JohnB

So Jon Stewart and the Daily Show are left wing? I just think he's hilarious. The first clip I ever saw was "Billions and Billions." Shows like this give me hope for American comedy.

We have the same discussions down here and I admit to being "concerned" about vaccinations. I thought the program was balanced and made some very good points. It also didn't address some others. It strikes me that there is a "Catch 22" in vaccination programs, taking the Autism as an example. Autism presents itself around the time of the third round of vaccinations, so as was said, it is reasonable to assume a link. (Prima Facie) This could be avoided by either changing the time of the third round or a general change in the vaccination regimen. However, as was also shown, the very young can still fall ill with certain diseases if not vaccinated, so the more vaccinations the better. (The herd thing) So if you change the regimen you would remove the apparent link, but would probably increase the likelihood of certain diseases in children, especially babies. Catch 22. Writing off concerned parents as somehow silly or uninformed is insulting at best. The reference to "pseudo science" and moving the goalposts were uncalled for. The parents like Ms. Mc Carthy might be wrong, but they are facing a life with a disabled child and they want to know why. So they ask "Is it the MMR?". When the answer is "No" they ask "Is it ...?". This isn't moving the goalposts, it's asking questions to try and find out why something happened. If your child suddenly changed wouldn't you ask every question under the sun as to why? I know I would. Each possibility would be argued in turn until there was only one left. Rather than moving goalposts, they're using a process of elimination. It should be accepted as such, rather than written off as pseudo science. When you look at all those protestors, each holding a photo, it obvious to blind freddy that "something" funny is going on. Calling it "anecdotal" is not an answer as they can produce many thousands of "anecdotes". And it would appear that "something" is indeed going on, the "something" unfortunately being the fact that Autism normally presents in children at around the same time as the third round of vaccinations. There is a connection, but it is "timing", not "causal". Authorities might be better off simply explaining this fact rather than saying "There is no connection". There is a connection, just not the one the parents think. Admit that and explain it, you'll go further than you will by insulting them. The concern about multiple vaccinations was also not clearly addressed. Each vaccine may well be safe given singly, but what is the result of many given at the same time? No mention was made of any studies that looked at that situation. (By analogy, Salt Petre, Charcoal and Sulphur are not individually explosive, but mix them together and things tend to go bang.) This is a valid question that has not been fully investigated, or if investigated not fully answered publicly. You have to admit that each round is quite a cocktail of dead diseases and chemicals to be injected into very young children. The "establishment" also has another problem. The message is inconsistent between differing areas. In the AGW debate the establishment says, "Don't listen to him, he's in the pay of Big Oil and is compromised" while in the Health debate they say "How much money he makes is irrelevent, he's and expert, listen to him", and the people say "What?" This inconsistency is bad, especially for the Health debate. *Note SH3LOCKs comments re Gardasil. While on that, I think it was just poorly handled, 6 grand is not a large contribution to a campaign fund. I'll add that Oz began it's Gardasil immunisation program a couple years ago. We immunised all girls at High School and we will continue to do so. Each young woman will be immunised in their first year at High School from now on. It will cost us around $50 million a year to do so, but we will have a nation where Cervical Cancer is going to join Polio, in the history books. This is a Federal Government funded program that once we got past the initial "Gov is forcing us to do this" debate, is widely approved of. We view this, like Universal HealthCare as simply another benefit of living in an advanced, civilised society. A national future without Cervical Cancer is worth a measly $50 million/year to us. Yes, "Big Pharma" will make a profit financially, but we make a societal profit, so we both win.

What a load of wimps. This is what real men use.

The Australian systems are all modifications to the "Instant Run Off" or "Preferential" systems. Many who aren't used to this system have some very wrong ideas about it. There is often talk of "Preference Deals" or "Allocating Preferences" that lead people to believe that the political parties say where the votes go. This is untrue. In a preferential system, if there are 5 candidates you number the squares 1 to 5. Preferences are allocated according to how you mark the paper. The voter's decision is final. However, before the election each party has to decide how they will reccommend voters distribute their preferences. These are given out on polling day by the Parties as "How to Vote cards". Preference deals only effect the cards. The voter can follow the cards or choose to ignore them and vote in the order they see fit. In some elections we use "Optional Preferential". There is a line drawn across the ballot paer and all the voter needs do is place a "1" above the line. If they choose to vote in that manner, then the preferences are distributed according to the wishes of the Party. If the voter chooses to, he or she may vote below the line and fill in each of the boxes on the ballot paper. If filled in this way, preferences are distributed according to the numbering assigned by the voter, and the Party's preferred order is ignored. This system was introduced to reduce the number of "Informal" or "Spoiled" ballots caused by having large numbers of candidates on the Ballot Paper. While there are normally only a small number of candidates for a State or Federal Lower House seat there can be many candidates for a Senate seat. With 80+ candidates to number sequentially, mistakes crept in and the number of Informal votes rose. By allowing voting "Above the Line" we removed this problem. There is the argument that this method hands the preferences to the Party to distribute, however those who vote "Above the Line" would normally vote according to the how to vote card anyway so it doesn't really make any difference. Personally, I vote below the line every time. As a voting system, I like it and think it very superior to "First Past the Post".

