Phi for All

I don't mind videos as a source, as long as there is some written member input as well. Like Greg H., I think narrowing down the pertinent parts shows that you're aiming at relevancy, rather than simply promoting someone else's video views as being similar to yours (I mean, do you really want Dr. Fugensteinalgab to do your talking for you?). Most people handle video linking quite well, especially when the link is to a news story reference as opposed to some kind of editorial perspective they're using to take the place of their own words. There have been a few videos lately that are made by the member, and used exclusively as their opening post. I object to these mostly because there are rarely any responses to replies, and so the video seems like soap-boxing, stating a position with no intent to discuss. And I shudder to think what video replies would even be like. The written medium is usually much more thoughtful than any other while being fairly responsive time-wise as well. These types of videos also seem like they're aimed at increasing hits on YouTube accounts, which is against our rules.

Still, the release of energy through nuclear fission represented an enormous leap in our destructive capabilities. We can at least be comforted that we're living up to our fabled high intelligence (so far). Some have proposed that this may be part of why we haven't run into any other spacefaring species; having a weapon so powerful but not using it may be harder than we think.

It would seem then that we have no checks to balance Congress out when they decide to be stupid. This was very evident when the House introduced the Patriot Act on October 23, 2001, voted on it on October 24 (despite there being only two copies available), it passed the Senate on October 25 and the president signed it on October 26. AFAIK, only two members of Congress who voted for it admitted the truth, that it would have been impossible to have actually read the bill before voting on it.

Really great points, everyone. I had hoped that an attempt at mollifying the pro-life crowd would put an end to the constant bickering about abortion, and the constant tap-dancing politicians need to do to keep from offending a fairly large part of the vote. I think pro-life people most often picture late-term abortions or wanton harlots having unprotected sex with multiple partners every day whenever the subject comes up, in much the same way many conservatives picture lazy slackers drinking publicly provided beer whenever the subject is welfare. The pictures painted by the opposition are usually worst-case scenarios, and yet that becomes the default for many, leading to even more extremism and fear.

I think I could accept this, but it gives no concessions to the very large and vocal pro-life crowd, which I think makes it impractical. In order to become a legal definition, I think we have to at least prohibit late term abortions for no reason other than "I changed my mind".

Which checks exactly do you think have broken down to cause an imbalance in the integrity of our elected officials?

Then let's focus on this, since the rest is more wheel-spinning, imo. Is it the higher brain functions of cognition that makes a human a person with rights under the law? A practical line needs to be drawn, if only to keep the lawyers from being able to find a loophole that allows a zygote to hold an adult woman hostage.

I think we need a practical, legal definition of life, something that can put to rest all the moral wheel-spinning over issues like abortion. We've been side-tracked for too long politically on this issue and the resources we've spent on it are desperately needed elsewhere. Btw, if you're looking for a more biological discussion about the definition of life, there is a current one here. I have big problems with life legally beginning at conception. It opens a Pandora's Box of ramifications for both women and men with respect to negligence. Is it homicide if a woman gets the news of being 3 weeks pregnant but then miscarries because she worked out strenuously at the gym the next day? You have to realize that if conception becomes the legal definition of life, law enforcement would inevitably lead to enormous intrusions into our private lives. Beating heart? That doesn't really cut it, since we can artificially keep a heart beating. You wouldn't be correct if you said a person was dead just because their heart stopped beating. The rate of resuscitation shows we can't use the heart as a good qualifier. Brain waves? Lack of brain activity is good enough for a definition of death, so the start of brain activity should be good enough for a definition of life. Unfortunately, pro-life advocates often claim that fetal brain waves start as early as six weeks. I've been reading this article (which has lots of nice citations to scientific studies as well as the common claims) and it suggests that, while brain activity that controls motor functions develops early in the first trimester, higher cognitive brain activity, the kind we associate with sentient thought and experience, doesn't start until the end of the second trimester. As a legal definition of life, and a practical one, I think 26 weeks is a workable guideline. Personally, in any situation I had any control over, I would avoid abortion unless there was medical reasons that threatened the life of the mother. Legally though, we need a more nuanced approach, we need to agree on it, and we need to move on. I'm tired of this being used to stall our political and societal efforts at a very crucial time in our development. What do you think?

Integrity. Honesty. Trust. Because if you'll lie to get elected, you might lie about why you want to invade a sovereign nation, or about domestic surveillance or domestic use of the military. That sort of thing.

! Moderator Note Thanks very much for blanking the OP. I only asked you to give me a reason this wouldn't be considered illegal, in order to protect the site owners from litigation. Perhaps someday when you've been tasked with enforcing rules, you will remember your overreaction fondly. Thread rendered useless by starter, closed.

