The Bear's Key

I didn't see any books get torched, or war in the name of atheism, or an official book to convert flocks with, nor do I see them automatically qualify for religious tax exemptions, or having a mytholgical being and/or spiritual teacher as a central leader, or federally recognized holidays devoted to personal mythologies, or legendary/ancient scriptures of mysterious origin that's written by a divine or spiritual author. Let's face it, what you're calling a religion is a struggle against the practice of excessive unquestioning by society against religious leaders or dogma. Sure, a few atheists might go overboard because they're cynical of the religions leaders' ability (or desire) to ever reform that massive corruption. And I don't blame them for such cynicism, really. Even if they're kind of misguided for it. And yet I strongly believe in God, so you might ponder why I'd stick up so much for atheists. Not only that, but it'd sadden me to witness a great or lifetime atheist becoming converted to a religion, just as it saddens me when a devout person loses faith. Go think about it for a long while. So then, define for us: what's an irrational atheist? Define a few qualities making them so irrational. Now...you could simply be meaning irrational people, but there are lots of irrational people in the world, and their being irrational's not exactly a religion. It's not even a belief, but more like a feeling or impulse. So you must be referring to something else. Pagans? Well mabe technically, but really...how many self-described atheists you know call themselves pagan or even believe in such? Atheists lacking totally in faith should probably just make up another term, like "dispiritual". Not excatly. If you don't think about the purpose of something -- because you just don't think one exists -- it's not the same as being concerned with its purpose. By your reasoning, too, what's to stop ID proponents from mandating no science in classrooms as it's a form of religion -- especially concerning the scientific "theories"? Although, for the legal aspects of identifying a religion, it matters what law defines it as, not Wikipedia.

Not a bad system.

True dat. I have no way of knowing/verifying the amount of thought someone put into anything, or whether it's a simple oversight which happens to all of us. So it was a bit presumptuous of me.

Sure, I'll try my best. Dedicated teabaggers -- so much so the crowd got together, and likely from distant places. I'd say that qualifies as a good sample to draw from. No, it doesn't. The 1,023 adult they interviewed is more representative, but the 124 interviewees labeled Tea Party activisists is not the same as people who go to DC for a rally. Most of that 124 were labeled activists if the interviewee... Took any other active steps to support the Tea Party movement, either in person or through e-mail or on the internet So if they forwarded an email it'd likely qualify. Not what I'd call a huge activist. That, no. But what I asked, yes. Just facts to back up the claim that liberals opinion and slant dominates the networks, or even has before. Must be thousands of factual tidbits laying around since it's claimed so much. I'd just like a tiny sampling of it. Not even 57 or 124 bits of fact or evidence. You know, something a little more concrete than just saying so. Easy. What are the odds that it's people of questionable ethics who might've convinced you to be extremely concerned about this bill? (as you said, probably more than any other in your life) What are the odds they're legit and not just riling you up for their benefit? That's also why I asked for evidence of the liberal opinion and slant dominating the networks, because obviously you heard that from somewhere, as lots of people in the U.S. have -- but is the claim true? Or propagandic lies? Much as the guy in the Cap's blog, accusation without base. I'm not looking for scattered instances of liberal bias only -- since you claimed they dominate, it should be relativley easy to point out. But if that won't convince you it's fine, here's another: that claim you keep making of how liberals progressives were the first to abuse the Supreme Court in the New Deal era? That accusation is made a countless number of times in the U.S., and here by you and jackson33, however it doesn't fit reality. If you found out the things making you angry were just a fabrication, I'd be curious to know -- what'd be your next move? ParanoiA, I'm with you on the liberties thing, and strongly oppose being forced to pay health insurance, but if you'd think I'll vote in an extremist to fix the problem, count me out. And first, let's make sure we're on the same page of realiy for things to be upset about. i.e. real things, not polished crap made to sound good with lost of $$ behind its writing and commentating. I'll keep that in mind, although, it wasn't veiled, nor a personal attack, or even a matter of intelligence -- but I can see how it seemed that way, and if so my apologies to Paranoia. That occasionally happens when I see an intelligent person speaking without thinking it over. A person can do that, without having any bearing on their intelligence level. What especially matters is something of monumental importance to the person, yet it appears they hadn't bothered to dig as monumentally for a semblance of accuracy. Paranoia, you're intelligent. What I meant is just look deeper than a shallow outlook presented to us about reality.

