GeorgiaDon

Sorry to be so obtuse, but what are your thoughts on these questions I asked before? "Would you throw out the whole contractual consent to be searched, or would you limit it in some way? How could you limit it without making it meaningless? " Probationers agree to give up certain rights for a period of time rather than go to jail. Law enforcement is expected to keep a close watch on probationers, to ensure they can stay out of trouble at least for the duration of their probation. This seems to me to create an inherent conflict: how can you closely supervise probationers without any impact on other people who are associated with them? Law enforcement is in a no-win situation here: either they carry out their assigned responsibilities and in the process trample privacy rights of associates of the probationer (as is the case here), or they don't supervise probationers except perhaps when they are alone in a place that no-one else has any possibility of accessing. We are all aware, though, that if the probationer commits some crime then law enforcement will be criticized for failing to supervise them adequately. Is there a reasonable resolution to the dilemma, or is the concept of supervised probation unworkable in practice, such that it should be abolished? 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)

The back seat of the cab could be searched under this ruling, but unless the cabbie gives passengers control of the front seat I don't see how a search of the cabbie would be justified. The ruling is uncomfortable for sure, but how would you have decided it? If probationers agree contractually to be searched, should that agreement be limited in practice to those circumstances where only the probationer has access to the area being searched? If they share a house with other people, would you argue no part of the house can be searched? Wouldn't that make the consent to search virtually meaningless? I thought the courts have long held that if the police are in your house for legitimate purposes, if they happen to see evidence of a crime while they are there that evidence is admissible in court. For example, if a member of the household invites the police in to investigate a burglary, and while there the police see evidence that another member of the household is dealing drugs, that evidence is admissible even though it was obtained without a warrant. Am I wrong? Would that also be an affront? Note that I am not disagreeing with you that it is scary to think that my property could be searched just because someone who is a probationer (and who I might not even know is a probationer) has visited my property. I am just wondering how you would argue a different ruling from what the court found. Would you throw out the whole contractual consent to be searched, or would you limit it in some way? How could you limit it without making it meaningless? 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 think a big problem with the current system is that it has developed largely without any defined principles or goals more involved than buying votes (or campaign contributions as the case may be). As a result it is haphazard, complex, and likely counterproductive. Perhaps a simple flat rate without exemptions might work, though it does seem hard to do that without introducing other inequities into the process. Can the mechanic who must buy their own tools deduct that cost? If that's allowed (as seems reasonable to me), how do we exclude the real estate agent from writing off their skiing trip to Vail because they attended a 2-hour seminar on how to polish a turd house so someone will buy it? Another consideration is the "cost" of various deductions (as in forgone tax revenue) versus the "benefit" in terms of increased tax revenue due to some consequent economic activity. Allowing people to deduct education expenses reduces revenue for a few years, but that education is likely to result in the student getting a higher paying job, in which case they may pay more in taxes than they otherwise would have, for many years. You could call the education deduction "social engineering", but you could also call it "investing". The question is, what would that student have done without the tuition deduction? If they would have gone to school anyway, the tuition deduction is just lost revenue from the government's perspective. If the deduction made school affordable so they could choose that route rather than opting for a lower paying job that only required a high school diploma, then the government has probably lost revenue in the long term. I'm sure similar arguments could be made for other deductions. But, has anyone ever actually done the math to really see which deductions are "investments in the long term" and which ones are "giveaways"? Ultimately, it is possible that what is simple and arguably most "fair" (everyone treated exactly the same) may or may not be the most productive (in terms of revenue raised over the long term). One would have to first decide what is more important, simplicity/"fairness" or generating revenue. If it is generating revenue, then one would have to really crunch honest numbers (which may be impossible to determine) to figure out what deductions increase revenues over time. At least, if one wants to eliminate deductions and risk decreasing revenues long term as a consequence, based on a principle of "no social engineering", one should be aware of that possible consequence. 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 think it was Henry Kissinger who said "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". 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)

