Blank

How about the Aussies? Just one of them could tame thousands of crocodiles (RIP Steve), and they successfully deterred the rampant overpopulation of rabbits on the continent.

Hmm, true. History shows there's a bad track record there. Who would you suggest?

Unfortunately that may be what Israel wanted, but like I said, I think Israel should change what it is doing by having a neutral, trustworthy party to arbitrate humanitarian aid. Perhaps this is unreasonable thinking, but my advice to Israel would be for them to solicit the assistance from other countries whom they trust will do the most they can to prevent more death (thus not allowing munitions/war aid for Hamas, and hopefully maximizing the efficacy of humanitarian aid distribution). Getting help from another country to do this would not mean Israel is weak, but as it is now, for Israel to distribute aid themselves might cause more deaths, because Hamas might just start killing the Israelites assisting, and the civilian Palestinians might be distrustful of Israel's intentions at this point. If the Turks are who you say they are, they are obviously not a good pick, and so I would recommend Israel reconsider.

Here's a question. What you guys are saying, I think, is great. Israel wants to protect its people from terrorism, and has the right to because Hamas broke the cease-fire deal. But Israel should not be hurting innocent civilians, and Hamas should stop wanting to erase the people of Israel from existence. Pretend you are Israel. Given the parameters: 1) Not wanting any more of your own people to die from Hamas' rockets 2) Not wanting any innocent Palestinian civilians to die 3) Understanding that Hamas will continue to fire rockets as long as it is able How would you do things differently than you are doing them now? One thing I would suggest is for Israel to ask a neutral, trustworthy group who is capable of a peacekeeping mission (like the Swiss army) thoroughly search the humanitarian aid shipments to Gaza (to ensure no military aid to Hamas takes place) and accurately administer the assistance to the innocent civilians who are suffering from the blockade. Also, UPDATE: Israel 'wants rapid Gaza pullout'

That's true to an extent, Killian, and I cannot fault people for playing it 'safe' or whatever in that way. Acting on the facts is good, but I would take many less risks in life that end up being good for me if I never acted on my beliefs. Pretend I work at a youth correction facility. Some of the kids would just be self-destructive and angry at everyone, and the facts are that they act self-destructive and angry, but if I believe they can be changed and helped, I will try to do that, and even though it is unlikely, I may end up helping them be happier and have a better life. I might get hung up when my dreams fail to be realized, but I believe my beliefs are worth acting on, and only acting on the facts would encourage me to give up on some people who have a track record of self-destruction and anger.

Here's what the wife of the dude said, "As the wife of the bus driver concerned I am proud that he stood up for his convictions. I am fully aware of the wide range of views on this subject for and against the advert by those with and without faith. I do accept that some religious advertising may be blatant and dogmatic. I understand why the lady who started the campaign may have found offence. But I understand it was a website. A website you choose to visit. This advert is 'in your face', whether you like it or not. I have not personally seen anything equivalent on public transport. Atheists are all for promoting freedom of speech, and there is freedom of action too, and that is exactly what my Husband did. He acted on his convictions. Thank God for freedom and I really mean that! Is God offended? - using the words of the advert 'probably', but then, He knows what humans are like and He does not have a self-image problem." Frances Heather, Southampton"

This guy. I don't know where he went, but he was an awesome dude. I don't even have to explain. He could confront your argument, write it in Latin, come up with fifty logical fallacies you committed, and present several links to scientific journals to show you how wrong your facts were. A prolific poster, but more prominently, a friend.

When addressing individuals, I agree. But often when these phrases are spoken or printed, they are addressing larger sections of the populace. In an effort to be inclusive (at least in the US) many people will say or print "Happy Holidays". E.g. a business manager sending out warm wishes before a "late-December" break. The US backlash attempts to say, "No, it's Christmas booyah!" which is factually incorrect in its exclusivity and has the side-effect of being very obnoxious for people celebrating other things (or not). All of these dates (with the exception of Winter Solstice, I guess) are man-selected. Christians have no exclusive claim over this time of year because the historical Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December -- that's ultimately all I'm trying to say: many people have well-founded reasons to celebrate things in December! Aggressively suggesting otherwise is obnoxious. Agreed. I think it's hard to be 'politically correct' these days toward a crowd when even trying to include everyone offends some. It's also hard to know what exactly the early Christian church was thinking when they set 'Christmas' on December 25th. If you think of it from one point of view, they were trying to take over the season to oust the 'pagans', but from another point of view, what do you expect people who are trying to be righteous to do? Should they not provide fellow Christians with a 'righteous' celebration of their own to give an alternative to the 'pagan' holidays? I don't suggest Christ was born in December, but it makes sense for Christians to have a holiday of their own instead of being party poopers for a whole season while others are out doing whatever it is people did for the winter holidays.

