The Bear's Key

JohnB, that's the most sensibly written argument vs captal punishment I've ever seen. Kudos. Aren't innocent people relieved when finally released? Can't say that about the wrongfully dead. What hapens usually is a lot of desperation and no sense of future as to their immediate plight with no communication to the outer world and no preparation by government for citizens to organize in emergency disasters, and so the worst picture seems imminent. Here's what might actually occur in normal theft situations when the probability of getting caught drops. http://www.wallettest.com/Lost_Wallet_Test/Results_Page.html 100 wallets were dropped in front of hidden cameras to see who would return the wallets and who would steal them... ..... Of all 100 people tested: 74% were honest and returned the wallets. ..... Summary: The good news is that most people were honest - in fact, honest people out numbered dishonest people nearly 3 to 1. Another... http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/1997/03/think_01.html OUT OF 120 wallets dropped in Canada, 77 were returned intact -- 64 percent. In a similar Digest survey of 12 U.S. towns and cities, the figure was 67 percent. In Europe it was 58 percent; in Asia, 57 percent. ........ We found a fascinating contrast between perception and reality. While many of our respondents predicted that we would get back fewer than half the wallets, in fact two out of every three were returned intact. We got a strong sense that people mistrust bureaucracy. The vast majority of people who returned our wallets preferred to call us directly; later they told us that they didn't trust security guards or police to pass on the money. ..... The wallet test made one thing abundantly clear: Our moral compasses are set early by the example of our elders. An overwhelming majority of returners said their desire to do the right thing was instilled by the teaching of parents. The price you mentioned isn't for anyone's life, but the tool preserving it. A more accurate gauge would be how much a person's willing to be compensated for an early death, or how much the average person's willing to be compensated with the knowledge that accepting the money would immediately end another person's life with no consequences. Not quite. DH made a great example in the human space flight thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=541608#post541608 It is not "as simple as that." The scientists assumption is that if funding were cut from human space flight (not manned flight, BTW; stop being sexist ), those funds would transfer to NASA's science budget. That assumption does not follow. Politicians in particular think otherwise. Some examples: When the US ended the Apollo program, the monies spent on sending men to the Moon were not transferred to NASA's science budget. NASA's budget just shrank all around, including its science budget. When Great Britain banned government funding of human space flight activities, the monies spent on those efforts were not transferred to the BNSC's science budget. Those monies were used on other non-related efforts. The BNSC's science budget shrank. When the US cancelled the Superconducting Super Collider project, the monies allocated to that project were not transferred to collider projects. Apply that lesson to any money saved in the legal process. For instance, did any of the $236 billion surplus in year 2000 go to funding healthcare for the poor? Or did it go elsewhere? The major difference there is between accidental killing of people and intentional.

Nor makes it corrupt. Wasn't "technically" either. Really, how? Do public servants have loads of time to get a second job to buy things? It's the same as jobs that give per diem spending money to workers away from home. At least there was enough oversight by the government's Common Fees office. Bull, we'd have no functional justice system were that entirely accurate.

There is one investing rule that my agent continually drills into people, regardless the market scenario: create a diverse portfolio, resist the temptation to withdraw profits, just let the funds sit and mature -- even during bad times. Can it apply in the situation of government funds? I'm not entirely sure, but definitely there's always a smart way to do things, and a (very) dumb way. And/or corrupt. The process needs to be wide open, especially that much $$ involved and being "safeguarded".

