I think the US gets plenty. We get to monitor their nuclear program in way that nuclear experts would give high grades to (which is what the international sanctions were for - nuclear program, not the other stuff):

"I would give it an A": Why nuclear experts love the Iran deal - Vox

Can we please use a better term than "Straw Man"? It's just played out.

Played out? It's the term.

You know, I use the word "table" a lot. Can we use another? "Sunlight", too. I'm so sick of that shit.

Yes. Well, what they apparently have in uranium can't be used for bombs. But the question is why they have spent billions on thousands of centrifuges enriching a lot of it to just under the 20% threshold - something that doesn't have any justification for peaceful applications on the level they're doing it if they don't intend to do the easier and more-easily concealed work to enrich it to the 90% level, which is necessary for nuclear weapons.

The scary part of the agreement is how deeply Iran resisted an inspection requirement for the smaller military labs. That's the only thing they really wanted to protect. They don't want people to see they have warheads fitted for nuclear weapons and they don't want people to see the uranium enrichment from 20% to 90%, which doesn't require these huge numbers of centrifuges. It only requires about 60 pounds of U-235 to wipe out a city.

If the US had held firm to unfettered access, I could see some positives in a deal. But there's nothing in it. Once international sanctions are lifted, getting Russia to agree that there's a violation will be impossible. This agreement really is tacit approval of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

That's why there is a snapback provision. To quote the interview I linked:


So, if the US is dissatisfied with compliance and the joint commission can't approve anything and then the UN Security Council can't approve anything, the sanctions immediately snapback into place. The Security Council has to take affirmative action to prevent the sanctions from automatically reapplying.

There are two major problems with snapback itself:

1) It doesn't apply to deals that will be made before a violation is found. And Russia, at least, is very eager to make those deals - Iran will get a huge cash infusion right away and Russia has an impressive store.

2) It is subject to this bizarre phrase, "...unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise." Why was this included? What does it mean?

The literal read is that snapback takes place if we can't agree, unless we do agree. But that's gibberish. The implication is that the independent action of a permanent Security Council member can negate snapback at least as it applies to that member (and anyone else who seeks that member's Security Council protection from sanctions down the road for violating the agreement).

Snapback may sound clever and like a real protection. But it's really absolutely nothing. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, this agreement gives them nuclear weapons. And Iran's actions indicate they want nuclear weapons very badly. Which means Saudi Arabia will want nuclear weapons, because they are Sunni (like around 90% of Muslims in the Middle East) and Iran is Shiite. Of course, we have to be extra careful about taking sides because ISIS and Al-Qaeda are Sunni.

What do you mean bizarre phrase? It means unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise, the sanctions snapback automatically. It's straight forward. And the US, of course, has a veto on the Security Council. So even if all the other countries feel the US's dissatisfaction is unwarranted, they cannot override the US if it really wants to pull the trigger.


Where exactly are you getting this from?

Here is a good article that outlines why President Obama will be viewed as one of our most important and consequential presidents. Unlike someone like W, history actually will be kind to Obama's legacy.

Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history - Vox

Some good articles on the negotiations and the deal. Both were insightful but think NYT had more background info.

Log In - The New York Times

The path to a final Iran nuclear deal: Long days and short tempers - The Washington Post

Overall, leaning towards this is a good deal for the US. Kerry and Zarif are likley Nobel Prize finalists.

The deal may actually, finally, validate Obama's Nobel Prize.

Friedman interview with Obama.

Log In - The New York Times


I agree with the below for sure.

To paraphrase a popular movie, let's not start sucking each other dicks quite yet. Let's see how it all plays out first.

Good heaven, I completely forgot about that stupid thing.

Wasn't Obama the one that made that award obsolete?

In light of the fact this thread is largely a political catch-all ...

Looks like domestic attacks on the military have joined school/public shootings as being so common that they're no longer immediately topical.

"No Way To Prevent This," Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

How do we stop these things, then?

No solutions allowed! Only complaints!

I guess we could follow France's lead. Never mind.

Is there a flag we can remove?

Must be one somewhere.

A Jordanian born Kuwaiti(or vice versa) naturalized US citizen carries out a heavily armed targeted suicide attack on US military personnel on the eve of Ramadan expiring and we've gotta sit around and decide if it's terrorism or random violence. Geez.

The only solution is a less awesome America, I guess.

Wonder why there won't be a bunch of thinkpieces saying Muslims need to be held accountable for his actions.

