You are so sensible in this discussion. Why so hostile when religion is the topic?

By the way, I was not claiming that you can measure Planck's constant with no errors as you said to Droogoy. I said that if errors due to the uncertainty principle limit a measurement, then you can reduce these errors so that other errors are the limiting factor by conducting a number of independent measurements and averaging. Was this not clear? Do you disagree with this?

We were discussing your claim that the uncertainty principle limits the accuracy of all scientific conclusions. This is a subtle point that you could try to demonstrate in a calm way rather than just attack when someone disagrees with you.

You wrote: The empire runs on fossils fuels and depleted uranium, not solar panels and biodeisel.

Your statement that depleted uranium helps run the empire is interesting. What do you mean?

I could not finish (all the answers, that is). I think the missionary has hurt himself by answering. Two of the three who did not answer wanted to avoid such pain. In the other case...well, script writers are still on strike.

Surely the radar absorbing layers have fallen off, and the warrior underneath is on full display now.

Would you be saying that he thinks his only chance to get the nomination is to make the mayor look like a wimp? I think his answers would show more signs of "word-smithing" if that were the case.

wrote:Witness what one very unbalanced individual has done to the country, its people and its reputation and position in the world these past awful seven years.

His actions are supported by many in his party.

Anybody have a link quantifying how much gas idling uses?

I liked your h=0 quote; I had forgotten that years ago. Now to make myself unpopular with almost everyone else: I think one of the best things one can do to encourage democracy is to provide really good math and science education. Once one learns to respect the truth of nonintuitive things, one is less likely to fall for crap. Of course, it does not work with everyone. OK, maybe it works too well with people like me, and we get obnoxious. But surely that is less of a problem than what the quotes from Glenn's post illustrate.

Both, I think, were unusual and extreme in their own ways. Would it be possible to to have a US population would have started a wave of laughter extending from coast to coast when the administration presented its "evidence" for going to war in Iraq? Would better education make this possible? I hope so.

Is the 'national' media and political class composed of nothing but congential idiots?

No, but they feel justified in assuming that the majority of their audience is. This is why it is so important to hold them accountable for every significant lie.

In the fragment you quoted RP uses the word "theory" to cast doubt on the fact of evolution. The omitted parts that you emphasized are "waffling" and do not contribute much of anything. The whole fragment does give a better feel for the man, (and not in a favorable sense,) but it is no great difference..

I wonder how the Democratic candidates would answer the same question?

They all feel it necessary to talk about their "faith", it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear at least one or two waffle about evolution.

I have my doubts about that.

But this is a big step forward. We now know that Bucky does believe in evolution, but apparently not as the producer of different species. As far as I can tell, the fossil record does support the gradual evolution of species. And there are periods when things seem to happen very quickly. Actual evidence of sudden intervention? Not that I can see.

I see; it did not occur to me that you believed in that. There is no actual quantitative evidence that it is necessary and no mechanism to enable it..

We can throw every little country against the wall anytime we want? Actually, we get very little for that expenditure. Would you believe less less safe?

Greenwald blithely omits the most significant figure here: military spending as a percentage of GDP. It's barely 4 percent - nowhere near its cold war height and only marginally above 1990s levels (in case he hasn't noticed, we are at war).

But military spending is rising far faster than the GDP. In response to what? A few thousand terrorists? Or an unnecessary war of choice?

But why would we want to do that? The justification of the military is the defense of the country. It should not be big enough to act as an outlet for ego-driven power trips by our leaders.

I think the days when a soldier needed his squirrel gun and a packet of beef jerky are long gone. A small defensive force would need continuous training as technology changes. This is possible only with a professional full time force. We do not want a huge army of easily sacrificed grunts. Too much temptation to start a war.

I'd say there never was a time we needed our squirrel guns and beef jerky more.

And I would say we should not be fighting those wars. Let's prepare the military for what it should be doing, not for how our leaders misuse it.

Who are all these people who are at war with us? There are not very many terrorists, and I cannot think of any countries that have declared war on the US.

We are at war therefore, but not with a nation state; with an idea, a viral ideology.

OK, so you mean we are at war with a few thousand terrorists. Not actually much of a war then, is it?