Tony wrote on Jul 5, 2007 10:16 PM:How can anyone have doubts about Evolution. It was proven if you watched the televised political debates. there was proof positive that man has evolved from monkeys

LaLa wrote on Jul 5, 2007 10:54 PM: to d'Anconia post 7/5 8:08 PM. You're wrong. "

el_patron wrote on Jul 5, 2007 11:09 PM:It's a rare and fortunate position to be wealthy in the USA. I believe they should pay for it. How much? Some fine line between what the society beneath them needs and what they will stay for. Bill 'em; they'll stay. And we outnumber them. Take them with votes, they'll stay and pay.

Seems to me wrote on Jul 5, 2007 11:36 PM:it would be better to have the fireworks on the week end before or after the Fourth so that there will be fewer people there. It took us hours to get through the crowds and my kids saw the stabbing and were scared. If it wasn't so crowded the police could weed out the bad guys easier.

Laughing at Denis wrote on Jul 5, 2007 11:52 PM:It's a powerline, get a grip. The people opposed to this seem to be lacking any sense at all.

Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:17 AM:Evolution fails the scientific test of repeatability. It's easy to apply a preconceived notion to the fossil record, but there are no current scientific tests showing a cat evolving into a dog. Or a snake into a lizard. Until you can demonstrate the theory actually works, there is no proof. All you have is dogma.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:56 AM:Well, "el_patron" 11:09pm, I own an acre of land, do you believe that 3/4 of that should be taken by the government and given to 3 or 4 families? Your steal from the rich garbage is the same thing, THEFT. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 6:49 AM:I might add, "el_patron" 11:09pm, that I spent 10 years co-designing and building my house, with my two hands. By your twisted thinking the fruits of my labor, our home, should be declared public housing and have the government move 2 more couples into our house, our home. The theft of the fruits of one's labor, be it a home or money is still THEFT. If I must pay taxes, it should be for those things that our government was designed to do, NOT be the ROBBING HOOD, socialist crap that you seem to want. I guess you never heard of hard work and feel that STEALING what someone else has earned is OK. You apparently will not be satisfied until no one has more than anyone else. That is a really good dis-incentive to work harder, because the harder you work the more pay you get and the more that gets STOLEN. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jul 6, 2007 7:11 AM:el_patron wrote on Jul 5, 2007 11:09 PM: Not true. The wealthy could easily leave with their wealth or they could remain and transfer their wealth overseas in a blink of an eye. Besides,you do not have the votes. The really wealthy can buy votes just as they do elections.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 7:34 AM:Well, "Floyd", what do you offer up instead of evolution? What scientific test does your other theory pass? It is all a matter of belief, nothing more. We can see the evidence of electricity, and all the theories surrounding it, right here on the screen and yet not one person has ever seen an electron, have they? Your objection to evolution is apparently based on the fact that it does not go along with your belief system, not on any real ability to verify either evolution (to your satisfaction) or your mythology. Give it a rest. Accept that many others have different beliefs or live in perpetual struggle for nothing. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 7:51 AM:Why should a person graduate high school, then 4 years of College, then 4 years of Medical School, then 3 years of Residency, then get Board Certified in their Specialty, then keep earning Continuing Medical Education credits to maintain their licensure if they will be taxed to the point that they earn little more than an 8th grade drop-out who flips burgers or bags groceries? "el_patron" seems to think that no matter how one "gets rich", the problem is that they are rich while others are poor. The real problem is the entire "entitlement" concept, the idea that someone or everyone is "entitled" to something for which they have not worked or earned. Mere existence DOES NOT mean that anyone is entitled to any material thing for which they have not paid, either by work or money. Equality of opportunity is not and can not be the same as equality of outcome. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Jul 6, 2007 7:57 AM:Alf: While I completely concur with your sentiments on this issue -- Robin Hood is a bit of a good guy. He did not steal from the rich to give to the poor as most recall. He stole from the Sheriff of Nottingham (the tax collector)...he stole from the GOVERNMENT to give to the poor. Actually, he returned to the people that which the government had plundered, an altogether different thing that most people in those days apparently thought quite well of. Some of us still do.

to Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:05 AM:What proof is there AGAINST the theory of evolution? What proof is there AGAINST the biblical account? Report back to us please. Thank you in advance.

