I told you- "bacteria" is a WIDE category. Unfairly wide. Find an
individual, singular, species of bacteria and compare us to that. But if
you're going to hold us up against an entire KINGDOM of organisms, then
we should also have the benefit of the support of the rest of the animal
kingdom. Every mammal, every fish, every insect and arachnid.... you get
the idea.


No individual species of bacteria has managed to move to as many unique
places as we humans have. Except maybe the ones hitching a ride inside
us. Which, of course, earn their keep quite adeptly by keeping us
healthy. But, between a handful of micro-organisms to a single, living,
human being- the microbes lose.


I'll admit, the forces of the world are humbling. Compared to the
mysteries of the universe, we are mere flotsam. But we're a higher form
of flotsam than anything we've yet to find.

"Founded" means "established". The Americas, as Australia, were here
long before the nations that most readily use the names. Or, for that
matter, the evolution of us humans who would later name them.


But "The United States of America"- THAT was "founded" only a couple
hundred years ago. Fledgeling as far as nations go. Australia- I'm not
so sure on. Is "Australia" the actual name, or is it like "America" and
just uses a shortening of the complete thing.

Of course *I* don't. The Inquisition tried to destroy my people. I have
no love for them.


The Inquisition gets its name from a particularly ugly form of torture
involving genital mutilation.


They were monsters claiming to serve the Lord. They hoarded wealth,
made up accusations to destroy political rivals of their members and
supporters, and were the most efficient intimidators the world had ever
seen up to that time.

AB posts-

That 'junk' DNA might be for something were not ready for yet.

Perhaps we will 'evolve' to use it.

Actually, 'junk' DNA has a lot of purposes. We can identify that our
bodies still remember (most) of the codes for gills. And it exists on
the end of our genetic code, which allows us to live longer. It forms a
"cap"- every time a cell divides- it loses a tiny part of the gene code.
A copy of a copy of a copy and so forth, until the junk DNA wears down,
good DNA starts dying, and your body starts to break down. At about the
age of 35-40, this starts. By the time you're 70, your blood, skin, and
muscle cells have such trouble dividing that they sometimes die in the
attempt.

This aspect of aging also raises the risk of cancer.

AB-

If flying squirles are against natural laws why do they exist?

Those membranes allow them to escape from tree climbing predetators.


I know what they do. Just like I know what birds do. And it works very,
very well- to these species' benefits. But it is impossible that natural
selection, alone, could allow them to have had them in the first place.
However they got those abilities- it might be natural- but it is NOT
evolution or natural selection in any sence that we understand it.
Meaning those theories are, at best, incomplete.

Yeah. "Under God", if I recall, was post WW2.


But our society was definately founded on Christian values- along with
a healthy dose of paranoia about powerful governments and fascism.


Oh- and NOWHERE in the constitution or governing principles of this
nation has it EVER said "separation of church and state". READ the
constitution- you won't find it. None of our founding fathers ever even
made a passing comment to that sence.

Otherwise, it would have been illegal for those who hold religious
offices to run for political ones. Which, of course, it's not. If the
Pope was born in the United States, he could become president.... if
enough people would vote for him. Which is another debate entirely.

I meant to say "agree"- not "disagree"- up there. This is what a sleep
schedual where you only take naps whenever you get the chance will get
you.

And I dunno. Predator-on-predator violence happens. Check out the Cobra
and Mongoose. Which we can appoint as our predator laureate for the
police, I think.

On that, I'll disagree. Firearms in the uneducated is not a good plan.
No more than allowing people to drive without proper training is.


And if you want something that needs better regulations- it's vehicles.
We lose more people to idiots behind the wheels than any gun usage
(including wartime deaths) in the same amount of time.


Guns are nothing compared to cars. Not even a blip on the radar screen.
Why aren't we making it illegal for everyone to drive? It'd save far
more lives.

Oh. It's "legal" in that it isn't technically criminal.

However, it could arguably be considered an act of war against America.
Of course, it's up to our country to deal with how they react.


There's no (reasonable) person who could blame us for assaulting
Iran/etc. for their support of insurgents and terrorists. But it would
be "tactically unsound" to do so. As a matter of fact, it would be
SUICIDALLY stupid to start at least two more wars in our present
condition. Maybe three or four- depending on who else we piss off.

And the best way to protect yourself- always has been, always will be-
is to make sure your oponent knows that he could die in the process.

Knives can do this. Guns do it better.

And of course, the SECOND best method to protect yourself is to kill
the person who wishes to kill (or, perhaps, rape) you.

Knives can do this, too. Guns STILL do it better.


Guns aren't the only method. They're the best method. At least for any
scenario where you've not been trained extensively in another method.
And not many people can, or should be expected, to dedicate years to the
honing of their combat prowess to that degree.

Yes. Guns are a killing tool. But they are also tools of intimidation
and power.


Humans will ALWAYS seek to kill one another- if we ever get to the
point where our species, for whatever reason, is incapable of posing
violent threat to one another- then I doubt we'll be human anymore.


