I think they were just mentioning that to further the point that it should be a case-by-case basis instead of a zero tolerance bullshit policy. I was a victim of zero tolerance in high school, so maybe I'm biased.

I really hate the "precious little snowflake" mentality of some parents.

Did you guys read about the case where a girl brought a birthday cake to school with a knife to cut the cake? The teacher cut the cake and served it, THEN called the principal and reported her.. ugh.

I wish all these assholes enforcing this crap realized they are in effect ruining these pupils' educational lives. These things stay on your record and they really can prevent you from pursuing further education.

Oh no, no, no! You cannot delete your comment, NR! I have saved it for posterity!

>> ^NetRunner:
Okay, here's my reaction to each:
1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean the US is going to take a role of non-interference in the operation of state governments? Foreign governments? It'll let people rope off an acre of land and self-determine it into an independent country?
2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Anyone can speak on the behalf of the US government if they want to? Individuals can invade countries, whilst flying the American flag? The US will protect a US citizen's rights as we define them, even if they move overseas?
3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Same thought as gwiz. Either this is silly and obvious, or a declaration to the world that we will take over as much land as we feel we need to feed and house our people.
4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
This one just sounds a little too hard edged. Something more like "The United States government will attempt to foster an environment of high employment and economic growth, and provide for the livelihood of those who are unable to provide for themselves" sounds a lot better to me, since it leaves open the right questions for debate (things like what constitutes a growth environment, and what does "unable" or livelihood mean), while foreclosing questions I think shouldn't be up for debate (i.e. is it the responsibility of the government of the United States to care about economic issues and hardships at all?).
5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
I like equal rights. What's equal duty mean? We all work the same hours a day? All pay the same amount in taxes? We all need to take our turn in the barrel? Everyone needs to do 2 years public service?
6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
No, I don't like this one at all. I think everyone has a god-given right to be lazy. I don't like the idea of making it a core principle that one must not "clash with the general interest", either. I think the "general good" should be protected (e.g. environmental protection law, FDA regulations on food and drugs, general police protection, regulating the financial sector, etc.), but I don't think the way to do that is to say people can't act against the general interest at all.
7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.
I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).
8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22).
The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.
However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.
9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
No need to nationalize them, just bust 'em up.
10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about profit-sharing with all employees, no matter how lowly. I agree, and why focus only on the "large industrial enterprises"? The mechanics would need to be worked out, and for some people I think they'd rather have stability in their income than having it tied to profit, but I think everyone should have the opportunity to opt into a profit-driven payscale if they want it, even if they just sweep the floors.
11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We've already done it -- Social Security and Medicare. I want Medicare for All now.
12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I like supporting the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, though I don't see why this would require nationalizing malls as dedicated workers for the state...
Seems to me that there are more effective, and less heavy-handed ways to lower barriers for entry to small businesses.
13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
No. I'm curious what "ground" rent is, but no.
14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
I think this one is worded badly. "The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life." sounds kinda scary. "Education should be focused on the requirements of practical life." sounds better, since it doesn't talk about how people must be brought into line.
I believe the "education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State" is otherwise known as a scholarship, and I'm all for governments levying taxes to beef them up.
If anything, this one just seems a bit modest and unfocused. I agree that "practical life" leaves a bit too much leeway, I'm thinking it would be things like civics, personal finance, career planning, etc., and not things like shop class (though shop class is good too).
15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Some of this exists already (child labor laws), and compulsory gymnastics and sports...for kids going to school (at least in my K-12 it was). I'm not for making exercise/sports mandatory for adults, but I think we'd do well to have some types of diet and exercise programs covered by our health care plans.
16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
The way this is written, it almost sounds like they don't even want the states to run their own militias, and I certainly don't think those should be dismantled. I don't even have an issue with the idea of private military companies like Blackwater, as long as they aren't corrupt and evil like Blackwater. I would want a fat regulatory agency looking over their shoulder, with backing from the US military, but I wouldn't necessarily want to abolish them outright.
I don't care for the people who call themselves militias but are really talking about plotting a revolution against the government, or fighting off the IRS with assault rifles. Those people are criminals, not militias.
17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.
I'm not sure what half of this one is supposed to mean. Personally, I think anyone on the left talking about the size of government in the current political era is making a mistake, and adopting the preferred framing of the right.
It's good policy vs. bad policy. Government that believes it bears an important duty to the people vs. government that wants to prove government can't do anything right. Empathy vs. selfishness. We're in this together vs. You're on your own.

