Phi for All

Let's not forget the lobbyists. How much more effective are they at political manipulation when their clients own the media? Between spin and suppression these guys multiply the influence exerted on politicians in addition to what they already have by being professional influence peddlers. Milton Berle (the Thief of Bad Gags): "Damn! I wish I'd said that!" George Burns: "Don't worry, Milton. You will."

I've often wondered if our unique civilization-building capabilities might offset the evolutionary damage we may do by thwarting natural selection.

Consider that if a corporation is influencing the news, they're influencing consumers who have learned to shield themselves from the more obvious advertising but remain vulnerable where news sources are concerned. Those consumers elect the politicians so if they are misinformed isn't their vote more likely to be misinformed? If corporations were interested in influencing elections to favor their businesses, this is a very likely scenario, especially if the cost of such manipulation is less than backing ALL the candidates to assure a favorable outcome. All really smart business moves, as long as you can get away with them. But is this what the system is for?

For how long? Every day you hear about mergers in the works that would concentrate even more power in the hands of corporate giants. It's not just the big guy buying up the small guy anymore. The biggies are merging and creating empires. And consider what we may never know. If you had a mega-corp that wanted to shield its clients from bad press, wouldn't it be a smart business move to contact another mega-corp and arrange a truce for both your clientele? As the competition dwindles deals like this are inevitable, imo, if not already in place. Speculation? Possibly, or an educated guess from 30 years in business. I don't think the government is the entity we need to look at here. They're being manipulated too.

Is it just me or does this "error" seem like a total Strawman? When did Gore mention evacuation? Why would "inundation" be equivalent to "evacuation". And I don't remember the atolls Gore mentioned as having any population at all. He just referenced them to show how a temperature rise affects ocean levels. Agreed, no more Flaming, warning issued.

I don't have his kind of money. I don't know anyone that rich who doesn't seem like a power-guzzler by comparison. I think you need to admit that when you saw the documentary and then heard people criticize his lifestyle you pictured him telling us all to stop wasting energy so he could hoard it all for himself. It's a knee-jerk reaction and it's hard to stop. Oh, I'm sure Secret Service would love that! How many trees do you want to chop down for the paperwork on plane-pooling with Al Gore? *You* may think him a hypocrite, but I cut him some slack. He could have done anything, ANYTHING after being VP, but when the top job fell through he chose to make the world aware of what he'd found out over the course of his career. I was going to do it but everybody thought Al was a better spokesman, enviable house and all.

That makes him a bad editor, not a hypocrite.

Do you think it would use less fuel for him to *drive* where he needs to go instead of flying? I doubt if his schedule allows even waiting for commercial jet clearances and delays. And aren't there security issues like Secret Service attendants for a former VP that necessitate that big SUV? If you accept their help you accept their rules. You need a big engine to haul all that armor plating around. Sometimes the chance NOT to look hypocritical is taken away from us by circumstances.

Thread closed temporarily. You're all in the doghouse.

Don't be so hard on yourself. That's what we're here for.

That's all I meant by my comment. You left out what Occam's Razor tells us is probably the right answer. However unlikely you may think it is due to circumstances, a human is still, by far, the most likely suspect. Well I, for one, didn't try to reach any conclusions with my comments. Since there isn't any evidence that can pass peer review, we're left to fall back on skepticism. I'm not convinced enough by anecdotal claims and unsubstantiated sightings of Bigfoot, Nessie, or UFOs to leave the comfort of my home, where I have access to all the current studies on these "phenomena". Of course, short of actual capture or the finding of a deceased specimen, I'm not sure anything would convince the scientific community that Bigfoot exists. Maybe some fur we could test for DNA. Anyone ever found a tree Bigfoot rubbed up against?

... or a human. And don't forget that with all the tens of thousands of Nessie, Bigfoot, Yeti and UFO hunters worldwide, NOT A SINGLE ONE has ever gathered any evidence that would pass review. Believers aren't necessarily hoaxters. They often just really want to believe.

They're definitely real but whether thay are what their discoverers say they are is still in question. Here is a fairly recent study (2007).

[quote name=LaurentG;401106...How and why the Earth gravity has necessary changed. The first cause was the meteor collision. Are you saying the impact affected the spin of the Earth and therefore it's gravity? Are you saying gravity was increased and that's why the larger dinosaurs died out?

Is an enhanced picture worth *more* than a thousand words?

We go to that museum in the story a lot. I can't wait to run into one of those tours so I can have a lengthy (and louder than usual) talk with my daughter about the awesomeness of the evolutionary process.

Geologic forces. Not splashy, not quick, not man-made, but totally awesome in their scope and majesty.

A few days ago I was having some work done at my local garage. A blonde came in and asked for a seven-hundred-ten. We all looked at each other and another customer asked, "What is a seven-hundred-ten?" She replied, "You know, the little piece in the middle of the engine. I lost it and need a new one. I don't know exactly what it is, but this piece has always been there." The mechanic gave her a piece of paper and a pen and asked her to draw what the piece looked like. She drew a circle and in the middle of it wrote 710. He then took her over to another car which had its hood up and asked, "Is there a 710 on this car?" She pointed and said, "Of course, it's right there." If you're not sure what a 710 is...http://www.hotautoweb.com/cogifs/710.jpg

iNow has it right. It's too subtle for most people but those who use it appreciate the appreciation. You do the same thing I do. Whenever I criticize other's spelling, I invaryably misspell something.

Science doesn't argue against the bible as a whole. Science can point out flaws in reasoning, physiology, biology and other scientific fields and show where the bible is inaccurate, but for the most part science is not a good tool to use on something that is inherently supernatural, such as God. "From all flesh with the spirit of life in it" probably wouldn't include animals that had been extinct at the time of the flood. Remember, creationists claim God put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool the unbelievers into thinking the world is very old. To hear some tell it, it was because God knew that someday humans would turn to science and away from faith, so He played the omnipotence card and made everything appear geologically to be billions of years old, so the faithful could do the math from the bible and figure out that God was just tricking *us*.

It's purpose is positive feedback. Many people don't reply in a thread but they read them. This is a way to say "Great job, I enjoyed the post!" And for those who have trouble remembering the posting personalities and knowledge of over 10,000 members, there's the reputation system. It's a purely positive thing, I don't see why you have a problem with it. Ignore it if you think it serves no purpose. There are those who find purpose in it.

I'll bite. Why do you think so?

The bill is called the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and according to the Center for Constitutional rights:

I agree the terminology is all wrong. This is a case where the administration did something on an assumption that it was legal and now that the assumption proved wrong, they're trying to pass a law to cover themselves. It is NOT a pardon. I wish we knew the outcome but I didn't find where that bill passed. I still think there would be no problem admitting that they acted on bad information and by the time it was pointed out, they'd already done the deed. Hell, they did the same thing with the whole Iraq invasion, why wouldn't we forgive them a little torture?

So the possible outcomes of our decisions on global warming are a) Global economic depression due to costs of mitigating global warming, b) Status quo, or c) Cataclysmic disasters made worse through unpreparedness. I still agree that action needs to take place but this argument is going to lead most people to choose b).