Guns are tools. It is how a tool is used that determines its value. The
same technology that will one day cure all genetic diseases- could also
be used to make a virus that would eliminate the entire species.

By "blended" I mean they had many shared members, shared military and
tactical information, aided each other in whatever agendas they had at
the time, provided money to one another (bin Laden was essentially half
the funding for the Taliban)- and held one another in such high regards
that it was essentially like they were one organization.

Hell, bin Laden was considered a "war hero" to the Taliban for his work
in helping to repulse the Russians. Of course, it was our weapons and
training that gave them a chance to do that, but that's a whole other
story.


I *wish* our local and federal policing forces were as cooperative with
one another as Al Qaida and the Taliban were.

Disarmament takes UNITY. If we were limitted to just one mindset- if
everyone believed in peace and goodwill towards men and all that great
jazz- then it'd work. And maybe, one day, it will happen.

But we live in a world where people strap bombs to themselves as a
method of military assault. We live in a world where strict gun laws
ultimately mean more gun crimes and gun deaths than loose ones.


In a perfect world, you guys would be right. In a perfect world.

Disarmament takes UNITY. If we were limitted to just one mindset- if
everyone believed in peace and goodwill towards men and all that great
jazz- then it'd work. And maybe, one day, it will happen.

But we live in a world where people strap bombs to themselves as a
method of military assault. We live in a world where strict gun laws
ultimately mean more gun crimes and gun deaths than loose ones.


In a perfect world, you guys would be right. In a perfect world.

Better "neocon" than "secular progressive", but that's another issue
entirely.


The Taliban was far too closely blended to really make a distinction.
And they were active in the attack against America. They helped with the
execution of the plan (such as getting the attackers into the states).
No one's even questioned that connection. And they showed no intent of
handing him over. They had months- they kept essentially putting it off
until tomorrow. We got sick of waiting. In fact, we waited too long, and
that's part of the reason we can't find the S.O.B.

And I feel really dumb for saying Taliban. Thanks for catching my
mistake on that one. It was a mistake.

Not that I'm a great fan of nukes. I wish they never existed. I wish we
could have a full disarmament. I wish the same of guns. And violence in
general. BUT since that is *impossible*- we need the ability to defend
ourselves if and when some sad, evil little man brings them to bear.

But look at the war it prevented. The one between the USA and the USSR.
A war between the two would have cost more lives than all wars fought
before or sence, combined.


And, whatever else you can say about the other wars we've been in- we
came to them. No country with nuclear weapons has EVER been attacked by
any outside enemy, except via sabotage or other clandestine methods.

I said "known universe". We're unique to this world, at least. And if
we found other beings who can think like we can think- they'd be more
important, individual for individual, than any (nonhuman) organism on
this world.


How about THIS for a scenario. We invent a medical procedure. Which
allows us to transplant, I dunno, pig hearts into humans. Successfully,
without complications. This would, of course, save many thousands of
lives. It will also result in the deaths of at least that many pigs.
Should we do it? I say we do. I say we CHEERFULLY do it.



Besides- if we winked out and God saw fit to replace us- that'd be a
good indicator that we had some value. God hasn't replaced the Dodo bird
yet. In my house, the pantry light burned out years ago. And hasn't been
replaced yet. And the kitchen light is always replaced within a few
minutes of its death. Shows how much we care about the pantry, no?

Actually. Weed has side effects with MANY drugs- it increases their
potency considerably. Which is why designer drugs often mix pot with
antidepressents. It also interferes with some heart medications. And god
help you if you're on an immune system affecting medication.

And that's only what we know about. It's quite possible it has other
interactions that, due to obscenely innadaquite studies, are as of yet
completely unknown. It won't be a problem for healthy bodies. But we
can't know the side effects to those who are otherwise sick without
giving more study to the subject (I doubt there will be any difficulty
in finding volunteers to those studies- just stick the phrase "free pot"
in a newspaper ad). Of course, it may have no interactions at all. We
just don't know yet.

And I'm not concerned about most people smoking it. But people with an
allergy to marijuana (they're rare- about 1 in 1000) will get dizzy,
nauseous, disoriented, their eyes will water, often they start
vomitting, and in extreme exposure they will have an event resembling an
asthma attack- which has resulted in death on occasion.

For the sake of innocent folk, smoking pot would need to be illegal in
any public venue. In your own home, I don't care what you do. You could
use the stuff as an enema for all it concerns me. But in public, no
smoking.



But, no, the pill-form-only is a bad plan. Drug companies would mix it
together for 30 cents and then charge 10 dollars a pill. Not that we
couldn't accept pills as an option by which to take the stuff. BUT
without another two or three methods of ingesting the stuff, it's a sure
bet that some big company or another will monopolize and exploit the
market. In much the same way that tobacco has been.

Of course pot, like booze, can be made in your garage. So maybe it
won't be as bad.

The problem with love is that it only works when it's shared on both
sides. This is why God wisely stays back and lets humanity work its own
problems out.


That's one of the big differences between good and evil. Evil doesn't
require consent.