1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
What do they actually propose here? Isn't the UNITED states already a union? Or do they want to change something?

2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
Seems reasonable, but this is not really something that can be settled internally in the US, the "other nations" would have to agree as well. Internally, of course, anyone should be allowed to trade internationally as they please, not some people favored.

3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Either this is a painfully obvious point, or something more sinister is behind it. "We will grow stuff and farm it", well sure, knock yourselves out. "We will clear nature preserves and such to increase our use of the land" Less good. "We will only use what land is necessary to support the people." Better. A matter of interpretation.

4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
A job at all costs? Jobs can't just be created out of thin air - there has to be a reason for them. Welfare is better than a job that has no value.

5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
Well, duh.

6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Yes and no. I agree that the first duty of a citizen should be to work, but this is indirectly determined by the fact that if you don't work--> you don't earn--> you die. Whether or not something "clashes with general interest" is harder to define, because plenty of work has not been in the gneral interest, but have been useful in the end anyway. Say, stem-cell research. No matter how many people want to ban it should not matter, because it is indeed useful to the survival of the human race.

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
End welfare? Sure, but then you'll have to make up dummy-jobs, which in the end is welfare anyway. I can see the value in getting cheap labor this way, but I think this is worse than just plain welfare until a real job comes around.

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
End wars. Sounds noble enough. Confiscating war profits sounds an awful lot like theft though. What needs to be done, is make sure that there is fair dealings in companies that provide services for war - the corruption that makes sure that companies like blackwater and halliburton gets all the deals must be quelled. A company exists in part to create profit for its people - if no profit should be made on war, then the state should make its own stuff. It is the one "company" that shouldn't make a profit.

9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Uhm, what!? I think this is a bad idea. Oversight, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest are all stuff I can see arising for this. If something has gotten big, it's because people have bought their product. We shouldn't penalize a good company just because it's big.

10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Again, what the hell is this? "Oh poor apple, I see you haven't made as much profits as us.. here, have some money." - microsoft. That's just stupid.

11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
Fair. Pension should be maintained for those who need it.

12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I don't like the concept of classes - mostly because I don't think it's all that applicable anymore. People should get payed for their abilities + supply/demand of the job. And again they want to take the "evil big stores" and turn them into nice little stores. It's a dream world, Neo. They are not big because they are evil, they are big because they sell a good product. If you want to "level the playing field", then give incentives to make jobs locally and penalize foreign jobs (like sweatshops and such).

13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
"Expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation".. get the fuck out of here. This land is my land, that land is your land♫ let's keep it that way. If there is a dire communal need for some of MY land, then you can well enough buy it from me, so I can move somewhere better.

14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Education must be reformed, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. "Practical life"? There are plenty of things that ought to be taught that have nothing to do with practical life, biology, chemistry, mathematics (beyond the basics), history - we can't all go to knitting and shop-class. And in the higher educations the subjects become even more esoteric. What's "practical life" for some, is not at all for others. Hell, specialization is the cornerstone of education.

15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Mandatory fat camps! Heh, I do think that gymnastics and sports should be mandatory in school, but that's it. English is mandatory too, why not some for of physical activity? I don't think that adults should be compelled to do sports directly though - that's their choice. I would rather that incentives were made to be healthy, or maybe certain penalties for being grossly unhealthy.

16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
Of course. There should only be one army. If you want to make "Bob's army" you can go off and make "Bob's Country" and do it.

