First of all, that's just wrong. This man gives you trips to Paris. And an even bigger sacrifice, he picks you up at LAX, just to be nice, and this is how you return the courtesy? That's just wrong.

Also, I'm going to steal "strugglingest year", but you won't be given credit. (My contenders are '82 and '91, and thanks for asking.)

Don't you understand? He loves it, and I love it. I'd do anything for him, and carry multiple bags of groceries when I'm on my own, but it's fun playing these roles.

P.S. Consider it a gift. You deserve it, even if you did get pissy about who carries the groceries in the Alkon/Sutter dyad.

P.P.S. Gregg also wears the pants, as he'd look pretty silly in the vintage Halston evening dress I wore (as daywear) to accompany him to a screening he had to go to Monday night.

Yes, we all have our roles.

Oh yeah, and '93 really sucked. And thanks for asking.

Kierra you go girl!

That councillor was putting on such an act at the council meeting. It looked and sounded like a bad rap song.

Wow, that women is so full of herself! She's so ghetto I can't believe it.

Ouch.

Awesome.

Connyers exhibits new heights of arrogance. Seriously, this video is shot (presumably) days or weeks after the incident, giving her an easy outlet to apologize and she still can't acknowledge her bad behavior. In front of children!

She needs some PR help.

I think, to make this right, Ms. Connyers needs to look directly at the camera and say, "I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader."

"I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader."

Is Budapest in Paris? Wait, is Paris a country?

I agree with what the young lady was trying to say - adults, in a position like Ms. Conyers's, are held to a higher standard.

Certainly we're all human and subject to acting out of sorts when we're frustrated we must rise above and not act childish. Such childish behavior creates hostility between people who should be working in unison.

Maybe the council president was acting rudely, but playing a game of "top that" isn't going to get him to stop. It's going to add fuel to his fire. I was very impressed with that young woman.

I agree with what the young lady was trying to say - adults, in a position like Ms. Conyers's, are held to a higher standard.

So do I - and she called Ms. Conyers right out on the "do as I say, not as I do" aspect. Keira told her "you're an adult". That does not excuse her behavior. Does anyone know if she's apoligized yet to the council president? I'm betting not.

I read a transcript of this, but the live video does it even better. Between people like Conyers and the mayor, is anyone shocked at how poorly things are going in Detroit. Well done by the young woman.

I have to say, though, that the Detroit News reporter seems like a tool.

Gretchen, I'm not so sure that the council president was being rude. He was obviously getting peeved because he had the floor and he was trying to speak and was essentially being disregarded and talked over by someone who would not shut up. There is a reason for rules such as having the floor in such bodies because if you didn't have them, everyone would just be shouting over each other all the time. But I really couldn't hear exactly what he said so he might have said something rude.

Toubrouk used exactly the right word here, "Ghetto". That could be Detroits theme word. Detroit used to be one of the most industrious, populated, thriving cities in the midwest. I grew up there in the sixties during the heyday of Motown. It was awesome. Now, they hardly have any rush hour traffic at all, because not that many people work anymore. It has all changed because of the peoples embrace of ghettoism. They like it. Race politics rules in Detroit. Michigan itself is a petri dish expriment of what happens when one party takes over and the other party has little or no power whatsover. It is descending further and further into economic misery and higher unemployment under socialist Democrat Governor Granholm. Most of the Michigan legislature is much like the arrogant ignorant ass, Mrs Conyers who really have the intelligence of a potato but run on being the most ghetto in the ghetto and succeed in getting elected like that. I weep for Michigan.

By the way, I would bet that if you were to meet Kierra's family, you would find two very good, conciencious parents. She showed far more maturity and sense of decorum than the coucilwoman. Kids learn that kind of respect for others from great parenting, they don't get it from the ghetto.

She showed far more maturity and sense of decorum than the coucilwoman. Kids learn that kind of respect for others from great parenting

Agree. Behind every well-behaved kid is at least one (and usually two) parents who love 'em enough to teach them about how respect is given and earned.

That kid really called it. The council woman is an adult, and should understand the rules of behaviour in a council meeting. Just another example of people not taking any responsibility for their actions. Very sad.

Damn. Couldn't watch it at work and now I come home to find they've pulled the video.

You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TvgtGlcdTE

Hmmm. Jeremiah Wright:

• He's cozy with Quadaffi.
• In a kind of reverse minstrel show, publicly mocked how white people talk.
• "God damn America."
• "Hillary 'aint no nigger."
• "Racism is how this country was founded."
• "In comparing African-American children and European-American children, we were comparing apples and rocks."
• "We're the same as al-Qaeda."
• "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

Uh huh. Just like the Wolf Tones. Peggy Noonan is on drugs.

Krauthammer's take on Obama's recent excision of Wright:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050102900.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union.

...Obama has now decided that the man he simply could not banish because he had become part of Obama himself is, mirabile dictu, surgically excised.

At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. Apparently, Wright's latest comments -- Obama cited three in particular -- were so shockingly "divisive and destructive" that he had to renounce the man, not just the words.

What were Obama's three citations? Wright's claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American "terrorism."

But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright's words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them -- live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama's Philadelphia pretense that this "endless loop" of sermon excerpts being shown on "television sets and YouTube" had been taken out of context.

Krauthammer's take is pretty rough, unless you realize that Obama is a politician who needs to do things for political reasons (i.e., if you aren't a kool-aid drinker who thinks he is the second coming, these things shouldn't shock you).

I thought this recent CBS news poll was informative:

Concerning Rev. Wright's coverage in the media the new poll sites that according to registered voters polled the attention paid has been:

Too Much.....56% Too Little.......5% About Right...34%

I think Noonan is onto something here.

One thing to remember about this, and the only thing that makes wright an issue:

"Tell me who you spend your time with, and I'll tell you who you are."

Consider the nature of Wright's utterances.

These cannot have been new to Mr. Obama.

Which is not to say I think he believes every word of it...but a 20 year relationship with an egotistical, self righteous, antiAmerican, howling bigot, ought to give any sane voter pause at least.

Does anyone know how far (if at all) Wright is connected to the Illinois power brokers behind Obama's climb?

While it is true you can't judge a man by one friend, I think people are failing to look at the BIG picture with Obama. You can discount one little piece of him at a time, but when you look at everything together, you get a real clear picture of who he is.

If you read his book, he goes into great detail about the problems he has with white people. When he first moved to Chicago, the people who he sought out to associate with were radical left wing, anti-American, even marxists and terrorists. (Both he and Hillary were big fans of the marxist Saul Allinsky. She did her thesis on him but Obama was also a big fan.) He activly supported radical left wing political groups in college. His own wife can't speak five sentences without insulting this country.

Then he joined a church that preached Black Liberation Theology. Am I assuming too much to interpet the phrase "Black Liberation Theology" as an ideology that exposes the conflict with and defeat of non-black people? In my personal opinion, BLT is not a real religion, they talk about Jesus, but in their belief, Jesus was a black man who had no use for white people. There still is the same story about the gospels and all that but they see Jesus as being the saviour to black people. At the same time, they preach politics slamming Jews and white devils. And no, you're not going to find that on their website, not now. BLT allows muslims in their church. Why, because there are a lot of paralells between BLT and Islam. They bond in their hatred of Jews and europeans. Obama knew this and he knew it well. He spoke of Rev Wright as his mentor many times. NOBODY has a mentor that they don't know anything about. He sat in that church for twenty years listening to hate speech and first claimed he never heard anything like that. Then when he gets caught, he says, oh yeah, I heard him say a few things that I objected to but I wanted to stay with the church. Now he openly denounces Wright when he figures out that white people are figuring out that he is nothing but a black bigot. Obama is as phoney as they get. He is a radical left wing marxist white and Jew hating bigot and the more people figure that out, the more his numbers tank. That's why a lot of people say he is unelectable. As more and more of this comes out, he will just sink further. I think they are right.

> Krauthammer's take is pretty
> rough, unless you realize that
> Obama is a politician who needs
> to do things for political reasons

I keep rereading that, and don't know what you'd want to say it. Define your terms!

Whaddya mean, "rough"? Is there some judgment call that coulda gone either way, where K chose to be a meany? Is K wrong for noting that these quotations are the same rhetoric, and only the context of their reception has changed? I think K has --in this instance-- been a rocklike, non-reactive observer.

And who doesn't know (or believe) that "Obama is a politician who needs to do things for political reasons"?

I don't see what you're getting at, and fear I disagree anyway. Back when cartoonist Garry Trudeau was young and interesting, he was interviewed in the preface to one of his collections. It was noted that he (in those days) wasn't interested in hobnobbing with the powerful people in Washington, or hearing them make the case for their positions in intimate contexts. Paraphrasing: 'I'm not interested in reading their tea leaves or getting personal insight. I only do post-mortems. I respond to the things they say in public... What could be more fair than that?'

That's how I feel about Obama, and the people he's claimed as his leaders. I don't ever want to bother with triangulating what a candidate says in some intricate, chesslike paradigm of subtle pandering across cultures. Why can't I just hold him accountable for what he says?

Doing so allows me to hate Hillary in good conscience.

Why you'd want to say it

etc

A second plug for the Air France bus, which is both a good value and a pleasant travel experience after tumbling off a crowded red-eye transatlantic flight. When in Paris, I stay at a small hotel in the 12th, overlooking the lakes and rolling green of the Bois de Vincennes. What the neighborhood lacks in savoir faire is more than made up for in better prices and sheer "neighborhoodiness" (i.e., there are few tourists to be found). With the Air France bus, I can jump out at Gare de Lyon and limit my taxi time to a mere 5 to 10 minutes.

And yes, The Paris Blog is a great source for news on arts and events in Paris.

Susan Spano not only lacks curiosity, but also she repeatedly reveals herself to be rather lazy. That's a lousy mix of traits in someone who is assigned to write interesting, informative pieces about the vibrant city in which she lives.

"Lazy," was implied, but thanks for weighing in, too.

The Air France bus is just great. Around the corner from the place I sometimes rent in the 17th, and more comfy and civilized than any taxi. I've also taken it from Gare Montparnasse.

Neo Radical Feminism: The haunting fear that a married woman is giving her husband a blowjob. And worse, in the kitchen. (*)

(*) Actual Marcotte fear, though I can't find her post at the moment, she expressed in a review of a book of marriage tips, one of which suggested heaven forfend, quickies, to help satisfy a partner with raging hormones. And quite literally for Marcotte, two lesbians or gays enjoying oral sex is a radical political act against the man, and a unmarried couple having oral sex is grudgingly okay, but there is a long checklist for the couple to go through to make sure it isn't an oppressive act.

Very good post Amy! Having just turned 25, I can identify with the issue very well. That was a fair bit of personal disclosure for you, no?

Keep up the good work!

I get that most people in their early 20's aren't ready for a serious comittment - but lots of us are, and you should have a little more respect for our relationships.

If you find yourself with someone you love and who loves you at 20, and keep it that way for a long time, you should be considered lucky - not 'stunting your growth' because you don't have a lot of meaningless sex with strangers.

art - you're new around here, aren't you?

Do come back, art, but see Brian's comment above.

And I, of course, recommend quickies:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/a-tale-of-naked.html

Relationships are filled with little tasks that don’t exactly bring a person to screaming orgasm. A man, for example, doesn’t wake up in the middle of the night with some primal longing to bring his girlfriend flowers, rehang her back door, or clean the trap in her sink. Like sex, these things can be expressions of love, but if a guy’s going to lock himself in the bathroom, it’s not going to be with “Bob Vila's Complete Guide to Remodeling Your Home.”

So, couldn’t putting out when you aren’t in the mood be seen as just another expression of love? Joan Sewell, author of I'd Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido, told The Atlantic Monthly, “If you have sex when you don’t desire it, physically desire it, you are going to feel used.” Well, okay, perhaps. But, if a guy rotates a woman’s tires when he doesn’t desire it, physically desire it, does he feel used?

Actually, we all do plenty of things with our bodies that we don’t really feel like; for instance, taking our bodies to work when we have a hangover instead of putting our bodies in front of some greasy hash browns, and then to bed. For women, however, sexual things are supposed to be out of the question. I think the subtext here is not doing things we really don’t feel like if it GIVES A MAN PLEASURE. And no, I’m not advocating rape or anything remotely close to it. And, of course, if you find sex with your husband or boyfriend a horrible chore, you’re in the wrong place. Otherwise, if you’re with a man, and he’s nice to you, and works hard to please you, would it kill you to throw him a quickie?

are you experienced? heh...

we'd be fine if we'd just stick by the biological playbook, but noooooo! we have to go and think about stuff...

The thing I wonder is how much our use of barrier contraception influences the rise of free and not so free love. It is my understanding that a lot of our imprint on each other has to do with the hormonal influences of copulation with each other. Of necessity we are no longer bound entirely to that... so some things change in approach, and we look at experience differently. So, when you have a fling, and protect yourself, what's the connection? Catch is, not protected, is asking for trouble in a loud and clear voice.

Society's catch up scenerio for understanding... does it have one? In countries where contraception is well known and easily practiced, birth rates are below replacement, seems like. It's a conscious decision, that certainly makes sense for an individual, how does it affect everyone else?

The other thing I have yet to see mentioned is the presence of "beer goggles". Drunk people aren't exactly discriminatin'... I wonder how much that plays into the embarassing 5am parting. "oh, what WAS I thinking?" 'don't worry, she's running away faster than you are...'

People tend to think their own personality is universal. The showiest, most outgoing (if not to say arrogant) personalities are thus perceived as normative. This applies especially to the Fucky Years concept... It gets much more and better press than it deserves. The people who were going to be out there chatting with lots of others and building many shallow relationships instead of a few deep ones (whether sexual are not) are of course going to be spreading their ideas far and wide.

As it happens, the happiest, longest marriages I know of are the ones begun pretty early in the game. And while those folks may have been sexually active before that, they weren't exactly promiscuous. They were paying attention to the people they were with and learning fast. They were looking for someone, and they knew them when they showed up.

Fucking isn't an acquired taste, certainly not on the masculine side. Puberty throws the switch and that's that. But extroversion is not some stage of life or glandular condition of maturity. Mouthy, lonely, intrusive people at cocktail parties don't understand this.

Amy, I see where you're going with this. Humans are social animals, and it's through relationships with others that we tend to grow. But our needs for growth are as individual as fingerprints. You can't design courseware or offer bootcamp for this. It's not like the marine corp, where first you run the obstacle course and then you climb the mountain and then you clean the rifle and then you're a marine (or ready to get married).

From what I understand (said the 49-year-old), a great deal of the behavior called "hook-ups" happens to people who are drinking a lot of alcohol. These people are scared as shit of each other.

The men, because it hurts to risk getting shot down; the women, because it hurts to spend these encounters with someone who won't fucking talk to them, let alone phone next week. And people in those years are horrible to each other. They think everyone else in the world is a sibling who has to forgive any transgression.

Did I just say the same thing in each of 15 sentences? Executive Summary:

1.) Yes, a mature approach to intercourse will bring smooth encounters, but...

2.) That's not the same thing as extroversion.

I suspect that the essayist is unfortunately not in a minority. There are just too many people who don't understand that the desire for monogamy is not counter the notion of free "love." Rather it is just another face of it, as is abstinence. Too many people have this inane notion that if you aren't having the casual sex, you are just repressed.

Having the Sex when you don't really want to is just as damaging as actually being repressed. The important thing is to be true to who you are and what you really want. Yes, that is a very cliche, trite sort of sentiment, but it is also very true. Of course in our early twenties, it is not always clear exactly what we really want and our hormones don't help.

Damn Crid. That was really well said.

I like what Crid said too.

I've been one to sleep with guys as soon as I meet them, or a couple days after. I made a mistake in my first such encounter. But I pick them right nowadays, and we tend to treat each other well.

Even the guy I had sex with one hour after I met him (he moved away) taught me alot (he was a Buddhist) especially in terms of how to control my frustration with events I couldnt control and positive thinking among other things. We are very fond of each other I think.

I like to learn things from the people I sleep with.

If sleeping with random men after brief encounters made Marguerite Fields happy, I might say "more power to her." But she clearly is miserable about her failure to have a close relationship with a man that doesn't ONLY involve sex. If this kind of empty promiscuity is the best that the New York Times can identify as "love" in this generation, than I really fear for this generation.

How interesting! I think the work by Justin Garcia is dead on! Hook ups can really mean something else, like a desire for a relationship. And the idea that an increasing amount of time between when one can have kids and actually has kids makes me think of myself who doesn't want to really settle into a marriage with kids any time soon, so why wouldn't I be having hook ups. Do you have any more stuff to read on that... SO COOL!

My college years were about 10 years ago. I am not sure if things have changed or if it was paticular to that college. Many people where hooking up (or some, just trying) with lots of people for the first two years. But the last two, there was well defined couples for the most part. Most all of the people who have settled had done so by 25. I do know some in their 30s who say that they want to settle down and seem unable to. Hooking-up does not seem to have affected things much in the people I know - see no pattern in regards to hookup behaviour and later behaviour.

If Garcia is correct, women maintain the simultaneous desire for long-term relationships and promiscuous sex. If one holds contradictory desires, at least one of them is guaranteed to go unfulfilled. Life will be lived in a perpetual state of frustrated desire. That's not good. It could have long-term emotional consequences.

It has also become unfashionable to note certain facts about male longings and attitudes about sex. In some rather explosive threads, I've noted the male's evolved "slut defense" that lessens the probability of long-term relationships with promiscuous females, even if that promiscuity happened in the past. This "double standard" is well studied and even has a very plausible explanation in evolutionary psychology. To some degree, men will consider a woman's sexual past before and during a relationship. The "fucking 20's" can have effects on a woman's prospects even after that phase has passed.

"The problem was my trying to meet the standards I was "supposed" to have by telling myself I wanted a boyfriend -- because you were supposed to want a boyfriend -- when all I was really ready for was to have a lot of wet, naked fun."

I experienced precisely the same thing in my early 20's, but in the reverse order. What I thought I was "supposed" to want was a lot of wet, naked fun, and what I really wanted was a boyfriend. I kept telling myself over and over to stop being needy, insecure, clingy, to let go, etc., and sometimes what I was really telling myself to do was lower my standards. No matter how many times I kept telling myself not to care, I *did* care. I *hated* sleeping with a guy, knowing full well he wasn't going to call me again. But I was supposed to keep it light, casual, keep my feelings out of it, and somehow have an orgasm? Never worked for me, although I tried.

And I don't very often disagree with you Amy, but I disagree with this: "...lest you get into a serious relationship with somebody before you've really developed into who you're going to be...and lest you stunt your growth in becoming that person."

When do people develop into who they're going to be? I'm a different person than I was ten years ago, and I'll probably be a different person ten years from now. Wouldn't I otherwise just reach an age where I became stuck in my ways and stopped growing? Why would being in a serious relationship stunt that growth? Why must a serious relationship be assumed to act as poison instead of plant food? If you find a fellow thinker to get involved with, they sharpen your insights and expose you to new ideas.

I have seen that when some people get seriously involved with someone, they hibernate with that person and ignore their friends. But sometimes it can work in just the opposite way.

When do people develop into who they're going to be? I'm a different person than I was ten years ago, and I'll probably be a different person ten years from now.

Perhaps, PJ. But I think our core, or the essential part of us, if you will, is unchanging. We can change our thoughts, and our way of dealing with things and people, but there is that part of us deep down inside that stays the same, no matter what. Our inner strength, I guess. I know I've been through a lot of changes in my 50 years, but in my heart I'm still the same. I'm still just as fierce as ever, but I've mellowed somewhat. I'm still just as silly as ever; I still get just as indignant about perceived injustices, but I deal with things differently now than I did when I was younger. It's true what they say, old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill! o_O
YMMV

Flynne, you're 50? I don't know why, but I always guessed you were in your 30's - wow!

I don't remember the "fuck years" as all that great, nor do I think they are all that they are made out to be by those living them now or looking back in hindisght. Hook-ups, or whatever we called them in the 80's, were invariably followed by embarassing, awkward morning after conversations or semi-panicked prayers that I didn't get someone pregnant. And of course, people were freaking out about AIDS a lot more then than today. It kinda took most of the fun out of "hooking up."

I guess it's still normal to go through it, but I don't think there ever was any doubt that I was always on the lookout for "the one." When I found her, at age 25, I proposed six months later and we are still married 22 years later. Did I know that I was at that time the person I was going to be? Absolutely not, and the subsequent years have more than proven that point. The only undeniable correlation here is that I continued to pursue her mostly because she would NOT hook up with me right away. And if she had, I wouldn't have continued to pursue her.

If women are looking for long term relationships after giving it up so soon, they are, I'm afraid, making a mistake.

Flynne, you're 50? I don't know why, but I always guessed you were in your 30's - wow!

Oh yeah, baby! I turned 35 the day after Daughter #1 was born, and I had #2 three weeks after I turned 38. They keep me young! o_-

What I'm saying is that even though I've put myself through the ringer (my 20s were spent being totally irresponsible!) I really haven't changed all that much from the person I started out to be. I still have a very warped sense of humour, I have always crossed my 7's and used British spelling randomly (my teachers used to freak out about it), I've always been a loyal friend until I got dissed, and people who have dissed me regret it, I hear, because I also hold a grudge a long time and it takes a lot for me to forgive, but I will give in more readily if I'm proven wrong. I am quick to apologize. I still crack up over Bugs Bunny cartoons (and quote them to this very day when the occasion calls for it). My college career was very short so I don't quite understand the "hook up" thing in that respect, but I can say I did a lot of hooking up when I was in my 20s and in the band. I've been both a member of the band and a band wife, and have seen a lot of indescretion on a lot of fronts. Also a lot of tears and mistrust. When other band wives would ask me to "keep an eye" on their men, I'd tell them if they didn't trust their man, they shouldn't be with them. And the women, for some reason, always said "oh it isn't him I don't trust, it's the groupies who throw themselves at him" or some variation. I pointed out what bullshit that was, and some would go off and pout, and others would come to all the gigs just to make sure.
Bottom line is, you have to trust yourself, follow your own gut, or instincts, and not worry about others. They're sure not worrying about you! YMMV

The most poignant word in PJ's comment is "boyfriend." In a world of hookups, it just sounds so quaint. There was a silly but admirably stubborn book about this a few years ago. One idea in it went like this: Of course girls grow up to want boyfriends. They want an attractive, successful guy to give them special attention and be concerned with their feelings and interests.

What the book never explained is why popular thinking nowadays is so fixed on the Fuck Years model. It looks like a premature surrender to the fantasies of dim teenage guys. "Well, these boys aren't going to grow up to be the men we want them to be anyway, so we may as well just play along..."

This not meant to indict Amy's thoughts, sincerity, choices, or history in any way. Her specific advice in this comment could probably do a lotta good for a lotta young women. (The preceding ass-coverage is presented as a measure of respect for the fact that she's shared private information with us.)

But on the other hand, we shouldn't ask people to ignore their nature for no good reason. Young women who want something more than hookups aren't hurting anyone. The messages they get from pop culture (MTV, advice columnists, etc.) ought to be as encouraging as those given to girls who sincerely want to party for awhile before growing up.

If women didn't hear that boyfriends were out of the question for so much of their childhood, they might do a better job of chosing them, thus reducing the incidence of divorce, etc. I think this is really important. Nobody, no one is asking women to make good choices in mate selection, and it's getting out of hand.

This is from a short commentary by Denis Dutton about Darwin:

>> Every Pleistocene man who chose to bed, protect, and provision a woman because she struck him as, say, witty and healthy, and because her eyes lit up in the presence of children, along with every woman who chose a man because of his hunting skills, fine sense of humor, and generosity, was making a rational, intentional choice that in the end built much of the human personality as we now know it.

Flynne, I'll turn fifty at the end of October. I'm wondering, do you see your friends of your age doing the same hooking up thing like they did when they were twenty something? I do, to an extent. While they are not doing it as often, they are doing it just as easily. I didn't expect that. I know a lot of people my age who are just a little less sexually active than they were when they were in their twenties. I also have several female friends close to my age willing to be 'fuck-buddies'. Most are single but some are married. I have also seen a lot of swinging with people of my age. I'm not really into that and some of my friends have looked down on me as somewhat of a prude because I don't really like the idea of sex as an exhibition sport. It seems to me that as you get into middle age, when you're not thinking about having kids anymore, it's almost easier to fool around becuase you're not really pressured to find a life partner anymore to have kids. And hell, even if you're in decent shape and still somewhat attractive, you can sense that you're years of good sex are limited, so you may as well use them while you can! YMMV.

I'm 49, and I've just gone through a hook up phase. I agree with the comment that there is no pressure to get a life partner, so you can fool around quite a bit. During the phase, I just wanted to see what was on the market, so to speak, and since I was (and still am) attractive and fit, there was a lot of selection.

After a while, it got kind of boring, and I know that after about a year, I tend to develop feelings for my fuck-buddies, so I'm on a break from all that.

My female friends in their 30s and 40s are either in a relationship that they're not happy with (settling), or have given up on men entirely.

It looks like a premature surrender to the fantasies of dim teenage guys. "Well, these boys aren't going to grow up to be the men we want them to be anyway, so we may as well just play along..."

Yes, absolutely. And it certainly did seem to me at the time that the boys were the ones having the most fun. You didn't see them crying in their Kool-Aid when their relationships didn't last - the more people they slept with, the more fun they had. If the girls could just learn to be that smart and adopt that attitude, I thought, they would have more fun, too!

I had previously been brainwashed by religious indoctrination that women were sullied, unclean, used, or damaged goods if they weren't saving themselves for marriages. I knew how silly that was, and I was trying hard to unlearn it and replace it with something more workable. (Not to mention more fun - sheesh, I've never been married but am glad I'm not still a virgin at the age of 38.)

Wanting a "boyfriend" DID seem quaint, even to my own ears. So I tried the "fake it till you make it" approach. I thought that the reason I didn't get enjoyment out of casual hook-ups was because there was something wrong with me. (Misplaced guilt, etc.) It really wasn't that, though. I didn't feel guilt about one-night stands, I just didn't get what I wanted out of them. (And that would be because I was ashamed of what I *did* want, and was trying to want something else.) To this day, though, my biggest aphrodisiac is a guy who is crazy about me and treats me like a queen.

I think it's interesting that the essays were all submitted by college students. The college environment is like summer camp - far removed from anything that even vaguely resembles the real world. I would like to read an equal number of essays from people paying bills, working full-time, and living truly independently, and see how those essays differed.

It looks like a premature surrender to the fantasies of dim teenage guys. "Well, these boys aren't going to grow up to be the men we want them to be anyway, so we may as well just play along..."

Yes, absolutely. And it certainly did seem to me at the time that the boys were the ones having the most fun. You didn't see them crying in their Kool-Aid when their relationships didn't last - the more people they slept with, the more fun they had. If the girls could just learn to be that smart and adopt that attitude, I thought, they would have more fun, too!

I had previously been brainwashed by religious indoctrination that women were sullied, unclean, used, or damaged goods if they weren't saving themselves for marriages. I knew how silly that was, and I was trying hard to unlearn it and replace it with something more workable. (Not to mention more fun - sheesh, I've never been married but am glad I'm not still a virgin at the age of 38.)

Wanting a "boyfriend" DID seem quaint, even to my own ears. So I tried the "fake it till you make it" approach. I thought that the reason I didn't get enjoyment out of casual hook-ups was because there was something wrong with me. (Misplaced guilt, etc.) It really wasn't that, though. I didn't feel guilt about one-night stands, I just didn't get what I wanted out of them. (And that would be because I was ashamed of what I *did* want, and was trying to want something else.) To this day, though, my biggest aphrodisiac is a guy who is crazy about me and treats me like a queen.

I think it's interesting that the essays were all submitted by college students. The college environment is like summer camp - far removed from anything that even vaguely resembles the real world. I would like to read an equal number of essays from people paying bills, working full-time, and living truly independently, and see how those essays differed.

Sorry - sticky mouse button.

Y'know, Bikerken, I do see some of that, but it's less so among my women friends than my men friends. I have a couple of men friends that actually pout when they get turned down! But then, they're going after younger women. I think that if they were going after women our age, they'd have a better chance. I'm happy hanging with the man I've got, and not really willing to share, and neither is he, so we won't being doing the swinger thing. Absolutely there's less pressure now than in previous years, and I see that in a lot of my women friends, especially the ones who hook up with younger men. They've already got kids, some have grandkids, so that option is totally off the table. But I've also seen the breakups that follow with this, and while some women pretend that it doesn't bother them, you can see that it does.

My female friends in their 30s and 40s are either in a relationship that they're not happy with (settling), or have given up on men entirely.

Chrissy, this strikes me as being rather sad. When are women going to understand that they don't need a man to be fulfilled? I had quite the drought in between the ex and the man I live with now, and it was up to me to fill the gaps, not some random stranger. Fuck buddies always end up breaking your heart; they're holding out for someone better than you (in their eyes), and don't want the attachment that inevitably happens. While they're looking for Ms. Right, they're settling for Ms. Right Now. I don't know of any of my friends who can honestly say that she didn't start developing feelings for her fuck buddy. Most cut it off before it got out of control, but then they just started going out to look for another. Wash, rinse, repeat. You can be lonely even when you're in a relationship. There's a difference between being lonely and being alone. Sometimes being alone is a relief. YMMV

Flynne, I completely second your opinion about fuck buddies.

It makes me think of a guy I know who is 45 years old. Very good-looking, smart, has his act together, and seems like a great catch. He was married once and had two kids with his wife. They divorced after a number of years and he found someone else, the ONLY woman he says he has ever loved. She had never been married or had kids, but wanted to, and he (already with two kids) didn't want to get married again or have more kids. So they split up, and she went on to marry someone else and have the family she wanted. He has only had fuck buddies ever since, for about the last 15 years. It isn't that he is holding out for someone better - he isn't even looking for anything else. He just wants a woman he can have sex and dinner with a couple times a week, and he keeps his emotions totally removed.

>>> He just wants a woman he can have sex and dinner with a couple times a week,

The most over-rated thing in the world is lousy sex.

The most under-rated thing is taking a pretty woman in her best LBD out to a very nice restaurant and getting the works. Great meal, drinks, dessert, good atmosphere, good conversation, music. I love doing that and I don't mind dropping a couple hundred bucks to do it. It's well worth it to me. Sex don't have to happen afterward, but it's usually much better when you approach it with that kind of an evening. Theres no bigger turn on that when a woman gets really dolled up for you.

"When are women going to understand that they don't need a man to be fulfilled? "

I figured this out at a young age, and am grateful for it.

I did the hook up thing in high school and beginning of college. I got attached to some of the guys. I had fun but felt a little unfulfilled. I thought I was a decent catch but no one wanted to DATE me (didn't happen no matter how I played my cards). Which is why I did that whole "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" bit...

Then I realized I was bored with guys. I wanted a companion and was sick of this lack of fulfillment. I didn't blame anyone, not even myself. If I didn't click with anyone then so what. I consciously decided to just hang out solo for a while (which was really easy since I moved home from college to save money/get away from crazy drug selling, underwear snatching roomies).

Then BF came along. We hit it off right away. It was immediately comfortable and we didn't waste anytime get, er uh, better acquainted. The next day I felt chipper and never doubted he'd call. He did, two or three days later per The Book of Rules. We chatted and made plans for the following weekend. He was a good guy and I knew that right away.

2 1/2 years later we're still getting acquainted and still making plans.

Meanwhile, I see my gf's and enjoy alone time. If I said "let's move in together" he'd say "sure" but I don't want to rush it. I need to do my own thing for awhile before I get into a situation where I have to constantly compromise and consider another person. I love him very much but I'm 23 and need to be selfish for a few years (he's 29 so he's had that opportunity!).

I think I'm doing alright - I'm happy and no one's in a full body cast so that's good.

P.S: everyone's shared so much great stuff on this post and I've enjoyed all of you so much!

I'm enjoying everyone's comments too, very much.

I just wanted to clarify that I'm not like anyone I know, in that I'm not in a relationship that I'm bored with, nor have I given up on men. I adore men, and I'm very happy with my 'not-boyfriend', who I've been seeing for around 2 years. He's adorable, and makes me very happy. He's younger than me, and he actually has emotions, which I found strangely lacking in the men of my age group, so I really like that.

I enjoy my friends and my own company, find life fascinating and fun, and accept men as they are. I live in the moment, try to be very Daoist, so I'm very content.

I was married for 4 years, been divorced for about 12 years, and had 3 relationships in that time period, but never wanted to remarry or live together again, even though the guys wanted to.

Fuck buddies always end up breaking your heart; they're holding out for someone better than you (in their eyes), and don't want the attachment that inevitably happens.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. I was never holding out for someone better - not once, not ever. I just didn't want the relationship, commitment or monogamy. I always did my best to find women who felt the same and wanted the sex. I was always clear and upfront about my lack of any interest in a relationship or the big M. And if I suspected that feelings might be getting out of hand, I would end it.

On a couple of occasions I actually developed feelings of my own, so I always tried to be sensitive to what might be happening with the person. OTOH, all I did at that time in my life was play music, use drugs and fuck a lot - emphasis on the drugs, I was not always the most aware of what was happening. But I daresay that none of us gets through life without hurting others or being hurt. Some of us just try harder not to than others.

I would also daresay that while it probably happens that women develop feelings more often, men are quite prone to it as well. Sickeningly, some of the very men that a women might have developed feelings for, have done the same. But they figure that it's against the established rules and never pursue it. Such is life.

The sad thing about this is that since no one can scan for the actual content of a .jpg, .gif, .tif, .eps - or about eighty other graphics formats, it does nothing to halt the transmission of child pornography, etc., between people who know this.

I call this "gee-whiz disease": the mental condition which causes a halt to all thinking after a first action is taken.

I'm amazed that XM/Sirius is allowed some of its content. So many cars come with those radios it's ludicrous to claim that little Johnny and Susie can't hear Howard Stern - or worse - during the day (which is somehow an evil time to be doing what Howard does).

I can understand why the nanny-ware would block that, my question is, why were they using nanny-ware? Were you at a hotel? a University?

Worse.

She's in New England.

