I hereby demand unbiased and equal coverage of all candidates for political office who
I find this section disturbing, as it implies that you are willing to allow biased and unequal coverage in the case where you disapprove of the candidate. Which, to a large extent, we have now - biased and unequal coverage. Sounds like you just want to rearrange the inequities of the current system so they favour your guy.
I hereby swear that I will place the interests of the citizen, above that of the government.
Which citizen did you have in mind here? Bill Gates? Yourself? Ted Bundy? Seriously, there may be times and places when the interests of the Government should override the interests of any given citizen. It's early, and I don't want to wste too much time thinking about it, but I would imagine that any anti-trust trial is an example.
A) Support a balanced budget
B) Support Civil Liberties
C) Are on my state Ballot
This set of criteria also produces some interesting results. Let's say there are four candidates, A,B,C,D. All four support Civil Liberties, A & B are in favour of a Balanced Budget, C & D are not. A,C,D are on your state Ballot, therefore you can only support A. B,C,D are on MY state's ballot, therefore I can only support B. I can't support A by donating money to his cause (condition C), even if my support (say I have just won the Powerball, and have a lot of money to throw around) would make the difference between victory and defeat for A. Likewise, same applies to you for B. Both conditions increase the possibility that C or D will win (my state MUST come out for B, your state MUST come out for A, other states may come out any way they like under their own customs.
For that matter, following the rules above means that someone who chooses not to do so has an incentive to get A & B on every ballot, since that would dilute their EC votes somewhat, thus increasing the chances that C or D would win.
Given, of course, that not everyone supports the rules you've outlined. If it can't stand some percentage of cheaters, it won't work very well in the real world.
The really interesting thing to imagine is if the Republicans had actually held a primary
Oh, please! The Republicrats held a primary, just like always. And, like always (for both Parties), the incumbent got renominated.
Face it, the incumbent only fails of nomination if he chooses not to run again. It's a fact of life, get over it.
In other words, all the Primaries in the world wouldn't have prevented Bush from running as the Republicrat candidate - only Bush could have done so. And he would only have done so if it was clear that he could NOT win re-election, and that someone else in the Party could. And maybe not then.
Yep. And they'd be the first in line to sue the socks off the scientists when it was discovered that their "homo superior" had a tendency toward log jail terms, for whatever reason.
Of course, there is the question as to whether they are, in fact, their offspring. How much can you change Joe Loser's DNA, and still have the kid be Joe Loser's kid? Cull harmful recessives? Well, if they're expressed in both Mom and Pop, they're an essential part of Mom & Pop, so removing them might leave the kid as Uncle and Aunt's kid, genetically. If they're not expressed in both Mom & Pop, of course, then it was just luck of the lotto whether the kid would have them, and removing them (and replacing them with Mom & Pop's unaffected version) would be no big deal.
Take semi-Neandertal Mom & Pop, and produce Britany Spears, Mk2, as a daughter? Might be possible, but I don't think *I* would consider that their daughter, other than by adoption.
And, we must consider that Homo Superior gene-shopping is going to be out of reach of all but the wealthy - Joe Loser won't be able to afford it, even if he has wet dreams about the possibilities. So, realistically, the people who can afford it prolly won't need it, and the people who (think they) need it prolly can't afford it.
I don't doubt that some people will look at this as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I merely expect that the net result of those people (the ones who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, not their kids) living with the rest of us is bound to be unpleasant somewhere down the line.
Does the word McGovern mean anything to you? Or FDR? Both were more liberal (in the modern sense, not the traditional sense - once upon a time, liberals were opposed to big government) than Kerry is. One of them won, one lost, in both cases because they were liberal....
No, threatening to secede from the Union if one candidate wins is extreme. And then doing so.
Breaking your opponent's spine by throwing your chair at him during a debate is extreme. Burning out your neighbors because they voted for the other candidate is extreme. Brawling on the Senate floor is perhaps a bit extreme.
Negative ads are trivial by comparison. Read enough history, and you learn that every generation thinks their politics are the worst/dirtiest/most locked-in/whatever-bad-thing-you-can-think-of. Almost all of them are wrong. This generation is thinking the same as last generation did. They're both wrong - the most extreme American politics happened in the period 1850-1865.
You are quite correct as to the PROPER use of the word Eugenics.
Nonetheless, while eugenics was a very popular idea in the 30's, it has fallen into disfavour based largely, but not entirely, on those events previously mentioned.
The Nazi program, by the by, didn't fail because they "failed to base its foundation on science". It was as scientifically based as any animal/plant breeding program - select trait(s) that you wish to encourage, and breed for them. Being "aryan" is a perfectly valid trait to select for. The Nazi program, if it had continued, would no doubt have had exactly the effect of a similar animal breeding program. That is, the population of Germans with "aryan" traits (as described by the breeders) would have increased, the population without those traits would have been culled.