Imagine the fun if the moderates from both sides got together and started shouting at the pollies and lobbyists. Moderates from both sides want the same things. Good education for their kids, affordable healthcare, low unemployment, interest rates, housing prices and crime rates. The only thing they disagree on is which of the not too dis-similar parties is the way to go. The things that unite you are larger and more numerous than the things that divide you. Once people realise and act on that fact, the lobbyists can't stand against you. I'm very happy that the number of "swinging" voters is still increasing. 30 years ago, a seat that needed a 4% swing was considered "safe". Now, a seat that needs a 6% swing is "marginal". If the politicians feel safe, they fail to do their jobs, the more unsafe their position is, the more they listen to the people. The system isn't perfect. In Queensland we have one of the most incompetent governments you will find in Western history. They keep getting returned not because we want them, but because the other side (which happens to be my side) are even more incompetent. We choose between idiots and complete idiots. I put forward the idea at the Electoral Reform Commission some years ago that "None of the Above" be considered a valid vote. If it won, we toss the lot and start with a fresh set of candidates. It went down like a lead balloon. About the young people in the vid. Thanks. I was very proud of the way they demonstrated that they wouldn't buy rhetoric or bullsh*t. I was glad the International students were represented there as well. They and their children will spend time in the nation we are and will become. We may not change to suit them, but their opinion is valued. As to KRudd himself. I think he's the biggest twit in Canberra, more bluff, fluff and bluster than substance and I will be happy to help remove him from office later in the year. However, the open, tolerant Australia that he knows is the one I know and on that at least I will stand beside him and give full unqualified support. All day, every day. I just can't see an American saying the same thing about a President from the "other side". And that's a bit sad.

Dudde, we've got a spare room if you want to stay for a while. A thought about the media has occurred to me. Peope tend to watch programs that confirm their biases. Your bias could be said to be partisanship, (speaking very generally) so the media play to that. Our bias is that politicians are for the most part lying, cheating bastards who would sell their own mothers and our media play to confirm that. We enjoy watching a polly getting his arse handed to him and the media provides. I have no idea if any US President (or major party leader) would be game to try this but Kevin faced 200 people aged between 16 and 25 earlier this year for "Questions Without Notice" (IOW, he had no idea what he was going to be asked) on an ABC program. (ABC here is the government funded media outlet) For a quick look; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kFfdr6JY_s The whole 1 hour program is here. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2811552.htm While long, it does show the high "regard" we hold our Prime Minister. Note the looks of adoration of the faces of the young Australians. Note the looks of unquestioning acceptance in response to his answers. Kudos to him for doing it, that bunch of well educated, researched and informed young people scared the hell out of me.

