I ecourage you to review Genesis 22:7,8.

Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

God WILL provide, not God HAS provided. Abraham knew God was not evil and therefore God would not allow Isacc to be killed. Maybe he would resurect him. Maybe the knife wouldn't hurt Isacc. He had no idea how god would resolve the issue, but he knew he would be returning with Isacc.

Now lets translate this to the Aliens. They down from the sky in a spaceship, performed all sorts of wonders and miracles, and predicted the future with uncanny accuracy, and even helped me and my wife conceive when we thought it was impossible.

Then the aliens then tell you that they need your son, whom they helped to create, to continue to be able to communicate with you and the earth in general. From you experience with these beings you know they are moral beings. You know that even if your son isn't with you he will be well cared for.

What do you do now?

Now your second assessment... I think you are tripping over a few language and cultural issues. From the prior section we know that Soddom and Gramorrah were currently at war with their neighbors. Next, strangers (not aliens as for as you can tell) randomly show up. The people of Soddom decide they might be spies and since then as now rape is about the most humiliating things one human can do to another, it is beleived that homosexual rape was used extensivly during interrogations.

Next you are forgetting the two most dramatic cultural changes in human society since the transition fromhunter-gatherer to agriculture. Specifically slavery and Womens liberation. Up until about 100 years ago women were assumed to be the property of their husband or the male head of the family. With only a few exceptions women have been property.

In ancient Israel, daughters have no choice on who they marry or even relate to. The daughter is property.

So now the story, now translated to the modern day reads:

Similarly, if {a potential spy} was about to {undergo 'enhanced interrogation'} at my doorstep by an angry mob, I might be willing to try to fight the mob off and risk my life, {I might even try to pay them to go away by giving them my most valuable and treasured property.} Heck, I might even be able to understand it if to fend the mob off I had to offer *myself* up for a good raping.

On the far side of the 20th century, we have to be very carefull that we don't let the morality that modern technology allows to interfere with the morality that has served mankind for over 3000 years.

> Discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous; moral philosophy has been advancing since the bronze age, just like science. There's a reason that religions founded in that era endorse slavery, regard women as property, and practice scapegoating, to name just a few items; they are only as moral, could only possibly be as moral, as the men who founded them were. We can do better today.

> as a practicing physician before the Feds got involved he never saw a patient left to die

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but even so, that can't POSSIBLY be true. I'm only 32 and two people close to me have died because of an inability to afford treatment; one a few years back from melanoma and one just last week from breast cancer.

I suppose it's possible that Ron Paul managed to work as a physician and never notice the poor dying all around him, but is that really the most likely explanation?

Because methane is a pretty reactive molecule. So it reacts spontaneously. In the atmosphere Methane has a half life of about 8 years.

We don't worry much about methane for the same reason we don't worry about H2O. Water vapor causes roughly 60% of all greenhouse effects yet since a water molecule on is in the atmosphere for about 9 days there is not much to worry about.

Co2 has a half life of centuries. So while boiling water on the stove stays in the atmosphere for a few days and cow farts stay in the air for a decade, CO2 stays up there for centuries.

For a long time the only planets we found were 'hot Jupiters'. Jupiter sized planets very close to their star (inside Mercury's orbit).

Why weren't these planets stripped of their atmosphere?

I need to know in case a henchman falls into the tank...

Jason and I worked at Shionogi together for 3 years. I was laid off at the same time.

Shionogi did a piss-poor job of that round of lay-offs. I completely understand his attitude.

Apparently the only reason he was caught is because he used a debit card at the Mcdonalds where he logged in...

Smart guy that did a couple of very stupid things...

btw, in many early towns in the US for the first 100-200 years or so the entire town was pure socialism.

Pure socialism, like Pure capitalism can not survive in large or fast societies. This typically means agrarian societies of no more than about 1000 individuals.

Actually, no.

If you want to see real socialism you really can't find it in the US. You never could. The closest we ever got was a presidential candidate that in the 20's that advocated a 100% tax on anyone making over 100K. We also had some communists elected in the 30's to state government.

Now since the 80's we have had a dramatic push to pure capitalism in the form of 'trickle down economics.'. The current debt crisis is a direct result of the tax policies of the early 80's.

Now, the proper level of government influence is:

#1 protect individuals rights from abuse by others
#2 support individuals to the point where they cna thrive if they work at it (this is a very low threshold of about 60K in income a year)
#3 get out of the way of anyone making more than that (so long as they respect #1)
#4 manage public resources for the public interest
#5 Cover the activities necessary for a growing society but which can not create a profit and are too large for non-profits. (The best example is funding basic research but utilities, FEMA and other emergency services also fall under here. Remember, companies very rarely have future horizons greater than about 7 years. This is due to CEO life span. If an investment takes more than that to turn a profit then no company will invest. There are project that are longer than 7 years but these projects have very low risk {since they aren't basic research} and so the new CEOs tend to buy-in and maintain the projects)

Now we may be tripping over deffinitions.