Listen, I hear you. Expanded further, what person in their right mind wouldn't be upset for something terrible occuring to any human being, whether a kid or an old person, whether sexual and/or violent? But how well do you think out the consequences of so easily handing the government such power as to kill? Nations with a death penalty share a list of nations where terrorism and extremism breed. No Western nations are on that list except for the U.S. Might there be a relation to capital punishment? Does a relevant mechanism exist? We'll get back to that in a bit. First, we protect all citizens for a reason. The protection isn't just for the law breaker, it's for society. Our rights. Either they're special, or not. Second. Did you research, anytime before your decision, how well most kids knew their abusers beforehand? If fairly well, then, by auto-killing the culprits, it's possible lots of kids will stay quiet to protect their abusers from death. It's not an unrealistic scenario. Third. Your fix appears to corrupt government so you can gain extra vengeance beyond what the justice system offers in detaching the person from society. No thanks. The rest of the civilized world has advanced past that. It'd be a different story if you had directly killed a culprit who harmed a loved one, for you've taken responsibility for your actions -- by knowing the risk yet following through. It's something I can respect. Were you my friend, and I learned you killed someone because they abused a kid, I'd say you did what you needed to do. Wouldn't hold it against you. I might even silently admire you having the balls and determination to having followed through with it -- although I'd still disapprove killing for vengeance, I'd certainly be there as a friend, and certainly without judging. Now say you got caught. I might tell the officer, "hey friend, you know why he did it. Can you help any way?" Or maybe not. The officer would be risking severe consequences. Yet either way, if my friend went to prison or let's say the officer also did for hiding a crime, I wouldn't blame the justice system for its result. That's how it's supposed to function and healthy for society that it does -- even as I also couldn't hold the vengeful murder against you. The system's integrity preserved. But when you start tainting the rest of everyone's government by mandating it to kill, I won't join behind you. I draw the line at that point. It's human nature for some people to get extremely upset and demand a world of vengeance. I get that, and who hasn't felt it at times? But you're not allowed to corrupt the system in order to quell your anger. So now, why does government tend to spoil and corrupt when it's handed the power to kill? I believe it's many reasons. Look at history, there was no end of "sinners" to execute, and flocks gathered to watch...under a leadership more corrupt than the people being killed -- except maybe they were no longer people in the onlookers' eyes. A conditioning for other injustices. Finally, perhaps such a government's corruption increases due to more good people wanting to stay clear of it, while for all those same reasons more bad people flock to it. There's a sensible way to handle crime. It should generally be a numbers thing. If someone's going to (or previously did) harm an average kid or two, the price owed to society needs to be lesser than if they're likely to (or previously) harmed dozens of average kids. Thus a repeat offense ups the time spent in prison. Does it make everone comfortable? No. But it's the ultimate price of freedom.

Not a great answer, jackson33. Perhaps the example below is what you mean? http://www.ajc.com/business/the-original-flight-297-226738.html The original Flight 297 e-mail ..... Then I got this email from my good friend Tedd Petruna, a diver at the NBL facility at NASA who I used to work with. He happened to be on this same flight. In my opinion, the muslims are all getting very brave now, since they have one of their own in the White House.

How's any of those corrupt? What else do you have on these guys? You really want some examples to campare against? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged £10,000 over two years to redesign his flat in London, which included the purchasing of a king-sized bed, scatter cushions and a small flat screen television. But why not investigate the original source of the Wikipedia factoid yourself? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5314759/Sir-Menzies-Campbell-hired-top-designer-for-10000-overhaul-of-flat-MPs-expenses.html He wrote: “My flat has remained untouched since 1989 and is in need of decoration and upgrading. You will observe that in recent years I have very substantially underspent my ACA.” The overhaul of the flat was sanctioned by officials five days later. The year before, Sir Menzies had asked whether he could buy a new television from his Additional Costs Allowance. “I should be grateful for some guidance. Am I entitled to replace my 15 year old TV set in my London flat out of the ACA,” he wrote. The fees office replied that he could. Sir Menzies’ claims show that he eventually bought the television, a flat-screen worth £299, as part of the overhaul of the flat. ..... He was faced with a choice of renting a large property –costing the taxpayer more – or having the flat renovated. Whoa yeah sounds like a real bad-ass