We are infested, even in that bastion of freedom New Hampshire, with a bunch of senseless Puritans who recoil in horror that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

I'm at the Hilton. And hilariously, Nando found a DVD of hardcore 80s porn on top of their TV. I guess there's no nannyware against being very tall, like Nando. Well, not yet, anyway.

So the word "pedophile" itself is harmful to children? What pedophile is going to try to lure children by telling them he's a pedophile?

Perhaps the Hilton caters to a population of retarded kiddie diddlers?

Aha! I wondered where NAMBLA went after they got kicked out of South Park! o_O

Won't somebody PLEASE think about the children?!

So, I'm guessing all news outlets are blocked as well?

never underestimate the human need to appear to be seen doing something... This is why I often have to be less clear when I reply to things on the net. When I am using a work PC there is no telling what words they are looking for.

the bottom line is "we'll remeber it for you at wholesale"... The very computer power that allows things like the net to happen, is also the power to control it...

Flynne, what do the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes have anything to do with it?

Seriously, Jim Treacher is right, would you really expect to find the word pedophile on any site where adults were trying to lure children or a site where people were discussing the issue? It sure seems to me that there would be a more accurate way of judging the content of a site quickly and efficiently without getting this stupid. That being said, there are always a few dropped coins that will seek out the nearest crack and fall through it.

No need to drag Marlon in there. FYI, humor works best when it comes from truth.

Is there a gideon bible?

Fucking hell. That headline cracked me up. Brilliant.

at a glance, i thought your headline read, "Child Saver"

THE IRONY!

no wonder you're busy, you're all the way over in New Hampshire! best of luck ms. amy(:

Amy- I take it you are not a South Park affeciando. In a South Park episode a while back, the National Man / Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) held their conference at the same hotel as the National Marlon Brando Look-Alike (NAMBLA) people. Hillarity ensued!

er- North American MBLA...

Whoops! Thanks for the explanation. Marlon was a friend, and I'm a bad idea for an enemy, but I stand up for my friends, even after they're dead.

We woke up this morning, and there was old Marlon and Jack Nicholson on TV in The Missouri Breaks...

My favorite was Last Tango in Paris. He was one of the great ones. Never knew him, but from what I have heard, he was a real decent man too.

11 kids by five women says wikipedia, but I've heard as many as fifteen, and Wiki didn't include the daughter I worked with once (she had a Gadfatherly jawline).

This was not an entirely balanced individual man.

Yes, the nerd police block alot of traffic. I actually hate it when this happens. I find my americanmeth and streetgang websites blocked from hotels often. Doesn't matter to the puritan fucks running the place that I am speaking and writing about the dangers of methamphetamine. Oh well, there is always a solution:

Amy, just use a proxy when you are stuck in some place that blocks websites with nannyware. Just google up 'blocked site access' for a list of proxy sites, and keep a list of these sites handy for when you are in some puritan-infested nannyware location. The proxy blocks the nannyware from actually knowing what site you are on. Don't tell the kids, but it's a great way to get to porn sites from locked down corp environments without leaving a trail;-0

Oh, and if the software is filtering text, that's a little tricker. I don't see how they would do that. I mean technically it's easy but shit you couldn't even read an online newspaper.

To deal with this, setup your home or office workstation for remote control, and connect to that workstation with a secure tunnel from whereever your travels take you. Everything you send and receive is encrypted, so even the nannyware is helpless to stop it. Unless it stops you from making the secure connection, in which case, find another less nazi-like hotel.

we gotta do something ... this is something ... let's do it!

I'm actually suprised websense doesn't filter this site out. I think it's a great site but your ability to say what you're actually thinking without putting it through a PC filter usually triggers the websense people. For instance, Volokh.com is filtered and that's not offensive. I'm just hoping this site never gets filtered from me.

Volokh.com offends many -- for standing up for the Constitution, and Enlightenment values, and questioning bad laws made in the service of political correctness, just to name a few examples.

It may not levitate, but let me tell you, you can definitely make yogurt fly.

Enjoy your conference. At the keynote, listen carefully. That sound you hear will be thousands of radical feminists crying out in pain since they hate woman-hating evo-psychos and prefer their patriarchy conspiracy theory.

If anyone doubts my power, just note that I posted my comment more than 24 hours before Amy posted the entire post. I am more powerful than General Zod!

I remember when I became an atheist. I was sound asleep in my bed, woke up suddenly and decided I didnt believe in God. I felt a sudden relief, and fell promptly back to sleep. That's my story, wouldnt a religious person label this as a spiritual experience if instead I said "I woke up and suddenly believed in God, and felt relief and happiness" and use this to prove there is a God? What about me whose story is in reverse?

If anyone has deets for the Hitchens D'Souza event, please tell us where and when. I can't find anything about it on the web.

Can anyone ever give an example of an athiest regime? How about any type of athiest based government?

I can understand how some people are comforted by the notion of a god, and I'll admit there might indeed be one.

But I have to say if there is a god it is cannot be anything like the gods described by any religion to day.

Islam was founded by a child rapist, anyone who thinks a god would condone that is fucked in the head.

Nearly ever single christina sect in existance either gaurentees you will go to hell, or simply ignores the very rules set for by thier god.

Lutherans belive their faith is wrong, just better than catholocism.

Catholics, in addition to violating the ten commandments by praying to idols(icons, saints, virgin mary, etc), aid and abet the catholic church in finacing the removal of child molesters from public prosecution.

The Church of England is based soley on the whim of a serial killer wanting a divorce.

Protestism was founded on the basis of protesting the catholic churchs actions of selling indulgences and tourturing people to death for heresy. Unfrotunatly the edited the bible which carries a penalty of eternal damnation.

According to the bible jesus denied being god, so any church subscribing to the doctrine of trinity holds jesus not only to be god, but a liar. Tell me how can a liar be a god of all that is good and holy?

Ten minutes of rational thought applied to any religion whould show that they are ALL false. They either ignore their very sorce material or garuntee that you will never go to heaven.

What kind of all loving all powerful deity condems everyone to hell?

And suppose you do get into heaven, what is your reward?

It is an eternity of sitting around praiseing god telling him how great he is.

How fucking narcissistic is that?

You have supreme power, and you use it to create a testing ground rigged where everyone fails, and the special few you allow in get to sit around forever and tell you how swell you are?

I'll ask again How fucking narcissistic is that?

Great post, lujlp.

And here's all I could find about the event, from D'Souza's website:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/events/calendar.html

MAY 01, 2008

Forum with Christopher Hitchens & Dennis Prager, Orange County, CA

Welcome to the cold and dreary Northeast...shit weather this week.

Let me know if you're passing through Boston and I'll email some restaurant recommendations!

Lujlp - ditto.

Thanks, Gretchen. And I'm only passing through Manchester for a few days, and apparently, we're all staying near some fish restaurant that's supposed to be the best in the state.

Well, heck, Amy. If I had known you were making this trip, I would have waved at you when you flew over Wisconsin.

Amy, I know you and your supporters are very sensitive to criticism, but I can't resist two small points: 1) it should read "whoever taped it" and 2) I think "you do protest too much" re your atheism. I do believe in God but I don't have to mention it every time I put pen to paper the way you seem to have to do. It makes me wonder why.

Because the inanities of faith are warping the human enterprise.

"It makes me wonder why."

Because she makes a living off telling people what she thinks. And what she thinks has a lot to do with her atheist (non)belief system.

Just a thought. I am certainly not claiming I can speak on her behalf.

You're right on "whoever" -- changed that, thanks -- and that's what I get for blogging at 2 am after a long plane flight. ("Whoever" would be answered by "he" taped it.)

As for why I mention god, if people who believed in god were just off doing rain dances and didn't try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, or worse, in the case of Muslims, try to murder, convert, or tax and humiliate infidels, well, I wouldn't have a problem with believers. Well, I'd find it sad and immoral that they raise their children to believe instead of to think. But, you don't see me blogging about astrology buffs, do you? They believe, without evidence, in some silly crap. But, they don't endanger my life or freedoms. So, I just laugh at them and don't devote much wordspace to them.

Kerry, why do you believe in god when there's no evidence god exists?

Oh, and I just looked at what Crid said. Yeah, that. I was too tired to write it shorter, to borrow from somebody or other.

And now, I'm going back to bed.

Have you heard that they call Manchester ManchVegas? :) Enjoy!

There's a great public Gun range 5 minutes from the Manchester airport if you're bored and have an urge to shoot an Uzi or an MP5.
Not that you'd be bored in Manchester ...

Pinker and David Sloan Wilson and all sorts of interesting people will be presenting their research here. What I do need is not target practice but three hours of sleep.

Can anyone ever give an example of an athiest regime? How about any type of athiest based government? (lujlp)

Atheist regimes: Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, North Korea. D'souza's point is that if we are to hold religions responsible for the actions of governments, then also we have to hold atheism responsible for the actions of governments.

Avowedly atheist societies have not proved more benevolent or more rational than religious societies. Quite the opposite. It's paradoxical.

Atheism is, simply, requiring evidence before believing in something. (Amy)

Well that's one conception of atheism. There are strong and weak versions of atheism.

Ten minutes of rational thought applied to any religion whould show that they are ALL false. They either ignore their very sorce material or garuntee that you will never go to heaven. (lujlp)

The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake. Atheists often err by assuming all religions are fundamentalist, but most aren't. So saying a religion is "false" is like saying that moral tales, like Flaubert's Madame Bovary, are false. Most religions conceive of religious texts as the shared stories of a common culture. Indeed, culture is probably nothing more or less than shared stories.

This turns out to be the value of religion. Religious societies have proved more resilient, more cohesive, less abusive of human rights, and more economically prosperous than non-religious societies. Most of the modern liberal ideas of human rights derive from religious beliefs about human flourishing.

For very good, if inconclusive, discussion of the issues involved, I recommend Rameau's Nephew. The Enlightenment thinkers were unsure about how society would develop without religion. The terrors of the 20th century seem to confirm their concerns.

Religion has a social value. It's still here because it has been very useful.

I agree that religion is very useful.

Being condemned to hell is a whole lot scarier than 25-life.

It's still here because it has been very useful.

That's the question: has it been useful. If it had been useful, then it should still be here. It does not follow that since it's still here it must have been very useful. Otherwise, we'd have to say that the common cold must have been useful too, to mention just one thing. It's a logic error. (P implies Q) does not imply (Q implies P).

I'd accept that religion is not all bad - it does offer some benefits. But how can you weigh them up against the drawbacks? And it looks as if the balance is shifting on a worldwide scale.

Atheist regimes: Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, North Korea. D'souza's point is that if we are to hold religions responsible for the actions of governments, then also we have to hold atheism responsible for the actions of governments.

Ugh...this is so ridiculous, I was hoping I wouldn't have to get into this.

Hitler was a Christian, first of all, and the others weren't "atheist" regimes, because there's no atheist playbook like there is a Bible or a Koran. Atheism is not believing in god. It doesn't tell you to go kill people who believe differently, as do the Bible AND the Koran. Luckily, Jews and Christians have moved on from that advice. Too many Muslims have not.

As for the so-called success of "religious societies," societies saw real success when they practiced and practice Enlightenment values.

Religion is useful for keeping the sheep in line. But, guess what: Humans have evolved morality, and don't kill each other or cheat each other because it isn't in their self-interest. They cooperate because it is in their self-interest. And when our group size gets above the Dunbar 150 (which he speculates is the maximum human group size that can be self-policing) we have police forces to keep us in line.

I'm on deadline now, plus I have this conference. Norman and the rest of you, can you please take over with any further cleanup?

It does not follow that since it's still here it must have been very useful. Otherwise, we'd have to say that the common cold must have been useful too, to mention just one thing. It's a logic error. (P implies Q) does not imply (Q implies P).

Not so. You are equivocating over two sense of 'utility.' The common cold is a (marginally) living thing. Religion is a social practice of a living thing. Thus, your counter-claim fails.

I'm arguing on the warrant that social practices survive over long, long periods of time because they are useful. You'll need to address that warrant. Analogies with viruses won't work here.

because there's no atheist playbook like there is a Bible or a Koran. Atheism is not believing in god. It doesn't tell you to go kill people who believe differently, as do the Bible AND the Koran. (Amy)

The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao. For example, atheism is the bedrock of Mao's totalitarian "new man" concept.

I'm not saying that atheistic societies are necessarily more abusive than religious societies. Denmark is a mostly atheist country, and it's benign. But there is no reason to believe, from the historical record, that atheistic societies will be any more rational or less abusive than Western religious societies.

As for the so-called success of "religious societies," societies saw real success when they practiced and practice Enlightenment values. (Amy)

True. But Enlightenment values were mostly theistic in one way or another. I suggest it is no accident that the Enlightenment ocurred, that science flourished, in Western religious societies.

But, guess what: Humans have evolved morality, and don't kill each other or cheat each other because it isn't in their self-interest. (Amy)

This is too gross. It ignores qualitative differences between social moralities. Western religions seemed to have developed a more successful implementation of our "evolved morality."

The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake. Atheists often err by assuming all religions are fundamentalist, but most aren't. So saying a religion is "false" is like saying that moral tales, like Flaubert's Madame Bovary, are false. - Jeff

So Jeff what you are saying is Madame Bovery acctually happened?

That Hansel, Gretal, and Goldilocks were real people. And that what they all went thru was hostorical fact, that we need to center our lives around them and legislate innane laws to force the populas at large to 'benifit' from the wisdom their biographies teach us?

Is that what your saying Jeff?

Do you find it convincing when Muslim apologists cite Timothy McVeigh being a Christian as evidence of "Christian Terrorism"?

Neither do I.

And it's equally unconvincing when atheists cite Hitler being a Christian for similarly sophist purposes. As an Irish standup comic whose name I can't remember put it: "I'm about as much a Catholic as a cow born in a tree is a bird."

History will show that regimes that have criminalized religion have killed more people than religious regimes, at least in the 20th century. Why this should be I can't say, and the kill ratio may indeed become reversed in the 21th century, but we'd be in a better position to face the future if we're more honest about the past.

>> I ran into Christopher Hitchens, who said he was in ...

Amy, you're the bomb. Hitch isn't one of my favorite thinkers, but it would be cool to run into him.

I am not an atheist (agnostic maybe?) but I can't help but blast this:

"The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao. For example, atheism is the bedrock of Mao's totalitarian "new man" concept."

Atheism is not a set of rules and it is NOT a singular set of ideas. Atheism simply means you don't believe in something - that is unless you are presented with some sort of proof which is reasonable to you.

Religions give you all the answers, not urge you to find them. Atheism allows you to seek your own proof. Create your own unique framework for believing in god, afterlives, karma, whatever.

I don't know what Marx did in terms of religion, but I do know he was a great thinker of economics and human behaviors. Maybe I'm missing something there. I probably am.

Not believing in god (because there isn't sufficient evidence, which I think is subjective) doesn't necessitate your allegiance to everyone else who feels the same. Atheism is just a term for people to describe themselves as not believing in god, yet there is nothing binding about their whole belief system. I'm definitely repeating myself.

Furthermore, the insinuation that morality outside of religion is ludicrous. My statement about "being condemned to hell is scarier than 25-life" = religion is a tool that states can use to create good behavior. I find this insulting as morality and ethics exist entirely outside of religious context for me. I don't follow a religion yet have no desire whatsoever to kill, rape, steal, maim, etc. Those just aren't appealing activities, in fact they are revolting to me. I'd much rather DRINK MARGARITAS AND WATCH BSG TONIGHT! Sorry, I'm exciting it's Friday...

Maybe you should beef with Nietsche, not labor activists and revolutionaries...

Lujlp - go easy there! :-)

For Jeff
False religions

Islam - founded by a child rapist to justfy his actions - Highly doubt any god condones raping children

The Church Of England - Created by Henry the 8th, a serial killer who wanted a divorce - doesnt sound devinely inspired to me

Lutheranism - Created by Martin Luther. Luther himself said his church was a false church, but that it was slightly better that catholocism - Its own founder labels it as false

Catholocism - Under a banner of peace n love ran a thousand year campgain of death and torture. Venertaes idols in violation of the ten commandments. At one point declared the christ has no soul. Subscribes to the doctrine of triny which holds jesus god and the holy spirt are one being, unfortunatly jesus himself denied being god.

As nearly every christian sect in the world today holds to the doctrine of trinity they must be false. Unless jesus was a liar, but if jesus was a liar then obviously they would still be false.

The few sect which are not followers of trinity are Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Unitarians.

Christadelphians - belive that the bible was the only work inspired by god. Unfortunalty when jesus assended after the pentecost he said he was off to visit other 'sheep that were not of this flock' alluding to other belivers.(This phrase has been latched onto by mormons)

But it raises the question ifgod has followers elsewhere in the globe why would he deny them a religious text. As everyone claims god is unchanging it is obvious he wouldnt therefore Christadelphians are wong.

Jehovah's Witnesses belive only 144,000 people get into heaven. Out of all the people in all of the universe. If you were to simply take the people on the planet at this moment that would be .0024%. less than one quarter of one percent of people from right now. Imagine how small that number will be if you were to factor everyone who has ever or will ever live - it flies in the face of 'belive in me and you'll go to heaven'

Unitarians are an interseting bunch - they consider themselves christians but do not belive christ was the son of god. Kinda hard to have a christian faith that denies christ was the son of god, but they manage to wrap their heads around it.

I could go on and one about mormons as well if you'd like Jeff. Let me know if youd like me to. In the mean time if you can provide me with a religion that is true I'll be happy to look into it

History will show that regimes that have criminalized religion have killed more people than religious regimes, at least in the 20th century. - naif

Well sir the 20th century is over, why hasnt history shown it yet?

And Hilter was a christian, denying to doesnt help your argument in any way

And Mad Russian Roman Genn argues that communism was the state religion.

(Just bopping in for a second...thanks so much, Gretchen and lujlp, for the janitorial help!)

lujlp: Jehovah's Witnesses belive only 144,000 people get into heaven.

What's the appeal for the 144,001st Jehovah's Witness?

lujlp: And Hilter was a christian...

Yes and no. It's more complex than that - history often is.

Hitler viewed mainstream religion like Napoleon and Marx did, as a means of keeping people under control. Hitler viewed Christianity as a religion for the weak and instead formed his own quasi-Christian religious views - a muddled mess of Ariosophy, the occult, racism, and select those portions of Christianity he deemed sufficiently Aryan and militaristic.

He wasn't an atheist - in the sense he never publicly denied the existence of God, but his view of God did not resemble the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God. He referred to a more vague "Almighty Creator" and "Providence" rather than to "God."

While he consolidated his power, he sought a religiously neutral Germany, fearing the political power that a state church not completely under the thrall of the Nazis would have.

Hitler tried to replace traditional Christianity with what the Nazis called, "Positive Christianity," which celebrated Christ as a fighter, organizer, and opponent of established Judaism - i.e., a Nazi. The issue of Christ's divinity was left deliberately vague.

In Hitler's view, Aryans were the chosen defenders of civilization while Jews were the enemies of civilization everywhere.

Hitler once lamented to Albert Speer that Islam would have been a better religion for the German people to have embraced than Christianity. He even appointed the grand mufti of Jerusalem an honorary major in the SS.

Documents from the Nuremburg Trials show the Nazis eventually planned to completely wipe out Christianity and substitute their own religion based upon Aryan racial superiority. Whether that religion could be called "Christian" is open to debate.

Hitler was as much a Christian as Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Muslim. In other words, not.

Whereas Ali decided that the religion was too barbaric and could no longer remain involved with it, Hitler decided that HE was God, and that Christianity wasn't sufficiently ruthless to guide the ubermenschen to their rightful place in the world.

Humans have an innate need to believe in something bigger than themselves. When spiritual religion is replaced by secular religion (as always happened in societies with messianic leaders (mao, hitler, stalin)) you get much larger quantities of slaughter than you ever do in societies led by believers.

Communism, which had as one of its central tenets that organized spiritual religion must be suppressed so that there would be nothing above the state, has killed more people in its short history than all religions combined in all of recorded history.

You could take a shortcut and say that atheism kills, but I won't pull a Ben Stein here. But the simple fact is that non-belief is not a hedge against irrationality as Amy and others here seem to believe.

Humans are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings. And nothing focuses the mind so well as fear. The smart ones figured out that fear of eternal divine retribution worked out better than just about any worldly punishment they could threaten.

Hitler a Christian? That's a new one. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, that's not the point. It's about following Christ. Hypothetically, let's say he did call himself a follower of Christ, did he follow Christ's teachings? Did Hitler practice the principle of "loving your neighbor"? What about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty and helping those less fortunate?

I don't think so. So it's obvious
your point about Hitler being a Christian holds no water!

Jeff - Analogies with viruses won't work here.

Actually they work very well. The idea is described by Dawkins.

Whether or not any god exists, religions are systems of thought and values which exist inside people's heads. As such, religions need limited resources - people - in order to survive. Once the number of people who believe in a particular religion drops to zero, that religion is extinct. It may exist in a book, and who knows, it may have been the one truthful religion, but it has joined the thousands of extinct religions whose names and rituals we no longer even know. Occasionally you see primitive cave art from some of these extinct religions.

Religions spread mostly from parents to children. This is why religions and nations are roughly coextensive. You can draw maps of religion because of this. To a lesser extent people change religions, or drop in or out.

Thus, religions are a kind of organism that inhabits human minds and replicates. Religions also compete with each other for resources - namely, people's minds. They trumpet how many believers they have, and how fast their numbers are growing. Religions like Islam mention "paying the religious tax" in just about every second breath. Clearly by the time Islam was founded, it was well able to take advantage of a society where money and tax were well established, and was well able to see how important money is to an organisation.

So we have all the requirements for a form of life that is every bit as insidious as a computer virus - and every bit as hard to get rid of.

Finally, consider the following. When biological parasites invades their host, it is common for them to de-sex the host, so that the host does not spend any of its resources reproducing itself. This means that the host has more resources to reproduce the parasite. The Catholic Church requires that its priesthood is celibate - that is, de-sexed. The reason is that when priests were able to marry and have children, they would naturally spend time and money on bringing up their children, and would bequeath their estate to their children on death. Now, de-sexed, they spend all their efforts promoting the religion, and leave everything to the Church when they die. The parallel with biological parasites is striking and horrifying.

This is why the analogy holds.

Hypothetically, let's say he did call himself a follower of Christ, did he follow Christ's teachings? Did Hitler practice the principle of "loving your neighbor"? What about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty and helping those less fortunate?

I don't think so. So it's obvious - thatsagreatquestion

If your going to hold up that as the standdanrd of being a christian, how many christians will acctually qualify?

And brian if you truley belive that communism has killed more people in the last 70yrs than religion has in all of recorded history you have no concept of numbers, time, or history.

Also you faild to provide a direct corrlation between athism and communism

Jeff - The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao.

But that's exactly the point: I'm an atheist and I don't need to read these books, and I never have. Well, I think I did look into Das Kapital as a student, but found it impossibly turgid. I wouldn't recommend it (and the ideas in it have been found wanting).

By contrast, every believer is encouraged to read and even memorise their holy book, to take it as absolute truth, and to hold it sacred.

Some people do get carried away by non-religious books; the result is effectively another religion, albeit not supernatural. So I'd say that the various totalitarian governments of last century were evil to precisely the extent that they resembled religions. The Communists with Marx, the Red Chinese with Mao's Little Red Book, the Nazis with Mein Kampf. I don't think you would have been any safer desecrating a copy of Mein Kampf in Nazi Germany in the 1930s than you would the Koran in Islamic Arabia today.

I do hope you can see the difference between atheism and religion. You won't find many atheists who will physically attack you for desecrating a copy of The God Delusion - unless it's a signed first edition or something. If they do, I'll stand with you.

"And brian if you truley belive that communism has killed more people in the last 70yrs than religion has in all of recorded history you have no concept of numbers, time, or history."

Ouch. The relation between communism, atheism, state secular religion, etc. can be debated. The magnitude of the communist death toll, however, is simply a fact. If you don't have time for a trip to the library today, you can find some rough figures here:

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/05/01/the-red-plague

Note that these exclude deaths related to Nazi Germany.

Interesting link, blame communism for anywhere between 40 million and 260 million deaths in 100 yrs.

In the hunndered yrs after Columbus reache the western hemisphere estimates put the death toll between 40 and 90 million.
And that was just in the new world durring the 16th century. Doesnt even count the deaths in the old world.

And that is just one century, still 18 others need to be counted up just for the AD side of the calender.

Sumerian cuenfor dates back alost 55 centuries before christ.

So lets recap - you are saying brian is right in his assumption that communism killed more people in the last hundered yrs the religion has in the last seven or eight thousand.

Remember a couple of paragraph ago when I showed how religion in the 16th century had the same base death toll estimate in one hemisphere as communism did?

I wonder what the toll is for the other 74 centuries? ANd thats not even counting what might possibly have happened durring pre history

sorry that should read

Sumarien cuneiform dates back almost 35 centuries before christ

Still hoping to hear the debate tonight, if anyone knows where it is, speak up.

"The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake."

Here you go then: pick the "right" one.

A bunch of these are exclusive. Logically, only three possibilities exist: 1) one religion is "right"; 2) all religions are "wrong"; 3) all religions are irrelevent except as inducements for men to influence other men.

Take your pick.

lujlp - I get it. If anyone was ever killed by a Christian for any reason, they were killed bor religion.

Right.

40-90 million killed where? In the name of what religion? We're talking "convert or die" kind of killing. War, etc. I'm not talking about wars of defense (like the Reconquista).

I'm talking about the kind of killing that Stalin engaged in against the Ukrainians. Or Mao's purges.

If you're going to start calling the colonization of America the product of religious killing, then we've got nothing to talk about besides your irrational hatred.

brian,

sdj uv nnsdnkwj dmfnhf g shnc dmf ns dmm dhfv mdejjjc.

Failure to respond to my messgae will result in my men attacking your town, anyone who resistes will be killed, your women and children will be sold as slaves.

Imagine a boat load of people land on your shore - babble on in a language you have never heard. And when you fail to submit to their demands that you worship their god and bow down to their government they attack.

And I am not saying any time a christan killed someone it was attributable to religion. I'm saying anytime a religous person used their religion as justification it is attributable to religion.

But I am curious, if you think an idea like religion is never resposible for an idividuals actions, then how can you blame communism for the actions of Stalin and Mao?

As for where, I think I was clear, I said the new world in the century after Columbus landed
American Holocust by Stannard

Actually they work very well. The idea is described by Dawkins. (Norman)

Yes, I'm quite familiar with Dawkin's specious notion of meme evolution. I'll stipulate it for now.

Here's your analogy.

It does not follow that since it's still here it must have been very useful. Otherwise, we'd have to say that the common cold must have been useful too, to mention just one thing. (Norman)

First, a ruductio. Science can be said to spread in exactly the way you describe. Advanced scientific societies have lower birth rates than less scientifically advanced societies, and then by your assumption science seeks to neuter it's "host" too. In fact, it's worse. You use the example of Catholics (you err by failing to note Roman Catholics), but Catholics have higher birth rates comapared to non-religious people. Thus, with science the "parallel with biological parasites is striking and horrifying" too. Of course, this is ridiculous.

Second, another reductio. If ideas are organisms which can, over the long term, evolve contrary to the will and benefit of the people who hold them, then what are we to make of your ideas? What makes your parasites less pernicious than mine, for example? To answer this you will have to posit some non-parasitic idea, but all ideas have the characteristics you cite. Hence, you have forever removed all of science's ability to discriminate true from false. Of course, this is ridiculous.

Third, another reductio. it appears to most of us that we can reason. It seems to be a bedrock of science, for example. But reason is precisely the deliberate alteration of one's own ideas, including religious ideas. I, and surely many others, ceased being religious by the application of reason alone. No anti-virals were necessary. This is not possible with something like say, the cold virus. Ideas seem to have properties that viruses don't have, and also the other way around. Moreover these differences are essential to both. If the virus was alterable by human cognition alone, it would in fact not be a separate organism at all, It would be part of the cognitive system of a human. So we arrive at another absurdity: if your assumption is true, then viruses and many other organisms are all human, or at least part of a human. Of course, this is ridiculous.

Norman, ideas are not like viruses because ideas can be altered by the application of reason which is an act of the human will. Physical ailments are quite different.

Atheism is not a set of rules and it is NOT a singular set of ideas. Atheism simply means you don't believe in something - that is unless you are presented with some sort of proof which is reasonable to you. (Gretchen)

Nor is religion a singular set of rules. But this is peculiar. Science is a singular set of rules and no one complains about that. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Taking up the weak form of atheism you've mentioned, a number of societies have attempted to build a cohesive society under using atheism as one of their bedrock principles. These societies have proved to be neither more rational, more prosperous, nor more cohesive. You aren't "missing something," but I think you may be going further than what has been claimed.

Religions give you all the answers, not urge you to find them. Atheism allows you to seek your own proof. Create your own unique framework for believing in god, afterlives, karma, whatever. (Gretchen)

I agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. Modern science developed out of the religious notion of natural theology. Many, many great scientists were devoutly religious. How can this square with your first sentence?

And I am not saying any time a christan killed someone it was attributable to religion. I'm saying anytime a religous person used their religion as justification it is attributable to religion. But I am curious, if you think an idea like religion is never resposible for an idividuals actions, then how can you blame communism for the actions of Stalin and Mao? (lujlp)

Then let's blame atheism anytime someone uses "wiping out superstitious religion" as a justification for killing, too, or when someone kills in the name of scientific and technological advancement. (That's Mao and Stalin respectively, by the way.)

No one is saying religious people have never done violence. Some of us are pointing out that we must also blame atheism, yes even weak atheism, if we are to blame religion for violence. Lest you are deceived, I am prepared to blame religions for violence, and atheism too.

As for the bit about warring on American Indians, all states expand by conquest. The atheistic states of the twentieth century most especially. Also, it was religious people who most fervently argued the case for humane treatment of Native Americans. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between Stalin starving the kulaks to relieve them of their "religious superstitions" and the incidents you cite.

Such insight must be hard for an impoverished intellect that can find no truth in literature. I say: blame Dawkin's memes. You're infected!

Science is a singular set of rules and no one complains about that. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Science is a singular set of rules that were established by observation, experimentation, and peer review. Any rule is subject to being overturned when new knowledge is discovered.

Religion's rules are faith-based. They are only overturned in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (the world is not, in fact, flat and the sun does not revolve around the earth) and sometimes not even then (the absurd persistence of creationism).

Science is a singular set of rules that were established by observation, experimentation, and peer review. Any rule is subject to being overturned when new knowledge is discovered...Religion's rules are faith-based. (Conan)

Ah. Exactly right, IMHO. The essential difference is how the rules are justified.

So, tell me. What justifies the physicist's belief in the existence of forces? I'm very sure it's not observation. Don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing the usefulness of forces for predicting phenomena. But sometimes what is useful is purely conceptual, and not an existent.

What of these forces? Ever observed one?

Ever hear of gravity genius, how about magnitism? Ever observe that?

I feel like I'm beating my head on a rock. There is so far to go with logic and the history of discovery - indeed, the very formation of belief. Yet people who have never even suspected what a reasoning process is presume to tell all about the Earth and everything on it.

Jeff (and others) we define things in order to discuss them with others as to what they are, what they mean and how to use them. This is awesomely difficult to explain to people who have made it a habit of assuming that what they see is what there is - and no more. This is also difficult to explain to people who do not understand that measurements mean things. We are not restricted to observing the reflection of light to "see".

Most people are inherently so egotistical they will not learn this.

There are literally hundreds of reputable sources you can visit to determine what forces are. Four fundamental ones are in use right now in front of you, in your computer. They have definitions, and are every bit as real as air, which you also cannot see. Now pardon me while I go spit.

Jeff - a physicist's "belief" in forces is due to the fact that HE FUCKING OBSERVED THEM IN HIGH-SCHOOL PHYSICS.

You can't see alcohol. Can you drink a fifth of Stoli and not get drunk?

You can't "see" electromagnetic force. But you can for damn sure measure it. Don't believe me? Stick a couple unbent paper clips in those little slots you see in the wall all over your house and touch your tongue to them. Is your hospital visit purely conceptual, or did you observe it?

Lujlp - you're being an asshole. The Puritans didn't wipe out indians who didn't convert. Cortez didn't kill indians for not converting. In the first case, any deaths were purely accidental (nobody had worked out the germ theory of disease in 1620). And Cortez was just there to steal.

The Crusades, in as much as they could be considered "religious" wars were simply wars of defense and retribution. The Islamic invasions of Europe, while for the expansion of Islam, were still EXPANSIONIST. Which makes them territory and ideology. Which sounds an awful lot like the Nazis and Soviets.

Mao's was purely ideological. And frankly, I think that makes him asshole of the century. Hitler killed people for land, and while he was at it he decided to throw a little hate-crime in for good measure (flame me for trivializing the Holocaust and I'll melt your screen). Stalin was a paranoid motherfucker who liked to kill people, and then steal their territory. Mao? He actually believed that he could create the perfect man, if only he killed all the imperfect ones.

That whole "True Believer" schtick makes Mao the Number 1 motherfucker of all time in my book.

Name for me any religious movement that can say they killed 40 million people at all, never mind in one go and in the space of a decade.

Not even the Muslims with all their combined attacks on Europe from 600 and change to today can hit those kinds of numbers.

I probably cant name one religious movement that killed 40 million for two reasons. First there werent as many people in existance in such a concentration. Look a graph of human population growth rates.

Second I am not singleing out any ONE religious denomination or faith. I am counting them all.

From christianity, to jeudaism, to islam, to the greek and roman pantheons, to norse mythology. I am counting the religous sacrifices of the atzetcs, to the indian practice of throwing widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

I am counting the deaths that occured during the constrution of edifices to false gods. I am counting all who died in the afrcian slave trade after the papal decree that africans could not be freed for converting because their country of origin was not a catholic satalite state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas

Am I being an asshole? Yes, but lets face it being nice to morons isnt very productive, by shoving it down your throat you are forced to acknowledge it, at least, for awhile

Yeah, Hitler was decidedly a Christian as well as an occultist (not that Christianity doesn't have its own magic show), and his entire staff was steeped in a perverted vision of Christianity with Jesus granting them dispensation for their evils.

