lawcat

The root cause of all problems is slavery in the USA. That's where it all went wrong and we are suffering the after effects to this day. Here is the reasoning: The closer the representative gvt is to people, the more fair it is. Thus the smaller the governed unit, like neighborhood, village, city, the more fair the govt is because it better connects with, and represents the will of the people; the less it deals with and thus there is less at risk, it also poses a lesser threat. To that end confederacy in the USA is the right system--it is closer to people, there is less risk of abuse, there is less danger. But that all fell through in 1861 when North attacked South. Any freedom to political self determination of people and States was crushed in 1865 when North defeated South. Political will of the people was crushed by force, and today no State in the USA is politically free--it is simply an administrative unit of the fed govt. And all that happened because of the slavery and racism. If it was not for slavery and racism, North would have no ideological or moral grounds to crush the political right to self determination of the South. Now we are stuck with a huge federal bloated government that gets more money than god, that is a danger domestically and internationally, and no one can do a darn thing about it cause no one is free anny longer. And they are creating the same monster in Europe, one govt, bypassing the referendums and will of the people, having appointed unelected officials pass laws and regulations for all of Europe, and herding everyone under one umbrella.

I'll critique a few things: Let's start with preface title: Preface should not have a title. But if you are going to give a title, it should be the ultimate synopsis of the book or the title of the book. The title of the preface is also weak because it asks something that everyone knows an answer to and you do not, so why would you dare write about it? ( I did not yet read the whole thing, but if the goal of the book is to present what some other people have done who had control over and influence on the quality of their life, then I suppose that title is OK. However that does not seem to be the case because you said :"provides insight as to the area's of our lives that modify our condition.") Then let's talk about the first sentence: The first sentence should tell the reader what the book is about, not the supporting argument. It's no good to present argument to the reader when he does not know what you're talking about. So you should start with: "This book provides insights to the areas of our lives that modify our condition." This is better, but still a bit vague and undefined. And that's OK if you immediatelly after start defining terms, otherwise you will lose the reader. (I don't know what condition you are talking about and whether condition means some preexisting condition or the present state or some conditional state.) Preface can be structural, a roadmap to the book structurally, what chapter 1 talks about, chapter 2, and so on. It can also be a substantive roadmap, that lays out the goal of the book, the facts, ideas, conclusions, research. Roadmaps are contracts with the reader. You are promissing to deliver, and then you deliver in the book. Preface can also be anecdotal, but it has to provide some roadmap to the reader. For example you can write about an anecdote that inspired you to write the book, but then you have to give a little roadmap about what the reader should expect.

I think i just plagiarized someone. (oops again.)

One of the most fantastic things about pseudoscience is that it can not be disproven by science, but by experience, because pseudoscience does not use accepted physics. That is just wonderful.

Florida Lottery winners cannot remain anonymous. Florida law mandates that the Florida Lottery provide the winner’s name, city of residence, game won, date won and amount won to any third party who requests the information; however Florida Lottery winners' home addresses and telephone numbers are confidential. http://flalottery.com/inet/aboutus-questionsMain.do#Q17 B)

You can't just say it should be "this" because you feel like it. Invluntary manslaughter is "unintentional" but still illegal murder. The dude in your story intended to kill whoever came in to the house, with no regard as to whether it was reasonable to use deadly force, or whether someone was simply seeking shelter from a hurricane, or was indeed a petty thief. It was a murder, intentional. Now, a prosecutor could ask for "voluntary" manslaughter, since the act was intentional, and the jury would have to decide that being robbed repeatedly is a mitigating factor, or even justification, and downgrade it from murder to manslaughter. Remember, in the US, juries are in charge of deciding guilt in criminal cases unless waived, and they can do almost as they please.

Very good Modest! So we both agree that a definition along those lines could force reasoning, and we could independently judge whether the result is valid and true. But you are more sceptical than I am of whether the result would be just; or, you are more reserved than I am about trusting the reasoning power of some. So you maybe unwilling to put the power of judgment in people's hands. That is a fundamental disagrement, and I have to disagree with the scepticism. For one, someone has to decide, and then the question becomes who and how. It's always people, but which people? The answer is those who have a vested interest: stake, salience, immediacy, self efficacy, certainty.

Modest, I agree, I made a mistake. I was talking about the "demarcation" in the first paragraph and then I made a leap to somenthing else in the second paragraph. But I still maintain, for morality polling is the legitimate process. And for "demaracation" of physics, the same thing should apply, maybe only physicists should be polled. It's one process we can rely on, and in absence of a more valid process, polling should be relied on.

Contraction in number of governments is one way, either reducing the superior or inferior governments.

This is the correct answer. Gotta stop the insanity, weather modifications, chemtrails, population control, all that nonsense has got to stop.

If we talk about mere definition of physics, which you are refering to above, then I certainly think that the definition can be objective and subjective. But what is that? We say that an objective or subjective definition as claimed is not valid because it is not capable of objective, independent, logical, empirical proof. In this sense, objective/subjective classification is meaningless because the inquiry is whether the claim is valid or invalid. But then, once a definition is determined valid, then the question is whether it is true--whether it is consistent with evidence. Then we can classify something as true or untrue, rather than objective/subjective. Objetive/Subjective does not tell us anything more than whether something is an opinion of one man or a group. All that matters is whether something is valid and true. Same goes for morality. the definition must be valid and proven true by examining whether it is consistent with evidence. Now, the diference between physics and morality, is that for physics we need not poll people, and for morality we do, to find out whether the definition is consistent with evidence. What do people think? Those are the facts of morality. And since we are polling people, opinion of a man matters, thus the classification objective/subjective matters, it's got weight,each man is equaly important, as long as the process is valid.

Morality imo seeks to provide answers about security and comfort of a man, or people--whether something advances the interest of security or comfort. To the extent that each of us has an opinion or a feeling on what that is, morality is subjective. To the extent that we poll opinions on those subjects, morality is objective. (That which advances it being good, and that which does not being bad.)

I hope so. Europe is mess. The founders ran away from there with a good reason. Europe is the cradle of singlemindedness. And now with Germans running the show, global situation is in danger. Yup that's bad politics, mostly border disputes. In other words, self determination of a people is rarely in question, since everyone wants to at least be perceived democratic. But nations militarily enforce borders which conflict with the will of the people within the borders. It has not happened yet where a referendum for independence was held county-wise and borders enforced based on those votes and those voting units. The decisions are not fact based but politically imposed. That's lack of decency. They do and they do not care.

It's feasible and doable. I don't know if this particular text is good enough, but the idea is good enough to attract fair amount of support from individuals. (unions are a different game.) The problem as always is finding the solution that works money wise. If this is to be legislated, there has to be an acceptable alternative to get the election information out through media, otherwise if fundraising is limited the elections suffer. This petition seems to be aimed at compaign contributions mostly, which is really not the heart of the problem. the real problem is the spending and lobbying for bills. I don't know how to prevent organizations from lobbying for bills that favor their interests, other than passing a law that imputes agency relationship between the elected official and the constitutents--so that the elected official must always be an adversary of the lobbying group.

Nazism is on the rise in central east Europe again. Russia is investing heavily in military again, they are surrounded by NATO and feeling pressure. China is feeling pressure too. They are investing in military, navy to protect themselves farther from the shores of Hong Kong. NATO's conquering oil countries on the south of Russia, which is something Hitler tried to do to secure oil supply for the mechanization. There is talk of "preemptive" strikes between Israel and Iran, in other words bombing because I fear--it's madness. There is very little decency in Western policy lately and there is nothing more important than decency in foreign relations. War's start because of lack of decency, and the situation to me looks very gloomy.