Commissar

I'm ashamed that The Big Lebowski hasn't made it onto this list yet. And here I was thinking you people had some taste!

Joss Whedon's the goon behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer on TV, isn't he? Sorry, but it's unlikely I'll be supporting your Firefly or Serenity or what have you. My freshman year of college, I dated a girl who just would not shut up about how great Joss Whedon is - her and her mother, actually - and I've since made the decision to avoid everything he ever does in the hopes that this will make him go somewhere and die. Edit: By the way, why would they even make this movie? If the series only ran for eleven episodes, that doesn't scream "big audience" to me, so aren't a lot of people going to be fairly lost? Second edit: What the hell kind of name is Joss Whedon, anyway? Sounds suspiciously pinko-commie to me. If he'd been named Mack Strong I'd consider it.

Isn't that a bit like saying, "Once you go into shock, you no longer mind the sharp teeth chewing through your intestines"?

You don't report people if you're over the age of 16. All there is to it. Society isn't always peachy-keen nor jelly bean, and it's not always going to be to your liking. Private message board, can do what they want, yada yada yada. Bottom line is, there are always going to be intolerant people or, even moreso, people you don't agree with. Debate the issues with 'em straight-up and agree to disagree if it comes down to it, but tugging on teacher's skirts and complaining that the glue-sniffer was being mean to you just isn't called for. And I will point out once more that Americans do not comprise a racial group. A nationality, in a sense, but not a race. Getting ticked off because people outside the US don't think it's the greatest thing since the toaster oven is not only incredibly naive, it's also incredibly naive. Alright, so I guess it's all around naive.

So I like to occasionally check up on how the Armed Republic of Commissary is doing over at Nation States from work - because I strongly believe in putting taxyapers' dollars to good use - and I got an interesting issue to deal with today. Let's say a company manages to produce a cure for cancer or AIDS or something along those lines; should that company be allowed to set whatever price it wants for the medicine? Should the government oblige it to make it readily available for whoever needs it, at whatever rate they can afford? Should an organization such as the UN subsidize production in order to mandate necessary distribution to the afflicted?

Once again, no one's saying that kids shouldn't be able to have a choice between the two theories. We're saying that since intelligent design isn't science, no matter how much you might like it, it should never, ever be taught in a science class.

I'm being serious. She's not any good.

No. She's not worth it.

Stop calling me Jerry.

Ha. I strongly disagree with the portrayal of officers in that flick.

That's actually one of the worst things you can do, the snooze button routine. Place your alarm clock across the room, if possible. If it's really not waking you up, use a computer-based one with a metal track or something as the alarm, and pump your speakers all the way up. When I'm really worried that I won't make it up in the morning, I use Cordero - Vamos Nenas. Not metal, and it's in Spanish, and when it goes off at full volume, it definitely wakes you up. Actually getting out of bed is the key, and if you have to physically get up to turn off your alarms, that's the best start. You can function on a lot less sleep than you think.

That is some dry reading right there.

while your statement is in principle correct, you are misusing the terms proof and evidence. Woops. You're right. My bad.

On IQ tests they often have logic questions that go something like this: If humanity is part of life on this planet, and all life on this planet came from pond scum, then.... humans came from pond scum! You keep trying to correct me on various issues, and tell me what science teaches, but what you claim actually contradicts what every biology and science text book I've read says. You also don't seem to understand the two types of evolution, the phylogenic tree, or the scientific process. You tell me to lay off the insults, but you interjected initially telling me that I had no clue what I was talking about and how I refuted myself. Too bad you were exposing your own ignorance of the subject matter. I'm always up for intelligent discourse on a subject. You're just not offering it. Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you flip-flop with every single post. You insisted the reason that apes don't have culture is that you only evolve when it is necessary for survival, and since culture isn't needed for survival, they didn't evolve to have it. Then you say evolution only occurs from random mutation. Then you go back to survival. Now you're saying that humans evolved to have culture. Which is it? With VoloLogic is intentional. He knows better and enjoys baiting people. I sincerely believe that you don't know any better. And when I demonstate with simple and clear logic how your statements refute each other, you just keep spouting it. You're the one insisting their are animals advanced like us, comparing them to human evolution, and now you wonder why I'm asking which animals evolved like us? Are you not following your own arguements? Seriously, I think we should stop here. After all, you didn't do the homework I assigned you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, to address your last point first, Taks stated that there were animals with almost our complexity, not ones that advanced precisely like us. I can understand that you're upset, but that really is just putting words in his mouth. I haven't seen him flopping from survival to random to survival to random, but I will say this; mutations beneficial for survival are passed on, and oftentimes mutations that are not necessarily beneficial for survival, but are not detrimental to it, are passed on as well. And yes, all life on this planet does share a common ancestor, according to the theory of evolution. I'm sorry that you're not fond of that idea, and no one's infringing your right to believe in Big Beard Man creating you, we're simply not going to let you teach it in a science class, because it's not science, for the reasons repeated ad nauseum in this thread. By the way, in your earlier attempts at refuting gravity, were you angling for the Theory of Intelligent Falling intentionally or unintentionally? If it was intentional, I declare it a master stroke of humor; if it was unintentional, I declare it a master stroke of humor, too, but more in a, "We're not laughing with you, but at you," kind of way.

