Great post Jack.

I never thought I was a liberal, but the whole country shifting to the right must make it so. That is, if liberal means, "let people eat what they want, fuck who they want, and, within reason, do what they want."

I don't care if you want to eat only vegetables. We have sharp teeth that generations of evolution have given us so we can more easily rip meat apart, but if you don't like steak, that's fine. Just understand that I do, and respect that.

I don't care if you are gay. For all I care, you can stick your dick in a toaster, it's your dick. Of course, the natural laws of biology say that you'd have been extinct eons ago if it was really a 'genetic' trait, but I don't care about your lifestyle choice. I don't really want to hear about it either.

I believe that the Constitution was written by some pretty smart people, but that was more than 200 years ago. Would they have given you the 'right to bear arms' if they thought someone would invent a gun that shoots 45 bullets faster than I can rip a popcorn fart? I don't know. I don't hunt but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the ideal weapon to go after quail with. Keep your rifle. Keep your shotgun. Keep your handgun too, but I've yet to see a convincing argument for keeping your assault rifle. This is one of the cases where the safety factor should override the 'do what you want' factor. It's along the same lines of not allowing someone to build dynamite sticks in their 3rd floor apartment.

I think everything started going to shit when Reagan ushered in the 'greed is good' era in the 1980s, but I could be wrong. I used to work for Texaco's R&D Department. Our facility was the closest 1150 person family you could ask for. We had picnics, parties, did tons of charity projects, hell we even had a dog at the plant that we adopted. Every Xmas someone would dress as Santa and employees would bring their kids in for a party and he would give out presents. It was far and away the best place I have ever worked. We had our own softball league, tennis league, you name it.

Then they hired a CEO that said our stock price needed to be higher. All of a sudden, each division of Texaco was told to 'purchase' it's products and services from the lowest bidder. We had the retail gasoline people actually telling us they didn't care that we had developed an additive that could reduce emissions and engine deposits by a humongous amount, because Citgo had something a lot cheaper. It was worse than anything on the market, but it was cheaper. Guess which one they used. Next thing you know, we have layoffs and are down to 200 at the plant. Then it was 75. I left right after that, but you know what, the stock price was up $4 a share and the CEO got an $11 million bonus. Cocksucker.

Crap, now I sound like a bitter version of Dennis Miller. I'll shut up now, but y'all have a nice day!

Very Nice CJ and JD.

CJ, most reasonable people outside the USA were shocked last year when Mr Bush won the presidency again. How could the people of the USA vote for that ***** **** ***** sir ... ok. sorry. But we all were shocked, even before the elections, with the polls.

One of my teachers in college used to talk about the "leaks" in democracy. He says that votes should be points, according to education level. Let´s say you are illiterate, then your vote is casted for 1/2 point. You are a high school graduate and you vote is worth 1 point.

You have a bachelor D. and you get 3 points, MS, 4 and a PhD 6 (each, in case you have more). I just ask myself, would Bush have won the presidency at first place if that system were used? I know Hipolito mejia wouldnt have won here in Dominican republic (former president, last period).

That would be considered exclusive and even elitist. Well, it cant be denied, but I also think it cant be denied that it would be better for all. All people have the same right to decide about their lives, but that s something that were given to us by outstanding man, far away from ordinary. This is the same concept applied to our children: we dont let them decide about their lives because they are not capable. Based on that, do we really all think that, for example, an illiterate, has the same right to decide about the common wealth/well being, as for example, Mr. Stephen Hawkings?

This statement is very very debatable and much people dont agree with it but, i really think that is a LEAK/ imperfection in the system we call democracy.

AlexMR.

First of all, our Founding Fathers wouldn't recognize the system of government we have now. By the People and For the People is now Buy the Government for the Business People. We have lost our entire system of government to the lobbyists and special interest. Money buys advertising and advertising buys votes. Both sides of the aisle sucks from this corrupt teat.

People in this country tend to vote on a single issue. The anti-abortion people never think of the economy. The gun folk are solely interested in keeping their cold, dead hands on their guns. And the tree huggers, well, they are idiots who make a lot of noise, but don't get a whole lot done. But, think of the above groups. Which ones have actually done the most for the planet, itself? We make fun of them, but over the past 50 years, the Save the Whale people have been right.