No doubt removing the deduction for medical expenses will help out there. See, it all works out! 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 really do think so, if you can do it. That line of thought cannot help anything, and only seems to make you more angry or fearful than you need to be. We can disagree about a lot of things, but I still wish you well, and I'd be honored to shake your hand should we happen to meet some 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)

Some of us work for a paycheck. We can't all be trust fund babies or day traders. 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)

Considering your past posting history, I'm guessing that the point you are trying to make (in your inimitably indirect style) is that fundamental rights come from God, and so they can't be taken away by any human action. Do I win a cookie? 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)

At one time the State of Georgia passed a law making it illegal to use "obscene speech" to describe politicians, but it was ruled unconstitutional. That didn't stop an Atlanta cop from ticketing a woman for having a "F*CK BUSH" bumper sticker on her car. The ticket was dismissed eventually, but she was still stuck with legal fees. I have no doubt but that the 1st amendment is all that stands in the way of self-important politicians legislating away any speech they find threatening. 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)

Money used to buy the "latest toy" is tax exempt? I did not know that. So all I have to do is spend all my money on toys and I'll never have to pay taxes? What a country! 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 kind of funny, two posts 1 minute apart, both referring to "actual facts". Some kind of harmonic convergence I guess. 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)

Thank you for introducing some actual facts into this discussion, and countering some of the distortions and hysteria. 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 a hint, Ron: no-one here wishes your demise, or the demise of anyone in our SC community. Everyone here (I assume) wishes that all of us will have a long, happy, productive life. We may disagree, sometimes strongly so, about the best way to achieve that, but the end goal is the same for all of us. Do you really believe that the fact that I believe that no-one should be denied life-saving medical care because they are at a point in their lives where they don't have the wealth to pay in full out of pocket somehow means that I want to kill you, as much as the 9/11 terrorists wanted to kill Americans? Do you have any idea how offensive your off-the-cuff remarks are? When you say that the country is more divided than ever, does it ever occur to you that equating disagreements about the best way to achieve a stable future for the country with "terrorism" is a major factor driving that division? Although I disagree with you on many things political and religious, it would never occur to me to assume that you want to kill me over those disagreements. 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)

And yet you start posts that are all about censoring ideas you don't agree with. Or, maybe you just can't explain yourself? I was curious if there was a logical way to reconcile freedom of speech with the idea that universities should only teach things that pass a conservative "truth test", but now you have pretty convinced me there is none. And you too, Ron. I don't know if you're in North Georgia or in Florida today, but it sure is a beautiful day in Georgia. Off to work now. Hope you have time to play today even if I don't. 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)

Perhaps, if they didn't keep breaking. Funny how that happens. I spend time here in Speaker's Corner because I like to sample the perspectives of people from a wide range of political persuasions. A pattern I've noticed is that those who people who argue from a Libertarian or liberal perspective are generally willing to explain their positions, so we can have a discussion and at least come to a better understanding. Most conservative posters, on the other hand, seem to get all butt-hurt if asked to explain the logic of their beliefs or positions. Any disagreement is treated as disrespect. It's almost as if, to the conservative mind, actually thinking things through to the point of being able to defend positions using reason and math (in the case of economic arguments) is something to be avoided in favor of authoritarianism and "gut feelings". Perhaps to you asking someone how they can reconcile their American patriotism (and I don't doubt that Ron genuinely is patriotic) with positions that contradict fundamental aspects of American rights and freedoms is "arrogant". To me it's just interesting that people can hold such contradictory concepts in their mind and strongly believe both at the same time. How does that work? Unlike Ron, I don't wish to ban anyone's religious beliefs or other ideas, even if I disagree with them. I do reserve the right to question or argue against those ideas when I disagree with them, though. Sorry if that bothers you. Well, actually, I'm only sorry that people get upset if they are asked to explain their positions. 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)

