pirana

We call Affirmative Action, . . . um, . . . Affirmative Action. I have applied for and been given grants, and am white. I also applied for and received loans (and paid them back). So I know from personal experience that white people do get grants. I suspect that there is strong evidence that white people do get accepted for graduate school (first clue is all those white people with graduate degrees). You appear to be angry about many things. Tell me about your childhood. " . . . 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

Oh, golly gosh and your input and deliberate and insightful analysis is why I read yours. Reagan breaking the ATC unions wasn't Fascist, no. The fact that many airlines blew out the unions inteh 80's, pure coincidence. Mandatory insurance and seat belts, well, not a product of the government and insurance companies working together, no. Not Fascist at allllllllllllllllll. I have been shown The Light. All corporations are absolutely evil. All people that work for them, but do not own the capital, are absolutely good. That is the distinction by which I shall live my life. Amen. " . . . 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 attacked nothing (unlike many others on this site) I don't trust the paper and I stated as much so you can go cry to some one that may listen....... I think calling it a turd is an attack. Unless your criteria for "attack" is that it must be a physical assault. In which case I think there are very few attacks committed on this site (contradicting your statement about "many others"). " . . . 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

can you really call the poor WWII refugees who had lost everything but their lives and then the immigrants who were kicked out of the arab states and northern africa without their property people "with lots of cash" ? your description is absurd. Israel was not founded "within" any country's borders. there was no palestine on top of which Israel was founded. you simply don't know the historic facts (like many others here) Bullshit. You read some history, you obviously have not. Do a Google on the history of Palestine. Most pertinent to today's crisis is the time from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire thru WWI and the Balfour Declaration. By the time of the date you give (1948) the dirty deals had already been made. If you are one of those people who want to play the game of going back only as far as is convenient to your opinion, then you'll want to go back only as far as about 1200 BC. May come as a shock to you, but the first Semitic tribes (who eventually became the Jews) arrived about that time and ran the previous (and earliest recorded) occupants off the land. Another group they tried to run off, but could not, were the Philistines, for whom the land is named. What's your answer to that? More vague accusations that I do not know what I'm talking about, or do you have some facts (dates, names, events) to back them up? If you need a couple direct links to good quality documents of the area's history, I'll be happy to provide them. I'm a relic myself and would rather read books. " . . . 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

Ever heard of the code of Hammurabi? That's trouble. You are insinuating that the Christian faith did not invent the rules by which to live. Good point though. Most religious people are not aware that all currently practiced religions (except maybe Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!!!) are built on the foundation of religions that came before them, and before them, and before them . . . . All major facets of Christianity are just revisions to similar, but distinct, previously held beleifs, that go back to Neolithic times. " . . . 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

Come on Bill you know they little or no resources in NK.....now if they had OIL.. we would have 500,000 troops there in a heartbeat after pumelling them with shock and awe for a few months first. Um, yeah... how's that "It's all about the oil" working for you at the local gas pumps, anyway? It appears to be working out very well for the guys that got us in this mess, while the average citizen is taking it in the shorts; at the pump for now, and everywhere else to follow. What a shocker! " . . . 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

This really bothers me. Do you realise this is the WorldWideWeb? Have you ever been to any of these places and sat down and spoken to these people about their troubles? Oh, oh - pick me, pick me!!!! I have been to a couple places like that - in Africa. The most telling part to me was when you asked questions about controversial topics and the person looks around (Belushi style) to see who is within earshot before they answer. That's when you realize you are not in Kansas anymore. I made a cynical comment about the President's picture being everywhere and our guide gave me a very serious warning about how loudly I talk about such things - not so much for my sake as his. That being said, the best source of honest information are retired diplomatic corps workers. (Forget about getting anything that resembles full disclosure or a balanced story from the mass media, politicians, or anybody who pontificates based on those 2 sources). The crap diplomats see and the nature of their business requires they not be honest until they are retired. I have been lucky enough to know a few, and the best you could say is that they have, without exception, reservations about the way the US does business. Usually it is more like serious disappointment. The point of most people having never been exposed is a very good one. " . . . 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

Two things strike me about this post. 1 - Other countries need to be allowed to mature, even if some of their behaviors rub us wrongly. It is easy to be righteous and forget that we are not that long removed from slavery, voting rights only being available to white land-owning males, grabbing land from the natives that were already here for about 10 or 20 thousand years, and so on and so forth. Heck, we are still dealing with vestiges of the Klan. Should someone come and invade us to put a stop to that? I'm not apologizing for the worst of the behaviors, just trying to understand them. 2 - You hit on one of the dirty little secrets of most financial aid given out by the IMF, the US, and just about anybody else that can afford to give out significant amounts of money. It comes with a shitload of strings attached. It's not like a home mortgage where you pretty much only have to promise to have a house and pay back the money. Almost universally, loans from the US (direct or indirect) require the money be spent on US goods and services, often with certain companies. Guess which companies they are. That money never actually leaves the country. Some developing country gets talked into thinking they need some humongous infrastructure of a power grid, ends up in debt up to their eyeballs, profits from the project end up in the accounts of a few select elite US industrial giants, and profits from the ongoing business end up in the pockets of the ruling elite class of the borrowing country while their citizens continue to eat mud pies and live in cardboard shacks. Underdevelopment is a process - not a status. There is nothing underdeveloped about a nomadic population living a very simple agrarian lifestyle. Their level of development is commensurate with their culture and economic system. Underdevelopment is when gross inconsistencies exist side by side as the result of radically uneven maturation of an economy and culture. The reason our political leaders hate folks like the President of Venezuela is because they refuse to play the game and spend all their borrowed money buying US goods and services. They actually want to use the full amount to evenly stimulate THEIR OWN economy. How audacious of them! So the spin doctors go to work portraying the guy as a monster, and if that doesn't work, we assassinate them. That's not a perfect description of every situation, but is pretty much the formula is in place. " . . . 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