No, the lesson is: think a wee deeper before you post, maybe? 57 people from a crowd of 300-500 with fairly similar views is a pretty good sample: it'd be like interviewing 11%-19% of all progressive liberals in a tri-state area of the East Coast, for a good sample of progressive liberal views. So for tea baggers, if we go with 400 tea baggers at the event, it'd be 14%. Probably would've been more, but I'm sure people declined to be interviewed. Keep in mind people in the crowd likely traveled a good distance to attend, so they're going to be a pretty hardcore representation of devoted Tea Baggers -- making such a poll even more accurate, I'd hazard. But I'm glad you did say it like that, unintentinally I presume, but still it'll be a good illustration of the kind of logic twisting (intentionally I presume) Fox uses to convince viewers. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How about some facts to back up that last part? It would appear the source for that is..."conservatives" themselves. Note the quotations. i.e. are they real conservatives? Didn't anyone in early life teach you how others might pretend to be your friend? I think it's been the case here for a lot of things you've said lately, coming from who-knows-what questionable sources. It comes to mind from a great blog by Cap'n Refsmmat. Mentions a guy who claims the following is supposedly true of atheists.... Someone once graciously said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, it seems that some contemporary atheists don’t share such honorable convictions. When they learned about this publication they threatened lawsuits, book burnings, and even censorship in vowing to tear the Introduction out of the book. If the Special Introduction has indeed been removed from this publication, you may view it freely on http://www.livingwaters.com to learn what some don’t want you to know. (emphasis mine) Then the Cap' does some private investigating... One would thus expect to see throughout the Internet various threats of book-burningsand so on. Comfort’s website quotes atheists as saying “Perhaps we should just call for a book burning!”, among other things (Comfort). Of course, a Google search of that particular phrase, and the other phrases he quotes on his website, reveals that the only uses of those phrases on the Internet are in pages quoting the Special Note. (again mine) We've noticed it happening quite a lot in the world you like to call "just a different veiwpoint/opinion". In other words, there are people dedicated to getting conservatives to believe some twisted view of reality. Such people have vast reserves of money for hiring talented writers and liars. You should really consider more painstakingly who you trust.

Ha, that's exactly the word popped up -- "contribution" -- as I was reading Severian's post too But "deterioration" also popped up, so here's an opportunity to use it... The criminal's life is worth plenty. That's why (non-forced) rehabilitation, civil rights while in prison, and treatment is a concern. Now in the U.S., treatment must be fixed -- politicized leaders of the criminal system often view them as non-human or "animals". No wonder people here think it's a mercy to just kill them instead of giving a long prison sentence. Anyway, besides just their contribution, it's the deterioration of society that's an issue as well, but you can't just throw anyone in prison who "deteriorates society", you must balance this need with protecting our guaranteed liberties. So yes, people end up getting away with deteriorating to soceity, if they haven't broken a law or denied civil rights. No, because the more liberal person is concerned with two very key points in our advances for liberty. 1. Do anything you want except for a) taking liberty from others b) destroying shared resources, like access to pristine nature and clean outdoors. 2. A guarantee of basic liberties. Prison is the current method to balance the two, via separation, but a criminal's rights doesn't end because of imprisonment. The main problem is our legal system's infected by certain leaders who view it as a chance to satisfy base urges by exacting punishment,* rather than it being a separation of the criminal from society to protect others' liberties. Until we act/perceive otherwise, it's going to remain such a problem. *Old habits (before The Enlightenment).

Great topic, jryan. Best choice. If people communicated instantly, then whenever the old dictators, conquerers, invaders, and empire-builders in history tried to convince the populace of a distant threat or how the inhabitants of an unknown land were barbaric or evil, the people could see for themselves it's untrue just by speaking with "the others". Additionally, it'd be way more effective than the internet and would result in many good ideas finding multiple partners -- lots of heads are better than one. Kowledge would grow super exponentially. Is a newfangled pesticide having unintended consequences? Find out instantly. Did someone discover a new continent? Find out instantly. How far can you travel out in the sea without falling off? Easy, just stay in touch with the captain of the ship. In no time, all the other technologies would naturally come into being by the sheer number/pace of advances. Never. Problems to solve and work to do is going to exist forever. When people complained that machines were going to create huge job losses, they didn't. New "people-only" jobs have been found or created. Also, remember the women's movement -- huge numbers of previously unemployed now entered the job force. Guess what? The number of jobs increased to fill the need....or more like the demand -- for jobs to do. There's always some need, improvement, or benefit to a much-ignored aspect of society (or the world) that gets a lower priority due to more urgent needs. It's like when you earn more, spending doesn't get lower. You find more to spend on like a vaccuum for needs to tend. Same with energy, if we had access to a star's energy, our projects would grow accordingly in size to fit the new availability. Perhaps that's why the universe has so much empty space -- past alien civilizations exhausting star fuel went a little overboard? Not true. We still have vegetables, meat, fish, coffee, tea, herbs, grains, marijuana, tabacco, etc. Any new farmland would go to those or even bio-fuels (yuk). Also, jryan, cities still need workers for building materials, industry, roads, games, toys, books, etc.