Religion. It's good for fleecing and herding the sheep, starting wars, and hiding crimes.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm

Actually you could argue that the old Soviet Union was an Atheist Regime. You could make a similar argument for the old Khemer Rouge of Cambodia, or the present day North Korean government.

There have been & presently are a few places you could count as Atheist Regimes in the narrow definition of a government that is hostile to religion in general. The most extreme examples attempt to replace any divinity with the ruling party.

One thing I'll say in favor of religion in general...at least the ones that don't demand that nonbelievers die or pay extra taxes...over atheist reletavism:

When morality is relative, the only morals are the convenient ones.

Morality is relative, whether you are religious or not. In terms of Xianity, was Jesus' crucifiction a good thing or a bad thing? If morality is absolute, you can't say it was good for us but bad for Jesus.

Norman - if you take the Christian mythos in its entirety, Christ HAD to die. It was part of the plan.

Lujlp, I don't care how hard you shove it down my throat, YOU'RE STILL WRONG. Being an asshole about it doesn't make you less wrong. Arguing population density doesn't make you less wrong.

The numbers have been run. The total body count in the 20th century attributed directly to Socialist pogroms is in excess of 100 million. That isn't counting casualties of war (like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or the war dead of Hitler). Just civilians killed for the good of the state.

The only way you can approach that with religion is to start claiming slavery, Manifest Destiny, and defense. And you STILL wouldn't hit a tenth of a billion people.

You are welcome, however, to continue trying.

Brian - [...] Christ HAD to die [...] Just say whether it was absolutely good or absolutely bad.

Is the death penalty absolutely good or absolutely bad? What Jesus was accused of carried such a penalty (as did most anything in those days) in the eyes of the Romans.

If you accept the life and death of Jesus as the will of God, then you would certainly consider it absolutely good - the Christian faith is predicated upon the death of Jesus redeeming the fallen for their sins. No dead Jesus, no path to salvation.

If you're a muslim, you consider the death of Jesus to be the final act of sedition against the Lord by the Jews, and therefore absolutely bad.

If you're a buddhist, I don't know how you'd view it. I suspect that the answer to your question in that frame of reference is 'mu'.

Of course, when attempting to judge the "absolute" morality of an act, you also have to consider the actors.

At the time (and even by modern standards) the Roman Empire was hardly a bastion of morality. Government by whim. Wanton exploitation of the underclasses. Given that, it would be hard to assign a positive to anything they did. From that frame of reference (in other words, discounting the divinity of Christ) the killing of Christ was absolutely bad.

In this one specific case, the morality of the situation is not relative, but it exists in both states. If you do not accept the divinity of Christ, then it was an immoral act perpetrated by an immoral regime. If you accept the divinity of Christ, then it was the expected reaction of the Romans to having their apple-cart upset.

I'm qualified to answer the question about Jehovah's Witnesses.

They believe the political forces of the world are going to unite against them. (I know, it's sort of cute that they consider themselves so relevant, but bear with me.) They believe that in the "Last Days," everyone in the world will either become a Jehovah's Witness or turn against them. And then, at that point, God will step in and kill all the bad people who are against the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you have already died through natural causes at that point, never fear - you will be resurrected and given a chance to become a Jehovah's Witness. No one really knows whether EVERYONE who has died in the past will be resurrected, or if God just deems some of them too evil to bother with. (Like Hitler - it seems unlikely that he would be resurrected, for example. But you never know.)

Then the earth will be restored to the Garden of Eden and all the Jehovah's Witnesses will live forever in paradise. They will have eternal life, eternal youth, perfect health, and (one presumes) straight teeth with no cavities and the end of the common cold. So the alternative for #144,001 is pretty good. But they do believe that out of the entire surviving lot, 144,000 (many of whom have already lived on this earth and died) will be/have been chosen to sit at the right hand of God in heaven. I think Jesus' apostles are included in that group, and some other ones mentioned in the Bible, like the people who had the tongues of fire appear over their heads in that one story.

But, other than that group of 144,000 and the chance at resurrection, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in any type of afterlife, or that the soul lives outside the body. They do not believe Hell exists. Heaven is only for God, Jesus, the angels, the 144,000, and for the rest of the people it's either eternal life on earth or eternal non-existence in death.

Thank you everyone, I'm here until Thursday. Try the veal.

brian, mainfest desitny was a religious justification for the wholesale slaughter of millions.

And thnks to the catholic church slavey became a point of relgiogius justifiction as well, so I do claim those.

But you still have failed to answer my question.

If you truley belive an idea like religion is not in any way responsible for the actions of individuals then how can you blame an idea like communism for the actions of Stalin and Mao?

Its been almost 24hrs and you've posted 3 times since I asked to answer the question already.

Ever hear of gravity genius, how about magnitism? Ever observe that? (lujlp)

There are literally hundreds of reputable sources you can visit to determine what forces are. (Radwaste)

You can't "see" electromagnetic force. But you can for damn sure measure it. (brian)

Bear with me. I'm playing slow here to make a point.

On magnetism, I've observed that certain arrangements of matter cause changes in other arrangements of matter. In fact, all of my measurements of magnetism are simply measuring the degree of re-arrangement.

When we say that forces exist, aren't we really just saying: "I have a mathematical relation, called a force, which accurately predicts the re-arrangement of matter under these such-and-such conditions?" In other words, we (even the hard-core atheist scientist) posit the existence of unobservables --- just because it's useful.

It seems that pragmatic criteria lead even the most die-hard empiricists to posit the existence of things never observed. Then why can't others legitimately posit the existence of unobservables, if it's useful?

mainfest desitny was a religious justification for the wholesale slaughter of millions. (luljp)

I'm a Texan, so I know a bit about the "manifest destiny" movement, and it was not a religious movement. It started as an argument for annexing Texas.

And thnks to the catholic church slavey became a point of relgiogius justifiction as well, so I do claim those. (luljp)

Slavery was widely practiced the world over until it was eradicated by the same Western religious tradition you so revile.

You misunderstand or are ignorant of the origins and attitudes towards slavery in the ancient world. If you were a humanitarian in the ancient world, you advocated for slavery because the only alternative was massacre. When political power was traced through bloodlines, the only way to annihilate the political power of a state was to kills it's people. Since slaves had no political rights, humanitarians urged kings and princes towards slavery instead of genocide. For example, most of the African slaves imported to the US were captives from internecine tribal wars among Africans themselves.

After the Enlightenment, when the American experiment proved that political power did not need to rest with a high-born elite, the practice of slavery declined in the West. It didn't anywhere else. Why should Western political or religious institutions apologize for being the first civilization in history to eradicate slavery in its midst?

Why does the Republican Party have so many religious fundamentalists in it? Because the Republican Party was founded to eradicate slavery by defeating the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Most opposition to slavery in the ante bellum US was from precisely the fundamentalists you so despise, and they entered the Republican Party to vote out the pro-slavery Democrats. Unfortunately, Democrats were so attached to slavery that it required a war to actually oust them from power. Hence, to this day you have lots of fundamentalist Christians in the Republican Party. Why should those fundamentalists apologize for ending slavery on the US continent?

The ironic contradictions in your views are rather funny. You have a cartoon-version of history swimming around in your Leftist brain.

If you truley belive an idea like religion is not in any way responsible for the actions of individuals then how can you blame an idea like communism for the actions of Stalin and Mao?

Its been almost 24hrs and you've posted 3 times since I asked to answer the question already.

I haven't answered your question because I'm not in the habit of defending things I did not say.

I've spent too much time on the internet having my words twisted, or having things attributed to me that nobody in the conversation came close to saying. And I don't fight straw men.

When you can come to a zeroth approximation of what I actually said, then we can have a conversation. Until then, I see no question worthy of answer.

Jeff:

When we say that forces exist, aren't we really just saying: "I have a mathematical relation, called a force, which accurately predicts the re-arrangement of matter under these such-and-such conditions?" In other words, we (even the hard-core atheist scientist) posit the existence of unobservables --- just because it's useful.

That's what we might teach in the sixth grade. But it's not the state of the art.

We may not know of the specific quantum reactions that take place in a magnetic field, no. But we can observe them, measure them, and explain them to an insane amount of precision. Consider the bit density of the 500 GB hard drive in my computer. If we were merely dealing with a postulate, there's no way it would work. But the fact of magnetic fields and electrical fields, the relations between them, and their effect on permanently magnetized materials (hint - it has to do with atomic alignment, which HAS been observed) is known, and can be controlled with microscopic precision.

I've seen how the inside of a microchip works. I understand it. The equations aren't abstract. I can give you the equations that will tell you the precise temperature you can expect a transistor to generate for waste heat based upon its geometry, the operating voltage, the bias circuit, and the switching frequency.

Electronics is a real science. It is measurable in excruciating detail (IBM is doing amazing things with atom-sized transistors). Memetics is mumbo-jumbo meant to make people money by trying to make thoughts seem like independent entities.

"It seems that pragmatic criteria lead even the most die-hard empiricists to posit the existence of things never observed. Then why can't others legitimately posit the existence of unobservables, if it's useful?"

Others can, and do. I hope that you understand that the first time such a thing fails of support, it must be abandoned. Also, a very large number of people do not have the training to understand what "legitimate" means; though this can be self-taught, it usually isn't - I've had to deal with all sorts of idiocy because people like the sound of their own voice. The history of religion is the history of believing things for which there is no support other than the collection of other "could'a, should'a, would'a"s. The pinnacle of "logic" in the religious mind produces that awesome situation where one statement in the Bible is asserted to be true because another passage in the Bible refers to it.

Really want to confuse a Creationist? Ask them why they think "Creation" happened when we do not have evidence of it today. Sometimes you'll get a blank stare, or the subject will be changed immediately because it seems so obvious that only a lunatic would say that. But everything you can see was converted from something else, not "created".

Regards slavery and religion in the U.S.
The Republican party only reluctantly became an actual anti-slavery party. It is true that many abolitionists did reside in it, before Lincoln changed his tune that slaves ought be freed (and then only in the rebelious states). Lincoln clearly said his priority was union, not freeing people of their fetters.
And Jeff, you seemed to not bring up how so much of the Souths argument for continuing and expanding slavery was entirely through religious appeals-other fundamentalists. You mentioned what the north had. I hope you take a measured view. Both north and south were religious, and appealed with religious arguments on why they were correct. Because both major sides saw themselves as religious, I think it effectively disarms any argument that appeals to religion as being the savior of that conflict- because other practitioners of that religion were the ones enslaving.
It took a bloodbath and I think the better side won.
I also think that Reagan and his coalition of morality, freemarket and defense minded people explains more the makeup of republicans of yesteryear than because the democratic party of 1861 was proslavery. That democratic party has changed a lot, so has the republican party.

think it effectively disarms any argument that appeals to religion as being the savior of that conflict- because other practitioners of that religion were the ones enslaving.(Abersouth)

Who's claiming that religion was a savior in the conflict? Not me. You've written a nice post about a straw man. I'm saying that one can't monolithically blame theism for slavery, as some have done here.

The religious nature of the abolition movement is often forgotten. It results in unfair, and sometimes untruthful, characterizations of religious peoples. Religious people have political and ideological differences just like everyone else. You can find religious people on all sides of all issues. So, you can east easy when you write,

I hope you take a measured view. Both north and south were religious (Abersouth)

I do note however, that you have not urged my opponents to such a measured view, which tells us much about your own.

I also think that Reagan and his coalition of morality, freemarket and defense minded people explains more the makeup of republicans of yesteryear than because the democratic party of 1861 was proslavery. That democratic party has changed a lot, so has the republican party (Abersouth).

I do not agree. The two parties ahve been remarkably consistent in their political philosophies. Reading period Democratic arguments for extending slavery into the Western territories, I am always struck by how closely they align with arguments for affirmative action and other state transfers of wealth.

I will concede that Wilson and the two Roosevelts altered the Democratic Party towards an English version of socialism. The Progressives erected the entire, unconstitutional edifice of the administrative state. They sought to create a nanny society.

But that term, 'nanny,' is too benign. Such a state is not very different from a large plantation with government masters. What party advocated for that kind of social arrangement, in the past?

I will also concede that neo-conservatism represents a radical and unwanted change. So yes, Reagan did change things.

But still, overall, it is notable how consistent both parties have been to their founding political philosophies.

That's what we might teach in the sixth grade. But it's not the state of the art. (brian)

Teaching model theory in the sixth grade? Very impressive, I say.

But we can observe them, measure them, and explain them to an insane amount of precision. (brian)

Careful. Measurement and explanation are very different things. Facts don't explain anything. Every thing is explained by resort to interpretations and theories.

The equations aren't abstract. (brian)

Yes, they are. The interpretation of the equations is what removes the abstractness. This is the fundamental error so often committed by engineers. Math models the real world; it isn't the real world. Who's being a rationalist now?

Memetics is mumbo-jumbo meant to make people money by trying to make thoughts seem like independent entities. (brian)

But that is your error above!

The pinnacle of "logic" in the religious mind produces that awesome situation where one statement in the Bible is asserted to be true because another passage in the Bible refers to it. (Radwaste)

Really? That's the pinnacle? So, Grotius and Galileo aren't up near the pinnacle? I dunno, Rad.

I hope that you understand that the first time such a thing fails of support, it must be abandoned. (Radwaste)

Indeed I do. We may disagree on what counts a support, though. Anyway, it might make for an interesting conversation. I certainly reject the view that science "works" by falsification.

The history of religion is the history of believing things for which there is no support other than the collection of other "could'a, should'a, would'a"s. (Radwaste)

This is true. Papal infallibility comes immediately to mind.

But everything you can see was converted from something else, not "created". (Radwaste)

I appreciate the scientific mind's reluctance to engage in metaphysics, but doesn't this just push the question back, from what was the universe converted?

Jeff, I'm not going to get into an extensive discussion about the physics of semiconductors here. Suffice to say that if the model was inaccurate, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

If there's some magical pixy dust that makes electrons behave in so specific and predictable a way in a doped semiconductor, then you're right, and the model doesn't "explain" anything. But if there's no reason to believe in God, then there's even less reason to believe in "magic smoke".

I can explain transistor theory to you, but even with my undergrad level of education, I'm pretty much stuck at the electron level of explanation. I have a grasp on the quantum-level explanations of what's going on in there, but I've been out of that field of study for over a decade. And even at that, your insistence on a meta-physical explanation of hole migration is going to send the whole thing into a ditch anyway.

Electrons, quantum states, valences, conductivity. These are all measurable and controllable properties. If the explanations weren't sufficiently good, then the computer you are reading this on simply could not be. Alchemy is not science. And electronics are not alchemy.

Suffice to say that if the model was inaccurate, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. (brian)

Who's challenging the accuracy, or validity, of the model? Not me.

If the explanations weren't sufficiently good, then the computer you are reading this on simply could not be. (brian)

Who's saying they're not sufficiently good? Not me. In fact, I've noted the extraordinary usefulness of the concept of forces.

Alchemy is not science. And electronics are not alchemy. (brian)

From where did that red herring come.

How many people are posting here with the handle "Jeff"?

You've tried to compare a belief in invisible physical forces with a belief in God. You've implied that we take it on faith that our models are accurate, but don't explain anything.

And now you're acting like you didn't just say all those things.

In the immortal words of Lou Costello, "One of us is nuts!"

Jeff,
I agree one oughtn't to monolithically blame theism for slavery. People enslaved people, and used religion as a tool.

You wrote "The religious nature of the abolition movement is often forgotten. It results in unfair, and sometimes untruthful, characterizations of religious peoples. Religious people have political and ideological differences just like everyone else. You can find religious people on all sides of all issues."
I don't get why you have at least twice now brought up the "religous nature" of the abolition movement, but failed to bring up the "religious nature" of the slave holders until I brought it up. If we find religious people on all sides of all issues, what does that tell us about the worth of religion? To me it speaks volumes to it's plasticity to justify anything.

I will concede that their have been consistencies of thought through the two major parties since their inception. But neither has been some unchanging rock over time. And I partly agree with you concerning the radical change brought on by neo-conservatism. I'm not sure how much of the blame of neo-conservatism is Reagan's. What I was talking about earlier was his coalition of limited government, defense minded and religious morality type peoples. I think after Reagan the limited government types have been effectively cast out of the republican party.

I cannot argue with a lot of what you say about the history of the democratic party. I didn't follow "the two Roosevelts" part though, because Teddy was no Democrat. He changed the Republican party a lot, and did a bit of cowboy imperialism. Not saying I'm a fan of him.

Jeff wrote-
"Slavery was widely practiced the world over until it was eradicated by the same Western religious tradition you so revile."

Here is where you credit the Western religious tradition for saving slaves from their enslavement.

Then I argued (basically) that the Western religious tradition was fractured, some religious minded people seeing slavery as bad, others as good. Then you accused me of using a straw man argument.

"Who's claiming that religion was a savior in the conflict? Not me. You've written a nice post about a straw man."

I hope you figure out what you mean to say on this subject, because I can't.

Abersouth - thank you for confirming my suspicions. I was relatively certain that I was not going mad (or at least not any madder than I already am).

Two of my daughters prefer boy stuff-they are also on the autistic spectrum. Simon Baron-Cohen has hypothesized that autism is partly an over-maleness of brain development (also that 4/5 finger length stuff-tied to hormone levels in utero).

My only non-autistic child loves pink, dolls and girly stuff. She also loves the real microscope we gave them for Christmas. Genes provide the basic tendencies, but society does play a role in how these are played out.

Interesting! Both of my girls are kinda girly, but not fru-fru girly; #1 doesn't care for pink anything, while #2 will wear pink just as often as any other color. Neither one will wear lace anything (according to both, "it itches!"). Both played with dolls and stuffed toys pretty equally, but #2 also likes to build things with Legos, while #1 prefers reading, drawing, and listening to/playing music. #2 shows signs of being more mechanically inclined than #1. (I am more mechanically inclined than 2 of my brothers, both younger, and less so than my older brother, but we've both rebuilt car engines, and done extensive repairs on our cars, with help from another male friend, who actually is a mechanic!) All 3 of my brothers and I are excellent cooks, but I'm better in the dessert department than they are. We're also all musically inclined, although Brother #1 is the most adept at playing by ear.

Gee, do you think that ANYTHING upon which feminism depends will turn out to be true? Still waiting ...

I never played with dolls, they weirded me out (so did store mannekins). I only liked stuffed animal toys and real animals, lego, reading a lot, music. I never had a Barbie either. My ring finger is longer than my index finger, so I guess I've got too much testosterone!

The last bit made me laugh - it's exactly how I was (and still am)!

I had purses which I'd fill with Barbie lip gloss and plastic play jewelry (why I needed to put it in the bag, not wear it, I don't know). I also had a ring that would flip open to reveal solid pineapple scented perfume for kids. These days it's Cole Haan patent leather purses, Lancome lipsticks and Molinard solid perfumes. My mom didn't give those things to me to make me girl-y, I wanted them! And still do! Just writing about this is making me want to go to Sephora.com and make an impulse purchase!!

I loved Legos, though I always built houses. I'd make bedrooms, t.v. rooms, private bathrooms. It was very intense. I discovered The Sims and it rekindled my love for designing houses - I can spend an entire day sitting in my Poang chair from IKEA building houses in The Sims. But Tonka trucks? Thomas the Train? NEVAH!

Oldest of seven. Four brothers. The things we did to each other were only kept in check by a dad who was tougher than all five of us put together.

On another topic, looking at all my nieces and nephews, I think a lot of the disparity in boys vs girls in school is that boys develop slower. Starting most boys a year later than girls might be a good first step.

I loved, loved, loved dolls. Had a ton of 'em. Also had a dollhouse back in the day. My favorite color is still pink. Of course, I hate lace - itchy! - and these days my toy preferences lean more towards AV equipment and computers. And I loved Matchbox cars and comic books. (My ring and index fingers seem to be...exactly the same length. Hmmm.)

In my observation, the boys-liking-transportation-objects thing is hardwired; EVERY little boy I know has become obsessed with them in one way or another before the age of two. That having been said, a few months ago, there was a discussion of little boys' play preferences on one of the parenting blogs that I read, and several mothers had stories about their toddler boys who loved wearing high heels and tiaras and had then grown up to be big strapping manly men.

Amy, forgive me if I've asked this before, and it might be old hat to you, but have you read Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps: How We're Different and What to Do About It? Click on my name to go to the Amazon page. (And no, it's not a men-are-underdeveloped book, I promise!)

This bit about the monkeys is kind of mind-bending actually. I've known for some time that boys' and girls' preferences in toys is pretty innate. However, I still assumed that they preferred these toys because the toys were representations of things in the real world that they are attracted to -- toy trucks as representations of real trucks, and baby dolls as representatives of real babies.

However, the monkeys can't possibly know what the toys represent in the adult human world. So the preference is even more hard-wired and fundemental than that! I don't know nearly enough about psychology or neurology to come up with a cogent explanation. It's a very interesting piece of data.

My wife made an insightful comment over lunch today: "The whole nature vs. nurture debate can surely only be kept alive by people who have never had children."

Certainly our two kids came equipped with their very distinct personalities from day one. We have watched these unfold as they've grown older, and I hope we've guided them into the better paths suitable to their respective characters. But the characters themselves are very clearly original equipment.

I bought that book, but I was a bit disappointed by it. I don't have it with me, but I seem to remember it as ev. psych lite, and a work of parasiting off a lot of other people's work, and in some cases, not really understanding what the researchers in question were doing.

"The whole nature vs. nurture debate can surely only be kept alive by people who have never had children."

I fail to see how that is insightful. There are many trained research psychologists with children who are still trying to find the lines between nature and nurture. Having squeezed a child out does not make you any more or less of an expert on child psychology or the scientific basis of "nature vs nuture".

HabsFan -- lighten up, you're not out of it yet!

Smoking dope fucks people up. Please, kids... Don't smoke dope.

Thanks

Sorry, Crid, too late. I smoked a whole buncha weed when I was young and foolish. Warped my emotions and my sense of personal responsibility, it did. But after I quit acting like an ass (although sometimes I still do act like an ass, but it's not due to smoking anything!), smoking and drinking my life away, I have to say, I feel so much better about myself, my life, and everything in it. It was almost like a phase I had to go through. I will admit, here and now, that sometimes I still will have a toke or 2, but nowhere near as much as I used to, when I'm at a concert, or something. But I won't buy it or carry it like I used to. It's just not worth the risks anymore.

Never got into the the green stuff, just not my kind of fun. Tried it a few times in HS and college. I had a two roommates that smoked a hell of a lot, every night. Chronic munchies from all the hot boxing did little for my waist.

One did very little with his life and sort of just hung out, mooched all of his green from the other roommate. The other was a very successful and financially savvy engineer. He'd work his ass off then come home and bake with the most intense shit you can get. He killed off his student loans with in 4 years.

I don't think it's the pot that makes someone a burn out I think being a waste of space makes one gravitate to pot.

As far as the law, oh come on just legalize the damn thing and get it over with. Tax it make, it illegal to drive while smoking and move on.

Crid,
I am a goner, A chronic smoker as they say. I like the best stuff preferably in large quantities. The paranoia sets in when I start to see the bottom of my jar.
Vlad,
I guess I am a cross. Initially I was more like room mate number one, although I was not a mooch. Now I am like room mate number two.
Personally, our national drug laws make about as much since as our drug policies. (Or at least our marijuana policies). The stocks are made up of fibers and woody parts. The woody parts make paper that lasts five times as long as paper made form wood pulp. It requires no dioxins in its manufacture. To add insult to injury, the Federal government has concluded that one acre of pot will produce as much paper as five acres of trees.
The fiber has been spun into fine linen. Also it has been spun into durable products. The word canvas comes form the word cannabis since that was what it was made from. The original Levies were made from pot, remember the old commercial showing how two mule teams couldn’t rip the jeans? Try that with cotton jeans.
The seeds are the second highest plant protein know to man. The first highest source is the soy bean.
No one has ever overdosed. There are no known long term side effects. Folks don’t smoke it and then beat up their wife. Try to say that about a six pack.
I could go on and on. Yet our national policy is to eradicate the plant from the face of the earth. How much money do you think we have poured down this gar hole? We prosecute 60,000 folks a year for pot in this country. STUPID

I know many perfectly 'successful' people who unwind with some dope every now and again. I also know people who are constantly high and don't get much accomplished. One of them has a state job, but let's not get into that. In the second category, a guy at a bar the other night practically begged me to go back to his place to smoke some pot and watch a Zeppelin DVD. Did he actually think that offer was in any way enticing?

Mary,
Hummm, Sounds pretty good to me. (as long as it is a buddy thing and we are just smokeing some pot and watch a Zeppelin DVD)
But hey at least the guy knows up front that you are not his type of female. I would never date a straight woman. Well OK I did once, but it was a pain.

Marijuana is the best pain reliever available because it has few side effects and is not physically addictive. Too bad those qualities aren't attractive to pharmaceutical companies

I was sitting on the commuter rail a few months back chatting with high school friends after a long day at work. We were reminiscing and laughing about the days gone by and discussing how it's surprising what you find out as you get older - like how many adults smoke up.

The suit sitting in the seat next to ours cut in "sorry to be eavesdropping but I wanted to say that *everyone* smokes. You don't even realize...All the people I know smoke on a semi-regular basis. You gotta..." he told us he was a stock broker. His clothing, shoes and briefcase were expensive looking - clearly not a bum. We laughed and said "there's hope for us yet!" even though we all signed forms agreeing to random testing and are FAR TOO SCARED to mess with that. So we remain pretty straight edge. Pussies that we are.

Ha Rusty, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a buddy thing, in which case, sounds good to me, too. I'm not objecting to the pot smoking, but the approach to picking up ladies. Maybe it's just me, but there's something about watching a Zeppelin DVD with a guy who can't walk straight that doesn't seem very sexy.

I know plenty of people who are pot smokers. One friend of mine, probably the most brilliant person I've ever met, uses the vaporizer. He doesn't seem to be suffering cognitively from smoking pot, nor does an old boyfriend of mine who toked every night when he came home from his day in the med-sci trenches, inventing something that has probably improved and saved a lot of people's lives.

IF her hands hurt so much, maybe Sandy should stop typing. On the other hand, maybe she'd be less boring if she were stoned.

"Too bad those qualities aren't attractive to pharmaceutical companies" Oh there you would be quite mistaken, look up Nabilone and Marinol medical grade TCH pills.

I'd probably try it more often but a buddy moved in with us who as a LTC and if they find pot in the house and any firearms, ammo, or even shell casings we are all going in for 20+ years. I will however en devour to try it more often outside thew house.

"Folks don’t smoke it and then beat up their wife." On the stuff my roommate had forget hitting anyone try finding your hand and not laughing your ass off at it.

Folks don't smoke it and beat up their wife? I'm glad you're that naive, Mary. Wish I was. While I think it should be as legal as booze, like booze, it can be a factor in beating a wife (take it from someone who left a pot-smoking asshole for that very reason) in the same way booze can. If an asshole does have some psychiatric problems, it does tend to worsen them. No, it doesn't cause someone to beat their wife (or husband or child) in and of itself just because they smoke but it does addle the brain and make them stop filtering stupid behavior the same as booze does. But I will say that shouldn't be a factor in legality any more than it is for booze since booze/pot, no booze/pot, the stupid/fucked up is gonna come out sooner or later.

Ummm Mary didn't say that.

"Folks don't smoke it and beat up their wife? I'm glad you're that naive, Mary. Wish I was." Wrong person for starters. Second I have not met a single person or a single study that pot has been found to cause aggression, in fact just the oposite. Now this does not mean that a pot head can't also be violent just means that they will be much less violent. There is one not often noted exception to this general principle. If someone is inherently paranoid a small portion of people can have too much of it and become really paranoid. Regardless when a pot head is stoned the chances of them becoming violent are greatly reduced. In your case (anon) the person was just a violent asshole and pot was circumstantial. If he's on of those very few people that pot might make violent and they keep smoking pot then they are ok with the violence, thus they are violent.

Also if they kept getting their stuff from the same dealer it could have just been laced with Angel Dust or something else to keep you high and awake. Then yes they could easily become violent.

I have to agree with vlad here. I used to be a heavy smoker/partier. During all those years hanging out with young, testosterone laden lads -- when there was only THC to be had, there was never a single fight. Introduce any other drug or booze and there was bound to be some sort of fight.

My ex was mellow on pot. Add alochol and the natural asshole came out. Probably how I started to realize how much I disliked him the older we got and the less pot we smoked.

I'd guess in anon's case, it was an excuse or the pot was laced. Or she found the rare exception to the rule.

Forgive me for stating the ridiculously obvious, but shouldn't alchohol and tobacco be somewhere on the government's list?

I wonder if Hillary could get Crown Royal smuggled into prison...

Re Hillary, check out this funny vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTAfGuLA-0&feature=related

Not that I would advocate it as treatment for anyone else - but NOTHING has had a greater nor longer lasting impact on allieviating my depression than pot. Not therapy, not pharmacueticals.

Roughly every six months I start to feel like I'm going into the bad place again. A nice evening of pot smoking later and everything is right with the world and the sun will come out tomorrow - and that lasts for six whole months. I don't know how it works, I don't care, but it does.

And as for side effects: Demolished packages of oreos and a remarked rise in the output of my creative writing (no corresponding rise in quality though - oh well)

Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!

Living in Oregon and having knees that are nigh on shot and chronic back pain (thanks roofing!) I am actually eligible for getting medical marijuana. I have an appointment in three weeks to get the card. The notion that there is anything to worry about from the feds is absurd. Even assuming that they would have any interest in fucking with people who possess or even grow a little, in accordance with their state laws, they just can't afford to do it.

What really gets me about this idiot reporter, is that she actually bought some weed, presumably on her papers dime - then instead of smoking (or vaporizing) it and writing about the experience, she flushes it. Were I her editor, I would have been throwing a bloody big fit about the waste. Then to add insult to injury she fucking writes about this non-event.

Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!

Crid -

Smoking weed does not fuck people up, excepting the period right after they smoke. Being an addict does.

I seem to recall that you are rather keen on Carl Sagan (if I am mixing you up with someone else, apologies), I am too. Carl Sagan was a stoner.

Aldous Huxley, high on any reasonable list of great American authors was also a toker. Of course he was also pretty big on LSD and mescaline in the late forties, early fifties.

Back in my not so glorious days of being a marijuana "facilitator" (sounds better than dope dealer) I used to supply two MSU proffs, one of whom was the head of his department.

An old friend of the family who has built and subsequently rebuilt his rental properties empire four times (divorce is a right whore sometimes), making very good money and being a very successful business man, has smoked pot daily for longer than I have been alive. It could be argued that weed fucked him up in the wife department, but doesn't change the fact that he has been incredibly successful over the course of his career.

My old roofing boss back in Michigan built his business in the days when he smoked every day - often when he was working and/or bidding jobs. He hasn't advertised in twenty some years, depending on referrals to keep him busy enough to make a very, very comfortable living. It is only since MI's economy has sunk that business has fallen off. But he's ready to retire anyways.

I have also worked for a lot of people who are very successful (I am not all that affordable) who also regularly smoke pot.

I will end this with myself, though mine is a success story still in the making. I have smoked pot for years. Back when I was still in MI I was a daily smoker and managed to run two to three roofing crews, bid jobs, keep up on side jobs and work for my landlord. Nowadays I may not be as regular with my toking as I used to be, but I still smoke. I have managed to build a business that after seven months here, I was able to stop advertising. Since that point, I have put up ads on three occasions, taking on about six new clients who were not referrals.

As I am taking my weekend yesterday and today, I am stoned right now.

Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!

Not to get TOO snotty, but why didn't she do a little journalistic investigation before purchasing?

I found the California law on pot in ten seconds via Google:

"Possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor under California Health and Safety Code Section 11357. Possession of one ounce (28.5 gms) or less is punishable by a maximum $100 fine. "

The cops take your eighth and give you a ticket, not a waterboarding session.

Gog -

California law isn't even relevant, excepting that by Cali statute she was totally legal for it. I know the laws very from state to state (of those with legal medi marijuana), but here in OR, I can (or will be allowed in a couple weeks) grow up to 6 mature plants and eighteen seedlings. I will also be allowed to possess up to 24 ounces of dried, smokable weed.

Indeed, I am getting the card mainly because one of my friends with AIDS recently lost his caregiver (person growing him weed) so I am going to pick up the slack, as I actually qualify for the card. I'll be growing enough for him, myself and a couple others, in his home. Given the sharply limited amount of toking I do, this is more of a favor to a friend than necessity.

By and by Crid, I could also make the same argument you are, about alcohol. And there is plenty more evidence out there to support the assertion that alcohol will fuck up your life than there is that weed will.

Oh, and;

Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!

"California law isn't even relevant, excepting that by Cali statute she was totally legal for it."

She lives in California, so obviously California law is relevant.

Incidentally, if the law isn't relevant, how can you say she's been designated as "legal for it"?

Unless you're referring to her fear over Federal law, in which case she could simply have bought some pot, avoided the medical system, and simply worried about the $100 fine instead.

Personally, I quit smoking pot years ago. It was screwing with my reasoning ability. YMMV.

Hmm. All these wonderful stories are about yourselves. That's not very comprehensive.

Yes, the law takes a twisted path to anything approaching "reasonable", and in many cases will not get there. I find that a majority of people do not know what any law actually says, and they do not know what "crime" and "tort" mean. This does not keep them from running on and on about the subject.

I must ask, as I have before: what consumer protections do you expect after legalization? What mechanism do you expect to have for establishing THC availability to the average consumer? How do these measures compare with existing market features?

If you wanna play, you gotta pay. You just won't be paying some thug, the reincarnation of Capone, and giggling about it.

I must ask, as I have before: what consumer protections do you expect after legalization? What mechanism do you expect to have for establishing THC availability to the average consumer? How do these measures compare with existing market features?

The cannabis clubs in California are hashing these things out right now (pun intended). As I understand it, they offer an array of different choices of strains of pot, preparations (i.e., smokable, edible) and potencies at varying price points. The market seems to be already establishing how these things work. Perhaps the coffee shops in Amsterdam might offer some pointers, too.

If you wanna play, you gotta pay. You just won't be paying some thug, the reincarnation of Capone, and giggling about it.