To "Gene Vitamanti" wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:08 AM:God isn't in the business of writing literature. He also isn't in the business of being judged by humans such as yourself or me. If it makes you feel better to call it mythical and moral, so be it. Just don't be surprised when you find out someday that man didn't come from monkeys.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:16 AM:I am aware of the difference, "Reardon", that's why I used ROBBING HOOD, a hooded robber like in Hagar, because it is the government doing the robbing. A problem occurs when the government adopts the egalitarian attitude of the far left, "sock it to the rich", and keeps going and going and going. A Libertarian for a reason, Alf.

OBSERVATIN wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:29 AM:To "Gene Vitamanti" wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:08 AM: You seem to think that God wrote the Bible. Strange, I have never seen him at any book signings.

Selection pressure wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:30 AM:Despite all the blathering here about either-or, anyone who thinks about it for a moment will see that we, like every western nation, is somewhere between capitalism and socialism. What we aregue about is where, exactly, is the best place to be in there. I worry a lot that our current version (even compared to, let's say, how we lived 50 or 60 years ago) has become SO individualistic that we are increasingly developing people with colder and colder hearts. Infected by the idea that all that matters is that I get mine, we leave our spouses and children in divorces, abort our babies, dump our aging parents in others' care, spit at the poor, and even speak our religious beliefs in a venomous way, clubbing others with them. It seems silly in this blog to even ask anyone to think of a neighbor as oneself. But I would ask this: do you think, from a purely selfish perspective, that feeling this way about others is good for you? Does this outlook produce the best you that you can be?

gordon wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:40 AM:re: Decider decides. Not quite! For all those bashing the Democrats, the Senate is BLOCKING Bush's missiles in Europe.(untested, unfunded, NATO not on board to help pay for $3+ billion out of our pockets) We DO have a voice now, let them do the job of oversight for a year before judging results.The NEW NEO-CON executive powers permeate every agency.

One more try wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:48 AM:Seems that a lot of people have some kind of mental block about understanding what science is. In a nutshell, it's a method for improving our ideas about the natural world. So all scientific ideas are provisional, aiming and hoping to be replaced by better ones. The best theories are those that prompt a lot of questions that can be answered empirically. So: from this standpoint the theory of evolution is clearly one of the greatest ideas ever, since for 150 years it has generated whole fields and subfields of inquiry, and our ideas about so many things have gotten better and better as a result. When you look at the Biblical believers, their entire aim is the opposite of this whole enterprise. They want to make statements that stop inquiry. They want to forbid questions. They resist the improvement of ideas. They insist that NO questions be asked. I have no objection to people believing whatever they want, whatever serves their needs best. But if they would just see what the scientific enterprise is about, maybe they'd let it be with a little more respect.

to Selection wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:50 AM:I don't doubt that we are becoming more individualistic in America. That is where the global economy is taking us. But I do have a problem with one thing you are apparently seeing. Spit at the poor? I think we do quite a bit for the poor here. Donating our time, pitching in for food & shelter, etc. Look around you. Look at all the donation centers around town. Look at the food shelters just here in North County where countless citizens donate their time everyday. It's truly a wonderful thing. Compare our poor with other nations and how they treat their poor and I think you would see what poor really is. And that most Americans do not have cold hearts.

YAYA wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:51 AM:Selection pressure wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:30 AM:If it is silly, then why do you ask your questions? Why do you equate individualism with the litany of sins that you provided? Everyone knows that the American people are they are due drugs and rock and roll. Cicero was saying basically the same thing when he lamented the condition of the Roman people during his life time.

