3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
At 12/7/10 09:39 PM, zephiran wrote: Ah, who am I kidding. Boobs are always relevant!
Indeed!
Lauren Cohan's CSLs need to stop making me feel funny in my no-no place. It's unseemly.
seriously, makes Gina Gershon (Queen CSL herself in her prime) look like a rottweiler.
Now that I've classed up the place yet again, how 'bout those Pats?
At 12/7/10 07:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: The biggest criticism of the one term limit government, and this has been exampled in places that have tried it out, is that when people know they need to find a new job in X years, they tend to abuse their position of power to create a stepping stone into the private sector, generally by granting favors they otherwise wouldn't have granted and bringing staff and other party members along...
Well, they already do that with Staff, and I think good watchdog groups could curb favor-granting with the power of the No Confidence vote, limiting special interest's abilities to influence them (any more than they already do).
Perhaps we should also limit the amount one is able to spend on an election? Is there a way to do that that is fair and keeps the power in the people, and not the Special Interest groups? Or do we just let SI groups have free reign and battle it out, hoping they'll cancel each other out in the long run?
That said, they seem to grant plenty of favors when corporations and rich people can donate as much as they want.
I think the forced transparency of contributions might help curb this... also, how is that different from now?
I am not convinced most of their reelection fears come from us, the populace, so much as the money that funds their campaigns.
Perhaps, but large union-like organizations like the NRA and others vote with votes as well as dollars. Their public endorsements may be more valuable than their monetary ones. I mean, look at the bill that was lampooned in the Daily Show clip I linked; Special Interests were only slightly behind that vote, specifically the Democrat's usage of procedural shenanigans to block amendments. Offshore accounts were likely important in the Republican's votes of nay, but it wouldn't have been enough if the Dems hadn't been afraid to vote down other stuff.
Also, if citizens groups actually participate in the election process and keep tabs on their politicians, the ability to oust elected officials before their term is up might also curb a lot of that. It's one of the logistical issues that I think is important, but extremely sticky... and was hoping someone might be able to improve.
And it's our fault.
apologies to those in the audience who have vaginas AND spines, title was more for dramatic effect than anything.
So I was reading up on Gum's Fiscal Conservative thread and SohlTofang made the comment that politicians fear cutting spending because of the specter of re-election and it occurred to me that there was an easy way to fix this. I didn't want to de-rail that thread into a discussion about electoral issues considering the topic would already be rife with enough conflict, so here we go.
First of all, Sohl is right: Politicians live for re-election. They don't get elected, they lose their job. Imagine if you had to literally compete every two years for your current position, iin order to stay employed wouldn't you do what you needed to to make that happen? So politicians will straddle lines, spin facts, and do all manner of ridiculous things to look better during elections. They funnel as much money as they can to their constituents to grease the way towards keeping their jobs.
What if we removed this motivator? What if re-election wasn't an issue?
SOme will say, and rightly so, that people with a lot of experience in politics are what allows our rather labyrinthine system to function with all the alacrity of the Titanic without rudders (instead of, say, a small moon or planet), and that knowledge of the systems, ways and means of congress is necessary to their effectiveness. This is true, and would be hurt by my idea. However, I have a couple other ideas that might mitigate that concern. Here is my idea in full and then I will let y'all discuss possible pitfalls and other options:
1) No person may be elected to consecutive terms of a single office of the Federal Government.
2) After sitting out for one term, a person who was previously elected to that seat may run again (this includes the Presidency).
3) Increase the term length of all Federal seats, 4 years for House, 8 Years for Senate, 8 years for Presidency.
4) Stagger election cycles for all seats to ensure that newcomers will have a good pool of veterans to learn the ropes. During no election cycle should greater than 50% of seats be up for election.
5) Citizens can petition for a vote of No Confidence if a representative is seen to be working against his promises or against the will of his constituents. If the No Confidence vote succeeds, his chair will be immediately made available during the next election cycle (if it is not already) and he will be perma-banned from re-running for that seat.
