ParanoiA

Yeah, no kidding. I forgot about that, that's probably how Gata and the VP will take a bullet. Kara doesn't play verbal games. When she says to stand down, motherfrackers better listen.

I'm not sure. This series has always been persistent about forgiveness when it comes to insubordination and Adama is already showing sympathies to the mutineers. I don't put it past them to find a way to resolve this situation before the characters have crossed the point of no return, even though it seems like they've already crossed it. But, it can definitely happen. I really thought Laura was going to save the day, and she yet might. It's easy to see the consequence of her presidential abdication as a major reason why this has all spiraled out of control. So I thought it was all a set up to set the stage for a Roslin oratory achievement at unity. Whatever the case, it looks like next week it's going to get worse.

Yeah, it's kind of strange, I actually hated the Giants for ruining the Pats run at perfection but then found myself quietly pulling for them throughout this season, and was finally dissappointed when they lost in the playoffs. I'm all mixed up and confused inside.... There are some who predict he will practically be a corner on Fitzgerald. Regardless, I'm confident they will clash downfield and it will be exciting to watch. Although, Polamalu was reported to have said he's not sure what exactly to do with Fitzgerald. Sounds like fun. So far, about 5 of us. And that's more than I thought would care about such shallow, mindless physical competitions.

I'm just not finding this Pangloss. My google search ain't bringin' up no historic tax relief plan. This could be entirely my fault, so could you entertain my ignorance and provide a link or something? Just wanted to say I love the spirit of these posts. However this turns out, it's nice to see folks apprehensive about our debt and this kind of big spending. Personally, I would prefer we stop with the voodoo stimulus crap we keep getting over and over again, first the republicans and now the dems. Just cut some taxes to promote businesses growth and leave it alone - let us get ourselves out of this by empowering the individual - with their own money. That's the economy.

Uh, just for the record, I do believe police should shoot every suspect.

I was just shocked. Watching Gata lead the mutiny was almost surreal. Characters we've come to know and like turning colors like that.. And I think what really makes it work so well is that Gata's rage is so sincere. I did literally jump out of my seat when Kara freed Lee. I miss this Kara. I just love how she kicks ass. And then jumped out of my seat again when Adama turned around and basically called that dude a chicken shit and dared him to fire his weapon on him. Two seconds later they're armed and it's on. Yeah, this episode was crazy. Damn good show.

Well, I did address the OP in post # 19. So I guess I spent one sentence to the OP with paragraphs on other stuff. Maybe we all went off point because there's not really much to expand or pontificate about in regards to this statute of limitations. Well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. Besides, I love this kind of discussion, if I may be so heliocentric about it.

Heh..at least outlawing individual prejudice would finally make this moral judgement equitable. iNow, I understand your point. So, let me ask you, how is this not the fault of the women in wage negotiation? Isn't that part of business? If I'm working a job for less money than the guy next to me, and I think that's unfair, then I deliver an ultimatum and make my case with my employer. I've done this twice - once I had to leave, the other I got a raise. I realize in Lilly's case, this was after the fact, so she had no chance to apply leverage and demand a higher price for her business. Another something to consider is the dynamic of females. Albeit anecdotal, I've noticed females are less confrontational. They're far more likely to agree and move on. This is actually one of the things I like about working with women. They're generally more cooperative and agreeable while all the guys are bitching and moaning about the company. So, I wonder if this plays out similarly when negotiating salaries.

I don't know what the deal is with scientists and sports, but I haven't seen a superbowl thread and I'm not entirely sure I should have started one... So, for those who care and dare to record your pick, who do you think is going to win? Pittsburgh or Arizona? All of the talk seems to be about Arizona's impressive offense against Pittsburgh's number one defense. Certainly Troy Polamalu is going to be exciting to watch against Fitzgerald (assuming that's the matchup). A select minority, myself included, think the decision maker in the game is going to be Pittsburgh's offense against Arizona's defense. However, I've learned to expect the unexpected in the superbowl.

Thanks iNow, you have expressed my position accurately, and with a fraction of the verbiage. And your point is taken too. And I still have to dig up "effectiveness" - I haven't forgotten.

