ParanoiA

Yes, we can expect that. Because we CAN do it. We have become complacent. Why not double or triple the size of our police force so that their presence is far more prolific. Is there really such a thing as pinching pennies at the expense of murder? Rape? I guess I'm tired of seeing broken parents, grief stricken pleas on the public to realize the state of crime in this country. Why wait until your son or daughter is the victim of such? Let's get irate now. True, but why set your goal there? Quite simply, if I try to become an astronaut, I probably won't make it. The odds are ridiculously against the possibility. But would anybody teach their kid not to set that goal? I'm just saying our goal should be zero. Right now, we (as in the voting public) demand effectively nothing from our law enforcement. If we're going to smile and pat each other on the back for 20 less murders than the year before, when murder is still measured in the hundreds, then we're really setting our expectations low. Not just low...but practically non-existent. Good point, but I think there are other preventative things we can do that don't trample on our basic civil rights and drastically stifle crime. Police presence is a major influence, in my opinion. I'm sure people smarter than me can think of a bunch of others. I almost cried when I read what Couey did to that poor 9 yr old girl. I don't even know these people, but I couldn't imagine being sane after suffering a loss like that - and knowing my little girl pleaded for her life clutching a stuffed dinosaur while some monster buries her alive after raping her. How can it not be our priority to stop this? Isn't that worse than any other problem we face right now, besides the war or other global catastrophes? We demand solutions from our government on so many things - 99% of them are less important than this. Edit: Excellent post Phi.

Was going home from a buddy's house last night after a long overdue jam session and as I was leaving he directed me the safest way out of his neighborhood - the "hood" as he calls it. And it is, without a doubt. Now, crime has always been a huge issue with me, so this really insults the hell out of me. Why do we accept this? Why do we accept a crime rate? I should be able to walk down the street of the "hood" at 2 am without a drop of fear. Period. The fact we have such a thing as a "rate", implies we accept crime. Obviously we have to realize the realities of human nature, but what kind of goal are we setting when we accept a certain rate of crime - and our proud of ourselves when it doesn't rise? I don't get it. There were 100 murders in KC last year (actually more, but I don't remember the number) and lawmakers are actually patting themselves on the back for "lowering" the murder rate. Are they nuts? As long as there is a "rate" on murder, we FAILED. How many of our kids have to be raped and killed and put on TV before we demand ZERO violent crime? How long are we going to alter our routes in the city before we demand the freedom our constitution gives us? I don't care if those people don't like my middle class ass walking down their ghetto - I have the freedom to do so and I ought to be able to do it with the expectation of not being assaulted. They enjoy this freedom walking down my street. Why do we accept crime and the threat of such?

Oh, ok. Yes, I have a big problem with that. It is intolerant and traditionalist - emotional appeal using the bible (which is not based on logic). May I ask what minority group you're in? Just curious, certainly not necessary. And yes, I would agree, when you're in the crosshairs it changes the intensity of your views. Just keep in mind, the republicans / conservatives don't represent the personality of the rich and religious any more than democrats / liberals represent the personality of the poor and secular. Many people lump the rich with republicans and conservatives and assume they're evil, oppressive entities out to control and take everything from humanity. That's poetry, not reality. No one said this, but I'm "feeling" it in your arguments. I do share a distaste for religion - of any kind. Christian, environmentalism, Islam, you name it. I see religion in these things when the believers depend on faith for one, and are unmoved by contrary facts for two. I know you'd take issue with my short list, but that's not the point. Well, I don't agree. Surprise! I'll just say public smoking bans aren't legitimately defended since the property is private - not public. You have no "right" to be on my property. But if I'm going to be a successful business, I had better grant you that privilege. And if people demand freedom from smoke on my property, they are overstepping their authority. Again though, if I'm going to thrive as a business, I had better listen or my customers will go away. Keep in mind, in my mind, we have strayed so far away and have mangled our rights to the point that some people are flabergasted at the idea of not having a right to force behavior on another. I had a discussion a couple of months ago with a co-worker who was just dumbfounded and disgusted with me at the idea that as "employees" of a corporation, we don't have a right to force management to listen to our ideas. This was in reference to a PMEI process, introduced by the union to force the company to hear our ideas about how the work should be done. He thinks I'm a nazi, corporate whore because I stand on that principle. If the company is smart - they'll listen to us. If they're not, they won't. Either way, I have no right to force them to listen to me about a damn thing. The point I'm trying to make is that we are so far away from really understanding the principles our rights are built on that we casually infringe and trample on other's rights without consideration - selfishly convinced of our own "superior enlightenment". Incidentally, that's also why I see it as more selfish - not worse - more selfish. Christians think they're doing god's work. I don't see that as selfish, but rather childishly misguided - but the consequences are worse.