Concerning the AGW debate we haven't, unfortunately. We still have fools running around screaming "The end of the world is coming", but they've been doing that for a different disaster each decade, so the message has worn a bit thin. Green groups have also made some terrible boo boos that damaged their credibility and the media had a lot of fun with. More in general, our media is quite different from yours. They are far less fawning to the politicians. The recent thread concerning Maxine Waters for example. As soon as the channel knew what she wanted to talk about, they would have gone through the archives and found the old footage. Then, after letting her dig the hole, she would have been shown the footage and asked point blank "Aren't you being a hypocrit?" There is still bias. The TV leans very slightly left I think, but that could be perception. The papers are split between Left and Right, as are radio talkback. The difference is that they would all rather go for the politicians than each other. Another difference comes from the way our system is set up. The Prime Minister is nothing more than the head of the party that controls the lower House. As we don't have fixed terms, it is the PM that calls elections. The upper limit is three years, but he could call an election 1 year after being elected if he felt like it. The downside is that we have more frequent elections than you do. The upside is that because we have more frequent elections, topics and issues get debated in the public eye more often. It also cuts down on the PM saying "The people of Australia want......." to silence critics, since the immediate response is "Then call an election and we'll find out what the people want". Rhetoric is much harder if you can be challenged to "Put it to the test". I add that pork barrelling "Riders" and "Fillibustering" are illegal down here. The first by the Constitution and the second by the "Rules of Parliment". Under normal circumstances, when there is a lower House election, 1/2 of the Senators also face the electorate. Senators serve for 6 years with 1/2 of them up for re-election every 3 years. However, there are "triggers" for something quite different that cuts down on the back room dealing. Let's say Obama was our PM and wanted to pass the Healthcare Bill. (Ignoring amendments just to keep it simple.) He introduces it into the Lower House where it passes. It goes to the Senate and is rejected. It's sent to the Senate again and rejected. (That's two) Now the Senators are getting worried. If the Bill is sent and rejected a third time it becomes a trigger for a "Double Dissolution". This means that everybody is out and must face the electorate. All the Senate seats are up for grabs. So a Senator who is blocking an important Bill had better be sure he's right, because he's betting his job on the outcome. This encourages co-operation between the parties and the Upper and Lower House. The bottom line is that the people get to decide, they will either vote for those supporting the Bill, or those opposing it. Behind all this is the Governor General. If the Government becomes unworkable (happened once, in 1975), or a viable Government cannot be formed after an election (never happened), it's his/her job to throw everybody out and call a new election. This all means that it is much harder to oppose a Bill on "Party" lines, since if you reject it 3 times it might go to the people where you will have to explain your reasons for rejecting the Bill. No good reasons? No job after the election. Partisan politics like you have is unworkable under our system, the psychology is different. The outlook of the people is different too. For example, I can't understand why becoming "President" is somehow like being "Assistant God". President is just the name for the office of "Top Politician". The holder of the office is a politician, nothing more and nothing special. I really don't understand why it's such a big deal to many in the US. We're perhaps less partisan because we're more cynical. Due to complete embarrassing stuff ups by both sides over a long period, most Australians have come to realise that certain rules are true; 1. The party in power wants to stay there and will say and do whatever it can to stay in power. 2. The party not in power wants to be and will say and do whatever it can to gain power. 3. All politicians are liars. (There are exceptions, but few. Politicians will always "spin" and spinning is just sophisticated lying) 4. Once a politician gets into power, the lies get bigger. 5. The longer a party is in power, the bigger the lies. 6. No matter the ideology of the party in power, a section of the populace is going to get screwed. Once these principles were (subconsciously?) accepted, partisanship died. We now tend to vote by issues, not party. It's not unusual to go to a "right wing" (not extreme, just moderate) gathering and finding that many there are from the "Left wing". Not there to make trouble, they are there to show that while they may support the government in general, they don't support it on this issue. We still have the extremes, socialist left and religious right, but nobody listens to them. Aside from being stupid, they tend to bore everybody to death with their constant rightousness. In many ways, our nations are similar but in others, astonishingly different. Cheers.

Correct. Remember though, that Polar Bears, shrinking Ice, etc, etc are also not evidence in the AGW debate, as these things would happen when the Earth warms, whether humans have a hand in it or not. It benefits everybody except the US people and frankly, I don't understand it either. We gave up that garbage over 20 years ago. I'm constantly amazed at the polarization in the US. (Using Al Gore as an example) Certainly there was a knee jerk reaction against him from some areas because of who he is. What often gets forgotten is that there was also a knee kerk acceptance of what he said in other areas of the population. He was an ex-VP and a Democrat. For some people, that automatically meant that he was telling the truth. (Just as others automatically thought he was lying.) Being a politician is no guarantee of truth and political leanings have no relevence as to the truth of an assertion. What makes it appear doubly stupid is that it carries over. I'm nominally right wing, so I most often cop flak from the left in net debates. It's quite odd to be accused of being a Republican, or only watching Fox news, or listening to Beck and Limburg (sp?). I'm not an American. Not only do those stupid arguments not apply, they have no meaning down here. Arguing against someones position based on the TV channel they watch? Seriously? You are joking, right? The whole black/white, with us/against us two value logic appears unique to the US and until you get rid of it (and the disproportionately powerful lobbyists) the situation will not improve. You live in a truly great nation. You should have the highest living standards on the planet, but because you won't pull together, you don't. I find that to be a very saddening thing.