I realize you draw a line there, but I don't. Basically, this is interference by the state. They are analyzing my business and determining what they think I need, in order to establish a referent to measure any discrimination. I am entirely insulted and offended by that reasoning. A blatant violation of rights, subjectively justified with intellectual acrobats. How dare the government come to my business and decide what kind of people I should need. What if I want to open a hardware store with bikini babes walking around the store? If the state decides I don't need that particular dynamic in my business, then I don't get to discriminate to hire only women AND I can't negotiate their terms to include wearing bikini's. How is that fair? How is that consistent with individual liberty? There's no telling how many possibilities in the market we're losing out on because of this lack of respect for individuality. The dynamics are inherently limited with these weird ideas of "fairness" instituted by government. Government is a road block to our advancement. Government keeps the human condition from progessing, by cementing subjective moral codes with law. Free society is much quicker to change and respond to upgrades in morality and ethics. So you're cool with discriminating against active homosexuality then? That can be altered at a moment's whim. Personally, I find that absolutely offensive. The notion I should be cool with someone discriminating against me as long as I can just change it. Only the permanent stuff is off limits? yeah, I don't get this. That's certainly fair. I admire where you're setting the bar, but I think you'd achieve it faster if you focused your efforts on society rather than waiting on government. To pass a law making people behave how you want and sacrificing the dynamics of individual freedom takes two legislative houses, committees and subcommitties, perhaps the president's approval - but changing someone's mind is instant. The persuasion required for both solutions is similar, just channeled differently. And laws don't change their hearts and minds. Persuasion does. The will to be right always trumps the performance of being forced to be right.

Yes. Just as Hooters or your local strip club essentially implies that same sign - "Now Hiring - No men". But then, I'm an advocate for objective governing in order to avoid institutionalized bigotry, or slavery. The cost for that is that society can be ugly - but they have that right, and we have the right not to reward them for it. I think that's better. But it's not because "they don't have a penis". Is that the only difference you think there is between men and women? I give women more credit than that. I think this it's because of social stereotypes associated with men and women. Men are perceived as being generally more dependable and stable (probably due to women generally assuming the primary care giver role). Why shouldn't an employer be allowed to consider those dynamics when negotiating a contract for business? Wal-Mart gets to consider far more trivial and silly things than that when considering a wholesaler. There's not a law in the books keeping them from discriminating against doing business with another supplier just because they don't like the shape of their windows. How is that fair? So we don't live in a civilization? None of us are getting "fair" treatment. What is fair about denying me the right to weigh risk how I choose? Even if it's stupid. I think your definition of fairness is unfair. I don't think it's fair to tell me what factors I'm allowed to weigh in order to determine who gets the job I'm offering, or how much I'm willing to pay for it, for whatever goofy reason I choose. I think a fair, level playing field is one that does not hide my attributes. One that lets me use every dynamic of myself to make money. Women can use the fact their women to market themselves, just as it can serve against them. That's fair, to me, since I don't really buy the whole notion of fairness to begin with. Now, please do me the courtesy of answering my questions. I answered yours.

I dispute the notion of fair pay, though. Is it fair that Wal-Mart only makes 10 cents per bottle of shampoo, while the local grocery store makes 20 cents per bottle? That isn't fair either. If Wal-mart had known, they might have raised their prices. I wonder if Wal-mart and the local grocer get their shampoo wholesale from the same company, negotiating a separate contract for each. Isn't that company being unfair in charging Wal-Mart one price and the local grocer a different one? How is selling my labor service any different? Why does there have to be any fairness? I'm competing with the rest of you for work. The price I agree to for labor is part of the dynamics of my competitive method - just like any business competes with price. So she found that men were being paid more, in general. Sure, that's a trend you can see when you analyze salaries. I wonder, also, how many women have benefited from getting a job over a male due to this inherent difference in labor charges. As far as the OP is concerned, I do agree with this restructuring on the statue of limitations, that seems quite fair to me. But, I'm not sold on this notion of fairness in business. I think this is the problem with not seeing ourselves as doing business when we get a job or go to work. We forget that we negotiated a business deal - we signed a contract - for our labor service. I have every right to market myself and compete with the rest of you.

That's interesting DNA, that didn't even dawn on me. But I haven't heard much in the way of conspiracy theories about any "hidden agenda". I remember it being mentioned during the campaign, but I never thought it actually grew any wings.

Really, this is what was supposed to have happened when the bill was drafted in the first place through the method of compromise, a politician's job. Republicans aren't in any power to really demand much reverence, and it would seem the democrats made a decent effort to include them. I did find it humorous that there was some bipartisan unity in voting against this sham, just not near enough. Of course, that's to be expected from a cut-the- taxes-shut-down-the-empire-type. I like Rush's plan for playful philosophical reasons, but I have no interest in watching these two outspend each other at the same time. Then we'd need partisanship just to keep from going bankrupt.

