pirana

This guy, or these threee, are not exceptions. They are the norm. I've known a few veterans of the diplomatic corps, have a couple family members that served even. They will concur almost without exception that this has become standard behavior. Politicians, and therefore the administrations they run, practice situational ethics and are masters of propoganda. All of them. Everyone on their high horse about their party being the righteous ones - get over it. If there is anything to be learned from observing the political arena for the last 40 years it is that career politicians have an absurdly high rate (compared to the population as a whole) of criminal activity, lying, cheating, deception, adultery, alcohol & drug abuse, and so on and so forth. I don't know which begets the other, becoming a politician or shedding any sense of trying to behave like a decent human being. I think it is the business they are in. Can't remember where I found it, but I saw a report a few years back that was basically a rap sheet on Congress. It was mind boggling how many of them had DUI's, were wife-beaters, had been in treatment, had other criminal convictions, etc. Our political system is pathetic. Our form of government is great, but the people we choose, and the reasons we select them absolutely suck. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

And exactly what are you saying about the FSM? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

One additional thought. Is it possible that during the tougher economic swings of the 70's and 80's, which were much more pronounced on that side of the pond, the will and power of the more conservative people and ideals was broken? Weren't the unemployment rates during the worst of those cycles something like 20%? And even much worse in the rural areas? Stuff like that can really do a number on people while waiting for market forces to generate correcting behavior. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I don't. England is on the cutting edge of many sociological changes, and thus is fodder for news and conversation about those subjects. For example: Where are public security cameras most prevalent? England. DNA databases? England. Most restrictive traffic controls? England. Large crime problems? England. Gun control? England. Socialized medicine? England. England is the nation where "Big Brotherism" is most advanced, and thus it's fair game to publicly examine those policies to see how they're working. The masses of people running away from England might be an indicator that they don't like the direction things are going. And how in the world did that happen? I read a pretty good amount of history, and it just doesn't make sense to me that the culture there took such a dramatic turn. It has always seemed to me that it was a very pragmatic, well-humored, common sensical, stiff upper lip, and all that culture. For it to have become so Big Brotherish and Socialist and extreme in so many ways is truly disappointing. Hope it is not a harbinger of things to come. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think liberals and conservatives, or repubs and dems, are not accurate labels for the people most vested in this issue. The battle is dominated by religious fundamentalists on one side and scientists on the other. True, the fundamentalists appear to be pretty hard core right wingers, but I would not lump them in with all the conservatives and republicans any more than I would lump all classic liberals in with the hard core greenie-peta-treehuggin-nuke gay whales crowd. As an aside - the reason this issue is so hard to put away once and for all is that the science crowd does not in general see the DI group as even worthy of debate - and rightly so in my opinion. They pretty much feel it is ridiculous for dignified bonafide researchers to have to go tit-for-tat toe-to-toe with the lunatic fringe that makes up the fundamentalist crowd. I think they find it hard to believe that any serious segment of humans would even consider the creationist drivel worth listening to. (And from the reading I have done, the US is where the nutjobs get a their only significant audience). To the scientists who have spent their life actually doing the work to get where we are at, it is an insult to even have to acknowledge these goofballs exist, much less share the floor with them in a public forum. The Dover trial is probably about the only kind of forum that they feel is likely to provide them the setting to be fairly heard; where a prudent judge is going to ignore the bullshit and obfuscation typical of the creationism proponents. I think that is a fairly wise approach since it appears to be effective at keeping the BS out of the science classes without having to slug it out with the nuts grocery store tabloid style. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's worse than that. It's Those Darn Humans. p.s. - Coaching is easy. You just make them run laps until you break their will. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

