georgesbluegirl

Well, that would solve our problem with Congress and the Supreme Court. . . . Not to mention killing a few million other people. Yeah....not funny.

That is not the point. Obama claimed that if we went along with the stimulous bill and the bail outs, it would curb unemployment. We spent all that money we don't have and the unemployment rate continues to rise. Because unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and will always be about six months behind the market no matter what you do. The stimulus plan was designed to a) tide us over to weather the storm and b) increase aggregate demand, thus strengthening the markets (by the way, the dollar is strengthening right now). Unemployment rates will lower as businesses catch up with the market (if it works, which for the intents of this explanation, I'm assuming it will). So it is very much the point that you can't use unemployment rates as a barometer - *yet*. It's just econ 101.

Um. Not to comment on the topic at hand, exactly, but -- Walt Disney, at this point, is pretty well known for being a bigot...racist, anti-Semitic, etc. I'm pretty sure the execs these days don't use what he would have "signed off on" as a metric for how to run the park, given that he resisted hiring black people to work at Disney World because he thought it would "spoil the illusion." These are serious charges. Can you provide some sources to back up those claims? You've really never heard about this? There was a book that came out a while ago that aired a lot of those grievances, but I guess the more legitimate source would be "Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination," by Neal Gabler. If you're interested, most of the reviews you can pull up in a quick Google mention Gabler's treatment of Disney's well-known biases. His anti-Semitism is mostly inferred from his involvement with several groups hostile towards Jewish people in general, but he's definitely on record saying some pretty choice things about race relations....the "illusion" quote is fairly well known. I mean really, think about the whole company..."What Makes the Red Man Red?" Disney doesn't exactly have a reputation of being the most socially progressive organization when it comes to their films. Even as recently as "Aladdin" there was controversy.

Um. Not to comment on the topic at hand, exactly, but -- Walt Disney, at this point, is pretty well known for being a bigot...racist, anti-Semitic, etc. I'm pretty sure the execs these days don't use what he would have "signed off on" as a metric for how to run the park, given that he resisted hiring black people to work at Disney World because he thought it would "spoil the illusion."

Job loss is a lagging indicator, you guys. Even though it looks like this thing might have bottomed out, we'll still feel job hits for at least a little while still. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything Obama has done thus far in office.

Also -- altruism, which is the more technical term for performed compassion, is a pretty hot topic in theoretical biology right now. Lots of good papers!

...What? Buddhist philosophy is inherently esoteric. Darwin's views are not parallel. The article is drawing a parallel between how Buddhists view compassion and compassionate practice and Darwin's ideas about the existence of compassion, not likening the entire theory of natural selection to all of Tibetan Buddhist practice. In Tibetan Buddhism, compassion is a keystone -- once you move past the "self" and embrace the idea of emptiness, suffering is no longer "mine" or "yours," it is simply suffering, and thus all suffering is felt by the individual -- so you work to alleviate suffering in general. Darwin was trying to figure out why compassion would be selected for in a population, and so he framed it as action taken to aid another person and thus relieve discomfort in yourself. Hence the comparison. He also recognized the "pre-reflexive" compassionate response, which is something many Tibetan teachers have written about.

I mean, he's being pretty frank that his immediate reason is the primary situation. However, two things -- one, Biden's been working on Specter literally for years; apparently they've had the conversation about his possible switch; two, what does Snowe have to gain by saying something like this unless she wants to make a legitimate point from her corner? She's not beholden to him in terms of PR; she's a GOP moderate watching the ideological diversity within her party shrink day by day, and she sees Specter's defection -- and part of that IS his inability to win a GOP primary in PA -- as a real problem. Olympia Snowe has nothing to gain by making these observations. I don't fault Spector for switching parties either; he's akin to the subway passenger who suddenly realizes, at seven a.m., that he's on the express to the north side of the city and he works on the south side. I do NOT want to hear the press conference angst from him concerning his decision though. Just GO already. He's nearly 80; how much longer can he eat from the public trough anyway? First rule of politics -- nobody does anything unless they have something to gain.

McCain had a reputation as a moderate due to truly bipartisan achievements like the Feingold-McCain act, and if he'd stayed THAT McCain he might have had a shot at it. Instead, he bowed to party pressure and turned a sharp right -- and while many on this board, I noticed, generally supported it, the general American public didn't. Looking past the issue of having an ® next to his name after eight years of Bush, that change was what lost him a credible shot at the presidency. He wasn't staying true to himself. Just look at video of his last campaign stumps of October and compare it to the concession speech, which was relaxed, tremendously articulate, and positive -- if he had been that McCain all along, things might have been different...at least closer.