There is a significant demand for pot that isn't very sensitive to legal penalties; it's a hugely lucrative crop that also has a large number of practical uses. Sounds like a winning move to me to take the thuggery out of this particular commerce.

Gog -

ncidentally, if the law isn't relevant, how can you say she's been designated as "legal for it"?

I should have clarified that the statute your citing isn't relevant to her because she bought it in accordance with Cali laws regarding medical marijuana.

Radwaste -

I must ask, as I have before: what consumer protections do you expect after legalization? What mechanism do you expect to have for establishing THC availability to the average consumer? How do these measures compare with existing market features?

Nothing that we don't already have in place for the market sales of alcoholic beverages.

And most anything would be preferable to the current market, as the current market offers no consumer protections whatsoever.

You just won't be paying some thug, the reincarnation of Capone, and giggling about it.

First, I never giggled about where it was coming from, though that is more relevant to my very occasional use of cocaine when I was younger. But you know, I would be much happier knowing that rather than going to support terrorism or organized crime, the tax would be supporting say, substance abuse intervention, legitimate drug education, education in general or a whole host of things that would be better than giving it to criminals and thugs.

I love how you try to make it sound like legalization would come at some huge fucking cost to society. Like the status quo isn't already reaping huge social cost. Like we don't already have mechanisms in place to deal with all the concerns you seem to have. Like legalization wouldn't free up billions, upon billions of dollars that we spend directly on the war on drugs.

Please, by all means explain just where the fuck the cost comes into it. Seriously. Explain to me how instead of spending billions of our tax dollars annually, bringing in massive tax revenue off the legal sales of currently illicit drugs will somehow cost us more. Explain to me how not locking up non-violent drug users with hardened, violent criminals is going to cost society. Explain how creating a paradigm where non-violent, non-criminal drug users can buy their drugs without having to get them from hardened criminals is going to cost society.

"I love how you try to make it sound like legalization would come at some huge fucking cost to society."

Just so you don't have to invent my position for me, I'll be more to the point: it's not all happy time if and when pot is legalized - and you might want to think about what "legalized" means. It's not just "it's not illegal anymore, yay!". You might not have noticed this, but you don't get to sell anything for a living without being subject to regulation. Grow a plant at home, fine. Sell to your neighbors? Nope. Can't do that.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there is not just one, but at least four Federal agencies involved in the regulation of alcohol and tobacco, the products most often cited as a great success, on the product level alone: BATF, IRS, Interstate Commerce Commission and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. The cannabis clubs Justin mentions are probably aware of this.

Alcohol and tobacco are often fallaciously cited as a model of how marijuana should be treated, but that's not quite right: they both cost huge amounts of money to regulate and are unquestionably a factor in the loss of thousands of lives per year.

-----

I suppose you are outraged, as I am, that while a multibillion-dollar lawsuit was levied against tobacco companies for causing the premature deaths of tens of thousands of people, the states who actually subsidized tobacco production and permitted and regulated its distribution were allowed to stand clear of the suit, even as they had been told for decades by their own health departments what tobacco was really doing. The State will be interested in revenue first, not consumer protection, because the funding has to be there before they can spend money on care.

Phillip Morris says today in their ads, "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette." Who says there is such a thing as a safe joint? Who will sign the hold-harmless agreement to exempt the states from the responsibility of certifying the ingredients of your THC dosage method? Do you really think that legalization means "free"?

I hope not. Imagine for a minute that you're going to open a store selling THC, and you'll see. You'd better not make a peep about Big Tobacco or Big Pharma again. (Hmmm. Why doesn't anybody talk about Big Alcohol?)

"You'd better not make a peep about Big Tobacco or Big Pharma again." Well big tabacco got in hot water for HIDING the fact that cigarettes caused cancer. Modern smokers can't sue them cause it says it right on the box. Put the same warning on pot, most of the legal liability goes away. Big pharma is the same thing, they get in deep shit when they start hiding stuff. There are many drugs out there that have shit loads of warnings and they rarely get sued. Now if people start keeling over at your clinical trials and you hide it, big mistake and your in deep shit.

"Sell to your neighbors? Nope. Can't do that." Well actually yes you can. The only thing the feds care about as far as sales is safety and taxes. The only reason they publicly give two shits about safety is because saying you don't care means you won't get reelected. If you sell the occasional bag once it's legal the feds really don't care. Now if your making 6 figs on the sales they have every right to care. You make profit in a system set up by the feds you owe them their due. You pay your taxes on the stuff and there are no problems with the feds. Unless you live on a state border and the stuff you sell is legal the feds rarely get involved.

vlad, please note my earlier line about selling for a living. You've just expanded on that a bit. You may build a gun and distill your own alcohol with the right permits. What do you think you have to do to make and sell homemade aspirin? Right. To do that legally, you have to show your controls.

Hey, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers et al already have the mechanism for putting this in Walgreens. You'll get a patch so you don't ruin your lungs. (Does that idea repel anybody? Is inhaling important to you?)

Then, we'll only have to have a standard for impairment for pilots, nuclear, chemical and manufacturing plant operators, police, military and other "critical" jobs; OSHA requires that an employer produce a workplace free of unidentified risks, with legal penalties. Hmm. Another complication. Read that as "expense".

Boy, what a downer complying with established laws is!

(Does that idea repel anybody? Is inhaling important to you?)

I much prefer bong hits to tokes off a joint but in a pinch (or at a concert) I'll toke from a joint. I also like it in tea, and/or brownies. In fact, I used to make pot tea when I had menstrual cramps. It made me feel so much better! o_O

"Boy, what a downer complying with established laws is!" Right I get the sarcasm but I'm not sure how it applies to pot. You don't need a urine test to see if you co-worker is drunk. I'm not sure why pot is illegal while other stuff isn't. Why not legalize it and tax it, I'm not understanding your argument against that?

Stoners, remember this:

SHARKS. They're the WOLVES of the SEA.

Happy Weed Day! Today the largest demonstration for the decriminalization of weed is being held in Toronto (as well as all over the world).

Anything going on down in the US?

Not today, Chrissy. our "national weed day" is April 20, or 4-20, which, I believe (and Duwayne or vlad, correct me if I'm wrong, please), is police code for marijuana. California, I'm thinking. Not sure.

"Why not legalize it and tax it, I'm not understanding your argument against that?"

OK, I'll clarify some more. I've said before that "legalize" doesn't just mean you don't go to jail for having weed. Did you get that part? Also, after at least (5 - I forgot the FDA_ Federal agencies have a say-so, you're still not done in setting up marketing, with taxation and consumer protections.

Right now, any employer of a critical employee can test for THC, and if they find it, that employee is transferred or gone, depending on the situation. The employer - and OSHA, by coincidence - is fully supported also by the idea that if the employee in a critical position thinks so little of the law and the terms of employment, there is no indication that s/he will take, oh, the nuclear criticality calculations seriously when moving fissile materials (I picked something we really do at work.) You can name any other proceduralized task with serious consequences to mistake.

If legalized, testing for THC will become a matter for "special" law, in which professions are spelled out for which usage is still illegal, or an impairment standard will be necessary. This is what you have for alcohol intoxication. Got a standard for THC?

You know, it's tough to think about critical mistakes killing people, or groups of people, when you're not in the habit of doing so, but I have the background: my workplace literally makes the rest of the industrial world look like A Nightmare on Elm Street. It's clear that for every fatality, many injuries occur; for every injury, hundreds of "near misses" occur, and for every "near miss", thousands of unsafe acts occur.

Tobacco and alcohol already figure in these millions of unsafe acts. So you want to add THC. OK. Think. You want to enable the nationwide marketing of a currently controlled substance which affects the consumer immediately upon use. Again, that means a lot more actual work than a cheery, "Dude! This Rawwks!"

Yes, there are already prescription drugs available which have more serious effects. These are not only non-recreational, the mechanisms are already in place for their identification at the workplace and by EMTs, and their misuse is a felony. Please do not attempt a "two wrongs" fallacy in that manner. It's bad enough that people try to use alcohol and tobacco as supporting legalization. They're both public health disasters. Satan - if he existed - would claim them as his own idea.

Radwaste -

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to this until now. I was going to the other night, but the most recent shooting in my neighborhood (last one two weeks ago, same basic place) happened less than thirty feet away from me, when I was on my way to meet my family at the light rail platform. Had it happened six minutes later, my family would have been coming across that corner. On top of that, I was the first person to actually get to and help the women who got shot (in the leg, no likely permanent damage - but the bullet severed an artery), so I was a bit of a bloody mess. To say I am a bit shaken would be a huge understatement.

Right now, any employer of a critical employee can test for THC, and if they find it, that employee is transferred or gone, depending on the situation.

And right now, any employer can also require that employees abstain from the use of alcohol, even on the employees own time. The only big problem with enforcing that is that alcohol doesn't maintain a measurable (read, testable) presence in the body.

You seem to want to pretend that THC and other drugs aren't already public health issues. The thing is that they are and there are mechanisms in place for dealing with them. In a lot of cases those mechanisms would probably be a lot more effective if the drugs were legal.

>> I saw the happiness on the faces of our people because so many infidels were slaughtered so easily.

I was in London on 9/11. Everyone was a zombie for days. I went that night to Pizza on the Piazza for a quick dinner, and the table next to me was an Arab family celebrating. I still have the postcard describing it to my wife.

Why can Spencer be vilified this way? Because it works. Let me explain by example.

Opprobrium -- from illegitimate charges of racism, xenophobia, misogyny and the like -- are today mostly used to shut people up, not to accurately describe their positions. For example, opponents of affirmative action are often called 'racist,' even though they do not advocate the supremacy of a race and even use the fact of non-supremacy as evidence for their position. Still, the charge usually works. Affirmative action opponents get shut down.

Likewise, 'misogyny' and 'xenophobia' and 'bigot' are used to make people shut up. That's no way to get good ideas. That's no way to test marginal ideas. Precipitous charges like these have three simultaneous rhetorical effects:

• they "poison the well" by impugning the speakers motives;
• they make an implicit "pathetic appeal" against the speaker;
• they present an illegitimate complex question akin to "are you still beating your wife," and the audience tends to assume you do.

One might think that among the more educated classes you'd see less of this. You'd be wrong. You see more of it.

CAIR uses the tactic of opprobium because in the US it works and works well. Most people see argument as a team sport, and any tactic -- ridicule, insult, impugning character, complex questions -- anything that helps one side win is legitimate. The long term consequences for debate are obvious. That's why I stand against bad rhetoric in the service of arguments I favor. For example, I'm often in the uncomfortable position of pointing out bad rhetoric used against Creationists and ID, even though I disagree with Creationism and ID.

Even if you don't agree with Spencer, it's important to stand against the kind of dirty tactics used against him by CAIR.

Wow, Eric. Barbarians.

Reminds me of the reported Golda Meir quote: "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

I just discovered a book I had never heard of by a Marine Corp Major General (two Medals of Honor) entitled "War is a Racket". It was written in the period between WW1 and WW2. Here is a link to the ten page summary:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket

I still bet most Arabs love their children as much as most Jews love their children. It's one of those riddles that gets more complicated the more you learn.

Eric - they may well love their children as much as the Jews. But that was not the comparison presented.

Do they love their children more than they hate Jews?

I remember the first day I heard "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us" because it was the day before I ran across this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/23/afghanistan.uknews4

*and the table next to me was an Arab family celebrating*

Now there's a story that would have ended differently in Houston.

This is not a religion of peace (in most of it's interpretations). While fundies are the treat when I see women in a burka I get quite cautious. If your wearing a burka you are definatly a fundy, I don't give a rats ass why your wearing it.

The hijab is worn by many groups and usually can't be differentiated from what Russian gradmas wear when the get that certain kind of old. Using the Nazi example, that's like turning on someone when the swastica is facing the wrong way. To the uniformed they look identical but one is a symbol of oppression and hate and the other is a symbol for prosperity (I think not sure).

I'm all for discrimination when used in such sense but also caution against setting for definitions too broadly.

I always laugh when people try to persuade me to be "tolerant" of ALL cultures -

Oh, you mean I am to be "tolerant" of a culture that allows women to get stoned to death for adultery and doesn't allow women to show their faces or drive... I am to be tolerant of people who blow up Buddhists sculptures, beat women (as the Taliban did/possibly still does) for laughing or making too much noise; I am to be tolerant of people who strap bombs to children and remove girls' clitorises?

Sorry, guess I'm just not that tolerant.

Hey Amy, why not just say what you think straight out without sugarcoating it?

Great post! Your words are a breath of fresh air clearing away the cobwebs of deceit spun by Islamic apologists, except they're really more like a tornado.

Tolerance of evil is evil itself.

Thanks so much, Kirk.

P.S. If anyone knows Rebecca Solnit's e-mail address, my offer still stands on training her on how to speak up when men "explain things" to her.

P.S. I do love when people make the assumption that polite conversation involves this mistaken idea that you'll "tolerate" the intolerable, and give all beliefs equal weight. I'm guessing the ladies approached me in that spirit. They were pretty astonished when I got on my broom. I mean, you married Arafat's spokesterrorist, and you want me to give you a book party for it? Right.

That "Religion of Peace" notion never seems to include the little disclaimer that their concept of peace is everyone bowing to Islam , or dying.Funny that.

heh, such a trouble-maker you :D... I think the answer I will use when confronted with this 'but they're/we're the religion of peace.' Is to say, "are you ready to denounce the people who are hijacking your faith? I'm not railing against those who are peaceful, but against those who incite violence against everyone else. If the one dosn't distance itself from the other, they are implicitly accepting what the others are doing." I realize that this is dangerous for them, but it is better to say nothing than to defend a murderous zealot. He will target them next. 'Course a lot of the defenders aren't Muslim, and may never have even met one... They don't realize how different this is from other religions.

I was reading this article and a little idea came to me:

What if they were Vikings?

Let's think about it; suddenly, in Norway, a religious group chose to revive the old medieval Viking traditions of Odin and all their irks. Let's just say that they are using some Petro-Dollars to finance a huge movement with the goal of reversing modern culture and save the proud heritage of raiding cities living next to the atlantic coast?

If this was the case, how long we would tolerate the presence of armed psychos in the atlantic ocean? Do we will search for excuse is sociology for their pillage and rape of women? How long would it take for the people of Norway to react? Would we be afraid to invade Norway because they are the second global producer of crude oil?

Tolerance is a easy dialogue when the offending party is away.

I saw the "experiment" the older woman was talking about, it was an offshoot of ABC's 20/20, something like "What Would You Do?" I believe every private establishment legally reserves the right to refuse service to anyone they want to, and me, not being an owner or employee, well, I have no say in the matter. There were plenty of people on both sides of the fence that spoke up, but as for me, I wouldn't have said anything one way or the other. None of my business. However, if someone asks me what I think about it, well, they just might regret that. I keep my broom in my back pocket, for just such emergencies. o_O

I completely agree. Private property and free markets means nothing, if people can't decide freely with whom to trade, with whom to cooperate. There is no distinction between social and economic rights.

Amy,

The Catholic Church pedophile scandal was horrible. But I continue as a Catholic, and I am proud of Pope Benedict. Pope Benedict has been establishing himself as one religious leader (are there any others?) who is not afraid to confront Islam. The Pope definitely "gets" the threat of Islam. Remember his famous quoting of Paleologus:
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/july2007/warning_islam.html

Then, more recently, there was Benedict's very public baptism of ex-Muslim Magdi Allam:

http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/pope-benedict-baptises-ex-muslim.html

If western civilization is going to have a "prayer" (pun intended) of surviving the Ilamic onslaught, we are going to need many more Benedicts springing up from the Judeo Christian community.

Amy, your excellent post raises an issue which I have been pondering lately: What would it take actually to win the War on Terror and how would we know when we have won?

The second part is easier to answer than the first. The War on Terror will have been won when there are no more groups in this world who are bent on destroying our culture using the weapons of terrorism -- or at least when there are no more than a handful of weak and isolated groups left.

But the first part is very difficult. I do not think it is possible for those of us in the West to eliminate all of the terrorist cells who want to kill us. They are too intimately intertwined with the rest of the "civilian" Islamic culture. So long as Islamic schools teach jihad to children, so long as mosques preach hatred against the West, so long as homicide-bombers are regarded as heroes and held in high esteem, it will be impossible for us to separate, and thus neutralize, violent Islamists from ordinary Muslims, who, though they may hate us, at least are not trying to kill us.

I do not think that we of the West can win this war. I do think that by constant vigilance and swift, determined action we can stave off defeat, but I do not think that we are the ones who can win it. By our own action alone I believe we can prevent another disaster like 9/11, but we will not be able to end the threat, and so we will not be able to quit and go home.

As you have hinted in your post, Amy, I think it is moderate Muslims who must fight and ultimately win this war. When moderate Muslims -- and I hope and believe there are many -- have the temerity to stand up and speak out against the terrorists, when they refuse to allow terrorists safe haven in their midst, when they deride rather than honor the bombers, then and only then do I think we can begin to hope for an end of the War on Terror.

I believe, then, that the best we can do is find as many moderate Muslims as we can and give them all the support and protection we can muster. I believe this to be our only hope and I think, coincidentally, that it is basically the same strategy that General Petraeus has used with such success in Iraq.

What do the rest of you think? Do any of you have any other ideas?

And at the very least, as Amy has made clear, we have no business making friendly with terrorists, and we need to keep our eyes focused on the big issues -- not trivialities like whether a girl in a hijab can get good service in a restaurant. Sheesh!

Kirk,

With all due respect, terror is only one facet, maybe not even the most threatening facet, of what western civilization is up against. Islam is conquering Europe, as we speak, through demographics. Muslim immigrants are rapidly out-reproducing the indigenous populations of their host European countries. Guess what happens when they become a majority? … Answer: Sharia Law.

How many mosques in the U.S. are currently preaching the Wahhabi version of Islam? I don’t know, but I have seen some vary troubling data from parties who have infiltrated a number of U.S. mosques to answer that very question. The fact that our government doesn’t even bother to ask the question is very troublesome, also.

Let me pose a question to you.

If you were in charge of immigration in this country, and a large number of people were waiting to come in, people, coming from parts of the world where, using your description, “… Islamic schools teach jihad to children, so long as mosques preach hatred against the West, so long as homicide-bombers are regarded as heroes and held in high esteem, it will be impossible for us to separate, and thus neutralize, violent Islamists from ordinary Muslims, who, though they may hate us, at least are not trying to kill us.”

Would you let them in?

With Saudi petro dollars spreading the vilest form of Islam (Wahabbi) over all the globe, I think our first priority is to self preservation and self defense, not “just” defense against terror. Prior generations in the western world were able to turn back Islam because they realized their first priority was to survive. They recognized the threat Islam posed to their very existence, and they were not burdened with political correctness and multiculturalism as we are today.

I think your idea of appealing to moderate Muslims is pie in the sky stuff. Islam has been at war with western civilization for 1400 years. That’s 1400 years that the “moderate” wing of Islam has failed to reel in the fundamentalists. After we have taken the appropriate steps towards self preservation and self defense, perhaps we can then try to appeal to moderate Muslims. Just exactly what are moderate Muslims, anyway? Are they “ordinary Muslims, who, though they may hate us, at least are not trying to kill us” as you put it? How much of the Koran does a Muslim need to refute to be deemed a moderate?

Actually I do believe there are moderate Muslims, but their religion is decidedly not moderate.

One piece of advice … Stop calling this a war on terror. Makes as much sense as declaring a war against sneak attacks after Pearl Harbor. We are at war with Jihadists.

I just heard Patt Morrison interviewing T. Boone Pickens about alternative energy sources he's developing. But for our need for oil, these people would all still be goatherds.

I thought these guys had a pretty wise take on things:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/our-failed-mult.html

I'm telling you people nuke the ice caps, flood out the low lying lands of the middle east, and a bunch of other places. After a few decades of rampant illness and overcrowding society will get back on track.

Got to cull the heard occasionally to keep it from rotting from within

I used to hate Pat the Hat. In retrospect, it was because she wore a hat, which seemed hokey. But in the last year or so she's become my favorite radio performer. She's spotlessly alert to the meaning of the things she's talking about. She never gratuitously interjects her opinions into the topics, but she never lets people get away with brazen bullshit, either. Her interviews at the Milken conference on Tuesday were just golden, money in the bank. In her three broadcasts this week, she's changed my thoughts about a lot of stuff. And it's not like Kitty Feldy didn't do a good job. In a righteous world, she'd have Terry Gross's audience.

I disagree with this from your linked piece:

> Terrorism stems from a religious
> ideological movement that seeks
> our destruction and that that
> movement is widely supported by
> Muslim peoples and states.

Religion is a problem, but it's not the problem. The strictures of Islam (and most other faith) collapse into manageable, attenuated customs once the populations feel the blessings of modernity. I'm not sure that the nations under discussion in that post (Afghanistan and Iraq) are as hip to *germ theory* as they ought to be, let alone market forces and the scientific method and all the rest or our American treats....

Kirk (above) is kinda right: Moderate muslims are the solution. But the best way to moderate religious belief is to give the faithful something better to think about than Allah. Specifically, we need to relieve their suffering and answer their fundamental human aspirations.

Nothing does that better than modernity.

>> a scone in a housedress.

That's gonna stick with me all day.

PS- I like jiggly women, but 50 pounds would really be pushing it. Unless she was on top.

"Scone in a housedress" reminds me why I'm a fan. That has to be two thumbs up from Strunk & White !

Most Women are clueless on this subject. I was watching that sex therapist woman on late night cable take calls (Sue Johansen??, I think is her name) when she took a call from a woman who was complaining that her husband had lost all interest in sex.
Know-it-all Sue started interogating the caller about her Husband and their situation. Is he depressed? Is he under a lot of stress? Have you tried romantic dinners? Date nights? and several other inane questions all the while I was almost screaming at the TV: "Ask her if she gained 50 pounds!!"
None of the answers explained the no-sex situation so Sue just shrugged and apologized for not being able to help the woman while implying that her husband must have some serious problems. She then just went on to the next call.
Never asking the obvious (to me and every other Man) question.
And she's the "expert" sex therapist.
I will add one thing in defense of women. If hubby has packed on 50lbs too then he has no business being upset about her weight gain.

> If you're really in love, you
> transcend the external.

1. Says who?

(I mean, as you survey world literature and culture as you see it, is there any good evidence for this belief, or are you just hoping that it's true?)

2. Is "love" only about being "really in love"?

3. Whaddya mean, "transcend"?

4. Whaddya mean, "external"?

I don't like this person.

But I agree with Eric, though. Fat women are only good for two things: Sex and conversation. During both encounters, the object of the game is to slap and shove things back into a pleasing proportion....

Amy, how can you make a living publishing a conventional personal advice column when so much of your private energy seems to go to broader topics?

Twenty years ago I used to love arguing about the attitudes of fat girls on computer fora... But, y'know, I was just a kid in my middle 30's.

When you write so much on Islam and so forth, do you risk alienating your core audience?

Unfortunately, I've never been a very good whore, sexual or otherwise. My attitude about sex is that it's least costly if I give it away for free (as opposed to those women who marry some troll for money, and then spend their lives trying to come up with reasons to avoid fucking him).

And with everything I write, my questions to myself are along the lines of: Is it true, is it defensible, is it rational, is in interesting, and is it entertaining. I try to have everything be all those things. Now, I don't do advice columns on bestiality or stuff that would get me fired from a bunch of papers. That just seems counterproductive and silly. But, I take issues I think are interesting, and which I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about, and try to lay them out there in a way I won't get my ass fired.

Sometimes, I just can't help writing stuff like this, though:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/diddle-he-or-di.html

And now I no longer run in C-Ville Weekly, although the editor says it's not because of the complaints angry (and wrong on the research) feminists sent in about what I wrote.

"Is he depressed? Is he under a lot of stress? Have you tried romantic dinners? Date nights? and several other inane questions" Sean

the part that the late night people missed, is that these are questions you ask women... You can ask men too, but they don't get you to the heart of the matter... take that romantic dinner, shove it off the table, and hop up on the table? THAT will get his attention... Date night is a babysitter that stays over so you two can get a room somewhere...

seems like it is assumed that either guys are easy to fix with this problem, or you should overthink it... If he's been working 16hrs. a day for the last week, and you say: "don'cha want me anymore?" Shyeah, problem...

None of that is mentioning the issue with how all the 'interesting' clothing has been pitched, how alluring that full length flannel nightie, and toe socks is... espcially when you don't make a pass at him until 5mins before he has to go to work... although, maybe that only happened to me.

Sue the sex therapist was probably not allowed to ask 'are ya fat', so had to dance around the issue. Just a guess.

Hmm. Only if I dug up that article in MacAddict about falsifying e-mail headers would I write this guy. I'm not interested in getting his SPAM. When he said, "the majority of crime is white-on-white", it shows how little research he's done. Hey, I should expect that. He did no reading of your work from comprehension; why should I expect him to have seen anything from the Bureau of Justice about crime?

Actually, as you know, being stopped from speaking out isn't something I handle well, so I simply forwarded my response to him to another e-mail address I have and responded from there. (Although I'm guessing he didn't really block me; he's just a childish twat.)

I can see his point, wait don't bite my head off yet. The law was created with the specific intent of allowing people to testify in court without their credibility questioned through immigration status. Since many of those involved are illegal immigrants on both sides it made sense at the time. Now we see how this is being implemented it should be removed.

"Plus, we're paying to keep these people in jail instead of dumping them over the border where they belong." Here I disagree. If you just dump them over the border they will simply cross back over. Their immigration status will be a get out of jail free card. Now if we lock them up as we would for home grown or legal immigrant criminals and then ship them out I agree.

Well, then keep them in prison here, but make them run like hamsters on a wheel to pay for their keep. All prisoners, in fact, should be made to do that. Why should I pay for them just because they tried (and maybe succeeded) to scam, hurt or kill somebody, and then got caught?

And vlad, the difference is, you post your opinion here for debate instead of taking the hit and run approach.

> Only if I dug up that article
> in MacAddict about falsifying
> e-mail headers would I write

I have a handsomely distinct email account for just such purposes. I wrote to him before noon Wednesday, but haven't heard back yet.

Think its possible that the kids nausea might have been a result of a guard snatch something out of his hand? Or wathing his dad and himself dragged down to the bowels of the stadium? Or maybe the fact that he and his father were seperated and he was worried about what the cops were dooing to his dad while he was being harrased by a steady stream of questions?

What do you want to bet they asked the kid if his father beat him?

"What do you want to bet they asked the kid if his father beat him?"

...or touched him in his privates.

Giving your kid an alcoholic beverage in pubic (on purpose) if you intend to steer clear of jail is the most idiotic thing one could do. No one would actually do this if they knew that Mike's was booze.

Have any of you had an authoritative figure go apeshit on you? There you are, perfectly rational, calm, collected, trying to explain yourself and the person (police, principal) won't have any of it. It's like they have power induced rabies of the ego. That's when you start to get pissed, raise your voice (to match his/her level of asinine-ness) and WHAMMO detention/threatened with arrest.

The 'public servants' were probably very excited to be able to remove a child from educated parents in the upper income brackets.

"oooh, finally a break from the downtrod mass we usually serve."

Although I just now realized as I was typing this that perhaps they were extra 'vigilant' in order to avoid accusations of only removing poor kids.mmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, there are probably hundreds of kids in Detroit, in foster care and out, direly in need of assistance.

Yup. And a not-insignificant portion of those kids probably have some variation of FAS as a result of *significant* prenatal exposure to alcohol - i.e. far, FAR more on a regular basis than this kid consumed. But hey, I guess it's a lot easier to yank away a kid from his law-abiding parents than it is to deal with a regular foster kid who may have little chance for a good future. At least some of these morons should lose their jobs. Seriously.

Oh, and I especially liked this, from the article:

Don Duquette, a U-M law professor who directs the university's Child Advocacy Law Clinic, represented Ratte and his wife. He notes sardonically that the most remarkable thing about the couple's case may be the relative speed with which they were reunited with Leo.

He doesn't say it, but I'm betting the fact that the Rattes were able to pull in such expert legal help - and so quickly - is the only reason the kid is back with them even today. Especially given that CPS refused to release the kid to his aunts - one of whom is apparently a licensed foster parent and social worker - who came to town specifically to look after him following this incident.

Solution -

Legalize alcohol.

So does this mean that a kid is not allowed to have a glass of wine when out with his or her parents for dinner? When did this start? I was always allowed to have a beer (or part of one) or a glass of wine with dinner, when out with my grandparents or parents. According to Texas law at that time (I guess I can't attest to it now) waitstaff could legally serve alcohol to a minor accompanied by his or her parents or legal guardian.

So this has changed? Or is it just different state to state?

Jessica - in most states it is illegal for a parent to give a child an alcoholic beverage in their own home.

The nanny state is already here.

"Jessica - in most states it is illegal for a parent to give a child an alcoholic beverage in their own home." This shit had started happening when I was still under 21. It was really weird but I'm guessing it has gotten a hell of a lot worse.

"Have any of you had an authoritative figure go apeshit on you? " Yup, but only once as kid. We (parents) pulled the poor immigrant and the race card (Ruskies are a recognized minority, at least the school thought so). She lost her job (early retirement) and her career goal of school super intendant. Unless you actually did something illegal standing up to authority in a cool calm and collected voice usually has always worked for me. When calm and cool fails "LAWYER" and smile.

I'm not sure how easy the own home thing is to enforce but it's there.

I could see fining the old man cause being that ignorant is kind of hard to excuse. On the other hand the alcohol content of these is written in the bottom corner in fine print. Also when the vendors advertise most of the time they write "Mike's Lemonade" and leave the hard out because it's assumed. I actually had to ask at a concert was it Mike's hard or some local brand of normal lemonade.

The system way over reacted, hopefully this will be one of those points where the damn pendulum starts swinging in the other direction. I doubt it but here's hoping.

Nanny state run amok.

The trouble with regulations is that, in the end, they always replace intelligent thinking.

" voice usually has always worked for me." sorry should have read: voice has always worked for me.

Jessica,

As far as I know, waitstaff under age 21 aren't even allowed to carry an alcholic beverage to the table. If your server is 20, he/she must take your order, deliver it to the bar, and have someone 21+ bring it to your table . . . .

*That's* how ridiculous it's gotten.

jen

"As far as I know, waitstaff under age 21 aren't even allowed to carry an alcholic beverage to the table. If your server is 20, he/she must take your order, deliver it to the bar, and have someone 21+ bring it to your table . . . ."

In the few jurisdictions I've had the pleasure of frequenting watering holes, the legal age to serve is 18. That's adding insult to injury, you're old enough to serve it to someone else, but none for you.

I'm posting anonymously, for obvious reasons.

My wife made a similar mistake. We had hosted a big party for the 4th, and had lots of beer, wine, and other types of beverages, alcoholic and not. A few days later, she and our son were sitting on the back deck, enjoying a couple of lemonades from the fridge. She called me up a little while later, laughing her ass off. Turns out she and our son were slightly intoxicated because they were drinking an alcoholic lemonade (probably Mike's).

She made a false assumption about the drink; didn't realize that it was alcoholic. Oops. Guess what. Nobody's the worse for the wear. I was slightly upset when I found out. For about 30 seconds. Then I started laughing too.

I really feel sorry for this family. They've been chewed up and spit out by the Nanny State. And it's only going to get worse.

You can join the military and die for your country, get married, have kids, vote, drive for NASCAR, be a porn star or almost do anything else you want in America before your 21, except drink alcohol legally.

Europe had it right, kids grow up with weak wine and by the time they are adults, they tend to have much less problems with alcoholism than we do in America. Hmmmm. Why do we so often reject proven successful ideas while stubbornly repeating the same old failed policies over and over and over again?

We've traveled down the regulation road far enough that simple mistakes are cause for outrageous coercive intrusions on the rights of parents. This is insane, the state run amok.

Biker - I couldn't agree with you more.

I've encountered this argument before and three are pretty strong counters to your logic (which I share with you).

Obvious fact: the U.S. isn't Europe. Our cultures are vastly different, as are our general attitudes towards many things. The approach to booze in Europe works, and would probably work here, except that isn't not something that can just be implemented all of a sudden. It has to have evolved naturally.

Legalize booze for the

It would be a shitshow. This country went down the wrong path with its nannying and it's so screwed up it would be a long, hard, struggle to help create a healthy, safe, responsible relationship b/w American (youths) and alcohol.

Biker - I couldn't agree with you more.

I've encountered this argument before and three are pretty strong counters to your logic (which I share with you).

Obvious fact: the U.S. isn't Europe. Our cultures are vastly different, as are our general attitudes towards many things. The approach to booze in Europe works, and would probably work here, except that isn't not something that can just be implemented all of a sudden. It has to have evolved naturally.

Legalize booze for the

It would be a shitshow. This country went down the wrong path with its nannying and it's so screwed up it would be a long, hard, struggle to help create a healthy, safe, responsible relationship b/w American (youths) and alcohol.

Ok - sorry to post a dupe but a paragraph got eaten. This is supposed to be after "legalize booze for the - "

Legalize booze for the

I hope this post isn't deranged.

>> Have any of you had an authoritative figure go apeshit on you?

In Jr High I was accused of selling marijuana, and even though there was no evidence except a nerdy kid's word for it. I was exposed to the police intimidation and threatened with expulsion, at age 12.

Even though I have never been in trouble of any kind, I know my attorney's cell phone by heart, and have two of his business cards in my wallet. He gets to talk to anyone in authority for me.

I feel for this grandfather- I would need to be tied down and knocked out if anyone, legal or not, tried to take my boy away from me. The thing about kids is you can usually tell if they are loved and cared for, and when they are, they are fairly indestructible.

Ahhh. Ok I give up...ciao!

I am 50 years old and female, and I don't watch much TV. I have NEVER heard of "Mike's Lemonade." Is this a local product or nationwide or worldwide? As an attorney, I would have to say that Mike's Lemonade should be clearly labeled as alcoholic, in order to prevent mistakes like this one. Foreigners don't go to too many baseball games, but they go to other outdoor festivals -- would a foreigner be expected to know about Mike's Lemonade?

I agree with the above poster that CPS behaved badly, as usual, by taking the kid into foster care based on a honest mistake, and that CPS compounded its error by refusing to let the boy stay with his licensed social worker and foster parent aunt while they conducted their "investigation." I also agree that the parents were very lucky to get their child back after only two days. CPS usually tries to get continuance after continuance so that they can stretch the case out for at least a year.

