Stonehead

That shat has beta glucans. Supposed to activate your immune system but works in a way dissimilar to other natural remedies such as echinacea which actually aggravate your immune system.

[video:youtube]v=fyuNidSrVik [video:youtube]v=mLn_aNRdvUY

A whore does it for money. A slut gives it away for free.

Are you saying that rights are guaranteed but not necessarily granted? So, do you care to explain the meaning of the ACLU map titled 'constitution-free zone'? What is that, like tongue in cheek, to drum up funding? http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

I agree in general with what you’re saying but there’s a subtle point of departure in the way you’ve framed the issue. In their collective wisdom, the founding fathers recognized the corrupting influence of concentrated political power and this recognition resulted in the codification of this knowledge into a body of law. Now, I certainly don’t ascribe supernatural qualities to documents such as the U.S. Constitution or the ideas embodied in such. They’re only as good as we continue to believe these are valuable guidelines. That said, I also don’t believe that the constitution as originally written is the end-all and neither did the founding fathers (re: Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the original Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments following the Civil War). However, the contemporary question appears to be: what is the proper role of government? Your prescription for all of society’s ills is the guiding hand of government but what if there is an inherent contradiction between praxis and theory in the global extension and the top down emanation of that value of human dignity? Is it too radical to believe that dignity and emancipation begin with the individual? Certainly, it’s a worthwhile goal for idealists but when did the idea of democracy mutate into self justification for government to continually grow tentacles into our lives? Is it because government parasitically latched onto the idea that it would solve all or the majority of the problems of the human condition and that that goal could be actualized when in reality we’ll never reach the end of rainbow? Why did the concept which could be characterized as socialism with a democratic veneer become the pinnacle of values over and above the wisdom of limitation of powers condensed in a fairly conservative rendering of constitutional government? Did people change the social compact that gave birth to liberal democracy so that we heading in our political evolution to an absurd choice between totalitarian democracy and totalitarianism sans democracy? Now, it takes a cynical reading of the world to see that the revolution failed, that today’s democracy and its benevolent government are the big lie, that the natural order has always been the will of the stronger and that we’re thrown a bone once in while to placate the masses. I don’t necessarily blame the progressives. They’re just pawns like the rest of us. It sure would be nice though to step off this train for awhile to take a pause. Seriously, we should just feel good that the question, quid sit deus , is being answered, immanent in the world of the living. We should just bask in the feeling that we’re living free in this semblance of an equitable society and it could be more so if we consent to government’s hydra-like growth and penetration. Hallelujah.

OH SHIT! WE'VE CROSSED THE RUBICON!!!!!!1

Who advocated any abolition of the State? Dude, you're seriously conflating what I said with what you think I said. Even your man, Chomsky, points out the dangers of where we're headed. Chomsky Warns Of Risk Of Fascism In America

You can keep singing your siren song about paradise under the state but I’ll take heed of Circe’s warning transmitted through the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

I'm still pondering your question since it involves the perennial issue of expediency versus due process. In the meantime, here's some other thoughts: Have we ever seen anything along the lines of a cost-benefit analysis that examines the illegal immigrants’ economic impact on our country? Their influence may actually have a net positive effect. Here’s the rub: The problem appears to be not so much immigration per se especially in light of our gradually aging population. For a domestic economy to remain vital and for those social programs that we’ve come to rely on, we must maintain a relatively young demographic profile. Otherwise, we must rely on a global system. I do oppose illegal immigration on principle. That principle has to do with the sociological makeup of the immigrant population and how their assimilation will influence our ongoing and future political and legal framework. For instance, will the immigrant’s dearth of cultural history steeped in the traditions of the Western liberal democratic experience dilute such things as the current interpretation of our individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights? We can look across the pond and see that Europe (Switzerland—minarets; France—burkas) has already taken preemptive steps to limit the transformative potential of the high influx of Muslim immigrants, an influx which could constitute a quiet revolution in values. Regarding the immigration problem simplistically as presented by the MSM, I’m just at a bit of unease when hearing some of the solutions that have been offered by government officials, elected or otherwise. The key idea that underlies these solutions is the question of identity: how do we identify someone with a high degree of confidence and how secure is that information? If we stick with any type of document then one could easily see the problem of intentional fraud despite the potential safeguards underwriting the stored information. The only authoritative (I hesitate to call it truly secure) database would be to compile a bank consisting of actual genetic samples, in effect, your body is your identification. That solution to the identity problem and by extension the answer to the question of control appears to be the primary driver for a revolutionary change that will be instituted by government. This may sound conspiratorial but it appears that we’re walking the dialectical steps to formulate a brave new world where the epitome of the world system will be an image of Chinese capitalism. Here, free market globalism is supported by one party rule and enforced through a police state by technological means.