6) All money donated to campaigns must be public knowledge, period.
I believe this idea can improve on our current system in a number of ways:
A) Gives politicians more time to do their work, without having to travel back home every few months to fundraise for elections. A Representative can realistically give approximately 8-10 good months of work in any cycle towards actual governance. If he is a frosh, he will spend the first 6 months learning the ropes, then the next 8-10 months doing actual work, and then the next 6-8 months worrying about re-election, all interspersed with breaks, vacations, and fundraising trips back home. Under this system, they get 6 months to learn the ropes, and then 3 1/2 YEARS to do work. They can then spend the next term in another post, or gathering funds and resources for another run when they are eligible again.
B) Removes the political suicide issue of re-election that hampers congress from actually cutting spending or making hard decisions.
C) Still allows for a good amount of career experience within the process. A senator whose term is up could run for a House seat, or take up a cabinet position, then re-run once the next term is up, allowing for plenty of experience without the baggage.
D) Allows more for new, fresh ideas to be heard and considered seriously, as stodgy old-fashioned politicians don't run every committee and keep the status quo.
E) Gives the people just as much power over their representatives even though the terms are longer. The ability to vote out a representative mid-term will keep the politicians honest(ish) so that they don't just lie to get elected then go willy-nilly on their own crusades.
So, tell me Newgrounds; do you think this might cure the spineless weeping vaginas that currently populate our congress, or will there be repercussions that I haven't thought of that make this a ridiculous idea?
again, all apologies to those with vaginas and spines.
At 12/2/10 06:02 PM, Imperator wrote: In light of the balls-tighteningly awesome news from today's NASA press release, add the model of life to the list of "debunked" science myths. :)
And in a brilliantly-timed manner, my point is made for me!
Scientists are already challenging the findings of the Arsenic bacterium and Penrose's background radiation patterns. We shall see how it turns out in... THE FUTURE!
My dad just sent me this text:
"Rich Rod had "You Lift Me Up" by Josh Groban played at the [Michigan] team banquet while he swayed back and forth with his hands above his head. He must be fired TODAY!"
HA!
At 12/2/10 04:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually...the OP's point is NOT that science is "shit" because it is not perfect. Instead his point is we should not throw out scientific theories because they are inheriently flawed in favor of supernatural belief systems.
Actually it's a little bit broader and more fundamental than even that. I always hesitate to state a point quite so... explicitly... but I think it might help the conversation continue from here so here it is:
You are correct, that is part of my point, but more fundamentally my point is that knowing that our theories are wrong (incomplete, untestable due to technological limitations, etc) actually makes them stronger. By knowing that our ideas are incomplete, and by testing, re-testing, questioning and observing to try and find the wrong bits, any idea in science will, by definition, be a stronger, and more correct idea (omg, paradox, both wrong and right!?) than any idea not backed up by those assumptions of incompleteness and wrongness (and here's the important part) even if the unscientific idea is more factually/objectively correct than the scientific one.
we'll ignore the issues of objective realities and "truths" for now
At 12/1/10 08:43 AM, TheMason wrote: (Did I nail it Rav?)
In one. >:D
Goddammit, somehow my post got borked and erased this middle part. Let's try this again.
At 11/30/10 09:51 PM, Warforger wrote: As far as we can tell the galaxy is a sort of flattened , therefore there can be a center which is theorized to be a black hole
Well, the balloon metaphor was merely for illustrative purposes, and I'm afraid you're wrong about a black hole center of the universe. That would imply that it is the matter moving away from the center through spacetime instead of spacetime itself expanding and bringing the matter along with it. This is not correct for one very simple reason: all motion recorded between galaxies is equal relative to the distance between those galaxies. If a galaxy is X light years away it will be moving away from us at Y speed, no matter which direction we look. If matter was moving through space, away from a central point, we would be moving away from that point at a faster rate, relative to the distance between, than a point equidistant in the opposite direction. This is observationally 100% not the case.