It's interesting reading these stories as everybody who know the attacker is saying they can't believe it. Of course, we're already reading that he was "radicalized."

So my question is two parts...

1. Do you think people have to be radicalized or do people just hide their true nature?

2. If you believe somebody can be radicalized, what doe that person's mindset have to be prior? That is, in what condition does the mind have to be in order to be accepting of what is preached to make you carry out something that violent?

How the South Skews America - Michael Lind - POLITICO Magazine

If by "less awesome" you mean one where the culture eventually shifts, then maybe:


I had a back and forth with someone on FB over the flag/monument debate, someone who was heated enough to state that they would kill with a shovel anyone who comes to dig up any soldiers (specifically Forrest, who Memphis is looking to move). I don't doubt that she was completely serious. But her opinions were based in her view of heritage:


To which I ask: why in the blue blazes does that matter? Really, why should I or anyone else care that your ancestors were in Jamestown? How does that have any relevance on you or me, in 2015? Should you get points for this? Am I less of an American because my family came here in the 1900s? This speaks directly to what the author of the linked story points out:


I don't believe they want mobility. Not if they endorse a system that ranks you based on if you came over in 1607, or 1650, or 1700, etc. Not if they've named places and controlled them for a couple hundred years. They want to keep doing so. If you are black? Well, you can't get in on that lineage. Nor if you are an immigrant. Or a carpet bagger. This is their land, has been and in their minds always will be, and nobody else can tell them what to do. Except that by the numbers, that will eventually change. Will America be less awesome? I know what some will answer (some will say there won't BE one in 30 years). Guess we'll have to wait and find out.

If you break down the statistics a little further it ends at a point that I don't think the author intended it to. And definitely not at a point that those on the left want it to.

Right, right, I know - well the PROBLEM with the Southern states is more black folk!

And sure, I have no doubt that there is less social and economic mobility for black people, in the South or otherwise. Where you fall on all of this is basically if you believe that is mostly their doing, or if it's more the whites who have held power and money for 400 years doing their best to keep it while attempting to suppress everyone else.

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households | Pew Research Center



So, is it the chicken or the egg? Did ownership rise in defense to violence, or did they proliferate as threats of violence?

I've learned to understand a lot of the regional culture of the US by reading Colin Woodward's, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Reigonal Cultures of North America.

The South basically breaks down along three of these "nations;" Tidewater, the Deep South and Greater Appalachia.




Over generations the cultures of these areas have been dramatically influenced by the people who settled there. The ideals, social standing and mores of these regions are branded by the history of the area and the people who settled there. Our current political divides are a focused battle to define what makes America, America. These same battles have been going on for generations and will continue into the future. I believe we are possibly heading to a point where open conflict between Americans over that true definition may become a reality.

Oh, thanks PilotMan - that sounds like a very interesting read. And it makes a lot of sense - earlier after posting I thought to myself "it's as if that woman wants to perpetuate feudalism" with her lineages and societies. If her family is based in Virginia and North Carolina that matches perfectly with Tidewater.

ETA: this essay may be a little more direct than trying to navigate his site; and yes, he does touch on gun ownership and violence http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine...p-in-arms.html

The article was being smug and implying that if it weren't for those evil white rednecks in the South, this country would be a beacon of enlightenment. That statistically it is holding the country back.

I'm simply pointing out that if you breakdown the statistics further, it's not the evil white Southerners that is skewing the data downward.

We don't get to do this on each other's stuff very often so ...

+1

Donald doesn't stand a chance but he is fun to listen to, makes this process more interesting. He brings up some polarizing issues and its interesting to see how candidates respond (or not).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politi...rge/index.html

Real or Onion?

ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi bans group from releasing more execution videos

Early opinions on legacy, history book stuff etc. on Obama's presidency.

From my perspective, his domestic policy has been transformational and I think is equal to or exceeds Reagan. His foreign policy doesn't quite rise up to the end of the Cold War ...

Obama, you're still no Reagan - CNNPolitics.com

What was so transformational about it? I'm not knocking it but just don't see him accomplishing anything dramatic during his Presidency. At least from a domestic standpoint.

The two are Obamacare and LGBT rights. Arguably (and probably still to be determined) the third is himself as a black man achieving the presidency.

For a group that swears by v1.0....lets call this ISIS v1.0.0.1

I'll call it transformational when we don't label him based on skin color.

Same goes for Dr. King!

He's the first so it's inevitably taken into account (as will gender if Hillary wins). The traditional white male president is going to be joined by a black, a woman, and probably a Hispanic president in the next 10-20 years.