By the way, I can just about GUARANTEE you that the child was asked if Daddy abused him in other ways.

2 more libertarians born! Some people have to experience things themselves in order for big ideas to sink into their heads. Lord, we could use the votes.

Also, Vlad, can you give the guy a break for not watching TV? More power to the man. I have not had one for 10 years. Yes, I know what Mike's Hard Lemonade is, but, only because I've had it before - tastes pretty good, if I do say so myself. Oh, I'd never pay $7 for one.

Maybe that's the true tragedy of this entire incident, come to think of it. Seven bucks for a bottle of hard lemonade! It's egregious! Oh, yeah the police state we have sucks too.

vlad wrote: " ... being that ignorant is kind of hard to excuse...."

Ignorant? What 'ignorant'? I'm 60 years old with a PhD, and I never in my life heard of 'hard lemonade' until I read this story.

Obviously, there is nothing the poor guy can do about the CPS Nazis, but can't he at least sue the vendor and the manufacturer for not labeling the product clearly? Normally, I don't approve of frivolous lawsuits, but I'd make an exception in this case.

By the way, if you go back and read the complete , original story on the WZZM-13 News website, the CPS social worker's name was "Latricia Jones." Would it be 'racist' of me to raise the spectre of Affirmative Action here?

I didn't mean to be reptitive - the post by "suspicious" wasn't there yet when I wrote.

Also, whether alcohol content is labeled or not, it's still not a big deal for a kid to have, what, .06 oz of alcohol - I assume 12 oz bottle, the big one is probably more like $16.50.

Add me to the list of people who have never heard of Mike's Lemonade. If I saw the word "hard" I would know what it means (hard cider, etc.) - but the sign at the ballpark (shown in the article) said only "Mike's Lemonade". In a hurry, grab the bottle, hand it to the kid, done.

The first person to really screw up here is the cop. What the hell is he doing arresting people for something like this? He started out right "did you know that contains alcohol?". Inform the parent, maybe keep an eye on them the rest of the game, then let it go. Why did he want to to start the whole machinery grinding?

Latricia? Affirmative action hire? Happy to make life difficult for the the white college prof? Nah...what would make you think that?

"Obviously, there is nothing the poor guy can do about the CPS Nazis, but can't he at least sue the vendor and the manufacturer for not labeling the product clearly?" It is labeled it just doesn't say Alcohol in big bold letters on the front. If you look at the bottle it's there. Now being ignorant of the fact that it's alcoholic I can understand but if you don't know what it is why are you giving it to your kid without reading the label. As far as labeled clearly unless you don't drink next time you pick up a bottle of wine, beer, hard liquor, or exotic drink (Smirnoff Ice etc) take a look at how small the print is on alcohol content. So we sue ALL vendors that don't put the alcohol content on the bottle right up front in 28 point font? Should the vendor have asked who it's for maybe but it's not a suable offense no, not by a long shot. It's all the sue happiness that helps perpetuate the damn system when applied this way.

"I'm 60 years old with a PhD, and I never in my life heard of 'hard lemonade' until I read this story." Given this I'm assuming you'd actually check what something is before you give it to your kid or grand kid if you don't know what it is.

CPS is fubar for many reasons and affirmative action has little to do with it. The job suck the politics sucks and the pay sucks even more. The few competent people who go into it for the right reasons (care for kids) are emotionally drained, over worked and burned out.

"Also, Vlad, can you give the guy a break for not watching TV? More power to the man."
I know what Mikes is cause I see it at the liquire store with beer in the same cooler. I didn't know they were advertising the stuff on TV. I don't watch much TV either. Like I said I'm not saying the should fine him, inform him that this was a mistake and that's it. I could see them fining him for making a mistake doesn't mean I think they should fine him but it would make sense. Taking the kid away was completely ludicrous. Their action were insane as opposed to fining him which would have been heavy handed but still in the realm of normal.

The system itself needs a serious overhaul, given this person's status and connection he can and should get that ball rolling. Can't sue CPS well then use you infulnce to get the law changed.

What's will all the affirmative action crap. One of the two CPS agents that took Leo said that the system was over reacting. So now use that over reaction to reel the system in. Before anyone starts with the "It's not his responsibility" yes, yes it. He's in a position to fix a problem that directly affected him. He has an ethical (though not legal) duty to fix the problem if he can.

Now being ignorant of the fact that it's alcoholic I can understand but if you don't know what it is why are you giving it to your kid without reading the label.

If the park were selling something called "Amy's Orange Juice" I'm betting the father would have done the same thing, because orange juice - like lemonade - isn't something we reflexively assume contains alcohol. Same for soft drinks in the can/bottle. People typically put lemonade in the mental "so far from alcoholic that it's slightly boring" category. The guy probably thought this was the modern version of Country Tyme Lemonade. Hell, I know what Mike's is because I've seen it numerous times, but if I were distractedly scanning that sign - which doesn't contain the word "Hard" ANYWHERE - while talking to my kid, I might well forget about the "hard" stuff.

I’ve tried Mike’s Hard Lemonade...once...and I don’t get it. It tastes like it was strained through a used gym sock as soon as it came out of the horse and there’s not enough alcohol in it to get a gerbil drunk.

Maybe that’s why Dad went up for child abuse. If he’d given the kid an honest beer....

This ridiculous situation reminds me of this story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23594474/

To summarize, a woman had all of her children taken away by CPS and is facing charges for locking her sleeping daughter in the car for a few minutes while she was 10 meters away in plain view.

How have we come to this?

I had a similar situation, but with a different twist.

I allowed my 14-year old alcohol in moderation (sips from coolers and hard cider my wife and I would have). Well, one morning, she was exhausted and didn't want to go to school. She didn't have a fever, and seemed to be hamming it up, so we sent her to school.

Later, she decides to "make up a story" to go home early. She thought she'd tell the guidance counselor that she had a bit of wine cooler the prior night and was a little hung over. When the counselor didn't seem interested, she "added" that maybe my wife or I put some kind of drug in it. Now THAT had the counselor's attention. She (the daughter) embellished quite a bit on the story (she tends to do that when she lies...she can't stop embellishing), not realizing what was happening.

The next day she's had an interview with CPS, and realizing how serious her "story" has made things, she is trying to retract everything - seeming more bothered by missing her lunch break than the possibility that her parents are drugging her. By the time the counselor contacted US for the required interview, she was already convinced there was nothing to substantiate the story. So in OUR case, it went as well as anyone could expect. No one got jailed or fined or accused of anything, and neither of our kids were taken away from us. It was pretty much closed as quickly as it was opened. Needless to say, our daughter was in some HOT water for a while after that stunt.

Funny thing? Her sleepiness episode prompted us have a sleep study done on her. She has pretty serious sleep apnea with occasional bouts of narcolepsy. Hence why she's so ridiculously tired some mornings - she didn't get enough restful sleep and her body is trying to FORCE her to go back to sleep to make up for it. No alcohol - let alone other drugs - involved.

CPS staff is frequently underpaid, under-trained, over burdened, and when they GET involved they almost HAVE to err on the side of caution to the point of paranoia towards the children. Things go bad frequently and cases they should be involved with - they usually never get called. Can't say they're perfect, but most of their workers get my sympathy, at least. It can't be an easy job.

That's the problem with this. Normal parent finds out they're not up on popular drinks and buy their kid a mikes hard lemonade by mistake and they might get mad. But, more likely, they probably laugh say somethign like "Wow, That was dumb" and get on with their life. This practically Guarentees a lawsuit because it massively inconvenienced them and it was the Security Guard at the stadium that called the cops. If I was the ballpark he'd be fired for calling over somethign so stupid but the sad reality is they're scrwed on the liability thing from both ends and it's probably a policy that the security guy had to call.

And I can only imagine that conversation to find out he was dizzy...
cfsJohnny, are you dizzy?
J:no
CFS:Are you SURE you're not dizzy
J:Yeah, I'm sure
CFS: Cause it's ok if you are, it's not your fault
J:I guess I feel a little dizzy

And "The Comerica cop estimated that Leo had drunk about 12 ounces of the hard lemonade" It's a 12 ounce bottle, if there was anything left at all, and there probably was cause the kid was still holding it, He didn't drink "about 12 ounces"

And, that sign was misleading. Beer, Lemonade, Cranberry Juice, Peanuts. I just hope they weren't Mikes Peanuts

Vlad -

I know what Mikes is cause I see it at the liquire store with beer in the same cooler. I didn't know they were advertising the stuff on TV. I don't watch much TV either.

Here's the problem with that. I don't really drink any more, so I don't go to liquor stores, nor do I visit the wine/beer section of the grocery stores. I also don't watch commercial tee vee. I use an ad-blocker with Firefox. The only magazines I read are The Journal of Light Construction, Utne and Atlantic monthly. JLC doesn't have any non-construction related adverts and while I may have missed some (unlike JLC where part of the point in getting it is the ads, I ignore ads as much as possible in most periodicals) I don't recall ever seeing ads for Mike's in either of the other two.

Now it so happens that our drinking days are not that long gone and momma used to like Mike's, so I know what it is. But given the lack of exposure, I could totally see buying my kid a bottle at a ball game based on what he saw on the sign. And honestly, while I usually read the bottle to see what exactly is in it, I am more likely to forgo doing so with lemonade, because I already assume that it's loaded with sugar.

I would argue that it wouldn't be unreasonable to require producers of similar malt beverages to clearly label their products as alcoholic. At the least, the sign advertising it should have read "hard" lemonade.

"At the least, the sign advertising it should have read "hard" lemonade." In complete agreement there. The vendor screwed up by not putting "hard" in the name of the beverage on display. This should have ended with a slap on the wrist for all and hearty chuckle.

I have been thinking about this and on second thought yeah, not sure that dad is at fault or guilty of anything. He certainly not guilty of something any one of us could have easily done before reading this post. Doubt any of us will make this type of mistake for a while now.

The bottle does say Mike's Hard Lemonade. I think that when they are sold at any amusement park or family oriented establishment the product labeling should be different.

We may not agree on much most of the time, Ms. Advice Goddess, but on this we are of one mind.

First on the guards overreaction to what the father mistakenly did.

And secondly as to raising children on the proper uses of alcohol. I too was raised tasting everything and being given wine. I rarely drink.

We did the same for our three kids, and while they enjoy the occasional adult beverage, have never gone out to get stinking drunk for the hell of it and roll their eyes at people who think doing so is "fun".

Yep, take the mystery out of it and it's just not a big deal.

And to think this all started with the quick wit and keen observation of Barney Fife from Rent-A-Cop, Inc.

I think we can all rest easy knowing that today's GED candidates can enjoy a career with this much authority over Americans.

If Barney's as smart as I think he is, he could be a star in TSA or even Homeland Security!

I don't think the issue here is pertinent to the marketing of Mike's Lemonade, or whether everyone should know of it's contents. It's not even about whether or not the guy was ignorant of a material fact.

The rooted problem with this story, one that has really pulled at my heartstring (yes, i do have...one), is the persistent drive of the government to come between father and son, parent and child.

More subtle, is that those who work in these capacities for the government are simple-minded persons who think they are only doing 'thier job', without contemplation of the serious consequences that can, and often does, last a lifetime.

I once worked as a legal assistant at a gov't child protective service back in the Midwest. Granted, there were some cases that were legitimately important for the agency to step in. But as time passed, I was presented with more and more cases where there was little or no evidence of harm or wrongdoing, and yet the same line was, "terminate the parental rights, just do it, i don't care how". Naturally I left there in a hurry (only to later contemplate if perhaps I could have been a roadblock to such incredulous and mechanical objectives).

My experience has told me, and I think the text of the article follows, the presumption is that the parents are ALWAYS wrong, ALWAYS guilty, and they are to bear the burden which the government holds over thier heards, one so very high and traumatic that most are not able to overcome such distances. This is government paternalism at its worst.

strike that. This is government maternalism. Paternalism has nothing to do with this. (and i'm beginning to think the more appropriate expression is 'government maternalism'.)--> Protecting ourselves from ourselves even when we don't need it, and liberty be damned.

"strike that. This is government maternalism." They are operating on the father knows best principle so paternalism was quite accurate.

j.d. -

This is a tough topic for me. I agree with you that there are unbelievable insanities at work in CPS/DHS agencies.

I think that the major problem is that the system has been geared and gotten legal support for dealing with the very worse case scenarios. This is not to say that the worse case scenarios aren't important, but what has happened is that the methods for dealing with the very worse abusers, are being used across the board as standard operating procedure.

Thus a decent parent who (we'll say for the sake of argument) just lost her career, is under tremendous pressure and snaps, can have her child taken because in a moment of stress she smacked her son inappropriately. Should somehting be done if it is brought to the attention of authorities? Certainly, sending her to get help with her stress and anger issues would be a good start. Talk about sending the child to stay with a relative while the pressure is on.

Unfortunately, if the authorities were called under such circumstances, the SOP is to take the kid out of the home and ask questions later.

I think Mike's Lemonade should be sued as well. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption, if you've not been informed otherwise, that it's a soft drink. Lemonade usually doesn't have alcohol in it. The label has a smiley lemon on it, and the alcohol warning is not very conspicuous.

I'd say it's a good cause for a tort action.

I made the same mistake at a ball park couple years ago--but I was buying for myself. No idea it was "hard", just thought I was getting a lemonade.

Never heard of Mike's Lemonade, whether hard, soft or just right. But, I do believe this is the only justification I have ever heard of for carding anyone who buys booze.

Did the server ask for ID? It would have served as notice to the father if he wasn't buying alcohol for himself at the time.

Many sellers ask all customers for ID.

If they are going to this lengths to uphold the law, you'd think that mandatory ID would be the first step.

I call it "Big Sister"

I saw a comment below the story that made a good point:
"The CPS employee saying they were just doing there job is akin to the German soldiers in WWII saying they were just following orders."
All people - employees, citizens, soldiers - have an obligation to use common sense and personal choices when given instructions or orders.

I'd say it's a good cause for a tort action.

Not so sure about that; what about Jack Daniel's Lynchburg Lemonade? It's pretty much the same thing as Mike's Hard Lemonade. They'd shoot down a tort action with a "caveat emptor" and be done with it.

But of course if the kid had become drunk, sick, a victim of alcohol poisoning (think about it: 7 years old, weighing, what, 50-60 lbs?) or worse, the outrage would be directed in what direction?

Any father (or mother, for that matter) who gives a child *anything* to eat/drink without knowing what's being ingested has some serious parenting issues to resolve.

I have a hard time believing that anybody could be unaware of the existence of Mike's Hard Lemonade. It's not exactly a niche beverage.

That said, this:

Any father (or mother, for that matter) who gives a child *anything* to eat/drink without knowing what's being ingested has some serious parenting issues to resolve.

is idiotic. A vendor at a ballpark represents a food item as a hot dog, let's say. Are you going to conduct some kind of detailed chemical analysis to confirm that it is, in fact, a hot dog, and not Italian sausage, before feeding it to your kid?

If the vendor represented the drink as lemonade, and the father reasonably relied on that representation, then the problem here was a goodly amount of jackassery from stadium security and CPS, not the father's carelessness.

The outrage will be multi-directional.

Multi-directional, without validity. Lots of finger-pointing without substantive argument. Kinda like Fox News.

Why Must there be outrage? I think the term has come to pre-suppose that it is not only necessary, but when exercised, legitimate. If there is any outrage, it should be directed at the way the municipality agencies have handled the case from the first meeting of the father and the officer down whatever sick road it has taken.

If the kid had alchohol poisoning, I think it would be more of a cautionary tale. Seriously, are you going to be outraged by the fact the father had no clue as to the contents of the bottle? (Perhaps if he had been asked for ID, as one previous commenter had pointed out, that would have served as notice). The assertion that a parent has serious issues when he or she provides a consumable to a child without knowing what it was is understandable. But the assertion that this guy has some serious parenting issues is a misdirection to what is at issue here: whether he knew there was alchohol in the bottle, and not whether he was a bad parent.

To be outraged at a person's innocent lack of knowledge is a tough argument to make. What if his son was 18 years old but, like his father, still did not know the bottle contained alcohol. Would you find outrage there?

I never heard of Mike's and I have been drinking for 58 years. I'm 63. Do the math.

Like Amy my parents let me try anything they were drinking. My favorite (when I was young) was coffee with lots of sugar, cream, and butter.

These days I drink about 32 oz a day double strength black. It is supposed to be good for preventing something or other. I like the taste.

I never heard of Mike's and I have been drinking for 58 years. I'm 63. Do the math.

The stuff shares shelf space with wine coolers in supermarkets and/or liquor stores. It and similar beverages have recently been in the news because manufacturers are allegedly marketing these so-called "alcopops" to teens. Its existence is not a state secret.

Note to self: Never attend Tigers Stadium, for any reason.

Hmmph! I'm going on 62 yrs and while I don't imbibe as much as in the younger days I thought I knew my alcoholic drinks. But I have to join the "I never heard of Mike's Hard Lemonade" crowd. Of course, I don't watch television as I consider it a waste of time.

Regardless, it just reaffirms the idiocy found in government bureaucracies.

HRC spends big bucks scouring the country for a nice maudlin story about abuse in our health care system, and then has to make one up because she can't find one. Meanwhile, this story just pops up on the web as a business as usual story. That's how out of balance our country is.

We had a small skirmish with the drug warriors last fall that turned out better than the professor but the general IQ level was about the same. I described it here. The key was my daughter's friend Sammie who is so innocent that, when the DEA agent (or ICE, I don't know; it was a border check point) told her that they "knew" there were narcotics in our car and Sammie had to tell her where, Sammie asked "What are narcotics ?" They finally let us go. These folks weren't as lucky.

my god. i'm torn between amusement (at their idiocy) and rage (at the way they treated the poor family).

great catch, amy.

Labeling of alcoholic beverages is intensely scrutinized and regulated by the FDA. It may be that the makers of Mike's is legally prohibited from more prominently displaying the alcohol content. I recall reading a few years back that the FDA is greatly displeased by the idea that alcohol content would be a factor in one's decision to buy an alcoholic beverage.

I've never had the product but it must taste pretty darn good for a child to drink it with no complaint about the taste.

Anyone who has children knows that you can't give them any macaroni and cheese, it has to be KRAFT macaroni and cheese, and it better not be a different color or a different shape or the chicken nuggets had better be Brand X and this particular shade of brown and not too soggy or too crispy or nothing is touched.

I guess what I am saying is that children have massive, super sensitve "something is different here and I'm having NO PART OF IT" detectors, and I'm surprised alcohol in a beverage wouldn't set that off.

I guess it is similar to the "hiding the vegetables in the mashed potatoes" trick, but with alcohol.

Hi, Amy,

Instapundit sent me; great site, great post.

If by Amerone you're referring to an Italian wine, then I believe it's Amarone.

And if you meant Amarone, let me assure you that Italian (or Italian-American) families never served it around the table. Too expensive. So expensive that you'd have to be relatively wealthy before you could have enough to fall into such vices.

Amarone is (or, at least, good Amarone is), as you evidently know, completely magnificent.

Anyone who has children knows that you can't give them any macaroni and cheese, it has to be KRAFT macaroni and cheese, and it better not be a different color or a different shape or the chicken nuggets had better be Brand X and this particular shade of brown and not too soggy or too crispy or nothing is touched.

That is, unless their parents actually, you know, discipline them out of such horrible behavior. I know my time of questioning food from my parents was extremely short-lived; mom and dad always said, "You don't have to eat it, but you're not getting anything else." Perhaps this just happened to be the (unfortunately) rare case of a child who, upon being handed a bottle of lemonade, simply said "Thanks, dad" and decided not to pitch a fit if it tasted a little different.

Lots of things could have happened differently here. Parents make mistakes; accidents happen and lessons are learned. This kid wasn't being abused and the length he was in for with services was "relatively" short when it shouldn't have been any time at all had someone just listened. It's the worst kind of cautionary tale out there.

"The 'public servants' were probably very excited to be able to remove a child from educated parents in the upper income brackets."

I had a run-in with DCFS once. A pyschiatrist I know told me that these people LIVE to hang some kind of violation around the neck of an upper/upper-middle class family.

Absolutely LIVE for it, since so many of the people they deal with are such low-lifes. It gives them a way to "show" that they are even-handed.

Hi, Amy, Instapundit sent me; great site, great post. If by Amerone you're referring to an Italian wine, then I believe it's Amarone.

Thanks so much for the correction - will fix it. And I know Amarone is pricey. I had it for the first time in Mantua this past September, and haven't been able to get it out of my mind.

I guess you're supposed to know that "hard" means alcohol is included. If I'd not seen the ads, I'm not sure I would have made the connection.

But it sounds like the government would have more of a problem if they called it "Mike's Booze-Laced Lemonade" because that might make adults want to drink it.

Our government prefers euphemisms, but it's against the law not to see through them.

I have a very clear memory of my maternal grandfather, a Welshman, giving me my first sip of beer at age 6. It was probably National Bohemian. I'm pretty sure my mother didn't approve. Other than that, no one thought anything of it.

Read a great story on this subject a few years ago: A woman was awakened in the middle of the night by a noise in the kitchen, and found her four yr old son had drunk a bottle of beer and was acting a little tipsy. She called her pediatrician, who was less than dazzled to be called about this, and asked him what she should do. He told her to just put him to bed, he'd be okay in the morning. "But should I give him anything?" she asked. "Got any pretzels?" he replied

This debate is bringing excellent exposure to Mike's products (enjoy their Limeade personally. Their stuff isn't good for getting drunk, though, as it causes intense heartburn. Learned that when I was 16 and didn't have the palate for the good stuff yet.)

Anyone who's never heard of Mike's just a little interested to merely go look at it in the store? To make sure it's there? See what the label looks like to determine if YOU'D notice it was booze? Bet you wonder how it tastes...pretty refreshing stuff on a hot summer day...

This is a Mike's MARKETING CONSPIRACY!

Sorry, shouldn't make jokes because I know the parents involved are in a tough place.

OK...but what can we do about CPS???

They actually took the grandkids of an acquaintance of mine based on the testimony of an angry neighbor who said the mother's house was "dirty". It wasn't especially clean, but is that reason to take kids away?

And ironically the foster home the kids were placed in was *filthy*, (bird defecating on the table when they were eating), and they were underfed...

What do we DO?

zero tolerance policies like this are the direct result of affirmative action in public service. When they are no longer allowed to screen emplyees (CPS, Police, clerks, etc) for intelligence, they have to put rules into place that are "fair" and require no judgement at all.

Under Title IV-D, taking kids from a parent makes states federal money. This goes much deeper than most suppose.

Welcome to law-by-lobby opportunism, folks, where you rights, for want of maintenance, mean zip.

"It tastes like it was strained through a used gym sock as soon as it came out of the horse..."

This comment by Conan the Grammarian about Mike's Hard Lemonade had me LMAO. When I went for a walk yesterday afternoon and saw a couple of horses, I was reminded of the comment and laughed again. In fact, I was even laughing about it last night.

I hope nobody in the other apartments thought I'd gone mad!

Tom Fullery

The fundamental problem is unsolvable. All types of work that involves any kind of [i]power[/i] have a tendency to draw certain personality types. Government is all about [i]power[/i] when the nice language is stripped away, as George Washington himself observed.

The world is full of busybodies, and they're drawn to CPS work just as magnetically as bullies are drawn to police work. That is NOT to say that most police are bullies, or that most CPS people are busybodies (though I suspect that the police are better at screening out the bully personality than CPS is at busybodies, because the later is hard to define and spot).
But bullies sometimes seek to become police because it gives them power over others, and busybodies are often drawn to social work because it lets them tell other people how to live their lives, which they [i]ache[/i] to do.

There is no real solution, as such. Anything we do or don't do means that [i]someone[/i] will suffer who otherwise did not. My solution is to restrict public intervention to the most extreme cases of physical and specific sexual abuse, and lesser stuff is simply not the state's business.

In short, we need to set a legal standard that the parents are presumptively right, and the accuser (public or private) is presumptively lying or wrong.

Will some children suffer for doing that? Yes.

Will some children suffer for our [i]not[/i] doing that? Yes.

The notion has infected our society in recent decades that the state is supposed to make life 'fair' and 'safe', and it [b]cannot[/b] do that, but in the process of trying much harm is done.

Well, the father's an academic at U of Michigan, and not in the hard sciences. The chances that he is a liberal are about 99 percent.

So I can't help but feel like he's hoist on his own petard.

You should know that a Federal agency must approve all labeling of alcoholic beverages. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is that agency. I found no sign as to the extent to which its duties have been assumed from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and public outrage seems not to have followed it from the parent organization.

The term "badge-heavy" can be applied to people other than cops - anyone in a position of authority who uses that power for their own personal jollies.

In today's over-regulated, nanny-state world, there are thousands of p*ss-ant government workers who can and do act like this.

You voted for 'em, folks.

When Daughter #1 was in the 5th grade, she had a friend who was very into anime, and both girls watched a lot of anime on Cartoon Network at the time. YuYu Hakusho was one; Rurouni Kenshin was another. I wasn't paying as close attention as I should have; Kenshin turned out not to be a samuri, but a Japanese assasin "with a sunny disposition"; YuYu was some kind of competition fighter, or something. ANyway, one morning, before #1 was going off to school, she had a funky-looking little baggie in her hand, and my mom asked what it was. She said "medicine" and mom was all "what kind of medicine?" She took the little baggie, and there, inside were 3 little corners of baggies with what looked like cocaine in them! Turned out it was powder that she had wetted with water, and then let dry; she had packaged them in exact replica of the "medicine" (opium!) that she had seen in the anime! Apparently she and her little friend were going to play Rurouni Kenshin during recess. Mom took them from her and told her she shouldn't bring stuff like this to school, and when #1 asked "why?" she told her that I would explain when I got home from work. Thanks, Mom! When I got home, I took her and her little medicine bags into the kitchen, let her dump them out, and then told her that while I truly admired her "creativity", the resemblance of her medicine to little bags of street cocaine was so close as to be identical, and had she been caught with those at school, very likely I would have been arrested, and DCF would have been called, and she and her sister would have been taken away from me. I then told her that she could not watch anime anymore until she was 15 years old. There was little protest on her part; she was very repentant, and scared at the thought of DCF taking her and her sister away from me.
There but for my mom's chance sighting of that little baggie, her smarts and the grace of whatever god/dess is watching over us, I would have gone where this boy's parents did. Dodged a (BIG) bullet that time.

...I would have gone where this boy's parents did.

Oooops! This should've been in the other thread; however, there is a real possibility the #1 could've gotten expelled, too.

I still ask myself where that whole "No Tolerance" thing will end-up. Do the kids will be hampered in the development of their ethical sense? If the only answer for all questions is obedience in all time, how can you question autority?

The problem is, Toubrouk, that the people that used to tell us to "Question Authority" are now the ones are ARE the Authority, and they will brook NO questions. It's "Do as I say, not as I do." and if anyone questions that, it's ZERO tolerance. That's another reason why all this "political correctness" is a buncha bullshit; it's not political and it's not correct. It's absolving people of taking personal responsibility and taking away their right to question authority. Am I the only one who sees this?!?

Times do change, don't they?

In 1958, in Rogers, Arkansas, I rode a float in the high school homecoming parade dressed as a hillbilly and holding a 12 gauge double-barreled shotgun. The teacher who sponsored our club picked me because I had the most old-fashioned shotgun--one with a worn stock, faded bluing, and external hammers. But it wasn't a wallhanger; it was the gun I regularly hunted with. The teacher just told me not to bring any shells, and to carry the gun disassembled till I got onto the float, and to take it apart again after the parade.

Taking a gun or a knife to school is one thing. Buying personal SOUVIONIRS on a feild trip which were never taken out of the box they were bought in and to be sent to the students homes is something else.

Those kids should get their proprty back, get the money the spent to go on the trip refunded, and the teacher who stole their stuff should be charged.

Flynne says, "The problem is, Toubrouk, that the people that used to tell us to 'Question Authority' are now the ones are ARE the Authority, and they will brook NO questions. It's 'Do as I say, not as I do.'"

Flynne, I admire your insight. The irony you speak of showed up even in the old "Question Authority" days. In the late '60s I made a mildly iconocastic remark to a group of dinner guests. One of them, an activist in campus uprisings going on at the time, said, "After the revolution, I'll let you say that, if you say it in just that way."

I blew up at him. I told him, "By God, if you have the authority to tell me how to say things after the revolution, the whole operation is a complete failure. Nobody can tell me how to say things now! You think your God damn revolution will improve on that?"

So I think you're right, Flynne. They didn't have to do a revolution, because they managed an infiltration.

P.S. I always enjoy your wit, too. Just thought I'd let you know, since I was already addressing you.

Flynne -- Thanks for the "Aha" moment.

Those who told us to question authority now are the authority, and they will brook no questions.

Exactly!

Flynne, you have nailed it so right!

It is amazing what a little power can do to a human mind... :D

Spanks you guys, I'm just callin' it as I see it.

The McKinney, TX school district hired an East Coast transplant teacher.

One of her students, a 12 year old boy, wrote on his essay assignment that he wanted a ".50 caliber smooth bore rifle", aka muzzleloader - the same rifle out of the Last of the Mohicans - so he "could shoot his first deer".

The teacher freaked. The rest is predictable.

But, the school principle had a talk with the teacher.

Of course the Mom and Dad were livid and now this teacher's name is mud.

Actually, the teacher, the child and his parents all should have been deported from Texas for not knowing the difference between a smooth bore and a rifle.

Extreme stupidity demands extreme wrath.

The late great actor Charlton Heston said it best in his speech "Winning the Cultural War".

"When a five year old is charged with sexual harassment and suspended from school for kissing a little girl, blockade the schoolhouse steps"

Stupid rules remain in place because there are to many LAZY smart people.

Here is how to stop these ludicrous applications of zero tolerance.

If your school suspends a student for having an inhaler, or will not allow them to have it on them, register your wrath with other parents, organize, block the schoolhouse steps, notify the media, wage peaceful war on idiocy, hit them in the pocketbook if you must, and withdraw your child from school, convince other parents to do the same.

Simply groaning about the idiocy of the system, allows the system to continue because it has no reprecussions...except for the poor unfortunates who live beneath it's aegis.

It is not enough to ASK for a good system, a good education, it is not even enough to DEMAND it. We as parents & as citizens who pay taxes to support that system must vigilantly root out officials who either cannot, or will not, put forth their best efforts to provide a quality education & a safe environment for our next generation. Schools which employ officials who refuse to use their heads, are NOT fit to TEACH.

We get the government, and the education, that we deserve, when we do nothing in the face of corruption or incompetence...or when we overcome both those things.

After reading this and the other post I've concluded that we're fucking up this generation more than the previous (mine...you know, the ones you think are all financially retahded. Different topic.)

By making everything off limits and punishable we're doing something scary:

Creating reactionaries.

People who can't approach a subject while examining the entire topic. It's either black or white, it's either 'allowed' or 'forbidden'. We are teaching kids how to NOT approach a situation an utilize common sense and rationality. It shows kids that you have to react with full force to everything, no matter what. Great, when John Boy Smith is 16 and someone cuts him off in traffic John Boy Smith should tail gate the offender, flash his highs and throw shit at the car until the guy (who was just having a REALLY bad day) poops his pants.

There IS a difference b/w someone buying a sword for dad and someone who is deranged and bringing it to school. And we can ALL TELL THE DIFFERENCE. If there were NOT a difference no one would care and we'd all support these over-reactions. But, here we are talking about how insane it is, so guess what? It's high time the schools/cops at baseball games get a fucking grip on reality.

A big part of the problem here, meseems, is that ever since the wave of school shootings that more-or-less climaxed with Columbine, a lot of "educators" go absolutely bananashit at the mere mention of the word "weapon."

When I was in school, we did riflery in gym class, my senior year. I loved it because, after all those years of humiliation, I could finally shine...I was already an NRA-trained marksman. If we'd had things like that in gym more often, I'd probably not have such a bad taste in my mouth about the whole thing. (It was perfectly safe; we used .22 rifles---many of us brought our own from home---and the whole thing took place at the local National Guard armoury's range.) These days, between insane liability precedents and the ghost of Columbine, I don't think they do it any more. Pity.

And as far as buying something like this on a trip overseas, that's probably not even going near the school ever---words fail me. If it had been me, my parents would have torn the school a new arsehole.

First of all, Robert H. thats the way things need to happen. Should one of those kids that bring a gun be under IDEA (Special Education) the most they will receive is "45 days removed to an alternative setting", while the non-IDEA kid is gone for a calendar year. As an administrator, Vice Principal, I would like to see the parents of our basic, everyday kids get riled up and start calling those that make the policy and law I HAVE to follow.

Now to address the main post.

My Stepson is going on a People to People trip http://www.studentambassadors.org/ this summer. They are told directly, that they may not purchase any weapons, including knives and swords. I could not find out if these kids were told this or not. If they were, then I can understand the punishment, but not the expulsion. Here I have a good law (sometimes) that allows me to treat a weapon as a non-statutory event. When a kid goes hunting or skating and leaves his multi-tool in the backpack, I do not have to suspend or expel, I can impose a stupid tax and be done.

"Zero Tolerance" = "Zero Thought" = Expelled for bringing a butter knife to school.
It's easier to over-react to all situations than have to judge each one-by-one. Any school I've seen where there seems to be any semblance of order and successful structure was run by administrators who DO examine each case, get personally involved, and deal with every incident individually. The bad ones just over simplify and over-react to everything in the name of "consistency." Feh.

Now I'm feeling old and cranky. When I was in High School, I was permitted to bring two swords I had made myself into the school - carried them around with me all day - in order to give a presentation on them to the Latin classes...all 4 years of high school.

Actually, the teacher, the child and his parents all should have been deported from Texas for not knowing the difference between a smooth bore and a rifle.

Hah! Well said.

...the people that used to tell us to "Question Authority" are now the ones are ARE the Authority, and they will brook NO questions.

True.

The thing is, the people that used to worship at the altar of "Question Authority" always mis-interpreted that phrase to mean "Automatically Disagree with Authority" - so they see any questions as illegitimate revolts against their petty tyranny instead of legitimate questioning of government officials by a free people.

