It sounds like you're trying to moderate hysterical fears about radioactivity with some information, a good thing to do IMO.

My science history books must be different then yours; the trouble with Ptololomy's system was described as long standing, whereas I know that telescopes weren't developed until the early Renaissance. I've never read that the heliocentric model was developed because of new data from telescopes, and I have read a good deal about the matter.

No matter, it's a triviality.

I just read the Wiki on Dyson's career, and he has done real physics, although mostly in his earlier years.

I agree that anti-tech posters are dumping on him unfairly. That said, I still think he's a bit puddin-headed, but not so bad.

Let's see if I do any better at his age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

"What Craig did was try to actually instigate sex right there in the bathroom. "

We can't know what his intentions were, not that prosecutors won't try.

I detest Craig's homophobic politics and he probably is a self-hating homo-erotic seeking man, but I don't think propositioning someone in a public bathroom should be a crime.

It should be enough to get you bounced out on your ear, though.

I hope Craig stays in the Senate for an unusual reason; being outed and rejected by his own party, he might break ranks just to be pissy, and that would have good results.

Off topic, I recommend you watch an episode of "Futurama" sometime so you can understand my earlier comments. Sorry if they were insulting.

Liberals seem to still labor under the illusion that a genuine liberal like Dennis Kucinich can be elected to the Presidency. It's never happened before. All Democratic presidents were pro-business, pro-corporate and at best not extremely-anti-labor.

So Hillary is flawed? JFK, LBJ, and even Jimmy Carter all had serious problems that made them unacceptable to liberals. But real liberals are a serious minority, Democratic presidents are elected by regular people, not liberals.

Hillary problems; Not out of Iraq soon enough? Not hard enough on the corporate monsters who choke our civil society? O.K.

The presidency is not a dictatorship ( even under Cheney, ) and anyone who tackles political problems like they would repair a car will fail miserably. Hillary learned that the hard way in 94, has Dennis?

Yeah, I would prefer that some mixture of Socrates, Einstein and Alan Alda was a front-runner, but (s)he couldn't get elected.

And it's looking pretty unlikely that Al Gore will sign up for another round of MSM smearing.

"but Democrats get more money from corporations and the rich than they do from regular folks"

Of course I've noticed, that's what I was saying!

"that flies in the face of polling that shows the public willing to spend more in taxes for better schools, wanting out of Iraq and a less militaristic foreign policy, wanting single payer healthcare and strong regulation of business.

Sure enough, that's what most of us want. But if you wanted, say, your mother in law to stop nagging, would you hire a hit man to shoot her? It *would* stop the nagging, but you wouldn't do that for a number of reasons.

Likewise, there are many Americans who want all those things but would *never* vote for a real Liberal like Kucinich for all kinds of seemingly trivial reasons.

But you just try to change their minds. Go ahead. Try.

My point is *not* a "lesser of two evils" argument, it's a "get real" argument, which you should endore :)

Democracy is a nice idea, and I'm in favor of it, but the trouble with thinking it's a cure all is that most people only engage in it when they've got a serious burr in their saddle, so to speak.

America as a whole is still pretty comfy. We're nothing like the revolutionaries or the gilded-age rabble-rousers. Most liberals aren't working nearly as intensely as our grandparents had to, despite all the time away from home.

When America is pissed (off) enough, we can, will do something about it, but not before. And that *IS* democracy; maddening, frustrating, irrational, illogical.

like people.

Can anyone define what "a phony" is?

Any definition you come up with can be applied to almost everyone, if you squint your eyes just right.

No one is completely sincere, and to use sincerity or phoney-ness as a gauge for voting decisions is damn silly.

Welcome to America in 2007.

Washington political insiders and longtimers don't like Edwards because:

""It's not so much that he didn't pay his dues. It's probably more than he doesn't pay them due deference."

A President with working class roots, a life of fighting rich corporations and, perhaps, would be less then deferential to the entrenched powers?

Sounds Great!

If you were a real soldier *and* a real man, then you would list your name, rank and serial number.

Most likely the only army you've joined is the army of blog trolls working from the basement of the Heritage Institute.

Hope the pay is decent, it better be.

"I AM in the military but I will not give you all my pertinent data, just so you can track me down."

That doesn't sound like a courageous soldier at all, it's the sound of a blowhard.

I'm not the one claiming to have special authority to speak about war matters, you are.

My history in the military is irrelevant. And your history of Iraq WMD's is bull.

What a terrible outcome. All we can hope is that this sort of thing gets so ridiculous that regular Americans start to reject the absurd and extreme copyright regime and realize the need for reasonable limits in these laws.

It's not "intellectual property."