1.  Yes
2.  Absolutely true.
3.  Duh.
4.  Agreed without hesitation.
5.  Not at all - exhibit A:

exhibit B:

6.  True.
7.  Obviously.
8.  Yes.
9.  Definite maybe.
10.  Absolutely!!!!!!


_{Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface}

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes (meaning your poorly worded assertion is correct).
4. Yes (as in Duh!).
5. Yes.
6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! FUCK NO!
7. Yes.
8. Mmmmmmm No.
9. Yep.
10. As you wish.

You seem to be maintaining some kind of healthy illusions, because as far as I can tell it's actually much worse than you suggest...

taking each point in turn

1. yes but not just those reasons, there are many other agendas going on there to do with racism, propping up corrupt regimes, providing cash for the untraceable funding illegal activities of security services, preventing the public at large from gaining greater understanding of existence via psychotropic substances.
2. corporations are only interested in profit. This should not be news to anyone.
3. of course. but its worse, they  want to pro-actively kill 80% of them.
4. obvious, you don't have to be Kreskin etc.
5. Not if you believe the philosophies of Mr Icke.
6. It is not protected at all, and at some point in the not-so-distant  future it's going down. There's money and power to be gained after all.
7. not obvious
8. open to question. Some people believe all this talk of 'peak oil' is just so much more scaremongering.
9. well, we can be reasonably sure (but with the advances in biotech, not certain) that at least our physical bodies will die.
10. who says I have to enjoy it? don't coerce me man!

Also you forgot to mention the other great "imaginary hobgoblin" of "man-made" global warming.

In a nutshell, we're fucked, barring some miraculous raising of consciousness amongst the general public at large. I'm not holding my breath on that, but I live in hope.

Also, it's highly amusing watching the news or listening to people discussing politics once you have transcended it.
People discussing who they will vote for, like it matters LOL!.
--
Hard work is morally wrong.

1. Yes, and a side effect is that it remains profitable for those organizations willing to manufacture and smuggle illegal drugs.
2. Duh.
3. Yes, but I would say that politicians are generally only concerned with their own welfare, and a fearful populace is easier to manipulate into handing over more power.
4. Yes.
5. That depends on what you mean. The passion in a relationship cools down after awhile, but that doesn't mean there is less love.
6. No, but the international financial rule-sets (including the Bretton Woods systems) create an artificial demand for the dollar. It will take work for countries to extricate themselves from a dependence on the dollar for international trade, but they're working on it.
7. It is a waste of resources to pause and think about this issue.
8. We need a portable, high-density source of energy. Whether we will choose to develop it in time is unknown.
9. (a) Yes. (b) Painful over what time-frame? Weeks? Seconds?
10. Enjoyment for enjoyment's sake is hedonism. Perhaps building/creating something is a more worthwhile, satisfying pursuit.

---

Sent from my iPhone.

1. Maybe.  I think lots of people would raise holy hell if we all of sudden stopped trying to keep their kids off drugs.
2. Hell yes.
3. In most cases, yes.  There are some exceptions.
4. Yes.
5. I hope not, but that has been my experience so far.
6. It is protected by those things, as well as others.
7. Probably.
8. Not true.  We will find away around needing it as soon as the way around becomes cheaper.
9. Yup.
10. I should get to work on that.

1. Yes.
   
2. Yes.
   
3. Mostly.
   
4. Yes.
   
5. Yes, but there are different kinds of love and when you're with the right person, you keep falling in love with them for different reasons and falling out for others but there is always some kind of love there.
   
6. Yes.
   
7. Yes.
   
8. Yes.
   
9. Yes.
   
10. Yes, but I don't always live it.

That is all.

_{He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.}

Unless by "fleeting" you mean "a delusion", and by "we'd best enjoy" you mean "there's no utility in trying to find delusional solace", in which case yes across the board.

