padren

You missed my whole point. I really do understand the strategy and I understand it hasn't been "tried" to any proponent's satisfaction. My point however goes to what specifically would be tried. I understand in principle how all the mechanics are expected to operate on a macroscopic scale, but this only explains the general outlook. What I don't see is any plan to ease us from here to there in a deliberate, thought out way that can adjust and respond to unexpected side effects. Just a few mid-step strategies that can be weighed, considered, expectations laid out, and impacts measured going forward. Without that all we have are some vaulted ideals with no concept of how to apply them in a practical sense. Without practical application, I don't see how to fit them into our current system to improve conditions, and that's what it's all about. Honestly I agree very much with you on a lot of these points. The only difference I see is I have as much skepticism of private industry as I do public institutions, and see them both as tools to keep each other at bay. On civil liberties I'm exceptionally libertarian minded. I would love to have a small government system with far more private options that all worked smoothly. However, when the only assurance to avoid "boom and bust" economics is "those problems will magically become manageable by reducing government" all I hear is a tenant of a philosophy - I need to see the case made as to why that is expected. Philosophical tenants aren't a bad thing when they lead to ideas that can provide viable solutions to complex problems but they don't replace those solutions. Until they lead to some real solutions, there's not a lot they can do in practical reality. Can you understand why this is a problem?

ParanoiA, I understand this argument but you are stuck on arguing about the abstract merits of a strategy that we all get - what we don't see is any tangible implementation plan for how to apply that strategy. The idea of "smaller government reduces deficit" is perfectly fine, but who has a strategy to do this in a manner that won't backfire and bite us? As for the "right tax cuts" increasing revenue is another great abstract idea, but where is a single example of how cutting x specifically can help increase y over time? We can't afford to ideologically hack and slash as libertarians anymore than we can afford to just randomly throw money at the poor as liberals. After all the sh!t that has hit the fan in the last decade, if there's one thing that's clear is that we have to be very conscientious and deliberate. Promoting the merits of a specific deregulation strategy and how it would help is fine - that is a good thing for the "deregulation bucket" but it's not good enough to carry around an empty bucket just because you like the label. If we can get past the macro-philosophy and into literal examples of how to apply it were we can see and weigh the cost/benefits the macro-philosophy will prove itself in the pudding. I'm happy for any progress from any side should it prove itself effective and worth implementing.

The survival need to avoid becoming prey is so strong it instinctively creates a very strong emotional response, on par or in excess of any physical pain. We have especially strong instincts regarding states of vulnerability, since the earliest human groups apparently gathered for common defense, and had to deal with opportunistic members that would take advantage of these states. This carries over into how we want to be treated in states such as a coma, and even our burial wishes. If the individual "molesting me" was an intimate partner I had previously given permission to do just that, it wouldn't bother me at all. To be preyed on and give a predator pleasure is not something I would ever want to be part of. I'm not sure about the humanist comment, but personally I find rationality is somewhat overrated. It's exceptionally useful (and necessary) in discussing topics like ethics, but at the end of the day it's what I feel overall (regardless of whether I can explain it) that determines what I find personally ethical. Through reason I can share ideas and discuss topics and possibly impact how I feel, but it's not like I'd ignore a feeling that something is "wrong" because I can't come up with a rational reason why I feel that way.

Regarding the OP: What is the threshold of time that could make it a difference? If he remembers being hit for one second, one minute, one hour, or one lifetime? We may view a few seconds as inconsequential but all this individual has is a whole lot of few second moments. There is also no evidence that our memories are any less impermanent, it just takes us longer to forget when we die. We would be contrasting the short-term effect on him to the long term effect on us, and equating his as meaning nothing. Considering a few seconds means something to even those of us who have normal memory coupled with the fact these are all that guy has I think it works out to being equally immoral, with the taint of taking advantage of someone's disability added on as extra. With regards to the coma patient we still feel that person is an individual and in the case of total brain death we still regard an artificially supported living body as worthy of some dignity. Whatever our reasons for this regard for dignity (perhaps even selfish, for how we'd want to be treated) we do regard it, and to disregard it would be amoral if you consider yourself in any way part of our society. Now, with "wake up sex" that's come up in the past and to put it as dryly as possible, the optional boundaries were proposed to me and my input was requested on if I'd like to opt in. To me such a discussion marks "consent on record" and by no means implies it would at all times be welcome but it is reasonable and a valid form of sexual expression. So, what if your coma patient wife had expressed serious interest in having sex if she should fall into a coma, or explicitly wrote it into her living will that should you be willing to she would like to have coma sex? Ah, coma-sex... how I've missed the philosophy section on SFN.

