Seriously. Like a busload of Star Trek fans crashed into the John Birch society and did a ton of E. Hey everyone would like to smoke weed all day and watch midget cosplay porn. That doesn't make it a goddamn political movement.

Susan Woods,

I know the party was for Khalidi. It was a going away bash they held when Khalidi was appointed to the newly endowed Chair of Islamic/ Mid East Studies at Columbia, in honor of that other hater of the West, Edward Said. I know, I know... for whom the party was thrown. But perhaps you don't know that Ayers was at that party, too. Now, if one isn't appalled by Khalidi's anti-Israel rhetoric, that's fine. Never mind, too, that they were all apparently yuk'n it up over some vial anti jew "poem". But, if Ayers was there, and the Big O was buddying up with him, claiming, as he has as of late that he had never cultivated such a relationship with that abhorrent man (you people may think that because he's now a professor he's an upstanding citizen, but his hate-filled speech shows otherwise), then that video is newsworthy, and if you don't care to see it, you're too stupid to engage with any further. You may get your man the Almighty O (read zero), but if you do, you'll only have your ideological, partisan hack, blind faith ignorance to blame.

Oh yes... and, Socialism is, of course, not Communism. But Socialism IS a pit-stop along the way to a Communist State, as Marx envisioned one. Never mind Communism is a utopian impossibility. Socialism, however, is not. In the twentieth century alone Socialism (not Communism, because Communism has never yet succeeded, or has ever really been tried on any wide scale such as a nation state), but Socialism, properly defined (i.e., a system wherein the State owns the means of production), has indeed been responsible for more mass killing than all the religious wars of the modern era combined (USSR, NAZI Germany [socialism based on race/ethnicity/national identity], Mao's China, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Vietnam, North Korea, Saddam's Bath Iraq, &c.). The facts are indisputable, the bigger a Govt becomes, the more dangerous it becomes. A bit of socialism is okay, and perhaps desirable ( though there are private sector alternatives [read e.g., Alexis de Tocqueville's observations on voluntarism]). Socialism in Europe works because we taxpayers in the USA keep the world more peaceful than it would otherwise be. Europe can forego the expenses of military readiness. If we go bust, however, then Europe's already hard pressed social experiment will crumble. Obama has apparently been trained as a thinker sympathetic to Marxist ideology and socialist economic egalitariansm, packaged in his own insidious brand, and he's not at all what he pretends to be (based on his voting record), nor is he the kind of Change we need in the USA. We need less corruption not more. No Marxist, no Socialist for Pres in America!

Thrasybulos, why do you limit your selection of "Socialist countries" to those with the worst excesses of totalitarianism?

(And you realy need to leave aside your spurious reference to the Nazis, who were "Socialist" in name only, building the wealth for their domestic social programs not on taxation or publically held resources, but on wealth and business enterprises stolen from the Jews of Germany and given to "Aryan" private interests; from their building, in a few short years, the mightiest military machine on Earth for the purpose of imperial conquest, with the aid of huge privately held industrial corporations, both German and "multinationals" with American ties; and from their territorial conquests and plunder of the wealth and resources of the peoples and nations they conquered. That "Jew thing"- it was a real cash cow for them. And it really held the taxes down. For a while, until the whole game went sour on them. But no, the Nazis always respected private enterprise- Krupp, Focke-Wulf, Messerschmitt, IT&T, DuPont, Schroder Bank, Thyssen, Reichsbank/Bundesbank... )

If you were honest about it, you'd include every society that has more socialist institutions than the USA: countries like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Australia, Israel, the Netherlands...

Note that I said more socialist institutions- because the USA is not entirely bereft of them: the Veteran's Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal Deposit Insurance, National Parks, all other tax-funded public parks, public golf courses and swimming pools, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Galleries of Art...

Let's not even get into a state like Alaska, where every last resident of Alaska gets a "transfer of wealth" from the oil companies, to the tune of around $1600 every year, Just because they've parked their carcasses on Alaskan real estate.

I'm not a Socialist. I favor a mixed economy. If you were honest with yourself (which I expect is going to require considerable work, at this point), you'd recognize that the "socialist" countries on my list are merely relatively more socialist mixed economies than that of the USA. And a country's adoption of socialist economic institutions no more equates to totalitarianism than pro-capitalist economic policies necessarily indicates the presence of democracy.

I have no problem with mutation, variation, hybridization and screw ups. i have a problem with fundamental design changes. The mechanism and model for this remains unseen and unknown. From unicellular to differentiated multicellular organisms and a change from reptile to avian to mammal through random mutation and natural selection is implausible.

Real science is measurable, duplicatable and reasonably reliable - like when you flip on a light switch or turn on a tv.

Your link was much better than anything I have heard from biologists and true believers on the subject.

I am more intrigued by the idea that DNA is simply a slice of a higher order dimension construct because as it is in 4 space, together with the ribosome and RNA function as a computer and that which they are a slice of would be significantly more capable. Characteristics, processes, and behaviors are higher order dimensions compared to spatial and time dimensions (x,y,z,t).

Lower order dimensions can describe an object like a car but a higher order dimension describes how it functions and a higher order dimension above that puts one in the driver's seat. That would be the sixth dimension where the action of redesign takes place. This is quiet divorced from variation and natural selection for that is like the marketplace and this is like the design studio. The designer is perceived as a slice which we see as DNA and a slice of the process which we see as the ribosome and likewise you may view a car as a slice of the company which made it and all that went into it's concept, design, manufacture, marketing and servicing. A life form, like a car, is far more than what you see in front of you. It is all the variables and processes that went into it.

Higher order dimensions are the provenance of string theory which gives us a place for the unseen and unknown processes and data sets to inhabit. I consider it more sophisticated than the religions god or that prominent evolutionist's meddling alien beings. We know that the DNA/RNA/ribosome computer system can build complex life forms from a single cell. Is is such a reach to assume that the parts if this which we do not see actually do design work as well? This is not done at an individual level since each individual is a slice of a great whole in the design - which is why so much of the code is shared between life forms. Genetic engineering is a imitation of this.

It is a problem to think in terms of 6 space when you have lived your life in 3 and 4 space but that is where the stuff is. A hypercube is in 4 space so watch a sim of one and then project the extra dimensions.

Let me know if you see anything evolve.