! Moderator Note Since it's hard to imagine a legal reason to disrupt readings on any kind of meter, please give us a reason to believe your thread doesn't violate our rule Section 2.3aiii or we'll need to close this. Mere curiosity isn't sufficient, since your noble and purely academic intentions might be sullied by a nefarious anonymous user at some future date.

Visually stunning, I quite agree, but it had a certain paucity of thought that the written word seems to... um, rectify, if you will.

! Moderator Note Moved from General Philosophy to Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology It's true that feces contains bacteria that could be deadly to us if ingested, and that is probably why we have evolved to be sensitive to the smell produced by 3-methylindole, the smelly bit in the feces. It's also true that 3-methylindole is used, in very low concentrations, in perfume and even ice cream. The "smells bad" aspect is also partly cultural. Some cultures have a more vivid reaction to strong odors than others. Moldy cheese is a delicacy to some, an abomination to others. Let me also say, as a member for now and not as staff, that I found your video offensive. Not in its topic, but in its execution and your choice of words. This is a discussion forum, and videos are used mainly as a basis for information, not as a way to communicate your thoughts. I hope you're not going to simply post more videos on your thoughts to drive up you-tube hits, rather than discuss science with the rest of us in a meaningful way. Just sayin'.

I think there are many valid comparisons between the Tea Party and the Taliban. Not in every sense, certainly, but both have a self-serving, historically inaccurate, fundamentalist interpretation of foundational law in their respective countries. The Taliban was used by Saudi and Pakistani militant-minded groups intent on control; the Tea Party has been taken over by the Koch Brothers and other corporate interests bent on control. In light of Sen. Angle's remarks about "2nd amendment remedies", the biggest difference between the Tea Party and the Taliban seems to be that the Taliban was more interested in disarming their citizens rather than stirring them up to revolt. Maybe we're just a few Soviets away from a more apt comparison.

There are degrees of lying, of course. It's one thing to pass along a lie you heard but thought was truth, and a whole other thing to make up something (like statistical support) out of thin air. When former Rep. Dick Armey said that Sen. Sharron Angle simply misspoke herself when she claimed that 2nd amendment remedies might be necessary (aka armed revolution by the citizenry), that is a blatant lie, since she said it multiple times on multiple occasions (though it is possible Armey didn't know about her repetitions). When Romney claims he knows what it's like to worry about being fired, that's an exaggerated opinion, not quite an outright lie, like when he claims he didn't say something and yet we can pull up footage that shows he did indeed say EXACTLY that. Even worse is when Romney lies about Obama apologizing for America, is told that's not true, shown it's not true, yet he doesn't remove it from his stump speech and goes on to repeat the lie in other cities.

Our journalists generally seem not to dig very deeply anymore, perhaps since they often work for a subsidiary of a company that supports a particular politician. They ask a tough question so they seem like real investigators, but then accept the first answer given by the politicians and drop that line of questioning. Few politicians really get their feet held to the fire anymore.

Part of it is the stupid, kneejerk reaction that all politicians lie, like it's part of the job and to be expected. Just like it's expected that politicians have to do special favors for those who contribute the most money to their campaigns.

Conservatism in the US has been on the rise since just after WWII, and I think we're seeing, at its apex, the Tea Party emerging as the most extremist arm of that movement. I think what started as a group that protested the taxing of non-diet soda in NY state as an unfair burden to those who don't abuse their carbonated beverage privileges has been commandeered by corporate concerns aimed at furthering models that offer the most profit while doing little to grow the economy. What used to be the backbone of the country, the commerce of ingenuity and prosperity to promote the general welfare, has been stripped of integrity and forced to pillage our national future in the name of profit disguised as freedom. To borrow from the Firefly world, the corporate Reavers are wearing the flesh masks of those we thought we used to know, and if we don't stop them soon, they're going to rape us to death, eat us and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