Does it strike you as odd that we have to take shots at figuring out what they want done? The reason I find this question so pertinent to the issue of the ridicule factor is without a clear message they end up spoken for by whomever talks to the media the loudest - usually the crazier ones at these rallies. I just found this guy today, John O'Hara has written a book and just showed up on The Daily Show defending the Tea Party movement. The only other discussion I found was on in January this year. Otherwise it looks like the odd Fox News appearance and his book and blog. I don't find his arguments that compelling, but he does try to engage in the discussion and argue for the movement - honestly he's the first carrying the Tea Party label that I've seen do this. Otherwise to date, really all I've seen is rhetoric from any self declared Tea Partiers. To that extent, you can't really blame liberals for smear the Tea Party image... other than a few "pot stirrers" they've simply conveyed what little image the movement has managed to convey, many of those images are so fringe any apt description borders on ridicule by it's very nature. All that said - I am definitely interested in moving towards talking about what we find the Tea Party does want in terms of policy. I just wanted to clarify that I find their lack of a coherent platform as the main reason they have such a bad image by default. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust to add: I do fault the media in general, and think journalism has become far to sensationalistic and prefers to paint stories in simplistic dramatic polarities. I think the Tea Party Movement has genuinely suffered due to this, as have almost all multifaceted political movements. I don't think they have suffered any more than anyone else, just they've failed to account for this sad condition by failing to make their overall vision clear in a rational, thought out contribution to the national political discussion.

People knock on my door to hand out those books for free

Does the Kingdom of North Dumpling count?

I agree with you about his political persecution (if that's the right word) but I always thought that was an issue questioning his competency and decisiveness, not his character or intentions. I could be entirely wrong - I don't know much about him in detail. That said, if he was known for the kind of statements and rhetoric that Rush is (political leanings aside) do you think his character would still be above dispute, regardless of how many houses he helped build? It may confuse people or seem paradoxical, but I think it would be disputed.

I was just thinking today about an idea of how to bipartisanship a little easier by refining the nuance in how the Senate and Congress cast votes. Nothing would change mathematically or how they are counted, just each "Yes" would be on record as one of two variations and the same for each "No" vote cast: Yes - in the affirmative: You agree with and support this action and consider it's success or failure as reflective on your reputation. Yes - concessional: You may not agree with the action entirely for ideological reasons or are otherwise skeptical of it's chances for success, but you concede given the political climate and the need to give solutions a chance it isn't too much to ask to give it a try. No - conditional: It's not an altogether bad idea but may contain too many flaws or represents the wrong approach to solve a given problem. No - with prejudice: The action is considered to be harmful, illegal, destructive or otherwise unconstitutional. With these sorts of votes, for one thing you could really see where people stand a lot better as a voter. Without actually directly affecting any vote counts, you could see where your representatives stand on the votes they cast, at least in a superficial sense. The counter-partisanship element however, is that an opposition party could vote in favor of legislation without being immediately branded as a traitor, and an informal "give and take" would arise around concessional votes, where politicians would trade concessional votes instead of earmarks. While this dimension has always existed in Washington, it would make it more tangible to both the voters and the politicians, and clearly delineate the difference between "working with" and "working for" a given party. The healthcare debate may be too hot and initially polarized for this sort of thing to have any impact on, but with finance reform, stimulus, and a whole slew of issues still unsolved it could help prevent the polarization of otherwise non-divisive issues. Thoughts?