The mother of a 13-year-old Montgomery County middle school student is demanding an apology from a teacher who had school police escort the youngster from a classroom for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The unidentified student was mocked by other children in her class ........ The Montgomery school system's student handbook contains a section about "Patriotic Exercises" that reads: "You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate." In the school's defense, it was the act of a single teacher. But it's clear how easily pressure might be applied on students -- who don't exercise their rights -- by a school's Authority/peers. Oh boy more ACLU shenanigans, defending civil liberties -- how dare they? (The ACLU, huh? It reminds me, they're another group hated by the you-know-who) ...and strife.

The schools did require it back in the day. Now, students can exit when it's time to pledge. However, back when courts first decided on this issue, people got upset and did bad things to the "guilty". No prob, grab some rest . About my point....it was a direct reply to your wondering about hatred. Understood. I just wanted to set a record straight because I constantly hear about the left supposedly being Politically Correct. Do you mean the part I've bolded? What I meant by that is the "under God" in the Pledge. No, I meant it's a breath of fresh air for a college where students aren't overly drunk with nonstop parties. Yes, in a manner. But your descriptive phrases are somewhat overboard/extreme. If your college students got drunk like all the other colleges, then, going by your own words, it'd be that very case of "making-everyone-the-same". My advice -- don't confuse "the removal of excess" with simply a conscientious reduction of it; don't confuse "immediate-response-to-anyone-who-is-even-slightly-offended-by-anything behavior" with a reasonable sense of tact; don't confuse "flatlining of society" with labors for mutual respect; don't confuse "PC" with Apple;* don't confuse "Political Correctness" with being reasonably mindful of a person's culture/background -- if no one did any of those, you could see the result for yourself with a simple test: by removing the moderators and user limits in the Religion and Politics forums. Do you see how a little bit of "PC" -- i.e. tact -- goes a long way? The best motive I can see for attacking tact is a desire for chaos. Not by you, Pangloss -- obviously. *Just seeing if you were paying attention

The judge wouldn't have a choice in the salary voted amount on. (kind of funny, the historical root of "salary" is on topic ) It's a pretty big distinction. A meritocracy rewards politicians before they hold office, where my suggestion is to reward them after. Meaning, a politician gets normal salary to begin, then next eletion it goes up or down -- if they got re-elected. With meritocracy, however, you'd still have lies + character assassination to make a good person seem "unworthy" for holding office. It'd likely get out of hand quickly, ending with the powerful in rule once again. Don't get hung up on the wage aspect itself -- voting on it serves a broader purpose than luring people to office who seek to earn money. It's a reflection of their job in a way that no poll can begin to approach. Here's the advantages I see... • Better than any poll. A low salary reveals most other citizens think similarly of the elected leader's job. It makes voting them out much easier. • And if the current leader has a very low salary, then it's a nice visible indicator of electability for any good replacement leader considering a run for office. • Which becomes an incentive for elected leaders to work harder, smarter. • It might also deter crooks from running, as.... • Fewer legit businesses might desire to associate with a visibly incompetent/crooked politician, and if so, the worst of the business lot will remain surrounding the politician -- all their eggs neatly in one basket (a good thing for us).

Awesome, mooey. I like the first one in post #47. I like toastywombel's attempts too. Third and fifth images are in the public domain.

Point. (emphasis mine) It's not fine if what affects the entire nation is only known to citizens of Texas. How would the other states have apathy if they're not even made aware until later? Remember what I said... Such a process (and other important government services) needs to be far more open to public scrutiny -- before/during/after. Certain things have to be made extraordinarily open to scrutiny, not just a broadcast in one state -- but nationally. Everything: recorded, posted online, transcripts. ...in the Bible. (to finish her sentence).