Here's one of Aesop's lesser known fables: The Frogs Who Desired a King BTW, Soviet dissidents often wrote in code to evade persecution. This type of writing was referred to as Aesopian language. Others who employed Aesopian language include Benedict Spinoza.

Any suspicion is a legitimate reason for Border Patrol agents to detain you and that suspicion can extend to any action or inaction by you that is not sufficient to allay their suspicion. The agent just might have a hair up his ass that day and detain for that reason alone. Also if he does not believe you are a legal citizen (despite your skin color, etc) then you are not entitled to legal defense or other customary rights accorded to US citizens. You can be detained indefinitely withough outside contact. Border Patrol Harass Military Field Grade Officer At Internal Checkpoint Check out the constitution free zone map: Constitution Free Zone - Map

I never would have guessed that local economic decisions would have had this potential to influence a distant country in this way. So does that give new meaning to former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill's statement that all politics is local?

That last one is a hillbilly condo. Uwwwoo, what does it for me is the Astroturf grass on the steps. That touch shouts “HOME” to me. I’m ready to buy. Where do I sign?

“O, Oysters, come and walk with us!” The Walrus did beseech. “A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk, Along the briny beach: We cannot do with more than four, To give a hand to each.” The eldest Oyster looked at him, But never a word he said: The eldest Oyster winked his eye, And shook his heavy head— Meaning to say he did not choose To leave the oyster-bed. But four young Oysters hurried up, All eager for the treat: Their coats were brushed, their faces washed, Their shoes were clean and neat- And this was odd, because, you know, They hadn’t any feet. Four other Oysters followed them, And yet another four; And thick and fast they came at last, And more, and more, and more- All hopping through the frothy waves, And scrambling to the shore. The Walrus and the Carpenter Walked on a mile or so, And then they rested on a rock Conveniently low: And all the little Oysters stood And waited in a row. “The time has come,” the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax— Of cabbages—and kings— And why the sea is boiling hot— And whether pigs have wings.” “But wait a bit,” the Oysters cried, “Before we have our chat; For some of us are out of breath, And all of us are fat!” “No hurry!” said the Carpenter. They thanked him much for that. “A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said, “Is what we chiefly need: Pepper and vinegar besides Are very good indeed— Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear, We can begin to feed.” “But not on us!” the Oysters cried, Turning a little blue, “After such kindness, that would be A dismal thing to do!” “The night is fine,” the Walrus said. “Do you admire the view?” “It was so kind of you to come! And you are very nice!” The Carpenter said nothing but “Cut us another slice: I wish you were not quite so deaf— I’ve had to ask you twice!” “It seems a shame,” the Walrus said, “To play them such a trick, After we’ve brought them out so far, And made them trot so quick!” The Carpenter said nothing but “The butter’s spread too thick!” “I weep for you,” the Walrus said: “I deeply sympathize.” With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size, Holding his pocket-handkerchief Before his streaming eyes. “O Oysters,” said the Carpenter, “You had a pleasant run! Shall we be trotting home again?” But answer came there none— And this was scarcely odd, because They’d eaten every one. The Walrus and the Carpenter

Cue up the carbon tax mantra.

Fluctuations in the value of the US dollar also influence the price of oil as do signs of potential instability (economic, political, etc) among other things. Why new oil price highs? Oil prices rise modestly on dollar's decline against the euro, overseas supply concerns

The “Turd” It’s not really a turd. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder (see Caddyshack above). And if you call it the Lil’ “Turd” then it’s a term of endearment (as in "ma petite crotte"---my little poop).

