213374U

Yeah... no. Without the thousands of strike sorties flown by NATO, the rebels would have been crushed in *weeks*. WE bombed Q's C3 and heavy weapons to rubble, the rebels just mopped up. So this is "their" justice only in the sense that it's them who pumped Q full of lead when they got the chance. Which doesn't bother us at all.

Well, at least his death -if true- will hopefully prevent the war in Libya from turning chronic. We'll see if all those red flags we've been getting from the NTC are warranted or not, soon enough. edit: merge into Libya thread, maybe? (:

Do they? Even disregarding the fact that keeping a fit brain is a lifelong commitment, you are simply ignoring how many adults can't seem to remember some basic facts they supposedly learned in school like say, the date of the storming of the Bastille, what the flaming crap is a cosine, or that Albania is not only a country, but it's also in friggin' Europe. So forgive me if I don't buy into your idea that a compulsory 3-hour per week class would make a dent on the ongoing stupidification of developed societies. And let's also not forget, while we're at it, how an "ethics" class oriented towards "fostering critical thinking" is open to abuse, when in fact the ultimate goal is to make "citizens". Yes, I also know of this for a fact, because it's been one of our waste-of-skin's president brilliant ideas. I've read the books. Also: there are few disciplines more abstract in nature than math. Math is already compulsory. It's not helping any. You got it the other way around. It doesn't matter that there are a few sensible greens -fabled creatures such as they are- The problem is that most greens are seriously disconnected from reality -historical, scientific and economic- and fanatically proud of it. It sure goes without saying that it's not the moderates who get to establish party programs.

And what if people failed? You'd withhold their voting license? I doubt this would work. People would just cheat their way through, requirements would be reduced to the lowest common denominator... etc. It's happening with grades inflation and the general decrease in the actual worth of degrees. You cannot just shoehorn critical thinking into people, much like you cannot enforce physical fitness. When the day-to-day worth of a skill is lost, the prevalence of the skill itself is diluted. You don't need independent, self-formed criteria to purchase and operate an iPhone, get through college with decent grades, land an okay job and a moderately nice house and get along with most people. Now go ahead and tell me that's not what occupies most people's thoughts. What itt is called "critical thinking" is the extension and development of the natural mechanisms for systematization based on the coordination of memory and observation, present in the brain. Those obviously evolved to better guarantee the survival of the species. Today, that kind of thing simply no longer provides a survival or reproductive edge, and so, they have atrophied. So, in short, I guess that, despite all the gloom and doom talk, we still live really good and easy lives. I think you have a rather romantic (and manichaean) view of politicians, with "true" left-wingers as incorruptible, and right-wingers as inherently vulnerable to corporate kickbacks. And I'm sorry, but all the self-styled "greens" I've met were both scientifically unfit -despite some being scientists themselves (!)- and extremely intolerant of any ideas or viewpoints outside their accepted theses. I tend to mistrust people who view themselves as wise enough to educate on right and wrong so lightly. I don't question their supposed altruism, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Also, your proposed system tends to give undue weight to the minority party, which gets to call the shots where otherwise they wouldn't, so one of the two big ones gets their way against the wishes of the other. Trust me, I've seen it happen with regionalist groups. It's one of my country's worst problems.

Ban hot women. NAO! (or at least tax them!)

"The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia."

Meh. At least commies had their manifesto. All these guys have is a dumbed down, decaf version!. Not terribly innovative, and sorely lacking punch. Here in Spain, we had that same thing just a few months ago. They made a lot of noise, camped for a few weeks, campaigned for blank/null voting, grew tired, and went home. Some time later, it's business as usual. Don't expect a real revolution while 40 million tonnes of food end up in the trash bin each year, in the US alone.