Don't sweat it. I was pointing out that the "demonising" wasn't all one way. From what I hear there are American political persons who do just that. The flip side is that comparing people who disagree with you to "Holocaust Deniers" and calling for CAH trials is most certainly "demonising" the sceptical side. Bloody oath we should! We should question the motives of anybody who stands to make large $$$ out of the "solution" to a "problem". My problem is that quite often people only question "Big Oil". Since Westinghouse is a supplier of wind generators, is it not in their best financial interests to perhaps have the problem exaggerated? I've been reading that the WWF stands to make many billions from selling the Carbon Credits in South America. Is it not in their best interests to have the "problem" declared "real" and the answer to be carbon trading? A sense of perspective might also be of value. Much is made of the ExxonMobil "donations". What $23 million over 10 years? Look up the annual incomes for Greenpeace and the WWF. They could pay that amount annually out of petty cash. WWF. 444,000,000 Euros last year. Greenpeace 2001. 139,184,000 Euros. $2,300,000 per year is pocket change. A simple question. What would happen to the funding of these two organisations if the Human component of Climate Change was found to be small? What is in their best interests for the "science" to find? "Follow the money" cuts both ways. I'm sceptical of both sides.

Ryan, I was thinking of the diagonal lines. Presumably, depending ton the grid size you choose, you could get a number of different patterns emerging. Either way. I was quite pleased to see the result. Nicely done.

That's why the calls for "Crimes against Humanity" trials? Oh, no, wait....that was your side, wasn't it? That's why people have been treatened "We need to break laws to make the laws we want......We know who you are, we know where you work, we know where you live. We are many, you are few." Damn, sorry, that was Greenpeace, wasn't it? Wait, I've got it "They're all in the pay of Big Oil!" Blast, your side again..... On a more serious note, is it not reasonable to ask whether there is a possible conflict of interest when someone is standing to make millions (in some cases billions) out of the "answer" that they are pushing? If a tunnelling company was pushing that the answer to traffic congestion was tunnels, you would question their motives. If a comapny that supplied rail infrastructure said the answer to transport problems was more rail lines, you would question. So why should Al Gore, who makes millions from carbon trading (and stands to make many millions more) be exempt? You don't see a possible conflict of interest here? And who has been demonising the scientists? How?

Fascinating. The horizontal hold on your Prime numbers needs adjusting.

I see where you're coming from in that, my thought was more along the lines of "in excess" of known Laws. Rather than the "superior position", simply "beyond". Sort of a "beyond the horizon" type image. From Wikianswers: A prefix signifying above, over, beyond, and hence often denoting in a superior position, in excess, over and above, in addition, exceedingly; as in superimpose, supersede, supernatural, superabundance. Which is why I agreed with ydoap before. To me, "Supernatural" and "Paranormal" are virtually equal in meaning. But my upbringing differs from yours and gives me a different meaning for "Supernatural". We don't know what it is. We don't know the Laws it follows. We don't know whether or not there is more than one type of DM. We don't know whether or not they interact with each other in some way. We can barely see the tip of the tail and we can decide whether it is a squirrel or a tiger, when we've never seen either? Aside from anthropomorphic superiority, is there any real evidence that it doesn't interact? Only our type of matter interacts with itself? Ours is "special"? Isn't that handy? I honestly don't think that we know enough to be making assertions about how any of the (possibly) various forms of DM interact with each other. As we learn more, we will be in a better potition to rule things in or out.

We might not have been meaning exactly the same thing, but my thinking was along the lines of; If something obeys deterministic laws that we know about, then it is by that definition "Natural", however something that obeys deterministic laws that we don't know about is classed as "Supernatural". This would be incorrect, as it would be natural. Unless we know all the laws that might govern it's behaviour, how can we conclude whether or not they are followed? The definition as stated doesn't actually allow us to classify things as Natural or Supernatural in a real sense. I think that a time constraint is also needed. The definition would, I think be better phrased as "In exception to deterministic or statistically deterministic physical laws as understood at a given point (Time) in History" This would allow for the correct historical perspective and the possibility that a "Supernatural" thing may become "Natural" once it's Laws are understood. To use the old "Microwave Oven" example. In the 10th Century, it would fall under the "Supernatural" part of the definition because the governing Laws are unknown then, it is "Natural" now because the Laws are known. I add that there would have to be 2 very important qualifiers to the Definition 1. Not all "Supernatural" events (things, etc) are real. 2. Any "Supernatural" event (thing, etc) that is real will eventually fall into the "Natural" group as our knowledge increases. Does that make sense to you? It seems reasonable to me.

