A weaker dollar, which is almost inevitable in the future as the petrodollar scheme falls apart, will bring back much more manufacturing, especially if the government swings back to a more business-friendly (as opposed to BIG business friendly, which is not the same) type of environment. Our manufactured goods, both exports and those consumed internally, will become that much cheaper, compared to their foreign counterparts, so we will be producing and exporting more, and importing less. There will be much short-term pain, as energy and food we still need to import will become more expensive, but the longer-term benefit to America's productive capacity should more than outweigh this pain especially in the Northeast, the Rust Belt, Chicago, and Southern California. The more rural and/or Southern states should see some benefits as well, because higher food and commodity prices will greatly improve their financial outlook as well. In the end, we are better off with a weaker dollar as long as both exchange rates and interest rates are allowed to float to reach a market-clearing equilibrium, which they currently are not; and as long as the current pro-corporate regime is dismantled and replaced with one more friendly to ordinary businesses, and hence American workers.

Not always. It varies by the vaccine.

The U.S. is uniquely influenced by a warped view of Christianity, that treats sexuality as evil. The actual teaching of Christianity is that sex has permanent physical, emotional and spiritual consequences, and is thus meant to be part of a loving and committed relationship, not a temporary or fleeting one. It isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing that should not be abused and cheapened. Which of course we do, by trying to repress it to the point where we end up being exposed from childhood to only the abuse of sexuality, where the proper use, within loving and committed relationships, no longer exists (and would be taboo even if it did) because such relationships really no longer exist in our culture, with divorce rates exceeding 50% in urban areas and approaching it elsewhere as well. So, in the process of trying to ban all public display of sexuality, we end up becoming among the most hyper-sexualized societies in the world, paying vast sums of money just to see other people's body parts (and learning to see those people just as collections of body parts), because we grew up thinking that sexuality is somehow unnatural as evil. It is sick, and it is not at all what God intended. I'd dare say that Europe is a lot less sick in spite of being a lot less overtly Christian, and I say that *as* a Christian or at least an aspiring one. Now, I'm not just trying to slam pornography. I see it as a problem, sure, but also as a symptom of a much deeper one: we do not naturally form strong, lifelong bonds with other human beings, as people in more sustainable cultures do, usually from adolescence; therefore, we have no socially-sanctioned outlets for our sexuality, which, being the powerful part of our being that it is, naturally seeks expression in some other way. People need each other, for a lot of reasons, of which sex is one, but not the only one. For a variety of reasons our culture does a very poor job of encouraging this, and even discourages it in many ways. I want to be out of the USSA for this among many other reasons. I want our children to grow up in an environment where human beings can live as human beings without having to make excuses or apologize for being the way they are, and where they can grow and mature to the point of being able to start a family before they are too old to actually have one.

Well, a number of autoimmune disorders are strongly correlated with government-approved (and sometimes government-mandated) vaccines. Even the government admits this. There's no proof of causation, yet, but there is more than sufficient reason for concern and further study, preferably by disinterested parties (not governments *or* drug companies, who, jointly, fund the vast majority of research currently being done).

I was a pretty strong advocate of Java at one point, believing it would eventually be freed, that multiple competing, but mostly compatible, implementations would be created, that it would eventually run on both the smallest and largest systems, and that over time the industry would standardize on it. Except for the last, all of the above have arguably come true. So why do I now avoid it like the plague?

• Oracle. A company with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, which got its start building government spy databases, and has become progressively more evil ever since. I do not trust Oracle to do the right thing. Not now, and not ever.
• The USSA, in which software patents flourish and put any U.S.-based software projects, or anything using them, at perpetual risk.
• Better Free alternatives. Granted, none exactly like Java (or C#) and that don't have similar problems. But the Free world offers abundant choices of languages, frameworks, tools, and technologies that can do all that Java can.
• Better non-Free alternatives as well, most notably C# (this matters only because in my view Java itself is not Free, at least not in the USSA where I live).
• The culture of gratuitous complexity and bureaucracy that has surrounded Java, almost since the beginning. IFoobarFactoryFactoryFactory anyone? Or EJBs? Granted, this way of thinking has infested the .NET world as well, but insofar as I can tell, Javaland is where it started.
• Some bad design choices which prevented Java from evolving to match C# or more dynamic languages, for instance, type erasure.

It is very sad. Java had the potential to become the lingua franca of the entire software universe, and a darn good one at that. It didn't, and now that Oracle has gone all lawsuit-happy over it, I just don't see anyone with a choice in the matter ever wanting to touch it again.

A number of other languages will run on the CLR, and from what I understand, the new DLR is designed specifically to support dynamic languages (e.g., Ruby, Python, Perl, F#) while still maintaining access to CLR types and code. I'm normally a huge fan of free and open-source software, but even I have to concede that Microsoft did a great job with C# and .NET.