Yeah, I enjoyed that line about them being willing to unclench their fist. I too am pleased with this new tone. Like Sisyphus said, even if it doesn't lead to a single policy change, this is one of those areas where symbolism is a sort of substance. I still don't care for wholesale defense of Israel, but I do appreciate his more even handed approach to their conflict. Looks like he's carefully balancing the net will of the country while remaining logically centered, or so I think. That said, I do think Iran sees it as weakness. And I do believe they will do something to exploit this new tone, and in some ways they've already started. However, that's international politics for ya'. You show up nice, they take it as weakness. You show up mean, they take it as bullying. What matters is that we lead by example, and hopefully attempt to use a posture that expresses fair, disciplined strength. Obama's words seem to convey that, I think.

See I'm not sure about that. I thought the republicans were far more cooperative and expected to compromise before Rush's insistance that ideological lines be drawn and sides be taken. I'm not surprised at him, but I'm curious if the republican leadership is so unsure of itself that it's vulnerable to his competitive mantra. I guess we'll see as the world turns...

They might be, I haven't been paying too much attention. Maybe it's the democrat proposed cuts they figure to be more symbolic, like cutting taxes for those who already don't pay income taxes, that sort of thing. I heard some talk of that last week.

This post fails to take on the dilemma. I know, it's tough, that's why you keep dodging it. Let's do this again, only let's use Nuclear retaliation as the subject. Here's what you're saying: We can do this with any dilemma of your choosing. It's a great way to dismiss legitimate concerns in order to pick a side of the fence to stand on and put this critical exercise behind you. Sorry, DrDNA, but when I reconcile moral issues I have to take a bit more care, and it starts by auditing honestly. You've responded to our legitimate, apparent conflict of horrors by pretending as if we shouldn't be concerned with it. And you didn't even tell us why. If I'm not supposed to see and question moral disparity between waterboarding and nuclear retaliation, then what exactly serves as the proverbial alarm that alerts one their morals are twisted? Disparity, hypocrisy...tools that point out you're wrong about something. And I'm not one to jump to conclusions my friend.

I ran across this piece by Rush this morning, thought it was interesting. He's essentially proposing to let the republicans spend half the stimulus money their way and let the democrats spend half their way and then compare the results. I got a kick out of it, since I do like his proposed half better, but I don't see how this could ever settle the debate about how to get an economy out of a recession. Not like it could ever happen in the first place, but a fun idea nonetheless. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

Well let's be clear. It's not that I'm "totally cool with nuking whole civilizations" without any qualifiers. It's that I'm ok with retaliatory nuclear attacks on countries that attacked us. If China launched nukes, would we sacrifice our right to respond for the lives of their civilians? Would we refuse to "stoop to their level"? I don't think so. I think we would retaliate. And I think as long as we believe that, then we have some pretty ridiculous ideas of morals and ethics to subsequently draw an arbitrary line before waterboarding. That's why I can't sign on to wholesale dismissal of torture. It's a symbolic argument that makes one feel better as long as one conveniently forgets how spectacularly hypocritical and dishonest it is.

I guess I'm not convinced it's a guarantee things will happen that way, but then maybe I'm letting the media bias me a bit. And my comment was a brief one liner, I didn't "harp" until I got called out.

Damn. He's kicking ass already. I like this, not because I like violence and dead people but because he's showing that even though he has issues with GWB's tactics, he's no softy and won't be squeemish about going after OBL.

No worries on the change (I actually wondered if maybe "belief in god" would imply the dynamics that go with it anyway, like healing through prayer, or doing what's best...) In terms of the constitution though, the 'reasonable' qualifier is codified in actions - such as it not being reasonable to kill innocent people on the street. I'm free to believe that they should die, but I'm not free to execute it. In that case, belief does not justify action. So, I don't dispute the constitution grants everyone freedom of belief of the reasonable or unreasonable, but I dispute that it grants us freedom to act on unreasonable beliefs that cause harm to others. The Neumann's have a legal right to believe that god will do what's best for them, absolutely. I believe that's unreasonable, because I think they must prove such a thing as god since they're making the charge of his existence. Therefore, I don't think they have a right to act or inact on that unreasonable belief when it causes harm to others. When they can provide evidence of god's efficacy, like medicine has, then it would no longer be unreasonable and they can let all of their kids die if they want to. And if the constitution doesn't agree, then we should make it agree. I agree to a point. I would think that would throw out most negligence laws since they're generally about not doing something we believe is required by the parent or else equates to abuse. I absolutely appreciate your apprehension, but there's too much legitimacy to negligence charges. Is it really ok to sit on the porch and watch your 3 year old walk into the street and get smashed by the trash truck?