Pure socialism means there are no personal assets and all assets are assigned by the society.

Pure capitalism means there are no public assets. All assets are owned and managed by the individual.

Pure socialism leads to stagnation once a generation has passed since the next generation didn't agree to the system. Pure capitalism leads to anarchy when everyone realises that they can own anything by taking it. There is zero security and zero ability to cooperate (which involves pooling assets which is no longer pure capitalism). This leads to a 'strong man' essentially taking control of everyone around him and making them into serfs.

Now personally I am a 'Social Capitalist'

This means that the free market and capitalism are the best methods of producing an excellent standard of living for everyone better than 99% of the time. However capitalism MUST serve societal aims. If a company or individual is doing an activity that contradicts the greater good than the society they live in has the right to stop them.

It is in society's best interest to NOT have people starving in the street. To NOT have random epidemics sweep through the population. To NOT have poisoned water and air. Etc.

Since capitalism (with charities) has proven time after time that it is incapable of feeding everyone than society as a whole acting through government has to ensure basic food for everyone to avoid food riots and extreme graft which would hurt capitalism as well as society.

Since capitalism (and charities) have proven time and again that it is incapable of providing health insurance for everyone (in the 60's virtually all senior citizens were denied coverage by the private market which promted medicare) society through government created medicare which prevented a huge drain on financial and time resources as families no longer had to pay for senior care of out pocket and it enabled private industry to actually cover some seniors at a profit.

Since capitalism (and charities) have proven time and again that it is incapable of preserving natural resources for the long term (do I really need to provide a list here?) society acting through government created the EPA and other agencies to ensure that private individuals do not destroy public property without consequences.

I could go on but I hope you get the point.

We don't have socialism. We NEVER had socialism.

If you actually compare the policies of Obama against the policies defined as socialist etc from the last 150 years you will find that he actual falls out as a moderate to borderline extreme CONSERVATIVE.

The issue is that today we are more conservative than we have ever been in the last 600 years on this continent.

Take a look at how socialism was defined when communism was actually around... it is extremly different than how socialism is defined by the right as of this moment.

I said limited socialism.

Pure socialism lasts for about a generation. The next generation will generally not follow in the same footsteps and productivity dropps dramatically

Pure capitalism last for about 5 years. It then degrads into anarchy and is reborn as feudalism.

But Limited capitalism with some socialist aspects is the ONLY form of government that has actually lasted any length of time.

Please find me an example of pure capitalism that lasted more than a few years.

Ohh, so you are against the free market!

You must be a SOCIALIST!!!

But honestly, I still have yet to have one person explain how limited socialism is a bad thing. Every time it has been tried it tends to improve standards of living, improve access to free markets and improve economies

Without the federal subsidies AND the special liability protection offered to Coal, oil and gas they would fail.

If you wiped out all subsidies, Coal, Oil and Gas WOULD be cheaper slightly. Afterall, they have 125 years of infrastructure built.

People said the same thing about thoes fancy horseless carriages and the new fangled steam-ships.

Subsidies are important to give new and promising technology an opportunity in the market. Solar is still a baby. We are every year finding new and dramatic ways to improve solar. It will probably be a baby for another 20 years. Coal, Oil and gas haven't been babes for 50+ years. We have seen a small improvement in efficiency but thats it.

Once a technology is no longer in development it should be stripped of subsidies and protections and allowed to stand on its own. Coal, Oil and gas never have done this.

Except with every other power system you have fuel costs as well.

So it takes (making up numbers) 10 people per megawatt to install a coal plant and 15 people per megawatt to install a solar plant. Every year the coal plant spends a few million in fuel and maintenance. Solar has maintenance only and if you are a grid tied system, not much maintenance at all.

Solar needs to drop about 50% from current prices to be directly competetive with the current subsidized price of coal power. If we dropped the subsidies and legal protections than Solar would be directly competetive now.

I have been unable to find what he is referencing.

I was responding to his complaint about transparency and I never looked up his actual source issue. I am unable to verify what he claims which makes me suspicious.

I hope he will cite a source for his claim.

I have no problem with that actually.
But what we really need to do is go back to the taxing system we had when we were agressivly paying down debt AND had a killer economy.

I am not talking about the 90's. I am talking about the 60's.

In the 60's the top tax bracket was at 75% and we had the strongest economy we have ever had.

It sort of makes you think.