You talk to the leaders and explain that if they knowingly shelter criminals, they are criminals themselves, and subject to capture, trial, and punishment as accomplices (again, think slow, painful, and most importantly PUBLIC death). Most political leaders are much more concerned about protecting their own power, wealth and prestige than about the welfare of those underneath them, whether criminals or not, and will be more than eager to cooperate rather than to risk losing all of the above. Those who don't, can die horribly, and then burn in hell forever afterwards. But regardless, either way, you are not targeting innocents. You never target innocents. If the "leaders" of a country choose to harbor criminals, they become criminals themselves, and then you can get them, but still never target innocents.

The solution to the problem of "war" is very simple: refuse to recognize it or engage in it. Practice lawful-self-defense instead, which means that: (a) you don't commit aggression yourself, and (b) if someone else aggresses against you, you go after them, but not innocents. E.g.: you kill ANY of my people and I will hunt you down, capture you, try you, and (if you are found guilty) kill you. Slowly, painfully, and publicly. However, I will *not* harm your family, or innocent bystanders, or other people who happened to be born in your country. I will attempt to punish aggressors, but NEVER the innocent, even if you hide among them. (But I will wait for you to come out, and *then* I will hunt you down, capture you, try you, and kill you.) Self-defense, and when necessary force in self-defense, are often justified, but the complete and total lawlessness we call "war," and the resulting, self-perpetuating cycle of ever-escalating harm against innocents, is never justified.

I would tend to agree. But it does fly in the face of the "people of faith are irrational/ignorant/anti-science" meme that's so popular here. Actually, if there is anything that is truly irrational and ignorant, it is to judge a group of over a billion people (both Christians and Muslims would quality in the broadest sense) by the purported actions of a few. Sadly, that kind of bigotry is alive and well today.

Agreed, and it could be added that we have Islamic scholarship to thank for much of our knowledge of the ancient world, not to mention significant scientific achievements of its own.

Author of article, who apparently fails to undestand that correlation != causation, proposes repeal of the law of supply and demand. Film at 11.

If this were a "Christian Theocracy," then "divorce" would not be lawful except in the case of adultery. I for one would prefer that over the mess we have now.

If you were a national of a country that had invaded mine, for no lawful reason, and had murdered hundreds of thousands if not millions of my fellow countrymen, not just soldiers trying desperately to protect it, but innocent civilians as well, sometimes for sport, I would advise you very strongly not to come here, and if you were already here, to leave at once. You may not consider yourself to be part of the invading/occupying force, but trust me, there are enough people there who will, and will consider you a completely legitimate target.

Even if you are OK with the risk of dying, consider that you might not die, but maybe lose a few limbs, maybe your eyesight, maybe a part of your brain. Maybe you'll live 60 more years but in constant, agonizing, unbearable pain. Maybe you'll need dozens of expensive surgeries that will bankrupt you and everyone around you. War is not exciting, glorious, pretty, or fun. It is the sum of all evil. Avoid it if you can.

Others have pointed out that there are plenty of interesting, exciting and safe places in the world where you would be welcome, provided you behaved yourself, and would have little trouble finding gainful employment. There are banking, tax, and of course cultural issues to consider, which I'd strongly recommend researching in advance. But it still can be a tremendously enlightening and rewarding experience.

I'm convinced that God wants me to love my neighbor as myself, which includes (but is not necessarily limited to) respecting his or her rights. I was raised with the belief, based on a different understanding of Christianity, that sometimes it is OK to violate those rights, for the "greater good;" that war or theft or slavery could sometimes be justified. My current faith, which is rooted less in tradition and more in Scripture, tells me that they cannot, because each of these things fails to respect the inherent dignity and worth with which God created every living being. Do I live in perfect accordance with these beliefs? Not really. But when I realize I've failed, I ask God and whomever I may have wronged, if that's possible, for forgiveness; I try to make amends; and I strive to do better over time, with God's help. Would I do so as a completely non-Christian? I don't know for certain, but I'm guessing probably not. I know I didn't really even try before. I did try to behave honorably and decently, but according to what I now consider to be an insufficiently complete definition of decency and honor, and without even being aware that I could seek God's help just as simply as by asking for it.

I very much appreciate your attempt at encouragement! My understanding of Scripture, which is influenced by Reformed teaching, is that there is a state in which a person can know about God intellectually, and even want to follow Him to some extent, but the soil of his or her soul just isn't quite right (see the parable of the sower) and that's where I think I am. The passage from James that I think you're referring to also illustrates one of the results of that state: a person in it can claim to "believe," but only in the same way that the devils also do, and with the exact same results. I do not believe that salvation is determined purely by choice, but mainly by the calling and purposes of God; but supposing that on that point I were mistaken: there certainly are times I would choose it, but there are also other times when I would not. A person with such wavering intentions cannot expect the blessing of God. That is one reason I think the Reformers' understanding and teaching about salvation makes more sense: it is God's calling and His election, not ours; it is pure grace, and works, even the work of believing, is evidence of salvation rather than its cause (Eph. 2:10).