The Bear's Key

Plus let's say the Iranian citizenry end up declaring and obtaining independence by themselves, like we did over 200 years ago.....the appreciation for their newfound liberties -- self earned -- would likely be more profound than within Iraq. The best factor contributing to our prizing of liberty is that another nation didn't come to our rescue, demanding England to free us, and then handing us our liberties. So Iranians would benefit in the long run from self-liberalization, unless they specifically asked for outside help. Plus they wouldn't have neocons attempting to birth a pure market system as was their plan for Iraq. And yet another demonstration of the need for open-sourced voting machinery Which can't be rigged as easily if the public can inspect the vote's mechanisms and software used. Think I'll help pass along the concept to Iranians surfing the web. If perchance, the citizens of Iran were to mandate and then get established open-source voting, it's possible for it to become a revolutionary model that other nations (who are likewise repressed) could follow. As of now Google Translate seems the best option for communication, as Babel Fish doesn't have arabic. The challenge then is to find a good web spot for communication, and ensuring that narrow meanings like "open-source" are translated correctly....maybe I'll re-run each translation backwards (arabic to english) to measure its accuracy. Edit: (Tried "open-source voting" on the translator and ran it backwards after. It works -- however, "open-source software" doesn't re-translate back accurately. Might need a real arabic speaker to translate eventually, dunno)

padren didn't ask if we'd do it, or risk anything. Just if we'd trust others not to indulge only when they're practically guaranteed to not be caught...even for the legal practices. In my opinion, less than 40% would take advantage. However, if prodded on by someone else, that changes to over 75%. Also, padren's question ties into SH3RL0CK's next observation (below) if the question were changed to how many businesses do we trust to not indulge on the lack of Constitutional protections in those nations. There's a reason for everything. I believe our Constitution allows people's inherent good to mature and not be overly stunted by corruption. Those industry/religious figures who are power hungry might boldly attempt to grab more power here, but are routinely thwarted or checked. The million dollar question (and pun) is, do we believe they'd not be drawn to many of the far away lands where their power encounters no such limitations? Or....if they could do so unnoticed, how many businesses do you think would abuse such lack of oversight (i.e. the free reign they wouldn't get in the U.S. to hog-away many important resources)? Also, what percentage from cause-and-effect do their unrestricted activities help increase corruption within the other nations? Those questions are for everyone. (I think the ability for industries to operate dirtily elsewhere while basing themselves in the U.S. is our "achilles heel” as well)

Seconded. Although we're unlikely to see a "No" anyhow

You have the evidence to back up this statement? [hide] don't bother, plainly you can see me[/hide]

I don't know Cap, the link says... This article needs additional citations for verification. But Powell likely meant only the N. Korean government. A state did this, not terrorists, but a state...

(The first question is more for JohnB, to hopefully provide us enough insight to stir good discussion) In Australia, voting software is open-sourced* and it's mandatory to vote. So.... To JohnB (or lurking Australians): how is (each) that working out for you and citizens generally? To others: what's your opinion of doing both those in your respective nations? As for me: open-source voting yes, and mandatory voting only for any citizens whose state makes it a law. *(or maybe not)

By the way, welcome to the politics section Military tribunals are for war prisoners I'd think. Austrailia, Japan, Canada? Not sure where you're going. Do you believe there is a government conspiracy brewing? No, just political survival by dirty means on the first point. But in my view, government conspiracy doesn't actually exist. For a conspirer to me isn't really a legitimate part of government...which I believe is far and large a decent entity -- in a free nation of course (and the more it's open). The second point about witches is how we can't prove someone is unrelentant. Restrictive, but doesn't anywhere mention hatred of U.S. (or even Western nations') freedoms. But it does reinforce the argument for separation of religion from government. Me -- No, it's speaking as if it's a judgment and experience area interlaced with respect for the Constitution. You -- Not following you here when you say "its". Replace "its" with "such reasoning" Goes pretty quick. And it's funny to boot.

