Phi for All

Intelligence plays a big part as well, now that I think about it. Why should we lug a bunch of stuff up the stairs when we can invent a pulley system to more easily hoist it up? We'd be stupid to keep doing things just with muscle power, so why is smart considered lazy? There are some drawbacks. Being smart enough to gather things to move to another room in a single trip instead of making a bunch of trips with just one thing each trip means we don't get as much exercise. And sometimes relying on technology can mean our manual skills suffer, like with calculators or power tools. To me, lazy is simply about not working. If you're using technology to play when you've got work to do, you're being lazy. Using technology to work is rather about working smart instead of working hard. That's not lazy, imo.

Your testosterone is safe. It's far too mighty to be compromised by anything emitted by mere women. Intellectually, however, you may find yourself expanding your POV. Women tend to see the big picture better than men, whose focus is usually more narrow. You may eventually understand that pillows on a couch make it look better when no one is sitting on it, which is actually more important than what you do with them when you are sitting on it. Your tastes may become more refined. You may actually learn the names for colors outside the usual blue, green, red, orange and yellow. It's possible you may learn the difference between how gardenias and lilacs smell, and more importantly, you may develop an appreciation for that difference. Don't worry, though. You will never understand that when a woman tells you her problems, she's not always asking you to fix them for her. That's beyond mere male comprehension. At best, you may figure out that you just need to listen and nod, and actually wait for her to ask for your help before jumping up and taking care of everything.

Personally, I've always felt that this "across the fence" type of distinction, left/right, conservative/liberal, Democrat/Republican, is not only a huge False Dilemma fallacy, it's also at the heart of the divisions we're feeling now. These distinctions force us to look at our differences instead of where we meet on common ground. I know I've said it before, but there is commonality with almost every issue. With welfare, nobody wants people who genuinely need a helping hand to be turned out in the cold, and pulling funds from State and Federal revenues should be the most effective way to ensure that those people get the help they need without any kind of profit or selfish motives getting in the way. At the same time, nobody wants to give welfare to lazy slackers who could be working but don't. There is enough commonality there to work with if any of the politicians had the guts to explain that to his/her constituents properly and risk the "party" fallout. If Big Business keeps sending jobs overseas then f*** 'em, I say let's have OUR government start making things that OUR government uses. No more buying office furniture or supplies from companies that aren't employing enough US citizens while getting rich off a US government contract. We should start making our own, in US factories sponsored by the gov, and run by US citizens. Germany does this with State-sponsored rest stops on the Autobahn. They're operated on contract by individuals and must meet certain standards, providing fuel, food and amenities for drivers, including cots for napping if you're too tired to drive. I've always been a free-market guy, but we can't have a viable economy if our workers can't work. Republicans should be able to see that Reagan's Trickle-down economics fails when you kick a hole in the bucket and let the water flow out of the system. That's just not going to work for us anymore, if it ever did. Democrats should be able to see that leadership sometimes means doing what needs to be done and explaining why as you do it, instead of bowing to compromise that actually worsens the situation, or helps in one area while making another area worse. The right should be able to see that reform needs to be faster-paced in our faster-paced modern society, and the left should be able to see that sometimes reason isn't as appealing as comfort and security. We need real solutions, ones that work smartly instead of catering to political categories. It's time to put our house in order and stop letting our democracy be run by the few who're rich enough to buy into it. There's no left or right when it's really all about money. We need to realize that our votes give us more power over the system than all the money does, but only if we open our mouths instead of holding out our hands.

! Moderator Note Exact topic/paper already covered. Thread closed.

Absolutely not. This shows that there is a fundamental lack of checks and balances within the administrative functions of our military. This kind of testing should never have passed through the hierarchy without being shot down as unconstitutional and discriminatory.