Even in that video I have to agree with Bascule and really ask - what do they want done? To simply say "Restore the Constitution" isn't a platform... it doesn't explain at what point they feel the constitution was "broken" or how, or what the government has to do in the future to avoid messing it up again. On top of that, there is the statement about [Constitutional] Rights at the end summarizing they are granted by God and not subject to majority approval or the Supreme Court. So to add yet more confusion - who decides what is Constitutional if the Supreme Court is meaningless? Do we then govern based on the gut reactions about constitutionality of whatever citizens own the most guns? They make it clear they are unhappy - I respect that. They make it clear they want to undo some sort of legislation - that also makes sense as a platform. They don't say what is wrong. They don't say when it went wrong. They don't say what checks and balances failed to steer us wrong. In this absolute vacuum of rational discussion, agenda, specific concerns or platform from the tea party "intellectual majority" it really isn't a wonder that the voices of the misinformed end up shaping the view of the movement.

I think so, and to a degree with good reason: spending cuts always seem to be proposed as a means of ideological warfare - why not start by cutting the programs that are destroying America, and sending it down the road to Armageddon? One side sees a policy designed to turn us into a socialist state, and the other sees a bloated military industrial complex catering to religious initiatives and massive corporations that hide their profits off shore as the middle class spirals into extinction. Everyone assumes the cuts proposed will be for the good of a party, not the country, and that political strong arming, not reason will win the day. Agencies don't believe their budgets will be reviewed in good faith, and circle the wagons immediately. Until liberals will work with conservatives to save conservative programs and conservatives will work with liberals to save liberal ones we really won't get anywhere on improving their effeciency. The other problem is voters seem to only hate pork that goes to anyone else. What Senator Ben Nelson did for Nebraska in extorting the costs of the Medicaid expansion from the federal government during the health care negotiations is appalling, and just about everyone who can't vote for or against him is appalled. Yet, it will undoubtedly boost his polls because no matter how dirty the deal is, it got something for his constituents, and ultimately they don't care if he had to rob a bank to do it - greed wins. We can't get rid of dirty money unless voters are willing to not accept it when their senator brings it home.

You can't do the MIT style "counting over +1/+2" etc anymore, but apparently if someone can handle ranges of probabilities in their head they can still make enough to get kicked out and banned. (Anecdotal)

When we talk about the beginning of the universe, we have to account for the beginning of time, which by it's very nature breaks down immediately. What has happening before time that over time lead to the existence of time? I am pretty sure (as you pretty much said) nothing has been observed to be created since the big bang, only that energy and matter have changed form in such ways as to lead to things we give distinct names to, like the creation of a new star out of interstellar gas. So when it actually comes to "something beginning to exist" we really have zero experience with this phenomenon. The only thing that could qualify is the universe itself, so I have to agree with your critiques. To address the "infinite regression" hypothesis - the current universe has a distinct form, and that form is a direct result of it's previous form. If you go "on back forever" you are basically have no initial state and as such the current form ends up based on "nothing" yet we do experience a very specific state. For this reason I doubt infinite regression is viable. My best guess is that the universe began with a distinct quantity of energy imparted from a universe that has not intersected ours since. (Last part, based on the lack of acausal phenomena - everything still appears to move with an internal consistency and does back as far as we can see in time.) Purely speculating, I would suspect that since our minds are geared to work within this universe and dimensional range that it may be impossible to really trace first origin back beyond a certain point. Regarding particle / anti-particle pairs from energy - I think that would still be matter/energy changing form, and the energy used is still energy from the big bang, so it's not really created.

Just out of curiosity, could the manner in which we experience time, the patterns of entropy and all that good stuff be a side effect of the big bang's outward impact through space/time in which, with our perceptions being limited to this small sphere of space/time effectively appear "linear" due to how small that range is? To elaborate, lets say the big bang occurs and space/time and all matter and goodness goes flying out in every direction, in space and time. We exist at a location a certain distance from that center in both space and time. If we could "do a 180" with regards to time and head towards the center of the big bang in space, entropy would appear to go backwards right up to the point we got to the exact time and place the big bang began. If we continued from there, we would suddenly again experience entropy as normal and not backwards, and even though we were still going "back" in time to before the big bang, and we would be traveling through another vector (in time) of the big bang's expansion. From our perspective here and now, it would look like "reverse entropy" but if you start at the point in time/space of the big bang, along any vector in time/space, you'd experience what appears to be normal entropy radiating out from that center point in space/time. To that end, the strange way we see stuff glued together in "space" and changing over time with consistent physical laws with an increase of entropy, is just another form of diffusion radiating out from the original point - just that radius is measured as a distance in time. This is just speculation of course (hence it's here) but I am curious if it is consistent or breaks down with a better understanding of space/time and the big bang than I command. Any thoughts?