----------

If your school suspends a student for having an inhaler, or will not allow them to have it on them....

If your child’s school suspends a student for having an inhaler or will not allow him to have his inhaler on him, ask the school administrator if they’ll go halfsies on a coffin when your child dies of an asthma attack during the school nurse’s lunch hour.

Restricting someone's access to lifesaving medication goes way beyond the authority of any school official. That's a medical decision. Of course, any official who equates asthma inhalers and Midol with heroin and cocaine should not have been placed in a position of authority in the first place.

Hey, you guys are forgetting something: we asked for the current school system.

We told the principal he couldn't paddle little Johnny, or make any other decision about his conduct.

We built schools, then populate them with transients, so the school system has no choice now but to issue IDs to otherwise anonymous people.

We told the principal she couldn't discriminate between the thug and valedictorian.

We told the principal he had to keep thugs and severely handicapped students in the classroom with the ordinary kids.

We allow a union, concerned with headcount, to override concerns about obviously incompetent "teachers", and pay no attention when dollars earmarked for "the children" actually go to administrative personnel, office spaces, faddish programs - everywhere but the classroom.

We tell our kids, directly and by example, that self-esteem and sexual identity are more important than learning, and that they can be granted, rather than earned.

We mistake memorization drills for teaching.

-----

This all sounds holier-than-thou, but there really isn't much room for debate here, because it's obvious that parental involvement - not the screeching control freak second-guessing the school's every decision, but the enabler - produces a better school and a better student.

Don't worry, the Brits have outlawed samurai swords. Our children are safe.

/sarc

The premise of creationism is that you either believe in evolution or you believe in God. I went to school in Kansas. Kansas hasn't gotten over the Scopes Trial. Fortunately, I went to a parochial school. At Catholic school, I was taught science in science class and religion in religion class. I was not taught that you could believe one and not the other. Ironic that I was taught evolution in a religious school while my friends in public school got a taste of creationsism. I also went to a Catholic college in Kansas. A professor, who was a priest, told the class that our ancestors were amoebas and we better get used to it. Evolution questions would be on the test and creationist answers would be graded as wrong. So much for the notion that evolution is an atheistic plot. Then again, Catholics aren't real christians, so either way, I am going to hell.

The notion that ID somehow should be treated as science is absurd. Science is about testing and explaining; ID is about quitting without finding answers. I recently added this link to my del.icio.us after coming across in a comment thread elsewhere:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/Guysmiley777/Evolution2.jpg

A PARAGON OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT!

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

The text begins simply enough, tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right. The matter may be summed up by the inclusion of Darwin’s sentiment regarding the Creator. In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake…. Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge. And the scientific illiterate upstart sought to entrap the innocents in the classroom in his web of deceit.

Once past the history of the Darwinist movement, the architecture of the quantum atom is explored in great detail. This is breathtakingly new!

The atom has been compared to a miniature sun-earth system with one or more electrons darting about everywhere at once weaving an electronic shell around the nucleus. In order for this to occur, “Bohr calculated that the electron must move at a speed of no less than seven million billion rotations per second.” Ummmm, "numerous electrons darting about, dodging one another at breakneck speeds would necessarily require the supernatural. The Quest for Right will prove to your complete satisfaction that the electron is directly adhered to the perimeter of the nucleus. “How could it have been otherwise?” The exciting text is remarkably easy to follow even for a lay person. Read a review:

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The book is a virtual smorgasbord of good things to taste: a few of the entertaining subjects include: the earth was created from a watery nebula, the mechanism of gravity which was used to form the earth, the failed photoelectric effect, theory of antimatter, quantum creation (big bang theory), disappearing color, magical application of mathematics to explain certain rudimentary principles, Rayleigh scattering (sunsets), electricity, lightning, electrolyte, the browning of fruit, the mystery of fire, and the role of oxygen in the ignition of hydrocarbons. Then, there’s the desserts which are far too numerous to mention in this limited space; for example, the origin and dimise of the great dinosaurs. Moreover, you will marvel at the comprehensive law of fixed choice.

This is not your parent’s science book filled with distortions of the truth, called “quantum mysticism.” The comprehensive investigation--like none other you will read--quickly escapes into realism by underscoring the numerous experiments and errors responsible for the debasement of scientific theories based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians, and Christians in general, need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com

all that happened to Egnor was that some people criticized him on the internet.

Apparently many modern Feminists share a lot in common with Egnor. They love banning people that critique them, and then they turn around and claim they are victims of "cyber-stalking" making sure to use a word loaded with real world overtones of violence and sexual violence.

They share other ideas too, which is that for some reason they dislike actual debate with people that disagree with them. They want to force their form of junk science into schools. They want society to believe in their conspiracy theory: mythical intelligent designer, or mythical conspiracy of men and society known as "patriarchy". They hate science, evolution on the one hand an evolutionary psychology on the other....

Sorry for the potential threadjack....

Bob - Catholics aren't real christians What?! I've been doing it wrong all these years. Seriously, aren't Catholics the only real ones? Somebody must know. I mean, they've got the omnipotent creator etc batting for them, so it should be easy to tell, right?

Are you just teasing and I fell for it?

Justin - Science is about testing and explaining; ID is about quitting without finding answers. Nicely put; must remember that.

How about requiring people to put their money where their mouths are. If you advocate faith schools, creationism etc then you should only be allowed to engage lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc who share your kooky views. Ah, if only!

The theory of evolution is a fact. The theory that all of life’s diversity formed using evolutionary processes is a theory. It may be right or it may be wrong. Right now we just don’t have enough data to say so conclusively. One thing is for sure though; religion is a philosophy, not a science.
If there are religious issues inside of the science class, then they should be handled in the following manor; What ever religion that you believe in has a creator creating the world/universe. If the world/universe was created then there must be a method of creation. Science investigates and discovers those methods that were/are used in creation.
Personally I like to think of the study of science as looking in to Gods mind.

David Parsons,
Why dose religion, specifically Christian religion, need to be taught in the science room? All because you can’t understand the Atom? Or for that matter, because the modern explanation doesn’t satisfy every question that you have? So your solution is to throw up your hands and say we never will figure this out?
Why?

"A PARAGON OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT!" Dude what ever your taking please share. There is no science here. It's all the standard crap. We don't know thus it's god. Start using the brain he/she gave you and stop bugging them for inconsequential crap your just too lazy to learn and understand.

The explanation for electron theory is wrong. That part of the Bohr's model was dis proven for that reason. Look up "Quantum Corral", the electron does not circle the nucleolus as would a planet or satellite. The electron spreads out forming a shell (hence the term valence shells) based on Schrodinger's wave equations. Which gets really ugly once you proceed past the first few rows.

Not to mention that the location of the electron at any given point in time is described as a probability of it being located there. (In the valiance shell I mean)

Of course the whole of quantum mechanics reads somewhat like Aquinas Trieste on How Many Angles Can Sit On The Head Of A Pin.

I'm sorry but when I hear the words rejoice in any scientific text book or the description of such I cringe. If you want to attack quantum physics at least make sure you understand the theories before we start. I have a good understanding of how you think the world was created. Do me the common courtesy of learning what science says before attacking it.

You insult me and your creator by not using the brain you believe he gave you.

Are you just teasing and I fell for it?
Bob - what I got taught in church school was that any religion in which you ever prayed to anyone other than god or Christ was a non-Christian religion. Catholicism includes intercessory prayers to Mary or various saints, therefore it isn't truly Christianity.

Of course, the loons running the asylum then went on to tell us that the Pope is the anti-Christ . . . . And for irony, they often relied on the texts of their pet prophetess to tell them what Bible passages meant (or to tell them things that flat out aren't in the bible, but which they take as the Word of God delivered through his last prophet).

But from what I've gathered since, many protestant churches that aren't exactly mainstream (but aren't *quite* as whacked-out as David Khoresh) teach that Catholics aren't truly Christians . . . .

"The Quest for Right": A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics.

By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com

Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

"American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public....The objective....is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,...to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These...have no further station in Science."

http://www.questforright.com

A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to "prove" that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don't really exist, except in the imagination of scientists.”

C. David Parsons apparently spends his days hunched over his computer waiting for his Google Alerts to come in so he can post the same silly blather everywhere.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22represents+the+ultimate+marriage+between+an+in-depth+knowledge+of+biblical+phenomena%22&btnG=Search

David, all it would take for me to believe in god is evidence god exists. Got any?

"The Quest for Right": A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics. By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics: "American Atheists base their reasoning on

David, this is a discussion, not a forum for cut-and-paste jobs. I realize that rational thought can't be a big part of your life, but please try to dip into a little and respond to comments of those here rather than simply hitting "copy" and "paste."

If I'm not making myself totally clear: No more cut and paste jobs from you in this comments section.

ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences

Well, I'm glad at least that it's ultimate. So when science moves on, perhaps changing its mind (no Big Bang! It was a sort of gloopy purple song) or making new discoveries (missing 90% of the universe's matter found in janitor's cupboard) then we'll be able to leave this ultimate volume along with all the previous ultimate volumes.

The sad fact is I took C. David Parsons' post for a parody.

What has "tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right" got to do with evolution? Darwin started off as a believer; it was his experience of life, especially the cruel death of his daughter Annie, that changed his mind. Changing your mind in the light of evidence is not easy. What would you do, C. David Parsons?

Personally I like to think of the study of science as looking in to Gods mind.

Newton felt the same, I believe.

I like this bit from the Expelled Exposed website:

Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

Just had a quick squint at http://questforright.com/. It's weird - almost as if written by a machine. The sentences don't make sense. for example,

There is a new discipline on the scene: physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

Huh? The old science is the new discipline? Cause and effect is the new black?

Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim.

I have no idea what this means. It's a hodge-podge of unconnected concepts (cause-and-effect, sustainability, irresponsibility, whim). Like I said, it looks like it's been written by a bot stringing random words together.

Parsons: can you explain either of these two excerpts? Feel free to add as much context as it takes, but then you have to explain the context as well.

OMG! C David Parsons is the author of "The Quest For Right". (Perhaps everyone else already knew this?

Details at http://questforright.com/quest3.htm.

That's fantastic - if Mr Parsons can stand the heat, it would be wonderful to have a poster here who can at least speak with authority on some topic, in this case the book in question.

The wait for a textbook based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, is over.

Actually there were already several science text books available. I suspect that yours is new only inasmuch as it is not about science.

The guy appears to believe that use of multi-syllabic words is a substitute for writing something that actually makes sense.

Personally, I'm waiting for the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Once that happens, maybe we can get on with the business of finding God's mobile number.

Anyone who wants to disprove quantum theory is going to get nothing but laughs from me.

"Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion." Ok so not only is quantum theory bad but now Algebra is the language of the devil? That's a new one for me. The reason most theories are in mystical symbolic fashion is that moving around big numbers with exponents on paper sucks.

What Mr. Parsons fails to realize or accept is the much of quantum physics has been observed. There is still lots of crap out there about it, like quantum faith healing. However most PhD candidates (never mind the rest of us) do not get to run quantum experiments for one reason. Supper colliders are really freaking expensive to setup and run.

What has "tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right" got to do with evolution?

MORE ON SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATE DARWIN:

The following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one's mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as "atheistical cats." By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.

A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one's mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, "For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness'] are without excuse" (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”

In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do "not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: "Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21, 22).

In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, "done on purpose; deliberate." The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.

Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, "uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas." In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an "agnostic." The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

The Old Testament did not escape Darwin's inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that "the manifestly false history of the earth....was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian." Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the "volumne (sic) on the origin of species...light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history," meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.

I have a completely different take, and I've not encountered anyone else with my view on ID. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I fully expect to be flamed, so I will number my points for easy reference.

1. Intelligent Design is a mathematical theory. It has axioms, theorems, and conjectures. Most ID critics are unaware of this fact. Almost all of them have failed to even read the maths.
2. Philosophical arguments do not work against a mathematical theory. We can't just say, "there can't be an imaginary number!" To counter a mathematical theory, we must demonstrate a contradiction or counter-example.
3. To date, I can find no counter-example nor any proof of a contradiction in ID.
4. Some ID critics think ID is false because it is Creationism. But that is an instance of using a philosophical argument against a mathematical theory. It doesn't work, as a logical matter.
5. Other ID critics assume without proof that science is closed over the set of all possible naturalistic observations. There is no reason to believe this. Naturalistic observations may lead to non-naturalistic conclusions. To scientists, this is probably the most controversial of my views.
6. Not all mathematical theories are useful. To be useful, a theory must exhibit a model. (I'm uing the term 'model' as it is used in mathematical logic.) Mathematical models are of two kinds, absolute and relative. An absolute model has a physical system as an interpretation of the theory. ID advocates have not demonstrated that an absolute model exists.
7. This notion of absolute model is well-known by scientists, yet many continue to use philosophical arguments against ID. In this regard, "Expelled" is correct. Scientists are confusing the motives of the mathematicians with the mathematics itself. By that standard, we would have thrown out Newton's work. To me, that's a reductio ad absurdum on the question of motive.
8. Since ID is a consistent mathematical theory, it is scientific. Otherwise, we'd toss out large swathes of abstract mathematics for which we have yet to find an absolute model.
9. The failure of ID advocates to exhibit an absolute model, shows that ID is likely an incorrect interpretation of physical systems. I've encouraged ID advocates to start smaller than cosmogony. Instead, ID advocates should try to create a maths that can predict whether, say a rock formation, is natural or intelligently designed. Such a theory would be of inestimable value to archaeologists.
10. Thus, ID is scientific but probably incorrect. ID advocates haven't found a physical model of their maths, and I don't think they ever will. ID critics frequently use illogical arguments that set a dangerous rhetorical precedent for open inquiry in science; in this regard, "Expelled" is correct.

My big problem with YEC or any of the other faith based groups is they will jump on inconsequential evidence that may (if seen after very heavy drinking and LSD use) support their claim. Orac has a great post in his archives of the women who's leg is growing back by faith healing, which it isn't. Then they get swamped with a mountain of evidance to the contrary and dismiss it out of hand. It's either mis interpreted, which might be argued but never really is. My favorite response is that the devil himself is making it happen to disprove god and rule humanity, Illuminati etc.

My favorite response is that the devil himself is making it happen to disprove god and rule humanity, Illuminati etc.

Taking into consideration, of course, Vlad, that we are the Illuminati, the "enlighteded ones".

vlad said "However most PhD candidates (never mind the rest of us) do not get to run quantum experiments for one reason. Supper colliders are really freaking expensive to setup and run."

Actually there are quantum experiments at almost every university. It doesn't take much to run quantum them at all. e.g. Many people work with atom traps, which are fairly contained and inexpensve.

Justin -

That's a terrific summary of Evolution on the jpeg! What's the source of the text?

"Intelligent Design is a mathematical theory. It has axioms, theorems, and conjectures." Where can these be found? I'm bored and got the new version of Matlab. I need some mathematical models to test, particularly convergence issues that have been bugging me in real time circuit behavior.

"Thus, ID is scientific but probably incorrect." I can see the argument that ID is properly stated as a theory. I don't agree but I see the argument. I still don't see it as scientific. Science as opposed to pure mathematics require observed fact on which to make deductions, assign and evaluate model parameters. While calculus allows for N dimensional space and can model interaction in N dimensional space there is no evidence of extra planner dimensions. Mathematical models can be made of almost everything but unless the physical observations match the model it should be discarded.

Sorry Jeff, but you conflate mathematics with science. All science requires mathematics, but not all mathematics are science. Until something makes testable predictions about the real world, it is simply not science regardless of its mathematical foundation. This does not mean we currently possess the means to test the predictions, it just means that the predictions could be tested. As far as I know, ID never gets there.

That's a terrific summary of Evolution on the jpeg! What's the source of the text?

I have no idea - sorry. I just found it linked on a BB comment thread, had the same reaction you did, and saved it for future reference.

Jeff,
You are clearly too reasonable, intelligent and level headed to contribute the ID vs. evolution discussion. You must take a dogmatic stance and hurl invectives at others to participate. Someone will be along shortly to unplug your Ethernet cable.

"Many people work with atom traps, which are fairly contained and inexpensve." Wasn't aware of this.

C. David Parsons - you do realize, don't you, that you pasted a long section of text that didn't *begin* to answer the question you pasted at the top?

How about a simple answer to the question "what does Darwin's religious history have to do with the accuracy of the theory of evolution?" Or did you think we'd miss the fact that you don't seem to have an answer?

By the way, do you seriously think that the claim that "the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God" has ANY RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to whether or not I believe in God? Okay, so you've got some (unattributed) author claiming that the folks who wrote/translated/copied the New Testament think that it's impossible for me to not believe in God. Well, guess what? I personally believe that it's impossible for you to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you converted to worshipping FSM yet? Hmm. I haven't started believing in your god, either . . . .

TheOtherOne...

You do realize that most likely ole' Dave "Fun to be a Fundie" Parsons is probably using a 'bot to post these messages on any forum that matches search criteria - or is manually cuting/pasting the long monologues manually based on google searches? It's unlikely he's read the article Amy posted - nor ANY of the comments that people post in repsonse. Nothing he posted was in RESPONSE to anything here.
He's just spamming his website/book. Might as well try to start a verbal conversation up with his book.

"Might as well try to start a verbal conversation up with his book."

The posts are in response to posts on advicegoddess. Please know that it is impossible to answer every question in this forum because each question generates a new string. That is why the 7-book series was written. Continue your education by reading Volume 1 of The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

I have a lot of respect for Ben Stein, and I've got to say that I'm disappointed at him right now. Of all the things he could have chosen to lend his considerable talents to, why this? There are a lot of conservative/libertarian film makers, Evan Coyle Maloney to name one, who are doing far more worthwhile work on the subject of academic freedom. Imagine what Maloney could do with "Indoctorinate U" with Stein's participation.

vlad, my favorite bit from the young-earthers was their explanation/excuse concerning all of the geological and anthropological evidence for the Earth being billions of years old: "Well, the dinosaurs never existed. God created the Earth with dinosaur skeletons buried in it, to fool scientists." Besides the anti-scientific overtone, and the fact that it makes the Almighty look rather ridiculous (God as some kind of cosmic practical joker?), there's the fact that their theory opens a nilhist can of worms. If God could/would create the Earth with pre-installed evidence of a past that never actually occurred, then who is to say that this occurred four thousand years ago? Why not two thousand years ago? Why not one thousand years ago (Jesus, Paul, John, etc., never existed, and God hid the Dead Sea Scrolls Himself)? Why not five hundred years ago? Heck, who is to say that the universe wasn't created...

...just now? Al Gore didn't invent the Internet; God created the Earth with the Internet pre-existing. Jon Postel never actually lived; God created all of the Internet standards that Postel supposedly authored, and He implanted memories of Postel in the minds of the thousands of people who think they met or knew Jon in the non-existent past. I was created hunched over the keyboard writing this paragraph; the previous paragraph was pre-written and stored by God when He zapped my computer into existence. It's a game that anyone can play, indefinitely. It's also a neat bit of non-falsifiable propaganda disguised as science. When I turn it on its head and do what I just did, the YEC'ers go nuts!

For what it's worth, I guess my take is more or less like Rusty Wilson's above. I'm a Christian, but I don't read the Bible as a science book any more than I'd read a physics book for religious guidance. They cover two very different topics!

That said, I haven't seen anything come out of the scientific world that disturbs my belief in the Almighty. On the contrary, discoveries such as the decoding of the human genome or research into the breadth of the universe only increase my wonder at the vastness of the Lord's creation. Recently I saw a picture, taken with a very powerful electron microscope, of individual atoms in a metallic crystal of some kind. And we've all read about astronomers discovering planets outside our solar system. All I can say is, "How Great Thou Art!" I could go on and on, but I'll spare you my further rambling.

I'll retract my statement that you're not reading the comments, but this seemed to be the first time you've addressed a SPECIFIC comment. The rest of the time you reply with what appears to be a copy/pasted canned response. Especially the first one - which was a blatant spam which is only marginally related to the blog topic.

The post was NOT about the validity of ID vs. Evolution, but about whether or not the "persecution" that "Expelled" is claiming is occurring is at all accurate. Not that we're collectively known to EVER get off-topic, but blatant spam is rare.

I really don't see any reason why I should "continue my education" with anything written by someone whose comments are so poorly written - especially when they're likely written well in advance. Sorry.

Opps I realized my post was a little mixed. My second sentence should be "it doesn't take much to run quantum experiments at all".

Vlad- most people are not aware of how much quantum mechanics permeates physics research.

old rpm daddy wrote:

For what it's worth, I guess my take is more or less like Rusty Wilson's above. I'm a Christian, but I don't read the Bible as a science book any more than I'd read a physics book for religious guidance. They cover two very different topics!

I agree, but the flip side is part of the problem. Scientists like Dawkins and Gould thought that science could disprove God. And, I do not have a problem with Darwinism; actually, in the Origin of Species, I recall that Darwin complimented God for creating evolution.

But, the new scientists will have none of that. While ID can be consistent with evolution and with creationism, scientists say: No! Evolution has to be random and undirected. They take this stance so as to rule out the possibility of God, even though some evolutionary theories are consistent with ID.

But, does anyone find it ironic that the Bible begins with God creating the world out of nothing, and now the scientists insist that nothing existed before the Big Bang, so they can deny God? Basically, they have asserted an effect without a cause. Not very scientific.

"I have a lot of respect for Ben Stein"
Ever read Felix Salmon?
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers?topicChoice=ben+stein+watch

Also, Dawkins has a parody that's pretty good.
Sexpelled:No Intercourse Allowed

"most people are not aware of how much quantum mechanics permeates physics research." I was thinking about the more esoteric portions of quantum forgot that spin states were part of quantum theory and not general chemistry. The Bosons and quarks need a collider which is what Mr. Parsons was attacking as mythical.

David - (I'm guessing that is the appropriate form of address here) - your reply to what has Darwin's personal history got to do with evolution goes on at length about Darwin's personal history, but it doesn't answer the question.

Let me try to give an example to illustrate what I mean. Euclid, bless his cotton socks, codified ideas of geometry into his book Elements. I haven't read it, but I know that it introduced abstractions such as points, lines triangles, straightedge-and-compass constructions, and mathematical proof.

Now, what would his personal life have to do with any of these things? Nothing at all. The ideas of the book are what is important, and what has survived. Everyone who has been to school knows these ideas; nobody except specialists know anything about Euclid as a person. In the same way, Darwin's private life has no bearing on natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. Evolution stands or falls on its own merits: it wouldn't matter if Darwin was a Hottentot or an Eskimo or an English vicar.

If you think otherwise, explain why. Try to limit yourself to, say, 200 words. (This post has less than 200 words.)

"Basically, they have asserted an effect without a cause. Not very scientific." True enough there is no known cause for the start of the explosions that birthed the universe. Most scientists will admit that it's all theory and most of it is tenuous at best. Why is it that just cause scientists say we don't know yet is it always proof of divine influence and remains so till a scientific explanation is reached?

ID is a conceptual shield for religion. Now it works for all religions with a creator myth, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, many Pagan beliefs, and others. If ID were proven then it would by default prove that there is a creator and thus by our human standards a god.

BTW if god created the universe what created that being. Did that entity spend eternity in a black nothing of nothing before we were created?

"No! Evolution has to be random and undirected." No that's just plain wrong. Evolution is directed by the environment. This is in addition to random mutation and genetic diversity. Without random mutation and inherent genetic diversity there would be no mechanism for evolution. If there were no environmental stimulus there would be no driving force to stear evolution .

But, does anyone find it ironic that the Bible begins with God creating the world out of nothing, and now the scientists insist that nothing existed before the Big Bang, so they can deny God? Basically, they have asserted an effect without a cause. Not very scientific.

Tim, whether it's intentional or not, you're misrepresenting what scientists say about what came before the big bang to create some kind of conflict with religion that doesn't exist. What scientists actually say is that time is a property of the universe that began with the big bang, so asking what came before it is a nonsensical question. There was no "before" before the big bang.

It's like asking what's north of the North Pole. There's no answer because the question doesn't make any sense. About 1,600 years ago St. Augustine gave the same answer for the question of what God did before creation: Time is a part of God's creation and did not exist until God created it along with everything else, so the concept of "before creation" is a nonsense idea.

Criminy. Those of you who want to see dedicated Web sites about origins and evolution, try Talkorigins, or Darwiniana.org. The latter has huge amounts of information, the bulk of which religious zealots are totally unaware.

But no mention of this would be complete without mentioning The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ask yourself. WWFSMD?

I have to throw a big rock in the water now: The universe is not random. It has laws of physics. Your inability to predict the outcome of a complicated process does not mean it is "random".

Please take a few minutes to think about definitions before you address ideas like "origin", "creation", "random" and the like, because what you have habitually thought about these terms doesn't cut it when you try to understand complex events.

Another big rock: You have no evidence of "creation". No, things in front of you are not that evidence. When we make a "new" car out of ore and petroleum, we violate no law of nature; no material appears from nowhere; the rule of thumb called "the conservation of matter and energy" is not even closely approached. This is a problem with egocentricity in definition. Only to you can a thing be "new". What you see (imperfectly) before you is conversion.

Think some more about definitions. I suspect you can find a dozen or more words people use frequently without knowing what they mean.

Sorry Jeff, but you conflate mathematics with science (Justin).

No I don't. I just read the history of science. There are three divisions of the sciences at present: the formal sciences, the empirical sciences, and the social sciences. Math is a formal science.

Much of this is equivocation over the existential verb. I'm not saying math is science in the sense of identity. I'm saying math is in the category of human activities called 'science.' Therefore, if anyone is conflating concepts, it's you by equating 'natural science' with the category 'science.'

Until something makes testable predictions about the real world, it is simply not science regardless of its mathematical foundation (Justin).

Sure it is. It's formal science. Formal sciences, make claims by formal languages. If the axioms are true (under a suitable interpretation of the undefined terms), then the theorems are true. This is a prediction about the "real world." If an absolute model exists of a formal system, then the sytem is consistent and the theorems are guaranteed to be true of the model --- in this case the "real world."

But "real world" models are not the only useful models. Relative models are also very useful. Are we really to discard the Lieontief model just because there is no physical R^n space --- even though it gives us the right answers in "the real world?" Are we really to discard error correcting codes because there is no physically existing, finite, hyperbolic geometry? The users of the Internet might disagree with you.

It's maddening that engineers and physicists will opine about the philosophy of math, having never studied even one whit of mathematical logic. Quite literally, they don't know what they are talking about.

This does not mean we currently possess the means to test the predictions, it just means that the predictions could be tested.

This is precisely why mathematical structures without absolute models must not be "discarded."

Consider that no absolute model of hyperbolic geometry was found for a hundred years after its discovery --- until the notion of space-time arrived. If we are to discard maths lacking absolute models, we're going to lose most of higher order calculus, topology, and even lots of theoretical physics. Indeed, by your view theoretical physicists aren't doing science at all, since much of what they publish has no absolute model --- yet.

If you had your way, we would have discarded imaginary numbers, perspective geometry, limits (!), and many other useful mathematical structures with no demonstrated absolute model. Limits are particularly interesting because as infinite processes they cannot in principle be physically completed, ever. Out they go! Indeed, the whole notion of continuity would probably go out the window too. The physicists notion of "vanishing quantities" goes; there's no physical model for that.

Your's is a Luddite view of science that would stunt it into uselessness. The Intuitionist logicians didn't have much luck with it. Indeed, they produced no progress whatsoever, and lost half of mathematics. May you have better luck. I doubt you will.

As far as I know, ID never gets there (Justin).

Yes, that's the pint of my original comment. ID proponents have not exhibited an absolute model of their theory. I can't even find a relative model of it. ID remains a consistent mathematical system, although there have been some pretty good critiques of the maths, with no application whatsoever. It should be criticized this way, not by resorting to questioning motives or misrepresenting it's mathematical status.

Irrational zeal in the service of science is not a virtue. In the long term, it will do more harm than good. This is my main concern.

@Jeff:
Are you a mathmatician? I am not, I barely qualifiy as an arithmatician however I have seen several examples of math types who would gladly explain why the ID types are abusing, misusing or misunderstanding the math they claim supports their beliefs. See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/evomath/
as a place to start.

I propose that anyone who proposes ID as a rational theory must abide by it in his healthcare. Right alongside the Scientologists.

Ben Stein? As in "Bueller? Bueller?"

Holy crap, I genuinely thought it had been narrated by Ben *Stiller*.

Wow. I think I'll have a drink and mourn a bit. I feel highly betrayed.

"Irrational zeal in the service of science is not a virtue. In the long term, it will do more harm than good. This is my main concern."

Wouldn't it be feasible to say that "irrational zeal in the service of religion" is FAR more harmful, since it places no value on rational thought, but faith and charismatic leadership?

I'd say that a "scientific zealot" is exceedingly rare, and even THEN would still be willing to have their stance cross-examined by an associate that comes forward with reproduce-able findings. Even the most hard-core pro-science/anti-religious person certainly would be far less willing to be a martyr for those beliefs, or kill for it. Can you say the same for a religious zealot?

After reading all of these well crafted arguments both for and against ID, I have only one question;

was it the chicken or the egg that was created first?

Obviously it was the T-Rex.

There is one good reason to support intelligent design, and one very good reason not to do more than gloss over it in scientific discussion.

The best reason to support it is the lack of evidence on just how a force such as evolution might actually work.

That being said though, the biggest problem with Intelligent Design as a theory, is that like evolution it is NOT a testable theory. Both are theories (or better, hypotheses) based on deductive logic and reaching two different solutions dependent upon the bias of the deducing individual.

But the best reason not to spend much time on Intelligent Design is much much simpler.

There is nothing to be gained from it.

ID may bolster faith, but science is not about bolstering faith. Science is not the search for truth, try philosophy for that one.

Science is a field of study of the physical realm, its application is the betterment of the human condition. Even if ID were proved tomorrow, it would never provide any benefit for humanity as a whole nor even in part.

Evolution, even if it is not true, does provide a useful scientific framework. The last thing we need to hear in a lab is "this works because God wills it to", evolution sidesteps faith, and we need that in a field that requires rigerous testing and concrete results.

I'm too tired to make good arguments but two things struck me Robert:

"evolution it is NOT a testable theory"

"Science is not the search for truth"

I guess all that bird/dinosaur links I've been reading, you know where scientists do all those tests....is baloney!

Science is the ultimate search for truth. Anyone can come up with their own view of the world via whatever billions of types of philosophy they'd like to adopt. But you know what? Water will always = H2O.

Robert H. Butler - How can you say evolution is not testable? Try googling for "evolution testable" and report back.

Jamie - "scientific zealot[s]" rare??? Read anything on AGW lately? The wikipedia kerfuffle over AGW isn't zealotry? (I'll grant that it's political in nature, but scientists have shown little reluctance to whore themselves out and lie for grant money)

PP, Norman - evolution still hasn't got even the slightest guess how we got both reptiles and mammals out of single-celled organisms. What evolution has "proven" is a very limited set of things.

And as far as our book-spammer goes, I'll take Stephen Hawkings' word for it over yours. Quantum phenomena have been reproduced in laboratories.

Brian - The question was whether evolution was testable, not whether it had mapped out the detailed evolutionary pathway of every species on the planet beyond any doubt. I don't expect it will, any more than a geologist could give you the precise history of every piece of rock you throw at him, or a doctor could explain exactly why Joe Bloggs gets that peculiar metallic itchy sensation in his mouth whenever he thinks of walrusses. Perhaps you are setting the bar exceptionally high for one topic?

What's the special difficulty about getting both reptiles and mammals from single-celled organisms? Are you implying that you're happy with the evolution of fungi, flowering plants, worms, molluscs, fish, insects, amphibians, birds, etc, but just not reptiles and mammals?

It's beginning to look as if the cat has got C. David Parsons' tongue. I'm a bit disappointed. I'd have thought that someone who has had enough drive to write a 7-volume book would be able to defend it in an argument.

Was it Schrodinger's?

Heh heh...sorry, just couldn't resist.

In case that's cryptic for anyone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

Norman, I've got a fundamental problem with any organism of higher complexity self-deriving from a simpler one.

Give what we know of the reproductive arts, the same exact mutation would have to occur in several offspring of the same generation, and they would have to mate, being unable to mate with the offspring that were like their parents.

And given the biodiversity of Earth, the possibility of that happening that many times is just beyond what I am willing to imagine.

simpler: an oak tree cannot pollenate a maple, nor vice-versa. Which would imply that if they had common ancestry, that at least one male and one female tree with the same genetic diversions from said ancestor had to come in to being at or near the same time, so that they could produce new oak/maple trees.

I find it no less an act of faith to believe that every major mutation that led to a new species that is observable today happened in such a way as to produce sufficient reproduction-capable mutated offspring to support the new species, and did it in the space of one generation.

With the lifespan of trees, it's a little more believable (200-300 years). Mammals? I'm just not buying it.

Brian- I'll guess that by "higher complexity" you mean something like "longer genotype", ie having more genetic information. If that's all you're worried about, it's quite easy to see how one organism can get more DNA. All you need is a mutation that duplicates a chunk of DNA. Initially the duplicate section will express itself in just the same way as the original, so there may not be any observable effect on the organism. But the duplicate genes can be inherited, and this will enable mutations to occur in the duplicated section that do have an effect (maybe good, maybe bad) while the original bit of DNA continues to provide the original function.

Your oak/maple cross is putting two very different creatures together, not surprising they can't mate. No-one suggests otherwise. Certainly the odds of simultaneous mutations occurring to create a new breeding population overnight are impossibly small. No-one suggests that happened either.

It is possible to cross different species to some extent even today. Sometimes this gives sterile offspring like mules. Sometimes they are fertile - lions and tigers can mate for example. So it's not unreasonable to expect that a creature with a mutation can sometimes mate with other creatures that don't have that mutation.

When two individuals mate, they don't have identical DNA, so already it is evident that two strands of different DNA can combine to make a chromosome. Just how different can they be? And how different do they need to be for evolution by natural selection to kick in? And that's before you consider prokaryotes, eukaryotes, retroviruses, plasmids and god-knows-what. The general impression I get of the DNA world is that it is far more jumbled up than you might think. And once it gets into the right place, DNA gets replicated and starts affecting the life chances of its host organism. It's very powerful stuff.

