toastywombel

Yeah I remember that. But this is a hard topic and I imagine its practicality vs equality. Obviously back in prehistoric times, sending the women of your tribe into battle would prove to be a very bad idea. However as technology progresses it definitely begins to equalize the need for inequality. And as swansont mentioned, when one gets drafted he or maybe she does not necessarily have to endure combat. I stand by the separate bathrooms however. haha Hopefully though, such technologies will lead us to a future where the draft and war is obsolete.

Well should I take you seriously when you compare bad organizational skills and the repetition of slogans (which is a commonly used protest technique) to brainwashing and a cult?And actually you said, So there is nothing else that the repetition of slogans represent? They are just. . . I just see that as an terribly flawed conclusion, One of my professors once said people think rationally when it comes to most things, but when it comes to politics and religion they often fall short of the mark. I think this applies here.

This may help put things in perspective. . . or

Pushback from who? Do you think that upset drafted males are going to provide such push back, or do you think that women are going to be upset they aren't getting drafted? I fail to see how any significant push back would come from the 'let's draft women' movement. I understand that some high school and college girls are in the military, but for example could you imagine someone like Taylor Swift getting drafted? I mean come on. A draft alone, not including females would have significant push back, especially in today's society. But then you throw females into the mix? It would not be hard to imagine the riots in the streets. I think applying values like "equality" to such an issue as "should women be drafted?" is too broad and simple of an answer. There are clear differences between men and women and I think our legal system recognizes that. Also, I think soon this question might be no longer applicable. As technology grows, and as globalization continues not only does the amount of troops needed for military actions decrease, but the need for large scale military actions that would require things like a draft decrease. So would you take the position that male and female bathrooms are examples of inequality? Also its funny that we are three men discussing whether women should be drafted, maybe we should see what some women think?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously with a post like this?

I think the debate about whether a rich man with power is a monster or not isn't the point. The point is that wealthy corporations and people are able to control the democratic system with loads and loads of money to the extent that it is almost policy making from the corner office. Corporate personhood just makes the previously stated problem worse by allowing wealthy corporations (groups of wealthy people invested in a particular interest) and wealthy individuals to virtually donate unlimited amounts of money to a political cause. Not even mentioning the fact that every election we are presented with a false choice.

A draft is an obvious and blatant violation of one's freedom however the draft can be very practical and necessary in certain other situations. That being said, I do not know of many situations in which the current American government could institute a draft without there being a real social issue. Now posing the question of whether women should be drafted with men? There are several issues with that which come to mind immediately: Women are the child bearers of our species, and with current technology women can reproduce without men. Furthermore, such a feat is much harder when you have a bunch of men. So conventional wisdom would be, and usually always has been in successful societies, that one should protect women and children. The future of the species truly depends on them. Furthermore, women being drafted into the armed forces (marines, infantry, etc.) is just not practical. It is quite obvious that males, on average, are stronger and faster than their female counterparts. This can be known by understanding simple biology. However, I would believe women who are capable should feel free to join the armed forces. Finally to institute a draft and include women? Could you imagine the push back if the government started drafting a bunch of high school and college girls? Seriously? And could you imagine seeing some girls like that on the battlefield. The only justification I could ever see for such a draft would be along the lines of zombie apocalypses and alien invasions. But even then, it would not be practical unless you lived in a nation of amazons. That all being said, though, I believe women are just as capable as men, and many women far more capable than men, but drafting women into the armed forces, to go fight battles just seems really wrong.

