A vastly more logical conclusion would be that you are given to "hasty generalization".

There's a formal list of logical errors people are prone to, and that's one of them. Wikipedia
can enlighten you further if you care to learn.

Upon second glance, I see you're also guilty of "argmentum ad hominem", or name-calling.

Making up lies about other people can get complicated, so to lessen the mental burden some
liars simply tell complete truths about themselves, in the guise of an accusation of others.

I know this sounds like a trite oversimplification, but it is quite common. Recognizing it
allows you to learn more about the false accuser than he has any idea he is revealing.

This may or may not apply to you; if the shoe fits, wear it.

Why is *anything* that is life & death sensitive to the masses put onto the internet
in the first place? I understand things needing to be connected to *some* kind of network
for remote monitoring and control, but why is that network the internet? So the operators
can shop for shoes or surf for porn while they're bored?

It makes no sense to me at all.

Even if there were never any agreement on anything it would serve the incredibly valuable purpose of
making diplomats from different countries available to each other on a casual basis. And it's a place
where anger gets vented, allowing even the most laughable claims of "national wounded pride" to be
avenged verbally, rather than militarily.

Recall that there are numerous countries in the world where insulting words are the moral equivalent of
physical attack. Not every culture believes the remedy for words is words, and for actions is commensurate
actions.

If you don't think that verbal ego-soothing has ever prevented a military attack you'd be overestimating
the emotional maturity of many of the world's leaders.

Trouble is, such incidents aren't easy to document. If such numbers could be produced, IMHO they'd make
the UN's value easy to see. But then producing them would embarass tempermental leaders, putting us back
at square one.

| And don't they stop treating cancer patients in some European countries if they're too old?

Here in America you just have to run out of money for treatment to stop, or have your insurance
company decide to retroactively cancel your policy as of the day you bought it ("Recision" happens
all the time. Some companies pay bonuses to their employees who are their "top recinders".) [PBS]

So we stop treating people who have the most life to lose, and nationally insure those with less.
Isn't it about 80% of hospital dollars are spent in the last 6 months of a person's life? (Often
till their money for Medicare co-payments runs out.)

Not logical. Not merciful. Profitable for those in the know.

Come US national health, there will be a market for covering the things that the national program
doesn't cover (like cancer therapies past certain ages, etc.) for those who want and can afford them.
Some national health countries make this illegal, others allow this market to exist. I don't see us
in America banning this private-sector-for-money option.

| Nowhere else in retail does the original maker get 70% of the price to himself. People count
| themselves lucky to receive 10-20%

What about consignment stores, which is a fair analogy. They don't get a 30% commission
do they?

And I don't think that giving software developers an incentive for vengeance is a particularly
comforting plan from the customer's point of view.

Every once in a while Apple seems to do something that makes me imagine a picture of a roasted
pig with an apple in its mouth, and makes me think how glad I am not to be trapped by them.

It's only once in a while, but nobody likes to feel stupid and victimized. Not that feeling
vandalized by Wintel-specific spyware/viruses is any fun either.

Clearly I'm talking myself into going Linux!

The mothering test did indeed use actual mother lab rats whose own pups were placed in the
next compartment, a few inches away down the footshock hallway.

Once fertilization takes place, few species involve fathers at all, tho humans are among
the exceptions. Hence the use of the gender-specific term mothering rather than, say, nurturing
or parenting.

Surely tho, you've felt the simultaneous urges to at once ravish and protect the 20th century's
film goddess Marilyn Monroe? If you've never seen any of her films you've got something to
look forward to. (If watching with a girlfriend, I recommend "The Misfits", unless you and
she are really not suited to each other, in which case I'd stay away from that one, lest she
break up with you before the evening is over.) It features a lot of horses.

| The sex drive is second only the hunger drive so if the teen has a full stomach then what
| do you think the next priority is?

It doesn't invalidate your point, but sex comes in at a distant fifth. Top five needs are:
Breathing, thirst, hunger, mothering and sex in that order, as determined by the amount
of voltage a lab rat will withstand in order to meet each of these needs.

Reference: __How to Get Whatever You Want Out of Life__ by Dr. Joyce Brothers, my second
favorite book title ever. Amazingly, it's full of practical suggestions, rather than
vague platitudes.

You certainly have a point, but you're overstating it.

Perfect objectivity may be imposssible for us as human beings, but that does not lead to
the logical conclusion that we should not even try.

Some of us are really pretty good at it, and some of us are atrocious. There really is a
vast, vast difference between the most and least objective among us. And that's before
considering those who willing lie thru their teeth in support of one or another bias.

Then there is the case of Fox News, most (but not all) of whose broadcasters make no
attempt at objectivity, but repeatedly make the laughable "Fair and Balanced" claim.

One of my favorite Fox moments was a few years ago when the late Merv Griffin appeared on some
opinion show. The exchange began something like this:

"Welcome to Fox news Mr. Griffin!"

"Glad to be here. Love Fox news, that's my politics."

"Yessiree, fair and balanced," said one of their many idiotic broadcasters.

"No you're not. Don't be ridiculous," said Merv, laughing.

The broadcaster quickly moved to the actual news topic at hand.

I'd love to see this snippet on youtube!

| Unfortunately, most news sources in the US are biased, and the number of mainstream media outlets
| with liberal leanings appear to outnumber the conservative ones.

Uh, that may have been true during the Viet Nam war, but it certainly became completely false
by the time of the Iraq war.

"The big lie", a propaganda method popularized by the Nazis, persuades people by claiming something
rather outrageous, and then repeating it endlessly. The first time people hear the lie, they think
any idiot can tell that's false, but when they hear it again they think "those people aren't idiots --
the outrageous thing must be true! How very interesting! I must tell so-and-so about it!" If you
don't think hard and get real facts, you'll be fooled. If you do think hard and try to get facts,
you're likely to be laughed at, ostracized or worse. But if you don't bother to think hard, you'll
always wind up doing someone else's bidding, and not even realizing it.

You might want to change your single opinion about media bias into two or more different ones, depending
on the decade in question.

| Here we have voted 4 times for a lotto ... more than 80% for ... So why don't we have a lotto?

That's wild! Which state?

You're certainly on the right track in keeping the already corrupt or irresponsible far away from positions of power.

But you're missing the boat if you think that principled, responsible people don't get corrupted by power. Not everyone will fall to the temptation, of course, but the greater the power the greater the temptation. We have checks and balances not just to prevent the corrupt from becoming too powerful but also to protect the good people from having too large a concentration of power tempting them in the first place.

Technically it's an exaggeration to say "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," but it's definitely not an exaggeration to say that "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."

Secrecy, since it prevents that vigilance, is particularly corrupting.

I especially agree with your desire to see corrupt people who are so far gone that they're advertising it, nailed to the courtroom wall. I don't know enought facts about this particular cop/myspace situation to have a useful opinion on it, but I think we *all* know enought about, say Cheney, to have a useful opinion.

The question that remains is whether Obama will prefer to keep the excessive power that's been stolen and passed along to him, or give it back and investigate the theives who stole it. The jury's still out on that question, but so far it's a mixed bag.

I'm rooting for the Constitution. It isn't perfect, but it's way better than what we've got now.

[ Wow -- 1658's a lo plate # -- props! ]

Wow -- a real live grownup! Willing to actually bother *thinking* and everything!

What a country we could have if everybody was like that!

Please mod parent up!

I'd blame the illegally appointed Bushies holding career positions rather then mere inertia.

A previous administration's holdover appointees can certainly become vicious sabateurs. (Viz. the wretched Linda Tripp)