Chester wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:55 AM:To OBSERVATION @ 8:29: Be very careful what you say! God is all powerful and omnipresent. God could appear in everybody’s home at the same time and do Bible signings at will.

Vista Granny wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:09 AM:Good for "Selection" above. A friend of mine used to complain about paying high taxes (they were higher then for his income bracket) Poor thing! Let's see, he had two new Mercedes (when all Mercedes were true luxury cars), two houses (one at the beach, one in an exclusive neighborhood), two boys in private colleges, a wife who spent money like water, and I'm sure a lot of investments. Yes, he worked hard at a sales job to get all that, but it was difficult to see how paying high taxes cramped his lifestyle. Most wealth is earned with the labor of others. In his case, the factory workers who made what he sold. It's only right that he should be taxed to help them retire with dignity. And you will feel better if you are kind and generous to others. BTW, you can be sure he's collecting social security for himself and his wife these days and using Medicare. He's entitled, you know and he should be.

Drugs and rock and roll wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:16 AM:Drugs and rock and roll are just examples of our capitalist consumerism. From a capitalist perspective, what is a better product than drugs? Isn't it just astounding that drugs are so prevalent even though they are both illegal and demonized? The boomers were raised by their parents to prize the pursuit of pleasure. That was supposed to be the reward of the victory of WWII and the GI Bill. With mass success came mass efforts to compete for all that moolah. The modern advertising industry, with input and guidance from experimental psychology, taught us all that wants are caused and can therefore be manipulated into becoming "needs". Party on!

Selection pressure wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:21 AM:I'm glad that 8:50 brings up the ways we DO support the poor. S/he is right to some degree, certainly. I wonder, though, if we do well when compared to other western or "developed" countries in this. Since Reagan, we've pretty consistently done less for the poor, regardless of the party in the White House. The numbers and proportion of the poor are growing under Bush, and the distance between rich and poor is growing even faster. So I guess I worry that we are moving in a direction towards spitting at the poor if I overstated it earlier. Most societies in history have not, it could be argued, had the means to ensure care for the poor. We and a few others now do have the means.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:30 AM:Chester wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:55 AM: Do not lecture me about God, definition and his capabilities. I was schooled by the Jesuits. The point is that God has never made himself visable to anybody and anytime in the history of this world. Their is no proof that he wrote the bible or inspired it. Accepting the bible is based on faith and not on fact. You are entitled to your religion, faith and opinion. What you are not entitled to is to preach to me or anybody else about God.

to Vista Granny wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:37 AM:Great example. How in the world did "pursuit of happiness" become understood as "buying more things"? And then how did "buying more things" become understood as "discarding things quickly and buying even MORE things"? How did "happiness" get twisted into "pleasure"? How did "freedom" get twisted into "scott or charman...in designer pastels!"?

John wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:46 AM:There's proof that evolution is a myth. An examination of GWB's brain will reveal that it has ceased to evolve long ago.

The Bigger Picture wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:51 AM:Iris Siefert needs to broaden her horizons. Not only do we need to ensure that there is enough water, but other resources, as well. Fire protection, electricity, police protection, schools, roads, sewers, etc. should be readily available and plentiful before developers greedily gobble up open land to make their millions on development. If the infrastructure is not there, then the developers should pay to build it instead of making it another burden on taxpayers!

Laughing at Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:55 AM:Creationism is a joke. It makes no predictions, explains nothing, as inherently untestable. Evolution is a fact, it is seen to occur in the fossil record, and the mechanisms are seen to occur in nature. So sorry that science isn't going to twist in your direction!

Liberating Libby wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:56 AM:Sad but true, letting Libby simply pay a fine while commuting his prision sentence is equivalent to the Bush administration shouting to the American people that his rich, upper crust crew is above the law. It was little pain for Libby to cut a $250,400 check from his savings almost immediately after the Bush get out of jail free card was announced. Some people don't even live in homes worth that much, but for the upper crust crew, that is pocket change!