Doubt it plays out in one's head so simply. Wasn't it tragic because the couple's attempt to start a family ended? Oh honey, it'll be wonderful to raise a kid together....oh noooooooooooo! The sensation of tragedy hits -- and is real -- but it's mostly for one's plans of a new family together. I'm not being insensitive, just to the point. I think even you'd raise an eyebrow if the couple were to extract a nulled zygote, have a viewing and/or funeral, dig a grave, keep pictures on the wall for memories -- or in photo albums. So here's the real problem. Our society -- and the vast majority of people's families -- isn't motivated to do all the sacred ceremonies for a ruined pregnancy. However, what you expect implies that people should be hit with prison time for something most anyone wouldn't even bother to give funeral services.

Don't like it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit).[1] In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. I prefer keep our system,* but we vote on each individual lawmaker's salaries -- in your relevant district obviously. Far simpler, less abusable. *(Not to drastically alter it to something that unrecognizable without extensive test runs)

I actually have littel interest to be a contestant, so I'll just halt my entries from being voted on. But anyone can still piggyback on them. And I'll still continue posting new ones.

Thanks. Partial error by me. It did appear on paper money in 1957. Like you said, though, coins had it beforehand. Why would they have to exit the classroom? I believe that Jehova's Witnesses' kids leave the classroom during the Pledge. That's an option given kids by schools. I've heard of non-religious kids taking exit in high school, but I'm not certain about in earlier schools. Sure, but I'm mostly referring to specific hates: like Jehova's Witnesses don't celebrate holidays because of their religion. In essence, it's anti-consumerism -- which leaves a bad taste in the mouths of some right-winged capitalism fans, I'd presume. I didn't mention the need to ban or legislate anything. Rather, my point is *why* that religion seems so hated on The Right. Jehova's Witness beliefs.... Their kids don't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. No war. No death punishments. No celebration of holidays (so it's anti-consumerism). No worshipping material idols (for example the crucifix). No politics (i.e. no voting). No allegiance to a nation or flag. Looking at the principles above, which main religious and/or political ideology is going to suffer if a religion of those principles were to spread quickly -- and so jeopardize a dependable $$-making enterprise and voter base? It's why I mentioned the hate against the Witnesses seemed like a coincidence at first, but now I think it's the result of propaganda....by those who'd suffer massive political, religious, and $$ losses if Jehova's Witnesses replaced them (i.e. nationally/worldwide) -- as it'd be a religion that's useless for political gains. At first glance you'd think the Amish to be a similar threat, but for a key difference -- they likely won't spread (not much preaching or indoctrination). Another key factor is they do vote. Still, the Amish do have a great quality that's dangerous to preachers of "old justice"... The ability to forgive. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/national/main2059816.shtml In just about any other community, a deadly school shooting would have brought demands from civic leaders for tighter gun laws and better security, and the victims' loved ones would have lashed out at the gunman's family or threatened to sue. But that's not the Amish way. As they struggle with the slayings of five of their children in a one-room schoolhouse, the Amish in this Lancaster County village are turning the other cheek, urging forgiveness of the killer Ponder something. In our nation...might a religion that doesn't cater to people's base fears/angers ever grow to the level of the main religions? Yeah, I've been tempted to, especially to both Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses knocks on the door, selling their brand of gloom and doom with salvation conveniently on the end of the carrot stick. Even so, I resist -- as in my view, one's faith is sacred/personal. I wouldn't like disturbing theirs. Yet I would challenge any trespass into government, for it'd be a cheating way to spread their ideology via legal means and crafty shenanigans. Not quite. My actual point was that the Left has been accused of it by others who are even more Politically Correct. As usual with The Right, the accuser is more guilty of the very accusation they're making. i.e. crafty politics. It's a right-wing mantra that the Left is "Politically Correct". There's even a series named The Politically Incorrect Guide. What I ask you to consider is this: if the Right is so against Political Correctness, then we should rarely ever hear protests by them over the following.... • Talk of blasphemy (F***ing Christ!). • Speaking ill about our great nation. • Criticizing soldiers. • Bumper sticker or a highway billboard that proclaims God as a fraud. • Dixie Chicks saying they're ashamed of Bush W residing in Texas. But honestly, is such really the case? No. They'll go bananas when others aren't Politically Correct for their ideological goals. So you should actually read through my last post again -- for I hadn't supported what you labeled as Political Correctness. Rather, I was labeling the entire concept a political sham. A manufactured controversy. Granted, there are silly people who go too far to not offend. But to say it's mostly a habit on the left is just simply untrue. It's liberals who usually make fun of the principles they defend. All in good fun. No supposed political correctness. Family Guy -Black Joke Brian barks at the black guy Family Guy black jokes I love that show.