The real problem with the Nazi program was that humans have inherent objections to being "culled", and resent being treated as farm animals. Which issue will apply to any future eugenics/gengeneering program in humans. In addition, of course, neither the Nazis nor modern scientists know enough to make CORRECT decisions about the requisite characteristics of a homo superior - trial and error, as is done in animal breeding, will produce many results, both positive and negative. And it will take a long time to even analyze the results, much less redirect the progam if the results are less than ideal - at 25 years per generation, and 75+ years lifespan, it will take a while to see if we're doing it right.
Ultimately, of course, the big issue with eugenics is that we must experiment on our children. Not many people are willing to experiment on other people's children, but even fewer are willing to use their own as guinea pigs.
This is also the big issue with Education reform, by the way - screw up, and it's your children that get screwed. Always nice to find a better way to teach/learn, but ruining a generation of kids if you guess wrong isn't the best way.
Technetium has a half life of 212000 years. It is a product of radioactive Ruthenium and Palladium decay which in turn are one of the main fission byproducts.
Actually, half lives for Technetium vary quite a bit, from fractional seconds to millions of years. Ruthenium decay can produce Technetium, depending on the isotope of Ruthenium, but only Ru-97 will decay into a long halflife isotope of Technetium, and that won't be the 212,000 year halflife you mentioned, but one with a halflife of 2,600,000 years or 92 days, depending on the metastate.
Palladium will decay into Technetium by way of Ruthenium. Again, the only possible long halflife isotope is Tc-97.
Put you near a volcanic vent under the Atlantic, and see how long you live.
Yes, there are limits to where any given living organism can exist. Humans don't do so well 20000 feet (6000m) underwater, but there are fish that do fine down there. Those fish don't do so well at the top of Mount Everest, but geese fly higher than that. There are things that live in volcanic vents under the ocean, or inside water bubbles in the middle of icebergs. Just because you can't do what that lifeform can do doesn't make you less "life".
Just because a human embryo requires as its environment a human womb, or the equivalent, does not make it less "life", anymore than the fact that YOU require ~18-20% free O2 in the atmosphere you breathe makes you less "life".
Bags of several dozen cells (which is what the embryos we're talking about are) aren't life. At best, they are the potential to become life, under the right conditions.
What you no doubt meant was that bags of several dozen cells aren't HUMAN. After all, protozoa are "life", and they're only ONE cell.
Which brings us to the distinction between "people" and "not-people". You're "people" (I hope). I'm "people" (you'll have to trust me on this;) ). My cat is "not-people", as is my father's dog.
Once upon a time, in a country on the east side of the Pond, Jews were "not-people". A bit farther east, Poles and Germans (among many others) were "not-people". Farther back in time, on the west side of the Pond, "Injuns" (Amerind is the term I like, Native American is popular but not entirely correct - they're immigrants too, just from a much earlier migration) were "not-people".
The evidence of history is that adding things to the "people" category doesn't usually have too many adverse effects on a society. Adding things to the "not-people" category has usually been unfortunate, to say the least.
And, before people start shooting from their various moral highgrounds, please realise that none of the embryos that we're talking about have been ripped from anyone's womb without their consent
True enough. And how is this relevant? If embryos are "people", then allowing their mother to kill them is evil. If they're "not-people", no big deal. Just like if Jews are "not-people", then it's okay if the government exports them to the Death Camps.
The key question regarding abortion, or cloning embryos is the question of when they become "people". A lot of people have a lot of different opinions on the subject. We're pretty near universal in agreeing that cows are "not-people", and that John Kerry (as an example) is "people". We pretty much agree that Jews and "Injuns" are "people". We're not nearly so in agreement about embryos.
A very large minority (at least) considers them to be "people" at some point before birth. Which point is not agreed on, of course, but some point.
Another large minority (at most, in this case) considers them to be "people" at birth.
Yet another minority (not usually found in the Western World these days, but used to be rather common all over) considers them to be "people" only sometime after birth. This last group includes people who don't consider children "people" at all, of course;).
This fundamental (and it IS fundamental, despite what you may believe about people who disagree with you on the subject) disagreemment will eventually be resolved. It is not clear (again, despite what you may believe about people who disagree with you) just which side will win. Personally, I expect that we will continue the trend of the last 2000 years or so, and increase the size of the group we label "people" at the expense of the group we label "not-people".
But I guess "baby killer" is an easy argument to make for those too afraid to examine the facts properly.
And for those who disagree with your definition of "baby". Your argument is easy to make if you are too afraid to consider the possibility that people who disagree with you have any validity to their side of the argument.
Rather than risk a future of enfeebled, medicinally-dependant humans, or impose eugenics, genetic manipulation becomes the only humane solution.