Yes. We are on the edge of a galaxy with many things blocking our viewpoint of everything along with everything being too small for us to comprehend whats going on exactly.
From that location, could you tell whats going on accurately in the rest of it?
Actually yes. That illustration is a bit misleading. Most of that big dusty bright galaxy is, in fact, dark, empty space. There is not much matter at all between us and the rest of our galaxy (relative to the distances involved anyway), and as we have taken pictures of galaxies over 13 billion light years away, observing the behavior of planets in our own galaxy is simple by comparison.
The ISS Atlantis?
Actually the I.S.S. and the Space Shuttle Atlantis... about to dock... in front of the goddamn sun.
Yeah. My brain gets blown a bit every time I see that pic.
At 11/30/10 09:41 PM, JoS wrote: Was that a picture of a ginger's bush?
Goddammit, now I can't see anything else. >_I.S.S. and the Space Shuttle Atlantis... about to dock... in front of the goddamn sun.
At 12/1/10 05:40 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: I don't have the time for an in-depth analysis, but that won't stop me from nitpicking.
Whoo boy. You missed the point something fierce. This may be futile but I'll give it the old college try. You're still new here and have yet to tango with me, but let me give you a hint: I come at my points sideways, from angles that make you think I'm talking about something else, and that seem, to the quick and assumptive reader to be actually counter to the true point, but is actually supporting of it. This is done for a couple of reasons; to teach, to inspire discussion, to ignite thought and contemplation, and as a literary device.
So God created the universe with his left toe fungus and throwing shit at a fan causes pigs to fly? That's what would happen if science were always wrong.
So you're saying Newton's gravity is correct in all cases? And that we know everything there is to know about all aspects of science? Because that's the only way for science to be "right".
1. the Big bang happened billions of years ago. Unless they have an exact time at which the big bang took place, and/or a time machine, there's no way to prove that that came first.
Um, you may want to read that again, and also brush up on your physics. Ripples in the background radiation could not have (easily) been formed during expansion, but rather would only occur from an event prior to the original expansion.
2. No one's saying the big bang was the START of the universe, it is merely the start of the expanding nature OF the universe.
Current Inflationary Theory states that the big bang was the start of time itself, ergo "before" is a meaningless word. Penrose and Hawking only recently (relatively) brought forth the No Boundary Proposal which posits a second dimension of time at right angle to the time we observe that would allow for the inflation we observe and the singularity at the beginning to simply be another point in spacetime, and not the ultimate beginning of it. It solves some other issues with Inflationary theory, too, such as contraction making time run backwards 'n' stuff.
This is the first time observational evidence has been recorded that supports that theory.
3. You really think that after billions of years in space, the evidence will be COMPLETELY untainted?
In this case: yes. There are still issues of observational anomalies, but it has been observed through multiple telescopes, so the issue is not mechanical. Is it 100% proof that their theory is 100% correct? No. Their theory is wrong, too. We just don't yet know by how much.
So according to what's-his-face, since gravity is part of phisics, it must be wrong, ergo, I can fly.
Gravity is a force, not science, but go ahead and try. Maybe you'll teach us something new about gravity that we can use to make our science less wrong.
I'm no science whiz, but isn't having a flawed theory better than having no clue whatsoever? I mean, in this case, we already know that there IS a relationship between supernovas and black holes. Why not explore it?
Wherever did I say we shouldn't explore it? Or that less wrong was worse than more wrong?
Wait, I'm confused, are you advocating Geocentrism or denouncing Evolution? Because you mentioned them in the same manner.
Merely topics upon which a lot of non-science is used as fact. Not claiming all have equal relationship to those uses.
W8, so you're saying that Newton, Keppler, Einstein, all these great, wise men were wrong, but the unknown brit is right?