No government sent them. It's an underground cult with shadowy members bent on killing and causing destruction. What else might you call them? Regardless, why so little trust in the justice system? Or maybe...it's that the relevant politicians fear a run through our courts would likely expose their sham for what it is. Congress never declared war. It only authorized military action. WW2 is an example of actual war being declared. Also, if a politician habitually says "war on terror", it doesn't change the fact. In any war, there's a battlefield. Imagine we had gone to into WW2 but our leaders declined to tell us which nation(s). So if you buy into the hype of recent leaders, the entire world is a battlefield. Do you see a problem with that? http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q="intent+on+our+destruction" Maybe there are organized groups intent on spreading catch-phrases. How shall this be proven? Like in Salem? More than three centuries after they were accused, tried and hanged as unrepentant witches... That'd be quite a round-up. Maybe we should just leave it to those who have actually planned something. So you'd be fine with Obama suspending habeas corpus after declaring that people spreading harmful rumors of government and exaggerated terror have been undermining national security, and therefore are to be collected and held until they no longer pose an imminent threat to democracy? "The War on Government Enemies" Kind of like the consistency to brand all terror suspects prisoners of war, is it not? Perhaps only if being held without charges (or no evidence is forthcoming) as a qualifier. Evidence for the bolded? No, it's speaking as if it's a judgment and experience area interlaced with respect for the Constitution. Which invariably leads us to full oversight and painstaking steps to ensure none of the measures slipped into law can one day be wielded against our constitutional rights. That didn't happen, except if you mean the Iraq withdrawal. And obviously that's not a declaration to ignore terrorists worldwide. Here's some comedy to offer a bit of perpsective. It's by one of Stephen Colbert's most formidable opponents. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/70789/june-15-2006/formidable-opponent---guantanamo-bay It doesn't matter what impression you're under. The Founders didn't set up our Constitutional safeguards to be abandoned for leaders who gain -- or swindle -- our trust.

Nope.... To be honest, I didn't even mean Bush, nor the Iraq thing. I'm referring less to Presidents, and more to elected congressional leaders and others who might have foreign policy authority -- especially the less transparency involved and/or in connection with business. One good example might be activities like those of John Perkins and enacted by officials in the U.S. government. Though it's a bit difficult finding the original sources as they're now gone, except for one page cached on google servers. But there's even U.S. citizens who do resent how our leaders (and only a handful of leaders at that) can perform activities in secrecy -- even from government itself -- with the excuse that it's in our best interests. You might already be familiar with the involvement of Australia in helping government to spy on us -- even before 9/11. The problem isn't us, it's government secrecy. And enough of us are on the same side, for we don't view corrupt leaders as "our bastard". Instead, we demand they're openly and fully investigated.

You might be spot-on, or maybe certain areas of studies are more likely to get funding and/or be subsidized. The post I linked to has nothing to do with alternative medicine, only body processes: in this case digestion...and how each type might interact with the other. I'd think a student of anatomy would be have perspective on it -- maybe there's none (students) in our membership -- regardless, even that post seems difficult to answer, though I'm sure digestion isn't one of the body's unsolved mysteries. Yet the issue of food combinations does fall under alternative health, which is related in a way to alternative medicines but deals a lot with proper eating habits. So I'll ask you. Can we deduce anything from our knowledge of how the body's digestive fluids work, or must we entirely depend 100% on a study because educated reasonings are complete nonsense? I'd say just because it's not science (i.e. hasn't gotten test funding) doesn't mean we're entirely helpless to make practical decisions regarding something.

Um, better. Also on that note, it's doubtful anyone should hate our freedoms -- but rather, those of a much smaller group: the freedoms of elected officials who might abuse foreign policy in ways that help nurture and breed the ultra-fierce resentment against us (then hide behind our flag....or under the cover of national "security").

