Sisyphus

Sweet!

It takes AN existence to make A comfortable place to sit.

Well, I don't really think a nuclear Iran is as big of a threat as it sounds, but still, responsibly, we ought to do something. So what are the options? Economic, negative - Utterly isolate Iran economically if they don't demonstrate that they've stopped. As far as I know, this hasn't been considered. An oil thing? In any case, its effectiveness could go either way. Cuban trade embargo, anyone? Economic, positive - incentives and whatnot. Doesn't seem to work so far. Perhaps developing more economic ties would make any conflict with the West unthinkable. This is exactly what happened in China, but perhaps the rules work differently with crazy religious fundamentalists. Military, full-scale Iraq-style invasion and regime change - Not an option, really. We just don't have the resources, because they're all tied up in Iraq. And if Iraq is any indication, we'd need far MORE resources to take care of Iran. Military, nuclear strike - An incredibly stupid idea. We lose ALL credibility in non-proliferation diplomacy (so much for "responsible nations"). We introduce the precedent of using nuclear weapons at our convenience, setting nuclear control back 60 years and opening up the worst possible can of worms. We pretty much guarantee heavy collatoral damage. We take a population that is getting very tired of its own government and incite their hatred against ours. Military, focused strike - Stuff like cruise missles, special forces, etc. Certainly better than the other military options. However, would justifiably be called an act of war; we'd be the clear aggressor. Possibly would destabilize the region and undermine our efforts in Iraq. On the "plus" side, with the exception of nuclear weapons, Iran is pretty much only a regional threat, and we can strike more or less with impugnity. Also, even if not all targets were known or vulnerable, developing a nuclear weapon is a complex operation that could be delayed indefinitely with only a few strikes. Military/political, covert - Undermining Iranian regime with whatever covert methods we have. We're probably already doing this, so I guess it's irrelevant. It should be noted, however, that this kind of manipulation didn't work so well last time... Political, diplomacy - Build better relations with Iran. They're not a threat if they're our friend. This is like India or Pakistan. Downside: they don't seem to want to be our friend. Of course, we do seem to do everything in our power to try and make relations worse, starting with the "Axis of Evil." How are they supposed to respond but with their own posturing? Political, public relations - Do what we can to promote pro-Western sentiment and secular values and culture among the Iranian people. There already is a strong counterculture along these lines (as opposed to say, N. Korea), so it does seem hopeful. The leadership will have to adapt along with the people, or the people will replace the leadership. This is a best-case scenario, and probably will happen eventually. The downside: it probably won't happen soon enough. So that's my take, for the time being. You'll notice I didn't really answer the question...

Is that true? How? Gold is basically inert to anything it would come into contact with as a wedding ring, but.... I guess I don't actually know how heavy metal poisoning works.

Conservatives are highly insecure, violent, repressed homsexuals, as evidenced by the banner ads on Newsmax.com. Er, disbelieve, if I have to make it a blanket statement.

There's nothing magical about it. Why would there be? So you say, but utterly without basis. I say it's the other way around, that thoughts are the combined effect of physical processes. Since my way doesn't require invoking some magical entity from nowhere, I'd say it's more likely, with no more justification needed than Occam's Razor. It is, in a sense, a single existence, in the same way that a chair, once unifed, has properties (namely, that it is a comfortable and convenient place to sit) that cannot be found individually in the arms, seat, back, or legs. You can't point to any part of the chair and say "there lies its chairness," and yet together it is a chair, and there's nothing supernatural about it.

Oh, poor Descartes. He sure did try. Correction: There is a perception of thinking, and that's really all you can say. Circular argument. The question "how can I experience if I don't exist" already presupposes that something has to do the experiencing. Instead, "there is an experience." So your contention is that in order to talk about a water molecule, having properties and unified existence independent of any of its components, you must invoke the supernatural? And you're accusing others of being contrary to logic? You don't experience an identity. You experience experiences, and infer your existence from some notion that an experience requires an experiencer. There's nothing you can point to and say "that is me." It is elementary deduction, yes, but flawed, I think. It fails to take into account our own biases and assumptions of experience.

When it comes to this issue, its very rare one finds an argument not based on irrational and inflammatory appeals to emotion.

Huh? I don't get the picture, no.

Sigh...