I can get behind this. I'm still a bit undecided on whether career politicians are necessary or detrimental. I have a big problem with how much power businesspeople have over our politics through lobbying and direct manipulation. I don't like it as a social liberal and anyone who calls themselves a fiscal conservative and a free-market supporter shouldn't like all the catering to special interests, no-bid contracts and subsidization of enormously profitable sectors. Business is always going to scream about how unfair regulation is, and how free-market principles are the backbone of this country, and then when they get into office they turn around and cut deals that shame those same free-market principles. I didn't say anything about wealthy people being barred from the presidency. I'm saying we should have learned better from the Bush years about special interests and letting businessmen stack politics in their favor. It's time to put our home back in order, and the current business models are NOT what's best for the US economy as a whole. If Big Business has it's way, they'd have all the regs tied up in their favor, all their top execs would pay no taxes and their entire workforce would be overseas, while barely employed Americans would be paying the taxes to keep the roads under their delievery trucks. Wow, smug demeanors must really be your kryptonite for it to blind you to all the good stuff Obama has been doing for the country. I'm not 100% on what he's done, I never am with ANY president, but I have to admit he's done a lot with such a house in shambles. After the spending spree Bush went on, it's nice to see government spending reigned in by someone most people call a tax-and-spend liberal. What did you call Bush, rigney, a small-government conservative?

Romney represents everything I think is wrong with American politics. Ultra-wealthy businessmen shouldn't be allowed that much influence over the processes that regulate their businesses. And I hate that his companies own both retail AND media, I just think that's a bad idea, conflicts of interest all the way round. The key part of doG's concept, the part you forgot to quote, is the "chosen randomly" part. That's the only way to have a chance that some "honest" folks are going to slip through the cracks into the process, imo.

Obviously your definitions are from a conservative bias, not from the position of a middle-of-the-road moderate. Let me amend the Liberal part for you: LIBERALS – believe the government should represent the most effective, special-interest free and cost-efficient way to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the people to ensure that government is able to alleviate those social ills that make the most sense for it to do, protect civil liberties of individual human rights through smart, fair use of tax revenues. Believe that government revenues should be used to guarantee that no one is left destitute, not to further add to already adequately profitable business markets. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for "The government to solve problems where normal market solutions are in conflict with the end goal". You see, the true liberal stance, as I see it, is not for the government to fix everything, but to ensure that everyone has a minimum subsistence level that reflects the greatness of the country, and that government programs should be used when for-profit market processes aren't the best answer (such as prisons, where the idea is to keep true bad guys off the streets and try to rehabilitate the ones that can be rehabilitated, not to make a profit from growing the prison populations). If anything is counter-intuitive about our political parties, it's in their concept of the other guys.

I'll bet hillbillies could teach the British a few things about a day of Deliverance....

That's when we light bonfires to remind us that Thanksgiving is around the corner.

I'm hoping the depressed/recessed voters will be so repulsed by the billions of dollars spent on the campaign that they'll rise up and call for new less special-interest-oriented cooks in the kitchen.

I say just pop some propanolol, put on your Starbucks hat, a pair of Depends and get your bad self outside.

I think one of the problems with our economy right now is that many established industries and their markets have become incredibly efficient. This isn't entirely due to automation as was once feared, but it is a factor. The other part of it is that much of the new technology isn't very labor intensive, or is aimed towards entertainment, which is extremely profitable but only employs a fraction of what any other type of market would. Consolidation is a bit of a problem as well. Cisco and other companies have dropped products like video cameras because cell phones have consolidated so many functions into one product. Both efficiency and consolidation may actually be better in the long run, but I thought it worth mentioning as reasons why were where we are. I think a smart fix would be some kind of grass roots movement towards large markets that solve problems in small ways, like tackling obesity with solutions that don't have the drawbacks that fitness centers do (not sure what those drawbacks actually are, but obviously there are many obese people who aren't members). Tie that solution in with healthcare insurance the way fitness centers can, but make it more accessible to those that need it. I'd also love to see some kind of alternative education opportunity, not to replace public education but to augment it, for kids and adults alike. Again, it would have to be tied in with something else, perhaps taxes, in order to provide an incentive for people to learn more. Another fix I'd like to see is for the US citizenry to recognize that we're great because we're the Melting Pot we always used to be proud of calling ourselves. It's unbelievable to me that we aren't addressing EVERY problem by finding the country who has the best solution for that problem, and emulating them. Are we really that arrogant, to insist that our way is always the best? Our way has always been a blend of the best, so why not acknowledge that and start making some key changes in our processes?