Laughing at Creationsists wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:58 AM:It is bluntly obvious that monkeys and the other apes share a common ancestor. You go stick your head in the sand if you want to.

To seccesion wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:59 AM:I'd rather build a wall across the freeway at the checkpoint than bring Temecula into San Diego county....

Laughing at Nick Bidle wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:00 AM:Just where do you think that concrete paving over the Temecula area is going to come from?

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:06 AM:I have a question, "Vista Granny". The old 'work hard and advance both in pay and position' seems to be something you do not like, am I correct? Should I, a "rich Encinitas landowner" as we joke, be taxed higher because I have a nice house and someone else doesn't? Should my wife, a pediatrician, who works for a non-profit clinic that services the poor, the medically indigent, the under and uninsured, be taxed more because we each put in over 10 years of our lives of HARD WORK to improve our lives? Should results of our work be taxed higher than some because we have the audacity to have something for which we WORKED? One whole heckuva lot more than mere "alms for the poor" are given every day by my wife and I, by way of treating the ill and taxes. You and many others seem to feel that our combined 21 years of hard labor (and that's only her college and my building), of learning, of EARNING the money, EARNING the house, EARNING the degree(s) should not be rewarded because someone else chose to do something else that did not result in them having what we have. I don't insist that anyone give me anything for which I didn't WORK AND EARN, much less insist that I receive money that was stolen from someone else with the government as the thief and distributor. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf's problem wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:16 AM:Your 1006 post is a good example of the extreme individualism discussed earlier. You appear to think that in fact every person is an island. I would invite you to think about your choices and accomplishments more deeply. How might luck have been involved? How might your success be connected to the labor of others? How is what you have NOT the pure product of your own will and drive? I truly do appreciate the kindness to others that you and your wife obviously give. So perhaps it would help even more to think of the ways that YOU have been given to by others, named or anonymous, that contributed to your current life. If the relatively wealthy were not taxed more than others, most social service programs would wither even more than they already have. The poor and other needy people would come to depend more on individual generosity. Sorry, I think they shouldn't have to do that.

Poor Laughing wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:16 AM:Still thinking evolution is fact. Too bad for Laughing, even the scientific community still regards it as merely a theory. Personally, I wish it were fact. That would be one less thing for people to argue about.

to Laughing at Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:19 AM:I'm not sure you are right. Biblical creationism states quite a few testable facts. For example, it says the universe is a few thousand years old. It says that all the animals were created at the same time. The flood then destroyed all life but for those on the ark. So the entire fossil record should be in one great band dated the year of the flood. And so on. Seems to me it makes quite a few predictions or statements that are testable. Seems to me that every one of them has failed the empirical test.

John wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:22 AM:Those whose brains have have not benefited from evolution will believe it (evolution) to be a hoax.

A shame at best wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:25 AM:A federal appeals court today declined to hear a lawsuit against the administration for warrantless surveillance. The two republican appointees outvoted the one democratic appointee in this decision. Please note that this is NOT a ruling that Bush's program is/was constitutional. This decision is only that those who tried to sue had not been snooped on and therefore, not having been harmed by the program, have no right to sue. It's a shame because it would have been good for the country to have the program examined in court and debated. Now the suit just goes away undecided. A good Bushian court in action again.

to Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:28 AM:You are missing the point when it comes to liberals like Vista Granny. You didn't EARN your income and savings. You STOLE it or you EXPLOITED others to get it. Make no mistake about it. To liberals, if you have little or some money, then you EARNED it. If you have more than others or lots more than others, then you STOLE it and need to give most of it back to the government so they can redistribute as they see fit. That is why they sneer at us middle class folk who give our time and donate our money. They don't like the idea of giving voluntarily. Their job is to take and give, not ours as individuals. It's good for their feelings and it's even better for their political career.

to A shame wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:34 AM:Will people like you and Alf now finally quit calling the program illegal? It's clear the legal dust is far from settled. So can people just cool it with the "illegal" talk? Nobody knows at this point, yet they like to repeat the talking heads telling everyone how "illegal" it is. It's not. And those who insist it is without letting it run it's legal course only wind up looking silly. Today is one of those days.