A possible ethical reason I could see is that we'd be dedicating resources to expansion into an exceptionally hostile, resource draining environment when we still protest the amounts of foreign aid we provide to counter the starvation and suffering here on Earth. As for the microbes of an alien world goes, the most compelling characteristic they may have is their uniqueness, since they would have evolved separately from life on Earth. That said, to consider colonizing another planet unethical because it would involve destroying life there (and replacing it with Earth based lifeforms) would be a bit of a stretch since we do this all the time on Earth. Colonizing a place that is separated by a river, an ocean or space and breaking down which would be ethical or not is somewhat arbitrary. The real issue I guess is whether it is ethical to cause extinction of unique lifeforms and entire evolutionary branches. If the planet is especially barren, you could argue colonization and terraforming efforts would increase life, and the DNA sequences (having originated locally or on Earth) is less relevant. If the planet is Earth like, the local ecology would likely survive and simply be reduced where we do colonize - an effect human existence has on Earth and the ecology. I could see ethical questions impacting how we would colonize another world, but I don't think it would unilaterally prevent it.

Well ParanoiA, I do hope he's satirically mocking the Christian Right that does look for signs from God in natural disasters as evidence of His Wrath against the godless heathens and their socialist President. Of course, if most of his audience got the joke that mocks their religious beliefs and Heavenly Lord, they might be a little testy, but since he doesn't claim to be a satirist not to be taken seriously (like Jon Stewart does) they probably never will. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are satire shows and are known as satire shows on the Comedy Channel, and it's very clear when they are joking. If Rush is making a joke it would be nice for him to actually own it, but since it's part of his shtick as you say, to troll the public I an see why he wouldn't. I think it may be more respectable though if he actually meant it.

Selling while a bubble is building and then shorting what you can when you feel it's about to burst is one thing... secretly short selling while you are telling investors they should buy in on something you consider to be a "very bad buy" with such certainty, that you are already investing money against it is a whole other deal. They were telling people these investments were good, obscuring the risk, and outright lying to them. If they represented the risk, by saying "well we can take your money, but you should be aware we are short selling that stock because we are very certain it will take a nose dive soon" in an honest manner I would totally agree with you as far as Caveat Emptor applies. Otherwise, it's like a surgeon recommending a mechanical heart valve as the greatest thing ever because he expects it to fail and make a killing by shorting the stock when the lawsuits hit. But you know "heart surgery has risks" and the free market will sort those things out.

So if Obama could do that 100 times over, he would match the money Rush gets on those two radio contracts. I'd say it still stands that you can't compare their relative charitable donations as oranges and oranges.

I don't think it's being ignored, it just isn't relevant. It's pretty much always a given there will be people on both sides stirring things up - the times it doesn't happen it's remarkable. The question really is whether this guy and those like him represent anything near qualifying as "their side" being "hard at work" stirring people up.

Rush also has probably 100x to 1000x the money that Obama has. Not that I think those sources are especially great, but I looked around at the numbers and they looked similar. It is safe to say the disparity is at least a full degree of magnitude, and likely between two and three. What is bare necessity with regards to services? Some people honestly believe you just need "the right vibes" and then we don't even need a military. Others believe if we don't have thousands of nukes we are as good as dead. There are probably programs where most rational people would say are nonessential. On that point, I disagree philosophically, and think if the costs would be substantially higher and the quality substantially lower through the free market then taxing to provide it publicly by voter approval is warranted. It's really an old conversation, and boils down to the fact that (1) everyone will end up paying taxes on things they feel are gratuitous and even offensive (2) others will strongly defend that spending. On top of that, there are always minorities who would privatize or federalize market sectors to the point where most would consider disastrous. So I disagree philosophically, and at the same time find it unworkable in a practical sense since there will never be enough consensus over the term "Bare Necessity."