17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.

This seems to be against what's been said earlier. Now they want to MAKE corporations? Confusing. Don't they trust the states to carry out the legislation?

>> ^EndAll:
An anarchist school.. off the top of my head, I'd cite 'Summerhill'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School ?

"It is still run as a democratic community; the running of the school is conducted in the school meetings, which anyone, staff or pupil, may attend, and at which everyone has an equal vote."

That's not anarchy - that's democracy. Also, if you look at the wiki page, there are plenty of authority in that school too, like tiered age grouping and curfew.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have been wanting to type the following for a long time. I just hope that I can compose the next few lines properly.
Shooting some one who stands no chance, no proper chance, in being given the option to defend themselves is the most base definition of cowardly. This goes for all things, most especially unmanned drones, and suicide bombings.
The days of a killer seeing what they have wrought are over. They have no understanding of how a persons dies. To actually see the wounding, the subsequent expulsion of vital fluids, the dilation of the victims pupils, and the contortions of pain, should be enough to know that killing any one is a complete waste.
If you cant get along in the collective then keep it to yourself. The sentence before this was typed by an individualist, secular humanist, and a Libertarian.
Violence does not solve any thing. Compromise, Education, and understanding is what the Republic was founded on. So that the "Crazies" could be heard. To the murderer, Fuck you for stifling free speech.


Well spoken, NordlichReiter.

As to the defensive ability of the victim, Jim Pouillon was elderly, overweight, and connected to an oxygen tank constantly, including at the time of his death. If anyone was helpless against an assailant, it was Jim Pouillon. However, Jim Pouillon would disagree. Jim believed that there was a group who was more defenseless, who was more worthy to be loved and defended: Babies.

The attitude of the friends and of Jim has been consistent towards James Drake. They wish to speak to him, to share with him the same world view and belief system held by Jim. They wish him all the Love and hope for his repentance, for truly, James Drake did no damage to Jim. (Jim was more than his flesh and his blood, and Jim knew this.) James Drake has damaged himself and the world for removing such a man from our presence.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
...To actually see the wounding, the subsequent expulsion of vital fluids, the dilation of the victims pupils, and the contortions of pain, should be enough to know that killing any one is a complete waste.
Which is why I say that the death penalty should not exist without compulsory viewing by all citizens of the public execution of the condemned.

If anyone is going to support the death penalty then it should be with the full understanding of what they are advocating. This is not a statement of condemnation or support for the death penalty, just an inconvenient fact.

I have been wanting to type the following for a long time. I just hope that I can compose the next few lines properly.

Shooting some one who stands no chance, no proper chance, in being given the option to defend themselves is the most base definition of cowardly. This goes for all things, most especially unmanned drones, and suicide bombings.

The days of a killer seeing what they have wrought are over. They have no understanding of how a persons dies. To actually see the wounding, the subsequent expulsion of vital fluids, the dilation of the victims pupils, and the contortions of pain, should be enough to know that killing any one is a complete waste.

If you cant get along in the collective then keep it to yourself. The sentence before this was typed by an individualist, secular humanist, and a Libertarian.

Violence does not solve any thing. Compromise, Education, and understanding is what the Republic was founded on. So that the "Crazies" could be heard. To the murderer, Fuck you for stifling free speech.

Chapter 1 courtesy of the http://richarddawkins.net/article,4217,Extract-from-Chapter-One-of-The-Greatest-Show-on-Earth,Richard-Dawkins---Times-Online

Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.

Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.

If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.

The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.

But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.

What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.

To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.

To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.

*Not my favourite Yeats line, but apt in this case.

© Richard Dawkins 2009

I'd want blood for what they did to that woman.

My reaction is so visceral that to even describe how I feel: When I see these things take place, it opens my pores, dilates my pupils, and tenses my muscles.

But deep down inside I know that to fight back against tyranny is with out violence.

