Recent comments

  • Beekeepers dream! Cool for bee's too!   2 min 33 sec ago

    hmm not so sure. But wow they sure know how to crowd fund the thing. I want bees for pollinating plants. Honey is only secondary. I much rather have strong bee colony than ho-hum colony.

    Everything has a downside to it so what's the catch? Aquaponic has several big gotcha's same with vertical hydroponics, NFT (nutrient film technique) to krakty method of DWC and so on. They all have gotcha's.

  • What do you believe?   5 min 16 sec ago

    Praise be to Tommy Chong, PBUH.

  • Beekeepers dream! Cool for bee's too!   10 min 9 sec ago

    So, why do bees make honey? I love honey, myself, but never thought about it before. Don't people feel guilty about stealing the honey that bees try so hard to make? Is honey used as a stored food source for the bees? Or, is it a waste material or building material? Why don't they get stuck in all that sticky honey. I've seen some bees in honey before. Maybe, the bees are going extinct because people keep stealing their honey?

  • The Concept of a Monolithic God   17 min 6 sec ago
    Quote ChicagoMatt:Would you want a world full of people who had no fear of god/judgement, no hope of an afterlife, and no hope of reuniting with their loved ones?
    Oh, you bet I would! As an atheist, I know that there is no afterlife and once one dies there will be no reuniting with anyone except the maggots that will consume our dead bodies...unless one is cremated. Without all of the myriad religions based in superstition, competing with each other for the minds, and wallets (or purses), of the suckers that buy into them, there would be many fewer rifts between one another. What is hypothesized, and found to be true through repeated experimentation in one part of the world can be repeated by someone totally different in another part of the world and either prove or disprove the hypothesis. You can't really do that with superstition...superstitious ideas are not falsifiable. You can't prove them true or untrue. Just like you can't prove that Ahura Mazda or Zeus were real except in the minds of those who invented them in the first place. And that is the only place they ideas invented by man...and the suckers who believe they are real entities that exist in the real world. But no one can prove they exist or don't exist.

    Religion is called "opiate of the people" by some people (Karl Marx for one) and in one sense that may be true. It is, to many people, an addiction that can, and often does, destroy lives. If not their lives, then maybe the lives of others...especially when the differences accepted by the superstition junkies as absolute truth results in war. Did I mention the Crusades? That's coming! But, believing in superstitious things is more like a poison that will rot one's brain over time. It sometimes makes people go crazy and do things like kill their loved ones, even children, exorcisms.

    The word "Assassin" comes from the word "Hashshashin" referring to Hashish which The Old Man of the Mountain used to imprison the minds of men who he would use as fearless warriors. The Crusaders were terrified of them. I don't know, maybe the OMOTM also promised them 69 virgins as well. The OMOTM was not the first, nor the last, power monger to use the stupidity of suckers in order to use them. Get a person to believe he will go to Heaven because he is fighting infidels and he might do murder innocent civilians while occupying a country that they have no business being in in the first place. They might even take pride in the Bible verses engraved in their gun scopes as he kills them and their children. But then, I never watched the movie "Sniper", just the previews, so I don't know if that sniper actually shot that young boy or not. But things are really more shocking in real life as I've seen children having be ripped apart by US shelling and bombs. Yeah, I know, they shouldn't have been playing or sleeping in a war zone, huh?

    Science may create very destructive things (that could also be used for peaceful purposes) like the atomic bomb. But it sure wasn't the scientists who decided to use it against was a man from Missouri...a religious sort who was not even a very good businessman...a haberdasher.... that somehow managed to convince other dummies to vote for him. I'm sure they all thought he was a good man...being religious and all.

    So, as far as I'm concerned...screw religion...screw all religions...screw all forms of superstitious belief systems. They may unite small sub groups of people but when pitted against other subgroups of believers with different belief systems...they are very divisive and destructive.

    There is only one thing that works and that is science. Without science, people would still be afraid of dragons and demons lurking in the darkness of their fearful minds. Science and the scientific method path to truth works but religion fails. It's no wonder the bastions of religion have always had to, kicking and screaming maybe, admit science was right and they were wrong. Just look at the Catholic Church history. And all of the cults that were offshoots of that Church were also most frequently wrong in their beliefs as well. And the ones that don't admit that science is more about truth than their idiotic tenets, like man riding on the backs of dinosaurs and the earth being only 5-6 thousand years old are so silly that most people cannot take them seriously except for the dupes that don't, or can't, understand science.