So those who have kept up with the news lately might have noticed that today the United States senate approved a measure that would impose duties on goods imported from Nations who manipulate their currency. The main target of the legislation was China. As you know China has consistently devalued their currency in order to compete with emerging economies by selling products for much cheaper than other competitors. The legislation can be summed up fairly well here in a Washington Times piece, the article later goes onto say, Now while many here might agree with the proposed legislation I remain somewhat stand offish. You see this legislation reminded me of something I had learned in an economics class a couple semesters back. The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, often considered to be one of the worse pieces of economic legislation in American history, is described very well by the self-titled Wikipedia article here, If you continue to read the Wiki article you will find that the other countries of the world likewise raised tariffs on products from the United States. This led to economic isolation. Now seeing as about 35% of products purchased by US households had the made in China sticker on it (according to the 2010 USBLS, look it up yourself), What are the possible implications if such legislation passes the senate? China has already fired back at United States lawmakers, Will there be a trade war between the United States and China? Will these costs be passed down to consumers? Will this effect United States' exports? Will it even become a law? Just some food for thought. And please read some articles to get the general understanding of the legislation before jumping on the topic with ideology. I could list all the information I think is relevant to this post, but consolidating some links to information is more than sufficient and allows one to see the issue independent from the author of the original post. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/11/senate-oks-measure-to-hit-china-on-valuation/ http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-25.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act ***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act#End_of_the_tariffs*** http://www.commodityonline.com/news/US-to-take-Chinas-currency-devaluation-seriously-25416-3-1.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/china-usa-yuan-idUSL3E7LC02V20111012

And I cannot but help to notice that this have been a Right-wing talking point for some time now. Wall Street Journal paraphrased pretty much exactly what you just said. Not only in an article but also on twitter. Now since the article was posted after you made your post you obviously didn't just paraphrase them, but its just curious. Btw, this is probably one of the best more recent articles I have read on the issue and it briefly addresses the above talking point. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8211350-neutrinos-spark-wild-scientific-leaps

Haha, a guy working at cern just read this and went oh sh**!

I found this which might apply if it turns out to be neutrinos undergoing Lorentz violating oscillations. What is strange, and I underlined this, is that the conditions needed to make such oscillations would not effect the neutrino unless the source distance was greater than the diameter of the earth. Which would most certainly not be the case with the CERN tests. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9812/9812418v3.pdf (3.17) In fact, I just found a French News Article, which I translated that speaks to the above, http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/physique-1/d/des-neutrinos-franchiraient-le-mur-de-la-lumiere_33583/

What about this I posted earlier, would it apply to this?

The market is essentially a large set of mathematical equations that allow us to quantify the many different types of business interactions between individuals, business, institutions, and their respective governments. So in the end we are able to determine somethings value with a number, making it easy to predict, model and manipulate values in order to add more value to such values. Finally a mixture of deceit, fear, greed, and good business is put to the test as different institutions, people, and/or governments place their bets. The big numbers at the end of the day are your answer. The silliest thing about the free market is the idea that if everyone had faith in each other, and kept loaning money everything would go on just fine. People could start up business, and current business could continue to get outrageously cheap and ridiculously financed loans. The problem is that investors and banks stopped lending because they were unable to package the debt they already had and sell it to other investors and banks, as they had done in the past. The government gave the banks billions in an attempt to solve this problem, but I suppose it was not enough, and to compound the problem banks and investors have held back on loaning like they did in pre-2008 times despite getting all the capital from the government. But the silliest thing is, if everyone believed the market was going to do fine, and everyone invested as they were pre-2008 times, we would be so much better off at the moment as far as the stock market. Now jobs is a different issue, depending on what kind of jobs you want. And thats all I have to say about that.

You are talking about this.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon The stated discovery is more about this. . . There is a difference, two being that neutrinos can gravitationally interact and have a nonzero mass. I think the below segment might sum up what we are seeing from CERN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Speed http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/neutrinos-faster-than-light/ This is another good article on the subject. . .

This is not a tachyon, this is a neutrino. For years scientists have tested and assumed that neutrinos travel at the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Speed This time when the same experiment essentially was done The experiments are actually quite different

I think this more appropriately belongs in the "Science News" section, but you did beat me to the punch by a few minutes.

This just came out so there is not a lot of clarity on it: "GENEVA (AP) -- Scientists at the world's largest physics lab say they have clocked subatomic particles traveling faster than light, a feat that - if true - would break a fundamental pillar of science." http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Could you anyone prove this?

