Statistically individual, personal commitments make very little impact on a population. I agree with the sentiment, but our views on "personal responsibility" don't work in reality beyond our individual family, they just make us feel better about ourselves thinking that way. You are superior. Good for you, but it doesn't put a dent in the real problem.

Reform works. For example, your children didn't make these decisions, rather you (and I assume a life mate), who are the institution of your children, made a parental reform and it benefits them greatly. Now, if you left it up to your children, what do you think they would do without your positive influence?

I'm a product of that and it has taken me years to realize this and patch the hole in my very being; years of bad habits and depression. I didn't have responsible, nor very smart parents, and I went to public school to boot. I was fucked and I didn't even know it. All of the potential to be an above average human and what did I do? FML'd. Flunked out of honors, AP, kicked out of the gifted and talented education program; though, I did provide that needed C average spot for Academic Decathelon, my potential meant squat. Personal responsibility BULLSHIT. That's an illusion and the reality is pathetic. I struggle EVERY DAY and I shouldn't have to.

I guess it's up to me to make up for my parent's irresponsibility, but most people just go with the flow. I guess if you don't mind paying for the ignorance of the sheeple, you can just let things be the way they are and deal with a failing population of dumbed down, unhealthy Americans.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people are getting smarter and healthier every day. A land where the government that tricked us (social contract) into giving them our livelihood, gives back to us, makes us stronger, more fit, and appropriately able to compete in a global economy. A land where the people in power work to make us better, rather than feeding off of our ignorance.

This imaginary world would abso-poso-lutely require reform away from the stranglehold dystopia the real.

Common core should be abolished.

My kids are living the hell that this big government, central command no escaping piece of shit education methodology that been pushed as a carrot and stick with Federal dollars for states to take.

But that is the real problem If all education was local or state controlled then if we don't like out state we could change it or move.
I believe all but 2 states have signed up for this crap.

No real problem with having a woman as president as long as it's not the criminal and whore of Babylon Hillary Clinton. Her crimes whether documented, rumored, implied or perpetrated in her career in politics should they be listed in one place would take hours to include here...

...doesn't even qualify as human much less as a woman. If she runs, best you equality-touters do some extra-curricular investigative work on her background and history, and not the horseshit reported by the complicit media whores.

If anyone cares here, I'll provide a short list of her crimes against humanity. She and her boy Bill have left a 30+year swath of human misery and corruption in their wake. Nightmares the both of 'em.

As I said repeatedly, I agree with you that zoos are unnatural.

You start with unnatural, you end with unnatural.

You start with unnatural, you end up making unnatural choices.

This is a hard hard world, and we as humans are killing it more and more every day.

Zoos have morphed from being horrible cages, confining animals to be gawked at by unfeeling humans. Now zoos, the good ones, do their damnedest to create as natural an environment as possible.

Which still isn't very natural.

You say that this was an "unconscionable" choice, the killing of poor Marius (by the way, I mourn him, too.)

Do you think they should have taken the $600K from the wealthy person wanting to save his life? Even though it would have sentenced poor Marius to isolation and depression for the rest of his "natural" life? To me, that would be unconscionable. Blood money, made off the suffering of a single animal.

I think the real problem here is the very existence of zoos. There would be no Marius if there were no zoos.

I keep thinking about my dad's second wife. She was a piece of cake -- not the sharpest knife in the drawer, not capable of reasoned, step by step thinking. She had a great native -- almost feral -- intelligence though, it just wasn't that "logical."

One day, my uber-logical engineer father said something that she didn't like. I didn't like it either. So Oleta said, in a thick Okie drawl, "Just because something is right, doesn't mean it is right."

I almost started laughing at the absurdity of her statement, until I realized what she was really saying. So I asked her, "Do you mean just because something is logical, that doesn't mean it is right?" Yep. That was what she meant.

I think this is one of those situations. There are logical step by step reasons that led to poor Marius being literally fed to the lions. And then there is the emotional truth of a healthy and happy young giraffe being treated like he wasn't an individual with a right to a natural life.

Just because it was right, doesn't mean it was right.

The REAL Problem with Facebook

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

Got nothing against coming-out (my motivation for a down-vote)-Got a real problem with propaganda and agendas and bad-fucking television.

He's entitled to those balls I mean...just look at him. I wouldn't fuck with him! He's more handsome than Kim is the real problem! He should tag along with Dennis Rodman the next time he visits...stir some shit up....flirt with Kim's ol'lady!

I never saw how OWS could become a political movement. It never had a coherent or unified mission or objective save discontent with the status quo. A political movement requires putting forward an alternative, which OWS never had and would be hard pressed to agree on, what with the much berated "1%" being more individually viewed as anybody with significantly more wealth than me.

OWS was popular outrage at real problems, but it never got as far as proposing a clear and agreed upon solution.

For those like myself who are not familiar with the technique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting

Monsanto never produced anything so freakish, but it seems these are relatively safe (at a glance). The only real problem I see is: isn't this pretty much dead after one year?

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

@newtboy what exactly is then a "normal reality" consider your answer from the premise that "reality" is a construct of an individual's
perception...I don't agree with "them" either and see the ever-increasing justification for such and future similar actions as an affront to humanity as a whole.