Laughing at Creationists wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:40 AM:Science regards evolution as a principle as fact. So sorry. The theory is the details, which really are just theories, being constantly refined as new things are discovered. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, with theories in the works for both that contain the details.

Laughing at Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:42 AM:You are thinking only of the Jewish creation fable.

Myths about liberals wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:44 AM:It may astound some people here, but there are many many middle and even upper class people who are liberals (like me!). We also give our money and time to those less fortunate. We tend not to complain too much about taxes, though we wish we had more say in how they were spent. I tend not to think of my financial success as all my own doing, but I certainly don't think I stole my money. In general, I guess I just don't obsess that much about my income or my taxes. I don't feel that my income is such a great factor in defining who I am or my worth as a person. Keep in mind that we aren't talking about a little minority. More Americans voted for Gore than Bush in 2000. Democratic candidates won many Congressional seats in 2006. I'm just not as obsessed with my own success the way you guys are. So I'm not as frightened or paranoid about others taking "what's mine". I frankly don't understand your intensity about this. And please, don't reply with really stupid exaggerations. I would mind if a person or the government took all I had, etc.

A shame at best to 10:34 wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:53 AM:One court has already ruled it illegal, and that's the basis of my feeling about it. And, as I said, this court did not rule it legal. All it said was that the plaintiff had no basis from which to sue. So this decision says absolutely nothing about the legality of the program.

Huh? wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:57 AM:Blogger "A shame at best" 10:25am, shows his willingness to shove the rule of law aside in favor of a preferred outcome. To him, the appeals court should have ignored that very pertinant point that in order to have legal standing, the plaintiff should have evidence of actually being harmed. They couldn't. Interestingly, this is a point that the far left Carter-appointed District Judge conveniently overlooked. Of course, the blogger doesn't consider her court "Carterian". There are other avenues in the judicial system to have the program examined and debated. Just not via this phony lawsuit. Sour grapes.

Bingo wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:00 AM:Unashamed Libertarian Alf: What do you think about citizens securing “humanity credits” to offset taxes, something like carbon credits to improve the environment? Those individuals with pots full of money, that do not contribute to improve humanity in a significant way, would be taxed, allowing others to carryout humanitarian work. Just thought that I would throw that out there for you Alf.

terry wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:07 AM:"The ruling is NOT unconstitutional", "A Bushian Court". Someone is starting to sound desperate. It's obviously a big win for Bush.

YAYA wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:15 AM:Bingo wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:00 AM: Isn't that what a tax deduction for charitable contributions is?

to A shame wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:17 AM:And I agree with you that the legality has not yet been determined. So, that means it is not illegal. So why do so many continue to use the term? Will this ruling have an effect on those using the term "illegal"? Will they alter their term to say, "immoral"-"Potentially illegal"-"Possibly illegal"- wiretapping program? For their own credibility? Don't count on it. It doesn't quite fit the Bush-is-a-dictator myth. But at the end of the day, that is all it is. A myth.

