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

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

Yes, you are loud enough, blustery, even; unfortunately, that's all.

No intelligence under that aluminum foil helmet you're wearing, with magnets to protect against the cell phone waves that are controlling everyone's mind -- but your own.

Yes, you are commanding the raki energy to your purpose, and you alone know the terrible secrets of 9/11 -- the secrets we'd all know if only we re-directed, magical, magnetic pyramids around our house as you do.

Aycharaych, it's a good thing intelligence doesn't inhibit you from knowing the real truth.

Bill;

Your short, chubby fingers must be aching, defending your short, fat self from all the oppressors. Keep up the faith, you (and all the John Birchers) know the real truth, keep repeating your truth until we become as enlightened as you are.

Don't let the HATERS keep you down.

This article seems pretty much, right on.

It does appear that Obama's campaign understands what it takes to fight those muslim emails, namely, it was done by running ads displaying his real convictions -- and never mentioning the rumors, never fighting those rumors. I am very heartened that Obama found a way, unlike Kerry, to handle that; it's a sign to me that he'll have the strength and intelligence to do what is right -- in the right way.

BTW: I don't see how McCain will fight the stench of the Keating 5 moniker. I expect whomever opposes him in November will use the Keating 5 against him pretty darn effectively, if he chooses to play dirty. McCain, and is minions, have to play nice -- or else.

I, for one, am not entirely outraged by the restrictions on gels and liquids.

Yes, you are entirely correct in your stated objections. My acquiescence has everything to do with passenger imposition on others by insisting on bringing everything they own, and placing it all in the overhead storage!

The gels and liquids restriction forces many people to check their bags where they would have once carried on. I have recently flown completely full flights where there was sufficient overhead space! I don't believe that was ever the case before the restrictions.

Of course, my observations are only that, and subjective. If airlines don't delete the checked bag records from their computers, one can very quickly and easily do a little bit of computer data mining to determine whether increases in bag checking have actually occurred. I would be surprised if airlines don't already track information like that, how else would you manage baggage capacity and handling?

Of course, the calculus will change quickly with carriers like United charging $25 per bag on some fares now.

...Dan