Can't respond to this without knowing what you think the Great Questions are. Problem is, though many are probably the same, or similar, for many people, there will be differences. Some might not give a rat's patooti about the origins of Life, the Universe & Everything. Others might obsess over the average weight of an English Sparrow. It's one of the things that make life, and the people in it, so interesting. " . . . 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

Now this is funny. Is belief in hairyjuan a matter of faith? Or more correctly, is the belief that hairyjuan is human or not a matter of faith? Interesting that the comments about possibly being a bot have never been responded to (that I have seen anyway). " . . . 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 certainly do not have the market cornered on goodness. I failed my test below miserably. I don't want your money and I'm not trying to recruit for some denomination. I'm just genuinely concerned about the fate of others. Assume a bridge is out up ahead on the road you're traveling on. There is a car up ahead with a person standing on the side of the road waving his hands at you trying to get you to stop. Is that person in the wrong for doing so? Assume that hell really does exist. I know you don't believe that but just assume for a minute. If another person knew that it did exist, wouldn't you want to be warned? Just trying to get you to understand the motive. But the question falls apart because existence of hell is a matter of faith (it can not be known as a fact). That makes it a hypothetical question, which makes it an interesting thought experiment - but nothing more unless the existence of hell can be proven or falsified. " . . . 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

This probably does not work for people who do not regularly practice scientific methodology. Accepting the validity of the method probably isn't even enough. Without a common definition of terms like proof and theory, and an understanding of logical constructs like falsification and bifurcation, deductive arguements can be twisted all over the place and become meaningless. Not trying to be condecending; but some of these words get thrown around in here quite casually. It's at it's worst when people are pitting science against religion, or even better, when they try to draw some equivalency between the 2 by claiming science to be just another religion. That kind of claim (or the one that proclaims that something is just a theory) only reveals one thing - a person's profound lack of understanding of the scientific method. If anyone is sincerely interested in the topic, there is a very good read, and entertaining too, titled "It's Just a Theory." I know it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I bet there are many people in this thread who would enjoy it. " . . . 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

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!!!!! You don't frequent BadAstronomy or other astronomy or physics chat rooms by chance do you? " . . . 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

Can't speak for all, but my concern is the damage done by fundamentalist literal interpretation of stories created thousands of years ago. My opinion is that those stories were never intended for literal interpretation, but more as moral lessons. If they were intended to be factual accounts, then their fault lies in being based on what passed for knowledge at that time. I have no qualms about belief in a diety. I don't, but I can understand the desire of others to do so. But to ask me to suspend all logic, the laws of physics, and 2000 years of actual discovery and buy into fairy tales like the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, Creation, etc is just an outright Dark Ages mentality. It's 2006; we should be able to practice religion and enjoy spirituality while letting go of the incredibly far-fetched dogmatic stuff. That's a very strrange definitioin of Christian. Basically you are saying that all people that are good are Christian, without regard for their actual chosen religion, or choice not to be religious. That's a gonzo-whopper of a contradiction. I would probably meet most people's definition of a good person. I do not lie, cheat, or steal; don't hurt people, and go out of my way to help others and be a valuable and contributing member of my community. But I can guarantee you I'm not Christian in any way shape or form. But by your definition I must be Christian because I am a good person. Why do religious people think they have the market on goodness cornered? That you can not be good if you do not buy into religious beliefs? BTW, this largely explains why atheists do not go door-to-door. We're not selling or looking to convert. We (at least peole like me) are perfectly OK with religion until it oversteps it's boundaries and proclaims ancient nuggets of information as absolute fact. This also lversam a very " . . . 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

Ok... Now I'm confused. The UN told the Palestinians that they were taking half their land and expected them to be happy about it? I don't see how they expected any reaction other than the one they got. Actually, you're not confused - you are dead on; and that is the reason this will not go away. It was a blatant land grab, and we would do the same thing if it were forced on us. Well, we would do a more conventional thing, but only because we have the resources to do so. If a group of immigrants with lots of cash started buying up land, and got the UN to back them in efforts to consolidate their holdings and declare an autonomous state within US borders, I think we would react very strongly. The honest answer to the honest question is that we let it happen because Israel represents a friendly foothold in a very valuable place. It is basically a civilianized version of a US military outpost, manned by someone else's troops. Very convenient. " . . . 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 he and Hillary ought to hook up. I'll bet they secretly lust after one another. " . . . 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