Ron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:33 AM:Interesting reply by "Myths about liberals" @10:44 AM, So, if I take my taxes to a tax accountant, so he can find me every tax break legally available to me by law, somehow... I'm obsessed with my owm financial success? If the government takes .18 cents of tax out of evry gallon of gas I buy, and then they propose a bond to build the raods they were supposed to build with the gas taxes, but they later decided to spend that money on something else, so I vote against the mass transit bond, I'm obsessed with my financial success? Or, I see a social net program, like say.... social security, paid for by every work at somewhere between 12.4%-15.5%, over a lifetime, and to find out the Congress for decades has stolen that money out the back door to the tune of 12 trillion, somehow I'm obsessed with my financial success if I choose to put my own money into something, tax free, that will help me retire comfortably? Are you telling us, you don't do these things? Aren't these things any good consumer would do? And if you are paying your higher percentage in taxes, plus giving and volunteering, aren't you already doing enough? Or do you need to give more? You know, back when FDR was President the tax rate on the top 1% was 90%. Think that's enough? FDR actually proposed 100%, but Congress had sense enough to turn him down. Silly them. But, I'll be that would have made el_patron happy? Right, el?

Bingo wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:43 AM:YAYA: I was thinking along the lines of using your skills, trade, profession, etc. besides financial contributions to charity.

YAYA wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:01 PM:Bingo wrote on Jul 6, 2007 11:43 AM: Thanks for the clarification.

Everrett wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:01 PM:Ron (11:33); If you are not “obsessed with my (your) own financial success”, then why do we get an endless dose of you financial success/nous? This was meant to be rhetorical—please do not answer. I refuse to read any of your long diatribes going back to FDR, Reagan, etc.

A shame at best wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:15 PM:I don't know, do people actually read posts here? The reason I said it was a shame, as opposed to a crime, is that I hoped it would be debated. I agree that it will at some other point and that's good. I wasn't proposing shoving the law aside to get any outcome.

rings of Saturn wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:15 PM:I guess the fact of unmanned spacecraft verifying in detail the ring structure of Saturn as caused by small particles of ice, etc doesn't mean much to someone who can rub plastic and swing a light fixture. Maybe Edsel should work on getting telescopic eyesight able to see far into the depths of space, kind of like Superman. hahahahahahah

to Terry wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:17 PM:Clearly, you are another one who seems not to be able to read. This court did not rule on the case. That is not a judgment about the program's legality one way or the other. Why is this so hard to understand? It's not a victory for Bush, though if he knows the program is unconstitutional I'll bet he's glad about it.

Clarification wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:22 PM:From the August, 2006 Boston Globe QUOTE A federal district judge yesterday ruled that President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is illegal and ordered the National Security Agency to shut it down, issuing a sweeping rebuke of the once-secret domestic-surveillance effort the White House authorized following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ENDQUOTE I understand that this is going to be appealed and who knows how it will ultimately end up. But the fact remains, plain and simple: the program has been judged in court to be illegal. That's why I refer to it as an illegal program. If this gets officially reversed, I will stop calling it illegal. I cannot understand, given the above decision, how anyone can say it ISN'T illegal.

el_patron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:23 PM:Alf, I don't advocate what your delirium has dredged up. I believe in strongly progressive taxes of income, that peels off what is beyond use to build our society. It ain't communism. I do believe in an estate tax, because I don't want any dynasties, and I want a level playing field. But what taxes? Briefly, SS should start at about $10K/yr income, but never top out : all income taxed. Perhaps a means test on reception. Then the rate could be cut by a third and Social Security will be secure. I consider myself a social Libertarian. I no longer believe that there is economic open freedom in this country, so I want a common and quite high safety/social net for all. The freedom that's left is personal. This means personal growth in the arts, hobbies, knowledge, the upper human endeavors. It is the right wing that makes up extreme examples, then shout them back and forth to each other. To Alf : calm down, we probably are closer than you think. To Ron : wise up.

el_patron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:29 PM:I don't believe that someone with an income of $2M/yr, taxed at 20% net ( lower capital gains, tax deductions and all Ron's anti-American tax tricks ) will pack up and leave America if WE tax him at 28-33%. Leave America, his job, friends, the schools, the security, for 13% of his yearly income? When his owned resources are sake in America? I don't think so. Let's find out.

el_patron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:34 PM:Gravity is just a theory. However, we can actually plan on gravity, and use it in our daily lives.

Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:34 PM:Did anyone notice that when I applied the scientific method to the theory of evolution, the responses changed the subject to Creationism (something I did not mention), asked for proof evolution was wrong (which is the inverse of the scientific method), acted as if proof wasn't necessary (which is not the scientific method at all), or resorted to ridicule (which is below the standards of educated discourse, let alone the scientific method)? If evolution cannot withstand scrutiny, testing, and verifiction; it doesn't belong in a science curriculum.

Ron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:36 PM:An important discovery was the Hittites and the decipherment of their texts. Scholars, scientists, and archeologists thought the Bible was wrong because there was no evidence of Hittites until Hittite pottery was dug up. It's like I always say, science is like looking through a telescope or a microscope, you are constantly limited by either your current understanding, or your technology. You can not know, or possibly know all conjoined factors that you can not now see, or observe. As religious people, we know and understand that Popes, leaders, and the Church have held back scientific discovery. You know, as I believe you do, that your side has had more than it's share of scientific charlatans. The Piltdown Man fraud is a case in point: those faked fossils delayed the reaching a correct understanding of human evolution. The Schön scandal, Michigan relics, the Tiara of Saitaferne, and the Glozel tablets, just to name a few. Or we could speak about Lysenkoism and how national governments seek to quash scientific advance by political means. Or we could talk about sham peer review techniques, and how thousands of scientists have used their positions to gain a buck. Or we could converse about Dihydrogen monoxide, chemophobia (chemical-free life) and Eric Lechner, Lars Norpchen, Matthew Kaufman, and Craig Jackson. This is why we all need to be rational about science when were discussing science. Science is ever changing, with new evidence, that is the way it's supposed to be. I know I make fun of science and eggs, oatmeal, and global warming. but, it not as if, I don't have a reason. We've been fooled before, just like in Eugenics. Look it up.

to Clarification wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:47 PM:The ruling today effectively dismisses the case. Today's ruling throws out the August 2006 ruling. So, sorry to break it to you, but the program is now considered legal under the law. The ACLU will probably of course appeal it to the Supreme Court, but it is legal.

terry wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:52 PM:of course the Appeals Court didn't rule on the legality of the program. That's because the basis for this particular lawsuit was so flimsy, they couldn't even get to the Constitutional issues. You need to be on very solid ground if one is to claim that their Constitutional rights have been denied. This particular lawsuit was considered the strongest going and the court threw it out because the basis was so weak. This ultimately has "legal" written all over it.

Reardon wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:53 PM:El_patron wishes to be El_Jefe. He will determine how much of my income someone else deserves, and at what level I have too much, and he doesn'e even know me! WoW! I just checked my Bible, and Moses never even mentions El_Patron (ne Jefe). I checked the writings of James Madison, and he likewise never mentions him, in fact my copy of the original Constitution doen's mention income taxes or estate taxes, either. I find it amazing how we cover immoral acts with moral substitutes...taking money without permission once was called theft, now it is taxes. Enslavement was once making people serve at someone else's will -- now we call it "Selective Service," or "Compulsory Public Education," or "Universal Service." As the line in My Fair Lady goes, "The French don't care what you do, actually. They only care that you pronounce it properly." Similarly, it would be nice if we used the proper term for taxes: Government Theft. El_Jefe just wants to lecture us on how much is "enough" and how much he will let me keep. Nice.

Who wrote the Bible? wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:56 PM:A band of dyslexic animal lovers...they were talking about DOG THE ALMIGHTY!

Alf lost... wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:00 PM:what little credibility he had when he sputtered, 'Why should a person graduate high school, then 4 years of College, then 4 years of Medical School, then 3 years of Residency, then get Board Certified in their Specialty, then keep earning Continuing Medical Education credits to maintain their licensure if they will be taxed to the point that they earn little more than an 8th grade drop-out who flips burgers or bags groceries?' Even in strict socialist contries, you would be hard pressed to find a doctor making the same salary as a middle school drop out. Common Alf, you sound more and more like Ron everyday!