He's only right in that we're wrong. His theories are wrong, too.
Wow, attacking both intellectuals and evangelicals in one line. Why do I get the feeling you're gonna make alot of enemies?
Only those for whom I have broken this topic. I broke it on purpose, so that those who were able to understand it, could come in and have a cool discussion about science, skepticism and the path of knowledge, and that those unable to understand it would think I was denouncing all of science. Now that I've given you some more hints as to my true point, where do you stand? And are you willing to drop the flamethrower and learn?
At 11/30/10 09:08 PM, poxpower wrote: Haha Rav, you're so silly.
Behold:
Also true.
Funny, that. :D
At 11/30/10 08:21 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: First off, thank you very much Mason for your knowledgable input :D
Secondly, would China risk a war with the U.S. if it chooses to back NK? It was mentioned before that any conflict would devalue the dollar even more, something the Chinese don't want to happen.
My guess is: no more than the US wants one with China for choosing to back SK. It's more likely that China would abandon the alliance if shit escalates than the US, but if they aren't able to sever ties completely it may be out of their hands as to whether or not they join in, just like for the US.
At 11/30/10 08:25 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:...bare with me people.
What kinda girl do you think I am? Yer gunna have to wine and dine before you get to the frisky stuff!
At 11/30/10 07:49 PM, Warforger wrote: It was the beginning of the Universe, but again science is like wikipedia, its always changing. This by no way at all disproves the Big Bang Theory
Not yet, and I never said it did. I meant what I wrote. Read carefully :)
He didn't say all of our physics are wrong, he said there's a factor we don't know about yet.
Which means our current explanations are incomplete, and thus incorrect.
Its hard to tell when you're just viewing it from one side of the system
Huh? I have no idea what you're saying here.
You point to examples in Astronomy, you don't point to anything else. You're just pointing to something we are handicapped in studying because we're on a planet in a random solar system, not say the center of the Universe or more viewpoints then one. Not to mention we're constantly moving.
A) "center" is relative. There is no geometric center of the universe. All points are moving away from each other equally. Think of a (spherical) balloon, where spacetime is the surface of the balloon, and a "force" (the air) is what creates the expansion. What point on that sphere is the "center"? Hint: the answer is "none".
B) You seem to be suggesting that if we were in a different location the observable universe would be acting differently and thus be giving us more (or fewer) answers. Is that an accurate assessment of your statement and if so, what evidence do you have for this?
C) How does our motion effect observation and physics?
Look at Biology, because we have microscopes we can watch what goes on and know for sure what happens.
:D <-- awesome face. One piece of bait: taken! Don't feel bad, I was waiting for someone to go there.
We actually know quite little about how biology works. We know a lot, but we cannot yet even build simple simulations of how simple biological systems work. Hormones and neurotransmitters and cell:cell interactions during growth and the differentiation of cells during foetal development. These are all huge mysteries in biology. If they weren't, we could reverse-engineer a brain-like computer, running massively in parallel that could out-pace our current computers by several orders of magnitude without any advance in technology. We could re-grow spinal cords from stem cells made from a person's skin and fix paralysis, and medicine would be perfect. We know so little about biology, how aspirin works in the body is still a bit of a mystery.
Our ideas about biology, evolution, chemistry.... they're all wrong. They're right enough to work as well as we can make them work now, but not nearly as well as nature, an unintelligent, randomized system can make them work.
I picked astronomy not because it has the most mysteries, but because it's a pet brain fetish of mine and because it's flashy and gave me an excuse to post that pic of the sun. Just for kicks, here's another one. Care to take a gander at what that dot on the top right is?
At 11/30/10 10:52 AM, SohlTofang wrote: This doesn't mean that ALL science is wrong, dummy!
Yeah, it does. In no area of science are we at the end of possible knowledge. In all areas our understanding, ability, and theories can be improved, thus lowering the amount of "wrongness" in each.
