john5746

Yes, Warren Christopher arranged the release with the Algiers Accords. When Hezzbollah took more hostages, Reagan did the Iran/Contra deal. Meanwhile, the US supplied Saddam to keep the Iran/Iraq war going. Hopefully, the Brits will do better. Last thing those British soldiers need is a "Let's get 'em" quote from Bush. Get them home, then drive some real ships up in their waters.

If we pull out August 31st, 2020, there will be a big rise in "insurgent" activity on september 1st. I bet the shia will be more heavy handed in their approach to the sunni after we leave. Like Sherman through the south.

OK, so the Repubs are pro-Bush policy. They just want to save face, with blood of the troops? Just because you cannot see the logic in someone's actions does not mean they must be unethical. I do not understand why Bush rushed into Iraq instead of finishing Afghanistan, but I don't think it was because of oil or Haliburton or payback for his dad. Many of the politicians are sheep going with the crowd, but they do represent the people that voted for them and many ran on the idea of ending the Iraq war. Who is our enemy? The shia? The sunni? Al-Queda? Who will be there 20 years from now? The shia and the sunni. poor people of Iraq? What happened to "taking the fight over there, so it doesn't come over here" We want to keep them screwed up so we can attract all the terrorists(as if there is a fixed number) and wipe them out in Iraq.

Yes, if you want to define it that way. Our atoms were probably contained in something we might have considered 'waste' at one point in time. At the atomic level, what we call waste really isn't any different than anything else.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml I have always thought there was more influence from the environment and our response to it on our genes. I admit this is mostly from ignorance and the inability to conceive such a huge passage in time, but if this is true, it might fill in some gaps. What say you?

That's a BS argument. We have a very well equipped army. The only way citizens could reasonably fight it is ... terrorism? If one really believes this, then there should be no restrictions, i.e Bill Gates can buy Tanks, Ships, maybe Nukes.

I don't think EVERYTHING is just anti-bush trashing, but things like this can make it appear that way.

Why not force democracy on others? I didn't say not to, just that it is a different question than thinking it is the best system. Having said that, I don't think we should invade countries in the name of democracy, which we have never done. We can encourage, but not force, IMO.

Nothing wrong in thinking your system is the best and wishing others can utilize it. Trying to force it on others is a different question. I almost equate democracy with being safe from a tyrannical leader, but having the congress and judical branch is what keeps us from going off the deep end. Democracy is really just majority rule, but that is better than minority or the rule of one, IMO.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita Just a short look at the best countries on this list. Try to find a common thread for most of them. One I see is education. The problem with even thinking about reducing murder so low in America is the law of diminishing returns and the bill of rights. In manufacturing, to reduce defects to near zero, you don't try to 'inspect' them out, i.e after the fact. You try to do it right from the beginning. So, the answer is much more complicated then police, IMO. The society itself needs to be changed, with concentration on minorities. These are the neighborhoods with the highest rates, yet the most likely to complain about police brutality. Better education -> better people -> making better decisions -> raising better babies -> seeking better education, etc.

I agree that there is some assumption here and that scientists are human. However, as a group, I would arguer that they have different world viewpoints than the general populace, just as many subgroups do. I think there are plenty of stats to back up the claim that scientists are far less religious than the general populace, especially in terms of a personal god. My hypothesis is that knowledge of how nature works lowers superstitious belief. This would be analogous to learning a magician's tricks. At first, someone may think there is something supernatural going on, that this person has special powers. After learning the trick, it can actually be explained. Same way with nature. As scientists learn more and more about the natural world, they realize that there is no need for an intelligent agent. In fact, their process requires the assumption that there is no intelligent agent behind the scenes. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, just as there are smokers who live to be old and healthy. But, I think you will see that as the scientific knowledge of a population increases, their superstitious beliefs decrease. This includes religious beliefs. Is this because science is anti-religious? Well, is learning a magician's tricks anti-magic? No, superstition is basically founded on ignorance. Lift the ignorance and the beliefs will be discarded. As far as the thing with Mokele/Pangloss, well he happened to be correct, IMO. He overreacted and did set a bad example I guess, but I was expecting it. Its kind of like going up to a pit bull and flicking him in the balls. You better have a good reason to do it! Not saying you can't disagree with him, I have, but if you come out of left field(or right field?) then expect a bite. So to me he could be more respectful, especially to a Mod, but I wouldn't be banning anyone. Not sure Paranoia should have been banned either.