Secret Service determines what's needed for the security of those it protects, so this is a non-issue for anyone trying to bash a single president. Every president gives the Secret Service fits every time they want to leave the White House. All those motorcades you see, the buses, Air Force One, any time any president needs to go somewhere it costs a fortune in security measures. This is not an issue where Obama has been any better or any worse than any other president, so if you don't remove this from your repertoire of Obama/Liberal/Other-Misunderstood-Things bashing, you're just feeding the propaganda machine. Seriously, if you want some support on subjects where Obama hasn't done enough, go after his lack of inspiration while in office, after such an inspirational campaign to get there. There were so many times when he should have addressed the nation about what he was up against, and called on us to urge our representatives to help pull the nation back together. Obama focused on policy and partisan bridge-building when the GOP was dead set against his getting re-elected, to the point where they wouldn't even support him on issues they should have. For goodness sake, rigney, the Republicans shot down H.R. 466 (Wounded Veteran Job Security Act), a bill that would have protected the jobs of veterans who have to take time off work to treat a service-related disability (and that's not the only bill for veterans they blocked). The Republicans shot down H.R. 515 (Radioactive Import Deterrence Act), which keeps businesses from bringing low-level nuclear waste from other countries into the US (wtf?!). The Republicans shot down H.R. 1029 (Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act), a bill that would make it tougher to enter the US illegally and impose stricter penalties and better border enforcement (and yet they still blame Obama for lax immigration policy). The Republicans shot down H.R. 1110 and H. R. 1258 (PHONE Act and Truth in Caller ID Act), bills that would make it a crime to spoof the caller ID number for the purposes of commercial transactions aimed at defrauding the person being called (I get calls like this at least once a month, from people who show up on caller ID as a business telling me my "account" is in jeopardy, and if I could just verify the account number and PIN...). The list goes on and on, good and smart and effective legislation stonewalled just because it came from a source that would have made Obama look good, something the GOP has been trying to avoid ever since Obama took office and Rush Limbaugh cried, "I hope Obama fails!" Obama should have personally let the public know what was happening instead of trying to build bridges with a bunch of wet noodles.

Wilson Microwave Systems is a trademark name taken out by CINCINNATI MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Maybe that will improve your search chances.

It's fairly typical that your argument ignores all the detail I've tried to put in my posts and simply reduces me to being confident in the Democratic party. I think I've made it quite clear that I see them, by far, as the lesser of two evils in a two party election. Do I agree with everything the Dems do? No, but I completely disagree with what Romney/Ryan want to do regarding most issues. To me, the Dems need more time to undo the horror of the Bush years. Romney/Ryan will just bring them crashing back, with even more special interest emphasis. And again, I think your argument against "liberal politicians" is simply rhetoric. You're being fooled by those with special interests into believing that people are either liberal or conservative about everything, or that those definitions are even worthy of being applied to issues with the level of nuance we see these days. There are some fantastic social programs in effect currently, some that many Republicans and Democrats support wholeheartedly, and also some that are ineffective and need reform or dismantling altogether, but they all get called "welfare" and suddenly it becomes a liberal issue. It's like conservative belief that the media has a liberal bias. The media has a commercial bias, and a need to get people to understand what they mean with the fewest, shortest words possible, words that will keep consumers from changing channels. The media only cares what you think liberal and conservative mean, what it means to their viewers, and since they mean completely different things to everyone, those definitions are worse than meaningless; they're misleading and divisive and don't serve to explain anything. Well, we all knew auto industry bailouts was a powderkeg issue, damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. But your argument fails to take into account the poor leadership GM has, and thus the mistakes it has made. I hope you aren't falling into the trap of blaming Obama for how the company is being run. Obama already has a demanding job we're paying him to do. I know the AFL-CIO pulled some projected funds from all federal campaigns way back in June. It supposedly wasn't to snub Obama, it was to direct that money into their own infrastructure and advocacy programs. Perhaps you could link us to the news story you're talking about. Heilige Mutter Gottes, rigney, do your research before you puke up this crap! The buses belong to the Secret Service, and they have about a 10-year lifespan, so yes, if the Republicans win this fall, they'll get to use the buses. It's a protect-the-President kind of thing, not a liberal thing or Obama thing. And you don't want to go down the road that leads to presidential vacations, because you'll lose. Obama has spent 1/3 the time on vacation that Bush II did in his first term, and 1/2 the time Reagan did in his first term. Once again, you should check the facts before regurgitating the junk you hear from a single source.

Fuzzwood has been suspended for three days for a particularly vulgar post in violation of Section 2.1a of the rules.

Science has very specific terminology for a very good reason. As has been mentioned, you can't use the word "evolve" in this way because it doesn't meaningfully describe the mechanism involved. It's like the problem scientists have with people misusing the word "theory" to mean "the half-baked idea I got this morning while waiting for the shower water to warm up". Please don't make the mistake of redefining something and then finding problems with it based on your redefinition. You should be able to see by now where that road will lead.

I think it's what Darth Vader was the Dark Lord of.

No, I began to feel it starting with Reagan's trickle-down, and just got fed up during Bush II. The first seemed more of an oratory, but the latter was far more anal. And here is what you quoted. On that note, quite likely we have nothing more to discuss. If you'll note the time-stamps at the bottom of the actual posts, I quoted what you wrote at 8:46 am MDT, but you edited it 7 minutes later at 8:53 am MDT. Unlike you though, I'm not implying you did it maliciously.