Letting half of it crash and burn is letting all of it crash and burn. If you start kicking countries out of the Euro, their #1 reaction will be a drastic currency devaluation. This will in turn hit both Germany and France pretty bad because >50% of their exports go to Eurozone countries, that will be in a process of BOT readjustment for years. So, recession for everyone again, instead of recession for just some. ECB-sponsored economic rescue is probably the most sensible -as in cheapest- choice. I agree about the corruption thing, though, but that's a problem in and of itself. Want to extend the debate into the issue of terminally corrupt but democratically elected government vs rolled-up-sleeves, undemocratic, opaque bureaucrat cliques, or do we leave that for another thread?

Great post. I'm thinking that "everyone" knows that smoking is bad, even though we don't fully understand how cancer really works - only that there's a strong (though not 1) correlation between smoking and developing some kinds of cancer. Interestingly, not everyone who breathes some benzene in on a regular basis develops cancer, though apparently they should. "Rigorously" understanding how something is harmful, and precisely to what extent, is not trivial, and if we were to make that the deciding criteria for banning substances in foods, we'd be eating way more crap than we need to. Unfortunately, there's this pernicious idea floating around that science can provide the same level of certainty that good ol' religion used to - which by definition it can't - only with science "it's for real". Often, this is an idea promoted by scientists, too. To be honest, I don't think "harmful" is useful as a scientific descriptor, despite the fact that research is essential for determining whether something is in fact harmful.

This world is going MAD. MAD, I tell you!

Yeah, things are basically wrapped up in Libya -as far as NATO is concerned, anyway- and those trigger fingers will start getting twitchy soon enough. Can't have all those German ordnance factories idling - not now that the PIGS have finally proven beyond all doubt that we can't be trusted to handle our own affairs and need huge wads of German Euros to prevent a huge-ass crash of the Euro economy. Besides, we'd better hurry before they get Da Bomb.

The world might yet end in 2012, at this rate.

If someone like Jobs -who likely had the best doctors money can buy and an admirable drive- couldn't beat cancer, then it's pretty much a lottery. ****. John who? And did something happen to New York's airport?

I'm way too tired to give it much thought, but this is just a facet of the bigger problem that is food prices in general, and how those prices are manipulated artificially for profit (futures exchanges) or political purposes (wheat prices and the fall of good ol' USSR). But there IS also a real problem with the availability and sustainability of certain food sources -I'm thinking fisheries in particular- which means low supply and, consequently, a rise in prices. So, can we really have everyone eating healthy, or is it just wishful thinking, in light of current and expected population growth? All those iCraps aren't going to pay themselves.

I say tax away. All those bypasses aren't going to pay themselves. Yeah, ban all animal fats, steak, mince, milk, butter, the lot. Everyone can get over it by popping some newly legalised tabs.

Such an inspiring attitude. Not solved yet, therefore, unsolvable. You'd make a great Senator. Hilarious. Chances are I'm healthier than you. I don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs. Hit the gym 5x/week. I make sure to get at least eight hours of continuous sleep each day. I've calculated my daily calorie intake, etc. As you can see I'm kind of an Ayatollah of healthy living (cue for Wals' comment). I'm arguing out of principle here, so keep your assumptions to yourself. As for the solution, it's really pretty simple - accountability in the form of increased taxing, be it a sort of VAT on the finished product, special taxes to apply as a result of tests, or whatever. I'm sure you could come up with more effective ways, if you weren't so busy producing fallacies to support your initial stance. Agreed. I don't like UHC much, either. Adults should be accountable, alright. Starting to see a pattern here? (; This whole paternalist approach to some harmful things with a clear negative effect for the collective is both stupid and inconsistent. I extended the argument for regulation of personal conducts based on societal costs to its logical next step based on mathematical "evidence", in my last post. I noticed nobody except Krez wants to touch it with a ten foot pole, and even the best he could come up with was a rebuttal with 2nd-hand smoke - which is, by the way, a pretty poor job as it doesn't adress the societal costs of obesity. How come? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. So, you are actually pro-legalization? As in, anti-prohibition? What, you got high before posting that or it's just a flip-flop? Either you failed to make your stance clear, or I completely misunderstood your meaning. If the latter, I apologize. I still maintain what I said about your inclination for regulating people's lives, especially in light of your stance about a total ban on smoking. No hard feelings, huh?