Yes I did. Yeah they both suck. QF-effin'-T. Such a process (and other important government services) needs to be far more open to public scrutiny -- before/during/after.

I entirely agree. Pangloss. I've long detested that our government can have such loophole/obscure rules floating around. Government needs to cleanup and make extraordinarily public all its little odd and questionable rules/policies.

I say the following kindly. Just consider that while you read on, friend. To start, just ask yourself some relevant questions. Are kids informed of not having to recite the words? Do the other kids recognize it's merely a protest vs a religious oath inserted by government? Will a kid look out of place for exiting class when "The Pledge" begins, or more importantly -- do other kids usually act understanding/respectful in such circumstances? You might think politics hasn't been as involved. Either you're right, or wrong. But let's not go based off assumptions. Though regardless of the evidence, it's something you might have to figure out personally. There's a religious group hated by many conservatives in the area I live -- maybe in Florida also? Jehova's Witnesses. A list of their most offensive crimes: Forbids kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, no war...or death punishments, no celebration of holidays, no worshipping idols (for example the crucifix), no politics -- and the worst thing for a Party dependent on religion for votes is a fast-growing religion whose members refuse to vote. Is the hate for them a coincidence? I used to think so.* Maybe you believe it's just some words, no harm done. But history shows otherwise. What's ironic also, is that history's still occuring in current events -- and still being written today. To the Pledge itself Central to early challenges were Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God. In the 1940 Supreme Court case Minersville School District vs. Gobitis, an 8-1 majority in the Court held that a school district's interest in promoting national unity permitted it to require Witness students to recite the Pledge along with their class mates. Gobitis was an unpopular decision in the press, and it led to a rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses;[2] three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, the Court reversed itself, voting 6-3 to forbid a school from requiring the Pledge. So, making The Right enemies? Now, I hardly wanna talk to Jehova's Witnesses a-knocking at the door, but shit, they must have liberty to not recite anything. Who saved them? The courts -- "activist" judges. (i.e. the bane of religious trespass into government) From one of many historically unstable mixes of government with religion, one instance of abuse for power seemed directed not only against Jehova's Witnesses, but political leaders, social democrats, trade unionists, and dissenting clergy -- i.e. victims in Nazi Germany. So if the link's story is true, the important question is: why? Perhaps because... http://www.holocaust-trc.org/PRJW.htm Alone of all the groups targeted by the Nazis, the Jehovah's Witnesses were victimized because of what they refused to do. They would not enlist in the army, undertake air raid drills, stop meeting or proselytizing. They would not utter the words "Heil Hitler." Their dissent was irksome, disciplined and systematic. Even in concentration camps, if they signed the following document they could be released ........ Jews had no choice. Jehovah's Witnesses did. As such, they are martyrs in the traditional sense of the term - those prepared to suffer and even to die for the choice of their faith. Who usually got victimized? Anyone considered a threat, potential blockade, or uncooperative. The main religions weren't victimized as their members played ball. War? Nationalism? Right on! In 2,000+ years people were victimized for not participating in or acknowledging religion. Still happens. But progressive is a new concept and its members have been persecuted in the McCarthy era. McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. ........ The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Yet, how many times the other way around? Can you honestly show me progressives doing abuses like those while in government power? Is your stance vs political correctness more overriding than abuses done to progressives by extremists? If so, good...we'll return to that. So in answer to your question of "How offended can they really be?": It's who's offended that really matters here. When you *seem* unpatriotic for not having participated in glorifying our nation in sync with its corrupters, the backlash sometimes ain't pretty. Take a look at when the Dixie Chicks offended the Right (for being "Politically Incorrect")... http://www.enjoyfrance.com/content/view/422/0 ...had to cancel some American tour dates after slow ticket sales and music industry magazine Pollstar reports that shows have been dropped in Republican states such as Oklahoma and Tennessee. The Dixie Chicks faced a backlash in 2003 after singer Natalie Maines said the band were "ashamed" President Bush is from their home state of Texas. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187173,00.html the tremors in the conservative country music scene were seismic. ..... Some fans stomped their discs to bits. Maines, 31, Emily Robison, 33, and Martie Maguire, 36, didn't cringe and curtsy. ..... Maines' vocal intensity counters that of fans whose doting curdled into death threats... http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut Country stations across the United States have pulled the Chicks from playlists Sure, I'll ask. But instead of that question, I'll ask... Did people really spend loads of time figuring out who's offended, i.e. have you investigated by asking them directly? If not, where have you fetched such a conclusion? Might it be the people you refer to are simply tired of it continuing, and only desire helping bring some peace to lives of the affected -- even if their methods of doing so (or their approach) could use improving? But even so, who are they hurting? I view it as a breath of fresh air. I've partied a lot, but didn't like it nonstop -- and though it should never be against the rules, it's just as unproductive when college students get so hammered drunk you see a girl topless in the corridor with head between knees, or students playing Beirut so much that little gets accomplished. That's almost insulting to the victims who've been persecuted by religious and still experience it today. Political correctness is a lie -- just as the majority of such propaganda tends to be, the accusation in reality is a description of the accuser themselves. Crafty politics. Or don't you consider the avoidance of 1) talking blasphemy, 2) or speaking ill about our great nation, 3) or criticizing soldiers, 4) or taking a risk of creating a highway billboard that proclaims God as a fraud, 5) or etc, as being various instances of Political Correctness? Wrong. Examine the context under which they entered God onto money and the Pledge of Allegiance -- it was a result of the McCarthy era. That's what it stands for, and it needs to be removed with that very context as our main reason for doing so. Nope. Doesn't bother me what their faith is (or how often it's praticed) so long as they don't sneak it upon others. We disagree on these very important nuances: students doing a prayer before a game isn't "officially-led". But the coach or school mandating or encouraging it would be. Huge difference. *A previous neighbor used to watch Cops and Law & Order daily, yelling "thug!" at the criminals and "kill 'em!" to the cops, she hated the Post Office and said it's wasteful because it's not privatized, claimed schools are a joke, her Middle East policy would be to carpet-nuke them, anti-abortion, Family Values + Military Service + Faith, if you don't like America get out, smaller government, Clinton-hating, bashing liberal Europe, that minority programs are racist, she only dated whites, etc. The kicker: ironically she's a black lesbian who's feared discrimination against her. Yet even when I noticed that others repeated the same key talking points in different locations -- here and there -- I didn't entirely notice a connection between them. It was just people's "opinions" -- a coincidence. Yet from personal experience, I knew religion's easily bastardized by the powerful, who crafts messages to spread, and demonizes whoever doesn't join. Then 9/11 hit....a couple of years passed....and bang! The conncection struck me with the Obvious Hammer -- full swing. All the people who had repeated the talking points above were suddenly massed in lockstep with Bush policy, and I kicked myself for not paying attention. Just how many others weren't paying attention either?

