It has been proven that people have a "belief bias." This is a tendency for the mind to compensate to the benefit of a belief. There are many distortions on reality that are constant with our biology. We don't see what is literally right in front of our eyes. If our brain didn't filter every sound that hits our ears our minds would have to work overtime sorting all the input. Our eyes can only view the reflection of light bouncing off an object and not the object itself. The very act of seeing actually maps reality inverted and upside down to our brain's receptors. When one understands how one's biology works, it is an easy supposition that the brain also has a way of compensating for the unknown, compelling us to supernatural beliefs.

Believing in something is quite useless in the larger scheme of things. If I choose to believe in something it doesn't make it any more real or less real. The inverse is also true.

A term like 'atheist' is pointless. Having the position of 'not believing' in an unlimited assortment of possible things is universal to all of the human condition.

Irrational belief is evolutionarily advantageous? I don't see the proof.

Lastly:

"Let's talk about one of his experiments. He did a controlled study of what he calls "telephone telepathy." People were asked to give four phone numbers of friends. The callers were chosen randomly and then asked to guess who was calling. The statistical probability was that 25 percent of the guesses would be right. Sheldrake said the responses were more like 45 percent."

The above example is not a controlled experiment/study (no mention of the control results, only supposition on probability and statistics) and by description breaks many tenets of scientific method.

Wonderful.

The important result of this episode is that the administration went ahead and reauthorized the domestic spying program without the approval, consent, or judgment that it was legal, by the justice department. It is now on record that a crime has been committed. The administration's counter argument has always been that they have extraordinary powers during "wartime." Put this to a prosecutor and let the courts decide if laws have been broken.

Every acting and retired general should go on record against this position. What power comes with this position? Where does this position exist in the chain of command? Questions should be asked.

This is an example of Ron Paul's current positions on race:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

The quotes you reference were not submitted by Ron Paul, and are incorrectly attributed to him by the Chronicle. In actuality they were submitted in articles by other people and Paul is only guilty of not having the sense to edit them out of his newsletter. He does feel strongly about freedom of speech so perhaps that is why he published the statements/conclusions.

Neither the Democrat nor the Republican policies appear to respect ethnic minorities. Republicans want to ignore ethnicity as though it is not a factor (market based solutions, anti affirmative action), yet it is a factor. Democrats condescend and create entire generations of ghettoized, marginalized, and dependent on the state people. I can tell you first hand the Democrat position, although well meaning, has proven itself to be more detrimental to ethnic minorities than the Republican approach.

133 congressmen voted against the war resolution. It was not unanimous and there were not just a few hold outs.

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Done!

I suggest congress stop dicking around with the budget. It is a no win route to achieve the desired end.

They should pass a resolution declaring the first resolution achieved and rescind the president's authority to wage war. The goals of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq have been achieved as stated. Iraq is not longer a threat to the United States. It has a functioning democracy. The United Nations resolutions have been enforced. There is nothing in the resolution authorizing an ongoing occupation of a country. Nothing authorizing nation building. Nothing authorizing a non stop war on terror unless there is a direct threat to the United States.

Dick Cheney had described the War Powers Resolution as an "infringement on the authority of the president. Let this be the fight they engage the president in. He is already in trouble with much of congress with his overreach. He will be isolated in his desire to consolidate executive power, and the issue is no longer framed as "support the troops."

The democrats are suggesting that they are getting something out of this, such as reports on benchmarks of the progress in Iraq.

The president is already required to report before congress every 60 days according to his mandate to wage war as prescribed in the Iraq War Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).