Let's be real a moment. The actual bad idea was not having kept it safeguarded with iron-clad protection against looting. Far as I can see, what's really bleeding is a system harmed (deliberately?) by politicians who likely also desired it gone. i.e. cripple the system....then declare it failed. The Looting of Social Security By early 2007, the amount of money looted from the Social Security trust fund by the Bush administration had surpassed the $1 trillion mark, and Bush continued to loot, and spend, Social Security money at the rate of $500 million per day. ........ The funds were not invested in any existing marketable securities. Instead, the government treated the revenue from the tax increase as if it were new spending authority. The government used every dollar to fund other spending programs and tax cuts, and not a dollar was paid down on the public debt. Social Security funds needed to balance books (August 29, 2001) This year's federal budget surplus has plunged to $153 billion because of the nation's economic doldrums and the Bush administration's tax cut, meaning the federal government will have to cover $9 billion of spending by dipping into Social Security, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday. Looting Social Security ....roll back twenty-five years, to the time the game of bait and switch began, under Ronald Reagan. The Gipper's great legislative victory in 1981--enacting massive tax cuts for corporations and upper-income ranks--launched the era of swollen federal budget deficits. But their economic impact was offset by the huge tax increase that Congress imposed on working people in 1983: the payroll tax rate supporting Social Security--the weekly FICA deduction--was raised substantially, supposedly to create a nest egg for when the baby boom generation reached retirement age. ..... Ever since, working Americans have paid higher taxes on their labor wages--12.4 percent, split between employees and employers. As a result, the Social Security system has accumulated a vast surplus--now around $2.5 trillion and growing. This is the money pot the establishment wants to grab, claiming the government can no longer afford to keep the promise it made to workers twenty-five years ago. Actually, the government has already spent their money. Every year the Treasury has borrowed the surplus revenue collected by Social Security and spent the money on other purposes--whatever presidents and Congress decide, including more tax cuts for monied interests. The Social Security surplus thus makes the federal deficits seem smaller than they are--around $200 billion a year smaller. ........ Federal budget analysts try to brush aside these facts by claiming the government is merely "borrowing from itself" when it dips into Social Security. But that is a substantive falsehood. Government doesn't own this money. It essentially acts as the fiduciary, holding this wealth in trust for the "beneficial owners," the people who paid the taxes.

Ming Campbell Nick Clegg Cory Booker To name a few. Seriously, you expect no one with real integrity ever thinks of serving fellow citizens by government office in honest fashion? I certainly agree with that, having met several people who are book-intelligent yet often respond to adversity/problem-solving with distress, in a juvenile manner, and/or with a naïve "grasp" of the important/relevant variables. And Sarah Palin fits that description to a tee except maybe for the book-intelligent part

Wow, I'd like to see that actually happen. Regardless, it's a good qualifier you threw in

So post it already. Would you rather some nefarious person later discovered it and the world didn't know it's being used, or that you gave everyone a heads-up by posting it where everyone can review it and prepare safeguards? Let's make a bet though. I'll open a PayPAl account with $100, if your hypothesis seems groundbreaking to any member here (that's been one at least a month), it's yours. That's not to disparage your ideas or abilities, it's help for realizing that what might seem fantastic in our heads, could be a far different reality written out.

