She has spent 5 years out of TWENTY is a hell hole, is suffering beyond ANYTHING you can imagine, endured one of the most blatant show trials of modern times in which her human rights were systematically trashed... and you "think it's pretty likely that she did it.".

What sort of person says that? What sort of person is that callous?

How about looking here:
www.schapelle.net/propositions/hiddentruth.pdf

Or at the proven human rights abuses:
www.schapelle.net/trial.html

Or head over to JournOz.Com and see how public opinion was subdued to allow her government to maintain its political stability with Indonesia.

This is barbaric cruelty almost beyond belief: yet some people post as though it was a game of football.

It is an innocent young woman struggling to survive on a daily basis. A REAL person, being crucified for politics (for and mega War on Drugs funding) over a few pounds of dope.

This beautiful song is a cry of despair. Some people though will never care about others, however desperately they need help.

I started Henry Miller's "Stand Still Like the Hummingbird" today. It's a collection of short stories and articles.

The first article talks about how great it is to be around people that you can relate to, and I realized that such a thing is very difficult in modern times.

Yet, when I go home, and get on the internet, the first thing I want to do is go to the places where I can interact with someone. Text, video, audio.

I notice that there are many people sitting at home, getting on the net, and looking for someone to play with. And yet, sometimes, we look at each other in flesh to flesh situations and can't relate at all.

I really think it might be easier to unite us all than it ever has been before.

If we could only keep the net open, and keep Rottenseed from closing it down for us all, and/or resurrecting the dead as he once promised on the hind-end of a tequila drunk.

Whatever, blankie.

It was just a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
???

Government didn't create corporations? They certainly are not a product of the free market. The free market is people engaging in voluntary mutually beneficial exchange without coercion. Just read the wiki page for corporations and tell me if that doesn't smell of government intervention (law is the key word to look for when trying to find government's hand): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations

"Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the shareholders that invest their capital and the employees who contribute their labor. People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, for their goods and services, for the value of the pensions, for economic growth and social development."

How did they become to be such a necessary part of our life? Did the private marketplace make them necessary? Or was it through government giving them tax incentives that made them more profitable than smaller businesses?

In reply to this comment by rougy:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^jonny:


Remember, the marketplace didn't create corporations, the government did.


Dear God, man, it's called Kool Aid for a reason.

You're forced by law only if you live here, you could always move. US expats are all over the world enjoying various other forms of government, some involve zero tax or very low tax. If you're paying taxes here there's one of two reasons. You've decided to stay and enjoy the benefits but want to complain about the cost anyway, or you're too young to move and need to blame your parents instead. Go ahead and blame them, I'll wait.

All done? Ok. If you want tips on tax havens check the following page for starters on what to look for, it describes what it calls "no or nominal taxes" nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

You are in a democracy and the citizens did vote for change, I happen to have some real questions about the man as well but just because some have questions, or worse real fears, that doesn't make our concerns any more important than the rest of the nations. Democracy, elections, results matter and all of that good stuff. Try again next time if you want a different type of change.

To the meat of it, yes, this does answer my question but not in the way that you intend I don't think. I'll quote it again so we don't get confused on what part.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Can you personally think of any ways to build schools, roads, or fund law enforcement which don't involve physical violence or forced taxation? If you can't, does that settle the question?


I'll ask you the exact same question. You happen to live in a democracy. A democracy that has decided that it wants the police, wants the roads, wants the schools. Not just this nation but civilized nations for as long as history records have built roads for public use and trade. Don't like it? Go somewhere where the majority don't want those things. Unless of course you can figure out a way to provide those things without taxes. Socialism is being used mostly as an empty buzzword to scare people who don't understand what it means. We've always been socialist, and capitalist, and a couple of other things besides. So have most other nations at least in modern times. Just in various aspects of our lives or economy. The debate is simply in degree. If you or Keyes object to programs name them and offer the reasons, don't toss empty buzzwords. Specifics I might even agree with. You never know.

Change enough minds to win the next election and with someone who agrees with you, change your address, or adapt.

Nice title. I think it's good advice for everything ever.

"Smoking Causes Lung Cancer? Listen to the Scientists."
"Global Warming? Listen to the Scientists."

In modern times, the view of scientists in the field represent the best opinion possible based on man kind's current knowledge.