Ron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:02 PM:Because Everrett @12:01 PM, If your not, who is? The Government? Hardly, my friend. If their sooo on top of your retirement, then please tell me why we have a 12 trillion dollar debt in the social security fund? Bonds, you say? Well, you just keep on believing that fairy tale, cause it ani't as they say. They are, in fact, IOU's to which the Federal Government owes the money to the Social Security Administration. And you, me, and the next guy are actually the one's on the hook for it, don't be fooled. Ever heard the term: "Full Faith & Creidt of the United States Government?" That, my friend, is you & me. Our pocket, wallet, paycheck, purse, whatever. Come 2018, the Social Security Administration says it will need that money back from the General Fund. When that happens... now.. remember I told you this... Congress will do what they have done everytime they have had this happen. Which is: They raise the social security taxes, and they raise the retirement age. How do you think we went from 1.5% at start, to now 12.4%? People gripe about gas going up, medical costs, food, energy... and in respect to Government, we just never seem to have enough? Medi-Care, (and I hate to tell Granny about this) is planning on rationing per CBO. They are going to let the bureaucrats decide on what methods of treatment are most cost effective. So much for choosing. Doctor - patient decide from a multiple choice list, decided by the Government to control costs, and not to patient outcomes. Remember back when the Democrats were talking about negotiating drug prices, to correct the Bush-Big Pharma gouging? Well, you first have to decide which drugs your going to allow on what is called a: Formulary. It's a list of drugs you will use, whatever is on the list, gets negociated, whatever is not, does not. (man, I would love to be a fly on the wall in that room) See how tricky this is going to get? Now, let's say... you don't like the government price? You still have private insurance companies that will negociate, you elect to stay out. Cancer drugs, AIDS drugs.... off the list. Then you add in earmarks, political bargining, advocate groups, cry's of discrimmination.... and the rest is left to the political meat-grinder. Now... remember, I told you first, ok?

LaLa wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:06 PM:to d'Anconia, post 7/5, 8:08 PM. You're wrong.

YAYA wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:18 PM:el_patron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 12:29 PM: Don't count on it. There is a can not pay line or a will not pay line for every taxpayer. I.m at 28% now. If it hits 30%, I will retire to Costa Rica or Beliz or to Ireland or anywhere where my dollars are my dollars.

Upon further reading wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:20 PM:The appeals court, by denying that the plaintiffs could show that they had been harmed by Bush's program and that they therefore could not sue, did in effect reverse the ruling that it was illegal. The court did not decide that it was legal, nor did it counter the reasoning of the judge who had decided it illegal. Instead, the appeals court said it should never have come to court. It really is a victory for Bush, a huge one. Even though the only substantial ruling on the program was that it is unconstitutional, the appeals court provided Bush with a ruling that no one will ever really be able to question the program in court. I will continue to call the program illegal because its only judicial review has termed it so, even though I know that technically, I may not be entitled to this via this fudge factor the appeals court gifted to Bush. As before, I simply cannot understand how anyone can defend Bush's behavior with respect to the law.

Bingo wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:23 PM:El patron: It is amazing that we, the United States, have about the lowest personal income tax of the industrialized nations with the biggest tax whiners. It seems that the higher standards of living that those other countries enjoy are not welcome in this country. Remember, el patron, we are the best, so obviously we don’t need no stinking improvement—got that!

Gottawonder wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:37 PM:Why does Gary Walker write: “...Bush and Co. want to give illegal aliens/lawbreakers all these incredible benefits at our expense ...” blah, blah, blah? Do you suppose Gary knows that both of our Senators plus Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Christopher Dodd all voted in favor of the immigration bill? Do you suppose Gary is a one-sided, blind partisan Democrat?

Myths about liberals to Ron 11:33 wrote on Jul 6, 2007