No, the structure and land doesn't eat the food or get traded continuously, as livestock does. Also I'm merely offering possibilities for their reasoning, not defenses for it. Now are you saying that if Congress implemented a law, the Supreme Court must deny it at exactly the moment such law's about to be implemented by Congress....and if they somehow missed doing so, then we're forever stuck with the unconstitutional law? Anyway, is there much difference in challenging by wisdom that a law's interpretation would be unconstitutional, and in challenging a law that's not in Congress's power to implement as it's unconstitutional? 1873, Dred Scott v. Sandford ...ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. 1905, Lochner v. New York ...held a "liberty of contract" was implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved a New York law that limited the number of hours that a baker could work each day to ten, and limited the number of hours that a baker could work each week to 60. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the law was necessary to protect the health of bakers, deciding it was a labor law attempting to regulate the terms of employment, and calling it an "unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract. 1908, Adair v. United States ...upheld "yellow-dog" contracts that forbade workers from joining trade unions. Maybe it's yet another practice "conservatives" began and later tried to shift blame on liberals? And while I agree that emergencies are when the powers like to exert their abuse, it's mostly a concern when everything's done in secrecy and no expiration date. Also, what steps have you taken to ensure the critics of regulation aren't making stories up for their benefit to screw you? It goes both ways, and so...could it be possible that it's you who -- from reading their hysteria -- shat your pants? If everyone did it, avoiding 100% taxes, we'd have a big problem. Could be the farmer was a scapegoat for a wider problem. I'd like to see the other variables first. Do we even know the related factors to that case? And did your wheat get paid for by tax money? It's the key here. Not something I'd approve of government doing, but they can play the dirty game of luring farmers into taking money for crops, so government has them sign over a bit of control. Didn't you notice it happen with the bailouts? Moral of the story: watch for the lure. Otherwise, please show me when the government's tried anything like forbidding wheat grown for your own use, minus emergency cases? (i.e. any relatively harmless stuff) Sounds like your name Also, why hasn't it occured to you that maybe government doesn't have such power, and the ones telling you otherwise have the agenda? Utterly wrong. I said it'd be asanine for the justices to decide it's bad if a farmer on private land grows their own. However, you simply haven't considered what regulation is, at least not to a full/mature extent. Do you think the forefathers were masters of future-telling and innovation who took into account the slew of technological breakthroughs and changes in business operations, the great migrations from countryside to city, and mass production? No, the Constitution and Bill of Rights evolved from past works. And to the present day, things have continued to evolve. The idea is to keep the spirit of what the Constitution intended alive, in a manner that practically guarantees the new changes from abuse. Without overriding the Constitution, i.e. staying to the tradition of what the Forefathers did. Engineering society? It's been done since before the Forefathers, and during. Patents, copyright, trademark. The mere existence of corporations, which I highlighted for you a while back. The structure of government, the commerce clause, everything. Now about regulations -- they're in essence a check vs hurting other people. The forefathers' only restriction on liberty probably was for cases where the activities by a citizen would hurt another, yet technology has since evolved so one person today can do the hurting of thousands or millions worth of 1776-era people. Do you support if a citizen builds a massive nuclear device in their home, even though the Constitution never highlights the methods taken by government to regulate plutonium and the enterprises that handle it, mine it, store it? What about counterfeit money -- do you support people keeping a counterfeiting machine if they're not using the fake cash outside their home? What about space exploration -- do you think government should no nothing even if all the world's other governments made it to space and left us in the dust with the resulting advances? Future scenario: if one day it happens that aliens visit the world, and suddenly the Earth is but a pebble in a vast galactic system, do you think it'd be wise for the U.S. to remain isolated from our world's decisions if every nation decided to join up and pool resources? So that the newcomers supply the rest of Earth with superior advances gained by trade, and the U.S. gets ignored because they said F.U.? Or do you think it'd be wiser for the U.S to take the initiative, agree to joining forces of military and government, therefore having an early influence on the type of government the world is to have? That's part of engineering society, my good friend. Let's not keep stagnant, change is made by advances. The kinds of changes are often unforeseen when they happen quickly, so it's then we need to be most vigilant: the scoundrels are likely to wanna pass their selfish deeds into law while things are changing quickly. And because such changes often involve big players, one variable's more important than ever before in history: the individual. Each person's worth is more than any company, institution, or group. The only exception might be government, as it's a representation of us all -- plus so long as it remains that way. But it also means the individual has limits. If you build a company, that's not considered part of your individualism. Let's highlight the problem with a scifi-ish -- thus a little overblown -- example. Say you construct an eight foot tall mech body suit and walk around, no problem -- the government shouldn't get involved unless you armed it as well (so potentially it can blast the neighborhood to ashes in a few tries). Now say you, a multi-billionaire, had the resources and capability to build a colossal-size mech that nearly reached outer space, so it leaves footprints the size of large towns. Also if the mech falls... Yet what right does the government have in forbidding you to construct -- or even walk in -- such a thing? Or does it have the right to say that such a device -- or articifial extension of yourself -- is not viewed by government as being an individual part of you? Or how about if your neighbor crafts weaponized deadly virsuses just for observation, no intention to use? Tyranny of the majority is another usual fear being spread. However if you believe in people overall, the root of the problem isn't a majority. It's the small group who orhestrates that majority's panic, likely in secrecy. So instead, today, we distrust a majority with handling our important decisions -- yet so easily trust a minority of people we'll never see and/or know for sure how they're working out the important decisions. Unravel that contradiction, and perhaps I'll believe tyranny of the majority is the worse. But until then, to me the real culprit is the secrecy in handling those decisions. At least with the majority, we're able to directly keep an eye on their actions. Not so with the minority in power. Good, that's a healthy sign for us to work more readily towards solutions. Elaborate on that?

Isn't the purpose of balancing one's budget to reduce profligate spending? Other things around us don't make sense. For example, When people have leaky roofs or some other house problem, they let it go, until the repair bill ends up far higher than it would've had the problem been addressed way earlier -- for what often results is a dominoes effect of problems, beginning from the source which ends up damaging other unrelated areas. The same with cars/vehicles. Not fixing the brakes when they first squeak is way more expensive down the line. Not giving a vehicle basic maintenace will likely cost you lots more. Ignoring the need for repair does harm to other parts. Sometimes it takes money to actually save in the long run. The "don't spend" people remind me of those (neglectful) house owners, and likely part of the reason we're in our current mess. Years of putting off repairs and maintenance to the system/infrastructure.