Yeah came out a bit snide. It's quite a typical outlook among professionals here (and I'm sure there) funneled into just an orthodox education. But a few medical practitioners I know of sometimes have OK'd alternative therapies without directly endorsing or rejecting them, as long as it doesn't interefere with treatment -- which is open-minded enough for me. I wouldn't call it magic. My friend went for diabetic treatment (more like the pre-stages, no insulin shots required yet) and the medical practitioners were not very helpful in offering methods to control the disease except with medication alone. But the risk with that is dependency -- possibly leading to a quicker decline of the body's sugar-converting processes -- so my friend had one choice left: self-education, learning how to slow the progressive deterioration. It took a few years of research and sorting to finally take healthier control of the blood sugar and cut down medication* by at least 50% through a combination of exercise, diet (especially non-processed), and smarter portioning. No calorie tracking. No tossing sugar out the window. No magic. Just sensible routines. Definitely. Over half are likely quack. You really have to sort them out and/or consult with dependable, knowledgable people. One such example who I view as fairly level-headed (and well-versed in herbs) is David Winston. Some indications of that is found in his Introduction to Herbal Medicine and brief points on Specific Indications. You might agree or disagree. I second that. Although, it's often a bit difficult to verify accuracy -- even of fairly straightforward matters or claims. As one example, something I had posted on these forums about the validity of "bad" food combinations (linked to incompatible/rivaling digestive processes) has still not been verified or debunked. [hide](*hint hint* )[/hide] *approved by the doctor

Obama should have the entire process broadcast openly, even the Supermax incarcerations. Then people can see what's to fear...or not. Might you provide an example for that global agenda of enforcing the U.S. legal system? Just for clarification and we're on the same page. If you meant where any situation dealing with U.S. involvement must honor our legal system procedures, then I'd have to agree with that ideologolical principle. But what of global issues like marijuanna drug prohibitions geared to reflect ours, stipulations on poorer nations by world trade big shots, or even an installed constitution? None of those forces are "left" ideology, but perhaps the opposite.

Martin had posted a bit about mind-controlling wasps and zombie spiders here a few years ago. Interesting stuff. But I'd like to expand on this scenario, as it's possibly only the beginning of a larger one. All the time we've been focused on preparing against human zombies (and on Iraq)....a new threat has brewed, and we might now be encountering an unforseen kind of zombie: little buggers craving our flesh and likewise transforming us into mindless creature versions of themselves. Yes, we've been distracted, and thus haven't kept much of an eye on the (real) ball. Now two questions face us: are we screwed, or was there no ball to keep an eye on in the first place? (i.e. could the worry be over-hyped?) Don't know about you though, but if a dead-looking insect approaches me with hunger in its beady eyes, I'm grabbing my customized insect shooter and blasting its head clean off. Remember to aim for their heads, everyone. It might be a difficult shot, but it's the only way to ensure they'll stay down. (Get yourself a custom insect-locating scope, it helps a fair bit) The insects aren't yet targeting humans, but we've all seen the zombie movies -- how long is that going to really last, before they make the switch to us? For now, we must study them. Good places to begin.... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071206-roach-zombie.html Scientists say hairworms, which live inside grasshoppers, pump the insects with a cocktail of chemicals that makes them commit suicide by leaping into water. The parasites then swim away from their drowning hosts to continue their life cycle ........ But other parasites also control the behavior of their hosts, said David Richman, curator of the Arthropod Museum at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, who was not involved in the new study. "This is not uncommon. There are a tremendous number of parasites, and they all have different strategies for survival and for propagation of their species," Richman said. The behaviors of land snails, grasshoppers, and types of ants, for example, can all be affected by parasites. http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/DyeHard/Story?id=2288095 Toxoplasma, he notes, is "frighteningly amazing." It can change the personality of a rat so much that the rat surrenders itself to a cat, just as the parasite wanted. The parasite's eggs are shed in a cat's feces. A rat comes along, eats the feces, and becomes infected. The behavior of the rat undergoes a dramatic change, making the rat more adventuresome and more likely to hang out around cats. The cat eats the rat, and the parasite completes its life cycle. That manipulation of the local ecology is not unusual for a parasite, Lafferty says. "This is something that many parasites do," he says. "Many manipulate hosts' behavior." And closer to home.... The parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, has been transmitted indirectly from cats to roughly half the people on the planet, and it has been shown to affect human personalities in different ways. Research has shown that women who are infected with the parasite tend to be warm, outgoing and attentive to others, while infected men tend to be less intelligent and probably a bit boring. But both men and women who are infected are more prone to feeling guilty and insecure. Can the common brain parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, influence human culture? A link between culture and T. gondii hypothetically results from a behavioural manipulation that the parasite uses to increase its transmission to the next host in the life cycle: a cat.....though the results only explain a fraction of the variation in two of the four cultural dimensions, suggesting that if T. gondii does influence human culture, it is only one among many factors. Can a parasite carried by cats change your personality? ...infected people showed different personality traits to non-infected people - and that the differences depended on sex. Infected men were more likely to be aggressive, jealous and suspicious, while women became more outgoing and showed signs of higher intelligence. (All kidding and ) the natural threats aside, it sounds like another potential tool in warfare: genetically modifying the right parasite to create a flesh-eating zombie population amidst the enemy. So we might have to prepare against human zombies as well as those of insectoid origin (By the way, not all of the links I've quoted above show good sources for their claims)