Sometimes it'd difficult for some people to figure out which side is actually the scientists, and which side is the <1% of scientists backed by propaganda and political pressure. It's not that hard though.

although i'm in favor of non-traditional unions--both homosexual *and* polygamous marriage, etc--i guess i see the arguing of *this* particular point to be moot

the point of contention is clearly the *ability* to procreate, rather than the *necessity* of the same

for argument's sake, take a look at the statutes of some u.s. states' vehicle codes...

in illinois, for example, all light trucks have to be registered as payload-bearing vehicles, and are even issued special license plates which depict a lower-case 'b' on the tag

does this mean that driving your light truck in illinois *without* a payload is illegal?

imho, there are stronger arguments in favor of non-traditional marriage than this quasi-strawman

if i had my druthers, we'd SETTLE THIS silly *marriage* issue ONCE AND FOR ALL... meaning that we completely do away with ANY and ALL barriers to ANYONE and EVERYONE, of an appropriate age (whatever that means), marrying for WHATEVER reason

it just seems to me that fighting this very emotional and exhausting political and moral battle *more than once* is inefficient and costly, both in time and money

having researched the history of marriage from its earliest conceptualization up to modern times, the history of the the advent of "romantic love" and its media inculcation over time, as well as the relatively recent disenfranchising (the last 100 years or so) of the rights of young adults--think for a second... if it's *immoral* to deny recognition of a homosexual union, then who are we to say (and why) that, say, two 14-17 year-olds cannot have their "love" recognized without social outcry and parental permission (stop and think of how much progeny has sprung from teenage "marriages" and "procreation" since time immemorial... i find the whole sorry mess to be based largely on ignorance

gay marriage has my support, but i'd be greatly disappointed if all this cacophony were to simply allow this *particular* group to attain satisfaction and *then* draw a moral line *behind* themselves

This is the 1920 film version, 'The Golem and How He Came Into the World', not the 1915 version of 'The Golem' as stated. The earlier 1915 version is lost except for a few stills and fragments. It was only an hour long and was set in then modern times, not the sixteenth century.

Neither film has anything to do with the Gustav Meyrink novel (read the excellent Mike Mitchell translation and find out for yourself). The book uses the Golem legend in an entirely novel (pun intended) way. If Meyrink had anything to do with the films, that would be news to me.... The Wikipedia entry for the novel 'The Golem' states, "The novel was not, despite contrary claims, the basis for three films, both [sic] realized by Paul Wegener. Both [sic] films rather adapt the original Golem legend."

I'm not siding with Wal-Mart, but unionization is really bad news for everyone (except the labor unions themselves). Unions, once being an essential moderator of power between employee and employer, have lost their way in modern times. Unionizing will only create more overhead cost for both Wal-mart and the employees. The employees will have to pay the opportunity cost of default benefits package in addition to union dues, possible paycheck loss from strikes, and at worst, their job. At the end, worker unions help no one, they only weaken the bond between employee-employer relations; also increases outsourcing of jobs.

Absolutely brilliant compilation! I really enjoy seeing many of those (now banned) animations from the WW2 era. Typically loaded with pro-US propoganda. It IS a part of history and should not be blacklisted. Though of course it probably isn't fit for broadcast on Saturday mornings

I wonder if there is a source online where one could see all of those old animations. Are they in public domain?

Now.. For modern times, it looks like something Faux News might repeat in the background in today's context boasting a pro-war attitude. They'd replace the music of course.. with something more flashy. Maybe TV Wrestling music to better equate with their core viewership.

lol which versoin of the bible are thay using i mean so piontless distroting a religouse text to make it more aceptable in modern times when people have the mental ablity to not need a bible to tell them how to get on in a comunity.

At least with the fundies thay are folowing a religouse txt as it is written if your a pikker and chooser your evan more diluded in some respects i mean comon the bible is the word of god who are you to say its wrong .

admitidly there is the fact that the bible is badly written to the piont that it internaly contradicts itself in manny places.

Earth at the centre of the universe = Intelligent Design


It's all the same thing, the church trying to use science for persuasion in modern times now that fear doesn't work as it did a thousand years ago.

Seems pretty simple if you watch this video.