Genetic manipulation qualifies as Eugenics. A lot of things do - checking the fetus for defects, and aborting as necessary does. Choosing to abort daughters, because you want a son (used to be common in China, I don't know whether it still is - should produce an interesting society in about 20 years if so) qualifies as "eugenics".
Based on the results of the last bit of eugenics practiced by humanity (Nazi Germany), I expect the gengeneering will produce a very unpleasant war by and by, followed by a general revulsion at the idea of gengeneering. Until they forget just why they were offended, and do it again. Repeat....
(Which I think was the real problem that the national parties had with the blanket primaries--it tended to produce candidates who were less beholden to the party, and less partisan.)
Interesting idea. Louisiana has an open primary - top two vote getters, no matter their party, go on to runoff. Unless one vote-getter in primary gets majority, in which case there is no need for a runoff. It guarantees that the winner of any election has a majority vote, at least.
The downside is that the top two candidates tend to be...interesting. And not necessarily in a good way. Which is why we had David Duke (KKK, Nazi) running against Edwin Edwards (unconvicted, then, but well known to be as crooked as a dog's hind leg - in jail now) for Governor four elections back. "Vote for the Crook, it's important" was a popular bumper sticker during that particular election.
The first amendment was not meant to protect your right to say anything, anywhere, anytime, so yes, you are naive.
True enough. However, the First Amendment WAS meant to protect your right to political speech, i.e. advertising in favour of your favoured candidate.
This particular slippery slope reached its own inversion point when the BCFRA (Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold) became law a couple years ago. Since that Act was specifically aimed at regulating political speech (can't mention a candidate by name within 60 days of a General Election, for instance, except as specifically allowed, i.e. in newscasts, or as regulated by the FEC), and was largely approved by the People, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches, it would seem that the First Amendment has been redefined as being (nearly) unlimited for everything but political purposes, but tightly restricted when it comes to poitics.
More CO2 == warmer planet == flooding. Why accelerate the process if you don't have to?
You are implying a casue and effect relationship that is questionable, to say the least.
It may be true that more CO2 causes a warmer planet. Or it may not. Certainly, the current trends seem to suggest such (CO2 levels are rising, average temperatures are rising), but the trends don't necessarily imply causation.
It is true that a warmer planet implies flooding. Well, up to the point that the ice has all melted. after that, getting warmer won't induce more flooding.
How do you know that reducing our CO2 emissions will slow, halt, or reverse the process? Until a clearer picture of cause and effect exist, we are as likely to do harm as to do good by changing our behaviour.
Mind you, I'm becoming more environmentalist than not as I get older. And Global Warming would be a wonderful excuse to switch from burning hydrocarbons to burning plutonium/Uranium. But a knee-jerk reaction isn't always the best answer, and "But something has to be done NOW, before it is too late!" doesn't make the knee-jerk reaction any more correct.
But it struck me that one general, I think it was Lee, was asked to command the Union army. His response was that his loyalty was with his; family, Virginia, and the Union, in that order. And since Virginia was choosing to secede, he would have to decline.
Yes, that was Bobbie Lee.
These days people have more loyalty to a football team than they do to their state. Which probably explains the accelerating chipping away of states' rights. Despite the wishes of our founding fathers.
One must remember that before the War Between the States, United States was plural ("these United State" was the common phrase). After, it became singular ("the United States" - what a difference two letters make). The War that ended slavery pretty much ended States Rights. ON balance, it was a good thing.
The Founding Fathers were practical enough to recognize that the States could not exist independently, thus the Union. They also recognized that the States DID exist, some having been in place for over 150 years at that point. It was impractical to expect that the average inhabitant of the Former British Colonies calling themselves "these United States" would suddenly think of themselves as Americans when they had been Virginians, or Georgians, or whatever all their lives.
Ice Core drilling for example provides us with data about the last 200.000 years
Curiously, 200K years ago, like now, is in the Ice Age(s), when temperatures were much lower than the mean since mammals became dominant, much less the much longer periods preceding in which mammals were a minor part of the biosphere.
The million (trillion?) dollar question is:
"Can we stop Climate Change?", not "should we?". The evidence is that the climate changes. And that the last 10,000 years has had a particularly nice climate.
It is likely that any climate change will be for the worse, but do we really know enough to hold the climate at the recent ideal, much less have the power to do so?
What I do have something against is the assumption that profits are infinate. As well, short-term thinking is the rule of the day, which is good for CEOs and their bonus checks, not so good for the average investor, worker, or citizen.
Short-term is unfortunately a way of life in the USA. Can't be fixed, at this point. It'll take a generation or three to turn around, once we start trying. And I don't see us trying in the short term.
