. Since we both agree that some regulation is required, an interesting discussion could be had about how much (or little) regulation is needed to maintain a basic standard of "good behavior" all businesses must adhere to. As an example, my understanding is that most libertarians believe there should be no such entity as the FDA, and no regulations governing safety or efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul takes this position. The idea is that companies that produce products that don't work, or that harm people, will be outcompeted by companies that produce safe, effective products. Let the marketplace work. Of course, many people will be injured or killed in the process. The Ron Paul position is that they can turn to the courts for compensation. I can just imagine how successful a private citizen would be going up against a well funded corporation with an small army of lawyers on the payroll. I have a hard time seeing a system that harms lots of people as an inevitable side effect as "efficient". My position is that it isn't unreasonable to expect drug manufacturers to show their products are safe (to the extent possible) and actually have some benefit for the people using them. The cost of meeting those standards are ultimately passed on to the consumer, so the marketplace is still an integral part of the process. Not everyone will agree with me I'm sure. Similar discussions could be had over all regulations. I'm sure there are some we could both agree are unnecessary, counterproductive, or even designed to favor one business over competitors. Most, though, I would contend, are at least intended to protect the public from the worst excesses of a free-for-all economic jungle. 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)