-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.

that sucks, because i'm not afraid to die, i just don't want it to hurt. i'd also prefer not to see it coming.
---------
if de-virgination results in me being able to birth hammerhead sharks, SIGN ME UP!!! --misslake

1. Mostly. But also, there is the issue of keeping down the class of people who use certain kinds of drugs. By which I mean blacks/powerless people and hippies. Blacks et al for reasons of racism and profit, hippies for political reasons.
2. Yes.
3. No. Not all politicians. Some have better motives, and some have much, much worse.
4. Yes.
5. Ah. This will require a book to answer. I have not written it yet. In the meantime, if you're looking for something to read, may I suggest Acts of the Apostles, by me, Cheap Complex Devices, by me, and Chaos, by James Gleick.
6. Yes.  See also Chaos, by James Gleick.
7. More than two, actually.
8. Yes, with provison, "who do you mean 'we', Kimosabe'?"
9. Meh.
10. A-a-men! A--a-men! A-a-men, Amen, Amen.

Buy my books, dammit!

Accepting the crap others create just doesn't work for me. (Although the pics of the dude are very lovely.)

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin

1. Yes only to the last part (maintaining the DEA). More important reasons include a genuine, although misguided, desire to protect people from themselves and the big bad world around them, an unwillingness to make people responsible for their own actions, and plain old bureaucratic inertia.
2. Yes.
3. Yes, except you can strike "outside of their fear". That bit's only true as long as the fear of the constituents keeps them in office and keeps money flowing their way.
4. Considering the war was not started on a single premise, I'll have to say some lies and some truths, yes, and yes.
5. Absolutely Not.
6. Likely, however it isn't just the U.S. economy propped up in this fashion, though of course you didn't say it was.
7. Insufficient data. Clearly the five in my fusion are much better than the 2 in my previous razor. Lacking experience with 3 and 4 bladed razors I cannot make a judgement.
8. No. Fields that had been semi-abandoned are once again pumping crude because they are now economical. This will continue, and we will continue to see ever-increasing gas prices. There will still be "enough" gas when gasoline hits $100/gallon, however by then we will have found a way around it. Gas will not be $4, or even $5 or $20 a gallon until it is all gone. Gasoline will be replaced when it is economical to do so.
9. Of course. I'd say it might be painful, not probably.
10. Yes. The alternative causes heartaches for those left behind.

1. Many ordinary people believe that drugs are evil, and it is the duty of the state to protect us from evil.

2. Depends on the meaning of "interested". The music companies don't care about it, but they do have a financial interest in getting to newer trends quickly.

3. Elected officials often work pretty hard to hand out pork to their constituents.

4. Not really clear except for the more deaths part. Wars do tend to end eventually.

5. Depends what you mean by fleeting. From those happiness graphs love lasts about 6 years.

6. Recession yes, total collapse no. And I'm kind of bored with arguments along the lines:
I don't understand how the economy works.
To understand that, I'd have to like, read a book or something.
I ain't reading no damn book.
Therefore the economy should be restructured to work in a way I can understand without any effort.

7. True.

8. Depends what you mean by "need". Coal, nuclear and biofuels will keep some kind of industrial civilization going. However, the need to drive a 3-ton SUV very long distances between exurbs will probably not be met.

9. True.

10. Uncertain. I believe Buddhism says that we should cease attaching any importance to desire. Others say we should devote our time to reducing the misery of others.
--
Butch and Petey are harsh and unforgiving in their estimation of female beauty.

1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. No. They want some taxable constituents to makes lots of taxable earnings and bribes are nice too.
4. No, for varying values of "unsolvable."
5. I experience love every day. So do you. I dare say that love is eternal because of that.
6. No.
7. No.
8a. Yes. 8b. No.
9. Yes.
10. That's how I'm living, RIGHT NAO.

This coomenat has be n soidnsord by hurricanbe ice malt liqur

1. The war on drugs is actually only continued to maintain profits for drug companies and or corrections companies, as well as being used to justify the budgets of a handful of federal law enforcement programs.
It's control as well; look at the demographics on those imprisoned for drugs - mostly the poor.  And after so long being told drugs are bad, mmmkay, many USians believe this.  Which means it'd be political suicide to attempt reform.

2. Music companies are not interested in furthering the art of music.
News at ten.  "Welcome to the morgue, son, where the music comes to die" - murder in the rue morgue, WASP.

3. Politicians are not interested in the welfare of their constituents outside of their fear.
Which is more of a problem than it seems; career politicians now seem to be only good at getting re-elected.  Which leads to a disconnect with the voting populace; hence the low turnouts at election time here in UKia.  Will there be a renaissance of politics?  Maybe, but I think if a political party did have a "we'll be honest with you" line, they'd be lumped in with the other liar politicians.