I know, I know, I'm not arguing with you that those are the reasons, only that they're not as big as people seem to think. My point in all this is that what might seem like an insurmountable obstacle for Clinton, the personal dislike that so many have for her, could actually be fairly easy to overcome. My secondary point is that, when we have strong personal feelings for or against a public figure, we ought to reexamine the reason for those feelings carefully before we dismiss people out of hand. This is not a criticisim aimed at you personally, or even at all, really, since, as you say, you're not one of the Hillary-haters. I wasn't referring to Mrs. W. I was referring to George, and the very different President he is from what he presented himself as in 2000. My point is that its a very commone tactic.

I don't think anybody has posted this yet, so I'll put it up. It's not really surprising, but it is good to finally find what everyone knew had to be somewhere.

Alright, fair enough. It's true she has astonishing composure and self-control, but seems to lack the ability to make it look natural, putting her ahead of most politicians but behind, as you say, her husband. I can see how that might seem cold and calculating, although it could be viewed positively, as well. As per the not leaving her husband thing, a few thoughts: Is it still calculating if she refused to leave Bill for Bill's or the party's or the country's sake, not hers? She is, after all, an American and a Democrat, and wouldn't want more trouble than necessary. Or, for that matter, because she wanted to? Plenty of couples stay together despite indiscretion because they, you know, actually love each other. I dunno, I tend not to take that kind of speculation seriously, since she was basically in a no-win situation, and no matter what she did would have been spun to make her look bad. Can you imagine the uproar if she'd filed for divorce? And finally, I can't say much for the bait and switch, beyond that its pretty mild compared to, say, W...

Yeah, that's why I wanted to be sure first. Since, conversely, the mere suggestion that sexism might have something to do with it can easily be mistaken for PC hippie apologism. Still, the main reason people hate her today is not because of sexism. It's because they hated her yesterday.

So she's cold and calculating for not leaving her husband? Come on. This is exactly what happened in the Senate race in New York against Rick Lazio. Sure, there were a lot of Lazio bumper stickers (because they were really just "I hate Hillary" stickers, which is fun for people to do), but his whole campaign basically consisted of trying to exploit people's dislike for her. "Look at this woman! Isn't she ridiculous? Wink, wink?" He came across as smug, juvenile, and overly aggressive. Clinton, on the other hand, basically ignored him, and stayed modest and issue-oriented, and thus destroyed him at the polls.

Firmly pseudoscience. The guy forces mysticism onto misunderstandings of physics theories that have been discarded decades ago.

I'd still like to hear why people really hate Hillary so much. So far, all I've heard is that she overstepped her role as a First Lady, and she's not really a New Yorker. She's made some decisions I don't really agree with, but for the most part she seems like an extremely intelligent, sensible, moderate Democrat. Is there something I'm missing?

He was dodging questions. As a doctor, for example, he must know perfectly well that there has never been a case of HIV being transmitted through sweat or tears (I knew that, and so would any kid who's taken a reasonable sex ed class), yet all he would say was something along the lines of "I don't know" (almost certainly a lie) and "it would be difficult" (misleading, vast understatement). The other parts were of a similar tone, such that you couldn't really say that he was explicitly lying about anything, but he was definitely being intentionally misleading in his implications, and he was defending programs that DO tell outright lies, so it amounts to the same thing.

Well, first of all, I didn't get any of my information from leftist websites. I got my information when I saw the actual interview and was disgusted by it. Secondly, I won't deny he was being very subtle, but that hardly changes anything. In either case, he still is implying something which he knows fully well to be false, and if his actual words were such that you couldn't actually call him a liar, that just proves it wasn't an innocent mistake, and he's more slippery than he appears.

Why, those weren't political ads! They were just after the truth!

Distilling fresh water from seawater is already in practice in a lot of places, as far as I know. It's just more difficult to do on a large scale than is practical, most of the time. I don't doubt mining seawater for minerals will become feasible in the not-too-distant future, but I seriously doubt it will utilize viruses.

Don't kids have to study the Federalist Papers in school anymore?

I wish I could find the interview with Frist about abstinence education. He was being asked, as a medical doctor, to defend blatant inaccuracies in what kids were being taught in federally funded programs. He ended up looking very foolish, as he refused to deny that, in his opinion as a medical doctor, masturbation could cause pregnancy. He also refused to deny that tears and sweat transmit HIV (although there has never been a known case), and wouldn't condemn various blatantly and extremely inaccurate statistics regarding contraceptives.

How could anyone think Pelosi could or should win the nomination? And how can you call Frist genuine? Masturbation can cause pregancy? Terri Shiavo can be diagnosed as conscious from a heavily edited videotape? Either he's very cynically disingenuine, or a ridiculously incompetent doctor. I really think Hillary would eat him alive.