I know I'm just despondent over the Chattanooga incident and how a seemingly normal immigrant wasn't able to see the good that US is and the opportunities she gave his family and him.

Obama's strategy seems to be more containment and hope the regional powers get its act together. I'm paying more attention to GOP candidates that are talking tougher (some saying "boots on the ground") and willing to have a more active participation with the Kurds. Is our national security interests not being threatened or has it not yet reached that level?

Maybe with the Nuke deal done, Obamacare done ... he can start to focus on the Middle East.

It is historic...Im waiting for the American transformation when the color of our skin is irrelevant. It's possible, just still a ways off.

Meet Your Three New National Monuments

I don't know if Obamacare is that transformational. It changed things a bit, but it feels like a bandaid till the country moves to a national health care system. And many of the LGBT advances weren't from his pen.

I mean he'll go down as the first black President which will always be a big deal. But "transformational" seems overboard. When I think about that, I think of guys like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, etc that governed during important times and made dramatic changes to not only the country but the world. It's not Obama's fault that he's President during a rather boring time in the world, but we also shouldn't blow up some of his actions to be larger than they are in the grand scheme of things.

It depends. If Hillary wins, Obama can be seen as the first in an era of government as an important part of the solution is back - and the ACA will be an example of that transformation. Kind of a reversal of Reagan sort of understanding of the role of government.

Obamacare was really just an expansion of what Reagan started with health care in the 80's though.

....

This is a surprise as I thought there was some sort of Turkish backdoor deal of pseudo-peace with ISIS to get back their diplomats from a year (?) ago. Good stuff though, there's hope yet that Obama can save his Iraq fiasco.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politi...sis/index.html

His?

Well, the part where Bush put Al Qaeda in Iraq down with the Surge...and then Obama lifted his foot when they weren't quite dead yet...and allowed the insurgency to come back to life. That Iraq fiasco...

Having just finished Gates autobiography yesterday I can tell you that is a junk argument - the drawdown in Iraq was put into motion by Bush and a republican president would have almost certainly have had them out on the exact same schedule. In fact Gates is massively complimentary of the way Obama handled the surge in Afghanistan which probably wouldn't have been possible without the drawdown in Iraq

Yeah, Bush had negotiated a withdrawal and the Iraqis stated that they wanted the troops gone and if they weren't gone they wouldn't have legal immunity within Iraq. That's not a situation where it's tenable to have tens of thousands of troops.

I generally agree with the thought that it's not fair to put that all on Obama, but your statement here kinda comes at it double. You're suggesting the drawdown was completely on Bush, but getting troops out of Iraq was one of Obama's biggest campaign promises. So it seems disingenuous to entirely blame the drawdown on Bush alone. Obama was as responsible for that in the end, as Bush, no matter how well Gates thinks he handled the resulting surge in Afghanistan.

It's not on Bush but any republican president (including Bush if he'd have had an extra term) would have done exactly the same. Quoting almost directly from the book the republican leadership (mentions McCain by name) were far happier with the eventual duration of the drawdown than the Dems, who felt angry he wasn't getting them out fast enough. And Gates self identifies as a moderate republican so it's hardly a puff piece.

And the Iraqis wanted us out. We couldn't maintain combat operations without legal immunity.

Its not Obama's fault that we were in there but after 6+ years in office, he's got a good part of the blame for the current state.

Turks are starting to get into it, probably going to make a difference in the north. Wonder what we promised/negotiated with them.

Turkish Warplanes Hit ISIS Targets In Syria

Well, here's a strange article to read this fine Saturday morning in the USA Today. Mostly, I'm fascinated with the "I hate the USA and their lies" and the "I want money from the great USA" thought pattern going on at the same time. On a personal level, if somebody hated me, I wouldn't give them a penny...and I wouldn't ask somebody I hated for money either. So this article just comes off bad in so many ways. Not to mention...how little attention is given to the terrorists that actually committed the crimes. They have a shit load of money, where is the world community uprising against those assholes for compensation? Oh that's right, everybody is afraid of them.

Anyway, here are some notable parts of the article. Click the link to read the full article.

Kenyan terror victims protest Obama, demand aid

I think you get it.

The money is supposed to come from Iran and Sudan. I suspect its subject to a lengthy appeal process and will never be paid. Fat chance it ever getting paid.

Judge Awards $907 Million to 1998 Kenya, Tanzania Bomb Victims - Bloomberg Business

So you can probably see the disconnect between the article you cited and the one I did, right?

