Neo

My best to her. Sometimes we all learn from those with the toughest rows to hoe. Does she have a philosophy about her challenges you can share? Personal -- not an assignment.

Thanks for responding. Did I miss that point of agreement from posters and their sources?

I've not weighed in here, much. The debate has been thorough. I struggle with the concept of regret, or withdrawn consent. I struggle with that as a general matter, and not as one simply in this heinous context. I just don't know what it means.

What NS said, word for word.

Sure, make fun of me for having a black and white TV. C'mon, French, let's go have a Schmidt's. I love Goldsworthy and Nanne.

I'm in. Awesome - JP Parise, Gump Worsely, Jude Drouin .... Bill Masterton, Cesar Maniago

Whiskey suggested the accounting I referenced, not LGR. EDITED!

To Mr. Dominator ... I weighed in on this a few days ago. Mr. Whiskey had some thoughts, in addition to Sir Drk4. In the interest of brevity, my view: 1). Addressing a threat from climate change would be a legitimate goal of government. Government addressing threats individuals cannot is usually on my ledger. I just have a shorter ledger than most. 2). I am sympathetic to change/warming arguments. I "feel" it. 3). I am also old, so I've lived through the "scientific consensus" of global cooling, a coming ice age, global warming, and the current "climate change". I see consensus as a function of where you're looking, from all points of view. 4). When science is settled, I'd need to see two things for me to support a federal program at a cost to me: A). The consensus must include that the change is man made, and not something the Earth does itself, from time to time. Therefore, it COULD be addressed. B). The consensus must include action by the entire globe to be effective. I'll change this view if only American activity is the consensus culprit. THEREFORE, I support government intervention when it addresses all culprits. 5). I am not to point 4, above. I'm paying attention. 6). Action before Point 4 gives us Solyndras, or half billion dollar boondoggles that felt good until we sobered up in a matter of months. PS: Mr Whiskey (my memory!?) suggested something to the effect of a tax on existing energy that makes it more accurately accounted for. I dubbed this a carbon tax, appreciated the realistic inclusion of a less obvious cost, and indicated a willingness to tax energy in an R&D way. I am no longer welcome at Tea Party mixers. How'd I do?

To Boyes - no sorry! perhaps a bit of both approaches.

To Drk, again - I've wrestled with the "as good issue". I can't conclude because teachers aren't asked to do the same thing, today. They're asked to do more, 1971: "Teach 'em math and science". 2015: "Teach 'em math and science ... and feed 'em, and watch them before school, and after school ... and add self esteem to the curriculum... and sex ed ... and be careful you don't get sued, so follow these guidelines ...". Need more resources to teach? Maybe not. As schools became second families, education became one of many of things they're responsible for.

To Drk: Like most issues were we divide, we divide on the path to the end, not on the end, itself. It IS our responsibility as citizens. I think it comes first, comes best, from families and not from a government mandate. Re: self fulfilling prophecy- I agree! Choosing bottom up is not throwing in the towel.

To Boyes: I Push paper with numbers on it, too. I have a son that maintains machines, a daughter that harvests, a son that builds bridges ... and a fourth were there are still decisions to make. OF THIS, I'm truly grateful.

No. I don't believe it is. I also don't believe it can be "force fixed". It is the simply the sum of all of our ideas about value. Whose ideas would you exclude? if there's really a consensus, the market changes itself. If we could do that, I'd get in line for similar treatment for my value. All we can do is persuade and learn. Saving humans from being human is a big undertaking with little success. I'm not sure I want to try, success notwithstanding.

