A wonderful presentation, but somewhat misleading. One could get the sense that the Greeks were unfamiliar with reincarnation, when this could not be farther from the truth. The Pythagoreans were propounding such a doctrine long before Alexander, and Plato--Aristotle's teacher--seems to have made it a central point.

That said, Aristotle himself was skeptical, and may well have passed this skepticism down to his famous pupil. Though reincarnation played an important role in many other aspects and ancestors of Greek culture. One might note the Aeneid, Book 6 of which contains a sublime account of reincarnation.

The point, I suppose, is that there is not necessarily one myth playing an important role in a society, but many in conflict, even when one might have dominance.

I hated Curb at first. I really found it hard to watch, especially since I'm a huge fan of Seinfeld, particularly Jason Alexander's character.

But I must admit that having forced myself to watch more than a few episodes I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Danny. All but the first sentence anyway. It's not the best show, it's no Seinfeld but it's up there.

I of course notice that every single NAY is a republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
FYI, even after this interview there were 30 votes against the bill.
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY)G raham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)
And here I kinda liked McCain.
http://senate.gov/legislativ
e/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

FYI, even after this interview there were 30 votes against the bill.

Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY)G raham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

And here I kinda liked McCain.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

Wow! Rivals this guy's Toccata and Fugue:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Amazing-accordion-player-Alexander-Dmtriev


(the Bach piece is a bit more dramatic, but this kid is awesome)

LOL. I've never seen Jason Alexander so thin.

Funny, I guess, but I won't upvote because it's mostly fiction. The Daily Show is excellent because their comedy is usually grounded in reality, but just to be clear, this isn't --

Alexander marched through all regions of Afghanistan (which of course wasn't a single political entity at the time) with clear success. He even founded Kandahar (one of many cities called Alexandria, at the time).

Gengis Khan utterly destroyed the empire that occupied most of Afghanistan and Persia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia

And heck, not to mention that the US and the Northern Alliance toppled the Taliban with relative ease.

Of course, one could argue how much any of these empires/regimes was actually "in control" of Afghanistan, but that's true of imperial control of most regions.

So really, it's unmerited to call Afghanistan "unconquerable". It might be OK to call it "Ungovernable", but that's true of many regions of the world.

Okay, a founder-off then. Here's what Hamilton has to say:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

Alexander Hamilton

In any case, the limits of "government" laid out in the Constitution weren't supposed to be a proclamation that no government shall intrude, merely that state governments were to be the sole arbiter of those matters.

To take Madison's side is not to say that no government shall mandate things like a universal health care program, it's to declare that the national government has to rely on state governments in order to do it if they want to.

To push states' rights in such a way is just silly, unless you seriously think we need to go back to some sort of highly Federated system where we're supposed to identify with our State more than the nation called the United States. Actually, we'd have to go back to thinking of the phrase "United States" as being plural -- call it these United States.

It also means you really have to declare that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, since obviously that's a matter for the states to decide on...

O, and you mention your a cynic, I recommend reading up on the father of cynicism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic

Cynicism: This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a life free from all possessions. Diogenes has some great one liners, read about when he is talking to Alexander the great...its lolzable.

I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.

In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others. This is how Aquinas used similar arguments in the 13th century, and it's how theistic thinkers deploy them today. They are only intended to weaken the atheist position generally. NonStampCollector doesn't even attempt to address them on this level.

In the second place, it's asinine to assume that every religion is the same--either with regard to how well they are supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments, or how much or little they incline their followers to religious violence. As it happens, the Hindu has a much better case than the Christian or Muslim for saying that these arguments support his religion. Brahma, unlike the God of Abraham, does not have a seemingly petty concern with particular tribes of humans or become angry or feel wronged because of sin. Brahma is described as illimitable, all-embracing. Brahma is a more cosmic God, better supported by the discovery of the age and vast distances of the universe.

Other Gods or divine realities so supported include Plato's Form of the Good, the Logos of the Stoics, the God of Leibniz or Spinoza, and even the God of A. N. Whitehead (co-author of the Principia Mathematica with acclaimed atheist Bertrand Russel) and Charles Hartshorne.

Tendencies toward violence differ considerably between religions. The Hindu and the worshiper of Amun have no reason to get into a fight about religion. Hinduism is not a single religion, but thousands of intertwined religions which have co-existed peacefully for thousands of years. A plurality of religious beliefs and practices--including atheism--has long been not fought by Hindus, but embraced. Only when aggressive evangelistic monotheisms actively attack Hinduism does anything like an instinct to violence come into play--and even then it tends to arise mainly in extreme circumstances. (As in Orissa in 2008, when the assassination of a Hindu leader by Christian Maoist extremists sparked a riot and violence by members of both religions, or the year before, in 20007, when Christians deliberately provoked Hindus by .) Likewise, there is no reason anyone would go to war over Amun. It would not be appropriate to describe the religions of Egypt as tolerant--the word implies a perception of annoyance or burden in allowing others to co-exist, when co-existence was assumed as a daily fact of life. In fact, the priests of Amun welcomed Zeus-worshiping Greeks to the oracle of Amun at Siwa, which once declared Alexander the Great to be the son of Amun.