Perhaps you lost that respect due to your judgmental, angry, intolerant attitude and often-stated contempt for reason and logic? Assuming, of course, that the real-world Ron behaves like the Speaker's Corner Ron. Well, perhaps, as long as you can still find people whose trade is flint knapping or hunting mammoths. BTW are you ever going to explain how you manage to reconcile "American patriotism" with your desire to censor opinions that differ from yours (as per the first post of this thread for one example)? It seems to me your postings scream contempt for the First Amendment, not to mention the ninth Commandment. Odd behavior from someone who claims to be a Patriot and a Christian, don't you think? 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)

Depends on the neighborhood I suppose. The last place I lived, traffic on the main streets was bad enough that people started cutting through the neighborhoods/residential roads. The road I lived on was hilly and twisting, with a 25 mph speed limit and no sidewalks, and especially in the mornings people would fly through at 45-50 mph. Anyway, I wasn't really referring to kids biking a block or two to their friend's house, but traveling miles to the movie theater/park/school/whatever,and it's hard to do that and not contend with major thoroughfares. I agree that sidewalks are no place for bikes, and the "bike lanes" that consist of a line painted on the side of the road are little better. In Georgia, it is actually illegal to ride on the sidewalk, as drivers exiting parking lots aren't looking for traffic on the sidewalk. I was actually referring to real roads specifically for bicycles. In Ottawa Ontario a rails-to-trails program, and the availability of large tracts of parkland along the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers, allowed the city to develop bike paths that are completely independent from car traffic. Where the two intersect, there is either a traffic light or an underpass for the bike lane. I could ride from my house out in the suburbs all the way to the downtown, a distance of about 15 miles, and never share the road with a car once I got off the residential roads and onto the bike path. I could also ride all the way to Gatineau Park across the Ottawa river, a distance of about 25 miles, all on dedicated bike paths except for the bridge across the river, where bikes had their own lane (no motorized vehicles allowed). One consequence of this system is that thousands of people who work downtown ride bikes instead of driving their cars in the spring/summer/fall. In the winter, the paths are heavily used by cross-country skiers, and a lot of people use that mode of transport to get to work. 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 think that playgrounds actually do fit the description "Playgrounds should be reasonably safe, not as safe as possible." As safe as possible would not include any swings, slides, climbing structures, anything kids could fall off of, etc. I don't know of any such playgrounds. Do you? Do you consider ground cover such as chipped rubber that reduces (not eliminates) the chance that a fall will result in broken bones to be unreasonable? Do you consider replacing metal slides that get hot enough in summer to cause 2nd degree burns with slides made from materials that don't get as hot to be unreasonable? Personally, I think that a slide that can actually be used in the summer (May to September here) to be more fun than one that gives the experience of sliding down a hot iron. I disagree with the whole premise that the "nanny state" is somehow responsible for the fact that kids spend less time outside, getting exercise as they play. In my town, the parks department worked with a team of 1,500 volunteers (yes, that many, including me) to build a great playground, called "World of Wonder" (photo here), in a local park. The playground has tons of climbing castles, slides, swings, a Fireman's pole, swinging bridges, etc, all potentially dangerous. Every weekend, the playground is full of kids. Curiously, the structures are made of plastic "wood" that doesn't cause splinters, the slides are plastic and can be used in the hottest weather without scalding, and the ground cover is impact-adsorbing rubber or wood chips. None of that seems to deter kids from having a good time. Maybe we should have used broken glass instead of rubber, to teach them not to fall or that sometimes people get hurt, but somehow I suspect the playground wouldn't be used as much. The park also has a skate park, designed by the Tony Hawk foundation. Here's a description from the web site" "The park features two main components including a bowl five to 10 feet in depth and approximately 4,500 square feet in size. The second component is a street course including ramps, grinding edges, rails, steps, and other unique features. This skate park is constructed entirely of either poured-in-place concrete or shotcrete and has a unique steel coping around the edges for grinding." This facility is also constantly in use. Does this sound like the kind of thing a "nanny state" determined to coddle people at all costs would provide for use by kids? For sure, kids spend a lot less time outdoors these days, and as a result they are on average in poorer shape. Why might this be the case? For one thing, the 24/7 news media has fed a mythology that kids left unattended for even a minute are likely (almost certain) to be kidnapped, molested in horrible ways, and killed. Many parents feel it is irresponsible to let their kids out of the house. Does the government mandate that the news media give such overwhelming coverage to every incident involving kids? No, but capitalism