It's not as simple as that.
Obscenity not protected by the first amendment if it passes the miller test, from wikipedia:
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
Perhaps we shouldn't be dealing with absolutes, is intelligence hereditary or isn't it? Perhaps it isn't a Boolean value at all. I'll suggest that intelligence has more to do with parenting and nutrition than with genes but discounting genes entirely is foolish.
In such a complex organism as the Human being, wouldn't it be some great combination of factors that align to form genius?
No. That is selection for hard work, and fitness to work. At least, that is the case in non-welfare states.
Right? Welfare totally pays enough to afford cosmetic surgery and the wealthy are never self centered.
Hey, this is an alarmist article. You're supposed to be scared, not use rational thought.
What are you, Canadian?
I could argue that but then, there's probably some scientific study somewhere.
There is another reason to drink coffee in the mornings, however; once the caffeine wears off, I become tremendously relaxed and have an easy time falling asleep. Coffee helps with insomnia in it's delightful little way.
Sorry, friend. Alcohol wrecks both. You can see it in long time alcoholics, they're slower, make worse decisions and are generally more aggressive. Long time potheads are sometimes lazier but generally more pleasant to be around.
But don't take my word for it. http://phys.org/news157280425.html
Obama has pushed it even further in only 4 years than Bush did in 8...
I believe you're mistaken, at least partially. It's a common misconception that Obama contributed more than Bush to the financial collapse but the vast majority of statistics I've seen have suggested otherwise.
If we look at unemployment for instance, there was a sharp rise that began in 2008, which can hardly be blamed on Obama. Obama came into office as things were already going poorly and while he may not have done enough to fix it, the mess was clearly not his doing.
Since he's been in office, we've seen a slow but steady improvement in the economy and a decrease in unemployment rates. Though his handling of fiscal policies has been poor, he's still above Bush in my eyes, who cut taxes and began two unfunded wars.
Sources too, since everyone here loves data: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Note that Obama became president in the middle of that big uphill slope.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.