#1 -- Only problem with your minimum-wage "scientific" formula is that changing the minimum wage would change the rest of the economy. It doesn't exist in isolation. So, raise minimum wage based on prices of a breadbasket of goods, watch the price of that breadbasket go up, adjust minimum wage upward to compensate, repeat indefinitely.
As an example, many union contracts set wages relative to minimum wage. This automatically increases their pay in the (currently rare) case that minimum wage is increased. And COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments) will kick in as prices in general change when the minimum wage is bumped up. So, an increase in minimum wage would affect a great deal more than the minimum wage earners and the people who pay that wage.
#2 -- Medicare is ~22% of the Federal budget. Which is in the vicinity of $400 billion per year. Or about $1500 per person per year. Since my health insurance is closer to $5000 per year than to $1500 per year, I seriously doubt we could cover ALL healthcare costs for Medicare's budget, even if things were done correctly.
I automatically disbelieve anyone who tells me that they can fix mismanagement without pain for anyone involved. Fixing our National Debt will NOT be pain-free. It will be intensely painful for the government, and for the rest of society, if only because we have gotten used to a large government...
Nope, three reasons. First these people are putting meat in their freezer not a head on the wall. Secondly, if the deer herd is thinned here, we might end up with some decent genetics and less competition to produce bigger bucks and a healthy herd. Third, I think our seasons are too restrictive as it stands, especially when people are taking deer on their own land.
Your last reason is bad, since the deer don't respect property rights - they're a public resource/nuisance, not private.
The other reasons, I agree with. Deer populations are getting sky-high in the eastern USA. Not enough hunting, even with generous seasons, to keep the population under control. I find myself thinking that some states could stand to extend the deer seasons to 12 months a year for a year or two.
Yah,.243 is a nice rifle. If only I could convince the wife to allow me to add another rifle to the collection.;)
Hmm, maybe if I argued for a.300 Winchester Super-Short Magnum, I could let her talk me down to a.243....
That being said, a large precentage of deer taken in KY are during bow/muzzleloader season with a.22 rimfire, drop the deer and then run the arrow through.
People use.22 rimfire on deer where you come from? In bow/muzzleloader season?? I trust you have reported them to the local Fish & Game people?
Though, frankly, a bow or muzzleloader can shoot farther than a.22 rimfire can drop a deer, so why bother?
They let you bait for deer too? Talk about uncivilized!
Personally, I use my.30-06 for deer, and that because I can't quite justify buying a.243 or.270 to replace a perfectly good rifle. But.223 is too damn small to do a deer reliably, imho
Steps that can be taken:
#1. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount. This would increase the tax base by quite a wide margain. As well, it would relieve strain on various governmental services by quite a wide bit. Sure, it would cut down on corporate profits...boo fucking hoo.
Hmm, so we can increase the tax base by raising the minimum wage. Alright, let's raise it to $100 per hour! That should help the economy LOTS, right?
No? What do you mean, it would cause inflation if we raised the minimum wage? Surely that wouldn't have an effect on Social Security, just because it is indexed to inflation?
HINT: we cannot legislate prosperity. If raising Minimum Wage were all that were required to fix all economic problems, we would have done it long ago.
#2. For the cost of the medicare system, we can publicize the whole thing and bring out Universal Health Care. Again overal this would create more a more efficent system, which basic economics says creates more jobs, meaning a higher tax base. As well, it would have a nice side-effect of fighting overseas job loss, as rising health care costs are a big motivator to move the jobs in the first place. Cut the parasites out.
It's possible that nationalizing healthcare would lower costs. It's possible it would raise costs. What is certain is that if you replace Insurance Company bean-counters with Government bean-counters, it won't produce improved healthcare. Or do you believe that the Government bean-counters have your best interests at heart, as opposed to say, their own?
#3. Make it official government policy to have as many people to work as possible. Current government policy is to maintain a certain unemployment rate to fight inflation. Get the people you need to do whatever jobs needed to be done. Sure it costs tax dollars. But with all the spinoff money of those jobs, the amount of taxes taken in will much more than account for the additional costs.
Assuming we add all unemployed to the workforce today, that increases tax revenues by ~7% (if the unemployed all get jobs at the "average" income). Which isn't enough to make much dent in the CURRENT deficit, much less the deficit envisioned when the babyboom generation leaves the workforce.
Yeah the corporations will bitch and scream. But it's pure survival folks. It's them or us.
Interesting point of view. I take it you are self-employed? Because if you work for a corporation (I do, a small one, but incorporated it is), you might want to keep in mind that by raising costs for your employer to keep you employed, he might just decide he can't afford to pay you anymore.
We exist in a symbiotic relation with "the corporations" (or "the rich") - if they fail to prosper, we will also fail to prosper. It's not US vs. THEM, it's us AND them....
It's possible to start responsibly paying down the debt without any huge shifts in economic policy, Clinton proved that.
