As a physicist (MS), in a world dominated by people who believe in Oprah's "The Secret", Raki energy massages, crystal energy, pyramid energy, aromatherapy, energy from chimes and the like, magnet healing, and, the "power of prayer" -- I have been asked several times for some kind of physics justification for these beliefs more often than I am comfortable with.

How do you tell these people, without appearing the sociopath, that they are gullible, that they don't have the mental powers, and especially, the mathematical skills, to discern truth from myth. How can I be honest with them, when, logically, a myth can never be disproven -- yet holding it as truth is completely irrational. To the mentally weak, there is no distinction between proof, and something that can't be disproven.

Conspiracy theories? As has been posted in at least one response in this thread, one can prove mathematically, from an estimate of the number of people required to actually carry out such a thing, that a 9/11 conspiracy would be impossible to carry out. Of course, it's not even worth doing the calculation since it would never assuage it's intended audience, or worse, prove the person doing the calculation is actually part of the conspiracy.

Is there room for myth in ones life? Yes, there is. Joseph Campbell said it eloquently when he talked about "faith". I do not remember exactly what he said, but if we accept faith as an integral part of the human condition (as we do love, greed, envy, and other irrationals), and as long as we don't confuse it with "truth", it's not a bad thing, it can define us but won't necessarily impede us.

...Dan

Reactionary rhetoric is not the exclusive domain of conservatives -- liberals have been especially dramatic in the rhetoric of global warming. Unfortunately, the reality lies somewhere in between.

I would love for the Kyoto protocols to solve the problems of our coming global environmental calamity, but I am certain, it won't. As a matter of fact, would someone please point out anyone who believes it will? Cap and trade; what a joke! The only thing that will do is create a new industry, and strong incentives for fraud -- can you think of anything better to sell than the promise of clean air?

I think most people would agree, 2 things are needed, more trees, and a reduction in the amount of petroleum we use. More forest land is unpalatable since that is where we get new farmland and housing lots, carbon taxes are unpalatable since we all drive. Instead, we have Kyoto; a feel-good, group-grope, painless, uber-meeting agreement where we can all believe we are doing something for the environment.

It's human nature. Politicians always promise painless solutions to all the problems, and that's the case with Kyoto. There's very little difference between that, and the promises of weight reduction while eating all the things you really love.

What's the point, you ask? Yes, the objectives to Kyoto, as stated by conservatives are quite laughable, but the problems and promises of Kyoto are severe and shouldn't be dismissed.

...Dan

The last part of the interview is interesting. Consider this, Marianna describes how she really enjoys watching people watch her film, who are watching Marianna, watch and get off on soft core porn.

I suppose her sentiments stand by themselves, I also suppose it would be fruitless to point out the circular logic of it, or it's meta-ness. Kind of a "Matrix" thing, but attainable, and no Neo.

...Dan

Deleting an article of the constitution is not an amendment, it is a fundamentally new constitution. Article 6 states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". We might as well get rid of Article 1 (and congress and representative government) while we're at it, and the executive can now be named the "Great Poohba", who speaks only to God.

Obviously, the framers knew exactly what they were doing with Article 6, had they wanted to make the constitution subservient to the Pope, or a divine king or emperor, Article 6 is exactly where they would have done that.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that Huck is anti-US-constitution.

What is described here doesn't seem that much different than that 1979 movie, Americathon. Yes, the players are different, and it's more a secret auction instead of a telethon, but the absurdity and hilarity are right on.

I think we should look at the products people are not buying when they buy bottled water, namely, soda. I'll be the first to admit it, I buy bottled water for the cheap, "disposable", convenient bottle, not the water within it.

Some people would argue that for just a little more money (sometimes less), we can buy a Coke, with it's phosphoric acid, corn syrup or artificial sweetener and similar, handy-dandy-disposable bottle. Whatever the environmental impact of bottled water, the impact of the bottled soda/pop/softdrink is obviously worse!

Why is it people make a big stink over bottled water? I think because it's replacement is so obviously available at the sink -- the concerns over bottled water as are discussed with regards to environment are easily dismissed until the whole environmental impact of soft drinks in general are considered.

Bottled water is better than bottled sodas, or even juices for environmental impact -- bring in the health aspects, and the argument for bottled water becomes even more compelling.

...Dan

BTW: What's the environmental impact of a waxed cardboard 8 oz container of refrigerated milk, including steroids?