Personally, I would advocate for a more historical approach; big "S" science, especially those disciplines and institutions engaged in production, should always be understood in its larger socio-economic and political context. Any claim for the autonomy of Texas Instruments from these processes or the question whether it could be considered "private" at all during the invention of the integrated circuit would make a simple case in point. The claim that "scientific ``knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it" actually proves quite illuminating in this case, don'tcha think? Revealing. Yes. "The Sokal Affair (also Sokal’s Hoax) was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Prof. Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal dedicated to postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment testing the magazine’s editorial practice of intellectual rigor, to learn if an academic journal would “publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.”[1] The article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct; it was published in the Social Text Spring/Summer 1996 “Science Wars” issue. At that time, the journal did not practice peer review fact-checking, and did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[2][3] On its date of publication, in May 1996, in the journal Lingua Franca, Sokal revealed that “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” was a hoax, identifying it as “a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense . . . structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics he] could find about mathematics and physics”." It only has to have the semblance of truth, in this case as some esoteric type of knowledge, to have an influencing impact. Someone could promote a view of the world in line with Sokal’s “hoax” that would still ring true. Simply take the Gnostic view that the world is unjust, that we are imprisoned through various means, and that emancipation is gained through right knowledge. To put some clothing on this hoax, one could cite some recent examples of rulings issued through SCOTUS such as Kelo and Citizens United and throw in some examples from contemporary events of political and economic nature to complete the weave. Without correct knowledge who could fully separate the fiction from truth in this continuum of reality? Fiction need not imply falsity but an image of what could be much in the same way that a dream image does not have concrete reality but nevertheless can still influence the conscious world where actions manifest. As William Blake said, “Everything to be imagined is an image of truth.” And some believe that was one of the powers of Einstein, who imagining he was riding on a beam of light took that experience and related it into mathematics. Besides, how else could you foster serendipitous discovery in the Kuhnian sense? Do the most radical revelations proceed solely on the basis of rational thought and causality? At some point, it seems one has to take a leap of faith. [ of course, everything I write is basically bs.]

[video:youtube]v=1PmMFaVzbzc

Well, it seems one major point of contention, the so called lawyer's trick, is whether “isolated" (purified) DNA is the same as DNA which occurs in a form found in nature. Foaming at the Mouth: The Inane Ruling in the Gene Patents Case Court: Essentially All Gene Patents Are Invalid Check out the comments section in both articles.

Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent--NYT Granted, it's not a constitutional issue but merely one involving patent law and intellectual property. You tell me if government will always to be the best guarantor of our welfare.

Everything depends on the context in which the issue is raised. I agree with your views if the context falls under the rubric of measuring the immense power of corporate control over the individual and under the function of the law to provide protections for the public against that inequity. It’s the issue of concentration of power unchecked, whether corporations should be able to monopolize genetic information for private gain over public benefit. On the other hand, if the issue is couched in terms of the larger collective, e.g., public safety/public health versus individual liberties or specialized interests then it doesn’t seem so black and white. For it to be this well distinguished, you’d have to take the assumption that the government is the best guarantor of the public’s welfare. [This is supposed to be their function albeit in limited fashion, so that the benefactor does not grow uncontrollably into beneficiary.] And so, at first read, it seems that government is performing that function of summum bonum although I reserve the right to speak out if that body becomes corrupted. Call me cynical but in reference to that stated assumption, I don’t always see it as remaining so (but props to you for being involved in an organization that serves as at least one independent check though I don’t always agree with their actions). But here’s what I see happening: dissent is being blackballed. You’re lumped and labeled as an accessory to domestic terrorism if you dissent from the prevailing authority. It was bad enough under the Bush administration but it’s beginning to appear that erosion of privacy will not lessen under the Obama presidency. Welcome to the new happiness. My question under a number of topics is whether questioning legitimacy of action or purpose is as much a threat as it’s perceived to be. Since when does nonviolent speech become identified as a direct threat to authority? As I understand, these challenges are separate manifestations of something similar to what could amount to a national referendum. In particular, one of these challenges in the guise of the idea of nullification follows the principle of conscience over law. Is merely raising awareness of that idea a punishable offense? Is the law the supreme arbiter of social justice?

So, what’s Obama (and Rahm’s) plan? Bring illegal aliens under the sheltering umbrella of health care through immigration and employment reform, i.e., the amnesty for votes program? It’ll be an excellent display of deceptive magic if Obama’s public relations team can transform the image of the electorate’s cynical eye to reflect the picture of the golden age of American prosperity called the American Dream. Riddles in the Dark

I think that Frum guy was wrong calling the Republicans loss on the health care debate their Waterloo. For the Democrats the comparison is more aptly described as the decisive victory at Jena which Hegel likened to the End of History. The Democrat's Waterloo is yet to come.

BTW, thought you might enjoy this piece by Naomi Wolfe: Tea Time in America