Just look at the incredible amount of violence shown in children's cartoons (Tom&Jerry, Road Runner, etc)

These two cartoons were from the 50s and 60s. What has that got to do with violence today? These days, the only children's cartoons that spring to mind are Spongebob Squarepants and Avatar: The Last Airbender. They aren't at all violent in comparison.

or your average Hollywood movie (the cinema massacre was nothing compared to the on-screen violence by the "hero" Batman).

First, it was an action movie. There are whole genres of Hollywood movie that aren't action movies.

Second, did you see that movie? Batman hardly committed any violence at all. He was, in fact, either retired or incapacitated for over half of it. And, of course, Batman doesn't shoot people — it's one of his defining characteristics — so that last parenthetical is just laughably wrong.

I think his "50 year" number is a bit odd, as it's based on absolutely no foundation, other than a few loose correlations. Instead, he should model it like you do for animal patterns: generational trends. It makes a lot of sense that violence would peak every two generations... which these days, is about every 50 years.

Did you even read what you wrote? The "50 year" number is from generational trends. He called it the "father-son" cycle.

There is the argument that you can create any paradox you like in time travel, so long as you the time traveller don't know that it would be paradoxical. Basically, anything in your personal light-cone is known, and anything outside is unknown and can change without notice if the universe needs to do so in order to keep things consistent within your light-cone.

So if you time-travel to some point where you've been or will be, try to avoid seeing yourself. Because if you can see yourself, you can't go off the rails. But if you can't see yourself, you have total freedom.

I can't remember the novel that elaborated on this idea, but it's heady one. But unfortunately, as I recall, it mostly only works at interstellar distances.

Don't the global warming alamists claim a 2 degree increase in the next 100 years? You had to "plan ahead for that"?

That's the average worldwide increase. In actuality, it'll be highly variable from region to region. Some places will get colder, some more will get hotter, all will get nastier weather, some will flood, some will go dry. It really is more "climate change" than "global warming."

Reconciliation is legal. There are a lot of Congressional procedural rules that suck. But they are there, nonetheless, waiting for someone to use them.

It doesn't make sense that we wouldn't be. Did people stop dying or competing sexually?

Kinda. For those of us in developed nations, at least, we don't die too often, and we may compete sexually, but we often don't have kids if we win.

we need someone to serve us burgers.

You're a burger, and you expect to get served?

On a plate with fries, presumably.

I know you didn't just say the JavaScript is Zen-like!

That's it, I'm gettin' mah gun.

Oh, trust me. Animals are not pure and noble. They do the same shit we do, but they do it with only the gifts God gave them. Dolphins rape, baboons terrorize their underlings, birds get into pissing matches, they all ostracize the different, and they do these things both with and without good cause. Just like us.

Two insightful responses to this, but I have no mod points to award. :-(

If the Tea Party can't get it together enough to have someone sane represent them, then they don't have what it takes to be a contender.

I suppose that statement applies to the Republican Party, too...

You need to be more specific with your Christianity. Southern churches were all for slavery or segregation. They read the Bible such that blacks were inherently inferior and made that way by God as part of his plan. Northern churches felt differently.

The correct response to this illusion of choice is to give us back choice, not to merely get rid of the illusion. Ditch the incentives to tie insurance to employment.

What incentives are these? No one wants to tie insurance to employment. But a company is the only way to get a group rate, at least until the Obamacare health care exchange provisions come into effect by 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_exchange

If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters.

So then obviously the solution is too make these officials elected. Like my local insurance commissioner.

How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes?

Already the case. Smoking? Heart medication? These all crop up later in life. And are covered by my tax dollars, in the form of Medicare. Basically, this has already been the scenario my entire life. Where's the outrage?

How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?

I am not being scored now, am I? And my treatment once I hit retirement is not being determined by my health habits now, is it?

But by your arguments, all of this should have already taken place in the years since the Baby Boomers have really started to impact the financial bottom line. It hasn't. You are fear-mongering.

The first thing that you never get is that it is a fall back system. It is a very good fall back system but plenty of people still pay for better private care.

Health insurance is not a fallback system in the US; it is the only system, unless you are among the very rich. Private care is too expensive. That is why the debate is so fierce and alarmist. We only have the one basket for all our eggs.