I think its a mis-aligned expectations from the Kenyans. They probably thought the US was going to pay them the $ and screwing around with them. Their attorneys should have educated them more I guess.

On another note ...

Obama's greatest frustration is gun control. I'm a gun owner and actually don't mind more gun control but this kind of surprises me. Its a frustration but the greatest in the context of what's happening now?

How about lack of progress with Israeli peace talks, progress on ISIS, Iraq, the middle class still hurting etc. Gun control wouldn't be my top choice. Its probably the safest answer as it can't be pointed back at him.

Obama admits US gun laws are his 'biggest frustration' - BBC News

Nevermind, there probably wasn't any negotiations since they are attacking the Kurds now and the US wouldn't have signed off on that.

Turkey strikes Kurdish militants in Iraq, ends truce of more than 2 years - The Washington Post

There's an old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

If you apply that logic to the Middle East, pretty soon you have what we see today.

Better to know your friends and defend them wisely.

It may seem naive to think we can keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands (which will, in turn, lead to the Saudis - whose wealthier segment spawned Bin Laden and Al Qaeda - developing nuclear weapons). But we really don't have a choice there.

We can look at the standoff between India and Pakistan and think that works everywhere. But India and Pakistan are a lot more stable at their core.

Yup, definitely right move for Obama. Let him rot in Russia and constantly looking over his shoulder.

No sign of deal for Snowden as White House rejects 2-year online petition | Fox News

And the reality is that that's going to be when whites in this country tackle the institutional challenges that non-whites face and have faced for the entirety of the country's existence. It's not just eliminating slavery or letting non-whites drink from the same water fountains. Part of why Obama's skin color contributes to his label is precisely *because* of those institutional challenges. There haven't been any black Presidents before him not because black men are somehow inferior and unsuited to leading, but because of generational, institutional roadblocks that were erected (or were otherwise endemic to "here's a generation of people who have nothing to call their own told to fend for themselves, let's see what happens") all over the country in the years following emancipation.

Part of Dr. King's dream about content of character had to do with explicitly that. His march was as much about economic factors (which tie into all of those roadblocks) as racial equality. It isn't enough to say "okay black children can attend the same schools as white children now so racism is over." But to many in this country, that's exactly how they see things. We don't have whites-only bathrooms, we don't have (legal) school segregation, we don't have slavery, what race-based problems could there be?


The problem with that quote is that speaking out and challenging the government would probably constitute a violation of the PATRIOT Act. Dumping the specific documents on the web would so constitute, of course, but remember that the Act also allows people to be placed on the no-fly list without either being told WHY they're on the list or being legally allowed to challenge their placement on the list. There were all sorts of things in that law that criminalized exactly the sort of behavior we're being told Snowden "should" have engaged in instead of shooting off a bunch of docs to WikiLeaks.

Catch-22. What he did is "worse" in the eyes of the government than what he might otherwise have done. It provided concrete evidence of the misdeeds that the government couldn't have just waved away and said "he's crazy, there's no such program, don't listen to him."

But if he had a problem with the NSA wiretaps, he didn't have much in the way of legal remedies. You can't sue without standing. You can't establish standing without proving that you are, were, or were likely to have been harmed by the alleged illegal practices. You can't prove those things without revealing the existence of the allegedly illegal program. Judges tend to frown on discovery as a fishing expedition for whether you have standing to sue.

Even if he had all those things, executive privilege was probably going to get invoked to prevent sunshine on the programs to which he took exception.

So what's the appropriate response? The program may be unconstitutional, but exposing that unconstitutionality was almost certainly going to land him in legal hot water no matter how he went about it. The difference between this, and whatever else he might plausibly have done, is one of optics. He sought asylum with a country many still see as Public Enemy #1, because they were less likely than the alternatives (friendly or allied nations) to extradite him to the United States. Avoiding that can of worms probably entailed keeping his mouth shut and allowing the government to continue committing potentially illegal acts.

You can be a whistleblower to illegal activity (which just about all of this wasn't) without releasing confidential information to bias media organizations who intend on sensationalizing it. Thomas Drake and William Binney both blew the whistle on things they felt the government were doing that was wrong. They didn't go to jail for it (although Drake did get charged with crimes that were eventually dropped).

Snowden is a narcissist who cares nothing about privacy or free speech. His actions were those of a man trying to feed his ego by gaining the adulation of people who don't understand the law or how any of these programs work.