is that Minnesota? or California? Either way, as long as they've had at least one Governor from Predator, alsoBatman and Robin, then it won't matter. It can be both. But I'm weary of Sci-Fi. I want a governor that is, or has been, a cartoon character. I think Ned Flanders is worthy of nomination. That'll get us the right wing vote. With Zippy the Pinhead as a running mate, not only do we benefit from political experience, we nail down the hippies, yippies, lefties, commies, gays, clowns, fat people, and of course all the othe Pinheads. We'll rule the world! " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Being made the subject of a joke is not equal to being bashed. In some lunatic utopian society where people believe poking fun is bashing, all humor will be banned - cuz we wouldn't want to offend ANYBODY. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Actually, I'm quite OK with making fun of anything. There is nothing that is sacred from humor, IMO. The day we have to guard from certain types of jokes is the day when we have taken ourselves all too seriously. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Just a couple quick adds: The Friedman essay was a mixed bag. A few good points, but also some errroneous statements and outright false conclusions. Second, someone mentioned the approxiamte cost per person for coverage of all services, no copays or deductibles, etc at about $300. It would be more than double that, easy. For a full coverage, first dollar, no out-of-pocket plan it would probably be about $800 to $1000 per month per person. Something that should jump out at everybody is that only a small (proportionately) segment of the population actually incurs that much or more per month in expenses. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

From Business Week last month: France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S. That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation. To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member. Americans who think America is always #1 in everything are just kidding themselves. Very misleading, and pretty much irrelevant to discussions regarding a health care system. The study should be called a Health study, not a Health Care study. Many of the things effecting their ranking is about lifestyle, not the health care system. Much of what it has to say is that Americans are obese and lazy; that we smoke and drink and eat too much. Another useless category is number of hospital beds. I'm assuming they would give us points for having more, which is absolutely assinine since we have too many as it is. Yeah, build more big white shiny buildings with empty beds so we can try to move up on the list. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

If you have a graduate degree in the sciences then what I've read is probably not for you - although The God Particle is very good because of his style (and The Clock Struck Zero might be worthy because ot was such a good discussion of time). It (The GP) is an overview of how we got where we are in our knowledge of physics, as told early in the book via an interview with Democritus (I think). I found it very entertaining. Then it gets more serious as it closes in on current knowledge and the search for the Higgs. Fascinating stuff. The world is an amazing enough place without miracles. Have a great weekend. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm a bit backed up, I can never find much time to read in the summer, but I'll consider that one (You're Joking . . .). For others you might like, have you glanced over Lederman's The God Particle? The subtitle is If The Universe Is The Answer, What Is The Question. He's a very entertaining as well as informative writer. On the topic at hand I'd highly recommend When The Clock Struck Zero, as well as The Last Two Minutes. Alice In Quantumland is not bad either. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

MOMMY UNIVERSE: Honey, have you seen the kids? DADDY UNIVERSE: Yeah, I dropped off the Little Angel at the new Multiverese's place up the street. She's gonna have dinner with them. And I think Bobby is out back getting ready for another inflationary/expansion phase again. That kid is never gonna stop growing. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I love Feynman's stuff. Ironically, one of his books was titled "Why Do You Care What People Think" or something like that. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

what if they make a great big loop? Since it was a historical analogy, wouldn't that involve time travel? Dude, if we can think this all the way through there's a Nobel prize in it for us! Wouldn't that be I-80? Where's my prize? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I tend to fall on the side of the Universe being everything there is, and therefore containing everything we could know about what there is. Agreed that at one time our knowledge was so limited we did not even know the questions to ask; but with our knowledge of physics where it is at, it does not appear there is any way to overcome things like the Planck limit, which would definitely come into play at the point of singularity (or anything that even comes close). As far as the multiverse stuff that Hawking rambles on about; to me that is nothing more than mental masturbation. Great food for thought experiments, but it's gotta make experimental physicists roll their eyes.* The energy levels required to test such theories would make the Superconducting Super Collider look like a pee-shooter. *Could you see Hawking applying for run time at Fermilab. The interviewer is asking some questions about the research he wants to do. HAWKING (In his electronically synthesized voice): I plan to convert all the matter in our solar system into a pure energy beam of alternately pulsing photons and anti-nuetrinos, then aim it at the nearest black hole . . . . INTERVIEWER (Interupting Hawking): Next candidate please. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Actually, that part is established by laws of physics which are way way way at the other end of the spectrum from faith. We have theories, based on observations and modeling, that take us back to within some ridiculously tiny amount of time following the BB. So technically, what we have is loads of evidence for a Big Expansion, which took place at mind boggling speeds - but let's not call it a bang if that makes people happier. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

