ParanoiA

I used to have a time with those two. The word 'noose' fixed it for me. Now I can be more loose, even when I lose. Your and You're - one of my biggest peeves... there, their and they're - my second biggest peeve... to and too - my third...

A terrorist targets the weak, the innocents, the citizenry. Our governments are supposed to target the terrorists themselves, the soldiers, the strength - warriors battling other warriors. The only ethics I can draw from that, and I can, is that terrorists are unethical since they take their fight to those who don't wage it; those who never took any role or compensation as a "fighter" of any kind, let alone any particular group. Our governments are a little more ethical since we directly take on the fighters that waged the conflict; the committed soldiers, proudly representing their terrorist group. Thing is, we do this unethically when we indiscriminately bomb civilian areas and so forth. When terrorists hide amongst them, yet attack, the ethics get a little more sticky for all involved. At the end of the day, I think we rationalize some unethical behavior as well trying to deal with the moral dilemmas presented by terrorism.

Yep.

I don't know about that last bit as I'm not sure Obama has settled in enough to have established any sort of pattern. I'm sure he's thought about their position and what they're going to do - I'm just not sure we know exactly what that is yet. I'm trying to be fair to Obama, but it's not looking good for him. So far, his method has been honest and sincere, but his decisions haven't matched the rhetoric. This is the most egregious, if it doesn't get reversed, somewhat.

The stock market is obviously reacting to my announcement on my myspace page. I don't think we're out of all of this yet, but it sure seems like we're moving uphill again. It would really be nice for the housing prices to come up in the next couple of months, I need to get out of this and move.

A very logical approach to problem solving. Yes, I agree. Nice post.

You know, I didn't give it much thought first time through. But thinking about it, you guys are absolutely right.

The only reason I accept the notion of government in marriage is because we use that institution to dictate rights (like making medical decisions, inheritance, homestead). Otherwise, they should be out completely.

Hey, that's the site I was talking about. I guess it was just Wiki all along. Thanks. And here's an example of what I'm talking about: Yeah, I see where the parallels are and I also acknowledge that someone familiar with both stories could have some fun with these themes. But seriously? A UMCP Enforcement Director with a Pistol that doesn't leave her side is analogous to a Thunder God that defends the gods, who's hammer never leaves his possession - enough so, that "originality" is lost? (Originality, as Pangloss covered it). I don't know. It's hard to accept that originality is really gone. By this measurement, all of the stories have been told. All we're doing now is putting new clothes on them.

I don't know man. I read about the Ring Cycle, and got pretty confused fairly quickly. I was actually looking for Donaldson's characters in Wagner's and I couldn't find them. I thought I had stumbled on a site that attempted to link the two stories, and I believe they went all through it, but it sure seemed like a stretch to me - even though Donaldson is completely open about the framework. It just seems like if I have a character that obsesses about an object, to the point it controls him, seals him to a life of doom - presto! I'm copying LOTR's Gollum. Never mind that the character seems a spitting image of a heroine junkie to more people than otherwise. That's how I felt the correllations were with Wagner's and Donaldson's stories. But then again, I also freely admit I'm not all that interested in Wagner's and I'm not open to receiving it as one should.

Walter is a funny character. Everything else about the show is hard to like. However I kind of enjoy it when what's-her-face asks to go into the tank and I get to see her in a bikini.

Ok, Reaper didn't make that statement, I did. Because I'm super smart and a real freak in the sheets. Actually, I had read some study being done on the matter, but yeah, I don't remember any details. I only brought it up to joke with Reaper that he didn't "comprehend" it because it's for "smart" people.

Hmm, I guess I've never actually seen a full grown Tobacco plant. I'm envisioning something the size of loose leaf lettuce. obviously, my calibration is a bit off. I'll bet it really stinks up the place to cure it.

In the same way as the gay couples have always, in 50 states, had to support heterosexual marriage. I agree. I don't have much concern over the workload created. Look at our legal system and the inefficiency and legal mess created by presuming everyone is innocent at the outset. We don't use that as an excuse to cancel due process, so I don't think we should be too concerned over the legal mess of polygamy, or any other abstract commitment labels dreamed up by the public.

Yeah, now I'm curious as well. I quit smoking cigarettes a couple of years ago, but I still love the smell of burning tobacco. I'm surprised you can grow enough for your habit, though, assuming you do. About how many cigs can you roll out of single plant? You are quite the peculiar fellow, YT.

You mean like how ecoli has provided links to mises.org on a number of different papers to address your free market ignorance, over and over again? He isn't taking issue with "centralized price controls" - believe me, we've heard the freaking left wing mantra chanting centralization and efficiency like republicans mumbling tax cuts. Yes, iNow, we understand why you all find socialism so fascinating. But try to peel your eyes away from the moral glory of spending other people's money for a second and imagine his point might be about competition. He's asking how lack of competition can be afforded by your centralized price controls. Can one really exist without the other? And instead of ignoring the concept of competition, how about dealing with it? This is my problem with universal approaches. You just want to repeat what someone else has already done. That's why you answer these free market questions with ridicule for asking them in the first place (WTF?), instead of answering them. I'm open to all suggestions. Not just socialist guilt trip movements or screw-the-rich-guy logic. Health insurance is entirely out of hand and WAY TOO DAMN necessary. The more we handed over to insurance, the more socialistic the system has been. Some of us don't even know the name of our insurance carrier without looking at our card. Same as any government office. It's a nameless, faceless entity that covers my healthcare, or most of it anyway. I get mail from it from time to time trying to squirm out of paying for stuff, trying to get away without giving me any service. Like my taxes, their money comes out of my check, no matter how pissed I am at them or not. Doesn't matter if they've screwed me - I have no choice but to use them. Maybe ecoli opened his eyes once to blink in the last few decades and noticed this miserable lack of competition and heavy price we're paying and is asking how retaining this situation will be better? How will we deal with the lack of competition between carriers and their customers? Hint: One way is to not need them. Health insurance works because everyone is conditioned to have to have them. Ecoli is prompting us to think about how we can lower this inherent demand on their service, that causes us to have to spend so much. When we stop accessing them for everything, we stop needing them so badly, and they start competing to get us back.

No, we don't know that. What if the company was set to tank much worse, months earlier, and by the sheer genius of their new CEO, they were able to merely "not do well"? Did you ever think that he might deserve those bonuses? Depending on the circumstances of the company's position, considering the economy, market issues, and what the CEO's bonus was based, I would say it's quite fair. You're presenting these things as facts, when they are still opinion - business opinion. Let the guy with the capital - the guy with the most to lose, taking all of the risk - handle it like he wants and let us stick to governing.

I feel for you, seriously. We were talking about this at work today and there is no shortage of horror stories right now, about people losing their jobs, and then their insurance, while suffering from lifelong ailments. Apparently some are even being denied coverage when they attempt to purchase it on their own. This is a horrible consequence to the employer provided health insurance system we've created. We're entirely dependent on top teir business ****ers to decide what network of care we're going to get and the price structure, and we just have to take it. Alternatively if we all switched, overnight, to buying our own health insurance, a good portion of us would not be able to afford the premium due to chronic conditions driving the price a hell of a lot more than even 150 bucks. And then a good portion of those may not qualify at all. Doesn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room.

Who me? nah...

Excellent points Moontanman. Dudde, just so you know, it's good having you in here. There's not alot of anti-MJ folks in here, which is telling, I might add. You seem to have fallen somewhat prey to the propaganda surrounding this narcotic. It's also kind of validating, anecdotally anyway, what I've always suspected about the anti-drug crowd - they seem to rely on exaggeration and ignorance to keep you that way. Pot is no harmless drug by any stretch of the imagination. It's twice as hard on your lungs, causes memory loss, and like Pangloss has pointed out numerous times, it's the great de-motivator. But, like all drugs, including alcohol, those points are about chronic abuse. Just like Tequilla, none of that is an issue if you're a casual user. That's why we act so incredulous about it. When we compare alcohol and other drugs to MJ, we're always comparing worst case scenarios by pointing out all of the ill effects. And to us, it's clear that marijuana hurts the abusers the least. And in terms of casual use...well, everything is on the table. And MJ is still the mildest of all of them.

To the OP...the biggest thing that jumps out at me is the obvious: Who determines what practice is good or bad and then rewards it? Who is it this great arbiter of truth? God? Me? You? That business? The entire republic? No one has a monopoly on opinion, and no one can prove their opinion is correct. So, capitalism implicitly realizes this and and chooses to default this to those with the most interest, those with the most to lose - the individual, the owner. Freewill, free trade, the obvious follow through for a freedom first society. We aren't a freedom first society anymore though. We're becoming a performance first society. We are willing to sacrifice our freedoms for security, nowadays. ecoli writes some good stuff explaining the concept of risk taking, inherent in trade and business, and how each individual serves as an accurate point of risk, over the notion of a central planner - which is essentially what you're talking about when you offer the idea that we, as in the government, reward good practice. Somehow we must sport the hubris to decree what is best for a private business, and that just seems really dumb. I would never presume a business to put people first, and likewise would not presume government to put profit first. It's always seemed kind of obvious to me to use that relationship for what it is. For government to cast judgement on business practice as "stupid" or "smart" followed up with some kind of reward is just silly. But for government to cast judgement on business practice that hurts people, is necessary. So maybe that's where I split from the main crowd. I like regulation to be applied to those markets and scenarios where we cannot afford the natural market checks and balances to trump people-first. It's fine to play supply and demand, quality-efficiency games with candy bars, but it's hardly appropriate with medicine. Sure, if I make a crappy candy bar, you stop buying and I get the message and straighten up. But if I make crappy pharmaceuticals, then people suffer and die before I get the message to straighten up - that's not acceptable. And that's where I find regulation to be honorable and necessary.