Just to take note of her quote: Since when is it unacceptable for some individuals in a free society to criticize an image they don't like? On the rest of her comment, frankly you couldn't even suggest Bush might be making a mistake without being branded a terrorist apologist anti-American by some people. You could say that the left found it acceptable to mock Bush whom now criticize mocking Obama, however you can't forget that the right were railing against the left in the exact same fashion as she is complaining the left is doing now. The real mess is you can't even honestly simplify it that much, since everything boils down to individuals. Some people will call her a racist - people I think are wrong if they are basing it all off the Joker sign. Others will call her insensitive or stupid or a bigot... how is this news? Seriously, who goes to a political rally full of fiery rhetoric weighted with extremely heavy charges against the sitting President, the majorities of the House and the Senate... and then is so surprised that some people criticize her with mean words? There is also a big difference between whether people approve of her sign, think her sign is acceptable but in poor taste, if they think it's racist, if they think she should be arrested for hate speech - and I don't think she's meeting resistance from people telling her she is not allowed to use that sign without risking criminal charges. She's not complaining that her free speech is being impeded, just that she doesn't like how some people think her commentary is dumb, misdirected and tasteless.

Is there a "guess which side the coin will land on" quiz too? I think I'd be pretty good at that.

I think there could be some truth to a number of democrats secretly taking the stance of "For the love of God, this was written back when slavery was acceptable, why are we stuck 200 years later with gun nuts over a single piece of paper?" with regards to that document. It's an interesting question and the honest truth is it is just a piece of paper with a bunch of ideas written on it that appears to have served us well, but has no magical properties to ensure it remains the most valid foundation for the basis of our laws. It's understandable that human beings may every well they are modern and smart and that document is old and dumb when it comes to guiding some new legislation. The thing that I personally respect the most about the constitution is that it is designed specifically to protect this country from short-sighted people who do think that way. Most of those people probably even admit it does this, but just that it doesn't apply to them. (Such as presidents supporting limiting executive power in general, but since not all presidents are as careful as they are.) While the document does a great job in this role, it may very well fail in some capacities since it isn't magical in any way. But to get back to what you were saying about the democrats specifically encountering this issue, I don't think that's entirely fair. I think all politicians do, and the wiretapping and torture memos go a long way to anyone in power who thinks their plan is the best, will feel wrongly impeded by the constitution when it offers resistance. The substance of the democrat platform as it applies to enlarged public (read, mandatory) programs may result in their domestic strategies colliding in this regard more than republicans, but republicans still do just as much in overall policy. That said, even though the Constitution is not infallible and not magically protected from leading us astray, I do find it a remarkable document and the best tool I can imagine us having at the moment, and don't really see a need to find a replacement.