STOP THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.
STOP VIOLATION OF GENEVA.
STOP TORTURING PEOPLE AND WATERBOARDING THEM.
CLOSE GUANTANAMO THE CESSPOOL EQUALED ONLY BY POL POT IN MODERN TIMES.
JAIL ALL WAR CRIMINALS.

Then the majority of these european criticisms go away.
The US has lost its way being led by warcriminals.

^jwray Let's counter this claim with some specifics[...]

Obama is not claiming that there is only one country that has diversity or successful individuals of minority groups.

He's right that his particular story is uniquely American in some sense. Diversity in the U.S. means that 45% of children younger than 5 are minorities, including people from every country on the planet (this isn't true of any other country). Importantly, the history of that diversity also includes one of the largest racial injustices of modern times.

Norway, like every country, has its own story of wrestling with diversity, but having a small percentage of its population being recent immigrants is not the same.

adam - that you see no evidence of the existence of god does not mean that he doesn't. I think he probably sees the evidence every day. I won't quibble with you over the nature of that evidence, as I'm making a supposition anyway, but I think you know what I'm getting at. As for why not assume god is occasionally evil, cruel, or moody, I think he does address that in the talk. His answer is that if that is in fact the case, he wants no part of that god.

The distinction between the death of one and the death of hundreds of thousands I thought would be clear, at least in the context. The death of one is generally seen as a natural part of life, even when it occurs by some ridiculous accident. Even in the case of intentional actions, say the murder of an individual vs genocide, I think most people have a much harder time wrapping their heads around the latter than the former, theists and atheists alike. The world did change on the day of the tsunami, e.g., the civil war in northern Indonesia basically ended right then and there. One of the former rebel leaders is now a governor(?) of one of those territories. Yes, there is still a lot of strife, but the active military campaign was ended.

The failure of doctrinal views of God in modern times is due to many reasons. As you say, for many it is simply a matter of lack of objective evidence, but for others it is not, because objective evidence was never a criterion for them.

He's not trying to define God, but rather come to some comprehension of God. And ultimately, he answers "I don't know". To me, he seems to be specifically trying to avoid a preaching or sermonic attitude. I think to an extent you're right though, his talk does presuppose the notion of divine existence, but he has to start somewhere. He is addressing a question that billions of people have wrestled with, many of them far smarter than you or I. Even Einstein recognized a certain divinity in the universe, though his views would hardly be in line with the Anglican Church. But I think Tom Honey is heading in the same direction. He says for a long time he was afraid of openly questioning church doctrine, but ultimately to remain true to himself and his congregation, he found he must delve into these questions.


>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
i see how it's been useful, but now it poses a threat because we need to have our eyes open to reality to save our species - not blind following of things that are made up.

Yes yes yes! That is, I think, exactly what Honey is getting at. But he is not inventing God, that was done a long time ago. Nor is he inventing reasons for God's existence. That humans are spiritual beings and have deeply spiritual experiences would be hard to deny. He is offering a starting point for many people to begin to reconcile all these disparate notions, and at the same time pointing out the failure of religious doctrine.

Anyway, I thank you guys for the very interesting comments. I had hoped some more folks would jump in on this, but I suspect it is for many a closed case, and for many others too tiresome. The atheism/theism conversation has been repeated here so many times, and often with some rancor, so I understand a certain reluctance to get into it again. That was partly why I posted this - I saw it as an interesting starting point for a conversation contemplating the nature of Nature, with a heavy dose of compassion and understanding. Perhaps it's time for another silly kid sift from me.

Hmm, thanks Doc. Another question:

"Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, “These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

Jews in general still try not to do anything that qualifies as "work" on Sunday, right? Well why bother with that at all if they aren't going to enforce it and kill Jews that do work on Sundays?

Is the killing bit one of those things, like the passages about how to treat your slaves, that people have decided "well, these are modern times, we aren't going to do that any more"?

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand how people can just decide to ignore some of their holy book, but follow others. I know some people will say, "well, this is just a metaphor, you aren't really supposed to do it", but then who decides what parts of the book to use and which to ignore?

I suppose that's the reason there are so many subsets of each religion (roman catholic, methodist, 7th day adventist, orthodox jew, jihadist...). People decide what "level" of religiosity they want, then join a group of similarly-feeling people, and they do their religion together.