Infact it's not a "wrong" of science, it's now an improvement because we understand more..
It's a good thing for the scientific community.
............indeed..... :)
Physics still applies at universal level, even if there is more than one universe (which I had believed for some time now).
What physics? String theory? Because that's had issues for a while. Quantum Mechanics? Just look at Schrodinger's cat for why there are issues with macro-level implications for those. And Relativity has issues once you get to the micro scale. None really work for all
At 11/30/10 03:30 PM, darkrchaos wrote: The Big Bang probably wasn't the start of the universe but it did happen, probably more then once. Eventually everything will push together because of gravity. Too much in one place, all trying to push in on each other, and bam, you got the Big Bang.
Uh, just because a previous iteration of the universe collapsed (or a part of it did... just because there are echoes of events prior to the Big Bang, doesn't mean that this iteration will end in a crunch. In fact, current observational data has the expansion of the universe accelerating. Unless there is some other force at work, this does not bode well for crunching anytime in the future.
At 11/30/10 04:26 PM, yonokowhat wrote: I dont even know what your saying
please sum up what you mean in a sentenace using small words I understand
Sorry, no can do. I have put it in as plain of language as I can. Unless you want me to go over every facet of cosmology and macro-scale physics, which this topic is not about. If it interests you I would suggest picking up A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. It'll give you a good starting point for the issues under discussion.
At 11/30/10 05:17 PM, The-universe wrote: Joke Thread? I don't know.
Oh well, just to play it safe. The big bang refers to the expansion and development of the very early universe, not the cause of it.
Just to play it extra safe, very amusing thread.
Um... did you actually read the post, or just the title? Including links?
Weeeell, technically it's the current inflationary theory, but that title isn't as sexy. Basically this thread is how science is always wrong. Now, this is not a bad thing, and the misconceptions about such a state lead to some unfortunately silly assumptions and luddite dismissals of evidence.
For my first trick, I shall show you that the Big Bang was not, in fact, the beginning of the universe, and that we have found evidence for events that happened PRIOR. If these observations hold up it may be the single biggest discovery in cosmology since the background radiation itself.
Furthermore, Roger Penrose, a notorious scientific maverick and publisher of the above study, believes that all of our physics are wrong. He has worked with both Einstein and Stephen Hawking and is instrumental in the theories of black holes, black-body radiation, and the No Boundary Proposal, which theorized the very thing which he just found evidence for.
In less theoretical news, we may have re-gained a 9th planet for our solar system, a distant planet larger than Jupiter that is chucking snowballs at the inner solar system. The existence of such a body, so far from the sun, and whose path would create such a stirring in the Oort cloud may redefine how we think of the formation of solar systems all together. It had been theorized before that a small red-dwarf companion star was to blame, but the math didn't fit... however, it would appear that we were very close to living in a binary system, considering it is somewhat likely that the Oort cloud and this Jovian planet could just as easily have combined forces to create another star for us to gaze upon (though likely smaller, cooler and much dimmer).
Also, speaking of stars, recent observations have basically tossed out our ideas of how large a star needs to be to create a black hole when it goes supernova. We now basically have zero clue how marginal-mass black holes actually form.
Now many people like to use examples like this as reasons to doubt science and insert their own, unfounded beliefs as fact into discussions on anything ranging from Evolution, to climate change to geocentrism. Newton was an avid student of Alchemy, which didn't happen to be viable... does that make his calculus any less amazing? His laws of gravitation were shown to be false by Einstein, but we still use it because it's close enough for government work and the math is easier.
All science is wrong. All science was more wrong yesterday and will be less wrong tomorrow. That does not mean that unscientific ideas are right.
And, since we're talking about stars, here's a picture of the surface of ours:
that dark spot (sunspot) on the lower right hand side... that's the size of the earth. Yeah.
Link to the full-size pic. <-- You'll wanna click that.