I mean, he's being pretty frank that his immediate reason is the primary situation. However, two things -- one, Biden's been working on Specter literally for years; apparently they've had the conversation about his possible switch; two, what does Snowe have to gain by saying something like this unless she wants to make a legitimate point from her corner? She's not beholden to him in terms of PR; she's a GOP moderate watching the ideological diversity within her party shrink day by day, and she sees Specter's defection -- and part of that IS his inability to win a GOP primary in PA -- as a real problem.

Woot Maine! From today's NY Times:

Here we go -- here's an abstract from one of the papers -- Lake Michigan Beach-Ridge and Dune Development, Lake Level, and Variability in Regional Water Balance Basically by looking at the pattern of dune-ridge development, you can think in terms of high vs. low variability and cross-reference that with historical air-mass shifts on the North American continent. That had an effect on judging fire regime shifts....I think because you'd see more fires in areas without fire regimes during periods of high variability (and thus shifts in fire-dependent species).

You're speaking my language! Fire regimes are SO COOL. There was a neat study done about fifteen years ago in some Illinois lakes looking at dune complexes as a history of climate variability that led to some interesting speculation on fire regime shifts in the west and midwest over time...I'll try to find it.

I mean, her response is actually incorrect. We DON'T live in a country where you can choose same sex marriage or "opposite marriage" (...), unless you live in one of a handful of states. So I might bust her simply for being wrong.

Oh also -- I just saw that you highlighted my comment about sexual assault....that was meant to be a reminder, not a direct response. I just feel like it's something that gets ignored when this issue goes up for this kind of debate.

You're trying to judge other people's contraception decisions, though, and that's problematic. Some women have extremely averse responses to hormonal BC...a couple might decide to rely on condoms for any number of reasons. And once again: please don't forget the issue of sexual assault when we talk about EC. It is always the elephant in the room. I understand the reason behind the OP, which only speaks little on sexual assault, but about making "Plan B" available to minors. Still, that was not what I was asked by RG, and the reason behind my post. I speak only for myself on this matter and realize that I will get a whole lot of slack for my stance, and that is fine with me. As for the piece you quoted, how does your reply tie into what you quoted? Does other birth control practices stop sexual diseases? Again, my ending statement: To me, and I say this personally, trying to justify why someone should have a tool to help them live safely in sin is a sin itself. I'm confused about what you're asking....my reply was directed to your comment that preventing disease was the only reason a couple should be using condoms and not other BC. My point is that couples might choose to use condoms as BC for any number of reasons that they decide on their own. So then back to your ending statement -- bringing more unwanted children into the world or losing the chance to prevent more abortions is a bad thing? I don't like bombs or think killing people is a good thing, but I'd rather we make smarter war technology that can tell the difference between a tank and a schoolkid so that in the course of a bad thing (war), we don't hurt a life innocent in the conflict.

You're trying to judge other people's contraception decisions, though, and that's problematic. Some women have extremely averse responses to hormonal BC...a couple might decide to rely on condoms for any number of reasons. And once again: please don't forget the issue of sexual assault when we talk about EC. It is always the elephant in the room.

Okay, once and for all -- quote from a really good OPR Princeton EC one-stop website (ec.princeton.edu):

I am sympathetic to the cause of those that work on college campuses for the very things you listed, these people need Christians to be in their lives more than ever, yet we turn away and say "oh well, you made your choice, now face the consequences of it". We have Christians on these boards who have said "let them get STDs or AIDS, it is the consequences for their actions". Does this sound like something Jesus would say? Is that really the way we are going to bring people to Christ? If we can prevent the spread of STDs, AIDS and slow the tide of unwed pregnancies and abortions, shouldn't we do it? I think we should be sympathetic to the cause of the lost, that is what we are here for. This too.

That got alarmingly personal very quickly. Also, Hunter, I don't know where you've been getting information, but EC works via the same mechanism as other hormonal BC, which basically convinces your body it's already pregnant and thus prevents ovulation. Also, an ova doesn't live 24 hours...it's sperm with the short life span, as you mentioned. An ova just gets fertilized, or not. Menstruation is the product of the body not having an egg (that has been fertilized) implant in the uterine lining, not the death of the egg. This is mostly what I want to say -- Please back off a little. You really do not know these circumstances, and you really should not jump to conclusions (and I guess you weren't reading very carefully, because I was actually being thankful that these women COULD get Plan B). This is the problem -- so many people think of Plan B as unnecessarily foolproofing the mistakes of "irresponsible young women," and forget the other major reason why it needs to be available: sexual assault. When I say the situations I was privy to were hell, you need to believe it. So please, please, don't jump straight to judgement, and don't try to judge my value as a friend.

