jcd11235

Yes, the different factions in Iraq have a long history of not getting along. However, SH was largely able to keep them from killing one another off. Was he able to stop all violence? Nope. Was he able to mitigate it some? Absolutely. When it was convenient for us, we supported Saddam. Likewise, when it became convenient for us, we began demonizing him. Let's not forget who helped the Baathists rise to power in the first place. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Kids often join street gangs for exactly the same reasons. (I'm not trying to argue or say your choice was wrong. I'm just trying to highlight a similarity.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's a fair point. Want to try for two? The military industrial complex notwithstanding, who has benefited from this war? The Iraqis have lost an untold number of civilian lives, and much infrastructure has been destroyed. They lost a competent secular leader who, while perhaps a bad guy, was able to maintain order in the country with far less bloodshed than the Iraqis have experienced since he was removed from power. Included in his legacy are free compulsory education, free hospitalization, widespread roads and electricity, increased freedoms and opportunities for women-- the list goes on. How many years do you think it will take for Iraq to get back to the point that they were at before we took it upon ourselves to invade the sovereign country without just cause? And, at what cost to American taxpayers will this rebuilding take place. Powell warned Bush prior to the invasion, that if we break it, we bought it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Arguably, he used force under circumstances different from what the authorization required. Of course, that doesn't really matter, since the Congress lacked the spine to call him on it. Poor leadership, I suppose. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not to split hairs, but in On the Revolutions Copernicus proposed a heliostatic model of the solar system, not a heliocentric model. He placed the sun near, but not at the center of the solar system. (Source: Hawking, Stephen; On The Shoulders Of Giants, p. 5) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

McCain's chances will vary significantly based not only on who he is running against, but also who his running mate is. He's 72 years old, and like it or not, there is a reasonably high probability (not necessarily over 50%, but nowhere near zero) that natural causes will kill him off within the next five years. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Insurance policy sales commissions Insurance company admin costs Insurance company profit margins Healthcare price inflation due to non-payment Unnecessary admin fees due to so many different rules/policy coverages Pharmaceutical marketing fees There's a few reasons why our current privatized system costs Americans more than necessary. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I wonder if the anti-minority-at-all-cost bigots are, over the large scale of the population, about balanced today by the pro-minority-at-all-cost bigots. (Sorry libs, you have to acknowledge the 2nd group exists to join this conversation) It's an interesting situation - the bigotry, instead of being cured, has perpetuated to the point of still being everywhere, it's just the idiots cancel each other out. I believe idiots from opposing and unreasonable viewpoints cancelling each other out is much more common than many out there think. Yes, the second group exists. As does the first group. Whether they each represent an equal proportion of the population is unclear. I suspect the first group is larger, based on personal experience, but I readily acknowledge that having spent the overwhelming majority of my life in states generally considered to be "red," My perspective is not without the bias of the local political beliefs. Personally, I was hoping the old white guy Gravel would get more support. While I disagree with his support of the Fair Tax, for the most part, I believe he is a man of integrity. Case in point, a few months back I had the opportunity to see him give a speech. Afterwards, he was fielding questions from the audience (without any pre-screening). One girl in the audience asked him about his position on gun control. The manner i which the question was asked left little doubt the the questioner was in favor of gun control. Gravel opened his response by saying that he was a gun owner, and kept a handgun in a drawer in his home (No mention of trigger locks or cabinet locks). He stated that he recognized that there was a definite problem in America with gun related violence that badly needed to be addressed. Then he said something one does not commonly hear from politicians running for office. He told us in no uncertain terms that he didn't have a solution to the problem. He went on to say that the answer to the problem is not as simple as either side would like people to believe. Speaking to a room of left leaning students, that was not the safest answer Gravel could have offered. It took integrity to say what he thought, and not what he thought would be best received. Gravel also made it clear that neither he nor any other candidate could fix the problems with America's government, that that would require the people to take the initiative to take back control for themselves. He claimed to be willing to help make that possible, but in the end it was up to us. Clearly, barring a major, unforeseen change in circumstance, Gravel does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting his party's nomination. Some might say that it is because he is an old white guy. I tend to think that it's because he is honest, and honesty has no place in today's politics. Special interests won't support any candidate who is just as willing to chastise his own party members when they screw up as he is willing to call out members of the opposing party when they screw up. So, since it appears that the best the Republicans have to offer is McCain, my choice is for Hillary or Obama. Of the two, I think Hillary is better qualified, but Obama is more charismatic. Both characteristics are valuable. Obama has mobilized young voters like no one in recent years has been able to do. Part of that is almost certainly because he is phenotypically black. And part of that is because he is a relatively young candidate. I believe a much bigger reason is that Obama is one charismatic sumbitch. People want to believe him. Many younger voters are not old enough to have been following politics seven years (or more) ago. But they are tired of having a president that appears to be lying every time his lips move. They want a president they can believe. They want a president they can believe in. They are in desperate need of real leadership in the Whitehouse. They aren't interested in the kind of president that commands through fear while hiding behind the world's largest military. They want a president that can rally the people, someone who can make them proud to be American instead of ashamed of it. In that sense, Obama is more like Ronald Reagan than