4. The war in Iraq was started based on a lie, has become an unsolvable conflict, and will result in more deaths.
My favourite pet conspiracy theory was USia wanted  (among other things) to stop iRaq from selling oil in Euros, and thus prevent other oil nations from following suit.  But yes, there will be more deaths.  More frightening was the US government's censorship of the press (not showing body bags of US forces being returned etc); lessons learnt from Vietnam days I am sure.

5. Love is fleeting.
That's because it's in the air.

6. The economy of the United States is protected from total collapse by global diversity (i.e. "you go, we all go") and black magic ("no, this really does have worth!")
No it isn't.  It is protected because the dollar is the currency for oil.  So foreign national banks must keep a large reserve of dollars, which keeps the crossrates high.  As oil prices hike, unless the dollar becomes more stable, there will be a move to sell oil in a more stable currency.  If that happens, the US is fucked.

7. More than three razor blades in a razor is just a waste of resources.
I'd say more than two, but I insist on the little plastic slide thing so the gap between the blades can be cleared.

8. Gasoline will eventually be gone. Before it is, we will not find a way around needing it.
True.  And how many wars will be fought with the last remaining drops?

9. You will eventually die. It will probably be painful.
If that is the case then I will attempt to end it while I have some dignity.  Easy to say when I am relatively young and healthy, perhaps harder when disease is ravaging me and I can see the Reaper everytime I sleep.

10. In the interim, we'd best enjoy what little time we have in this big confusing ball of pain. Because the alternative is pointless and causes headaches.
Absolutely.

Love endures.

Your right on all other counts though.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?

The problem is that most of them are general statements. For example, some (maybe most) music companies are not interested in furthering the art of music. To generalize that to all music companies is spit in the face of the small companies that were started first and foremost as labors of love.

Others, such as positing that gasoline will be gone before a suitable replacement could be the case, but it isn't obvious that they are the case. As the cost of gas continues to increase, there will be a tremendous amount of time, effort and money spent on finding alternatives. The only thing holding some alternatives back is cost. Granted, there may be quite a few years of short supply as production capacity ramps up. (And I will be quite glad that I live close enough to walk almost everywhere I need to: the post office, the grocery, Church, my kid's school, etc.) But it isn't obvious that we'll effectively run out before something takes it place.

And as for death, it's part of virtually every Eastern Orthodox service to pray for a good death, ``A Christian ending to our life, painless, blameless and peaceful.'' I suppose one could argue that death is probably going to hurt if there is the need for the whole Church to pray that it not be. But I'm not particularly convinced by that argument.

---

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

Well, the mortgages at the heart of the current crisis do have some worth, as they are based on the value of the land and houses that were mortgaged. The problem is, no one knows exactly what that worth is. And if you can't put an exact, or at least minimum, value on something you can't get a loan against that equity. That's what's seizing up the markets now. The instruments have value, but no one knows how much.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}

Please ignore the equivocators.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

1. Yes, amongst many other reasons.

2. Pretty much yes, with the rare exception.

3. One hundred fifty-seven percent yes. And fear is a tool, not something to be cared about.

4. Yes.

5. No. Love is what you make it. It's one of the few things we as humans experience that doesn't ever have to end, unless we want it to.

6. Not even close to true. There are ways around the black magic, and the market that mystical being of non-being, is working really fucking hard to find those ways right now.

7. Yes.

8. Yes. Because we've built up a fear of nuclear energy, which is a possible solution. And the powers that be want band-aids (bio-fuel) that would never be capable of replacing the entirety of oil-dependence. There's simply too much money in oil, and there will only be MORE money in oil before it runs out. This will create a situational grid-lock status-quo that will remain until the blind-panic of realization sets in. By then, it will be far too late.

9. Yep. Here's to hoping we all find a way to go out where everybody can say, "man, you only get to do that once, but it'd totally be worth it."

10. Yes. It's all about coping and finding the joy.

in the office next door to me at MIT.  One summer he interned at Gillette.  He was an applied mathematician, and he worked on the problem of optimizing the number of blades.  Mathematically, they saw no reason for more than 3 blades.

That year, Gillette came out with the quattro.