Umm, no. The National Debt increased every year Clinton was in office. Even when we had that "surplus", the National Debt was increasing. Go figure.
possibly institute a small national sales tax on luxury items
Raise your hands if you don't believe that such a sales tax wouldn't be expanded to include pretty much everything within twenty years!
Note, by the way, that the original Income Tax was for incomes greater than $50,000. At that time, $50,000 income could only be had if you were very rich (it's more or less equivalent to $500,000 per year now). Funny how that one trickled down, isn't it?
In the late sixties and seventies, the Republicans were seen as the Party of Big Government.
In the eighties and nineties, the Democrats were the Party of Big Government
Now, the Republicans are taking that position again.
It will be interesting to see whether the Democrats have enough sense to become more libertarian in outlook to counter it, or remain as they have for the last 20 years, and leave us with two Parties of Big Government.
Slashdot Mirror
In your example, both cars had a deltaV of 60mph. One had an acceleration of 20mph/s, the other 5mph/s.
I find this section disturbing, as it implies that you are willing to allow biased and unequal coverage in the case where you disapprove of the candidate. Which, to a large extent, we have now - biased and unequal coverage. Sounds like you just want to rearrange the inequities of the current system so they favour your guy.
I hereby swear that I will place the interests of the citizen, above that of the government.
Which citizen did you have in mind here? Bill Gates? Yourself? Ted Bundy? Seriously, there may be times and places when the interests of the Government should override the interests of any given citizen. It's early, and I don't want to wste too much time thinking about it, but I would imagine that any anti-trust trial is an example.
A) Support a balanced budget
B) Support Civil Liberties
C) Are on my state Ballot
This set of criteria also produces some interesting results. Let's say there are four candidates, A,B,C,D. All four support Civil Liberties, A & B are in favour of a Balanced Budget, C & D are not. A,C,D are on your state Ballot, therefore you can only support A. B,C,D are on MY state's ballot, therefore I can only support B. I can't support A by donating money to his cause (condition C), even if my support (say I have just won the Powerball, and have a lot of money to throw around) would make the difference between victory and defeat for A. Likewise, same applies to you for B. Both conditions increase the possibility that C or D will win (my state MUST come out for B, your state MUST come out for A, other states may come out any way they like under their own customs.
For that matter, following the rules above means that someone who chooses not to do so has an incentive to get A & B on every ballot, since that would dilute their EC votes somewhat, thus increasing the chances that C or D would win.
Given, of course, that not everyone supports the rules you've outlined. If it can't stand some percentage of cheaters, it won't work very well in the real world.
Oh, please! The Republicrats held a primary, just like always. And, like always (for both Parties), the incumbent got renominated.
Face it, the incumbent only fails of nomination if he chooses not to run again. It's a fact of life, get over it.
In other words, all the Primaries in the world wouldn't have prevented Bush from running as the Republicrat candidate - only Bush could have done so. And he would only have done so if it was clear that he could NOT win re-election, and that someone else in the Party could. And maybe not then.
Of course, there is the question as to whether they are, in fact, their offspring. How much can you change Joe Loser's DNA, and still have the kid be Joe Loser's kid? Cull harmful recessives? Well, if they're expressed in both Mom and Pop, they're an essential part of Mom & Pop, so removing them might leave the kid as Uncle and Aunt's kid, genetically. If they're not expressed in both Mom & Pop, of course, then it was just luck of the lotto whether the kid would have them, and removing them (and replacing them with Mom & Pop's unaffected version) would be no big deal.
Take semi-Neandertal Mom & Pop, and produce Britany Spears, Mk2, as a daughter? Might be possible, but I don't think *I* would consider that their daughter, other than by adoption.
And, we must consider that Homo Superior gene-shopping is going to be out of reach of all but the wealthy - Joe Loser won't be able to afford it, even if he has wet dreams about the possibilities. So, realistically, the people who can afford it prolly won't need it, and the people who (think they) need it prolly can't afford it.
I don't doubt that some people will look at this as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I merely expect that the net result of those people (the ones who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, not their kids) living with the rest of us is bound to be unpleasant somewhere down the line.
Does the word McGovern mean anything to you? Or FDR? Both were more liberal (in the modern sense, not the traditional sense - once upon a time, liberals were opposed to big government) than Kerry is. One of them won, one lost, in both cases because they were liberal....
No, threatening to secede from the Union if one candidate wins is extreme. And then doing so.
Breaking your opponent's spine by throwing your chair at him during a debate is extreme. Burning out your neighbors because they voted for the other candidate is extreme. Brawling on the Senate floor is perhaps a bit extreme.