  • Will contraception be hard to get in Indiana   35 min 52 sec ago

    this article is very interesting and nice,
    I'd loved reading this article of yours.
    I learned some thing from this article.
    thank you for sharing this to us.

  • What does Matthew Chapter 25 REALLY mean ? Hint: Thom’s reading of it is NOT giving the full meaning.   39 min 50 sec ago

    I have a different understanding of Matthew 25. Yes, I do believe that the setting of Jesus speaking these words is sometime in the future (for whoever is reading the passage in their own time), but I do not believe that Jesus was speaking about how people treated him in the flesh, directly. The key is in verse 40 which I quote here from the New American Standard Bible:

    "40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’"

    I believe the message here is to treat even the lowliest person we encounter with compassion and respect as if that person were Jesus Christ himself in person, and that person will be judged, rewarded or reprimanded for how he (or she) treated the least of our brothers or sisters in humanity; regardless of race, class, or financial disposition.

    I stand with Thom and his use of Matthew 25 as quoted.

    Those of us who are religious and strive to keep growing spiritually all have slightly different paths and differing insights into what the great spiritual leaders were trying to teach.

    I believe that religious freedom is not only the right to practice as one believes is best for him(or her)self, but true religious freedom bears the responsibility for each person to respect the religious beliefs and practices of each other person who is following a different path, so long as the goal of their path is to benefit all living beings and to promote compassion and harmony.

    So, in short, I am saying that true religious freedom means that we all agree to disagree on the details, while showing only the utmost dignity and respect for the others right to practice their own religious freedom as it suits them.

  • The fine bottled water of the 1%   49 min 31 sec ago

    The last I checked, ordinary tap water is safe to drink in most places in this country. But now, millennials and even most of the older generation like myself are trained to only drink water if it comes pre packaged in little plastic bottles. We also mistakenly believe that we are being environmentally responsible when we try to discard those bottles in receptacles that are marked with the word "Recycle".

    The last I checked, water from nearly every public water system in this country is tested and certified to be safe to drink. In fact, most of the water we are so eager to drink from plastic bottles comes from public water systems, It may pass through an extra filter or two and then have some minerals added to improve its flavor, but it's still the same water. If we need to improve it, all we have to do is add a filter.

    Myself, I almost always politely refuse water when it is offered to me in a plastic bottle. And on the rare occasions that I do drink bottled water, I make a point of saving the bottle, filling it again, and reusing it as many times as possible.

    Even then, I can't help but be reminded of the extensive industrial process and all the wasted energy that went into making that plastic bottle just so someone could open it, take a sip or two and then leave it on the table, or: beside the road, in a ditch, ... or just for fun: throw it in the river .... or in the ocean ... to watch it float away.

  • Indiana Goes Back To The 1950's   1 hour 18 min ago

    You don't know gay people at all dude.

    What I'd really like to know is why are you conservatives now being so dishonest about your motives? Why can't you own up?

  • Never vote Democrat again?   1 hour 32 min ago

    Why does it take money to win an election unless the people are dumb enough to continually believe their paid campaign adds? Maybe the incorrigibly stupid deserves to be cowed. Politicians with the most money to spend on their campaigns have lost before in areas where the voters are not ignorant hicks that are dumb enough to believe in the slick political ads put out by the wealthiest candidates. But in watching every show Bill Maher ever put out, I got the impression that he felt rather stupid for having shelled out $1M on Obama. Sure Obama won but that was because he said a lot of things that sounded impressive. After he won, he acted like a Republican. So what is really the difference?

  • The Concept of a Monolithic God   1 hour 37 min ago
    (But without a doubt, science, not blind religion is our only hope.)

    You're falling into the Liberal "you must believe one or the other, but not both" trap.

    Can I believe in an afterlife? Yes. Can I also believe in atomic theory at the same time? Of course.

    Total faith in science is a dangerous road to go down. It's not a big jump to go from "there is no afterlife/final judgement/reunion with our loved ones" to "let's get rid of all of the non-essential people".

    I've often wondered why atheists contribute to charities that help the handicapped. I'm talking about the severely handicapped - people who will never work, never contribute to society. People who, in the absence of a belief in a soul, can only be seen as burdens to those around them. If they are just a collection of atoms - mostly carbon - and they won't ever do anything for society, then why are we bothering helping them?