You must do every thing in your power to let them know how you feel, to make them understand so long as you do not violate another persons rights.

Remember: Ballot Box, donation box, Soap Box, and lastly only as a final resort when all hope is gone ammo box.

In these situations I see the Milgram's experiment, the bystander effect, and the Stanford Prison project all wrapped up into one bloody orgy of despotism .

Rubbish. Cats often have wide-open pupils.

The way his pupils are dilated like that, seems like something is really really wrong... cats I've known only have pupils like that when they are really afraid, in pain, or are ready to attack something...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I will always try to err toward benevolence- but absolute power will eventually corrupt absolutely.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
As true as it is written, I guess the discrepancy will always lie in what those standards are. I guess we've never had a problem with it before. As much fun as it is to show contempt towards authority, my love for the site will always reign, and I have to question these decisions. Thank you, and although I don't agree with your decision I respect it and you're within your rights to exact what you feel is just.

In reply to this comment by dag:
As you know - the community abdicated the right of Siftquistion to a supreme sovereign. Also, the "P" stand for probationary- I think it's OK to hold them to a minimal standard of conduct.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
hmmm...interesting. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems so icky to ban based on tastelessness. I agree he or she wouldn't get the biggest heartfelt welcome on every comment they left but I didn't see anything over the line. Ignorant maybe, but still within our rules. Maybe something so fringe should go to siftquisition? I think that's the proper forum for deciding a punishment for a member that just doesn't get it. I think if they realize that we take this seriously, they might go from youtube troll, to Socratic pupil. Call me an idealist, but sometimes people could use a fair shot.

But it's your call, you the boss (even though I'm 1 higher than you in rank )

In reply to this comment by dag:
Expressed will to "fuck shit up" plus history of crappy comments:
http://www.videosift.com/video/McDonalds-Little-Sister-Comercial#comment-786323
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-know-God-exists#comment-785032
http://www.videosift.com/video/Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-Gold-lion-london-live#comment-783632

Led me to believe this is a member that VideoSift can do without.

Heil Siftler



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't know if I can agree with you on this one. I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe I don't know all dimensions of this issue, but I think that this was an extreme punishment for somebody that didn't understand the rules clearly (not to mention didn't even do anything wrong).

The fact of the matter is, once somebody puts the time into getting 100 gold stars, I doubt their primary objective will be to "fuck shit up".

Secondly it costs 1 to 2 power points to promote a video, the chances of him/her having the amount needed to fill up a page are slim to none. Plus if he did accumulate that much, he may just deserve it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
No you won't. See- we practice a kind of community eugenics on Sifters. Goodbye.

In reply to this comment by nerbula:
WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.

As true as it is written, I guess the discrepancy will always lie in what those standards are. I guess we've never had a problem with it before. As much fun as it is to show contempt towards authority, my love for the site will always reign, and I have to question these decisions. Thank you, and although I don't agree with your decision I respect it and you're within your rights to exact what you feel is just.

In reply to this comment by dag:
As you know - the community abdicated the right of Siftquistion to a supreme sovereign. Also, the "P" stand for probationary- I think it's OK to hold them to a minimal standard of conduct.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
hmmm...interesting. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems so icky to ban based on tastelessness. I agree he or she wouldn't get the biggest heartfelt welcome on every comment they left but I didn't see anything over the line. Ignorant maybe, but still within our rules. Maybe something so fringe should go to siftquisition? I think that's the proper forum for deciding a punishment for a member that just doesn't get it. I think if they realize that we take this seriously, they might go from youtube troll, to Socratic pupil. Call me an idealist, but sometimes people could use a fair shot.

But it's your call, you the boss (even though I'm 1 higher than you in rank )

In reply to this comment by dag:
Expressed will to "fuck shit up" plus history of crappy comments:
http://www.videosift.com/video/McDonalds-Little-Sister-Comercial#comment-786323
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-know-God-exists#comment-785032
http://www.videosift.com/video/Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-Gold-lion-london-live#comment-783632

Led me to believe this is a member that VideoSift can do without.