any candidate since 1984. Unfortunately, many young Americans who registered to vote because of Obama won't even bother voting if he doesn't get the nomination. They don't care about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. They want a charismatic leader. No other candidate can offer that like Obama, so they are not interested in any other candidate. (Incidentally, some of these same people ridicule Gravel because Gravel expects people to take responsibility for their own government.) Sadly, America has not yet escaped her troubled past. For many Americans this election will be between McCain and the woman or McCain and the black guy. Once again, Edwards, the Dems most electable candidate, a likable middle aged white guy who was born into a less than privileged family, will not get the nomination. (OTOH, the Rep's most electable candidate, Colin Powell, the only conservative to appear to show remorse for his role leading up to the Iraq invasion/occupation, chose not to run.) Between a white female or a black male, who are comparatively qualified for the job, I believe Clinton has the better chance of winning. I still see racism raise its ugly head too often to believe that a large majority of Americans are willing to place a black man in the nation's highest political office. I hope I'm wrong about that, but nonetheless, I hope Hillary gets the nomination because I believe she is the more electable of the two, and that she would make a slightly better president than Obama. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Another important difference is that 7-11 loses capital. The label only loses money if those who receive the CDs would have been otherwise inclined to purchase the CD. On the other hand, if they would not have purchased the CD, and they like it, they are converted into a fan and potential customer. Personally, I don't ever buy music anymore unless I have a chance to listen to it first. It keeps me from buying overhyped crap, and makes it more likely that I find little known gems. Why? Do you think it will change anything? The chances of any particular filesharer being sued by the RIAA are about the same as that person being killed in a terrorist attack (ie. nearly zero) It does absolutely nothing but soil the public image of the RIAA. If this thread is any indication, it did that very well. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the more publicized lawsuits pursued by the RIAA motivated people to share music that weren't doing so before. It's completely irrelevant that the law is on your side. By turning public sentiment against the RIAA, the association did its members a disservice. It would very likely be an advantage in the current market for artists and labels to be able to advertise that they are not affiliated with the RIAA. And you seem quite proud of that. How did you reach this conclusion? There is nothing illegal about the technology MS or Apple provide. It has many legitimate uses for which it is regularly used. They cannot be held responsible because it can also be used for illegal activities. You're kidding yourself if you really believe this. The RIAA is but a pimple on music's ass. Music spans the globe and the millennia. The RIAA has been around for what, a few decades? Get over yourself. That depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it has been ruled that only uploading is illegal. Never mind that Steve Jobs posted his open letter before EMI removed the DRM. You may not have been watching these past few years, but Apple has attained a rather envied position in the music business. It's not unreasonable to think they might even have a bit of clout, and when Jobs spoke up on behalf of iTunes customers, at least one label listened. You can't compare music and video. People watch movies to find out how they end. Some people may watch them a few more times after that. People listen to their music over and over. I don't like DRM on video either, but piracy has the potential to be a much bigger problem with movies than with music, so it harder to find a workable alternative. No it couldn't. There's too much electronic music out there, stuff that can't be performed live. People can make great music with their computers, from scratch, or with live instruments. There's no need to sign a label or drop loads of cash on studio time. Social networking allows exposure without need for labels. Technology makes it possible for the individual artist to take control of every stage of making and distributing music. Combine that with natural market forces, and there's going to be readily available recorded music on a convenient medium readily available as long as there is demand. If I download one of your songs, what have you lost? It's not like I was going to buy one. You've lost nothing. You only stand to gain. Maybe I'll like it and buy some of your music. Otherwise, in the trash it goes, and then the trash gets emptied. What is there to recover? By your logic, since it's not recoverable, it's not stolen property. So what's the problem? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Did you not read Section 8? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Interesting. I've read that there are some psychological disorders for which the positively diagnosed patients do not have a uniform distribution of birth dates (month and day only), or even close to it. In other words some disorders are more likely to be diagnosed in people born during a certain time of the year. Because of this, I've suspected astrology to be an incorrect explanation for observed patterns in personality. Instead of being abandoned for a better explanation that explained the differences better, society stopped seeking any kind of explanation. Your post certainly offers a different plausible explanation for the lack of independence between psy. disorders and birthdays. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can't believe I read this whole thread (in a single sitting). There have been some good points made, and some not so good points made. I don't recall if it was Lindsay or KBordson who offered the anecdotal example of the lady who opted for the government paid $600 pregnancy test over the $15 pregnancy test available at the drug store across the street. Realistically, I can't fault the lady for the choice she made. From her perspective, she was looking at free versus $15. It would have been not only irrational for her to choose the higher priced option, but also less than intelligent. However, I do find fault with the policy makers who made the $600 pregnancy test available under her benefits, but not the $15 test. It is equally illogical to (intentionally or by default) make ER care available to the poor, but not preventative, or even non-emergency care available. The cost of the ER care that ends up being far more expensive than many impoverished patients can pay is either paid for by government reimbursement or price increases at the hospital, or some combination. Either way, the burden of providing the care is shifted from those who can't/don't pay to those who can/do. It's as though our policy makers have elected to spend an extra $40 per beneficiary in order to make sure that beneficiaries can't freeload $1 worth of services. I suspect that this is the result of some surreal compromise between politicians that want to provide gov't subsidized healthcare to the less advantaged and politicians that believe everyone should pay for their own healthcare out of their own pockets. US healthcare ranks at or very near the top in terms of price paid by consumers. Unfortunately, US healthcare does not rank nearly as high in terms of quality of services provided. (Last I heard the numbers were 1st and 37th, respectively, but those numbers are 2-3 years old.) We are long past the point where we can deny that there is a problem that badly needs to be addressed, even if we can't agree on a particular solution. Some have expressed reservations about universal healthcare, claiming that they don't want bureaucrats making health decisions for them. However, we already see this happening with private HMOs. Some worry that the government cannot operate as efficiently as private industry. I have a hard time believing this, considering it takes much more time for me to wade through the bureaucracy of paying my rent each month (which one would think would be a routine procedure) to the private company that manages the apartment complex I live in than it does to renew my vehicle tags with the DMV. Efficiency of operation has more to do with management than ownership. Neither private industry nor government has the market cornered on efficient operation. Both excel in some areas and come up short in others. Right now, while I am in university, I have access to pseudo-socialist healthcare. I pay a $100 fee each semester (covered by PELL grant), which gives me access to university doctors for only a $25-$35 co-pay, which is often waived by the docs. I also have access to prescription drugs at prices far below normal retail. However, I do not have access to major coverage, so if I screw up a landing and break several bones, I'm SOL in terms of coverage. (One of the reasons I'm not currently an active jumper) This system seems to work better than the completely socialized care I had access to while I was serving in the military. My parents' insurance rates have skyrocketed over the past few years, even on a group policy. The expense is very close to their monthly mortgage expense, if it isn't already a little bit higher. Unfortunately, if they go to another company, assuming they could find a less expensive option, they permanently lose the option of coverage under their current group policy. This essentially removes any power that they, as consumers, should inherently have in a free market. * * * Someone stated that welfare makes up the largest portion of federal spending. Others have argued that military spending is the biggest budget expense. The fact is, it depends on what is considered military spending, and what is considered welfare. If we don't count interest on national debt taken on for purposes of deficit military spending as a military expenditure, and also consider veterans benefits such as GI Bill funding as welfare, then welfare spending does exceed military spending. Of course, if we look at it that way, then it would be disingenuous to not refer to GI Bill and other veteran benefits as social welfare handouts. If we don't want to consider our veteran heroes as welfare recipients as they use their hard earned benefits to go to school, then we also have to acknowledge that military spending exceeds social welfare spending. It doesn't really matter how we classify veteran benefits, as the tax revenue is being spent regardless. We should, however, be sure to keep our rhetoric consistent. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If things don't work out for me as a bookie, I might give Wall Street a shot. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't want to see Paul in the Whitehouse, but if he does get elected, he will have even less authority to get rid of the IRS than he currently does as a member of Congress. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Request for clarification: Where is Mars in it's orbit (relative to Schrödinger's cat)? Where is Shrödinger's car (relative to the 1997 Lost Prairie boogie)? Is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead? Do you want the answer in micrograms or carats? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't think that is a logically reached conclusion. I didn't read anything in the article indicating that her ideas are all based on spending more. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I made the assumption that you were referring to non-radioactive atoms. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's just a reminder of the circular nature of life. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Since we have significantly more say in who makes up our government that how our government spends their money, I don't think we can reasonably consider it our money simply because it belongs to our government. It is no longer our money, we paid it as the price of living in a civilized, governed society. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, give or take 454,474 m/s (But only because the meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, and there is a known constant conversion factor from miles to meters.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well, not all at one time or in one place! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It stops being your money when you pay your taxes. At that point it belongs to your government, to be spent as they deem appropriate. Incidentally, if you are worried about Hillary voting for too much spending, wouldn't it be desirable to have her in a branch of government that does not legislate the budget? If she doesn't get elected president, she'll still be a Senator, with the power to vote to raise your taxes or increase your government's spending. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Which I believe is preferable to implementing as many of her ideas as possible, regardless of how much money is available, which is the current status quo. At least Hillary, and I'm not endorsing Hillary, is being honest about having more ideas than she can afford to implement, and that fiscal responsibility is important enough that she shouldn't implement ideas without income (as opposed to credit) with which to finance them. "Tax and spend" is better than "borrow and spend." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Isn't that better than supporting tax cuts while increasing spending like the current Whitehouse administration? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

How is i bad to have more ideas than America can pay for. She readily admits that she could not implement them all. I don't think a candidate that brainstorms is a bad thing. Have you ever had $1000 and had more than one idea how to spend that money? I realize that it's unfashionable in the current Whitehouse, but considering as many options as possible to solve problems should not be viewed as a bad thing, IMO. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!