On Taks' advice, I just read up on Wedge strategy, and from there on to the Santorum amendment. Jesus. And I really don't mean this in a sarcastic or even an antagonistic way, but how can you guys (who are on the science side of this issue) keep voting Republican with things like this flying around? For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

I've actually heard the theory about the universe expanding and contracting over billions and billions of years in a couple of places. Don't remember much about it.

That's great for the big bang theory and all, but it doesn't have much to do with evolution vs. intelligent design. A lot of people try and link them, and I guess I can kind of see why, since it's all about origins, but evolution is wholly separate from the big bang. And it's fine if intelligent design isn't being taught as fact; just don't teach it in a science class, because it simply is not science. If you don't teach the Bible as fact, can you still teach it? How 'bout the Koran? Intelligent design operates on the basis of faith, not proof, and therefore it can only be classified as religion.

Really? Ever hear of the "big bang theory"? That has never been proved either. Intelligent design is being taught as a theory, not fact, which is what you seem to be thinking. I think a lot of people here seem to be missing a big point here. Some think intelligent design is being taught as an attempt to instill religion in schools. Possibly, but I think the biggest reason lies soley in trying to avoid offending anyone of religious background. Don't forget, more than just Christians believe in earth/man being created by a higher being. If you teach evolution in schools, then your essentially telling all these students that their faith or beliefs are wrong. I think the big purpose here is to avoid offending those who do believe in creationism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, no, intelligent design is not a theory. Its claims cannot be proven by experiment, and it proposes no new hypothesis of its own; therefore, not a theory. Not science. As for the big bang...well, see my defense of evolution above. It does not explicitly state that the big bang happened; it's (as far as I know, I haven't done a lot of looking into the big bang since reading Hawking) the best guess at the moment.

Actually, I think we'd be better off if we didn't get ahold of him alive. We could (and likely would) give him the fairest trial the world's ever seen, but there's not a citizen of the world anywhere that doesn't already know the outcome of that trial.

The fundamental problem is that intelligent design, quite simply, is not science. Science never, ever provides answers without proof; intelligent design provides answers without proof. That automatically rules it out of ever being considered science. A lot of people like to claim that evolution provides answers without proof; there's no proof that a common ancestor is responsible for all life on the planet, and that's true. Which is precisely why it's the theory, and not the law, of evolution. Based on all the evidence we have, it's the very best explanation thus far. Intelligent design, by its very principles, is religion in that it requires faith to be accepted. It shouldn't be anywhere near public schools, much less included in a science class.

Saw an amazing video of a large squid in...I want to say the San Diego zoo actually attacking and killing a good-sized shark. Back on-topic, I think it should be between burning and drowning. That one's always the toss-up for me. Most 19th century sailors and marines never learned to swim, one of the main reasons being to make drowning easier.

Actually been there. Wasn't nearly as entertaining as I thought it was going to be. That is a cool page, though. And I'm sorry, but you just can't look cool in a black and white photograph without an instrument and a cigarette. These shots ought to be proof enough.

I certainly don't envy our intelligence guys at the moment. What they've got to do is essentially like trying to steal home after you've announced to the catcher that you'll be coming. I only argue that we just don't have enough solid intelligence on al Qaeda to know if all of our work - and there have been some amazing successes - has had any effect whatsoever on the organization or its affiliates. I take a pessimistic view simply because I disagree with many aspects of our strategy, and am pretty sure the best possible outcome is containment, not victory. I'll grant you that we don't know enough about who's doing what within the overall insurgency to assign chief responsibility, but my gut feeling - which has absolutely no sort of factual bearing, mind you - is that aQ is involved, and that its operational capacity isn't being truly hampered by our successes. I think the general aQ movement is no longer solely defined by aQ and its affiliates, but by like-minded individuals who are fully capable of taking over or of setting up their own shops if one of the larger players goes down. There are certainly plenty of dumb fanatics ready to go blow themselves up after the previous set of dumb fanatics blow themselves up, but I'd also wager there are a couple of intelligent fanatics ready to starting running finance or security or operations or acquisitions when the number one guys get bagged. As to your second point, I'd certainly never argue that fighting aQ in a convenient, non-American battleground was the prime mover for the invasion, but it is still a component. Whether or not it's actually working is something only time will tell. I was talking to a buddy of mine the other day out in Hawaii about this very subject, and he asserted that the lack of attacks within the US proves that it is in fact working. I reserve the right to wait at least a decade before passing judgment, since that seems to be about their usual timetable. Certainly. I can't wait until we get him, either. I'm a little torn, though, between complaining about how the focus seems to have shifted off of him and being patient, since there are doubtlessly guys with funny green hats or who favor wearing short shorts out hunting, and we just don't get to hear about it.

Best guess? Pointing out current items of debate in evolution theory and filling them in with Go- er, I mean, "a higher intelligence." You're right about one thing, though, it is supremely lazy. Religion has always been used to explain what we don't understand in the natural world; I see this as little different from maintaining that lightning is really just Zeus showing us his anger.