does. Such stories attract attention, and attention brings advertizing dollars. For sure, there have been changes to playgrounds, swimming pools, etc. Mostly, such places have become less common and less easy to access. Why? I think there are two main reasons. First, lawyers and the "lawsuit=winning the lottery" mentality so prevalent in American society often makes it unacceptably risky or expensive (in terms of insurance premiums) to offer such facilities. It is difficult to find a public swimming pool with a diving board these days, because of liability insurance. Never mind that >95% of "diving accidents" involve diving from the side of the pool, and diving boards actually make pools safer by giving an alternative to diving from the side. You can't have a swimming pool without sides, but you can appear to be "safety-conscious" by "discouraging diving" by removing diving boards. Same for certain playground structures, such as the old "geodesic domes" we used to climb on. Does the "nanny state" demand that lawyers encourage people to treat every "boo-boo" as a winning lottery ticket? No, that's just good old-fashioned American greed. Another factor is the tax-cutting fervor that makes it very difficult for most communities to offer anything more than the most basic services. Parks, playgrounds, libraries, swimming pools: all are luxuries that are the first to get cut. Tea party types don't want to pay for anything that doesn't cater to the over 60 crowd, and libertarians don't think any such services should be publicly available at all. If you want a playground for your kids, build it yourself in your own yard! A really big factor is that there are many activities that compete with playgrounds for kid's attention. In my youth, there were no X-boxes, computer games, etc, and TV was black and white and had 3 or 4 channels. Did the "nanny state" force private industry to develop all those video games? For that matter, did they force industry to develop computers to play those games on? Did they force broadcasters to develop channels devoted entirely to cartoons? No, that was pure Capitalism. Good old-fashioned profit motive. One last thing to mention, when I was a kid I went everywhere on my bicycle. Getting my first bike enlarged my world to an extent that was matched only when I got my drivers license. Riding a bike had some risk, and I remember kids who were hit by cars, but that was pretty rare. I still ride a bike, but it's very obvious that there is a lot more traffic on the road these days. In my town, virtually every road is carrying more traffic than they were actually designed to handle. Riding a bicycle in heavy traffic is not an appropriate activity for 8 or 9-year-olds. At the same time, government budgets don't allow for constructing bike paths. For kids, bicycles are no longer a ticket to freedom in most cities. They might be able to persuade a parent to drive them, in which case they still aren't getting exercise. More likely, they will just stay home and play video games. How is that the fault of the "nanny state"? If anything, the "nanny state" should provide safe bike paths, but that would take money, which is poison to Republicans, Libertarians, tea partiers, etc. 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'm not aware of any university that forces anyone to enroll in any degree programs or majors. To the best of my knowledge, students are free to choose the school they want to attend (assuming they can afford it), and the major or degree they want to pursue. How can there be "tyranny" when students are free to take or not take those majors/courses as they wish? How can simply offering choices be construed as "tyranny"? Does the fact that dropzones offer an opportunity to skydive somehow mean that they are forcing people who would rather play golf to jump from planes against their wishes? No, rather the NAS, you, and people of your ilk would prefer to impose censorship, requiring that university courses pass your litmus tests for "ideological purity". You are the tyrants, because you seek to prevent people from being exposed to ideas that challenge your perspective and power. In the 1950s and early 1960s people of your ilk purged universities of professors who supported civil rights, including the right to attend university, for non-whites. The University of Georgia briefly lost accreditation because the governor took over the university just to fire any faculty who supported integration. This is the sort of action that the NAS, you, and people of your ilk demand: ideological purity so students never hear anything except what you want them to hear. I personally think that some of the things that are taught in some courses is nonsense. I have heard that some people in Women's Studies hold that DNA and modern genetics are white male power play intended to hold women subservient to science. I would not advocate censoring such speech, though; instead I believe that education about the real nature and motives of science, including the fact that much of what we know about biology in general and genetics in this particular case was discovered by women scientists, is the appropriate response. Ron, do you disagree that ultimately we are better off when people can discuss a variety of conflicting ideas, weigh them and the evidence in support of or against them, and choose to follow the ones that they think are most correct? Or do you believe that some old fossils should be able to decide what ideas get discussed and what ones don't? How can anyone who claims to be a patriotic American also claim that freedom of speech applies only to speech they agree with? 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)