Heil Siftler



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't know if I can agree with you on this one. I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe I don't know all dimensions of this issue, but I think that this was an extreme punishment for somebody that didn't understand the rules clearly (not to mention didn't even do anything wrong).

The fact of the matter is, once somebody puts the time into getting 100 gold stars, I doubt their primary objective will be to "fuck shit up".

Secondly it costs 1 to 2 power points to promote a video, the chances of him/her having the amount needed to fill up a page are slim to none. Plus if he did accumulate that much, he may just deserve it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
No you won't. See- we practice a kind of community eugenics on Sifters. Goodbye.

In reply to this comment by nerbula:
WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As you know - the community abdicated the right of Siftquistion to a supreme sovereign. Also, the "P" stand for probationary- I think it's OK to hold them to a minimal standard of conduct.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
hmmm...interesting. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems so icky to ban based on tastelessness. I agree he or she wouldn't get the biggest heartfelt welcome on every comment they left but I didn't see anything over the line. Ignorant maybe, but still within our rules. Maybe something so fringe should go to siftquisition? I think that's the proper forum for deciding a punishment for a member that just doesn't get it. I think if they realize that we take this seriously, they might go from youtube troll, to Socratic pupil. Call me an idealist, but sometimes people could use a fair shot.

But it's your call, you the boss (even though I'm 1 higher than you in rank )

In reply to this comment by dag:
Expressed will to "fuck shit up" plus history of crappy comments:
http://www.videosift.com/video/McDonalds-Little-Sister-Comercial#comment-786323
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-know-God-exists#comment-785032
http://www.videosift.com/video/Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-Gold-lion-london-live#comment-783632

Led me to believe this is a member that VideoSift can do without.

Heil Siftler



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't know if I can agree with you on this one. I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe I don't know all dimensions of this issue, but I think that this was an extreme punishment for somebody that didn't understand the rules clearly (not to mention didn't even do anything wrong).

The fact of the matter is, once somebody puts the time into getting 100 gold stars, I doubt their primary objective will be to "fuck shit up".

Secondly it costs 1 to 2 power points to promote a video, the chances of him/her having the amount needed to fill up a page are slim to none. Plus if he did accumulate that much, he may just deserve it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
No you won't. See- we practice a kind of community eugenics on Sifters. Goodbye.

In reply to this comment by nerbula:
WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.

hmmm...interesting. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems so icky to ban based on tastelessness. I agree he or she wouldn't get the biggest heartfelt welcome on every comment they left but I didn't see anything over the line. Ignorant maybe, but still within our rules. Maybe something so fringe should go to siftquisition? I think that's the proper forum for deciding a punishment for a member that just doesn't get it. I think if they realize that we take this seriously, they might go from youtube troll, to Socratic pupil. Call me an idealist, but sometimes people could use a fair shot.

But it's your call, you the boss (even though I'm 1 higher than you in rank )

In reply to this comment by dag:
Expressed will to "fuck shit up" plus history of crappy comments:
http://www.videosift.com/video/McDonalds-Little-Sister-Comercial#comment-786323
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-know-God-exists#comment-785032
http://www.videosift.com/video/Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-Gold-lion-london-live#comment-783632

Led me to believe this is a member that VideoSift can do without.

Heil Siftler



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't know if I can agree with you on this one. I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe I don't know all dimensions of this issue, but I think that this was an extreme punishment for somebody that didn't understand the rules clearly (not to mention didn't even do anything wrong).

The fact of the matter is, once somebody puts the time into getting 100 gold stars, I doubt their primary objective will be to "fuck shit up".

Secondly it costs 1 to 2 power points to promote a video, the chances of him/her having the amount needed to fill up a page are slim to none. Plus if he did accumulate that much, he may just deserve it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
No you won't. See- we practice a kind of community eugenics on Sifters. Goodbye.

In reply to this comment by nerbula:
WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.