:doh::doh: I think we all erred. The OP's data is for VIOLENT crime. Unless anyone's seriously proposing that idle hands is linked to violence. "Hey I'm bored" -- POW! -- "ok then, much better". Yeah, doesn't fit. Even so... I must object to this kind of reasoning in "idle hands" = more crime. No one is really idle, they sit and watch TV, play video games, craft things at home, etc. Not a prerequisite for mischief and crime. One great example is myself. I used to study daily, be in the library from day to night, be part of boy scouts, have a mentor from Big Brothers, and whatnot, yet spent lots of enjoyable time on vandalism, stealing, breaking into cars, fire-bugging in public areas, many things which land other people in jail quickly. Either you don't really know, or simply forget, how easy it's to get other people -- anyone, even nerds -- into a mischief state of excitement without forewarning. You start, they go along. It's kind of amazing sometimes how natural it goes. And the kicker is most delinquents who get caught are exactly the poorly-learned type or who are deficient in problem-solving. We often laugh at the stupid robber who did a nincompoop act. Meanwhile, the schooled criminals laugh at our juvenile perception of the criminal mindset and/or dress, perhaps why it's easier for them to get away with crimes more often. Reflecting back in life at who mostly didn't get caught, they're a line-up of pretty-boy, clean-cut, well dressed people. The irony? Back then, I used to be saintly-looking and perform the innocence talk. But after I decided to strive being a more honorable person, I now have a more deviant appearance. Perhaps like a sheep in wolf's clothing? Thankfully, I got away with nearly the entirety of it to avoid prosecution/imprisonment. No regrets too, especially it's allowed me to recognize the criminal element who, dressed in official sheep's clothing, warns us of the (uneducated) criminals -- i.e. those who mostly act from desperation and a profound inability to solve their life's problems. Why did I change? Threat of pushment? Not entirely. Keep in mind I'd often walk up to a patrol cop's vehicle, ask them for a ride to the mall 3km away (occasionally with the "innocent" excuse that I didn't want to hitchhike from strangers), then I'd get an empty bag from a store clerk, hide it behind a tree on the side of the mall, and proceed to shoplift until the bag(s) was full enough. Then I'd hitchike back or just walk. In other cases....if ready to vandalize, and let's say a cop drove by while I scouted the area, I'd wait until the patrol car turned from sight and then continue merrily on. So I'd say... The biggest variables in getting me to change were the lasting influence by people, some who did good unrewarded and seldom judging, plus when I gained real knowledge about how society works -- and the effort that goes into much of the system we often take for granted. Even in corporate-owned stores, the manager or person further up the chain's going to be affected by my theft. Being without any money was no longer an excuse I could rely on. It's why idle hands is mostly a farce. The rich criminals' hands aren't ever idle -- that's why you don't see a correlation with income. I lived in poverty, and hardly of the neighbors were criminals. Rather than idle hands, it's usually many variables. For example, one culprit seems to be a disconnect. The perception is things "come easy" to other people, so you're not really affecting them badly. Many other culprits are likely to exist. So what variables lessen crime? Education, knowledge of society's functions, leading by example, and showing how to overcome life's difficulties, if those are missing for a person, it becomes a numbers game: they're more likely -- although not definitely -- to be inclinded towards (at the least) an occasional crime. Now to the OP, maybe you're able to investigate the correlation between the % who are in prison vs crime, and the % who die in war vs crime -- per state. I'll try to find websites listing the figures and PM you.

I've lived in a similar kind of area, not as dirt poor but not too far off either -- perhaps somewhere in between -- and the reality is tourism's usually good for the wealthier sections and doesn't necessarily trickle to other parts. The workers might even be a lot of the well-off people or family connections. Can't say that about Haiti, but it's necessary to keep that in mind, for a lot of tourist areas might be in fact like gated communities which the island's natives have little or no access to. Research is always good, but considering the lack of infrastructure that's often difficult unless you've visited the area in person.

Kind of weak, friend. If you've read the article, just supply relevant bits to people who ask. 1. highlight the damning words (using your mouse) 2. right-click on the highlighted text 3. select "copy" from the menu. The text is held on your computer's memory. 4. Back on this website...right-click into a blank text area (of your reply). 5. select "paste". It doesn't help your case to ignore requests when it's clear you have access to the info. Makes it seem as if you don't grasp the material linked to and you're just relying on the seeming "expertise" of the author...to think for you.