Correct, Mr Skeptic. The definition is for life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBy the way if no one shows much interest for voting, I'll go the judges route and exclude my own definitions so there's no conflict of interest.

Just in case you don't already know it, Texas has Republicans elected to majority due in part to both the magic of redistricting... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. Consequently many states including Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia and Maryland have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states that it has deadened competition for House seats nationally. Other states including New York, New Jersey, and California have opted to protect incumbents of both parties, again reducing the number of competitive districts. ....and to the efforts of Karl Rove (and others). It Started in Texas: Karl Rove’s Political Prosecutions A key role was played in the TDA investigation by FBI Special Agent Greg Rampton. Rove first met FBI Agent Rampton during the investigation into the “bugging” of Rove’s office back in 1986. ........ Since Democrats held almost every office at that time, they were his targets.

The book seems well referenced and fairly logical. I browsed several chapters, enough to realize if true -- it'll be a slap in the face of *professionals* in most of that industry who so faithfully go by the APA's publication of the DSM. I'd like for more knowledgeable heads to critically examine portions of that book (in the link) and inform us of their own conclusions and why.

Granted, I'm not the best judge for a scientific concept like photons. That's why I mentioned the need to define basic, everyday words familiar to most people. But you can vote too. Remember, all the votes will be averaged together. Or maybe Icefire can volunteer to submit a new definition and we'll vote on the new one instead.

You're warm. Don't forget, though... We're looking for a concept that's simple or easily recognizable by various people -- the more universal, the better odds you'll guess it correctly.

Yep, that's correct. I'll have to lose points for being vague. Remember though, anyone can improve on the definition. Voting started for my entry. Here's my next one... #3 The definition... An individual system of energy, formed by natural interactions of raw materials, that can extract/assimilate energy from at least one external source in order to: 1) expand, replicate, produce at least one divergent such system, and/or 2) maintain its own basic framework, be recyclable by at least one other such system, and reserve a minimum amount of energy necessary to optimally prolong this state. The word is ___?