We've all grown so much since then. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Prove it. Not sure exactly what you are asking me to prove; but if you are questioning all parts of the statement; as well as the whole - this would be a difficult place to do that. Don't take this wrong, but I do not know your knowledge level on the topics involved, so I'm not trying to belittle. Good primers on genetics and cellular biology, (especially the development of sex as a gene mixing tool), evolution & selection, and an understanding of the timeline of hominid history built up from archaeological evidence all need to be in place in order for the whole to make sense. Actually, I think the whole ascension of the mammals gives it an even better context. If you follow the extreme fundamentalist beliefs on the age of the Earth and Creationism and that like then don't bother. The research and findings will all fly in the face of the what you believe, and you will obviously deny the science. Now if you do have all that as a foundation, (the science part - not the fundamentalist part) or were to acquire it; then had a team of experts in each field lay out all the evidence and logical arguement - I suppose you could still claim that it was not proven because you did not see it happening right before your eyes. That would be beyond healthy skepticism. Heck, it would be beyond maniacal skepticism and just short of, if not outright denial. For a person demanding that level of certainty, the only thing that can be certain is the here and now. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

He was saying that we have developed a spiritual, albeit, twisted view on life because, over time, we have developed large frontal lobes. There is no way that he can prove any part of that statement, therefore he is taking his own statement totally on faith, which the scientific types claim to be a wasted part of the human psyche. Who said it was wasted. Happy vibes, good times, orgasmic thoughts, etc are not wasted. They are hardly the tools of scientific investigation; but they are not outright wasted. Emotions can be very frutiful, just don't mix them up with reliable means for discovering the truth about anything. Emotional needs are what drive us to enjoy the company of friends. They are completely worthless when attempting to assemble a history of the natural world. And you are correct that it is strictly my opinion that our twisted psyches are the unfortunate result (or side effect) of developing the cognitive power evident in our big brain thingy. I thought that was clear, but good to make sure. Obviously those side effects are not overly dangerous (to our survival) or they would be selected against; and they probably do have positive effects on survival (as is evidenced by most people's reactions whenever rehmwa reminds us to think of the children); but they are not a requirement for survival. Planaria seem to have made it a long time without them. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

yeah, that one got me too... Royd, what's your perspective on the short response? What are you disputing? Of course, the "before or since" bit confuses me. How do we know the "since" part?..... C'mon, Don, you know you got in a typing flow and just slipped that one in.... Well, there are those that will deny anything that does not take place right before there own eyes; but I think it is pretty well established that the fossil record is relatively complete. Yes, there are gaps, but nothing big enough to cast doubt on our understanding of the tree of life. (Especially with the ability we have to do DNA sequencing). There do not appear to be any creatures that have had anywhere near our cognitive ability; which would be a prerequisite for manipulation of the environment at the level we have achieved. Results speak pretty loudly on that one too. I think you could make a good supporting arguement, though it would not be proof, that the lack of manipulation by other creatures indicates limited ability. I suppose some cetacean might have developed the ability to dominate but decided not too, then went extinct. Kinda far fetched; but possible. Anyway, there certianly aren't any around today. And stop giving away my secret identity. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Not for everyone.... I was raised catholic, switched to Presbyterian when I went to college. Did Bible studies 2-3 days a week, vespers on Saturday, church on Sunday, led youth groups, etc... I was very active in the church until my early 20s. The problem was that the more I learned, read, and questioned, the less sense the whole thing made and the farther I felt from Christianity. Over the course of years, I eventually got tired of pretending I believed in something that neither my heart nor brain could find truth in. I still believe that there is some greater force that links all of us together, and that force could easily be called god, I guess, though I see it more from a mother nature perspective. A Naturalist. Welcome to the club. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I don't believe in coincidences. I'm not trying to make a believer out of you. If you choose not to believe in God, that's your decision. I'm curious as to what your direct answer to the question is. Yes or no? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

once at the mockup, and then again in the parking lot Sounds like you need to rethink your landing pattern. Try the big open grassy field. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley