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 1:44 PM:Let me repeat the last sentence from my earlier post: QUOTE And please, don't reply with really stupid exaggerations. I would mind if a person or the government took all I had, etc. ENDQUOTE I had put this sentence in specifically anticipating a post from Ron, but he still couldn't resist. An amazing fellow.

Vista Granny wrote on Jul 6, 2007 1:48 PM:I just love the way Alf and Ron believe they KNOW what and how I think. And others also. First of all, never have I said anything remotely like "people are rich because they stole their money from the poor." Second, Alf and Ron PRESUME that I 1. Never really worked hard. 2. Never saved any money. 3. Am poor and maybe on welfare. 4. Never lived "high on the horse" as they say. All those assumptions are incorrect. The truth is that I've owned gorgeous homes in two states. I've traveled in every country in Europe (and not on a bus tour either), I've skied in the French Alps, visited China, Japan and Korea and taken many cruises. I just happen to have a better and kinder outlook on life and the poor than either Alf or Ron -- and I certainly wouldn't want to trade places with anyone.

to Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:08 PM:In answer to your question, yes, you should be taxed more. In proportion to what you can afford to pay. Thats the rub isn't it. Everyone has a different idea of what that proportion should be and what the tax money should be used for. So it is a constant battle. I have a different take on taxes than you do. I don't consider taxes as the government "stealing". I'm happy to pay my fair share. I feel like we're all in this together. Maybe you don't take into account all the ways you have acheived what you have acheived with government help. Including the mortgage deduction on your house, the ability to write off your property taxes, the subsidized education. You may feel like you did it all yourself but you didn't. The generation before you paid for your way. Since the government took some control of the economy there have been no depressions, no financial panics no runs on the banks all the things that have allowed you, and all of us, to prosper. And in closing, honestly now, have you ever met an intelligent libertarian. I know I haven't.

It's strange wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:09 PM:I've always found it rather strange how incensed people get when talking about taxes. You can literally see foam in their mouths at times. Alf what's going on with you lately. Your starting to sound as crazy as Ron. First of all let's realize this: taxes aren't going anywhere. So that being said what is the real issue here. It's how the money is spent. And on whom. And I'll just diffuse the "I'm not a racist!" backlash that is sure to come. Because I'm not saying that. But those who have a problem with taxes always lament about "those" people who feel they are "entitled" and on and on. And yet they also seem to be the ones mostly still leading the charge on this war. So it isn't really about the money as much as it is how it is spent. It is a priveledge to pay taxes in this great country. Those who have more have a shared responsibility to assist those who do not. And if you don't see it that way look at it this way; if you can assist someone in making a better life for themselves they are more apt to help you achieve your goals at some point. Sure there will always be people who abuse the system. We can all agree to that. If we can agree that there will always be people who will not abuse it. But we need to start seeing and realizing the fact that there are enough resources in this world to end poverty in this generation. It's a matter of our will. And ask yourself this; if we could end poverty in this world would it make your life better? I'd venture to say that America is stronger than ever right now. One might not think that we are always on the right track, but it's hard to argue that we haven't moved forward in say the last 50 years. Has the taxes that we've all paid over the years helped us achieve any of that? Every single religion since the beginning of time has had a similar fundamental message; be kind, and help the poor. Stay informed and stay engaged and don't let paranoia and fear of the government distract from this very simple message. There is enough to go around and if you want more there is enough for that, too. And this is not a call for socialism or communism or the redistribution of wealth or stealing money or you didn't earn it you stole it or whatever other nonsensical fear mongering divisive speech some can come up with. It's about appreciating living in this country and helping everyone achieve their dreams.

Everrett wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:12 PM:Go Granny Go. I really feel sorry for those guys because I think that they miss out on the important things in life.

Floyd is wrong again wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:12 PM:Just to clarify for Floyd, who seems to know nothing about science. Scientific method very often is all about disproof. You make a hypothesis and that hypothesis entails specific predictions. You do an experiment or observation to test those predictions. If they match, you have supported but not proved the theory...there can be other predictions which fail. If they don't match, it's the best: you have disproved the hypothesis and another relatively bad idea is discarded. Theories or hypotheses in science are never proved, they are only supported or disproved. In the case of evolution, there has been an everest of support, and nary a disproof. In the case of Biblical creation, exactly the reverse. If you don't understand this, there's little else I can say...you just don't get the core of what science and empirically based logic is about. I'm sorry for you. It's an amazing and beautiful thing.

to Floyd et.al. wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:13 PM:You know something I've always wondered. If the Bible is the literal word of God, why isn't it more well written. There's nothing in there that approaches Shakespeare. I mean wouldn't you expect the word of God to just floor you with its eloquence and scope. Parts of the Bible are interesting and some parts are inspiring but if you were to grade it...maybe a B. I'm thinking it's more likely the work of man.

Laughing at Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:19 PM:You take it up with the biologists working at the major universities around the country. They will laugh even harder at you than I do. Of course, they are forced to deal with cranks like you on a regular basis which takes out time from their work so maybe they aren't laughing. I've got news for you: evolution is the only explantaion extant in science for the diversity of the fossil record and of current life. There isn't any opponent except in the minds of cranks.

to Terry wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:19 PM:I agree that the impact of the appeals court decision was to let the warrantless wiretapping continue. But it certainly has NOT been ruled "constitutional" by any court. Again, only one court has assessed its constitutionality, and found it illegal. The weakness of the lawsuit was judged in appeals to rest on the difficulty of showing that a person was harmed by the program. This has nothing to do with the legality or constitutionality of the program, only with the rules of how to get something into a court. I will continue to refer to it as illegal, even if it continues, because only one judge has looked at its legality and ruled it illegal. That was just tossed on a technicality that might well be legit, but is still a technicality. Terry, when a murderer appeals his conviction and gets off because in the first trial, there'd been a grammatical error by the prosecutor, I hope you feel the same sense of justice that you do today.

el_patron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:20 PM:Well YaYa, if your retirement pays you above the middle middle class, perhaps you will have a bit of tax burden. If you are middle middle or lower ( the majority) then you will benefit more from the higher taxes. You will live in a better society. Otherwise, I dare you. Go. See ya' YaYa.

At bottom wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:25 PM:Isn't it true that conservatives, at bottom, want the society of the late 1800's to return? No government regulation, no hindrances to free enterprise, a vast lower class so desperate they will do or put up with anything to keep the pennies tossed to them for their labor, unions outlawed? Who knows, maybe they even want the return of child labor (for the poor...private education for the rich), the abolition of public education, and a huge police force, with officers also desperate to keep their jobs, enforcing the status quo. To whatever degree we say we don't want these things, we are not true conservatives.

Ron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:33 PM:I'm just trying to explore with you, "Myths about liberals to Ron 11:33", how much they could take, as my dear friend el_patron, wants to do, until you scream Uncle? That's all. How much is enough for you? I only mentioned FDR & the 90%/100% tax rates as a "for-instance", as a fact of the historical record. But, you seem to dismiss my citation as "an exaggeration." All I'm saying is: It's been done before, and it can happen again. And those rates lasted until John Kennedy, proposed his "a rising tide lifts all boats." With a Government facing the kind of indebtness our is, and all these bills coming due with more than 77 million boomers ready to retire (that's almost double the 40 million we currently have) beginning in 2018, and funding enough for only 70% of currently guaranteed by both Social Security & Medi-Care, you ought to be a bit worried about how much, and how far they will need to reach into your, my, and our children's pocket to dig themselves out? Someone just said, we are the lowest taxed nation of all industrialized nations. As if that should be something we ought to be ashamed of, we really ought to be proud of that fact. You take all the Enron's and pile them together, and they'd make this gross mismangement and theft by this Government look like a pretty small hill of beans.

d'Anconia wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:59 PM:May I humbly submit that any tax that penalizes success is a step in the wrong direction? Why allow the state to confiscate the wealth of the successful when the bureaucracy is so blatantly inept at managing money? The government can’t even balance their own books. The government creates non-productive jobs ... private investors create productive jobs and provide for consumer needs. Have you, dear readers, considered that our tax system may be backwards? I my opinion, those who do best at making money should be allowed to keep the largest percentage of their earnings, not the least. I believe that would grow the economy and lift everyone’s standard of living more rapidly than allowing government to squander the nation’s capital. The only foreseeable drawback is that no standard of living will ever dissuade class envy that politicians so skillfully manipulate.

Laughing with "to Alf" 2:08 wrote on Jul 6, 2007 3:07 PM:Libertarians are just voters to proud to be Republicans, and not brave enough to be Democrats.

Ron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 3:21 PM:Just couldn't get out, before the snide comment about intelligence, could ya to Alf @2:08 PM? See what I mean Alf, they just can't state the facts without calling you a dummy? They really believe that once THEY have stated something, that's it, there's nothing left to debate. Like global warming, the debate is over, and if you disagree, then your compared to a holocaust denier. In this case, your a hateful, greedy, self-centered, evil, money-loving person. It just can't be that you believe 35% to the fed's and another 11% to the state, plus every other imaginable tax or fee they can think of.... no, no, no... your still greedy, and of course, hate the poor. Let me be the first to inform you, it's our money, we earn it, and the Government can and does take it's share, fair or not. That's number one. Number two: When the top 50% of Americans pay 98% of the taxes in this country, you still have the unmitigated gall to say, it's not enough? Those are the facts, and they are indisputable. Go take a look at CBO. We're all in this together? Seems some are more in than others, to me.

LaLa wrote on Jul 6, 2007 3:38 PM:to Floyd, post 7/6, 1:17 AM. You posited the standard Creationist misunderstanding of the scientific method, namely, that: "Evolution fails the scientific test of repeatability." In actuality, repeatability in science refers to observations; not to the phenomena being observed. For example, in petroleum geology, the repeatability of paleostratigraphic findings is indispensable in locating oil bearing strata.

Ron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 3:48 PM:Dearest Vista Granny @1:48 PM, I don't believe I ever said that you, said that (people are rich because they stole), but some have suggested it, and if you thought I said that about you, let me say I'm sorry for including you in that group. I don't really know about you, just as you really don't know me. We only know what we write about. We don't have the vantage point of seeing each other actually in the pursuit of living our lifes, day to day. I think that would open our eyes, but alas, this is all we have, for now. I don't not presume that most people don't work hard, but I know from my experience, that some do not, and they seek to live off others. I've hired a few, worked with a few, and known a few more. I think I know. Most people don't save money. That's just a fact. You may be different, as am I. My own kids, couldn't seem to rub two nickels together, except my third, now has an IRA. I see it a lot, we offer a typical 401K plan, and my participation rate is 64%. Straight welfare was tragic, and needed to be reformed, as it kept re-producing government consumers (bird feeders?). Although you claim, you "Never lived "high on the horse", with gorgeous homes in two states, traveled in every country in Europe, (and not on a bus tour either), skied in the French Alps, visited China, Japan and Korea and taken many cruises, Some would say, and do say... your rich and you need to start forking over just a little more. Perhaps, one less cruise a year? It's a totally understandable reaction by those with less, and see your life, as you did earlier in the blog about the salesman. If only they would give me, what I need, then I would be happy. Then, next year, it would be something else, they need. It never ends. People are messy, they don't always do the right thing, they don't always make the right choices. It's great that you believe you happen to have a better and kinder outlook on life and the poor. I write often about volunteer work, and giving to many different groups, and works. Most people I know, do the same. It is a shame for those with wealth to hoard their wealth. It's certainly not in keeping with the Jesus I know. And I would venture a guess, that no matter the value of your "wealth", whether in money or good health, that you would squander it, and not help the pooer than yourself. Even at 20K, someone is still making less, than you. Jesus praised the old women for putting pennys into the alms jar. How much, as a poor person, should you be giving? And wouldn't it be better to concentrate on that, rather than, what your not getting? Just my take.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 3:56 PM:The entire idea of "redistribution of wealth" is wrong, dead wrong. The entire notion that the more you make the GREATER PERCENTAGE of your income is what the government is ENTITLED TO is corrupt and wrong, dead wrong. I had several times in my life that I got a raise and brought home LESS MONEY because I crossed some "tax bracket", has that happened to any of you?? A Libertarian, Alf.

to Reardon wrote on Jul 6, 2007 4:11 PM:But hypothetically, at least, the government is not some external agent like a thief would be...the government is (supposed to be) US. Let me ask something: if it were put on the ballot, straight up or down, to abolish all taxes, or even to abolish all income taxes, do you think Americans would vote them out? I don't. Why is that? Are we just brainwashed? I don't think so.

John from USC wrote on Jul 6, 2007 4:12 PM:Do tell me Dr. Floyd: Is the earth 6,000 yrs old? It it flat? Did Noah place 2 of every animal in a humungous ship? How can I prove any of the using your scientific method?

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 4:17 PM:When someone wants to raise the income tax "on the wealthy", MY BUTTON GETS PUSHED. I do not build myself up by dragging others down and people who advocate such a thing raise my ire. I was brought up with the idea that WORK has it's rewards to the person who does that work, NOT to someone who chooses to do less. "Our Great Society" serves to bring some people up by dragging others down and that is WRONG. Period. Flat Tax - if you make twice as much you pay ONLY twice as much tax, NOT 3 times as much. Still an Irate Unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 4:29 PM:There is a difference between being hard-hearted and the feeling that that giant sucking sound has gotten too loud, too close and will not stop until there is no value to working harder because any increase in PAY FOR WORK gets siphoned away. Call me what you will, but between a government that takes my money to provide for "the poor" (who obviously can not possibly learn or earn more) and takes my money to invade foreign countries (Iraq) to the point of bankrupting our country I HAVE HAD ENOUGH! IMPEACH GWB AND CHENEY! If we as a people do not stop this hemorrhaging money in TWO PLACES AT ONCE there will be no economy! Still an Irate Libertarian, Alf.

To Ha-ha Man (Laughing) wrote on Jul 6, 2007 4:38 PM:Libertarians must be Republicanish, after all those belonging to The John Birch Society call themselves Libertarians.

Ron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 4:41 PM:P.S. I love the moderator today!

Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:01 PM:I'm still waiting for an example of evolutionary theory surviving the application of the scientific method, which requires repeatable experiments showing the hypothesis actually works as proposed. Changing the subject doesn't prove your point.

YAYA wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:08 PM:el_patron wrote on Jul 6, 2007 2:20 PM:Please define a better society?

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:11 PM:to Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:05 AM:Bible says God made the earth and the heavens in six days and on the seventh day He rested. It is a fact that the universe is billion of years old and that the earth is millions of years old. God, the first cause of it all must even be older. But, I rather doubt that He wrote or co autored the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu scriptures etc etc etc.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:13 PM:hEY EVERYONE: A big thank you to each and everyone of you. Great blog and every entertaining. Didn't have to watch TV at all.

to d'Anconia, wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:19 PM:Re: post 7/5, 8:08 PM. You're wrong.

Still wondering, wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:31 PM:After the snake told Eve to eat the forbidden apple, and she and Adam were thrown out of the Garden of Eden. Then they had two children, Caine and Abel. Who did Caine and Abel mate with to have children? And who did their children mate with, was it their brothers and sisters? Just wondering.

Vista Granny wrote on Jul 6, 2007 5:59 PM:Ron, I did not say I never lived high on the hog? Think that's correct, not horse. But then , what do I know? I have lived very high on the whatever. I've had tea with Mamie Eisenhower, danced with corporate CEO's, ridden in limousines, etc. I'm not so rich these days, but i live well. I also do a LOT of volunteer work -- but not really with the poor. And, I don't believe Jesus was God. Sorry, no Born again here. Good night!

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 6:07 PM:Well, "to Alf", the government has not stopped runaway inflation or recessions, as it? Nay, the government that claims to know better what to do with MY money than I do has balanced it's budget, I MEAN ACTUALLY BALANCED not the paperwork shuffle to appear balanced, in HOW LONG? One place where we differ in opinion (I think) is that I am happy to help others, but that is MY CHOICE as to how much, when and to whom. When that choice is removed, when the poor, like California schools, NEVER have enough. When there is the call to increase tax on "those who can afford it" (again, the CHOICE of who can afford it and how much is arbitrarily made by someone other than the one about to be taxed more heavily) I get angry. The John Birch Society sucks, by the way. A Liberal wants to pick my pocket to "help the poor" (ensure that no one feels the consequences of their choices and actions), a Conservative wants to pick my pocket to fight an illegal and immoral war (GWB, his lies, his quest for power and his next "need", to invade Iran), the net effect is that my pocket is being picked enough as it is. Or is the idea that eventually we will all work and have to ask if we may please have our allowance because the concept of being paid for work as well as personal responsibility got abolished. Still an irate Libertarian, Alf.

John from USC wrote on Jul 6, 2007 6:11 PM:I agree with Alf on one thing. IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reardon wrote on Jul 6, 2007 6:13 PM:To To Reardon: I want to join the French on that question -- I don't care what you do so long as you pronounce it properly. Actually I do care, but I believe if we used the proper term "Government theft" we might be tempted to find more nearly fair ways to do it. A sales tax, an equal tax on everyone just like the Constitution calls for...let's debate it. I do not use the military protection more or less than anyone else, or call the police more often, or have a fire in my home ever, but I DO pay a whole lot more. (Actually, I am recently incorporated because my CPA keeps telling me, "Your Government thanks you!") I have no problem with paying for what I use, but I do have a problem with paying for what someone else uses. I am not wealthy, but I have always kept several family members from becoming a charge on society and I feel an obligation to my extended family -- but I do not feel a similar obligation to your extended family. I have started several Foundations, and worked for others -- raised LITERALLY MILLIONS for charitable Foundations, and I firmly believe in charity. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THEFT! If there is a difference between “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and what liberals wish, I have missed the distinction. It may be a distinction without a difference.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 6:17 PM:You're welcome, "Focal Point", I have had the most releasing rants that I've had in some time, boy, did that feel good. Those combined with over an hour of using our chainsaw and an hour mowing and a few hours of other yard work will help me sleep well. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 6, 2007 6:32 PM:"Reardon", in your 6:13PM post I believe you hit on the idea of a flat tax, a very good idea, by the way. I an just sick of seeing my wife and I pay a greater PERCENTAGE of our income in taxes than someone who makes 10 times what we do. The truly super-rich hate it, the really rich hate it and the poor hate it. WHY? It raises actual tax percentage paid by the rich, the percentage sounds too small to the poor and the tiers of the middle class pay less percentage. For those reasons alone, it will never happen. Ideas? Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

to Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 6:46 PM:In an earlier post you wrote that: "It's easy to apply a preconceived notion to the fossil record..." If you had learned something of the history of Geology, you would know there was a long period spent in the observation phase. At first, people collected fossils as curiosities, much as one might collect shells on a beach. Later, serious collectors began classifying and cataloging their finds. At this point, no one had made the association that fossils might be related in some way, that is, there was no preconceived notion. But eventually someone had that "Aha" moment, and saw that evolutionary theory could explain the relationship. Creationism was the order of the day at that time, so it took the efforts of dedicated scientists to persevere until their fellow scientists could see it for themselves. The evolution shown in the fossil record has stood the test of time. If you cannot appreciate its importance, no rational debate is possible.

Fact wrote on Jul 6, 2007 7:16 PM:Facts are the best theories that we have based on the best data collected. They differ from beliefs and are not set in stone. It was a fact that the earth was flat, at the time it was a conclusion of the best and most logical data at the time. Beliefs are not facts and beliefs can change and evolve as well. There is a balance between the two. When we say evolution is fact, it doesn't mean it's set in stone. When we say the bible is fact, it isn't set in stone.

A Great Letter wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:11 PM:from Gene Vitamonti today. He goes right to the heart of what the bible is all about, rather than the literal misconceptions of those who believe in nothing else. It is, unfortunately, beyong Irving Forbing's grasp.