Oh, I completely agree. I'm just pointing out that government isn't alone in spending money on research. That's it. Although, I would point out that the private sector also invests research money in truely important stuff like medicine and so forth. Hospitals are full of equipment that was researched with private dollars. Probably none of it without the goal of profit in mind either. Hatred? Not sure what you're talking about here... Anyway, which party promotes banning smoking in public? Which party got trans-fats banned in New York restaraunts? Which party burns like garlic on a vampire about anything to do with "god" on money, in school, any public property? Do I really need to go on? Liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives - and I'd add, in a more selfish manner. Ok, you're qualifying "real" then. I'm going to look into this again and may start a thread if it sounds interesting.

I'm not sure what your intent is in that last sentence. I'll just say don't punish conservatives for something that I asked about. Not sure if that's relevant, but I'm not coming at this from a conservative challenging you scientists...this really is genuine inquiry. Yeah, I'd have to take issue with that. Greed is a great motivator. Capitalism is full of R&D. You seriously believe that only the government invests in research? The government didn't pay for ipod research. The government didn't cover the research on cell phone technology. I'd be willing to bet capitalism invests more in R&D than the government. Not because they're noble citizens, but because of the pay out. Now, research for knowledge's sake, I'm sure is going to fall on government or private money that doesn't seek profit - no doubt about that. Well, I guess I'd have to challenge the validity of the study since intolerance is a major characteristic of liberalism. They are intolerant of individuality and civil liberties. They are intolerant of anything associated with god, but have no issues with other fairy tales. Intolerance is just as ingrained in liberalism as it ever has been with conservatism. So, I think the study is either biased, or poorly executed. I agree that reason why conservatives deny the data is an emotional "contrarian" response. But the data is not too obvious to deny. Or else, why are scientists denying it? I don't want to derail this into a GW debate, because I don't doubt the possibility. I doubt, or at least, question the conclusion of this data. Yes you can measure the ice caps melting, and take stock of temperatures over the globe and conclude it's getting warmer - but you can't therefore conclude it's not a cycle and won't reverse as such. That's just an example of some things I've read. The point is, it's not too obvious to deny. It's quite ambiguous enough to deny. Right. And the GW scientific theory as pimped presently leaves me two choices: It's true...or it's BS. Let me know when all of your buddies finally agree. I don't mean 51%. I mean like over 90%. This isn't politics, it's science. I don't think half the scientists are out of agreement on whether the earth is round or not. And to sit in ignorance? I have no choice but to listen to one side AND the other. I realize that might be difficult for the religiously inclined environmentalist, but contrary to what you may believe, other people do have opinions worth listening to. I choose to listen to all of you scientists since I have no way of discerning which of you is correct. Remember, this isn't an emotional appeal but a logical one. It's logical to agree with GW for the interum (due to the minor majority), and quite irresponsible for me to draw conclusions on GW, due to the minor majority. What you're demanding is a decision today - right now. If I do not declare my unending allegiance to the GW catastrophe today, when the experts of said issue are split today, then I'm sitting in ignorance? Please. That is an emotional response similar to what we get from christianity. You are demanding a conclusion without the facts to empirically prove that conclusion. That's religion.

Hmm..the opposite is true in my experience. Oddly enough, the gun control debate seems to be one of those issues where both sides are actually being somewhat logical in their views. I do get the liberal idea of 'no guns = no gun death', it's just that that's an unrealistic expectation by any stretch of the imagination. Whereas the conservatives tend to rely heavily on the 2nd ammendment and its implications, and then of course crime data in the cities with the most gun control law. I haven't looked at these in a long time, but last I checked DC had the highest murder rate and the most oppressive gun control legislation in the country. And for the record, conservatives are traditionalists, but I think that fact has always overshadowed the fact that liberals are just as oppressive and conformative (not sure if that's even a word...) when it comes to their 'enlightened' views.

Well, I certainly can't prove it, but rudimentary analysis on common views suggest it. Tax breaks for the rich is my favorite example of this. At face value it's easily despised - little logic, heavy emotion. Righties would say that rich people are the ones that own businesses, do the investing, the hiring and that tax cuts to these individuals are pragmatic and will result in healtheir, more permanent economic growth and ultimately increased revenue - little emotion, heavy logic (although you may disagree with it). Of course, then you add religion into their fold and it all blows up. Logic goes out the window. But I wouldn't consider religion as a conservative concept, but merely has found a home within that ideology. For instance, the religious might see pro-life as a spiritual and ethical decision, whereas the non-religious conservatives might see pro-life merely ethical. The religious component doesn't void logic driven nature of conservatives. Well, actually...it's not. Micheal Crichton would take issue with that remark. And the global warming religion is an example of a belief growing bigger than the facts to support it. That's conformity at work. I tend to lean more to the latter. I like to say 'Today I believe in global warming, but I'd rather be convinced'. Being a layman, that's all I can really do. Logically, I must follow the majority of what science seems to be saying. But I'd like to hear the critics out. And I don't mean Rush pointing out that a global warming convention was cancelled due to a blizzard...

I agree. And there's no consensus on global warming. That's the problem. The scientists are still divided, while the non-scientist politicians, special interest groups, capitalists and the voting public draw conclusions they have no business drawing and muck up the water. And it doesn't help when it's made into a party thing. Something that has absolutely squat to do with ideology has transformed into a party dependent belief. I'm just waiting for you guys to figure it out and come to agreement so we can put this nonsense to rest. And global warming is not testable without a model. It takes computers and complex math that only approximates. So, by definition, it is not empircally proven. I'm uncomfortable with that too.

Conservativism is usually cast aside by the left using this logic - tradition and conformity. It's a nice tactic for motivating potential conservatives to re-evaluate. Nothing spells loser better than supporting an ideology that advocates belief based on " it's always been this way..", and nothing else. I'm sure the studies are true, but that's like saying liberals tend to be more emotionally driven rather than logically driven. It's really not what liberals are about, although the conclusion is accurate. I'm quite conservative and despise appeals to tradition and conformity to justify legislation. Tradition is for museums, and conformity is present in both ideologies. This country was founded on individuality and there isn't a conservative commentator I've ever heard that doesn't echo that. A free capitalistic market depends on that. And I have a really hard time believing self-direction is associated with the left. Conformity seems to be their ally. Look at Hollywood and the american pop culture. Right leaning artists are hard to find because they tend to conform to the beliefs of the hollywood establishment in order to be accepted. Global warming is a new religion for them also, complete with required rituals and behaviors...or conformity. Just a couple of examples. I would like to see a psychological study on stereotypes and how they still manage to remain relevant and effect perception....like how conservatives are close minded traditionalists and liberals are open minded progressives. Pangloss already covered the right vs scientist logic but I would also point out that it's the left that refuses to stick with the scientific method in reference to global warming. Healthy skepticism is demonized by the left on that subject, even though that's in line with the scientific method. That's conformity and tradition being exercised by the left. Well, one of us is misunderstanding the other. I meant that unfettered capitalism is akin to "survival of the fittest" in terms of economy, not in all terms. I think Mokele actually made the point that the brutality of nature is more likely to repel a scientist from that concept rather than attract. That makes sense to me. And, since ethics and morality are arguably a result of evolution, it would make sense to recognize that value in governing.

Nicely put. I hadn't considered the fact that grouping up is just as competitive a behavior as selfishness. I don't know why, it seems so obvious now. And grouping up would require codes of behavior - perhaps the codes being where morality is born?

Yeah, your first paragraph is what was brewing in the back of my mind. I wondered if perhaps the brutallity was so sickening that one couldn't possibly advocate that concept into anything else. I certainly understand that. But it works. Why assume that intelligence is necessary? This dumb, unguided process hasn't been duplicated anywhere in the universe as we can tell so far, and it's done quite well here providing life for millions of years. If science is correct, this dumb process managed to propogate literally thousands of species of animal life - millions if you consider the extinct - and eventually create the human brain that can look at it and call it "dumb". And I'm not so sure I'm guilty of the naturallistic fallacy as I never mentioned ethics. I'm suggesting our innate "programming" is for competition. If we're programmed to compete, then obviously any system that involves competition would compliment that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for unfettered capitalism either. I do love capitalism, but it's inherently evil for the same reason communism is inherently evil - power is seductive and very few can be trusted with it. Capitalism mixed with socialism creates a spread out power base - I like that better.

I guess I'm in a weird mood this morning. Just wondering if morality is conducive to our evolution as a species. If it took this immoral, brutal process of survival of the fittest to evolve to the point we are now - 5 million years and counting, to have bigger brains, higher thought - then why would we question that same process and, in effect, reject it? Isn't morality a defiance of this system? And are we not arrogant and foolish to assume we can ignore this and create societies that embrace 'survival of everyone' and still think we will evolve positively? So, why do we insist on incorporating morality into our survival, effectively ending the very system that got us here?

I've always wondered why scientists tend to be more liberal / socialist, rather than conservative / capitalist. If that's inaccurate, correct me, but I don't think it is at all. The reason why this seems odd to me is because while I realize there are dozens and dozens of science categories, it seems all understand the basics of survival of the fittest. Most scientists seem to understand this concept on a deeper level than the rest of us, irregardless of their specialty. So, the people who understand nature's capitalism better than most of us, reject that concept in governing humans. Why is that? Many have their theories on why capitalism has worked so well, in terms of advancement of quality of life, prosperity, economic security and so forth. I've always thought it was because it compliments our nature to compete with one another - survival of the fittest. Other forms of governing seem to go against our nature, survival of everyone equally. So, why do the majority of scientists seem to dislike unhindered capitalism, when it's basically the model they are specialists in and is proven to work?

But I find it odd that it doesn't matter what we thought we wanted and elected...they still turned out negative. Clinton was dishonest. Bush is an idiot. What difference does it make? Realizing what we want gives politicians the information they need to play the role we want. Enter Obama. I'm not saying he's fake from head to toe, I just think he fits close to what the mood of the country suggests, so he plays it up well. At least he's honest about the dope. I'll trust a confessed druggie before a supposed perfect christian...

Well, even that is going wrong now. There is growing rumbling that Obama is not "black". He and his family are not descendents of slaves, so the american black culture doesn't see him as the same cut - he doesn't really represent them. The people who say he cares and he's black are only looking at his skin color. I've heard more white folks talk about how they're going to vote for him, without any substance to support their choice. It's seems fairly obvious it's because they can't wait to "prove" their allegiance and sympathy to black plight. I don't think black folks want to be patronized like that. I haven't heard any good reasons yet to vote for the dude, just that he's the first black guy that seems white enough to get the white vote. Anybody heard him debate yet?

See I don't get this viewpoint. The baby is apart of the mother's physiology and is inside her body. I don't see how the growing fetus has any more rights than what the mother chooses to give it. Once it's separated, then it should receive the rights that all us enjoy. But as long as it is feeding off of the mother, being created and grown by her physiology - by her will, I don't see how anyone has a right to assume she is now required and obligated to continue the creation process. I guess I don't see it so much as a life being taken, but rather the creation of a life being halted. Forcing someone to continue that process is about as oppressive as forcing them to get pregnant in the first place. The creation, development in the womb may not be sparks and machinery, but it's still a baby being built.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing everyone he didn't exist... This is the same love affair the country had with Clinton. I agree with the whole mystery box bit, but I have to laugh everytime someone says he doesn't seem like a politician. That's because he's good at it folks. They're all politicians. That doesn't mean he can't be a good one, but please, he's a salesman just like the public wants. The only way you can be electable in this country is to be fake. Anyone who is real has flaws, and we don't allow humans with flaws in office. Since no such human exists, we get humans that are great at appearing flawless - in other words...liars...or salesmen, same difference.

Are you sure about that? Regime change and WMD's in Iraq became policy under Clinton, with a bipartisan act passed in 1998. I don't see that as neocon, otherwise we're inviting liberals into that fold. On the other hand, I think that came out of the Project for the Next American Century, which I believe was drafted by strict neocons. I'm not entirely sure though. So Clinton didn't and Bush did...

You know, I thought the same thing watching that stupid commercial. When the other guy starting eating the other end of it - it already looked gay, they didn't need to kiss to do that. And smiling Bob cracks me up...those are actually kinda funny. Anyone see the southpark episode about Fox showing a depiction of Muhommad? At one point Kyle or Stan says it's either all ok, or none of it is ok. I'm with him. Cherry picking who we're going to offend via stereotypical humor is even more destructive than the supposed offense. It's either all ok, or none of it is ok. Thank you Southpark...