I wonder what the picture will look like?

Love it.

the tree. I just have to agree with you about the night sky. The more you appreciate the size of what you are seeing, the more you see the grandeur. On a clear night, it's simply breathtaking. iNow and bascule. I do take your points, and mostly agree with them. I've simply found that sometimes, some people, spend too much time looking at the mechanics and miss the bigger picture. Having some knowledge of "things that go bang" I can use that to further appreciate the artistry demonstrated in the fireworks display. However, the guy beside me saying "They should have used a bit more copper in that one" does not. I suppose the extra knowledge can both add and detract, depending on the outlook of the person. There is also the practical standpoint to consider. Example: Two couples are sitting on a hillside watching the sunset. In the first couple the young man is saying "Gee, that's so beautiful. I'm so glad to be able to share it with you" to his companion. In the second couple the young man is discussing atmospheric physics and it's effect on sky colour. Which one will go home alone?

Any intelligent being that smiles all the time gives me the willies. I can't help but suspect they're up to something.

No, it's not. An action by the holding power that they know will cause withdrawl symptoms can only be classified as "seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody" and is prohibited. Nor is such action justified by "the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest." The wording is very clear. Such actions are prohibited and are considered War Crimes.

Which is of course exactly what I was thinking of. The thing I find interesting is that it's always spoken of in the context of "out there" or "between Galaxies". To my mind such exclusivity is wrong. There must be some down here too. Maybe not a lot, but some. It's some sort of amorphous form existing between the stars, but what if you had 10 kilos sitting on a table? What would it look like? What experiments could be performed on it? How do you locate it and gather 10 kilos in the first place? How do you find something you can't detect? Unless you can find some, you can't perform experiments. Without experiments, how do you understand the Laws governing it's behaviour? The stuff is without doubt "Paranormal", and if the "normal" laws don't apply to it, would it be "Supernatural" as well? Living, thinking entities can be made from normal matter. Can this also be true for Dark matter? If such entities existed and since by definition the normal laws don't apply to them, would that make them Gods? Angels? Fairies? Ghosts? Demons? None of the above? Is it possible that there are "Dark" Galaxies, with "Dark" Suns shining "Dark" light on "Dark" Planets? All of the above is pure speculation of course, but they are to me logical questions to ask based on the existence of Dark Matter. Or is the idea that there might be substances and energies that we can't detect and that follow their own Laws just silly? But if we don't know all the Laws, how do know whether or not something is following them?

I like the way that gravity stops all the water running to the bottom and falling off.

Agreed. I think that their point was that when looked at simply, the world is beautiful and full of miracles. I've met people who are so bogged down by the nitty gritty, they fail to appreciate the beauty any more. Does knowing the exact physics of a rainbow allow to appreciate the beauty any better? Nope. Does knowing the chemistry involved make a fireworks display more fun to watch? Nope. By all means know how things happen, but appreciate them as "miracles".

I too think there has been miscommunication. I took the original meaning to be human "nature" even though "behaviour" was written. Our societies have changed, our behaviour (to a degree) has changed and our societies have changed, but our nature has not. We still fall for the same tired old arguments. We still fall for the same old scams. I mean come on, do you really think the Nigerian emails are something new? They're nothing more than a new version of a very old con. If our nature had changed in any fundamental way, would we still need to constantly remind people "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? The desire by some to control others is still there. Some use politics, some use religion, some use money and some use fear. The tactics and weapons change, but the base desire is the same to control the behaviour of others. Re slavery/serfdom. The growing reliance of many Americans on company provided healthcare means that many are forced to remain in jobs they don't like or want to do. How are they more "free" than a serf? Instead of "Bread and Circuses" we give the masses "Social Security and Glossy magazines", but the principle is the same. Keep the population fed and distracted by pretty things and they are easier to control. If human nature had changed then so would the methods of control, simply because the old ones would stop working. Human nature has not changed and neither have the methods of control. They have just been given a new coat of paint and a new look. WRT human nature, there is nothing new under the sun. I believe that our nature will change, but it will be on an evolutionary timescale, hence a couple of thousand years is nothing.

Whereas?