How delightful to hear from you! 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 economy is improving, albeit more slowly than anticipated. 2. The slow pace is in large part to to the Republican strategy of opposing everything Obama has proposed, even if that mean turning their back on long-standing Republican policies. Republican politicians have made it clear that economic recovery plays a distant second fiddle to their own desire for more power. 3. It isn't clear to me how doubling down on the very policies that caused the recession in the first place are likely to get us out of it any faster. Supply-side economics has never worked, and can never work for obvious reasons. There is zero evidence that tax holidays for the extremely wealthy has ever had any beneficial effect on investment rates, indeed history indicates that the correlation between the two is approximately zero. 4. Even if I were inclined to favor Republican economic theories, all the cramming fundamentalist Christianity down our throats/anti-science/anti-education/anti-minority bullshit would be a poison pill for me. The Republican Party has labeled me as Satan's minion, who's life work is to send unsuspecting young minds to Hell. Why the fuck would I ever vote to support that kind of BS? 5. Between their economic dogma and their anti-science rhetoric, it is clear that the Republican Party is incapable of objectively evaluating facts and making logical conclusions. Instead they insist on a cloud-cuckoo world in which reality is entirely subservient to their dogma. In Republican-land, they told no lies during the campaign, because there is no such thing as objective reality; instead reality is whatever they define it to be. This disqualifies them from running a hot dog stand, much less the country, IMO. That'll do for a start. 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)

Certainly atmospheric CO2 is not the only determinant of global climate. One must consider Milkanovitch cycles, distribution of land masses (supercontinents such as Pangea have a very different effect on climate compared to periods when water levels were higher and land masses were smaller and more isolated), etc. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas on its own. However, none of these things are currently changing in a manner that accounts for the recent increases in global temperature. Even if CO2 is not the only factor determining global temperature, it is certainly capable of either adding to or reducing global temperatures. In the Permian, a 2,000 ppm increase in CO2 drove a 14 degree F temperature increase, sufficient to cause the extinction of >96% of the species then alive. Extinction involved not only temperature stress, but also hypoxia from a significant reduction in O2 concentrations. I assume you would make some effort to land into the wind on days when there is a 10 mph breeze blowing? You likely wouldn't say that the wind is natural, and so it makes no difference if you land downwind or into the wind as your little human-generated canopy can't make any difference to the overall system. Also, once again, the difference between the past and now is that today there are large human populations living in areas that will be affected if temperatures and sea level should rise significantly. 12,000 years ago sea level was lower and people, in small numbers, lived in areas that are now under water, such as the Baltic Sea. Water levels rose slowly enough that people were able to easily move out of the way, and populations were low enough that there was room for the displaced populations to settle. Even so, events such as the flooding of the Black Sea were dramatic enough to spawn the myth of the world-wide flood that still influences fundamentalist Christians. Today climate fluctuations that would have been easily tolerated in the past are likely to cause the displacement of hundreds of millions, or even billions of people. Anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to cause the "end of the planet", for sure, but it could well displace hundreds of millions of people, leading to huge conflicts. What do you think will happen if a hundred million Muslim Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are forced to move into territory that is now Hindu India? Why do we want to risk screwing around with 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)