You won't see me arguing against a ban on smoking in public places. So, if you make up an absurd hypothetical way of going about it, then point out how absurd that solution is, that clearly means the problem has no solution, right? You've made two posts in this thread and both contain really moving stories... which are not really relevant. Loss of productivity and social security costs are a problem for sure. How about getting users to pay the difference? Clearly it's "not practical". Not practical like driving licenses, not practical like progressive taxes, not practical like trials, not practical like pretty much everything else that makes a difference between individuals. It's all about your penchant for telling people how they should live, and then suggesting that the gov't throw in jail anyone who doesn't do as you say - or declare war if there's just too many of them. See, the problem is that you simply don't understand that no evidence, no matter how strong, is grounds for infringing upon individual freedoms. Nobody, as I don't smoke. You would, however, if you had it your way. No, it most certainly is not viable to make such a case, unless you can prove that the societal harm you speak of can only be fought with measures that are unjust, abusive and, most importantly, ineffective. When you're done proving that, you can easily make a case for banning fatty foods, sedentary lifestyles, inadequate sleep routines, and any number of other things with similar or higher "societal costs" than drug consumption. Whose problem it is if you don't understand key concepts?

Yep. I could explain why, but it's not like you're new around these parts and you've made it abundantly clear that trying to reason with you is pointless. Funny, that's a trait shared by true fascists, too, as is hypocrisy. Aren't you quite the prolific drunken poster? Yeah, it's the same because neither of them has the ability to throw me in jail if I buy some smokes or get caught in flagrante delicto with Bubba. They both have their reasons, but ultimately it's my call. And let's not turn this into a scientific evidence v. religion debate, please? Criminalization is what we're discussing here, and the absurd notion that some people apparently have that they can tell me how to live when it doesn't directly affect them at all.

And this, kids, is what 21st century fascism looks like.

Maybe to any number of other countries where the drug industry doesn't represent a sizable % of their economic activity? The real problem isn't the gangs, but the corruption that is necessary to keep such a huge illegal business running. It's a necessary consequence of outlawing such a widespread and profitable activity whose products are in perpetual high demand.

Consumer states need something to waste tax money on. Otherwise corruption might get out of hand and people would start getting grumpy about the status quo. Funny how this has the effect of maintaining endemic corruption in producer countries, though. And if the cost is a few thousand casualties every year in some backwater country that most people wouldn't even be able to find on a map, who cares.

So Morgy's mediocre trolling has, against all odds, managed to turn yet another decent thread into a discussion about the evil US? What a shame. Please, let's go back to discussing Euro hypocrisy and herd mentality. We don't get nearly as many threads about that. Reminder: France is, at least nominally, a democracy. In a democracy, governments reflect -for the most part- the prevailing popular sentiment. Or do they?

Since there's no actual evolution thread, I'm just going to take the chance and start off this. Not sure how much people in these boards know about the inner workings -as far as cutting edge science goes, anyway- of evolution, but from what I've read, there's still a lot of gaps to fill. Much as with climate modeling, it's an incredibly difficult and complex problem, and calling it "proven science" can be both premature and misleading. http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm (fun read, undoubtedly lacking sufficient rigour and likely already debunked, but still)

Heh. I remember reading that being a super genius is often about as much about huge egos as it is about raw brainpower. I mean, one needs to believe he can succeed where everyone else has, so far, failed. And then there's Henry Cavendish... so I guess jerks come in all varieties, not just stupid.

Seriously? Nobody more senior than a corporal? Are corporals leading platoons in the British army now? Where I come from, there's something called "duty to aid" (don't know the proper English legalese), which will land you in jail if it can be proven in court that you failed to observe. This is without even considering how far direct responsibility for the actions while on duty of subordinates might extend. I did some reading and at least some Lt.s were aware of what was going on and did jack about it. I don't want the army to disband but I'd like some proper example setting, and NCOs just won't do. They'll still be in uniform, right? That's your message right there.