I thought the same: considering the political atmosphere nowadays, a little more tact in her choice of words. She could have phrased like this... I would hope that if a Latina woman had lived through a rich diversity of experiences among people with backgrounds of opposing extremes: poor and rich, high education and insufficient schooling, but a white male hadn't, that she would more often than not reach a better conclusion than him, and vice versa However, she has nothing to apologize for. Read on. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant...I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me. And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person. The above is from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court Where is Rush Limbaugh's attacks for that one?

Curious, when is the correct time to appoint a qualified minority or woman, then? And perhaps the outcome you mentioned is all blown up by propaganda TV/radio/literature, and not reality. Sisyphus might've been wondering that by asking for an example. Then SH3RL0CK presented a good example of where no such outcry happened before -- contrary to the implications of your complaint.

And to top it off, perhaps we can be shown evidence of the following? Or as Wikipedians often like to do... But you might want to save yourself the effort, for I've conducted the search and here's the results: 0

Well first, he's got even less time to participate in or read the kinds of discussions we're having than is available to us. If the crew surrounding him isn't bringing that discussion to him, it's unlikely he'll know about the key relevant parts from just the mainstream news -- if he's even got time for it. Likely, aides bring him the "short version" as they did with Bush. I'm just glad Obama had the presence of mind to keep his Blackberry to stay connected to the real world beyond the tidbits his "subordinates" decide to share. And yes, he must cater to a crowd -- in a manner of speaking. One particular reason for his speeches (that I'm abe to gather) is partly as direct opposition to the neoconic storm of falsehoods being aired to the population. In Canada you probably don't get to hear from a number of your citizens repeating in wide-eyed fashion the garbage "analysis" of the situation as fed to (an unsettling percentage of) us by right-winged "news". But the other side of his catering to the population is a more open way of running government than the Bush and many other administrations did. You can glean who is historically against open government by studying the guys most likely to fight it -- on events like our making Freedom of Information even stronger. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/index.htm Veto Battle 30 Years Ago Set Freedom of Information Norms Scalia, Rumsfeld, Cheney Opposed Open Government Bill ........ Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy Richard Cheney) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override. As is clear, it's the usual players, and the ones who have much they'd like to keep secret from us. And they've been infecting the White House even more than 30 years ago (as a duo). Well in comparison to the list of Bush abuses I presented earlier, what do you think? Maybe the Dems are far more crafty, and have their own (even more sneaky) versions of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, though -- for all we know. In a way, might not that outcome bear the imprint of Rove strategy? That can be said of the Bush Administration -- except (in their case) it'd have been an "illegal" framework. Definitely, and it's essential we let the current administration know our feelings on this.