Negative ads are trivial by comparison. Read enough history, and you learn that every generation thinks their politics are the worst/dirtiest/most locked-in/whatever-bad-thing-you-can-think-of. Almost all of them are wrong. This generation is thinking the same as last generation did. They're both wrong - the most extreme American politics happened in the period 1850-1865.
Nonetheless, while eugenics was a very popular idea in the 30's, it has fallen into disfavour based largely, but not entirely, on those events previously mentioned.
The Nazi program, by the by, didn't fail because they "failed to base its foundation on science". It was as scientifically based as any animal/plant breeding program - select trait(s) that you wish to encourage, and breed for them. Being "aryan" is a perfectly valid trait to select for. The Nazi program, if it had continued, would no doubt have had exactly the effect of a similar animal breeding program. That is, the population of Germans with "aryan" traits (as described by the breeders) would have increased, the population without those traits would have been culled.
The real problem with the Nazi program was that humans have inherent objections to being "culled", and resent being treated as farm animals. Which issue will apply to any future eugenics/gengeneering program in humans. In addition, of course, neither the Nazis nor modern scientists know enough to make CORRECT decisions about the requisite characteristics of a homo superior - trial and error, as is done in animal breeding, will produce many results, both positive and negative. And it will take a long time to even analyze the results, much less redirect the progam if the results are less than ideal - at 25 years per generation, and 75+ years lifespan, it will take a while to see if we're doing it right.
Ultimately, of course, the big issue with eugenics is that we must experiment on our children. Not many people are willing to experiment on other people's children, but even fewer are willing to use their own as guinea pigs.
This is also the big issue with Education reform, by the way - screw up, and it's your children that get screwed. Always nice to find a better way to teach/learn, but ruining a generation of kids if you guess wrong isn't the best way.
Actually, half lives for Technetium vary quite a bit, from fractional seconds to millions of years. Ruthenium decay can produce Technetium, depending on the isotope of Ruthenium, but only Ru-97 will decay into a long halflife isotope of Technetium, and that won't be the 212,000 year halflife you mentioned, but one with a halflife of 2,600,000 years or 92 days, depending on the metastate.
Palladium will decay into Technetium by way of Ruthenium. Again, the only possible long halflife isotope is Tc-97.
Put you near a volcanic vent under the Atlantic, and see how long you live.
Yes, there are limits to where any given living organism can exist. Humans don't do so well 20000 feet (6000m) underwater, but there are fish that do fine down there. Those fish don't do so well at the top of Mount Everest, but geese fly higher than that. There are things that live in volcanic vents under the ocean, or inside water bubbles in the middle of icebergs. Just because you can't do what that lifeform can do doesn't make you less "life".
Just because a human embryo requires as its environment a human womb, or the equivalent, does not make it less "life", anymore than the fact that YOU require ~18-20% free O2 in the atmosphere you breathe makes you less "life".
What you no doubt meant was that bags of several dozen cells aren't HUMAN. After all, protozoa are "life", and they're only ONE cell.
Which brings us to the distinction between "people" and "not-people". You're "people" (I hope). I'm "people" (you'll have to trust me on this ;) ). My cat is "not-people", as is my father's dog.
Once upon a time, in a country on the east side of the Pond, Jews were "not-people". A bit farther east, Poles and Germans (among many others) were "not-people". Farther back in time, on the west side of the Pond, "Injuns" (Amerind is the term I like, Native American is popular but not entirely correct - they're immigrants too, just from a much earlier migration) were "not-people".
The evidence of history is that adding things to the "people" category doesn't usually have too many adverse effects on a society. Adding things to the "not-people" category has usually been unfortunate, to say the least.
And, before people start shooting from their various moral highgrounds, please realise that none of the embryos that we're talking about have been ripped from anyone's womb without their consent
True enough. And how is this relevant? If embryos are "people", then allowing their mother to kill them is evil. If they're "not-people", no big deal. Just like if Jews are "not-people", then it's okay if the government exports them to the Death Camps.
The key question regarding abortion, or cloning embryos is the question of when they become "people". A lot of people have a lot of different opinions on the subject. We're pretty near universal in agreeing that cows are "not-people", and that John Kerry (as an example) is "people". We pretty much agree that Jews and "Injuns" are "people". We're not nearly so in agreement about embryos.
A very large minority (at least) considers them to be "people" at some point before birth. Which point is not agreed on, of course, but some point.
Another large minority (at most, in this case) considers them to be "people" at birth.
Yet another minority (not usually found in the Western World these days, but used to be rather common all over) considers them to be "people" only sometime after birth. This last group includes people who don't consider children "people" at all, of course ;).
This fundamental (and it IS fundamental, despite what you may believe about people who disagree with you on the subject) disagreemment will eventually be resolved. It is not clear (again, despite what you may believe about people who disagree with you) just which side will win. Personally, I expect that we will continue the trend of the last 2000 years or so, and increase the size of the group we label "people" at the expense of the group we label "not-people".