----
I just ate about 7 pounds of meat
-theantix

. . . as close to yes or no as I can:

1. Yes, partly.
2. Yes, for most.
3. Yes, nearly all.
4. Yes, and more than one lie, in fact.
5. No. At least, not for me.
6. No, lol.
7. Yes, I agree.
8. Yes, maybe.
9. Yes. Yes.
10. Yes. Yes, I think.

1. Pretty much.
2. Definitely.
3. Not really true. Many politicians, I believe, start out truly believing the views they espouse and really want to make a difference. The system drives them to compromise certain beliefs to gain power, which the do with the idea that once in power, they can finally truly promote their views. As time passes, the compromising becomes a habit, until without even realizing it they do nothing that doesn't advance their own power often truly believing they are idealistic all the while. This describes six of the last eight presidents. One never completely compromised and the other was corrupt from the beginning. Note which of the two made two terms.
4. yup.
5. The initial passionate love has been shown to last around eighteen months. True love lasts much longer.
6. Yes and no.
7. Yup.
8. Yes and no.
9. Yes
10. Yup

----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

I've never seen an even handed analysis of why people take drugs and a balance between the benefits and problems caused by the psychotropic effects the users take them for.

Almost always, the arguments put forward by those in favour of decriminalisation are to do with reducing organised crime and reducing the amount of harm caused by the side effects of drug use (e.g. blood-borne diseases, overdoses, theft, prostitution and chaotic lifestyles caused by needing to spend up to twice the national average income buying drugs), and those in favour of restrictions appear to view the addicted and the recreational alike as contemptible degenerates and thus not worthy of their right to pursuit of happiness.

So as with smoking, where we never see the debate boiled down to its four pillars (nicotine's a brilliant drug; it's very unpleasant for most people to be in smoky atmospheres; it harms the health of the smoker; it may harm the health of those exposed), and from that point discuss how we should weight those factors and how the issues of enforceability and liberty play into it, we don't boil the issue of other drugs down to its basics.

For example, I'm pretty sure that in terms of causing psychological harm from its actual use, cannabis is far more harmful than heroin. But in terms of the regular user, is heroin going to have a greater effect on day to day life? Almost certainly.

But will heroin have a greater effect than vodka does on someone who needs several bottles a day? And we know that some people lead apparently normal lives while drinking enormous amounts, and some live in squalor due to alcoholism yet drink much less. So if it's going to be the same for heroin, is that going to be more or less of a problem? Well, it depends how easy it is to get to that level of addiction. And what about the possibility of accidental overdose? Greater for heroin. Long term physiological consequences of abuse? Much lower for heroin. Ease of restricting supply? Almost impossible for alcohol.

And so on.

Because once we've got answers to those questions, and we can face the ones that don't recommend the same course that our gut instinct would like to take, then we can talk about the pros and cons of drug restriction, and decide how to mitigate the negative consequences of the decision we'd like to make.

For myself? I don't know. I know the heart rending agony of having a diamorphine epidural taken out. Suffice to say that opiate was sourced by big pharma, countersigned by two prescribers, etc, etc. I don't know what it's like to go without alcohol, even if I do know what it's like to have too much, too often, at the wrong times. I do know what it's like to have too much dope, and that's hell, too. And I know how great a cigarette feels. But also how skanky it tastes. And I know how unpleasant I am after a large cafetiere of coffee, and how shite I feel when I don't drink tea.

And all of the last paragraph is relevant to the debate, because it's about balancing the consequences of misuse with the benefits and liberties of legal use, so if we ignore the minor legal drugs, then we've just thrown away our control group of non-outlawed drugs.

before disagreeing.

whatever the original motivations behind the war on drugs (with or without the scare quotes), it was successful enough at instilling fear of drugs and druggies in the majority of the population that it's essentially self propagating now. there doesn't need to be a reason, per se, for it anymore.the majority of the population thinks of "drugs" in the same way they thing of "rape" and "satanism". that it benefits pfizer and the dea makes those people very happy, i'm sure. but even if the powers that be suddenly decided that the war on drugs was a bad thing, there'd be a grassroots mutiny if they tried to stop it.
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}

No, excepting 10.


"These days it seems like sometimes dreams of Italian hyper-gonadism are all a man's got to keep him going." -- CRwM