Again, it only makes sense to cop out. It would have been suicide to do anything else in the current climate. You're right. They probably made the most business-smart decision. I just find it lame since I'm not a business. By the way, Sawyer, I love your work.

I hear what you say. I agree. My main two points have more to do with the cop-out response First Bus made ("As an organisation we don't endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses"), and the intellectual dishonesty of someone saying that probability directly correlates with relevancy. It would be pathetic for a Christian, in my eyes, or anyone for that matter, to be filled with hatred or distrust for someone on account of a billboard. I am saddened by the way some religious fanatics act, and I am especially ashamed by some actions of those who call themselves Christians.

Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus I was surfing around the news site and this caught my eye. What are your opinions on the subject? I have two things: 1) If I ever go to England, I will not patronize First Bus, after reading this statement, "As an organisation we don't endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses. The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else." In my opinion, if you put an advertisement on your bus, you are endorsing that advertisement. People are responsible for allowing someone else to use their property as a platform to send a message. If you want to pretend, "Oh, well, the advertisement is on my property and thus we propagate the message, but that's not our fault, because we as an organisation leave it up to others to filter what goes on and off our property to be propagated." Seriously people, be aware of what is getting painted onto your buses, and don't give that cop out response if something you don't want to propagate ends up on there. 2) I appreciate that the Bus Driver cared about what the message implied, even though the message is true on the literal level, because using just 'probability', of course there is not much to support the existence God. Science, math, and statistics never could prove God and they never have claimed to. That said, I think the driver noticed the implications of the advertisement, and I'd say it's an intellectually irresponsible campaign on the part of whichever atheist decided to make it, because it assumes the premise that things that are probable are the only things that matter. In reality, things that are not probable matter quite a bit. It's more of a sadly un-witty bumper sticker than anything. Feel free to agree, disagree, or lurk.

I like you, PrrCake. I like you.

A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, By Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Dead Space destroyed my dreams of becoming an astronaut.

I don't think that's cheesy.

Switchfoot- The Blues

Boxcar Racer- I Feel So

Happy birthday. You're funny.

It also breaks the Greek's appreciation of "Who's on First?"

:raises hand: I've got a mixture of clinical depression (not actually so sure about this) and bipolar. under the wrong cricumstances it get REALLY bad (during the ejection from the navy I was hospitalized as a danger to my self and others by the navy psychiatrist after some... things were said between me and my father over the phone.) I'm trying to find the right meds for my depression/bipolar, the ones I"m on now make me sleep (or REALLY REALLY want to) for anywhere between 12 and 15 hours. In your case, it sounds like another difficult dynamic is added onto the hopelessness depression presents. I hope you find something that works for you. From my experience, I can say that someone with severe clinical depression simply does see one's self under the wrong circumstances all the time, whether that perception is accurate or not (it usually is not). Herein lies one of the more insidious qualities of depression. Regarding cowardice, selfishness, and hurting others: for someone who is acutely depressed, virtues do not matter, and other people tend to matter only as much as they can relieve the perceived pain at times. So go ahead and label that selfish and cowardly. Perhaps that is simply all depression is, but I will never shake the feeling that those labels seem inappropriately finite to me. The pain of depression can seem transcendentally deep, and dark thoughts of anti-hope can be constantly processed by those depressed. I assure you, after a couple years of persistent patterns of thinking grimly and feeling bleakly, a person's spirit wanes. Thus I propose that if someone were to perceive a pain and torment so radical, that person would not so easily label someone else who has committed suicide on account of severe clinical depression.

Depression sucks. People really cannot know what it is like until they have been there. I do not refer to simple, "Oh I feel depressed," periods of time that last a couple months at most. I mean acute depression like this guy had. At that stage, atmospheres of hopelessness pervade one's mind, and one begins to perceive reality differently, more despondently. Serious intervention and social support was immediately needed for the guy in the story to come out of his depression. My friend was in downtown Portland one day, and he and his coworkers were on some sort of scavenger hunt. He went off on his own route and saw a woman, another of his coworkers, at the edge of the street. He called out to her and said hello. Some time later she told him that when he saw her that day, she was about to jump in front oncoming traffic to kill herself, and that because he noticed her, she decided against it. The crime of humanity does not lie within its cruelty, but its lack of compassion.

If you feed the puppies early on in the game, they become your faithful, full-grown rottweilers during a later sequence.