You're joking, of course. As if Bush's qualifications for impeachments were simply bungling Iraq, holding suspects without trial, and illegal spying. None of those even begin to scratch the surface. I'd agree with a motion for censure, though. However.... if Obama continually maneuvered secretively in a harmful way yet ideal for cementing the Democrats' majority if Biden granted huge contracts with no bidding to a number of politically allied businesses if Obama had admitted spying only after being exposed if the '08 - '12 White House paid journalists in tax money ($240,000) to promote Dems' ideologies (and to urge other like-skinned journalists to do the same) if Obama was found to have demanded connections to alQaida be found of a nation he wished to invade if the White House sent propaganda to be falsely aired as news to school kids -- or likewise deceived old people of a law change by using a fake reporter if Obama had contracted with a public relations firm to broadcast his agenda disguised as their own video news release -- or had a prepackaged "news" segment widely broadcast in rural areas* if White House memos secretly OK'd torture if they had unlawfully deleted a ton of White House emails if administration officials continually played strategic amnesia when questioned in criminal investigations if the Defense Secretary hellbent on toppling a regime had once been chummy with its tyrant leader if the Obama adminsitration were the most secretive in history and its officials regularly defied/ignored congressional subpoenas for legal testimony if the nation were attacked, then the President didn't really bother the nation from where all the hijackers originated, possibly because he's still chummy with that nation's leaders if the White House officials made every attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11, and kept changing the premise for the Iraq war...after each failure if Biden had colluded in an energy task force of suspicious/illegal nature and fought release of its documents all the way to Supreme Court etc (ad infinitum?) ....then I'd certainly move for impeachment proceedings against the entire Obama cabinet. But that isn't so, and hopefully (plus likely, for now) will not be. Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 73 http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-05-21/html/CREC-2004-05-21-pt1-PgS6088.htm ...the Bush administration illegally spent taxpayer dollars for political propaganda in violation of two laws. To make matters worse, these funds were taken from the Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, money reserved for our seniors' healthcare was illegally used for political activity. ........ The President has raised plenty of money for his campaign. Over 200 million dollars. Why does he need to use Medicare funds? With taxpayer money, the Bush administration produced so-called "video news released'' --fake news stories that hailed the new Medicare law--and distributed them to TV stations across the country. This covert propaganda was never identified as being produced by the administration. As a result many news stations ran this story as real news and....viewers had no idea it was produced by the government. No Dollar Left Behind http://web.archive.org/web/20050113100325/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251 Tribune Media Services (TMS) tonight terminated its contract with columnist Armstrong Williams, effective immediately. But Williams told E&P that he plans to continue his feature via self-syndication. TMS' action came after USA Today reported this morning that Williams had accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote the No Child Left Behind education-reform law on his TV and radio shows. E&P subsequently reported that Williams had also written about NCLB in his newspaper column at least four times last year. ........ "I understand the decision," Williams said when reached by E&P. He also said he would not be returning the $240,000. Williams said the $240,000 in payments were made to promote NCLB as part of an advertising campaign on his syndicated "The Right Side" TV show and that this ad campaign was disclosed to the show's viewers. But he acknowledged that the payments weren't disclosed to other audiences, including readers of his newspaper column. My response is meant to cover your question and bascule's statement, mixed together. Just a healthy dose of perspective in case we've forgotten the many questionable (and commonly unbelievable) wrongs/illegalities that oozed daily from the Bush Administration. Judge during the fact -- if their blatancy is slapping our face day in and out for a sufficiently prolonged time. And I must ask: which is more damaging to us, to fear setting investigatory precedents, or to allow the repeat possibility of an eight-year (2,920 days, pre-outlined in systematic Rove fashion) rampant quest at dismantling our protections against tyranny? -- who've have been given all the time in the world if no one's going to bother investigate until after the fact. *This one did include a snippet with USDA listed as the source, though usually at the end. On Tuesday, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), whose states produce sugar, sent a letter to Johanns objecting to pro-CAFTA news reports produced by the government. "These releases, which are produced and distributed with taxpayer dollars, are provided to 675 rural radio stations and numerous televisions stations where they are run, without disclosure of their source, as news reports," the senators wrote. "We are concerned that many listeners in rural America may believe these releases are objective news reports, rather than political statements from the USDA which are intended to advance a specific trade agenda."