But, of course, NonStampCollector doesn't actually know any of this. He just assumes, like nearly all the New Atheists, that all the other religions in the world are more or less just like the ones he's most familiar with. Makes it easier that way; you don't have to do as much studying or thinking.

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
Deregulation is the answer? Has this not been de-bunked a thousand times over yet?
How about the US actually make something that the world wants to buy, wouldn't that be better?


not really.
i think the death is in the details.
regulations have literally brought americas manufacturing to its knees.
they could not compete with so much regulation weighing in against their profit margin.
this is where the financial district became so appealing.
so where GM would offer a 3% on avg return,it was the DEREGULATED financial institutions who could offer up to 20%.
while unrealistic in the long run,you cant blame an investor for jumping on the bandwagon,anyone of us would have.
im not saying that the regulations in finance should be blanket,just the safegaurds that were slowly,over twenty years,picked away and brought us the disaster we find ourselves in today.
glass/steagle to be specific,but there were a myriad of safegaurds that the financial institutions lobbied to excise.
i agree with schiff on many things.
giving financial institutions free reign is not one of them.
the biggest thing i DO agree on is america needs to go back to manufacturing again.
in peter schiff's book "crash proof" he does not make it sound like that is going to be a walk in the park,but it is utterly vital that we sacrifice and start making the changes now.
article 76 of the federalist papers,alexander hamilton laid out an industrial nation plan.which america followed until the late 70's.
it was a outline that had america importing more raw material,manufacturing and lending more than ANY other nation in the world.
those statistics have literally flipped.
by definition,america is a third world nation.
one of the worst shifts in the american philosophy was going from "making/building stuff was good"
to...
"greed is good".
now..milton friedman said greed was good but that was based on the assumption people were playing by the rules of the free market.
and those rules have been ignored for almost thirty years.
we do not have a free market,we have an oligarchy of corporations.
the free market works.
this is a main reason why i am for a single payer system.
bring in the health insurance that will force the industry to cut its fat,and lower prices.
everybody wins.
thats my 2c's anyways.

>> ^spoco2:
I think it's a bit much to call Jesse Alexander as a series creator of any of those shows, he was a producer... he wasn't even producer of Alias until season 5.


You're taking that out of context. They are merely stating he created THIS series and he produced the others. They're not being overly clear with that statement, however.

I think it's a bit much to call Jesse Alexander as a series creator of any of those shows, he was a producer... he wasn't even producer of Alias until season 5.

>> ^jerryku:
I'm not surprised that so few are Republican (Einstein was a Communist, and many of Oppenheimer's relatives were, too), but I wonder how many today are Libertarian-types, since so many identify as independents?
And how many are pro-democracy? I would argue that science and democracy don't really work together well. For one thing, scientists are very smart, while the majority of the human race is probably embarrassingly foolish in their eyes. So are scientists (elite eggheads) really in favor of having the unwashed masses rule the world? I gotta wonder.
A scientist libertarian party guy makes sense to me though. Free market stuff is like a form of social darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Evolution. Science. Brutal, cold, efficient, and without any silly Bible or Quran to teach hippie whatever egalitarian "love your neighbor" principles that are in there.
A scientist fascist makes sense to me, too.
I guess a scientist Communist (which was VERY popular in the past) actually makes the least amount of sense to me. The only part that makes sense is the tenet of Communism that opposes faith in God. If high #s of scientists are not religious, then I can see the appeal of Communism. But all the other aspects of Communism, which is really based on the idea of majority rule ("The People!"), seems to go against what scientists would favor. Then again, I guess convincing the world that there was no afterlife after a nuclear world-destroying war.. would be the most important thing to do for the time being. Kinda like an Ozzymandias from The Watchmen type thing.




Maybe scientists are elite egg heads, but you know who else were also elite eggheads? Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Thomas Edison, Dr. Salk, Neil Armstrong. It was American eggheads that led the way to map the human genome. Nearly everyone on tonight’s shuttle launch is a science/math geek, and all but two are American. I for one am proud that my country has produced so many eggheads.

Science has done very well under democracy, and amazingly well under American democracy. In our brief history, American scientists (or at least scientists that came to and did their best work while in America [i.e. Nikola Tesla, Alexander Bell, Wernher von Braun]) have given the world the greatest number of advances in science, medicine and technology of the modern era. It makes totally sense; a free society, where ideas and information can be easily exchanged, coupled with a healthy amount of capital from the private sector to fund research is the best environment for scientific advances.

Just because a person is not religious does not mean they would automatically find communism attractive. If everyone that didn’t believe in a god were also a communist, communism would be a lot more successful than it is. I would venture to say that a disbelief in a god is more likely to happen in the above-mentioned free and open societies as opposed to one where everyone are told what to think. Communism (at least as in the form of China, Cuba, North Korea and the USSR) is not a “majority rule” government, but one where a small, self appointed, insular group at the very top controls everything. Majority rule is, however, a tenet of democracy.

Hahaha, "He's such a fag". Classic.

Sarah Alexander is such a babe. Coupling was the best show