At 11/29/10 07:02 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Then again, I'm no general, so some insight from someone who knows what they're talking about would be appreciated.
You mean like TheMason, a military man with degrees in the field and focused on the Koreas, including being stationed there?
At 11/26/10 03:48 PM, Kwing wrote: Monsanto controls over 90% of the GM market. The two are closely related; for all intents and purposes this thread is about both.
Well, pox beat me to the punch with the rest of it, but the problem you're having is that your opinion of one is twisting your opinion on the other. Regardless of whether or not Monsanto is the most evil of evil boogeymen it doesn't mean that the thing they work with is, itself, evil.
You have yet to show that GM is dangerous prima facie.
At 11/25/10 08:55 AM, chlstel wrote: Watch out for Marc Rubio.
Are you just repeating things others have said for "lol +1 posts" or do you have something to add to the discussion?
At 11/24/10 09:24 PM, RedSkunk wrote: If you look at actual crop yields, you'll find some of the genetically modified crops actually underperforming, because they're monocultural and vulnerable to drought, or lousy soil, etc. Genetic diversity is a good thing.
Indeed. Catastrophic failures are more likely in a monocultured product, and unfortunately everything we grow is mostly monoculture, though diversity among farmers keeps us from having big problems, developing countries that rely on the extra yield per acre and heartiness of GM crops also have a more difficult time recovering from such an event. Rather than claim this as a weakness of GM crops, I would claim that we simply need to GM more crops to diversify and protect against such things.
At 11/25/10 03:05 AM, Kwing wrote:2) You do realize that everything we eat is genetically modified, right?Not everything. However it is extremely hard to avoid. With vitamin E used as a preservative which comes from soy, I'll admit it's difficult to avoid.
Yes, everything. Nothing we eat now has not been modified from it's "original" (and we can get into the ridiculousness of that word if you want) form in order to be a better food.
So genetic modification improves food? No, not even Monsanto would say that.
Better yields per acre, heartier strains that can grow on what would be unarable land to other non-modified foods, better price point, improved nutrition and even improved taste are all hallmarks of modified food. The fact that we can even feed our own people, nevermind places like Africa, is proof positive that genetic modification improves food. And if you don't consider that improvement then I wonder what the word even means to you.
Genetic modification improves the production of food. If you pay more for non-GMO food, it's definitely worth the extra cash. 50 years ago I wouldn't buy organic, but now with all of the over processing of food, something labeled as organic is genuinely higher quality. I, however, read the ingredients of everything I buy, regardless of whether it's organic or not.
No, it's not. "Organic" foods spoil sooner, are more susceptible to insects and parasites, are often smaller, less nutritious, and taste worse. Most of the hoopla over "organic" is placebo in the form of marketing. The only thing that "organic" food has more of than "regular" is price.
Howso? Links please.
My second post had a link to the wiki on Norman Borlaug, an agronomist engineer whose work in modifying wheat is credited with saving over a billion lives. If you want a quicker, funnier, and slightly more media set, watch Penn & Teller Bullshit, season 1, episode 11. Or just watch this clip on Youtube which cuts out the parts of the episode not related to the point.
You're neither as polite nor diplomatic nor professional as I'm being right now.
Too bad.
It's extremely hard to have scientific evidence done, because Monsanto is preventing people from conducting independent studies on their products, and most studies are sponsored by Monsanto itself. That's what the links were all about.
Bullshit. None of your links mention anything about Monsanto deliberately preventing studies from being done. Also, your links have no sources to back up their claims. I would like to read the studies themselves, not some blogger's take on what he thinks the studies show. Hell, the fact that your link wants registration alone makes it suspect. Nevermind the fact that whatever nefarious games that Monsanto themselves might be up to is not indicative of any danger of genetic modification as a whole. In fact, if Monsanto didn't have such a strong pseudo-monopoly on a lot of areas, and had some competition, there likely would be even better GM product on the market now.