In my opinion, a bit of it has to do with problem-solving abilities gained through education. But it's probably a lot more complex, though, and involves both the person and their environment. So a person who adapts easily, picks things up quickly, and/or natuarally possesses a strong inner determination, could have much greater odds in a shitty environment than a person who's qualities are the opposite. If that first person doesn't bother to learn anything in school or flunks out, they might succeed just as well or better than the second example who did graduate and/or tried hard. But if the second person were in a superior environment, their odds might break even. Also nothing's set in concrete, being of a statistical nature. And who knows, other unknown variables could make a difference (or tip the balance). The education system's influence on the crime data is therefore possibly the simple result of a numbers game. If most people's inner qualities are likely to fit mid between the above extremes, then providing everyone with a free and quality education is likely to have an impact...one that results in a drop of crime. My 2¢ i.e. opinion. But it's awesome you did that with the numbers. It'd be cool do the same for other things, if you end up with more time on your hands. After work I might think up an interesting one and search the data online, for you to calculate perhaps -- if up to it.

It might not be unconstitutional, as the Great Depression would've been considered to be a national emergency of sorts. Not that I agree with such rationale. Also, the crucial thing we're missing (in such actions by government) is a clearly defined limit to the scope of an emergency regulation or Act, plus a set expiration date. A few things... 1. Livestock eat way more than a farmer, and will end up traded in commerce. 2. Again, where the crops subsidized by our tax money? 3. Was the court possibly fixing an existing loophole of interstate commerce? From the majority opinion, written by Republican-appointed chief justice Evans Hughes... Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions Let's be realistic. Consider something: when's the last time you couldn't sell on eBay or Amazon because it had an effect on interstate commerce? Power sellers go through a huge volume of trade on eBay. And plenty of websites hook people up to directly trade with China businesses. Reality is an effective gauge of something's truthiness, so I'm guessing the usual source of complaints are possibly from those who do business in a shady manner and try to stick citizens with the bill of taxes and/or resulting problems. I could easily understand why those people simply hate all regulation -- except the ones they lobby for (i.e bribe) in order to hurt or slow any competition. Do you ever track any regulations to see if a business had pushed for it? As for marijuana, isn't that a prohibition by conservatives -- the very ones "protesting" the reach of the Commerce Clause? Again, though, if you trace back the history, you'll see the little ol' marijuana plant was in an unfair fight up against 3-4 titans of industry. So if you truly want to go after the root of the problem, that's where it's at -- majorly. I only partly agree. They need to regulate from the opposite angle instead -- progressively from the bottom up -- and detail who's not going to be regulated or prohibited (i.e. hardly the little guy, an individual who's doing personal growing and use -- alone). More importantly, the regulation process needs to be totally open. No secret meetings of business or interest groups with lawmakers. Not really. Big things like world industires can trigger big disasters very quickly. Leaving room for action is wise indeed, yet it's just as wise to leave a guarantee as how that's unlikely to be abused. What's missing is the guarantee. Bullocks. Anyone can go live on nearly uninhabited islands or deep in a wilderness, and be free as pie. True freedom might exist, let's say, where aboriginal natives must gather food or simply die -- also with rituals for youth to embark on becoming a real man. It's laughable when people boast about true freedom, yet depend on the Constitution, and the military's defenses, plus the supply chain of goods arriving by tax-built roads, and now drive using the GPS systems of navigation made possible by satellites built with tax funds. The irony? When businesses get tax cuts, or deductions for lavish expenses, the rest of us must foot their unpaid part of the bill. How much freedom is that? In a stable industrialized nation, our freedoms are those expressed in the Constitution -- and continually reinforced by us -- which must limit the freedom somehwhat of any big players who might inadvertantly (or purposely) trample ours.

I'd have to see a reliable source for that, could be a lot more to the story, as in a manner we're dealing with an extraordinary claim: a bunch of justices make a huge deal about a farmer growing edible crops for home use. What's the context? Did the farmer grow more and tried the "personal use" excuse when caught? Had the laws/regulations specified no one could grow extra for personal use, or did they specify an exception where farmers could do so -- but they just had to claim it ahead of time? More importantly, were the crops subsidized in any way by the public's tax money? If so, wouldn't it be a valid reason to place limits on the crops? I agree that yes, it'd be utterly asinine if the Supreme Court justices had decided it's bad if a farmer on private land grows their own food. But I must see all the other details, like if the farmer had acted in a disingenuous manner. Who knows?