Who's against immigration? I haven't heard anyone against immigration. I've heard illegal immigrants as being a problem - not immigrants. This is why I questioned you. For some reason, politics I suspect, many people are clouding the issue by equating opposition to illegal immigrants to opposition to immigrants period. I don't understand why anyone would advocate keeping immigrants illegal, therefore oppressed and taken advantage of by businesses all over the US. They're not getting fair wages, fair benefits, no protection from the law of the land since they're illegal. Why be for that? Weird... I'm not asking for a rehash of trendy Bush bashing - anybody can do that. I'm asking what the correct action is. See, it's easy to trash an idea, it's more difficult to come up with one. I've heard enough trashing of Bush's ideas to last me a lifetime - where are the alternative ideas? I haven't heard much of anything on that. Tell me what the correct action is, that would solve this, that Bush, the administration, congress and the senate hasn't thought of... I don't believe wiretapping is not effective. I don't agree with it being legal, but that's doesn't make it ineffective. I don't believe fudging the facts on Iraq is not effective. The media, congress, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the CIA - all of these groups fudged the facts on Iraq. Not just Bush. Surely you wouldn't allow your partisan view to poison your objectivity... It's great propaganda to blame Bush for everything, but it's not accurate. And Torture flights, false imprisonment? What do you think war is? You think we give each and every enemy combatant a fair trial before we shoot them? All of those soldiers, all of those wars, all of the dead - all tried fairly in an international court of law prior to battle? I didn't think so... So why all of the sudden do we freak out because we imprison them instead? Suddenly, because we didn't kill them on the battlefield, we have to give them all of this benefit of the doubt? I get your point, I really do, I just think it's unrealistic and naive to prosecute war civily. When you do that, it takes lots of time and you don't win nearly as fast, you don't lose nearly as many soldiers either - but the american public will interpret that as a loss, a repeat of vietnam and lose their will to keep going... (because it's very tough on folks to support a war from thousands of miles away in their gas guzzling SUV's in the greatest, richest country on earth).

Quite frankly, I'm sure you're right. And I'm still going to take issue about it though...

-Callipygous I don't think that the answer to gay rights is to take away gay joke rights though. I realize they don't have equal rights - and that's what needs to change, not the other thing. Reminds me of several years ago when the media was all worked up about black people being handed down stiffer sentences than white people. Seemed like everybody who got on camera was advocating lowering the sentences for the black folks to correct the issue, rather than raising the sentences for the white folks. I never understood that logic. More importantly, if I was homosexual, I would be offended that other homosexuals want to pursue their rights hypocritically. I would think you'd rather prove you're equal by demanding equal treatment - which, in this case means showing you can take a joke, and showing you won't take any unequal, unfair treatment by legislation.

Just so you don't think you're not being heard, I agree with your take Pangloss. There are stereotypes in a lot of commercials. They're just not stereotypes that bother anybody, or satisfies anyone's agenda. If one stereotype isn't "right", then no stereotypes are right. That's the point I've been making. Well, it's apparently not PC to make fun of gay people. I realize the commercial was making fun of homophobia, or whatever - but I think gay people are beyond criticism now. Christians and white people are always great to kick around, quite PC - but not gay people, they're way to important to be treated equally...

Man, those trucks are the worst. And I love the little sign on the back of them stating how they're not responsible for shit flying out of the back of the truck. The city here has upheld that ruling and they get to throw crap all over the road, windshields, or anything else they happen to land on without a care. Of course, if I tried this with my garbage, I would be heavily fined and held liable for damages and clean-up. I guess I just need to get me a little sign that says I'm not responsible for anything and viola!, I'm free... I'm not exaggerating when I say we've replaced my wife's windshield 3 times now from debris flying out of trucks - one was like a 10 foot long pipe - 10 feet! And they got away with it because they kept on driving while my wife had to pull over to keep from wrecking...oh that got me so worked up I was ready to fight like a teenager So, I feel for your predicament - for the reasons you stated as well.

I've been following this thread a little, and I have to wonder why we can't live within and harmoniously with nature. Maybe I'm turning into a greenie, but I don't see why I can't enjoy exurbia without all of the damn concrete. We still drive cars that use wheels and require contact and the consequences of friction with the ground. We still use fossil fuels to do work. I was hoping we'd be running on electric, hydrogen or something smarter by now. I want my Luke Skywalker mobile. I wonder if technology will make that possible. I wonder if technology will end up coming to the rescue with some of this. If I just didn't need roads or parking lots - how much would that help? Would it really matter how spread out or close together we are?