    That logic could also be applied to people who have outlived their usefulness. "This 80-year-old woman can't work or have children ever again. No need to take care of her. She has no soul. If she dies now, or dies years from now, it makes no difference. She won't ever contribute to society again. And we won't be judged for the way we've treated her."

    We could get into Eugenics too. Science tells us that the earliest homonids arose in Africa, and eventually groups of those homonids migrated to Europe and Asia. The obvious scientific conclusion is that Africans, then, represent an earlier form of human. Aka a sub-human.

    You can see how dangerous this could get.

    Can some atheists be good, moral people? Of course they can. Would you want a world full of people who had no fear of god/judgement, no hope of an afterlife, and no hope of reuniting with their loved ones? Don't you think a significant number of those people wouldn't be able to handle it? Wouldn't be able to maintain some level of morals?

    I guess that's why they call religion the "opiate of the masses". That's cool. I like knowing that "the masses" aren't looking at each other as just a meaningless collection of atoms, destined to return to the earth sooner or later.

  • “Hogwash!" and Other Down-to-Earth Observations   1 hour 41 min ago

    Oh, thank you very much, Zenzoe! :-) Finally won one. ;-}

  • Examples of Deregulation, please.   1 hour 42 min ago

    deleting a duplicate posting... NOT SPAM

  • Examples of Deregulation, please.   1 hour 43 min ago
    Quote LysanderSpooner:In truth, however, the problem was not the lack of government involvement with Enron, but rather the close relationship between Enron and government. Enron in fact was deeply involved with the federal government throughout the 1990s, both through its lobbying efforts and as a recipient of large amounts of corporate welfare.

    Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with your tax dollars, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects."

    Ron Paul

    So let me guess... Paul is, of course, claiming Enron's problems had NOTHING to do with deregulation or their being sleazy. It has nothing to do with the World Bank saying the Dabhol project never made sense... or that the final cost of power from this project would be 4x that of domestic producers... and exceed the state's entire budget for primary and secondary education

    It's just all governments fault. Enron is a victim.

    If we follow your link... Paul makes the claim

    "One such project, a power plant in India, played a big part in Enron’s demise. The company had trouble selling the power to local officials, adding to its huge $618 million loss for the third quarter of 2001."

    Ok... it added to its 3Q loss.

    So what? Was it 1% of Enron's loss? 20% 70%? We don't know since Paul just throws India into a mix... IMPLYING this was the reason for Enron's collapse without demonstrating it played any critical factor.

    And this is just another example of libertarian intellectual dishonesty. The real story of the Dabhol project is much more complex.

  • “Hogwash!" and Other Down-to-Earth Observations   1 hour 44 min ago

    Oh Zo, I would only shower you with ad feminems.


  • Cost of Medical Procedures in Various Areas   1 hour 49 min ago

    Palindromedary ~ Yes, indeed, thank you! That was an excellent article. By the way, here is a website that addresses many of the issues of retirement and compiles a list of the 10 best states to retire in. Health care costs and quality are also factored in to the list. However, they also take into account the cost of living and the crime rate. It might be useful to some of the readers on this thread.

  • Indiana Goes Back To The 1950's   1 hour 57 min ago

    I'm going to make a prediction. Let's come back to this in one year and see if I was right:

    1. This story will be out of the news in about a week.

    2. LGBTQ groups will use this to raise money.

    3. But the law won't change.

    4. The Supreme Court will rule that all states must allow for same-sex marriage this summer.

    5. But that doesn't effect the law. Indiana already allows same-sex marriage.

    6. The Republicans will maintain control in Indiana in the next election cycle.

    7. Nothing significant will change.

  • Why the House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent Americans   2 hours 2 min ago

    2950-10K, I think Ayn Rand's followers believe that it's okay to say anything to get what you want.
    She never said it and I think she and some of her followers have said they don't approve of violent or fraudulent means but they were always accused and suspected of secretly, privately thinking it was okay to do that.
    I mean, if you were on some kinda bullshit why would you admit it?

  • Indiana Goes Back To The 1950's   2 hours 7 min ago

    The idea that you either believe science, or religion, but not both, is a farce. You can, like most people, easily believe in both.

    That being said...

    How do you know so much? Because someone told you so?