Also, if your rant is about Monsanto, keep it to Monsanto... if it's about genetic engineering of crops, keep it to that. Quit conflating the two.
At 11/24/10 12:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 11/24/10 10:40 AM, Ravariel wrote: Nah. China has taken a very hands-off approach to NK politically recently.Perhaps I wroter it wrong. What I meant is that China will allow North Korea to push the bounds to the very edge of conflict before it intervenes. China sees great value in North Korea being a big attention grabbing disturbance in the region. The threat of NK will keep a little fear in SK and Japan's mainds, while distracting America from the real issue, the Yuan.
Ah, okay, that makes more sense. While I think the attention to the Yuan isn't what they're after, at least not specifically, I think that they do appreciate a country taking eyes off of them. Human rights questions, aggression issues, economic issues, and political influence in the region are all areas where China prefers to work out of line of sight. I think they're trying to maintain a balancing act where they don't lose the ally and the economic connection, while maintaining a visible threat that is not them in the area. As long as NK is being insane, then Taiwan and Tibet are back-burnered, and pressure for, yes, the Yuan, also fades a bit, because other countries (read; the US) fear putting too much diplomatic pressure on too many topics and focus on one where they can hem and haw and save the day at the 11th hour.
At 11/24/10 02:13 PM, SohlTofang wrote: North Korea, for the sake of the stability of the world, and the attrocities to its own people, must be abolished as a union.
And how, exactly, do you propose we do that?
Also, this dude.
Kind of a big deal.
A) Did you seriously just quote yourself in your post?
2) You do realize that everything we eat is genetically modified, right?
G) "organic" is a bullshit term used to increase the price on foods which have little to no direct genetic modification, and usually only applies to the type of feed/fertilizer/pesticide the food is given, not to the other methods by which we improve our foods, most of which actually effect the genetic makeup of the stuff.
shfifty-five) Genetically modified foods are responsible for saving the lives of over a BILLION people. Boo-hoo, a few others get cancer. Fair trade.
/whatever'd) From the study itself, verbatim: "These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."
The study is hardly conclusive of anything especially dangerous. Links in current studies to human instances of cancer are spurious at best. That said, I am all for continued testing and monitoring of all of our food supply for safety, and if something comes out that definitively links human illness to GM items, I am all for stopping the production of those specific foods, or at least turning to a safer method of production. One study, done on rats, that they themselves say is indicative of nothing as far as long-term diet is concerned...? Meh, couldn't care less.
At 11/23/10 10:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Iraq's negativities set aside, the majority of the Japanese are extremely wary of entering a war proactively. Trust me, they have bought into MacArthur's pacifist vision 1million times more than he did...
Also, SK might be less than enthused to be on the receiving end of direct assistance from the Japanese. There are still a ton of (legitimately) knotted undies over their shared history.
China will not participate in an actual conflict, but you can bet they're fanning the flames and allowing it to get as close to the brink as possible. The more attention on Korea, the less there is on the fake money known as the Yuan.
Nah. China has taken a very hands-off approach to NK politically recently. Distancing, maybe, but slowly. They're still reluctant to do much in the way of censuring the Kim government. NK has to do some brutal shit to get China to not veto UN Sanctions, but I doubt China wants open conflict any more than we do. China knows that the US will have to step in if this escalates, and somehow I doubt they want to repeat the lessons of the first Korean War. Fighting by proxy is much more difficult these days, especially with a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the economic repercussions alone could cripple the country's growth if not send it backwards. Add in to that the fact that Russia is less enamored of NK these days and all of a sudden they don't have the cold war behemoth shadow looming to protect them in world politics anymore. In the first war, Russia's tacit acceptance of China's "secret" involvement was a huge factor in why the war didn't go further than the peninsula.