If I have offended any of you who belong to the above groups, perhaps I'm not talking about you. But, if you ARE a member, I'll bet you know people I AM talking about. It's sad that people get caught up in emotional issues and lose their logical minds. Don't confuse me with the facts, as if one could, as they aren't going to listen to anything but the sound and fury of their own voice and those voices who agree with them.

I'm not disappointed with President Bush. We knew exactly what we've got with him. I'm furious with John Kerry. He ran the poorest race I've ever seen, and I've been following presidential elections since 1964. (I had a minor in Poli Sci.) He allowed the Republicans to put him on the defensive and he was too polite to strike back, hard, as he should have. The RNC put on an old-fashioned Texas Sheriff race--the dirtier the better--and Kerry was run over and left for dead on the campaign trail. Kerry, and the Democratic Party, turned out to be incompetent idiots who didn't know how to fight the magic show. How we had no debate on the real issues of importance simply blows my mind. Where exactly are the weapons of mass destruction we were told Saddam Hussein had??? They lied, yet were not held accountable.

Being labeled pisses me off. Being labeled a Liberal, as if I'm the lowest form of life on the planet, is despicable. People should be ashamed of Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North and Jerry Falwell. Barry Goldwater, the father of Modern Conservatism, apologized for what he'd begun before he died. When a Liberal politician makes a wrong decision, it just costs money. When a Conservative politician makes a mistake, it costs people's lives. (This does tend to lessen my outrage, I admit. Too damn many people on the planet already.) Liberals demand seat belts. Conservatives fought it for years. People died in car wrecks. Name an issue that Liberals pushed and Conservatives fought--and vice versa--and you'll see what I'm yapping about.

As far as the idea of weighting votes according to education, what a shockingly bad idea. Right now, what's the average cost of a college education? $100,000? Thereabouts? Just who do you think is able to educate the highest tier of voters? The rich, maybe? Bet your ass. You think the upper class isn't enjoying their windfalls right now? And what is the best way to move from the lower class to a higher class? Education. We don't need better educated voters. We need SMARTER voters. The Republicans would accuse me of "class warfare." As far as I can tell, that's EXACTLY what we need right now. Then, them good ol' boys will have a reason to tote their guns!

CJ

Oh, btw, that great tax rollback the President and his boys fought so hard for and are always pointing to as the wonderful thing they did? 220,000 people at the top got the same amount of money as 125 million people at the bottom. You guys who are good at math might want to explain that to your less-fortunate brethren who are nodding in agreement with the Republican Party. Any wonder it's not the rich playing Lotto?

Any wonder why I'm pissed?

Hey, CJ, I had you pegged as a conservative for some reason. Probably the "cactus" and my stereotyping heart.

Personally, I would be all in favor of getting more votes than everybody just cuz I spent way too many years gettin' me some schoolin'.

Thanks for the post.

Guys, that is all well and good, but explain to me how the child that is affected can pass it down to the next level of offspring if he would rather stick his sausage between two hairy buns? That also doesn't explain why it's so common (it seems like most studies say 1 in 100 or so). Compare that to albinism, which is something like 1 in 10,000 IIRC.

Intragroup harmony? So the gene survives because they don't kill each other as quickly?

JDLush:

I hear what you're saying.

But ...

Explain how the guy with the ++ can pass that down when he's dead of sickle cell anemia? He can't, just like the gay guy can't. But the overall genetic structure is still adaptive in the overall population.

Say, just for instance, that having a gay brother (or a lesbian sister) made you more likely to reproduce and have your children survive and reproduce themselves. (Two ways that might work: #1, you're not fighting with your sibling over mates; #2, your sibling doesn't have children and may help you raise yours.) In that case, your sibling isn't passing down his/her genes, but since he/she shares half his/her genes with you, he/she is still getting his/her overall genetic structures passed down, through the overall cooperative scheme. And since you share half your genes with him/her, you are also passing down something that is likely to make at least some of your children gay.

The whole structure can be adaptive, is the point. Just like with sickle cell anemia.