I've not read this, yet. I want some quiet time. I THINK we're going to agree. If you pay teachers better, you'll get better teachers. (My family will get a pay raise, too!). I support higher pay! My inarticulate point is that teachers aren't paid more highly because as a society we're not valuing them enough. That's what I mean by "they get just what they deserve". The deserve part doesn't point to a limit in their value as a result of their unimportance, but instead to a limit as a result of their unimportance in the view of those offering the wage (us). We've grown to 300 plus million satisfied with the pay scale we have. Accordingly, i'm heartened by talk of the value of education. I'm not excited by "let's pay them more" until the attitude changes. Free market view, right or wrong! My interest here isn't around teacher salaries uniquely, as opposed to doctors, or lawyers, or electricians, but instead on how wage markets work. Here's one for you closer to my main point. No one who has a job is under or over paid. Post Script .... I'm a conservative who digs NPR. Post Script II .... Rest your eyes. I read it. I agree with it. Grateful ... You are, too. We all have our passions! You informed me (my favorite saying). Life's lesson (and it didn't come easily or quickly) ... I do NOT want to live in a world where everyone thinks like me.

Here's a distinction I learned from Drunkard. I viewed ID as a faith based reconciliation, or more of a religious view. He's demonstrated it appears more as a competing scientific view. I still find the thought intriguing, but agree with his finer point of distinction.

This gas been one of the most interesting threads of late. I've learned a lot about the topic and even more about the collective "our" view .. including various points of view.

BEFORE THE KNIVES COME OUT, I'm not a Confederate flag guy. It has a rich and honorable meaning to some, and a heinous, evil meaning to others. My personal view is that the legitimate pain of those aggrieved is greater than the joy of those not aggrieved. Ditch it. But, to Hoss's post. I live in a town where black and white kids fly the flag and cheer various sports entities associated with the flag. Zimmerman is of mixed race. Just which "racist" are you referring to? The flag he painted? The color of his skin compared to the boy he shot? Hispanic racism? Are the black kids in pick up trucks racist? My Point - racism is evil. Calling everything racist is sloppy. What Zimmerman did was right or wrong on its merits. A jury saw one way. Others saw a different way. It would have been right or wrong if the boy was white, black, Hispanic, orange. I have no idea if Zimmerman's a racist. I suspect you don't, either. It's a horrible term that I'd be pretty confident were true before I tossed it around. And no, I'm no Zimmerman fan. Weird dude, in my mind, before getting famous. I don't know if he's a racist. There are a lot of self made militia men, true dat. For clarity, not me.

Can't be talking to me. I'm a Constitution guy, not a gun guy. Which part are you referring to? I count three potential controversies. 1). A private business designating itself a Muslim free zone. 2). A displayed Confederate flag. 3). Zimmerman, regardless of context. Australopithicus is my great, great, great, ... ,great, great Aunt Lucy. I don't get the ID venom, either. It's a faith, a belief ... More power to its adherents. It has the status, in my mind, of any other faith based belief. No more, no less. Well, maybe less status than some religious beliefs already codified in the laws of many nations ... Over time.

Paging Johnnie Cochrane, paging Johnnie Cochrane .... Please call your office ... (I know, I know ... I just couldn't make another Kardashian reference on the interweb) I would be surprised if that's a defense attorney, but what do I know ...

There is a word(s): middle age

Again, for my clarity and not to make a point - Would it be accurate in your view to describe ID as a belief, unsubstantiated by data or science, that allows a believer in God to accept/recognize science without compromising his or her beliefs? I think we talked past one another when I said "not all scientists" view ID as hogwash. My mention of other points of view wasn't meant as a proof or a defense, but a recognition of different points of view even among scientists. Without putting words in anyone's mouth, you might respond "then they're not scientists in my mind". I do not view ID as science. In fact, the word "faith", to me, usually means the LACK of science/data/proof.

That's IT! It told so much more of the story. History with a conciliatory tone.

I'll read on the Prophet Adam .... I read a book, years ago and my memory's occasionally muddy, a titled similarly ....

Grateful .... i see more similarity than difference .... My Islam lesson for the day ... is it respectful for me to say you and I are both sons of Abraham? The Edmonton ping pong ball popping up.

THAT is a fair statement! I have always recognized the "so what, I'm doing it anyway" rationale as a matter of choice. You get one!