But I guess "baby killer" is an easy argument to make for those too afraid to examine the facts properly.
And for those who disagree with your definition of "baby". Your argument is easy to make if you are too afraid to consider the possibility that people who disagree with you have any validity to their side of the argument.
Genetic manipulation qualifies as Eugenics. A lot of things do - checking the fetus for defects, and aborting as necessary does. Choosing to abort daughters, because you want a son (used to be common in China, I don't know whether it still is - should produce an interesting society in about 20 years if so) qualifies as "eugenics".
Based on the results of the last bit of eugenics practiced by humanity (Nazi Germany), I expect the gengeneering will produce a very unpleasant war by and by, followed by a general revulsion at the idea of gengeneering. Until they forget just why they were offended, and do it again. Repeat....
Interesting idea. Louisiana has an open primary - top two vote getters, no matter their party, go on to runoff. Unless one vote-getter in primary gets majority, in which case there is no need for a runoff. It guarantees that the winner of any election has a majority vote, at least.
The downside is that the top two candidates tend to be...interesting. And not necessarily in a good way. Which is why we had David Duke (KKK, Nazi) running against Edwin Edwards (unconvicted, then, but well known to be as crooked as a dog's hind leg - in jail now) for Governor four elections back. "Vote for the Crook, it's important" was a popular bumper sticker during that particular election.
And, yes, the Crook won.
True enough. However, the First Amendment WAS meant to protect your right to political speech, i.e. advertising in favour of your favoured candidate.
This particular slippery slope reached its own inversion point when the BCFRA (Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold) became law a couple years ago. Since that Act was specifically aimed at regulating political speech (can't mention a candidate by name within 60 days of a General Election, for instance, except as specifically allowed, i.e. in newscasts, or as regulated by the FEC), and was largely approved by the People, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches, it would seem that the First Amendment has been redefined as being (nearly) unlimited for everything but political purposes, but tightly restricted when it comes to poitics.
Other Circuits may treat it as valid precedent if they wish, but are in no way bound to do so.
You are implying a casue and effect relationship that is questionable, to say the least.
It may be true that more CO2 causes a warmer planet. Or it may not. Certainly, the current trends seem to suggest such (CO2 levels are rising, average temperatures are rising), but the trends don't necessarily imply causation.
It is true that a warmer planet implies flooding. Well, up to the point that the ice has all melted. after that, getting warmer won't induce more flooding.
How do you know that reducing our CO2 emissions will slow, halt, or reverse the process? Until a clearer picture of cause and effect exist, we are as likely to do harm as to do good by changing our behaviour.
Mind you, I'm becoming more environmentalist than not as I get older. And Global Warming would be a wonderful excuse to switch from burning hydrocarbons to burning plutonium/Uranium. But a knee-jerk reaction isn't always the best answer, and "But something has to be done NOW, before it is too late!" doesn't make the knee-jerk reaction any more correct.
Yes, that was Bobbie Lee.
These days people have more loyalty to a football team than they do to their state. Which probably explains the accelerating chipping away of states' rights. Despite the wishes of our founding fathers.
One must remember that before the War Between the States, United States was plural ("these United State" was the common phrase). After, it became singular ("the United States" - what a difference two letters make). The War that ended slavery pretty much ended States Rights. ON balance, it was a good thing.
The Founding Fathers were practical enough to recognize that the States could not exist independently, thus the Union. They also recognized that the States DID exist, some having been in place for over 150 years at that point. It was impractical to expect that the average inhabitant of the Former British Colonies calling themselves "these United States" would suddenly think of themselves as Americans when they had been Virginians, or Georgians, or whatever all their lives.
Curiously, 200K years ago, like now, is in the Ice Age(s), when temperatures were much lower than the mean since mammals became dominant, much less the much longer periods preceding in which mammals were a minor part of the biosphere.
The million (trillion?) dollar question is: "Can we stop Climate Change?", not "should we?". The evidence is that the climate changes. And that the last 10,000 years has had a particularly nice climate.
It is likely that any climate change will be for the worse, but do we really know enough to hold the climate at the recent ideal, much less have the power to do so?
That graph is a graph of CO2 levels, not CO2 and temperature anomaly, as the first graph was. Both show pretty much the same change in CO2 levels.
Short-term is unfortunately a way of life in the USA. Can't be fixed, at this point. It'll take a generation or three to turn around, once we start trying. And I don't see us trying in the short term.
#1 -- Only problem with your minimum-wage "scientific" formula is that changing the minimum wage would change the rest of the economy. It doesn't exist in isolation. So, raise minimum wage based on prices of a breadbasket of goods, watch the price of that breadbasket go up, adjust minimum wage upward to compensate, repeat indefinitely.