Reardon wrote on Jul 6, 2007 8:19 PM:Alf: Personally I prefer a consumption tax, something like a federal sales tax collected at the point of sale. Rich people will pay a lot more than poor people but only because they buy more and buy more expensive items. Poor people will at least pay something for the services they use, whereas today they use the services, pay zero income tax and get an "UN-earned income tax credit" rebate on taxes they NEVER paid! We can debate the flat tax, or the sales tax, or the VAT tax (which I specifically oppose), but the absolute worst alternative is the graduated income tax. It is pure, unadulturated socialism.

Floyd wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:48 PM:So after all of this discussion, there is no repeatable experiment showing evolution of species and no evidence that supporters of the evolution theory are willing to consider the need for repeatable experiments. Thank you, all, for proving my point.

Shell answer man wrote on Jul 7, 2007 3:46 AM:I'm laughing at the whole bunch of you. As usual, many of you want to be right and want answers now. For god's sakes, even great scientific minds won't agree. Science is a search for truth. Philosophy is also a search for truths. I personally don't believe our destiny is in finding an easy answer. The open-minded true seekers will live to seek and understand. The close-minded will be left to atrophy in our wake. It is much funner being a seeker than a fossil. Karma, you can blog all you want but there are things bigger than you and me. LOL

Alf wrote on Jul 7, 2007 5:53 AM:"Floyd" at 10:48PM, I repeat my previous challenge, I challenge you to scientifically show that creationism is repeatable, that there are FACTS to support your belief. As it stands, the more believable theory is evolution. In the end, evolution is a belief based on evidence supporting it and creationism is a belief based entirely on stories in a book, NEITHER OF WHICH CAN BE PROVEN TO THE ABSOLUTE SATISFACTION OF THE OTHER BELIEF. Give it a rest. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Still wondering, wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:28 AM:Still waiting for an answer from a creation believer to my above question about Adam and Eve.

Hey wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:52 AM:Floyd, Can you explain to me after Adam and Eve had Caine and Abel, Who did Cain and Abel beget with?

to Floyd wrote on Jul 7, 2007 4:37 PM:As many have tried to point out to you, your notion of the scientific method is erroneously narrow. Every working scientist and everyone who studies the philosophy of science knows this. But you somehow claim that you know that repeatable experiments and only repeatable experiments are science. How do you know this? Where, exactly, did you get this idea? Please, share. Or, if you are curious, I would be happy to share the names of any number of standard texts on scientific method to you. I suspect, however, that curiosity is the last thing one might find in your mind. All these shapers of real science are, after all, making error after error as far as you're concerned. You want to live in a world where you get to define things completely and that's all there is to it. But I could be wrong on two counts. First, do share with us your authoritative source on scientific method and thinking. Second, if you can't do #1, tell us you are curious to learn more about it so that we can help you.

RobertM wrote on Jul 9, 2007 11:39 AM:Can anyone name one species that has evolved into another species and share the proof that it did? A theory is only a theory until it is proven. Evidence is not proof.

To Hey wrote on Jul 12, 2007 9:51 AM:Abel killed Cain of course, but afterwards Abel went over the hill to the Land of Nod. Not sure where the Nodians came from, the Bible doesn't say. Another version tells us that Adam and Eve actually had many children, and procreated with their offspring. That version didn't make it into the final cut. Oh! Also, there is the version where Lilyth was Adam's first wife, but you don't hear much about that either. Go figure.

Hey to Hey wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:41 PM:I am more confused than ever. Which fairy tale are we to believe? Floyd still hasn't given us an answer.

Alf wrote on Jul 12, 2007 9:33 PM:I know that you won't like this, "RobertM", but there are fossilized remains that show that man evolved from apes. There are gaps and you will of course use them as "proof" that all the other evidence is "wrong". What can not be disputed are remains that show a progression leading from one to the other. The question is - Do you have to have a completely air-tight, absolutely complete, open and shut package in front of you? My bet is yes. My bet is also that you will not believe anything that does not "fit in your reality" even if it "smacks you up-side the head with a 2 by 4." Even then it might take a few dozen smacks. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.