Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 234866)

I guess if you consider a supporter of the Iraq war, the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, and an Arab hater reasonable, well maybe...

Originally Posted by tom (Post 234869)

Arab hater?

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 234870)

Disregard conflation of ethnicity and religion. Hitch is a well known equal opportunity anti-theist.

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 234866)

Makes him sound rather radical, which is funny considering he wrote for Vanity fair and the New Republic. And - judging by the obits - was beloved by William Kristol and the National Review.

As for the "voice of reason". I guess if you consider a supporter of the Iraq war, the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, and an Arab hater reasonable, well maybe...

Anyway, good to see kitchen table atheism back at "Science" Saturday.

Originally Posted by tom (Post 234871)

Not sure if that's the move he was making, or if he has something else in mind. It's preposterous either way, but the challenge should start with clarification.

Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton (Post 234874)

As for Arab hatred, that's a slur I'm sure you'd have a hard time supporting.

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234935)

Instead, proper access to the product has been taken away from older teens who have not been "raped."

Originally Posted by thelaker (Post 234936)

I get so sick of snide claims to intellectual superiority from the left:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 234937)

All any girl needs to do is get her older 17 year old friend to buy it for her.

Originally Posted by thelaker (Post 234936)

I get so sick of snide claims to intellectual superiority from the left:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 234944)

There was nothing snide there, and no claim that couldn't be demonstrated - Morena backed off of the superlative. Nukes carry a heavy waste disposal burden (which is both a significant technical burden and a huge political problem) that most advocates seem to want to ignore.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234945)

No one ignores it. It simply isn't relevant. That is, it isn't relevant of this environmentalism was really about avoiding human costs of "climate change" rather than a quasi-religious enterprise of the left to worship some sort of Gaia totem.

It is clean, working, real energy. If the country was prepared to give a place like Nevada an excellent deal, we'd be happy to store it for you. I for one have always favored Yucca mountain, I just think the package on the table is insufficient.

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 234946)

So it's not a political problem, you just don't like the politics?

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234935)

So you'd rather it come to their attention through the birth of an unwanted child? Prohibiting access to contraception does not promote greater attention to teen and pre-teen sex.

Also, the decision by Obama didn't address your concern about very young children having sex or being sexually abused. The labeling on the box could say, "You must be 14 years of age to purchase this product." Instead, proper access to the product has been taken away from older teens who have not been "raped."

Originally Posted by consider (Post 234948)

The left's delusion that they are more sophisticated about science is pretty funny.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 234937)

All any girl needs to do is get her older 17 year old friend to buy it for her.

Originally Posted by MargaretH (Post 234916)

I take the progressive side of nearly all political questions

Originally Posted by MargaretH (Post 234916)

While it is probably true that the threshold age for buying Plan B contraception over the counter should be lower than it is, girls in their very early teens and younger who have experienced sex should have adult professional attention ASAP. In a word: they've been raped.

Originally Posted by MargaretH (Post 234916)

I worry that convenient, no-questions-asked access to contraception for young girls would foster ongoing rape that would not come to the attention of authorities.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 234959)

Agreed. It bums me out that the Obama administration and Sebelius let this happen, though I fully recognize the difficult politics involved.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 234959)

Federalism needs to return. The country can't take anymore moral mandates from either side. States need freedom to implement different policies according to their own communities' standards so that we can find out what works over time.

Originally Posted by consider (Post 234948)

The left's delusion that they are more sophisticated about science is pretty funny. It isn't just nuclear power (the waste is safe) but their hysteria over tiny amounts of radiation.

With global warming, we get English majors (like Chris Mooney) telling us about supposed dire consequences in the year 2100 that are based on computer models, which assume no technological change for decades and large CO2 emissions throughout all those decades.

The left seriously believes their "organic" veggies they buy at the co-op are far healthier than what you find at supermarkerts.

Then there is homeopathic medicine...

Originally Posted by apple (Post 234966)

The only ones who agree with you are Wonderment and myself. Everyone else is perfectly fine with Obama's shameless pandering to the most contemptible and base individuals out there. Interesting coalition though.

Originally Posted by consider (Post 234948)

The left seriously believes their "organic" veggies they buy at the co-op are far healthier than what you find at supermarkerts.

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 234944)

Everybody Knows is a great song, but a lousy argument.

Originally Posted by thelaker (Post 234994)

Perhaps "everybody knows" wasn't quite the correct phrase, but what is the left really upset about here? Is it that Sebelius used a weak, science based argument to give cover for a decision unpopular with certain constituencies? Or is it the decision itself, which involves public policy subject to politics? I suspect that it is the latter, which would mean that science is irrelevant. Or if we are really making these decisions based on safety as determined by science, then I want unrestricted access to marijuana and pseudo-ephedrine!

Originally Posted by thelaker (Post 234994)

Perhaps "everybody knows" wasn't quite the correct phrase, but what is the left really upset about here? Is it that Sebelius used a weak, science based argument to give cover for a decision unpopular with certain constituencies? Or is it the decision itself, which involves public policy subject to politics? I suspect that it is the latter, which would mean that science is irrelevant. Or if we are really making these decisions based on safety as determined by science, then I want unrestricted access to marijuana and pseudo-ephedrine!

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 234978)

I don't see how a few puritanical prohibitions can be regarded with such contempt.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 234978)

Like the drinking age, it's society putting a little bump in the way of everybody doing everything they want without anyone saying anything about it.

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 234982)

I do love my organic veggies...homegrown is the best.

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 234982)

I do love my organic veggies...homegrown is the best.

You should try it sometime...far superior to mass produce.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235008)

Also more expensive. It is an affectation of the coastal apparatchiki.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235009)

Too many variables to claim that growing one's own is more expensive. Of course, if you take into account the cost of the space, it's often more, but that assumes you wouldn't have the space if you didn't garden, which is generally not true.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235010)

The most important element of cost is in fact, time. Someone who has the time and space to grow produce in an urban setting is likely moderately wealthy.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235003)

Homegrown, locally grown, organic are all different things. I garden (I try to convince myself I enjoy it and sometimes do), but I don't actually do so because I care that much about organic. I don't buy organic in the stores, usually. I do care about locally grown and the green market, but that's about taste and about the environment/politics. Plus, it's depressing to take seasons out of agriculture. That said, I live in the northern midwest, and thus am not willing to take seasons to the full extent of what that would mean. If I were limited to what I could grow and store, my diet would be way more vegetable-limited at the moment than I'm willing to undergo.

Most liberals, of course, eat what's at Jewel or Safeway, like most others, and don't even think about these things, and many who do are politically conservative (crunchy cons and all that), so I reject the initial claim.



What's "mass produce"? I'm a half-hearted gardener, as noted, so we get food in part from a local farm and the green market. This provides both more variety and better quality in many cases than what I produce myself. Not always, of course. One could say these are "mass produced," although not so much as with Big Ag.