As an example, many union contracts set wages relative to minimum wage. This automatically increases their pay in the (currently rare) case that minimum wage is increased. And COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments) will kick in as prices in general change when the minimum wage is bumped up. So, an increase in minimum wage would affect a great deal more than the minimum wage earners and the people who pay that wage.
#2 -- Medicare is ~22% of the Federal budget. Which is in the vicinity of $400 billion per year. Or about $1500 per person per year. Since my health insurance is closer to $5000 per year than to $1500 per year, I seriously doubt we could cover ALL healthcare costs for Medicare's budget, even if things were done correctly.
I automatically disbelieve anyone who tells me that they can fix mismanagement without pain for anyone involved. Fixing our National Debt will NOT be pain-free. It will be intensely painful for the government, and for the rest of society, if only because we have gotten used to a large government...
Your last reason is bad, since the deer don't respect property rights - they're a public resource/nuisance, not private.
The other reasons, I agree with. Deer populations are getting sky-high in the eastern USA. Not enough hunting, even with generous seasons, to keep the population under control. I find myself thinking that some states could stand to extend the deer seasons to 12 months a year for a year or two.
Yah, .243 is a nice rifle. If only I could convince the wife to allow me to add another rifle to the collection. ;)
Hmm, maybe if I argued for a .300 Winchester Super-Short Magnum, I could let her talk me down to a .243....
People use .22 rimfire on deer where you come from? In bow/muzzleloader season?? I trust you have reported them to the local Fish & Game people?
Though, frankly, a bow or muzzleloader can shoot farther than a .22 rimfire can drop a deer, so why bother?
They let you bait for deer too? Talk about uncivilized!
Personally, I use my .30-06 for deer, and that because I can't quite justify buying a .243 or .270 to replace a perfectly good rifle. But .223 is too damn small to do a deer reliably, imho
Hmm, so we can increase the tax base by raising the minimum wage. Alright, let's raise it to $100 per hour! That should help the economy LOTS, right?
No? What do you mean, it would cause inflation if we raised the minimum wage? Surely that wouldn't have an effect on Social Security, just because it is indexed to inflation?
HINT: we cannot legislate prosperity. If raising Minimum Wage were all that were required to fix all economic problems, we would have done it long ago.
#2. For the cost of the medicare system, we can publicize the whole thing and bring out Universal Health Care. Again overal this would create more a more efficent system, which basic economics says creates more jobs, meaning a higher tax base. As well, it would have a nice side-effect of fighting overseas job loss, as rising health care costs are a big motivator to move the jobs in the first place. Cut the parasites out.
It's possible that nationalizing healthcare would lower costs. It's possible it would raise costs. What is certain is that if you replace Insurance Company bean-counters with Government bean-counters, it won't produce improved healthcare. Or do you believe that the Government bean-counters have your best interests at heart, as opposed to say, their own?
#3. Make it official government policy to have as many people to work as possible. Current government policy is to maintain a certain unemployment rate to fight inflation. Get the people you need to do whatever jobs needed to be done. Sure it costs tax dollars. But with all the spinoff money of those jobs, the amount of taxes taken in will much more than account for the additional costs.
Assuming we add all unemployed to the workforce today, that increases tax revenues by ~7% (if the unemployed all get jobs at the "average" income). Which isn't enough to make much dent in the CURRENT deficit, much less the deficit envisioned when the babyboom generation leaves the workforce.
Yeah the corporations will bitch and scream. But it's pure survival folks. It's them or us.
Interesting point of view. I take it you are self-employed? Because if you work for a corporation (I do, a small one, but incorporated it is), you might want to keep in mind that by raising costs for your employer to keep you employed, he might just decide he can't afford to pay you anymore.
We exist in a symbiotic relation with "the corporations" (or "the rich") - if they fail to prosper, we will also fail to prosper. It's not US vs. THEM, it's us AND them....
Umm, no. The National Debt increased every year Clinton was in office. Even when we had that "surplus", the National Debt was increasing. Go figure.
possibly institute a small national sales tax on luxury items
Raise your hands if you don't believe that such a sales tax wouldn't be expanded to include pretty much everything within twenty years!
Note, by the way, that the original Income Tax was for incomes greater than $50,000. At that time, $50,000 income could only be had if you were very rich (it's more or less equivalent to $500,000 per year now). Funny how that one trickled down, isn't it?
Are you aware that the original Social Security retirement age was set above the average life expectancy at the time?
In the late sixties and seventies, the Republicans were seen as the Party of Big Government.
In the eighties and nineties, the Democrats were the Party of Big Government
Now, the Republicans are taking that position again.
It will be interesting to see whether the Democrats have enough sense to become more libertarian in outlook to counter it, or remain as they have for the last 20 years, and leave us with two Parties of Big Government.