Yeah I haven't gotten around to posting much of anything in a while, haven't had the time. But yeah I really think prosecuting Assange is complete B.S. If the United States government doesn't want to have embarrassing foreign affair problems, such as this, maybe they shouldn't have passed a bill that allowed the free-flow of information between nearly every defense/military branch, then maybe a PFC wouldn't of had the opportunity to leak over 200,000 documents. Better yet, how bout the United States government didn't spend loads of our money to do all kinds of espionage like actions around the globe. Kinda like how the countless members of the Financial Industry bet against everyone's mortgages? How come they aren't Un-American. Instead they are free-marketeers! I am not so much defending Soros as I am pointing out the use of the term 'UnAmerican'. What does that mean? I think it is an extremely vague term, and all to often when someone uses it, they attempt to place themselves in the position of defining what exactly 'American' means, and thats just asinine. Geographical locations should not be used to represent a specific ideology or philosophy.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Edward Carrington. Apparent haters of America and its government? I find it hard to believe this guy hates America's Government "his philanthropic funding includes efforts to promote non-violent democratization in the post-Soviet states. These efforts, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe, occur primarily through the Open Society Institute (OSI) and national Soros Foundations, which sometimes go under other names (such as the Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland). As of 2003, PBS estimated that he had given away a total of $4 billion. The OSI says it has spent about $500 million annually in recent years." Any more than this guy. Anyway, The charges against Assange are hogwash. Furthermore Obama, Holder, or anyone who wants to prosecute Assange for anything along the lines of "espionage" are blatantly warping the law to suppress free speech.

I agree with this. The Obama administration's actions as far as foreign policy have been in many ways similar to the Bush administration's foreign policy. Here is what I mean. . . . http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38411835/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/ While the documents did pertain to primarily the Bush years, they did reveal light on many issues. One I find very interesting is about the Drone Attacks. These attacks have increased under the Obama Administration, and as revealed by the released memos, are not as effective as touted. The documents is also pointed out that every time one crashes it has to be recovered. How much money does that cost? Furthermore, what happens if a drone crashes in Pakistan? Which is even more likely now, since the Obama Administration has not only continued the Bush policy on such drone attacks, but has increased the use of such attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#Statistics. Does it seem like a good idea to have US forces have to cross the border into Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, to retrieve top-secret, fallen military aircraft? Why did the military attempt to cover-up the whole 'heat-seeking missiles used by the Taliban' thing? With all the bad news that has come out about the war, I find this a very tiny things, unless I am missing something. Either way, I'm sure officials in the Bush Administration knew about such things. I am also pretty sure that officials in the Obama administration new such things, but obviously chose not to shed any light on it. I also agree, as many have already pointed out that hiding/misrepresentation of civilian deaths is not a new, or unusual thing. Pangloss, I attempted to give you a little plus on your comment, but I accidentally clicked that negative.

So this is a story of a group of people who lived in Randomia (a fictional country). These are simple people who have lived in Randomia for thousands of years. They have developed a culture, way of life, government. But after a long war that was waged across the globe, a war the people of Randomia were not really involved in, the winners of the war decided to take some people who suffered in the war and give them land controlled by Randomia. The winners then force the Randomians to move and leave their homes. Is it justified for the Randomians to be mad? How would you feel if China came to the United States, kicked everyone you know and you out of your home in New York and said it belongs to the Mohican's. Then to rub it in, China gives aid and advanced military weapons to the Mohican's, while you are left to fend for yourself. Just some questions to put this whole thing into perspective.

This product has been featured on Ellen Degeneres it seems like a decent product, however I doubt it has all the cleaning abilities of ammonia.

Is this guy really serious about these beliefs ? I cannot imagine he is, really in all honesty, simply by how ridiculous his whole entire rant was. I mean it is not even worth rebutting, his words do enough to damage credibility to the readers. Maybe this guy kind of like a Stephen Colbert, but instead of imitating Republicans he imitates. . . crazies religious peoples? I don't know, but this just seems too ridiculous/hilarious for me to believe that there is a person behind that post who truly puts faith the above said by he or she. I did laugh quite a bit. The lamb power. . . oh man

Tell me what is the mathematical difference between negative energy moving backwards through time, and positive energy moving forwards through time?