It is interesting how much your "well off liberal" rhetoric overlaps with "fox-type conservative". You are both afraid of some dark skinned boogyman. Except, your plan is appeasement, while the conservative plan is self-defense.

Its also the same reason the radical Muslims can convince angry young men to blow themselves up.

I don't think the world needs any more activists.

Judging by your user number and the likely age that makes you, I suspect you are projecting your own experience here.

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage,
I've found that just surviving was a noble fight
I once believed in causes too, had my pointless point of view
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

As long as you don't go so rural that you can't get high speed internet.

A better fix is not to work for a large multinational corporation.

Globalization isn't the only thing that undercuts the argument, monetary and trade policy destroys it as well.

We can very easily make the minimum wage whatever we want... we just print enough dollars and it won't matter.

People speak of a "race to the bottom" when it comes to labor... but the real thing to fear is a race to the bottom with inflation and aggressive monetary policy to gain international trade leverage. The rest of the world has kind of cringed as China has done it (and the US did it as well, with a 2 trillion+ injection through "bailouts"), but if everyone went down the same road, it could be devastating on the entire world economy.

Except they don't own guns and they keep voting for people that want to ban them. So... yeah, not going to happen.

It's the same story all over. There are plenty of open jobs. There are few jobs for people with no skills. People with no skills whine about there being no jobs.

Making it worse is that the irresponsible venture capital of the last 90s and 2000 made some people that have no skills believe that they actually do have skills.

Simple explanation on this, actually. That article has a ton of comments, so I had to click "Load More Comments" before I could see your reply #46185253.

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about the religion of evolution, not the science of evolution. Certainly, scientifically speaking, evolution has falsifiable predictions; not that it matters to the zealots.

You contradict yourself. You seem to believe by faith that there is no substantive research possible toward creationism.

Tens to hundreds of thousands of scholars throughout the ages have devoted considerable portions of their lives in the study of God and creationism, yet secular scholars of today refuse to even examine the evidence or even acknowledge its existence.

Wow, a rational response in this thread; nice to see.

I don't agree that Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument from ignorance. In fact, it's exceptional to find opponents to ID that have actually investigated the matter with any rigor.

I'm always amazed that those who would consider themselves "quality thought-leaders" need to resort to name-calling to discuss evolution. It's no different than the Slate article; why bother with facts when propaganda will do?

As a creationist with a scientific background, I don't have a problem with either Evolution per se or abiogenesis per se. Science is merely observing and attempting to explain with a best-fit model what is seen -- what's wrong with that?

Instead, I have a problem with the religion of Evolution/abiogenesis and the battle of its priests against the church. I'm not claiming all or even most scientists fall into this realm, but the vast majority of the vocal anti-creationism crowd certainly does.

A falsifiable theory wouldn't need religious zealots for its defense. Q.E.D.

What a fitting signature.