But we don't lack the context to make an educated "reasonable person" guess about their habitual purposes for such actions. Doubt it. Just think who'd bitch and moan loudest of its removal. Jews? Muslims? I personally don't like it there or in the Pledge. It might tell the flocks what Government does must be OK if they support God. And whoever desires its removal (liberals) must be the wicked part of government.

I'd be gladder if both parties shrunk and voluntarily gave up the keys that keep other parties from being majority contenders. All one party in government is practically a dismantling of the separation of powers (depending if the ones in majority whip the party to vote in lockstep among the White House and Congress). It's a bit of a difficult choice though, because I'd also like for Dems to erase the neocons' abuses/stains from government before leaving office.

Slogan: "Towels for everyone"

The quote above is my response (partly) of when life begins. Yet I think it's relevant to the vid below....which plays so unreal in your mind it almost looks staged. The police keep beating on the guy who tumbled out the flipping vehicle -- unconsious, it seems. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=30850639 The criminal element in society is often treated the way religion heads liked doing it, before our Constitutional protections ended their fun. Yet still today, anyone breaking the law is viewed as sub-human in the eyes of certain religious "authorities". There's a connection to religion, the way it's been twisted by the power seekers of its establishment. From personal experience, observations, and supported by a vast number of records/clues -- including at least one news item that church goers are more likely to support torture, I believe the hijacking of organized faith (and its use to then hijack relevant government policies) is the main culprit of the tendency for extreme punishments... ....And the degenerate/hostile atmosphere of prisons (rape, murders, beatings...all these practically seem encouraged by the relevant higher-ups), which filters out to infect society upon their release. Let's compare to Norway, where you might break the law and live by a beach -- a vacation-like place for rapists, murderers, and drug traffickers. Such complete and utterly opposite policies make our heads spin if those are firmly entrenched in a worldview tainted by "religious" propoganda/standards. CNN also made a reference to the place (on camera): Is this the sort of view you get at home? RONNY MELSTAVEIT, CONVICTED MURDERER: No not as nice as this. ANDERSON (voice-over): Just wait until you see the cells. (on camera): So, this is home. MELSTAVEIT: This is home. Home sweet home. ANDERSON (voice-over): Ronny Melstaveit spent two years in a traditional cellblock in a high security prison before coming to the Bastoy. ........ ANDERSON (voice-over): The guards are watching, the emphasis at Bastoy is on trust. In the carpentry shop, prisoners work with chainsaws and axes, so far there's just been one act of violence in Bastoy's nine-year history. BJOERN HARDERSON, PRISON GUARD: You have to trust people to have responsibility so they can grow, you know, and they feel they have been trust. Here's what Thomas Paine said on the issue of government using punishment as scare tactics against copying or repeating the offense... http://truthinjustice.org/dpissues.htm "Teach governments humanity.* It is their sanguinary punishments which corrupt mankind. In England, the punishment in certain cases is, by hanging, drawing and quartering. . . . In France . . . the punishments were not less barbarous. . . . The effect of these cruel spectacles exhibited to the populace, is to destroy tenderness or excite revenge; and by the base and false idea of governing men by terror instead of reason, they become precedents. It is over the lowest class of mankind that government by terror is intended to operate, and it is on them that it operates to the worst effect. They . . . inflict in their turn the examples of terror they have been instructed to practice." --Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man Now, faith is a healthy component for portions of society, or at least the free practice of faith is, but not in government or by force. There is a reason why our nation's forefathers made the separation of religion from government. Disclaimer: I am a strong believer, yet not in this garbage (or many things) peddled by the abusers of organized faith. *(my edit -- took the brackets off the word "[T]each" at the beginning of that sentence)

How on Earth did you got "nicely put"? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? stereologist's post can be summed up as follows... Your claim is wrong. I suggest you look up the facts instead of giving us your version. Opinions differ I guess. But where most everyone's been quoting references and providing links, I really fail to see how the above is better. And the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance happened in the 50s as well, an era of highly religious conservatism. Bingo.

News article Stricter mpg rules may help automakers (Different business groups are either in favor of the policy, neutrally wait-and-see, or in complete opposition to it)