    That statement applies to both science and religion.

    I have fact and truth on my side and you have stories handed down over thousands of years.

    You both have second-hand accounts from people who claim to have experienced something, and that you, too, can experience it, if you do what they did. You haven't seen an atom any more than you've seen an angel. You're both just have faith in what other people are telling you they've seen, and their observations match your experience of the world.

  • Why the House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent Americans   2 hours 14 min ago
    Quote Mark J. Saulys:Kend, some things, like healthcare and education, are not questionable or dispensable, worth what ever they cost - and the cost should be reasonable - if it's not artificially inflated by venal profiteers.

    Mark J. Saulys ~ How true! Actually, you might want to know that Palindromedary posted a most telling article on this blog about just those "venal profiteers."

    The very notion that the price of the same procedure can very between $157 and $7,500 should have us all question our for profit health care system and how we govern ourselves.

  • Why the House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent Americans   2 hours 15 min ago

    You're right uLTRAX, right wingers make use of every procedural device without regard for the will of the people, much more so, I think, than Democrats.
    If right wingers were given sodium pentethal they'd admit that they don't believe in any "small d" democracy at all but in autocratic governance by elites who are entitled to the benefits of the labor of the common masses, to make up that elite's superfluous wealth, as their due - or, one form or other of plutarchy or oligarchy.

  • Why the House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent Americans   2 hours 24 min ago

    In addition to not even coming close to representing the will of the vast majority of Americans, House Teapublicans also employ "twistifications" when defending their unrepresentative legislation. For example when Tom Reed proposed the house rule that would ultimately cut SSDI, he instead declared the amendment was intended to protect the fund. Thus cutting a popular program gets twisted into saving that popular program, and the media almost always communicates the twisted version to the unsuspecting public. A responsible media would have questioned Reed's real intentions by reporting that polls indicate 70% support expanding the Social Security Fund by removing the cap, a no-brainer populist solution.

    Phrases and names like, right to work, family values, defense of marriage act, death panels, liberal media, Americans for Prosperity, job creators, Religious Freedom Restoration, etc. ......all twistifications, and all part of the constant bombardment of misinformation....and all part of the big money overthrow of our Democracy.

    "But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." Thomas Jefferson .....Part of the 1776 unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America.....

    Jefferson in 1821 also penned the words, "The great object of my fear is the Supreme Court" ...which he descibed as, "the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated republic." I'm sure Jefferson would find Citizens United a complete abomination and his expressed fear is justified even now in the 21st century.

  • Why Govt Monopolies Are Bad   2 hours 26 min ago

    Wanna trade? My red state water bill for yours. I would like to trade water with you too because ours is full of lead and mercury.

    "Total compensation" is a scam. In the seventies Ford and GM claimed they could not compete with Japanese car makers because the Japanese paid their workers $11.60/hr. while Ford and GM paid over $60. Since I happened to know that the UAW had just negotiated a $12,50 base wage, I decided to look into it. It seems that Ford and GM divided their total employee costs by their average number of employees. Their total employee costs included "incentives" such as wing-dings in the Bahamas and Hawaii for dealers who met quota and "training" such as executive retreats,


  • Why the House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent Americans   2 hours 31 min ago

    uLTRAX, the EC is, of course, because initially the U.S. was a union between equal, independent states. It's like the U.N. Security Council. Russia and Israel each have one vote but can't be compared by population.
    Don't know if that changes anything, don't suppose.

  • Tom Cotton   2 hours 42 min ago

    And of course the Sunday talk show host did not call him on it.

  • Why the House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent Americans   2 hours 49 min ago

    Kend, some things, like healthcare and education, are not questionable or dispensable, worth what ever they cost - and the cost should be reasonable - if it's not artificially inflated by venal profiteers.
    They are not luxuries and we have paid for them before so we know what they cost. If they suddenly have become too expensive then something isn't adding up. Somebody's got a hand where it shouldn't be.
    It's quite simple and basic. A just, orderly society is not that monumental a task. It won't kill ya, stop cryin' about it.

Currently Chatting

Why the House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent Americans

One of the really weird ironies of politics these days is the huge divergence between what the American people actually want and what the radical right-wingers in Washington actually do. You won’t hear this on Fox So-Called News, but right now the American people are as progressive as they ever have been.

Don’t believe me? Just check the polls.