I meant genetic engineering more altruistic behaviour into humans, but we are more likely to engineer a bunch of Barbie's and Ken's instead.

IMO, scientists need to be more open to new ideas, which would be more liberal. Clergy would tend to be more conservative. I think almost all people dislike unhindered capitalism if they really understand the concept.

I think the hole point to humanity is fighting evolution. If we consider 95% of species are extinct, we don't want to rely on evolution for our survival. We want to use our brains. Brains will move that asteroid, not evolution. The downside might be that we ruin the planet so that all life is extinguished. We may have to change our 'programming' before we can live in an ideal society, whatever that may be. Instead of waiting millions of years for random mutations and selections, we might be able to change humanity itself to a higher ideal. Or we may just screw ourselves in the end.

I agree with you on most of your points, but I don't think this example is a good one. 1) I don't think the previews for Broke Back showed them kissing and you had to pay to see the movie. 2) Being offended by seeing gay men kissing is kind of the original point. If a group were offended by seeing a mixed race couple kiss, I don't think you would defend them. Speaking of comedians, gay and black comedians degrade themselves far more than anyone else. Still, it is very politically correct to make fun of Gays, Christians, Atheists and Whites(especially southerners).

Sure, Boston should review their procedures and adjust accordingly, but hopefully, no one will catch the "cry wolf" syndrome so that real attacks become easier or more successful. So, in the future, if they see stuff like this again, should they call the cartoon network first? Or just see if one of them is a bomb? Should they call the bomb squad or just go take a look? Or should they just laugh and ignore it?

Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from heart disease? Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from cancer? Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from the internet? I too am getting tired of this. I disagree with Bush and the start of the Iraq war, but I believe he actually thinks he is doing the right thing for the right reasons. As for this bomb threat. Going forward, should this kind of thing be allowed? I don't know anything about bombs, etc., but I figure the less guessing people have to do the better. I would feel safer in Boston than Seattle right now. They shouldn't be charged, other than possible loitering, but going forward this kind of thing should require some permission from the city, IMO

I heard some complaints about this commercial from straight men. They didn't think it was very funny, more like disgusting. My guess is that the commercial just didn't play well for most people. Are people really going to buy the product after watching it? Of course I have a limited sample, so maybe more people like it than I think. I am offended by the viagra commercial with the guy walking around with his member excited all the time and a big smile on his wife's face. This is my normal stud condition and I think they are trying to make fun of it.

I guess I would go with Glider and Dak's recoommendations. Only ask the students you would recommend, not the whole class. I don't understand why people are so easily offended these days. You can't even do something good for someone anymore. If I was asked for names by the society of women engineers, I don't think I would hesitate, but then maybe that would get me in trouble.

No, I think the idea is that it can be reversed or at least drastically reduced, if we reduce emissions and try to encourage absorption now. That is what all the fuss is about. We must admit there is a problem and that we might be the cause. Then take action. The Earth will regulate itself eventually, of course part of that regulation may be the end of the human race or a large chunk of it.

Only Gore could make someone like Bush seem charismatic. Other than party politics, I really think Bush won(the first time) as a backlash against Clinton's charisma. He seemed to be more trustworthy because of the lack of polish. So this election may go to someone who has charisma. Someone who seems to know what is going on, even when they have no clue.

being part of the moderate middle, I think without Iraq, this wouldn't be as big an issue. Of course, I may be biased, since I don't have a problem with it in the first place.

I think the discussion concerning global warming has changed from "if" to how bad and what to do about it. There probably are variables that scientists are unaware of or are difficult to take into consideration. The article below mentions that the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica are not taken into account in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be released Friday. http://www.skiracing.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4739&Itemid=2

I'm confused as well. I thought the democrats wanted to "cut and run", while Bush wanted to "stay the course". McCain has been saying since the thing started to send more troops.

I will just have to agree to disagree. I see your point, but if I and Bill Gates lived without the American Government(American People), we would both see a reduction in our standard of living, but he would see a much, much larger reduction. That is why I say he benefits more. Yes, he earned it through hard work, smarts, risk taking and some luck. But, he would not have had the opportunity to begin with if not for the American people. So, my point is valid as well. So the wealthy can cry if they want, but many agree with me. You said behaviour modification through taxes. Well, the republicans modify alot of behaviour, by "promising" not to raise taxes, while we run up deficits and fight costly wars. Giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy, so the middle class will need to pay it in future years. Spend on credit it does feel better. Taxes pay for the soldiers in Iraq, the policeman and roads. Is this a punishment vs paying the factory worker who made the xbox?