For the treacherous p.o.s. Snowden? Having enough sense to know that the program was necessary & important.

The appropriate government response would have been two high velocity rounds in his head.

I think his present situation is perfect. Life in Siberia. Well, until the Russians are tired of him...they don't like turn-coats either and will dispose of him one day. We don't have to waste any effort on this one. He's living on borrowed time and that time is in a shithole paid for by Russian tax dollars.

I am a fan of civil disobedience. But people who engage in it have to be willing to suffer the consequences. Otherwise, it isn't civil disobedience. I've never agreed with the idea that it should be consequence-free.

To take a less heavy example than Snowden. If someone engages in a sit-in, and they refuse a valid and lawful request to leave, they are guilty of trespass. In that case, I think that person should take the trespass citation and pay the fine. They may argue (correctly or not), that the message that they are sending by the sit-in is worth paying the trespass fine. And I am 100% on board with their right to make that decision. But when they start saying that their message is so important that they should be above the law, that's when they lose me.

Snowden is just that example times a billion.

Hilarious result to manipulation of a district by business owners in Columbia, Missouri.

Business owners try to remove all voters from business district, but they forgot one college student

I'm wondering how people feel about this now that more of the secret part of the deal has been revealed. Soil samples can be requested, and 24 days later Iran will provide them. Access to labs is forbidden.

I don't think any inspection mechanism is 100% foolproof, but this one seems more like 1% foolproof.

There's new construction in an area linked to weapons manufacturing. We haven't heard the word "snapback" in a while.

If Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, nothing in the agreement stops it. Iran now has access to more money and military officials are meeting with Russia, presumably to obtain weapons and technology.

Activity in Lebanon and the Golan Heights indicates that Iran may well be preparing an attack through its proxies in the region. Rhetoric from Iranian leaders promising the destruction of Israel has increased since the agreement was signed.

At one time, it looked like Democrats might join Republicans in revoking the deal, but even getting enough to avoid a filibuster seems like a long shot now.

I wonder what the point of all this was.

The 24 days thing is nearly total bullshit.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9176415...ctions-24-days

Someone should have told the president.

Press Conference by the President | whitehouse.gov

But word out of Iran is that they don't feel beholden to the agreement anyway. They're just happy to get the money and openly work with Russia.

I always try to find multiple sources on things. Vox is heavily tied to Daily Kos and other blogs on the left. I'd take anything they write with a grain of salt.

Vox is tied to Daily Kos?! That's ludicrous. It's like saying Ross Douthat in the NY Times is tied to RedState or something.

I didn't realize you had such good connections in Iran.

Iran president opposes parliament vote on nuclear deal - Yahoo News

Yes, I personally attend Tehran news conferences. This keeps me one step ahead of our president at all times.

So does not suffering from severe brain damage.

I'm not sure there's much to worry about in that story. This from earlier in the month seems to be saying that the parliament is filled with hard-liners that want to add conditions to the deal that haven't been negotiated. If that's the case, it's not shocking that the Iranian President wouldn't want anything legally binding added to the treaty.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0Q637220150801

Vox Media was founded by Markos Moulitsas. Same guy who founded Daily Kos.

I'm kind of drunk and I'm mixing threads here.

But I wish for the day when the people wish the president was healthy like we wish quarterbacks are healthy

That's great, but Vox.com is run by Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, hardly crazy left wing ideologues. Vox Media also owns SB Nation, the Verge, Polygon, and Curbed - a bunch of left wing sites? ;)

I didn't say crazy left wing ideologues, but both those individuals are liberals and have made a career working for liberal publications. You can't look at Vox and tell me that it doesn't have a strong political slant. Vox is just the left-wing version of The Daily Caller.

Polygon and Verge also have a political slant when they touch on social issues (which is rather frequently).

It doesn't invalidate that opinion piece but you can't be serious trying to claim that Vox is a neutral news organization.

You are trying to shift goalposts. Vox was compared to being the same thing as Daily Kos - ie, crazy left wing ideologues. It'd be the same thing as saying, in your example, the Daily Caller (and lets be honest, Daily Caller is more like a right leaning HuffPo, not a right leaning Vox.com - Vox's comparison on the right is, as I already stated, Ross Douthat, or The American Conservative) was the same thing as RedState. It is ludicrous to claim that Vox deserves the same scrutiny as a Daily Kos article.

I don't know what you're trying to argue. Solesmic said Vox has ties to Daily Kos. They do. The founder of Daily Kos founded Vox Media.