A boulder with a peace sign painted on it, and a boulder with a "Nuke Em All" painted on the side are molecularity almost identical. That does not go to say they are 99% the same when you evaluate them as symbols. In the same regard, we identify individually as our personalities, not our meat and clockworks. If there was a way to index and measure an individuals personality then you'd quickly find for all intensive purposes two people can have a high percentage of disparity. On the original topic - does human nature even matter? The course of human history and prehistory can be summed up as how humans behave when raised experiencing different environments, both social and physical. There are physical and social environments not yet developed, which will impact human behavior in yet unknown ways in the future. So, does it even matter if taking a 21st century first-world newborn and letting it be raised by a prehistoric clan at the end of the last ice-age results in a "modern" human turning out to act like a brutal caveman? It seems to me that "Human Nature" is the capacity to adapt in such a spectrum of ways to a wide spectrum of environmental stimuli that an incredible range of behaviors may result. That said, even if total collapse of civilization to the stone age would result in stone age values (still unlikely to fully occur due to parenting) is it really relevant if we continue working to not collapse and improve our environmental stimuli in a manner that has concrete results in a massive improvement in human behavior with regards to violence and happiness? It's worth noting in a place like this country, if a child witnesses a brutal murder we consider him psychologically damaged, prescribe therapy, and make exceptions for his condition... yet in many parts of the world this is still considered "life as usual" and yet we wonder why they don't feel about the world the way we do. It could even be argued that human nature is "by default altruistic and benevolent" but having emerged from such a brutal, cut throat natural world we are still dealing with countless millennia of psychological trauma and shell shock. We only recently (historically) figured out that "hey, it may be bad for your kids to beat them and their mom... it might mess em up and they'll end up beating their own kids." It really looks to me like we are emerging from some long standing cycles of violence and trauma that we are only now beginning to understand. Where will we be in 100 years? We might all have artificial meat and wondered if it messed with people's heads to have to kill stuff all the time just to survive. We may find the idea of walking past a bum on the street unthinkably callous. These things won't depend on changes in human nature, but on our environment: Will we have the resources for people to thrive, or will we be starving and cutting each other up over them to get by? If it is the latter, can we really say that's due to "human nature" and not the failure to escape the trauma caused by the existence-long cycle of violence and brutality that humans have lived with?

Yes, and there is genuinely a very bad way to interpret his comments. I think that honestly, he was he was unconcerned with what the Constitution says in how it could be interpreted with regards to health care and I think that is fair. What we expect our elected officials to consider constitutional is not directly based on what they read in the constitution. The document is far too subjective. What is constitutional is based on the long history of debate and supreme court rulings about the constitution. When an elected official does personally find fault with conventional legal interpretation based on what they read in the Constitution itself, they then bring about challenges and whatnot, which is fair and even important to our Democracy. When an elected official sees no fault or conflict with a piece of legislation and the constitution, they shouldn't be worried about debating the "what the constitution says" with every hostile detractor. It will be the Supreme Court, not him, that engages in that debate. I didn't mean to push that as a "he's not so bad because the other guys are bad" false equivocation. I'm not a fan of the Buckley "If everyone is guilty of everything, then no one is guilty of anything" philosophy. I mentioned this instance because it's an example of how in practice, people fight for their beliefs and their interpretation of what is constitutional, regardless of the legal precedent. It was more towards addressing the charge that the representative doesn't care about the Constitution because he supported the bill, alleged by the film maker, to address his "actions" aside from his words. I understand though that wasn't really what you were addressing. I think it ranges from a statement in bad taste in a moment of frustration to blatantly and knowingly criminal. Case in point, if the officer is committing a crime and makes that statement when called on it, it is clear that the officer wasn't acting in ignorance, but was willfully breaking the law. If the officer is arresting a suspect that is claiming it is illegal by quoting an obscure and obviously irrelevant law, then "I don't care what the law says" is in a totally different context, albeit arguably unprofessional. I am equally fascinated by the fact my first instinct was to jump on every bad quote Bush ever uttered as proof that he has no respect for this country, it's laws, and it's people. I tried to mitigate that with self reflection as much as possible while he was in office, but the temptation was obvious. To excuse or condemn through rationalization is definitely a worthy psychological experiment. I honestly think though a lot can be chalked up to differing perspectives. While I watched that video before his comments, he had my sympathy in that this was yet another loud and obnoxious guy trying to drag him into a constitutional debate over individually supporting a bill that seems ludicrous to call unconstitutional (unless income tax etc, also is), yet will inevitably be challenged in the supreme court. The fellow tried to drag him in by digging through the individual words in the Constitution without any regard for the long history of debate that has legally determined what is considered defacto Constitutional. For him to say that at that moment, my thought was more "that was dumb, the guy has a camera" as opposed to "wow, he doesn't even pretend to care about the Constitution." Now, if I felt this bill was unconstitutional, I was upset about it, I wasn't swallowing the (what I felt were) BS rationality of how they shoehorned it in to pass off as legal - his comment would totally set me off. I would be so far removed from his perspective to begin with that it would hit me as blatant disregard or even caring about our most fundamental laws. I really think in politics, that's how we end up with such polarization and the subsequent savior/devil complexes around the political parties and their members.