I'm willing to consider that there may be many more avenues for it to be moved around and replicated than we currently know; I don't share your certainties about what can and cannot happen in the natural world. We continually learn of new possibilities. We never seem to close them off. The more we learn, the more opportunities we discover for DNA to do its thing.

So what your saying then brian is you belive that one day long ago multi billion celled orgaisms just popped up out of nowhere at the behest of god, excuse me intellegent deigner

is that what your saying?

And anyone who belives in a god is an idiot

I am saying that at some point, an intelligent being created the basis for life, and interfered with its development until it got to the point it is at today.

If that makes me an idiot, then I'm one of the smartest idiots in the world.

Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot.

Darwin said nothing about biogenesis or trans-speciation. Yet all the ID crowd (which is really a cover for teaching Jesus in public schools) are convinced that evolution describes precisely that. They aren't idiots, but they think everyone else is.

There are all kinds of hypotheses out there that claim to describe how homo sapiens and orangutans derived from a common ancestor. None of them can be proven.

Intra-species adaptation and selection is obvious to the untrained observer. There's no point in debating it.

But there is absolutely no evidence that single-celled organisms that reproduced by mitosis "evolved" into billion-celled organisms with hundreds of specialized cell types, organs, regenerative facilities, and sexual reproduction.

The bacteria is probably the perfect life form. Durable, resistant, adaptive. Why would nature produce highly complex organisms with few, if any, redundant parts? Why would nature take an organism that reproduces rapidly, and make highly complex ones that take months to produce a single offspring?

I'm sorry, but outside of nuclear fusion, you just don't see the universe INCREASING the complexity or order of things.

Until someone has proven otherwise, it seems to me rational that we are naught but an experiment in a perfectly prepared petri dish.

If that makes me an idiot, so be it. I'll stay here with my happy little life and die stupid in about 50 years.

And if I'm right or wrong, it won't matter either way. Especially when you consider that I'm not interested in killing other people for not sharing my view of the universe.

Brian,

Dawkin's book "Climbing Mount Improbable" addresses this exact question. The answer is that mutations are undirected, yet by differential retentiion of favorable ones are cumulatively adaptive.

His opponents having kindly provided him with "how can something as specific as an eye possibly have evolved?" as a straw man, he knocks it down with chapter and verse om the dozens of independant evolutionary inventions of different eyes. Not only _can_ a complex eye evolve from humble beginnings, it seems to be all but inevitable!

I can't do justice to the book. If you're actually interested, read it. It's available used from Amazon for $5 or so.

--
phunctor

"the same exact mutation would have to occur in several offspring of the same generation," That depends on the dominance of said mutation. As far as I know all Pigeon Blood Discus come from one funny looking fish that one breeder found just prior to a cull. The color variation was a spontaneous mutation and a dominant one.

I don't know what research has been done on mammals. Mammalian evolution is harder to study for both practical and ethical reasons. Fish evolution I'm a bit more acquainted with for lab experiments. There are at least a few know pygmy angels that can do cross species breeding. Also there are certain species that have a wide distribution with isolated packets around atols. Some atols have fish that do well in captivity while the same fish species from a different atol using the same capture methods have really shit survival rate. They have been isolated for 100's of generations at least and visually they are almost identical.

However I haven't really heard of a good reason how the same species got spread over atolls hundreds of miles apart. So while I'm not ready to discount higher power there appear to be less and less places for it to hide.

"Jamie - "scientific zealot[s]" rare??? Read anything on AGW lately? The wikipedia kerfuffle over AGW isn't zealotry? (I'll grant that it's political in nature, but scientists have shown little reluctance to whore themselves out and lie for grant money)"

That's zealotry? That's not even "dedication to the cause of 'science'." You said it yourself, it's willingness to "whore themselves out" for money. That's just simple greed. Where's the blind dedication to science?

"Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot." Using vibrations or flow to sort particle size of sand. The order of a system can increases and it does not require intelligences just energy.

brian - Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot.

A snowflake is more ordered than liquid water. Does it take an intelligent designer to produce them all?

Vlad- I might be being a pain, but bosons are studied outside colliders. They are just particles with integer spin.
Please don't think I'm attacking you, you are obviously well informed, so I just assume that you would want to know.

But the best reason not to spend much time on Intelligent Design is much much simpler. There is nothing to be gained from it (Mr. Butler).

You've erred in your comment several times, but this one is the worst. A theory that could distinguish random from designed structures would be fantastically useful. I gave an example from archeology.

There's plenty of reasons to be skeptical of ID. The utility of a working theory isn't one of them.

Are you a mathmatician? I am not, I barely qualifiy as an arithmatician however I have seen several examples of math types who would gladly explain why the ID types are abusing, misusing or misunderstanding the math they claim supports their beliefs (Jim).

Math graduate student. I read the Panda's Thumb article some time ago, and I've read Chaim's criticism. I'd really like them to submit their work for peer review. It could end the controversy once and for all. They criticize the applicability of the definitions to the ID mathematical structures. This amounts to a philosophical argument again, not a mathematical one. If the definitions are being used improperly, then they need to exhibit a contradiction or counter-example. As far as I can tell, none has been found.

Your's is a Luddite view of science that would stunt it into uselessness.

Fuck off. I have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psych from a top university, am a former NRSA fellow, an author over several publications in peer reviewed empircal journals, and author of an undergraduate thesis on Cartesian dualism and the mind-body problem as it relates to our understanding of the word. Mine is not luddite's view.

As a math graduate student, you have a particular perspective on the term "science", but you are a fool if you think that people (outside of the ivory tower) use the term "science" to mean other than the empirical sciences (i.e., stuff that can potentially be observed and tested). I stunt nothing by using the term science in a way that everybody (except a bunch of wankers with nothing better to do than argue over the parsing of a commonly understood term) accepts as its definition.

Here's a post that you may find interesting at http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=642831 It has to do with the Bible being a science book.

THE POLITE ADVERSARY.

While science and religion are compatible, religion and evolution are not. The Bible is, in fact, a science book. For the discerning, there are three creation accounts in the Bible: the familiar one in Genesis, a lesser known one in Job, and an even lesser known one in Proverbs. When the three separate, but distinct accounts, are correlated, a complete history of the earth may be realized. For example, the scientific account details the earth's accreation from a watery nebulae, explains what the light was that was created on the second day (the sun was created on the fourth day), and numerous other events.

Please know that the King James scholars translated the creation accounts in a scientific void; this is why the polite adversary failed to realize that the Bible is science book. For example, take a look at one missed translation in the following verse:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

But first a short history of sunspots.

The first modern discovery of sunspots occurred during the years 1610-11 by the famous Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Soon after Galileo had constructed his first telescope, he devised a procedure whereby the plane of the sun could be safely studied by projecting an image on a sheet of paper. The measure was to prevent exposure of the eyes to ultraviolet rays which may result in inflammation and photophobia, “painful sensitiveness to strong light,” and even blindness. The simple procedure consisted of drawing the eyepiece of the telescope outwards past the position of normal focus which allowed a real and enlarged image to be focused on a white screen.

Galileo utilized the procedure in an in-depth study of sunspot phenomena. Aided by the enlarged image, he discovered that sunspot groups did not remain in stationary or fixed positions but rotated from left to right across the face of the sun, disappearing behind the horizon. Records of the study revealed that a sunspot completes a circuit around the sun in about 27 days. Galileo had discovered the first modern evidence of the rotation of the sun. Galileo, however, may not be accredited with the find: the famous Italian merely verified yet another biblical revelation; for the phenomenon is recorded in the oldest science book on record, the Bible:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

The word great in Hebrew is gadowl, gaw-dole’, “great in any sense.” Gadowl is from the prime root gadal, gaw-dal, meaning “to twist.” The greater sense, “to twist,” to turn or revolve, was overlooked due to the fact that the King James interpreters were translating terms in a scientific void. Of more than passing interest, the word “great” applies not only to the sun but also to the Moon; “two great lights” were created, not one. Corrected, 1 Genesis 1:15 reads:

“And God made two great rotating lights; the greater rotating light [the Sun] to rule the day, and the lesser rotating light [the Moon] to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

Hence, the historian of “Genesis” is accredited with the discovery of the rotation of the sun. -- Ref. Volume 1 of The Quest for Right http://questforright.com

The polite adversary need not align himself/herself with evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics. The Bible is an in-depth science book if one is willing to delve into its many mysteries.

THE POLITE ADVERSARY.

While science and religion are compatible, religion and evolution are not. The Bible is, in fact, a science book. For the discerning, there are three creation accounts in the Bible: the familiar one in Genesis, a lesser known one in Job, and an even lesser known one in Proverbs. When the three separate, but distinct accounts, are correlated, a complete history of the earth may be realized. For example, the scientific account details the earth's accreation from a watery nebulae, explains what the light was that was created on the second day (the sun was created on the fourth day), and numerous other events.

Please know that the King James scholars translated the creation accounts in a scientific void; this is why the polite adversary failed to realize that the Bible is science book. For example, take a look at one missed translation in the following verse:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

But first a short history of sunspots.

The first modern discovery of sunspots occurred during the years 1610-11 by the famous Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Soon after Galileo had constructed his first telescope, he devised a procedure whereby the plane of the sun could be safely studied by projecting an image on a sheet of paper. The measure was to prevent exposure of the eyes to ultraviolet rays which may result in inflammation and photophobia, “painful sensitiveness to strong light,” and even blindness. The simple procedure consisted of drawing the eyepiece of the telescope outwards past the position of normal focus which allowed a real and enlarged image to be focused on a white screen.

Galileo utilized the procedure in an in-depth study of sunspot phenomena. Aided by the enlarged image, he discovered that sunspot groups did not remain in stationary or fixed positions but rotated from left to right across the face of the sun, disappearing behind the horizon. Records of the study revealed that a sunspot completes a circuit around the sun in about 27 days. Galileo had discovered the first modern evidence of the rotation of the sun. Galileo, however, may not be accredited with the find: the famous Italian merely verified yet another biblical revelation; for the phenomenon is recorded in the oldest science book on record, the Bible:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

The word great in Hebrew is gadowl, gaw-dole’, “great in any sense.” Gadowl is from the prime root gadal, gaw-dal, meaning “to twist.” The greater sense, “to twist,” to turn or revolve, was overlooked due to the fact that the King James interpreters were translating terms in a scientific void. Of more than passing interest, the word “great” applies not only to the sun but also to the Moon; “two great lights” were created, not one. Corrected, 1 Genesis 1:15 reads:

“And God made two great rotating lights; the greater rotating light [the Sun] to rule the day, and the lesser rotating light [the Moon] to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

Hence, the historian of “Genesis” is accredited with the discovery of the rotation of the sun. -- Ref. Volume 1 of The Quest for Right http://questforright.com

The polite adversary need not align himself/herself with evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics. The Bible is an in-depth science book if one is willing to delve into its many mysteries.

The Bible is, in fact, a science book.

I'm on deadline, and just dropped by to check for spam trapped comments, but please, somebody who has a moment, have at this one!

"Vlad- I might be being a pain, but bosons are studied outside colliders. They are just particles with integer spin.
Please don't think I'm attacking you, you are obviously well informed, so I just assume that you would want to know." I'm just trying to figure out why Parsons is treating quantum theory as mysticism.

I'm not completely aware of what quantum theory research goes on in academia currently though I'm curious now and will be looking into it. I do like to know thank you.

brian -

Out of the numerous idiotic statements you're making, this one is actually pretty accurate;

Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot.

Unfortunately for your argument, the only people that actually believe that are as ignorant about the topic of evolution as you obviously are. I would suggest following the links that Radwaste so kindly posted. Even if it doesn't change your beliefs, it will allow you to argue against evolution, rather than this complete misunderstanding you have of it now.

A helpful tip though. Evolution is not random, spontaneous or short term. Evolution does not measurably occur in the space of one generation.

I've seen this claim that the Bible - or Koran - is a science book. But this claim always rests on careful and subtle reinterpretation of the sacred text to fit in with whatever the latest science says. It's always retrospective, playing catch up.

So let's see what happens when we ask for a prediction. Currently, cosmologists find that they are unable to account for 90% of the universe's mass. There are ideas about this but so far nobody knows. Perhaps there is another force, like gravity; perhaps there is a repulsive force; perhaps the estimates of mass are wrong by a factor of 10; perhaps the shape of space-time is the answer.

Please tell me what the bible says about this. Don't wait until the scientists find an answer, and then "discover" the same answer in the bible. If the bible is a science book, it should have something to say, no? Even if it isn't, surely you could ask the creator for a clue? The slightest prediction would be impressive.

While we're waiting, perhaps you could explain why the bible doesn't say anything about the germ theory of disease. That would have been most helpful during the last few millennia. Certainly better than the "divine retribution" theory of disease.

I notice your silence on the subject of Darwin's private life, and its relevance to the theory of evolution by natural selection. So I predict silence on the "bible as a science book" and a long post on another topic. Or perhaps just silence.

PS given that the moon always presents the same face toward the earth, why is it described as rotating? And why is the earth not described as rotating?

Mr Cut and Paste Parsons -

No sir, the Christian bible is most certainly not a science book. It is a religious text, one that makes the dubious claim of being the divine word of a hateful, genocidal and evil god. It is the foundation for the dogma of one of the most destructive death cults in human history. It was a strong influence on the foundation of the most destructive death cult in human history.

While science and religion are compatible, religion and evolution are not.

Tell that to the Vatican. Tell that to Francis Collins. Tell that to the myriad people who find little trouble reconciling an acceptance of evolution with their religious faith.

A accurate version of your statement would read; "While my belief in what science is and my religion compatible, my religion and evolution are not."

"The bible is, in fact a science book" Oh I'll take this one.

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15" Yes yes but here's the big rub. The moon is not a light. The moon is a reflective surface. So there are not two lights but one. Had it said God created a mirror and a light I'd give it two thumbs up.

"And God made two great rotating lights" No as per the translation you are suggesting he either made two great lights or two rotating lights, unless gadowl is used twice.

"A theory that could distinguish random from designed structures would be fantastically useful." Yes but only if that theory has some shred of supporting evidence. The earth being flat was also a theory, and a mathematical one at that with well defined axioms. The fact that a theory may be well defined does not make it valid, or useful. Theories with no (key word here is NO) are just flights of fancy. This is different from theories that have limited evidence. We don't know everything but from what we know there is XYZ and this theory explains it. Now as more evidence appears that counters that theory then the theory is modified or abandoned. There is no reason to assign intelligence when simple cause and effect go a long way to explaining it.

"Theories with no (key word here is NO) are just flights of fancy." Sorry agian typing problems.

"Theories with no (key word here is NO) evidence are just flights of fancy."

There isn't time, Amy. Life's too short. Let's just ridicule them and try to hurt their feelings...

> The Bible is an in-depth
> science book if one is willing
> to delve into its many mysteries.

No science books I've ever read challenged the reader's "willingness" with a veil of "mystery." Scientists are all about doing the exact opposite of that: Being as clear as possible to people who want knowledge. Scientists want everyone in the world to be able to duplicate their experience. (See Justin's comment above: "Peer-reviewed".) As a scientist describes his findings, he tries to include enough detail that no one who reproduces his experiment can say "Dude, it doesn't work."

On the other hand, science throughout time and history has been an enterprise on a budget. So as you describe your research, you're not going to waste anyone's time with unnecessary words or flourishes... No hymnals in the laboratory.

Y'know, it seems like people who've never been to college but think of themselves as smart believe that if you have a big enough personality, you get to set the ground rules for intellect, and kinda set up your own field of play. This is not so.

A book about a medical student noted that all doctors are required to do some teaching along the way, even if they had no instructional aspirations at all... An ability to teach is a big component of intelligence. For many medical treatments, the rule is "See one, do one, teach one." If you can't share things with people, then you'll never be a usefully bright guy. You may be a shimmering genius in the grateful, admiring venue of your own skull. But that won't get you through medical school, where you'll be challenged by people with more juice than you have (your instructors) and with less (your students). Neither group wants you waste their time.

Religions will toss you out if you have attitude problems, but science doesn't care whether you believe in it or not... Which is nice. There are no unworthy sinners in science, but you gotta be smart enough to deliver the goods. It's nothing personal....

The funny thing about distinguishing designed structures from an undesigned background is that if god designed living things, he also designed the universe. So why is design evident in one but not the other? How can you distinguish the figure from its ground?

(Also, why did he do such a crap design job - and make it look just as if it was evolved? Perhaps he was trying to hide the evidence?)

"PS given that the moon always presents the same face toward the earth, why is it described as rotating? And why is the earth not described as rotating?"

As the Moon travels eastward, weaving in and about the Earth, it rotates in relationship to the Sun. From space it is quite obvious that the moon is rotating. See Wikipedia.

Your comment about the germ theory of disease is covered in Volume 7 of The Quest for Right. I am not at liberty to discuss this issue due to copyright matters.

Concerning Darwin's inability to understand certain earthly phenomena -- the following text is taken from Volume 2.

The investigation’s assessment of evolution is far from being new. Darwin was fully cognizant that he could not prove the "theory" and could not explain its mechanism, especially in so-called well-defined species: the connotation erroneously suggests that there are less-defined or more primitive species when all evidence is to the contrary. The scientific council uses language as a ruse in lieu of documented facts in order to promote Darwinism; hence, the phraseology is offensive. Again, stability, not variance, is the third law of procreation (read the volume to see what this means).

Darwin's studies revealed a wide variety of life forms, but what caused these varieties? Again, natural selection was thought to be the answer. In theory, those species best adapted to the environment tend to reproduce more offspring and transmit hereditary improvements (in slight variations); those less able to adapt to the environment leave fewer offspring and eventually die out. After a succession of generations, there is a tendency for the species to adapt to a greater degree, thus, improving the lineage.

Regrettably, Darwin was unable to grasp the reality of certain rudimental processes which he had observed; for instance, the runt of a litter being abandoned by its parent or a sickly creature preyed upon by a fox or wolf. Although these familiar aspects of procreation are vital to the continuance of the species, the phenomena must not be confused as evolution in the process.

Darwin, misguided by his obsession, incorrectly deemed the ritual to be natural selection, when, in truth, he was observing an inherent process of procreation which may be correctly called the guardian of the wild. The familiar process is responsible for weeding out weak and sickly members of the species (i.e., those less likely to survive), not to improve the species but rather as a measure to insure the health and strength of the species as a whole. Make no mistake; new species are not derived by the guardian of the wild.

Darwin, incognizant of the manifest workings of procreation, attacked the “benevolence” of God, disdaining the guardian of the wild as the "clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of (Mother) nature." It revolted his understanding to suppose that God’s “benevolence was unbounded" in such instances (benevolence—”an inclination to perform kindhearted, charitable acts”). Although it may seem a curiosity, those men and women who hate God will always attack His benevolence by asking the questions: If God is so benevolent, why are there wars? Why is slavery so cruel? Why is there so much injustice in the world? And so on. Be it known that one or more transgressions of the holy commandments are the culprits in such instances, not God. A more definitive answer will be forthcoming.

The remarkable, yet troublesome, aspect of the foregoing is that Darwin spent a lifetime observing procreation but failed to realize the truth except in the simplest of matters. Then again, the failure is not too disconcerting in light of the fact that he was working in the scientific void of the 1800’s. As is the case, errors abound; hence, any work by Darwin is unacceptable reading. Let the reader beware.

Further your education by reading The Quest for Right. The proof is in the text.

Norman -

(Also, why did he do such a crap design job - and make it look just as if it was evolved? Perhaps he was trying to hide the evidence?)

That one is easy enough, he didn't. The fossil record, geology, these are actually tools designed by Satan to fool us into thinking that god didn't poof it all into existence. You just fail to grasp the intricacies of goddidit, because this of course has it's polar opposite - satandidit.

DuWayne - I was thinking of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe, which exists in the here and now. This is not a rewriting of history: the design (or lack of it) is evident by dismantling a modern-day giraffe.

Justin -

I wanted to know whose wisdom I was enjoying with the 10 points. Couldn't find an author, but here are some links:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/11/20/florida-edging-toward-doomed/

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/south-florida-sun-sentinel/T50D82I2U4LV0LJFC

http://tinyurl.com/53byl7

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/south-florida-sun-sentinel/T50D82I2U4LV0LJFC

Norman -

Actually, the satandidit was the response a pastor friend gave me, when I confronted him with the rear legs of whales, that appear only in the skeletal structure without any trace of them on the surface of the whale.

But it works just as well for your problem. It also works really well when you bring up the insane "design" of human eyes. I have been corrected on that one by another pastor, who explained that this and other human design flaws were actually put in by satan when man fell from grace in the garden.

What's really great about satandidit, is that it is really effective in explaining away the bad things that happen in our lives. Lost job - satandidit, cause I didn't have enough faith. Kid got hit by a bus, became a veggie - fucking bastard satandidit - but we'll get by because this has really cemented our faith in god and he's probably even going to heal the child - in his time and by his will, if that is god's will and we have enough faith. Hurricane wipes out a sinfilled city - goddidit, because his judgment is righteous. But if a hurricane were to wipe out Virginia Beach, VA, that would be a satandidit, because everybody knows that Pat Robertson is way up by the top of satan's shit list - but god really loves Pat, so much that he has even granted him superhuman strength when he drinks that special shake made by good Christian folk.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that the explanations by two pastors I mention above, were accepted pretty absolutely by me when they were made. My only excuse and it is a flimsy one, is that I was pretty young at the time. Flimsy because this was after I had seen Carl Sagan speak and had the opportunity to speak with him for some time after the event. It was right around the time that I first saw The Power of Myth, wherein Bill Moyers did a series of interviews with Joseph Campbell.

I love, ab-so-fucking-lutly LOVE the satan dit it defense.

Because if satan did it, then he is beyond gods power, and if somthing is beyond gods power then god is not a god. A god is by definition all powerful and all knowing, so if anyone is running around out there beyond gods power and creating havoc without gods knowledge then there can be no god

lujlp -

I hate to burst your bubble, but any "competent" Christian apologetic, will have the response to that one. Pat Robertson devoted a whole chapter to this in one of his books (sorry, but it's been years - I believe it was Simple Answers to Complex Questions about Faith).

God gave satan dominance over all the earth, after Eve allowed sin to invade the garden.

Now it can be argued that this is all besides that point. That this god fellow fucked up by ever letting it get that far, but that is a different discussion and one that I don't recall Pat answering. Although it does likely tie into the idea that the freedom Americans hold dear, is actually from the Christian bible. Which in a sense is true, if you equate freedom to living under the semi-theocracy that many of them would love to see this country become.

I saw a claim for "A paragon of scientific discovery" and I just started laughing. Where has this man been, anyway? Under a rock?

Here are a few references that not only describe what has actually been discovered, but describe the circumstances surrounding the discovery and testing.

An Introduction to Physical Geology
Radiometric Dating - A Christian View
The Ice Core Data Gateway
The Cassini Probe Operations Center
The Oklo Natural Reactors
Magnetic Striping

Some references you can discover represent standards of measurement, which you should recognize as that set of definitions for observed and repeatable phenomena, such as
NIST and
CHEMNETbase

In short, there is already a mind-boggling amount of information out there. These represent far more work than any apologist has done - not Ham, not Hovind... not even the famous religious leaders. They didn't do squat about personal hygiene and sanitation. Unless you have a habit of mental discipline affording you some immunity to hyperbole and tending toward recognizing principles, you'll never realize just how much has been done - or how more will be.

David - Good to see you've come back.

As the Moon travels eastward, weaving in and about the Earth, it rotates in relationship to the Sun. From space it is quite obvious that the moon is rotating. See Wikipedia.

I wondered if you'd pick up on this. But I think you are confusing orbital motion with rotational motion. Rotation is spinning on its axis, like a spinning-top. The Moon does rotate once per orbit of the Earth, and so keeps its face towards the Earth. To say it "rotates in relationship to the Sun" is confusing - do you mean that if you were standing on the Sun you'd see the Moon to be spinning, just as you'd see the earth spin, and as Galileo saw the Sun spin?

Frankly I don't buy this "spinning" interpretation anyway. I'd be more inclined to think they were referring to the fact that the Sun and Moon move against the backdrop of fixed stars. But the Bible's (and Koran's) complete silence about the Earth's rotation is enormously significant.

[...] germ theory of disease is covered in Volume 7 of The Quest for Right. I am not at liberty to discuss this issue due to copyright matters.

As far as I can see at http://questforright.com/quest3.htm volume 7 is not in print yet.

Thanks for expanding your comments on Darwin. I would summarise your excerpt as follows:

"Darwin was mistaken in his interpretation of his observations, because he was blinded by his obsession [with atheism? The nature of the obsession is not stated - N]. Natural selection does not exist and does not create new species. Instead a process called the guardian of the wild acts to preserve existing species. Darwin's writing is so full of errors that it should not be read."

Summarising further, you say that the "Origin of Species" is the ravings of a god-hating man who was scientifically ignorant at best and mad at worst, so reading it is a waste of time. Is that a fair summary?

But the Bible's (and Koran's) complete silence about the Earth's rotation is enormously significant.

This area of expertise is covered in Volume 4. Yes, the Bible states that the earth rotates; howebeit, the information must await publication. It is not possible to answer every question in this forum.

Here's a tibit of interest that you may like:

(Job 26:7 KJV) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

The acknowledgment is a remarkable truth in that the Earth (as are the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars) is suspended on "nothing." No other description suffices as well for what would be an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon.

Here's another from Volume 3 which is already copyrighted and will go to press in May, 2008.

The problematic promotions must yield to the many so-called coincidences inherent to regulatory phenomena; for example, the 400/400 ratio of the moon/sun apparent diameter/distance.

The moon, contrary to the “sponsored chaos” entertained in this chapter, accreted in size 400 times smaller than the sun; and by some inexplicable circumstance; that is, if supernatural intervention is rejected, its orbital distance is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun. The quite remarkable attribute—referred to as purely coincidental—leaves the impression that the moon’s apparent diameter is equal to that of the sun. Collectively, the much smaller moon and the immensely larger sun appear to be of the same size as viewed from earth. The fascinating 400/400 ratio affords the spectacular sensorial eclipses which occur when a new moon transits the sun. If the moon was somewhat farther away or the sun closer, a total eclipse would never occur. Diversely, if the moon were a bit closer or the sun farther away, eclipses would be quite the norm.

The incoherent reasoning that the miraculous 400/400 ratio of the moon/sun apparent diameter/distance occurred by a freak stroke of luck is challenged by the phenomena inherent to the so-called lunar calendar. Although the occult related adjective, "luna," was replaced by “regulatory” in a previous excision, the latter term is relinquished in favor of the true. Henceforth, the adjective libation, “the Jewish covenant ritual of pouring out a drink offering to God,” will be used when referring to the calendar provided by the moon.

You evidently like to expound on the knowledge you have. Continue your education by reading The Quest for Right.

"(Also, why did he do such a crap design job - and make it look just as if it was evolved? Perhaps he was trying to hide the evidence?)"

If you think God did a "crap design job," you need to read Volume 2 of The Quest for Right. If you are a seeker of truth, you will find it in this volume.

Have you read "On the Origin of Species?" If you think the fossil record proves evolution occurred, you may want to read Darwin's own words about the lack of evidence in the fossil record. Read the text carefully because Darwin is famous for his song and dance routines.

The following dissertation on the eye is lifted from Volume 2, Chapter 4, of The Quest for Right:

"Difficulties of the Theory. Although the eye is chosen as the category to be entertained, the investigation could have chosen any one of a hundred other theories promoted in On the Origin of Species. The relative point is that, if the eye had evolved through fine graduations or modifications, the proof must lie with numerous intermediate fossilized specimens which could be laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Nothing else will suffice, as the fossil record is all inclusive.

Darwin penned: “LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.” In other words, if one is to believe in evolution, he/she has to disregard the facts; specifically, the indisputable assertion that all species are well defined in the fossil record.

Darwin continued: “These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads [that is, distinct topics or categories]: …why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms [in the fossil record]? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? …In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected [for example, the eye], we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors [found only in the fossil record]; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral [parallel] descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.”

Unable to find a transitional species; for instance, discovering a tiny break in the skull of any one of the several thousand species, which transitioned through minute variations to a full blown socket for the eye, Darwin looked to parallel descendents: a horse descending from a tapir, etc.

By Darwin’s own admission, geologists had not been able to uncover a transitional species: “Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head [the subject of the evolution of the eye]. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous [containing fossils] stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected…

He [the reader] who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades [as supported by the fossil record]. His reason ought to conquer his imagination [that is, belief in a Creator]; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case...”

Darwin's theory has not stood the test of time and has fallen. Continue your education by reading The Quest for Right.

If the Bible states that the Earth rotates (and if you can't cite chapter and verse without breaking any copyright laws, you need a better lawyer) then why did the Church persecute anyone who claimed that the Earth moved, for about 2000 years?

"Hanging the Earth upon nothing" is quite good, but it doesn't mention rotation. I don't know what "stretching out the north" means. But in any case it's risky putting modern interpretations on ancient writings.

The equal apparent size of the Sun and Moon is nice, but how do you know it is deliberate? Is it rare, or do other moons have this property? What is it for?

David - why all the quotes from Origin of Species? I thought it was not worth reading because Darwin was not right in the head.

(I have read a bit of it - there was a copy in a holiday home I rented. It was good reading and I must read it all the way through.)

Which raises the question, if you want to challenge the theory of evolution, why concentrate on an old book which you think is rubbish? We have learned a lot since 1859 and much of the book is incomplete or superseded. Why not point out the flaws in a modern book, such as one by Richard Dawkins? Then, if you found some weakness, he would be able to present his case, and so on. You could have an argument with a real live person.

It's a bit like challenging astronomy by quoting Galielo. Or Ptolemy.

One other thing Norman, the appaent size of the sun and moon are meaningless

suoer dave failed to account for the fact the the moons orbit gets wider all the time and will one day reach a point where the earths gravity can no longer teather it in orbit

And since the moons orbit gets wider that means it was smaller at the rime the bible was written.

So if there is indeed a 400/400 correlation at this point in time then the WAS NOT one at the point the bible was written

> If you are a seeker of
> truth, you will find it
> in this volume.

You have the tone of a Bible-thumper; A man who doesn't like reading books, has found one he likes, and doesn't want to be bothered with any more of them.

Thanks for stopping by.

You have the tone of a Bible-thumper; A man who doesn't like reading books, has found one he likes, and doesn't want to be bothered with any more of them.

I *heart* ya, Crid.

Thanks so much for cleaning that up.

Given how often the bible contradicts iself on various subjects I dont see how anyone can take it seriously.

Additionally the slightest ammount of critical logical thought regarding every religion invalidates the very foundation of them

"Given how often the bible contradicts iself on various subjects I dont see how anyone can take it seriously."

Actually, I found an answer for the same question you had. I was trying to figure it out why some of my loved ones are very religious although they are very reasonable people.

While I was watching the movie "Pulp Fiction" , the answer came to me. There is a scene how the Bible preaching assassin character, Jules, became religious when all of the shots fired in point blank range by another man missed him. It is all about being touched by God and you try to find an evidence for it. Along the way, the details are not important any more but you remember the feeling of touched by someone far grater than you. I think that it is similar to mental illness. The below is the quotes from the movie.

"Did you see the size of the gun he just fired at us? It was bigger than him!"

"We should be fucking dead, my friend."

"That's right, that's exactly what it means. God came down from heaven and stopped these motherfucking bullets."

"Whether or not what we experienced was an "according to Hoyle" miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved."

I love it when people use films as evidence: you might call it argumentum per cinema, except my Latin's not up to it. Chang's example is more by way of an illustration than evidence, though.

David -

This is relevant to claims that the Bible is a scientific work.

"...failed to account for the fact the the moons orbit gets wider all the time and will one day reach a point where the earths gravity can no longer teather it in orbit."

This statement is in error. The moon’s orbital gyrations are among the most complex in astronomy. It is a fact that not one mathematician has ever been able to account its great complexity. Yet, you state that the moon's orbit is failing.

A full account of the moon’s orbit would have to take into consideration both the earth’s and sun’s gravitational attraction, and, to a lesser extent, the tidal forces exerted by Braker. These considerations are complicated by the elliptical path of the earth which changes the earth’s distance from the sun throughout the year. Concurrently, the moon also travels in an elliptical path; from space, the moon appears to weave back and forth across the orbital path of the earth as it journeys around the sun. And, as the moon positions itself between the sun and earth, the sun’s gravitational attraction is greater than when the moon is positioned on the far side of the earth.

The irony of your stating that the moon's orbit is failing, is exampled by one of the many problems facing professional astronomers: the inability to determine the precise geographic location and time that the first sliver of light from a crescent moon will appear. On August 21, 1990, the U.S. Naval Observatory enlisted the aid of the citizenry throughout the United States of America to watch the western horizon and note the time that the crescent first appeared. The skywatchers were urged to send their findings to the observatory in hopes that astronomers may one day be able to predict with some reliability the rising of the young crescent moon. Mathematicians do not have the expertise to predict the Moon's orbit. How then can they state it is failing? They cannot.

NEWS RELEASE: May 1, 2008. The Drudge Report is currently displaying 500,000 "The torch has been lit" banners.

Be the first in your group to continue your advanced education by reading The Quest for Right.

"Chang's example is more by way of an illustration than evidence, though."

I think it is evidence, personal evidence, which you cannot prove it to others because you felt it.

Is the glass half full or half empty? Either answer is right but the answer would be different based on how thirsty you are at the time you answered the question. But the facts remain the same.

I was religious once under the different circumstances. I may become religious in the future in a desperate attempt to see my loved ones again in heaven or hell.

Is there a God or not? The answer would depend on how thirsty you are.

I followed his link: This guy's a spammer. He's a dim one, and a slow one... It's like that old joke about the assassin who inserts the bullets manually (he's inefficient, but really, really mean).

He's also kind of an asshole. His comments are too boring to actually read.

David - I think you are referring to the n-body problem which indeed is beyond analysis. Newton's laws of motion and gravity can only be solved for two bodies. Since every particle in the universe attracts every other particle, it's amazing that we can predict lunar eclipses at all. We can't solve the equations but numerical simulation works well enough (else we couldn't send all these spacecraft about the place).