Okay. I understand that some people here are of the mind that Plan B causes abortions because if taken at the later end of the 72 hour window it may caused a fertilized egg not to implant. However, this is NOT how it normally works -- it prevents ovulation. AND a lot of recent studies have cast doubt on the idea that it actually could create an "inhospitable womb" and prevent implantation. So even taking your argument that by interfering with implantation, EC causes an abortion, at its very strongest, EC can still only *rarely* be considered an abortifacient. Second point, leaving behind the debate over the pill itself -- it needs to be taken within a very small window to be effective, so having it over the counter is just plain horse sense. I will come back to this point in a moment. Thirdly, the fretting about molestation and minors is a tad dramatic considering that the ruling only extends to 17 year olds. In many (most, I think) states, 16 is actually the first "age of consent"....usually it's a breakdown like 16 is the age of consent with a partner up to 23, and then 18 is the full age of consent. It isn't exactly like a 12 year old will be able to walk up to a counter and get Plan B with no questions asked, no parent involved. Finally, it's definitely not "a very dangerous drug." At all. Some people experience painful side effects, but most people just go through some cyclical irregularity. It's really just like taking a bunch of normal birth control pills at once. You might be one of the unlucky minority who throws up, but most people just get nauseous, if anything. And I am on a college campus (in a state where it's over the counter, no less), so I'm around this issue a lot. My feeling on this is if a woman needs it, you should make it as easy as possible for her to get it, as quickly as possible (just as a side thing -- couldn't you argue that the whole process is slowed down by needing a scrip, therefore making it more LIKELY that you prevent a fertilized egg from implanting after all, if you accept that posit? just a thought). I have been a party to more than one situation where somebody went through hell and needed it, and have always been glad that all they had to do was go to our Health Center (free there), or buy it from Rite Aid.

I wrote this at the time before I was saved and knew nothing of the demonic world but now, being much wiser, its so clear to me. This is a working of the Devil and his fingerprints are all over it: Terror, Horror, Panic.. The Lord creates everything perfect. I don't believe this is one thing where some weird hormones paralyzes a Human. It's a deception of the Devil.. and because He operates in a pattern, he tries to wedge an excuse in there with science convincing us that the problem is with us and God has stricken us with some kind of illness or imperfection... B.S., its of the Devil. With all due respect blein, our bodies do produce a chemical that keeps us from moving about when we are asleep.If it weren't for this, we would possibly endanger ourselves or others. Possibly, sleep walking/driving is where there is a malfunction of this system, or the chemical doesnt work properly. Shiloh62 It's worth noting that repeated experiences of waking up during REM is a major indication of some form of narcolepsy (which is a muscle disorder as much as it is about being sleepy at inappropriate times...) Hi georgesbluegirl, I thought narcolepsy was falling asleep at any instance time or day? I've never done that. Maybe I need to research that. It's actually a much more nuanced disorder...most people with narcolepsy don't fall asleep randomly, those are just the most extreme cases. Actually, a lot of people go undiagnosed, because the manifestation of their symptoms is mostly just limited muscle "weakness." It is a disorder with a genetic basis, though, so the diagnosis can be somewhat clear cut. WebMD it to start, then go from there!

I wrote this at the time before I was saved and knew nothing of the demonic world but now, being much wiser, its so clear to me. This is a working of the Devil and his fingerprints are all over it: Terror, Horror, Panic.. The Lord creates everything perfect. I don't believe this is one thing where some weird hormones paralyzes a Human. It's a deception of the Devil.. and because He operates in a pattern, he tries to wedge an excuse in there with science convincing us that the problem is with us and God has stricken us with some kind of illness or imperfection... B.S., its of the Devil. With all due respect blein, our bodies do produce a chemical that keeps us from moving about when we are asleep.If it weren't for this, we would possibly endanger ourselves or others. Possibly, sleep walking/driving is where there is a malfunction of this system, or the chemical doesnt work properly. Shiloh62 It's worth noting that repeated experiences of waking up during REM is a major indication of some form of narcolepsy (which is a muscle disorder as much as it is about being sleepy at inappropriate times...)

I wrote this at the time before I was saved and knew nothing of the demonic world but now, being much wiser, its so clear to me. This is a working of the Devil and his fingerprints are all over it: Terror, Horror, Panic.. The Lord creates everything perfect. I don't believe this is one thing where some weird hormones paralyzes a Human. It's a deception of the Devil.. and because He operates in a pattern, he tries to wedge an excuse in there with science convincing us that the problem is with us and God has stricken us with some kind of illness or imperfection... B.S., its of the Devil. What? Whoa. No. I mean, it's scary, because REM's a bodily process you're not supposed to be awake for....so when you DO wake up your mind might create a context for it that involves a nightmare...but it's just your motor neurons inhibited. I mean think about what would happen if you WEREN'T paralyzed while you dreamed....given that I've jumped off buildings and things in dreams, I'm more than willing to trade a few instances of half-awake paranoia for not going off the roof! I know it can be terrifying, but it's just a hiccup that leaves you conscious for a part of your body's functioning you're not supposed to wake up for. There's no need to call it demonic.