I don't think you need to use a "wooden spoon" to raise children.

My Dad had a fairly novel solution to the "temper tantrum in the store" problem. He simply ignored my tantrum and walked away. Once I realized that I was by myself I got scared and ran to the next aisle to find him. Of course, I immediately started my tantrum again, but he just walked away again. Once I learned that throwing the tantrum wouldn't get me what I wanted, I stopped throwing them -- no "wooden spoon" required.

The research shows that corporal punishment is not a good way to raise children. It causes them to become impulsive and violent, and in the end, they won't internalize the values that you wish to teach them, and then they'll run wild as soon as you're not around.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been groped by the TSA?

Because my girlfriend got groped and it really wasn't as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be. People are just overreacting and letting their imaginations run wild.

Yeah, what do you do? Carry bricks around? Wash dishes? Clean shit-stained toilets in the men's restroom?

Please, enlighten us.

Anonymous was never really about spreading a message anyway. It's just for amusement. The chief past-time of the group is pulling elaborate pranks and sharing jokes and stories.

I found it particularly annoying when people started referring to Anonymous as a group that was formed to combat Scientology. Making fun of Scientologists is amusing, but pretending that Anonymous has some sort of credo or mission or organization of any kind whatsoever is just annoying and wrong.

I don't think it trivializes human rights at all.

Say for instance you have a third world country led by a petty dictator who declares it illegal to discuss politics with foreigners (e.g. Libya). If such a government set up a state television network and a state internet to spread lies and propaganda, while banning it's citizens from accessing the world wide web and talking to foreigners, then yes, I would say that a human right had been violated

Basically, if you aren't economically able to provide access to the internet for your citizens, you aren't committing a great injustice or war crime or whatever. But if you could provide it, and you choose to ban it instead, then that would sound like something wrong to me.

Bullshit. The Libyans can't throw out Qaddafi and his supporters without help. They have air and land superiority ... fighter jets, tanks, and a well-organized and disciplined infantry. I have also heard reports that Qaddafi's forces have attacked the rebels with chemical gas, although this may not be true.

The rebels are mostly civilians and their best weapons are RPGs. Their leader is an IT worker with no military experience. They were losing ground, too, with the Libyan military approaching the rebellion's stronghold. If captured, they would likely be slaughtered.

As someone who opposed both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I think these cruise missiles were well-spent.

What in the world made you think that gtall disagrees with assisting the rebels? Nothing in his post indicated that.

If anything I think he was trying to suggest that the U.S. decision to intervene wasn't motivated by a desire for oil.

Stop creating explanations for the existence of life and the universe without evidence and then trying to make the available evidence fit into your explanation. That is a sure-fire way to end up with a faulty scientific process and a biased opinion to boot.

Sincerely, an agnostic.

One of the great things about universities - if you want a random scientific article you can often go online and download it, as opposed to coughing up $30

So true.