Nonsense. You can look at CO2 data for over a half million years and you will not see them higher than they currently are. That's not cherry picking data. That is a fact. What about this fact? "During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount." http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ I've never understood the point of this line of reasoning. Is it that as long as the current climate doesn't exceed any climate extreme that has ever occurred at any point in the past then everything is OK? Then we could look at the end of the Permian, when a super-volcano (sort of like Yellowstone today) began to erupt through one of the largest coal fields in the world. Not only did the eruptions burn a tremendous amount of coal, greatly elevating atmospheric CO2, but heating coal without igniting it converts it to methane, which is an even stronger greenhouse gas. As ocean temperatures began to increase, methane clathrate deposits on the ocean floor converted to methane gas, displacing oxygen from the water and eventually reaching the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect. The result was a runaway greenhouse event in which atmospheric CO2 levels rose by over 2,000 ppm, and the temperature rose by at least 8 degrees C (14.4 degrees F); there is evidence that the ocean surface reached 40 degrees C. At least 96% of marine species, and over 70% of terrestrial species, went extinct during this event; the extinction was so severe it took about 15 million years for species diversity to return to the levels seen just before the extinction. All of this was a natural event, as there were no people then. I doubt anyone would say that just because the event was natural, it would be OK for it to happen today. At other times when the Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today, a lot of what is presently land was under water. During the Cretaceous, the entire middle section of North America, including nearly all of Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North and South Dakota, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories were under water, so that the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean were connected by a sea that was over 1,500 miles wide in places. I doubt that people who live in those areas today would appreciate a return to those conditions. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it is something we would care to experience today. One should bear in mind that well over a billion people live within a hundred feet or so of sea level. If sea levels were to rise significantly, those people would all have to go somewhere, as they certainly wouldn't stay put. That means they'd be crowding into areas that are also already occupied. For example, if the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps were to melt, the shoreline of the southeastern US would be just a little south of Macon, Georgia; all of Florida and the southern 1/3 of Georgia would be under water, and all those people would have to go somewhere. The point is, even natural events that occurred in the past would have a catastrophic effect on human populations and societies were they to happen today. Also, the argument that if something (such as increasing temperatures) happened due to non-anthropogenic forces in the past, then they cannot be influenced by anthropogenic forces today, is clearly silly. Just because your house might catch fire from a lightning strike is no reason to ignore the guy with a gas can and lighter in your garage. 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)

After all you Republicans get all that venting out of your collective spleens, I do hope y'all take a deep breath and then listen to some of the cooler heads in your party. It's not in the interests of the country if Republicans relegate themselves to an ever more balkanized role. There is a need for an authentic party of small government, to provide at least a counterpoint to "big government" thinking, but without the 1950's social engineering. Of course, then they would be Libertarians. I'm heading off to work shortly. I went in to work yesterday as well, on top of putting in at least 10 hrs in the lab/office and another couple of hours working at home every day Monday to Friday. I generally end up supporting Democratic candidates, but I voted Republican and Libertarian where those people offered platforms I supported. When you (I mean you Gravitymaster, as well as CanuckInUsa, airdvr, and numerous others) say I vote Democrat because I am lazy and just want to sit on my couch and drink beer at your expense, IT IS PERSONALLY FUCKING INSULTING. You don't know me, you know nothing about what motivates me or how hard I work, but you take it upon yourselves to make self-righteous assumptions that only serve to make you feel somehow "superior" to everyone else. Then you can add in the anti-science and anti-education platform planks and undercurrent of the "modern" Republican party, and consider that I am a scientist and educator. My local Republican Congressman (Paul Broun) recently accused me of doing Satan's work. Ask yourself this: if the approach of the Republican party is to insult me, at every turn, why should I consider them seriously to lead the government. If the position of the party is to insult or condemn everyone who isn't a white evangelical Christian, how can you hope to ever again obtain a plurality of the vote? 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)

Much appreciated. I really do hope you also have a good day with your family and friends. 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)