You are definitley onto something there. I went to church until I was about 14 or 15, . . . and never listened to a word that was said. As for the 2nd part. Point well taken. I say we burn everything but Physics textbooks, the SIM, and the works of Dr. Suess (but do include those stupid Berenstein Bears in the bonfire). " . . . 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 too mention that as our ability to examine the world in ever finer detail and with ever greater accuracy showed there to be errors in Newtonian mechanics, science (and the people who practice it) were open to new findings and updated models. This self-correcting nature of scientific discovery is either overlooked by psuedoscientists and fundamentalists, or they try to turn it around and say "Look, they can't make up their mind." Which really only shows their profound lack of understanding of the scientific method and/or their own blind faith. Not to mention that organized religion has no self-correcting mechanism - because they are not open to ever being incorrect. Look how many centuries it took them to "pardon" Galileo. They should be so ashamed, and yet instead they are all so pious about it. BTW, for those not familiar; Newtonian mechanics was not tossed because of relativity. Relativity built upon Newton's foundation, just as quantum mechanics has added another layer of accuracy after relativity. The fundamentalists who think the whole kit & kaboodle will someday be invalidated better not hold their breath. Or maybe they should? " . . . 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

much like PC thuggery, radical liberalism and radical conservatism - isn't it? Worse, far worse. None of those folks think it appropriate that I should burn in Hell for an eternity because I don't believe their myths. He did say that. He did, he did! A couple pages back when being asked why he couldn't answer on a certain issue, he fell back on some line about him going to heaven and non-beleivers burning for eternity. And how does that work anyway? To burn, I'd have to have a physical existence. And not just have that physical existence, but have it in a sentient manner, . . after death! And for how long could I continue burning and still feel pain? What mechanism is it that allows a dead person to be sentient, and on fire, and feel the pain, after death, forever? Wouldn't I eventually turn to ash, or at least get charred to the point of having no pain receptors? I'm really beginning to doubt the whole burn-in-hell-forever thing. I know, I know; it's just a euphemism intended to convey the idea that a person is really bad - I just enjoy shredding dogma. Reminds me of a line from Jim Carroll though: "I was a Catholic boy I was redeemed thru pain and not thru joy. I'm now a Catholic man, I put my tongue to the rail whenever I can." " . . . 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

which is my view also, as you know Are you saying you share my view? " . . . 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 sure there are a lot. But if there is no way of knowing what that number is, they shouldn't just make one up out of thin air and claim it as true, in order to drum up donations. I'll guess they took known numnbers and factored in for unreported incidents; not to mention the victims of multiple rapes. I seriously doubt they just made it up, but I wasn't there; so I guess you're accussing them of lying is technically just as valid as my trusting they applied some diligence to the process. I don't see that any discrepancy of the magnitude being examined is relevant to the effort they have chosen to undertake. Unless you think 130,000 is worth doing something about; but half that number is acceptable? " . . . 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

Please try to explain the hatred that all of the Arab nations have toward the small nation of Israel, who would prefer to just live quietly and peacfully where they are at, without going back to the " fairytale" of Abraham and the birth of his bastard son Ishmael, and his legitimate son Isaac. Also, try to explain why, in very recent history, a number of nations would also desire to destroy a complete race of people, who really seem to be a very humble group of people, overall. I don't see the relevance of the question to the quote. That being said, there is an explanation for the current hatred you mention. Google for Balfour Declaration, or history of Palestine and read the bits from about 1900 and later. It has very little to do with religion, and a lot to do with a turn of the century, post imperialism land grab. " . . . 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

That's a very good analogy. It does understate organized religions resistance to change, which would be very difficult to overstate. That is the root of my passion on this topic. I have zero tolerance for dogma. " . . . 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, Paj - Stop believing in something that has had, at least, a personally positive impact on you and your family (regardless of the larger church structure's hypocrisy). Join the RNC or DFL instead or even become a shrill activist for some specific political agenda. I'm not railing against religion in general, just against literal interpretation of the fables of antiquity. Religion as a guide, using whatever stories they find useful is great for whoever likes that kind of thing. Using those stories in a dogmatic manner to deny physical reality is totally absurd. " . . . 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

You are correct. The Biblical version of creation is however invalidated by the body of knowledge known as the genetic code. The foundation on which biology in general rests is completely wiped out by the kind of BS spewed by fundamentalists. Not too mention all of the Earth sciences, which are also completely invalidated by adherence to the God-created-everything-in-seven-days BS. Wake up. It's 2006. It's OK to acknowledge that people from 2000 years ago did the best they could with the information at hand. However, their stories are woefully inadequate, and downright silly, given what we now know about the world. Put down the Neolithic belief and step back from the Kool-Aid. " . . . 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