I don't think he was saying that they both have the same credibility. Just that they both are heavily slanted toward the same political side. And that the piece was being treated as coming from a legitimate news agency.

Obama has not been in the news lately other than pending approval/rejection of the deal. I think it'll happen.

Here Are The Wobbly Democrats Who Could Make Or Break The Iran Deal

President Obama signed an order restoring Mt. McKinley's name back to Denali.

Having spent a year in Alaska, I can say that this is a much much much bigger deal to Alaskans (of all races and origins) than people in the lower 48 realize.

Not having been to Ohio, I can't say how the news is going over there, but I would imagine that the answer is "poorly."

John Boehner is "deeply disappointed" and has broken down into tears.

I was thinking about the difference in how "illegals" are treated in our situation and below.

I get the 2 situations are significantly different - how it happened, why it happened, duration etc. but I do question if it happened here and the scenario was relatively the same that our reaction would be similar? BTW - I'm not hearing much from Obama administration in providing assistance with this refugee crisis?

I suspect the EU is going to be in a world of hurt if this keeps up. More unwanted refugees, different skin color, different values, different religion etc. The EU better come up with a real plan to handle this.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/europe...sis/index.html

I don't believe that's the typical European reaction to migration.

Only 10,000? And it's just a transit stop from them on the way to Germany. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what's happening right now in Europe. The refugees aren't being greeted by cheering crowds in France and Sweden and most other places. And they wouldn't be greeted that way in Austria if that country had to take host 100,000+, and if many more than that came through every day trying to get to Germany or the UK. (And it's not just Syrian refugees, many in the current surge are regular illegal immigrants from places other than Syria, which is adding to the hostility.)

I think illegal immigration/refugees are tolerated far more in the United States than Europe generally. Maybe Trump is touching into something that will change all this, but general open hostility towards immigrants is generally considered a right wing/racist thing in the U.S. That kind of hostility is much more broadly acceptable in most of Europe.

Agreed. The story above is a rarity. What's going on in Europe is far worse than what we see in our country.

Europe has had it easy for a long time, a free pass for deeply entrenched belief systems that never would last in America. They are receiving a wake-up call.

There are seven billion people in the world - we reached one billion about 200 years ago. Where do all these people go? Our ideas about land and ownership and even borders are about to change.

Today, the pressure is these religious wars in the Middle East and Africa. Tomorrow, it's going to be about resources.

Man himself is the ultimate carbon emission.

Or about the value of most of those 7 billion people.

Europe is insane to open those floodgates, even a trickle frankly. And the people seem to know that deep down, in spite of what some of their so-called leaders seem to say as either liberal fools or slaves to political correctness.

It must be nice to know you're more valuable to the world than seven billion faceless strangers. I wish I could say the same.

I will continue to trek on and try and accumulate paper wealth so that I can live in comfort with my family in whatever time I have remaining. Because that's what I'm supposed to do, I think.

But what does accumulating paper wealth have to do with life? When you're dealing with a planet that has enormous population pressures and limited resources, paper isn't high on the list when it comes to value.

The Mayflower apparently had 103 passengers (plus Skipper and some Gilligans). At what point does it cease to matter who can connect a lineage?

Also, since you're a religious man, what does it say about your God that he has apparently granted seven billion lives. Is it up to you to even try and understand their value?

Question: If a law has been broken, has it really been broken if somebody calls it racism?

I've pretty much concluded that is virtually all that matters. Too much evidence for me to believe otherwise at this point.


Increasingly, I'm coming to the conclusion that this whole planet was little more than a sick science project, if you just want to know the flat fucking truth about it.

Good, intelligent question. Why not ponder it and never post again until you've come up with an answer?

So, does it bother you that people like me see the same evidence and conclude that there isn't any such thing as a god?

In determining that wealth accumulation is all that matters, do you wonder what happens when others conclude that laws protecting wealth don't matter?

Let's say groups like Iran and ISIS (same idea, just Sunni variations rather than Shia) gain more power and wage war on the world with weapons that can destroy the power grids and other infrastructure. All of a sudden, most of our jobs don't do anything to help our survival. Paper wealth ceases to exist. If you think guns will help you, then someone with more guns and better training will eventually take your guns.

The pressures that seven billion people (and growing at an incredible pace) bring to the world will change life as we know it. Anyone who imagines that climate change (human-generated or natural) is going to matter one way or the other in the next 100 years is being a little naive, IMO.