As with most things, the solution is not as simple as fixing a single thing like national debt, imo. We have a problem with counter-intuitive, or rather counter-productive business models being applied to public institutions like prisons, utilities and healthcare insurance. And yet another big problem with corporate power over the political system that regulates them. And let's not forget that we haven't found markets to replace jobs lost that will let us employ more US workers at wages that reflect a thriving economy. And if we don't do something about our education system soon, we're going to end up with most of the middle class sliding downwards to a point where we can't compete any longer with better educated countries. We have a big problem with two parties representing so many diverse perspectives. As D H mentions, the parties disagree on solutions on a pretty fundamental level, and the presidential election won't even let them work on the common ground they do have. I think a viable third party, one mainly concerned with smart use of resources, bringing the power back into the hands of the voters and putting us back on track economy-wise, would force more cooperation from the existing parties, mainly out of fear that this third party will drain too many constituents from the Dems or Reps.

*shrugs*

Only if it's solely for gratifying the sexual desires of an Ohioan animal, apparently.

This reminds me of a job I had where I needed to do some public speaking, usually to no more than about 60-70 people. I'd walk to the front of the room like I was ready to break into a run, and then I'd deliver my pitch full of energy and passion, talking about just this sort of thing, and how fantastic it was to be alive in this day and age. I could usually get a smile out of most people but there were always those who thought I was "on something", or who thought it was bizarre to be so happy and upbeat in today's world. It always struck me funny how they thought "grinning and full of energy" was abnormal. I suppose there are always going to be people who, when you say, "Good morning!" will respond, "What's so good about it?" [/tangent]

I wonder if it could also suggest that the states with the highest number of Republican votes tend to be from states with the poorest public education systems and the least voter turnout from those educated in the public schools. I think the very wealthy send their children to private schools for the most part and resent tax dollars spent on public education, even though they tend to own the businesses those undereducated people work for. It seemed like a friendly nudge to snuff out FURTHER talk about GM crops to me, not a reprimand to get defensive about.

Oh, aye! This could end up as a subsection of Amateur Science or Ecology and the Environment. +1

! Moderator Note Since it seems obvious that this thread's topic question is grossly generalized and aimed solely at denigrating an entire continent of humans, let's instead answer the question of why there are such different perspectives on age of consent. There is obviously no need for anyone to defend themselves in this regard, and any flaming attacks will always be considered against our rules. Or, if the membership feels that the thread is simply an attempt at trolling, make your points known via the Report Post function and the thread will be closed.

I haven't read the book, but I hope I can be forgiven for taking exception to the title. Trying to pigeonhole Republicans or Democrats is a big part of this division that's going on in the US. At its core, it's the inability of a two-party system to adequately represent such a diverse population that's to blame. There are elements within both parties for whom science denial is pursuant to their ultimate goals, and those goals are as diverse as the represented population. The religious right obviously considers science to be antithetical to their goals of church dominance. Big Business doesn't want scientists and other intellectuals cutting into their profits with all this talk of AGW and financial reform and overall economic recovery. Established interests everywhere probably see science as inevitable change that threatens those establishments, whether they come from Republican or Democrat sources. So they try to discredit science, which is apparently very easy, since Joe Six-pack is always looking for any excuse to give a swirly to those know-it-all geeks that make him feel so stupid.

I hope this isn't tangential to your goal for this thread, but would you please consider keeping us in the loop during your trip, assuming you'll have some opportunities to post some pictures and a bit of a travelogue, even if only afterwards? It would be very much appreciated.

This seems to be a case of finding out how the magic is done and feeling let down that it wasn't really magic. On the other hand, isn't it still amazing that the magician is able to make such wonderful things happen? Knowing how a trick is done means you aren't being tricked anymore.

Your speculative argument springs from incredulity, which is a poor foundation. "Surely a person like him must have been..." is the opening line for all kinds of disastrous conclusions, no matter who you're talking about.

For a different perspective, you might also want to study up on Confirmation Bias. We humans look for patterns in everything, and once we think we've recognized a pattern, we tend to see it everywhere. Once you start thinking people are eavesdropping on your private conversations, any mention of something you've talked about becomes part of that pattern. Have you ever had someone mention a new brand of car or something, one you've never heard of, and then suddenly you start seeing that type of car all over the place? It's a lot like that.