Great question. If the mechanism for life to newly begin was around once, has that mechanism simply vanished? It could just either be spawning new life all the time -- in one's closet or pantry, under your sneaker, in an old pond, under someone's tongue -- or it could be spawning new life (or attempting to) periodically every few hundred thousand years. Depends on the mathematical chances of the event involving such a mechanism. Could also be that life on Earth is predisposed to form DNA/RNA by the interaction of its physical conditions. If so -- and if the mechanism is time dependent -- the only way to test for it might be with a lab devoid of current life, with possibly a high degree of luck for getting the mechanism to repeat a spawn new life in there.

Just so no one gets the impression we evolved from the chimpanzee somewhere along the line -- we didn't. Humans and chimpanzees merely share a common ancestry. They both evolved separately. There's a whole lot more to it than how you've presented it. No one just glances at or reads someone else's written paper and decides they like it or personally agree with it. Math, testing, independent review, all play a major role. If you didn't know, scientits really enjoy pointing out inaccuracies or errors in the papers submitted by others in their field -- and very often anonymously. Depends. I might accept the claim, but unless it follows the scientific process of independent tests and verification, I can't accept it scientifically -- only by faith. Unfortunately, a great part of such ideas about God had been spread through fear of punishment by death and/or torture, holy wars, outright deceit, etc. Science has no comparable history to any of that. (...and hopefully won't anytime in the future, though its very nature makes such a thing difficult and highly unlikely)

That seems like a backward idea whenever I see it, no offense. The destruction and "evil" appears more tied to weak problem-solving, and lack of communication -- or purposely distorting it.

bascule wtf you probably have only so much time for enjoying yourself overseas, why spend any posting here. Why, you can always jot down plenty of those experiences to share aftwerwards (lots of goodies hopefully). Unless it's not your first time in Europe. Also...pictures of cool stuff! (Women too) Who mentioned socialism? The evangelist talked about fighting the roots of poverty, nowhere did he talk about social programs. Did I miss it somewhere? And if so, would you be a kind chap and point out where? That does create a problem of misunderstanding when no one knows you're no longer describing reality, unaware of the switch to random figures. Ok, I got it. For purposes of your conversation and its point, who's worse is irrelevant. There's little I can disagree with in that. However, for problem solving, who's worse is very relevant. But it's not like Dems get a pass. The entire system needs overhaul and that includes both parties. Also, when I said earlier they might be playing good cop / bad cop, note that like in relativity, from whichever political frame a viewer's in, their own party's going to appear to be the "good" cop. What I'm suggesting is their leadership might be partially in cahoots, the rest of the party's lawmakers unawares or only slightly aware -- more than the general public is, anyhow. I've worked setting up event tours for both presidential candidates, and behind the scenes there's hardly any difference in the two parties. Both use much of the same props, ground and lighting crew, decorations, microphones, televised setups, order catalogs (i.e. for banners, all the way down to the color schemes), etc. It's really amazing. Plus the media says nothing of what goes on backstage. What's the point of that? Co-solutions are far more productive than disagreement. Can't help it, there is. I back it up with specific examples. And I, like you, do often acknowledge how wrong I might be. For all we know, the Democrat leadership's heads could just be playing innocent pussies who are "thwarted" by nasty Republicans at every turn. I see it differently, however. The majority of both Democrat and Republican leaders are in fear of those who've highjacked the topmost Republican leadership. Still, I yearn for the day both(/all) parties get exposed for what they really are. It seems politics went through globalization long before we heard about industry doing so. Pangloss, having a support group doesn't make a party bad. It's what the support group does that matters. Yet I hardly care for the above support groups. More important than the ones you highlighted is true freedom of the press. i.e less ownwership by media conglomerates, more independent public broadcasting, transparency, and so forth. Organizations do exist for that. My question to you: are they usually seen as progressive or conservative? And more importantly, why?

Good point. I suppose in the end, it's what (accurately) gets recorded as science that counts.

Precisely, and everything we can measure has an official name: science.* All else is whatever you'd like to call it: supposing, philosophy, what-ifs, mental exercises, creativity, stories, legends, religion, ideas, etc. *(If we can also test it, as well as have it peer reviewed and the tests duplicated consistently)