What's "Braker"? I couldn't find any reference to that.

More importantly, direct measurements by laser reflection show that the moon is currently moving away from us at 3.8 cm per year. Fossil records show that it has been for the last 900 My. Predictions - despite what you say - show that it will continue to do so until the Sun goes nova in 5 Gy.

What does the bible have to say about this? It's a light that moves in the sky. Emmm, yessss ...

Sorry - forgot to give a reference to one of the many astronomy web pages that deal with this topic:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0262.shtml

Sorry - forgot to give a reference to one of the many astronomy web pages that deal with this topic:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0262.shtml

So Mr. Parsons, are you here to debate, or are you just spamming us with your damn book touts?

"Mathematicians do not have the expertise to predict the Moon's orbit. "

Bullshit. I can predict the Moon's orbit, quite easily, with readily available software. NASA can and has predicted it closely enough to shoot astronauts across a million miles of space and drop them out of orbit within a few hundred feet of their planned landing point -- and that was with 1960's technology.

I'm a Christian, Mr. Parsons. But you are driving me towards atheism.

Here's a line from one of his pages:

"The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics." [emphasis in original]

Poking around on his site and others, you realize how badly it hurts some people not to have finished college. As speculated in my earlier comment, C. David Parsons is a guy who's whipped up a whole universe of imaginary principles. He's apparently fleshed out these daydreams in unsigned essays on the web. Despite my own university degree, the concept of "electron structure" he describes in this passage was new to me, and Google sent me here to learn more.

If it weren't for the pathos of the mountain holler poverty whence it came, "The Quest for Right" could be the greatest work of outsider art since Henry Darger & Vivian girls.

Parson's vitae, quoted below, will strike the careful reader as being a titch defensive. But it's worth following his link to the original, because the photo of the man with his wife will amaze and delight you. I'm tempted to phone him directly and ask how he earns his living.

---

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION:

BASIC INFORMATION:

1943: Born Clarence David Parsons in Appalachia, Virginia, Wise County.
Father and mother: Mr. Alonzo and Monnie Parsons -- resting in peace.
1962: Graduated Appalachia High School. See photo below.
1962-1963: Attended Richmond Professional Institute in Richmond, Virginia on the Dean's Scholarship.

Note: The Richmond Professional Institute was a division of the College of William and Mary. The division separated from William and Mary and came under state control in 1962. The Medical College of Virginia and the Richmond Professional Institute merged in 1968. It is now known as Virginia Commonwealth University.

PERTINENT INFORMATION:

Publisher/owner/editor of the popular online Vanguard Magazine (record number of visitors in one day: 26,000). Vanguard Magazine was closed in order to complete The Quest for Right.

RELATIVE TO THE QUEST FOR RIGHT:

1983-2008 ongoing: The author amassed and critically studied an incredible amount of materials on important world issues: scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, geology, physics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, mathematical elucidation, and much, much more.

More importantly, direct measurements by laser reflection show that the moon is currently moving away from us at 3.8 cm per year. Fossil records show that it has been for the last 900 My. Predictions - despite what you say - show that it will continue to do so until the Sun goes nova in 5 Gy.

"Fossil records show that it has been for the last 900 million years." Can I just say, WOW? Man is really smart, isn't he?

Let me get this right; an astronomer stated that the moon was moving away from the earth some 1 1/2" per year? And the moon's orbit is failing? You want a biblical answer, I'll give you one.

The prophet Isaiah dispels the myth of the Moon degrading in its orbital gyrations, the sun going nova, and departed stellar bodies. The prophetic charge extols the “power” of God in that not one star “faileth”; this would include the Moon:

25. To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy one.

26. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host [the stars] by number: he Rcalleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.—Isa. 40 Ref Psa. 147:4,5

The charge is substantiated by the findings of the investigation: there is absolutely no discernible evidence of any degrading or elevating star. When a telescope is turned toward any region of the heavens, the innumerable galaxies transversing the visible cosmos reveal a remarkable sameness. Regions from one extreme edge to another appear almost identical. And the stars, like strings of multicolored lights, fill the heavens at a relative constant density; there are no significant differences in the cosmological makeup. The fact of the matter is that neither an astrophysicist nor an astronomer, peering through a powerful telescope at the distant stars, sees anything more or less than a novice would see. In short, the cosmological scenario, once devoid of quantum bodies, is one of harmony and uniformity. God is strong in power; “not one faileth.”

Please do not come back to me with, What about the HR-diagram, exploding singularities, black holes, fast-spinning neutron stars, and the like? You will have to read The Quest for Right to find out about these matters. http://questforright.com

I'm going to append that to my resume next time I need a job: "and much, much more!"

Hey Amy, didja see that? This guy's a friend of yours:

> The author amassed and critically
> studied an incredible amount of
> materials on important world issues

Critical studies! They're critical! He probably did some critical thinking!

David - You are the one who described orbits as "failing." I don't know what that means but if it upsets you please don't blame anyone else.

So you are saying that the Moon is not moving away at 1.5" per year, because the Bible says so? The fact that simple measurements can be made today that don't depend on interpreting the fossil record or solving impossible mathematical equations just means nothing, compared to Isaiah.

[...] there is absolutely no discernible evidence of any degrading or elevating star. I don't know what you mean by "degrading" or "elevating". Would a star exploding count? Because there have been quite a few documented cases of these, as I'm sure you know. A few were observed in Europe around 1500.

[...] neither an astrophysicist nor an astronomer, peering through a powerful telescope at the distant stars, sees anything more or less than a novice would see. Apart from the fact that astronomers don't peers through telescopes any more, that's almost fair ... however, astronomers (whether professional or amateur) have the benefit of years of study. That's why they can interpret what they see when novices can't. It's not novices who have found the extra-solar planetary systems. Tycho Brahe, Keppler, Copernicus, Netwon and all the rest were not novices. If you don't agree, then please list some astronomical discoveries made by novices.

Please do not come back to me with, What about the HR-diagram, exploding singularities, black holes, fast-spinning neutron stars, and the like? Just pointing out that, as requested, I didn't. I'd appreciate it if you were to come back with answers to questions.

He probably did some critical thinking!

Or his thinking has gone critical...

Mr Parsons (can't call him superDave, that's what we often call the new sprog in our house - He can fly dammit!?!) reminds me of a very good, very old friend of mine, who is a conspiracy nut. He argues in much the same fashion, only he argues about the UN/ET base on the dark side of the moon, 9/11 being the result of laser beams from orbit and how federal income taxes are unconstitutional.

Recently, when we went the rounds about vaccines and his nutty anti-vax stance, he kept responding with emails that weren't entirely devoid of substantive responses, but might as well have been. They were very similar to the claptrap Parson is trying to sell here, down to desperately trying to get me to read some site he linked. I had actually clicked over to it as a measure of good faith, but couldn't begin to read it. It was chock full of bright colored backgrounds and different colored fonts. While there was an impressive lack of CAPS LOCK being used, they made up for it by changing the size for emphasis. For really, really important statements, they made the font large and put them in cobalt blue.

I will admit that I have not clicked over to Parson's bullshit, but then he is not a dear friend and I'm not interested in "debating" him.

Whoops, turns out that the article I linked was a completely different whackjob than C. David. Sorry about that. (But the resume is for real!)

Ah the Daily Mail. Don't get me wrong I think this wasn't the smartest move the young lady could have made. But I always find it funny that the most right wing nut basket newspaper that bemoans the lack of modern morality and constantly bangs on about the pedos under the bed and infesting the internet... (deep breath) just loves to print pictures like this.

They're seriously schizo.

Gaah. She's not looking ridiculous, but she does look like she's a youngster out of her depth an an adult world. I'd say that photo borders on child abuse. It certainly makes me feel icky. Ewww.

At least The Daily Mail prints the photos. I love CNN...they report on the story, but without the actual pictures.

Well, the original photo spread is supposed to be in the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair; even Miley herself is supposedly not happy about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24245846/

So, I can be found watching Hannah Montana (because I do have two daughters in the age range!), and yeah, I do hope she and mom and dad figure out how to navigate the world of a billion dollars and a billion paparazi. Because that would be a very good thing for her, and she honestly does seem to be very talented, as singer, comedian, and actor.

(It's not the silly lipstick, or all the bones on her back that bother me about the photo. It's those things plus the unattractive hair.... The whole photo is a mess and should've been left in the wastebin.)

Yup, it's a blunder. The pictures are dead-average but the very fact that they took place is a tad disturbing.

This remembers me the mess Vanessa Anne Hudgens got herself into a while ago. Like Miley, she's a Protégée of the Disney Corporation. She also got some nude pictures that surfaced. I have a weird feeling that somebody is sleeping on the job...

How utterly unoriginal and predictable.

The semi-nude, "come-hither" pose photographed by Annie Leibovitz. Haven't we seen this before? I always thought Leibovitz was overrated, and now I'm certain of it. This counts for originality?

And how predictable. Since there are no doubt millions of Miley Cyrus pix in circulation, one more photo, even captured by Leibovitz, was likely to draw snores. So, how to create some buzz? Got it! Let's introduce an element of sexuality to a 15 year old girl who had up till now built a career on a wholesome image. That'll do it!

Pathetic.

That's not cool. What's weird is that she comes from a showbiz family (her dad is the bemulleted Billy Ray Cyrus, of "Achy Breaky Heart" fame). You figure someone involved in her career would have the sophistication to avoid this. Let's hope this isn't the first step towards Spears-dom for her.

"the sophistication to avoid this." JustinC

well, yeah, unless the deal is that this is the exposure they actually want. Sure, everyone has to say that they oppose such things [with a wink] but it does increase ratings, and sell papers, no? Who is under the delusion that this isn't the case? Perhaps because she is laboring UNDER the whole fame machine, they are incapable of just letting her rise on talent. Seems like that is no longer enough for many.

As long as she keeps the train on the rails, unlike spears, this is a value add in the long run...

"Cause you could've sworn you thought you heard her saying...

"Good girls don't,
Good girls don't,
Good girls don't, but I do." - The Knack

A calculated scandal, in other words?

Too bad the picture is such a failure.

The attempt at childhood bedhead (the hair across the mouth) looked particularly ridiculous, too.

I disagree with this post generally, not specifically. Annie's getting older. If you have a chance to get a portrait from her, you should probably do it!

Agree, Crid, on getting one's portrait done by Annie.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_04_27_archive.html#6777014630649016882

I'm not "outraged," just kind of creeped out.

Yep, another kid farmed out to be a pedophile's dream... all in the name of art.

just lovely. All of Miley's handlers were on set when these digital photographs were taken. They all thought they were very tasteful. Not bad for a girl pulling 7 digits despite her father being a wierd country-music star.

But in steps Disney. "Miley, it's embarassing because we tell you it is." And all of a sudden, a tasteful picture becomes indecent because the Corporate Mouse says it is. OH THE HUMANITY! How dare she show her shoulder.

Can we stop being puritans for like...a day? Sometime? Ever? Because, if this is 'scandalous' you should see how girls dress themselves in jr. high and high school.

If anyone should feel dirty, it should be because they looked at moe99's link.

Meanwhile, the real child pornographers are hoisting up thier anti-choice banners with pictures of naked fetuses.

With props to JD --thanks for taking the first stab at Devil's Advocacy here-- I don't think glamour photography like this is really what causes pedophilia. This child made more money this year (it's only April!) than I'm going make over several lifetimes; her life is obviously not going to be that of a typically sheltered schoolgirl anyway.

(And speaking of her shelter, I have no idea whether her parents are still married. Anyone care to wager, and then look it up? My money says there's an achin', broken heart in their somewhere. And some bad haircuts besides.)

The drunken horndogs who see this magazine on the newsstand and go home to do some molestin' were not going to be giving their stepdaughters a very good experience with masculinity in any case.

Also, 15 isn't twelve. 15 is too early to get naked in national media, but it's not too early for sane young women to understand that their sexual allure has a very personal power, and that sometimes that power is dark and freaky.

Furthermore, and this is a big one, she's not a "role model" for all those tweeners, she's a scientifically packaged product that's being sold to them... Not because Mr. Iger thinks it would be good for their immortal souls, but because he wants the fuckin' money. The fact that she's a Disney® product doesn't mean anything good was going to happen to your kids when you bought them her stuff, anyway.

This is not worth getting all Taliban over.

in there somewhere.

sorry

All of Miley's handlers were on set when these digital photographs were taken.

Actually, according to the articles I've seen, her parents had left the set by the time the semi-nude photo was taken, and only her grandmother and a handler were left. And I'm guessing that when Annie Leibovitz suggests you do something, you respond, "Yes, ma'am." It's only afterwards you think, "The hell? What was I thinking.

Can we stop being puritans for like...a day?

I am happy to avoid puritanism in relation to adults. Kids are another matter.

I'm not "outraged," just kind of creeped out.

That's how I feel. I agree with Crid in general that getting one's portrait done by Annie Leibovitz is a good thing...but this particular photo is not to my taste.

Here's the behind-the-scenes gallery. Judge for yourself:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley_slideshow200806

On some quiet afternoon with an iced tea nearby, I'll compose a list of the 25 shittiest, most annoying words in the English language.

"Seminude" (as per Drudge today) will rank highly. No one who uses that word is going to say anything I want to hear.

JD - you should see how girls dress themselves in jr. high and high school

The point is that it is one thing for teens to display to each other in this way, it is another thing for them to be displayed to adults. This person appears to be a child. Either she is a child and is therefore being abused, or she is really quite adult and the photo is therefore pandering to people who like to fantasize over her child-like appearance. Either way, it sucks.

I like it when Crid and I disagree.

I just think it plain doesn't look good. She looks like she's sick. I don't care if she was tricked into it or knew what was going on. What matters aren't the photos, but the reaction to the reaction of those photos. She knows (or should know) that she can't be a Disney product forever, and this could have been the opportunity to say so. A shoulder isn't a big deal unless you pander to the people who make it a big deal, and that's exactly what she did.

You know what's creepy to me? "Handlers." As if she's some certified show pooch. Thinking about that, perhaps it's no wonder she's acting embarrassed about what happened.

"Here's the behind-the-scenes gallery. Judge for yourself:"

Thank goodness she's working for Disney and not being whored out to the media for filthy lucre. That would be a tragedy.

Whoops. I spoke too soon.
http://snafu-ed.blogspot.com/2008/04/miley-cyrus-to-write-her-memoirs-at-15.html

Well she isn't a child, and even so, I don't think the argument that this is abuse is legitimate: it is tennuous as best.

Alternatively, if she is an adult, which she is, it does not follow that she is pandering to those who fantasize over her child-like appearance. Even so, what is wrong with pandering? Or, what is wrong with fantasizing over her child-'like' apperance? On its face, I can sympathize that it sucks: However, her statements noted in the link above illustrate that it, in fact, does not. Perhaps if she was coerced into doing this against her will, this would be a viable argument, but there is no indication of such. Even teenage celebrities have some control over thier career, and I, for one, cannot fault her for wanting to take that next step. As one commenter above said: She knows that she won't be a Disney Product forever.

Gog: are your last two lines intended to be sarcasm? It got me thinking: being whored out, to whomever, is still being whored out. Perhaps it is Disney that is whoring her 'g-rated innocent' for thier own gain.

> I like it when

Good days ahead, I promise.

J.D. She's 15. In what way does that make her an adult?

King Tut ran an empire at the age of 13. Kids are often held to adult standards for civil infractions, and perhaps sometimes younger for criminal. Even contracts law has its exceptions. Eugene Volokh had an interesting discussion regarding this age bracket in a differenct context earlier this week (see volokh.com). Modern religions recognize younger ages as 'coming of age'. Judaism instantly springs to mind. ANd so forth, ad nauseum.

A person in the shoes of Miley's is, with little hesitation, an adult. She's been doing concerts for years, has racked up a half billion in profits, is responsible for, at the least, dozens of projects, not to mention an acting career plus her present tour. She's clearly encumbered with responsibility, and on that tip, has been exposed to it at a very early age. The character that so many have attributed to her, I would also argue, qualifies her as an adult (in contrast to those who I'm sure you know, as I do, and the rest of us, who are in thier 20's and 30's and yet still act like irresponsible children).

personally, I think adulthood is found on a case-by-case basis, and age is not determinative of that status. The argument that she's 'still a child' is, to re-use the word, tenuous. To your credit, there are, and must be, 15yo's that are still qualified as children. I just happen to think that Miley is not categorized as such.

King Tut ran an empire at the age of 13

Yes - in an era when people were very lucky to make it to the age of 40 and the concept of adolescence did not exist. Today, a 15-year-old is a legal minor (and is typically several decades away from probable death instead of just a couple). There are a hell of a lot of things she cannot do without the permission of her parents and guardians. If you think the modern concept of adolescence is silly, I won't violently disagree with you, but legally and culturally she is a child. Her career is managed by her parents and various other legal adults.

Plus, I'll point out that the Olsen twins were also millionaires many times over by the time that they were 10 and were involved in multiple projects. They were a two-person empire before they were teenagers. But that didn't make them adults. It made them children who happened to be making a lot of money, just as children ranging from Shirley Temple to Haley Joel Osment have done over the years. Miley Cyrus may be turning a bigger profit that they were, but that doesn't automatically put her into a different category of maturation.

Wait. Let me get this straight.

We teach them how to fuck at the age of 13. We tell ourselves that we can't stop them from fucking at that age.

And then we have the audacity to be outraged when they act like sex objects at the age of fifteen?

Please.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the photo was "vampire." Not very sexy at all...

The first thing I thought when I saw this picture was "vampire." Maybe that's what they were going for...

No one expects a 15 year old kid to have enough judgment and experience to make all the decisions for herself; that's why she is under her parents' guardianship. Miley's father and mother should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen.

This reminds me of the movie 'Hard Candy', which pits a 14 year old girl against a 32 year old possible pedophile. It touches on some interesting points with respect to the grey area of sex for kids of that age.

I agree that the photo shoot was a calculated move towards the next step in her career, maybe moving towards acting full time, or a more sultry persona for her singing career.

I love the ""White American Brain" part. This always make me wonder about what the world would look like if the dreaded and bigoted white brain was absent.

Of course, religious zealots don't care about fancy things the white brain brought to this world like cars, penicillin and the simple radio. They rather blame us for enjoying this material world and to forget millennias of religious barbarism.

Or maybe it's not such a bad thing to die from a benign infection or to live under the Taliban. This let me to wonder: If Islam is truly a beacon of civilization and humanity, why so many people exile temselves from those blessed lands?

Norman posted this on the earlier entry:

That phrase "white american brain" says a lot about john in just three words, but none of it is good. (White european brain, me, just for the record.) You missed your chance at the Festival of Books, but you can post here. Please talk some sense into us. I can't promise an easy ride, but (if you ignore the occasional rant that any open forum attracts) you'll get a fair and thorough examination.

Looks like john has nothing to say. Pity.

I have to agree, it is a pity.

Since I am curious by nature (Maybe due to my "White American Brain"), I would had loved to know the errors of my ways. Can anyone show me the fruits of the European colonialism or the "Religious Tolerance" of Islam?

I think I will have to wait a little....

I don't care what kind of silly religious bullshit people want to believe in as long as they aren't murdering a lot of other people in the name of their particular bullshit.

totally. I was at the Quillim launch and I wish them all the best. If they can sort out extremist bullshit their end, we should have as robust an organisation to sort out the extremist bullshit our end. It has left a lot of Iraqi's lying down who shouldn't be.

clue packet for dave bones:

First rule of war: people die.

And if you want to get into relative death, more Iraqis would have been killed by Hussein in the same time frame had we not driven him from power.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I got interviewed a couple months back for a position in a company I was very interested in. They didnt hire me but said I was the second person in line for the job and if they could still keep in touch with me. A week ago I got an email and they asked me if I was still open for the position. I said yes and was interviewed again. The head guy there told me that the last person they hired was a single mom and they hadnt gotten a whole weeks work out of her since they hired her. They asked me indirectly about my status, but I made it very clear that I had no children and my biggest responsibility at the moment is a 12 year cat. I saw the calendar of the woman who previously held my job and it was riddled with appointments for her son. It is male dominated but all the women at my company are over 50 (no women my age). What does that say about things?

It says an embittering, cowardly, narcissistic version of "feminism" is causing traditional masculine responsibilities to be fulfilled by other parties in society, e.g., hapless employers, customers and taxpayers.

Just thinking out loud here... I mean, we don't know that your predecessor was a single Mom. Anyone care to wager, though?

When I got pregnant with my son last year, I was librarian at an elementary school. Within a few weeks I was told I had a high risk pregnancy, and knew I'd have 2-3 appointments a week by the time I was four months along. Because of the lack of available* neonatologists and perinatologists in my area, my appointments were to be a 4 hour round trip. I decided to quit. With notice, of course.

The school district was actually great about it, pointing out that if I got a Dr's note I could go out on disability, they'd work with what hours I could be there, etc. I didn't feel this was fair to them, however, especially since I wasn't sure I would want to continue working after my child was born, or if I'd want to take a couple of years off.

It was my decision to have a child, so I considered it my responsibility to do the right thing by my job once I knew I wouldn't be able to make half my shifts. Why should they have to bend around me?

It worked out for the school, as my coworker was thrilled to have my hours so she could quit her low-paying second job and simply work all day at the library. Which is good, because a week after I gave my notice, two weeks before my end date, I ended up on bed rest.

If more women took some responsibility for their pregnancies/families, fewer companies would feel the need to sneak in questions about children, or to hire only men or older women for available positions.

*Said specialists being unavailable due to the number of illegal immigrants who got first dibs on them in my area. I was informed of this by a nurse at local hospital and a scheduler at the far away hospital I had to go to the first seven months. That belongs on another thread, I suppose.

One note: I BELIEVE that the U.S. Family & Medical Leave Act does not apply to employers with fewer than 50 employees. Not that these employers don't sometimes grant maternity leaves/hold open jobs, but they are not forced to do so by law. If someone with an actual knowledge of the law wants to comment here, please do.

On a larger note, while I certainly think that feminism plays a significant role in all this, I think there's also another factor - the constant lessening of the idea that one owes anything to one's employer. I understand employers wanting to avoid hiring women who will get knocked up and quit within a year. I'd argue they have the right to do so. But the single, bright-eyed 25-year-old guy they hire in her place may well be applying to business schools and planning to leave after six months if he gets in - I've known quite a few stories like that. Or he may be intending to use the job as a stepping stone to something better. Or...you get the idea. Employers have certainly played their role in this, and the nature of the ever-shifting modern economy has too, but the fact is that a large percentage of the workforce - male and female - sees themselves as only needing to look out for their own interests where their employers are involved. I will certainly grant the nature of maternity leave makes things much more difficult where pregnant women are involved, and I think that women who deliberatly take maternity leave and any attendant benefits knowing they're going to say at the end, "Sorry, I'm not coming back," are cheating their companies. But they're not the *only* ones out there who are.

I suppose I'm biased, because I've had several female friends who went back to work after having kids and *prioritized* going back to work and being just as good of an employee. When you're working in an office with employees who take lots of 15-minute coffee breaks while you work the day through and leave an hour early *having done more than they have in terms of workload*, and all that's focused on is you leaving an hour before they did (with managerial permission), I can see why people would start thinking, "Screw it, do I really need this tsuris?" (Note: It's not just parents who do this.)

the constant lessening of the idea that one owes anything to one's employer.

Well, the party that trashed that idea were the employers who decided in the 80s and 90s and 00s to just fire everyone and outsource, regardless of what that did to lives and communities.

In one famous case, IBM, who at the time was making lots of and lots of profit, decided to outsource to make EVEN more profit.

The legal setup of corporations says the ONLY people that the corporation owes anything to is the stockholders. Not their employees, not the communities that gave the company tax deals to locate their, or uses taxes to pay for roads and other improvements, or build schools, etc. for the company's employees.

Anyway, I've mentioned this before here, that women interested in working after they've had a kid, should look to very large office environments. Those companies by now have been lawyerized to the extent they can't/won't discriminate against women with kids, and they are big enough and profitable enough to be able to be family friendly in general, and have the resources to replace you temporarily when you have a kid.

And definitely get a degree and a job in engineering or software. Engineers love women co-workers we really do. And large engineering companies these days are very family friendly and often involve little travel.

To risk annoying Amy and everyone commenting here so far even further, as a father who loves to be with my kids, I am actually grateful to feminism AND to unions for bringing me: 40 hour work weeks, paid vacations, paid sick time, excellent health benefits (though I definitely think that employers should not pay for health benefits, but that's because I am pro-single payer in large part to help our companies compete.) When feminism was making companies hire equally, and getting rid of the worse sexual harassment, and trying to make companies more family friendly, that was good and before it jumped the shark.

And unions too. Unions are why the company I work for with over 100,000 employees have excellent benefits for us professional, non-unionized workers. We benefit whenever our machinists and others go on strike. And let me tell you, us salaried, exempt professionals think we are so much smarter than the high school graduates on the assembly line, but they are the ones that get paid for each and every hour while we get no overtime, they are the ones that leave work and have 16 hours of free time while we work 60 hour weeks and take laptops home.

In general, if you want to take part in your family, you can't expect to be the fast climber at work. Big engineering companies love women engineers and are usually family friendly (And engineering companies are of course about the only actual productive segment of society) Unions and old time feminism are responsible for taking us out of Dickens. And it was employers trashed employee loyalty, and they didn't do it it survive, they didn't do it at a time of weakness, they did it to make even more money for the CEO. Most employees would love to work for the same company for 20 years or more.

Many people think that women must be shielded from opportunity costs, but such protection is unnecessary, impossible and undesirable. Opportunity costs are the values of the courses of action you forgo to follow another. For example, if you decide to see a movie, you cannot at the same time be present in a live theater down the road. The theater is an opportunity cost.

It's a simple fact, when you are caring for a child you are necessarily not attending to commercial work. Much of modern feminism argues that the government (meaning everyone else who doesn't have children) should compensate women for opportunities lost due to child care. This is a consistent theme in defenses of alimony, defenses of asset allocations in divorce, and yes, even in charges of discrimination in the workplace. One even encounters justifications of lesser productivity from men who have children.

What's really happening is that people who value family life over a career want the benefits of commercial life without the costs. In other words, it's just the plain old desire for unearned rewards. Some of us call it theft.

Opportunity costs cannot be eliminated, anyway. They are merely shifted onto another party. This is undesirable, because it alters the true costs of a good, in this case labor. By distorting costs, the market incentives themselves become distorted. The more productive come to bear the costs for the less productive, until they quit. What's left is less and less productivity chasing less and less profit. Charges of discrimination inevitably follow.

What's really happening is that people who value family life over a career want the benefits of commercial life without the costs. In other words, it's just the plain old desire for unearned rewards.

Exactly.

This leads us right back to a question, that is often avoided...

can you treat men and women equally when we are physically different? This isn't a small question, nor trivial. As a function of society, men and women don't really look at work/career the same way. When I got out of college, I expected to work 60+ years, or until I croaked. I did look with some curiosity at staying home with children, but there was no family or spouse support for that, so? :shrug:

My ex, and many women, on the other claw, have this thing that they do. They Physically produce children. It is time consuming, it is materiel consuming, and without it, the human race goes extinct. It is also inherently UNEQUAL. Instead of trying to treat it as such, we seem to have been long trying to find something equivalent, some way to act like it isn't unequal.

IMHO that IS the problem. We look at the genders in relation to each other, rather than internal to themselves. That is why you can't ask the questions, because it becomes discriminatory, to look at gender. The remdies that have been done legally to fix NEGATIVE discrimination, have been so broad ranging that they have foreclosed discussions that look at other gender issues.

Like the discussion over what's the downside to stopping your career to have kids. We simply tell girls they can have it all, when they can't. Instead of telling them there are tradeoffs to be weighed, and a decision to be made. I've had the conversation wherein I was told "but guys don't HAVE to make that decision." to which I said: 'which also means we don't have the option.' I doubt the person who I was talking to had EVER thought of it that way.

All that said the discussion for opportunity costs seems moot to me. As a species it is required of us that we procreate, therefore it trumps anything in commercial life de facto. If you think it doesn't look at the countries in the world whose growth is negative. In Japan they don't have a clue who is going to pay for the old age of their society, because they aren't reproducing, and they are also loth to allow immigration. On an individual level they have made that commercial work/life decision. For an individual it works, but over time, it is a losing bet for a society...

Which means the old world will eventually die off, to be consumed by the developing world, and the discussion will happen again and again. I don't think we are asking the right questions about gender... but that's just my opinion.

I have a couple of friends, married who are getting up there in years. She is about 47,(don't know for sure) he is about 55. I just heard yesterday that they had a baby. Evidently they have been trying to have a baby for several years now, (sometimes we just don't know when to take mother natures hints.) I can't imagine what it's like changing diapers when your 55. What in the hell were they thinking? I'll tell you because I have ask them. She wanted to have her career after college and decided that having children would just have to wait until she was ready to have them. So her parents are well off, they keep her in college long enought to get her a PHD in basket weaving. She is currently teaching at a small college. Now, the only reason she waited until now to have a baby is, (I'm assuming here), because she wanted to be in a position where she could shirk work for several months and still get paid before having a kid. It just so happened that by the time she decided that she had had enough of her life for herself before she sacrificed anything for her kid, she waited until she and her pretty damned old husband are not going to be in any position to be energetic, enthusiastic parents. How much tossing around the baseball do you think a ten year old boy is going to get with a SIXTY-FIVE year old father? I know this guy very well, he is not the kind of person who warms up to kids. He doesn't really warm up to anyone, and he's not in the best of health. These two had a kid so they could parade it around in front of their kids like a pedigree shitzu. They are all about appearences. As a matter of fact, most of their friends refer to them as the **** and **** show. I pity that kid.

On a somewhat off topic note: Congratulations to Ashley Force, the first woman to win an NHRA Drag racing title today in the Southern Nationals and the first woman to lead in the Funny Car points standings. And the guy who she beat who was looking for his milestone 1000th win....her daddy, John Force! Touching moment, I shed a tear. By the way, if she gets pregnant, she just doesn't race and doesn't get paid.

Women are getting close to achieving parity in auto racing!

Anyway, I've mentioned this before here, that women interested in working after they've had a kid, should look to very large office environments. Those companies by now have been lawyerized to the extent they can't/won't discriminate against women with kids, and they are big enough and profitable enough to be able to be family friendly in general, and have the resources to replace you temporarily when you have a kid.

Yup. At large, fluid companies, maternity leave can be a great way to "test out" up-and-comers in a given role. If they work out, great! They get transferred to a similar role OR they get to keep the new role while a similar role is assigned to the returning parent. If not, well, back comes the new mom from maternity leave to take over the role.

I think my opinion on the matter is heavily influenced by the fact that the bulk of my work experience was spent at a very large multinational at which many people didn't stay in a given role for years and years AND in which there were a lot of "equivalent" jobs in terms of pay, prestige, and responsibility at any given level. Someone's going out on maternity leave? Okay, here's someone else who's ready to move up. We'll test him/her out. If it works, we can transfer him/her to an equivalent role OR he/she can stay in the new role and the returning mom can get a similar job (allowable under FMLA). And most women *did* return from maternity leave, which didn't last years and years as it does in Europe/Canada, but also wasn't as short as 4-6 weeks, either. The benefits at that place were *great* - so few women were going to be in a situation where they were paying out more in child care costs than they were getting back, financially, by working - and maternity leave was long enough that people didn't feel they were abandoning helpless blobs. Now, obviously this wouldn't work with a smaller employer, which is why I'm glad FMLA doesn't apply to people such as Amy! But big employers *need* some fluidity lest they stagnate, have people ready to move on from one role to another at any given time, and need to retain people they've trained in order to make intensive training cost-effective.

What's really happening is that people who value family life over a career want the benefits of commercial life without the costs.

Here's the thing: I agree with you and with Amy that people who are willing and able to devote themselves 24/7 to their jobs should be rewarded for doing so. If you choose a 9-5 schedule and your coworker chooses an 8-8 schedule, I'd argue that, barring some truly superior and distinctive ability on your part, your coworker should move up faster through the ranks that you should. On the other hand...not everyone can be CEO or CFO. *Most* people, in fact, cannot, at least not at a large company. Trying to maintain a workforce of tens or hundreds of thousands of people who will all be devastated if they don't reach the top would be impossible. Workplaces over a certain size need some layers of people who work hard and well but who don't want to be CEO. Those people will probably end up working fewer hours than those who do. As long as they do what their position requires, they're an asset to the system, not a liability. If they're always fobbing work off on coworkers to leave early to attend their kids' soccer games and get unhappy when they don't get promoted, that's another matter.

I don't think we are asking the right questions about gender

That's kinda where I come down on the issue too...

FWI. I read a study once, it was very long and very confusing and was definitely intended for someone with an actual background in economics (not me), but the long and short of it was that they crunched the numbers and even when allowing for the non-productive time of maternity leave and all that business women still get paid significantly less than men in the same job etc. I don't have a point to that.

As far as requiring individual business owners to bear the responsibilities for society's values, yes it sucked for that particular vet office and other businesses that small, but who exactly makes up society then and IS responsible for carrying out whatever supports its values?

That said, I totally agree with that cost-opportunity thing that was said. Although not having any children myself I think it would be nice if i got 4-6 weeks paid vacation....in addition to my PTO.....it would not, of course, be fair, but it would be nice....sort of how being allowed 47 smoke breaks during my shift would be nice, even though I don't smoke.....

women interested in working after they've had a kid, should look to very large office environments

For what it's worth, my wife runs a small company that offers mainly part-time positions. She has found that some of the best employees are women whose children are entering school age. They are eager to get back into the work-force, but their family obligations prevent them from doing to full-time. By offering them the flexibility to work around their kids schedules, she wins lots of employee loyalty.

The anecdote above, about not getting a full week's work out of a mother of small kids: that's exactly right. But a part-time job works out well, as long as the mom is realisitic about how many hours she actually has available for the job.

Re studies that women earn less - take these with a large grain of salt. The most honest of these studies admit that women are concentrated in different fields than men, that women's careers suffer if they give their priorities to their families, etc, etc.