These cops are enforcing laws that scream "police state" plain and fucking simple. The less we do to protest, the more motherfuckers they are going to pack into ready-made plastic holding containers and eventually, "disappear."

The real problem I can see here is that these cops are putting food in the mouths of the people they live with in order to feed yet another generation of assholes who may eventually become cops. It's a ludicrous, self-perpetuating clusterfuck.

read your response.
a lot of postulating and assumptions.
i know (or assume) not with ill-intent,but still there.
gonne have to go bullet form here..blech..loathe bullet form.
please forgive.

1.i did not suggest "full-blown" socialism.nor did i suggest we do what has been tried in the past.
silly,un-imaginative tripe fed by over-paid and dull thinking professors.
ever wonder why there is an economics course and a business admin course?
there is a reason for that.one is theory the other practical application.
and economists get it wrong...and often.

2.you mentioned twice socialism in relation to fascism.
are you aware they are not even on the same playing card?
meh..i guess we could call the corporate socialism we have now a form of fascism...but it would be a stretch.
do not confuse a political system with an economic one.

3.you think everything should be subject to a free market.even firefighters,police and roads.
i do not think you thought that particular nugget through.

the problems with socialism are well documented and well understood.
as are the problems with capitalism.
the real problems arise when things are not taught properly.

problems arise when people are taught that democracy and capitalism are somehow like peas and carrots.meant for each other.
that they are the end all be all and make jesus smile.

corporate propaganda bullshit.
france is a democracy.
they have capitalism AND socialism.
in fact..when you look how how many of the european socialist countries are doing and compare them to..well..us.they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.
so i dont know where you get your "socialism is a failure" idea from.

i guess i owe you an apology.you thought i was attacking you in some manner.not at all.
i was stating your right to disagree with me.

i was not conflating that somehow socialized medicine is somehow better or produces better health and that somehow a free market person wants death to all kittens.

my point is that health care should be a collective project but i believe i also entertained a free market solution as well.
BUT..the playing field has to..MUST..be level for all players.
it appears that some of my comments you took as directed towards you my friend.
this is not the case.
unless you ARE healthcare and in that case i am in the matrix.

the quote i posted is from adam smith.from his stellar book 'wealth of nations".
too bad his words have been twisted and contorted to not even have the same meaning anymore.oftentimes it is professors who perpetrate this travesty.

what adam smith was trying to convey is that for a free market to truly work as balancing agent and force corrector there had to be absolute liberty.
but we dont have that do we?
therefore it stands to reason we cannot have a free market.

ok ok.
i do not "feel" we live in a plutocracy.
i know it.
a legislation that has been purchased by wall street and corporate elite to enact laws which benefit them and their companies in the form of capital gain is..by definition..plutocracy.

smart ass

look man.
i think we are coming from the same place but have come to different conclusions.
you know..opinions.

you mentioned cuba as an example of poor socialized medicine.
well allow me to point out bangledesh slums,or somlia and their roving band of warlords.
they have free markets.

the discussion you and i are having is really 'what is governments role".
i agree with so many of your points..truly.
in my opinion the governments role in regards to commerce should be that a fraud police.thats it.
AND to dissolve the corporation and go back to the 1864 model.
if we cant do that at least..the very least...rewrite the corporate charter.
if we cant do that can we at LEAST put back the line "for the public good" (removed in 1967 or 68).
and make these huge entities accountable for their actions and made liable for any and all :death,destruction,disease and suffering.

could we..could we ..please pa..could we?

weeeeell,thats never gonna happen.the reason the west developed was due to governments and corporations getting in bed with each other.
no way america would have the standard of living we have without that ugly beast.

people think america goes to war for ideology?
ha! not a chance.
its fucking business baby!

so..yeah.
my friend there are no easy answers.
and i apologize if you took my previous comment as an attack on you in any way.
never..ever ever.
i respect and admire you immensely.
though i disagree with you on this,that will never take away on how i perceive you.

i am a dissident.
an anarchist.
i have unplugged from the system many moons ago.i refuse to feed the beast.
i did my duty and gave this country a few years and then turned my back and walked away.
which i know may seem in contradiction to what i am proposing in regards to healthcare.
maybe i am naive in some respects,but government does have a role and i would prefer it to be at the betterment of its citizens.
social security has been a great success (not according to some people but look at the stats..it has been fantastic).

you are so right that this is not an issue handled and packaged in one easy sitting.it takes discussion of hard truths.
but for that to happen there has to be respect and i respect you immensely my friend.
it is getting late and i am one pooped lil puppy.
but i am fully enjoying my conversation with you.

let me end with sharing a man who makes an argument so much better than i could.
he is an economist.so he is probably wrong.

Got no real problems with the idiot niche, especially when you can sell 'em the most ridiculous shit imaginable. P. T Barnum would have handed this man some VIP tickets to the show....Look at what zombies and vampires have done to garner bank notes for some hard-working geeks, eh?
Christians have a lot of excess cash to spend on crappy books y'know...

" But I'd have a real problem killing an AI that could think and feel." That's when you'd use a suitcase nuke as opposed to a flamethrower.