Phi for All

I don't like abridging any freedom of speech. How about wearing a Teletubbies avatar for a month?

Actually, I think it's "proctologicalizing" *. From the most secretive presidential administration the US has ever had, these are the things we know about. If we want the executive branch to mean something, it can't stand above the law. * treating a rectal disorder.

*Appallingly* low. *Appealing* is a good thing. You shouldn't judge all Czech psychologists by the quality of one. If you can visit someone else, you should. YT2095 won't tell you what he did, but I took a picture: :D :D Sorry, but the only people I've known who had panic attacks were non-violent, unless something got in their way. I've never known them to exhibit aggression except in those instances where someone was trying to stop them from leaving. One guy I knew just needed to get in his car and drive to the nearest fire station, where he knew people with emergency medical training were available. More often than not, he would calm down after 15 minutes or so once he'd gotten to one of his "havens". There were only a few times when he actually had to go inside and ask for help. He had a map of the city in his car with every fire station marked in red.

Report to the animal testing lab first thing in the morning.

I don't care about persecuting Bush, but I don't like the precedent it sets if you let anyone in any administration get away with corrupt activity. It just makes it easier for the next administration to say, "Can *we* get away with it since Cheney did? Yes we can!"

Slipperier than letting politicians get away with criminal behavior?

Sorry albertchong1999, but your logic is faulty. There are more possibilities than the two you list, and this is not the forum to discuss "God created us". There are tons of those but this is not one of them. Please use the Search function if you want to join a discussion about aliens creating human life. Thread closed.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4245 Didn't read the thread, just used our handy-dandy Search function.

Oh, I get it! You + maths = NOT! Welcome.

I was unaware of any "permanent federal jobs" besides a Supreme Court appointment. I've never had a civil service job. You mean they can't be fired for any reason? Are these jobs being created for them? If not, how are they suddenly available for these new appointees? I can understand wanting job security, and I realize that some programs need an even hand at the tiller guiding them through long-range purposes. You don't want good people being replaced every four years because of politics, but if you have positions within the federal government that can't be replaced for any reason, you sure as hell should have more accountability and transparency for the appointment process, especially at high levels. At this point, he's only considering it. I think it would indeed be laudable, and I will laud him for it if he does it. It's interesting that it's close to Hawaii, and that the claim will give us jurisdiction all the way down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. I believe that's where Haliburton is going to be building that supersecret underwater sub base with the trillion dollars the Pentagon misplaced.

You're just looking at it from your own perspective, and you admit that your perception of what the auto execs did was insulting. I'm just taking that to the national level as a *public* perception that I'll bet the majority share. I don't really care that you're upset. The fact that it bugs me to the core isn't particularly relevant either. But, again, when you're a CEO of a major auto manufacturer, an industry that is driven by how people perceive your products (oooooh, isn't this year's model enough to make you want to trade in last year's model?), you have to be more concerned about what the public thinks. And if you've driven your company to bankruptcy (which may not be true but is, again, what the public is thinking), then you shouldn't flaunt your wealth when you ask the taxpayers to give you money. I never suggested that appearances were the *primary* concern in all of this. I can understand your desire to have them not matter, but you'll have to settle for appearances taking a back seat position in this instance. I doubt you can eradicate public perception as a factor in any dealings with the public. Bottom line, spending $20K instead of $3k to get to your loan appointment is just plain bad business, and how that is perceived by the loan officer *is* valid, no matter how much you wish it wasn't. It may not be responsible for your loan being denied but it certainly makes the bank wonder if you're good for it.

Imagine: November 2000, either a few thousand more votes or a recount and now Gore is president. Gore reacts to 9/11 instead of Bush. The world reacts to Gore's reaction. The 2004 election then becomes Gore vs maybe McCain. If Hussein is still in Iraq then Al Qaeda isn't. Sorry, sleep-typing while I dream....

Remember where they were going? Washington DC, to speak to Congress about a bailout using taxpayer money. When you engage in politics with politicians in Politicianville, appearances become more important. Appearances affect perceptions. Think about that. I'm not sure why that would be relevant to this situation. Maybe if the CEO was trying to lobby Congress to ban gay marriages as he held hands with his gay lover while seated before the committee, I would. I would probably think that was a boneheaded move that would affect public perception adversely. That's exactly what it did for Focus on Family's Ted Haggard when it came out that he was doing drugs with a male prostitute while championing the far Christian right. Ignoring public perceptions when you're trying to get the public to give you money is also anti-survival. Actually, I think you would have given a grudging nod that they made the effort. Especially when they can argue that their contracts call for this type of transportation for security reasons. They would have been overriding security concerns and at least trying to save some money, and I think the public would have grinned a bit at the thought of Ford giving GM and Chrysler a lift. See, if they were *thinking*, they could have had an advantage, however small. I'm not in the mood to be *that* judgmental just yet. As you imply, there may be times it's necessary, just not in this instance and someone at that level should have realized it. Out of touch, brain-dead, sloppy thinking from captains of industry.

You're assuming they'd be taking other calls and openly working on other business on a flight that gives them time together to strategize before their meeting with Congress? You think less of their business acumen than I do. My objection is not over execs flying in private jets. My objection is to the insane public relations gaff of the big three auto execs flying their separate jets to DC to ask the taxpayers to bail them out of their financial dilemma. As Rep. Ackerman put it, it's like getting in line at the soup kitchen in your tuxedo.

Oh, so that's the impression they should be giving the American people? That this bailout is just business as usual in the high end? They should have at least jet-pooled together. I wouldn't have expected them to take a commercial flight, like the UAW guy.

Wow, auto-cranio-rectal-insertion. Could the auto execs BE any more clueless?

Chicken and fruit. Mmmmmm.

This is completely false. Please don't interject religious angles into physics threads.

Realtor: And out back is the garden. As you can see, getting a healthy crop of weed is no problem in this climate. Husband: What do you think, honey? Wife: (shakes head) Is that the shed? We'll need to remodel most of this. I mean, who uses tiles on their potting tables anymore? Maybe granite, or Corian. If you want some decent bud, we need to put some effort into fixing this place up.

I agree that the war on drugs, abortion and gun control are issues Obama will never address. At least I hope not. Any of those would waste a lot of resources we can't afford. Wait 8-12 years for more boomers to die and then we'll talk.

Supporting the concept of a union is easy. Employers often cut corners that can affect workers adversely. And with the erosion of many federal regulations during the last eight years, having a team behind you to make sure the regs you want in the workplace are upheld despite what the feds do could be very important in some industries. But I'll repeat myself and say that some unions have become more about the union itself and less about the workers they're supposed to protect. It may be that the age of the union is over, but if I were a current member of one (and I've never been a member of a union; the closest I got was the Screen Actor's Guild, which is unlike any union I've ever heard about), I'd want to make sure the federal regs protected me adequately.

Obviously, blanket statements about all unions are going to be wrong when applied to any single union. The concept of a union is a good one, but some of them become more about the union than the worker.

Especially if you tried to do all three at once.

You wouldn't be raising a new tax. You'd just be legitimizing new markets which will then fall under existing tax structures. And if we decreased some spending as well... This would work with marijuana, which would also create other hemp related products subject to tax, but like Sisyphus, I'd need to know what the underground, previously tax-dodging side of pornography was like before I'd agree to give it any legitimacy. This would probably be a big NO the more I think about it (Save the Donkeys!). And I'm not sure how much taxation foreign labor could take before becoming too costly.

If someone had his cell number, could that be used to pinpoint his location? Or is it that he may stop to text or email too often and his security detail can't keep him moving the way they'd like?