That all said, NK is just crazy enough to use their nuclear capabilities on SK, Japan and the US, if not in the form of workable nukes, then with dirty bombs. Hell, without such tactics, the government would crumble in a matter of minutes in any open conflict. The only reason we haven't stepped in already is due to the nuclear threat and the Chinese involvement in the peninsula. Any escalation would be a political landmine for every side.
Then the question remains: Who will?
Romney via current polls has the best chance vs Obama, but will Republicans let someone on whose plan the current Health Care bill is based win the nomination? I don't see the Tea Party waning any time soon, so it's likely they will have a great deal of influence in the primaries. I wouldn't expect Palin to win, but she'll make a splash for sure. Jeb Bush has some good name recognition, perhaps enough distance from the fun times in the 2000 election Florida style, and may be able to re-brand himself as a more minarchist republican, and take the cake, but again faces an issue in the general. I don't think Pawlenty has enough muscle and no one expects McCain to run again.
Given a continued modest recovery, and no double-dip, it will be difficult for the republican party to choose a candidate that can win.
that said, if we double-dip I think Obama is all but done.
Will the republicans be willing to nominate someone who is unelectable in order to stick to principle, or will they swallow Romney's leftist (relatively speaking) positions in order to take the WH?
Or is there a third option I'm not seeing here?
At 11/17/10 06:12 PM, Imperator wrote:At 11/17/10 01:46 PM, Ravariel wrote: Unfortunately I'm out of town until Monday, so no can do. Comparative anthro (physical and cultural... not linguistic), philosophy, and general English are specialties... the more specific topics will command a higher price due to the extra research needed :)Nooooooo!!!
How long would it take you to learn enough Greek to write the paper? Maybe I'll hire you for next semester.
Depends. Do I need to write the paper itself in Greek? Or just do research with Greek sources?
At 11/17/10 01:21 PM, Imperator wrote: Aristophanes and free speech.
Due Tuesday. Thanks.
Oh, and remember when you're quoting Thesmo and Ach. to use beta-code and keep it in the Greek.
Unfortunately I'm out of town until Monday, so no can do. Comparative anthro (physical and cultural... not linguistic), philosophy, and general English are specialties... the more specific topics will command a higher price due to the extra research needed :)
Apparently I've been spending my time incorrectly. I can shit out 5-10 page papers in a couple hours... imagine charging $50/pg for stuff I can write in my sleep!?
So, uh... anyone need a paper written?
now, how to advertise...
...Almost certainly.
In an interview with the New York Times Palin said she's seriously considering a run for the white house in 2012, consulting with strategists and her family. Probably no surprise to anyone.
What was more surprising to me was hearing that Newt Gingrich of all people is also almost definitely going to run. That certainly mixes things up a bit. A known muckraker and republican firebrand who has already shown the gumption to fight and the pragmatism to work with Democrats. His work with Clinton in his last term is one reason for the positive light his policies have been seen in (and his blistering offensive against him during the Lewinsky scandal (for better or worse) may be a rallying point for reps).
With Jindal out, Romney the likely frontrunner (though probably easily taken out in the primaries by a more conservative person), and even Jeb Bush considering a run... the upcoming election looks rather interesting for the Republicans. That said, current polls have Obama ahead of Palin or Gingrich by 11-12 points, and ahead of others (huckabee, pawlenty, etc) by more despite his approval rating.
With the right likely unwilling to give the nod to establishment- and spend-friendly Romney, and the rest of the field likely unelectable in a national election, where does this leave the republicans? 12 points is hardly unsurmountable, but I can imagine that dems would LOVE to run against Palin or Huckabee or Bush... is Gingrich really their best hope?
I also have to take a bit of issue with the insinuated racism in Proteas' posts. Not all terrorists are brown or are named Achmed, McVeigh is one of many, many examples otherwise. To single out Muslim-looking people because the only terrorist acts you remember were done by them is naive and dangerous.
That said, TSA regs are over the top. For a slightly more famous (and amusing) perspective, this from 2002, our resident minarchist magician Penn Gillete wrote this:
