Question #1:

The futurist party/technology party?

[I made spelling and typing errors. I'm a scientist, I don't care. So don't bother telling me.]

As a scientist (and more importantly, a futurist and specialist in technology), I am continually frustrated with the ridiculous issues we waste our time on endlessly entrenching ourselves over. Many are a huge waste of time, (gay marriage, 9/11 mosque) and almost all can be solved with the development of advanced technologies and sciences. I am a "democract", and I suppose socially a "liberal", but mostly because religious issues don't really bother me. But then I see people like Al gore dribble on about how global warming (which is exactly what he says, but unimportant, but irrelevant. see below) is our biggest threat, and will destroy our civilization, totally unaware of how technologies can easily make up for any of the "challenges" it'll belay, and I realize it's still a primitive and ignorant political approach.

Everytime the futurist community tries to voice these views, we are always labeled as "nutjobs", or are largely ignored because don't understand just what the implications would be from our idea's from being implemented. Nanotechnologies, agricultural engineering, artificial intelligence, hi-tech archetechiture, and so forth- all these are so ignored and yet they can do SO much. I we spend 70% of our efforts and budget on technology and sciences, we'd have the ability to do things you can't imagine, and probably won't believe, but I'm about to tell you.

Listen to this.....

1. MILITARY/DEFENSE: Advanced laser systems, biological enhancements, tracking software, global computer networking, transportation- all of these would make terrorism virtually impossible, as our security systems become impenetrable, our survellience unpassable, and weapons undodgable. Now we're actually rather good at this, but we could be better. I don't understand why the wiretapping issue was such a big deal- the CIA doesn't care about you, promise.

2. Healthcare: Nanotechnology and genetic therapies will fundamentally alter our approach to medicine. I happen to be life extension scientist, and the possibility that we'll achieve 500 year lifespans within the next 30 years is very possible ( I know, I know, I promise it is.) AND deal with the population surplus and resource problems. At any rate, "obama care" will be obsolete, as will almost all of our modern medicines.

3. Resource/space/quality of life: Here's why I'm a democrat but HATE Al Gore. This enviromentalism stuff is total nonsense. Who CARES what the "natural way is?" Humans are on earth, what we do is a natural occurance. Cities are no more than giant beehaves, right? Popular science had an article suggesting a skyscraper made of reinforced glass, and each story was an indoor-greenhouse style farm. Now, imagine how much food we could produce in a city-sized space of these things. That's just one of THOUSANDS of examples of how better engineering could radically better our quality of life, and yet it's ignored. I could fill 1,000 pages with that kind of stuff.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.......... and so on.....get it???

We'll one day be able to remove a fetus without killing it, thus solving the abortion issue (ok, you may have moral reasons against these, but who REALLY loses?)

I'm going to be a regular here, so this was just my opening post. But I'll tell you VOLUMES of info on what a technological revolution could accomplish.

(I know you've spotted my potential problems with the things I said, I just couldn't make this TOO long. Email, I'll be happy to explain.)




-Again, I know, typing mistakes. I'm a math guy.
This was my first time posting, so I missed alot and made many mistakes, I know. Each post will be better.

Question #2:

Why do people keep saying World War III will happen?

World War III will NEVER happen.

Too many countries trade with each other; the UN has banned many outdated acts of warfare, aerial bombardment is now ILLEGAL under laws of war etc

So get that into your heads *cough Americans *cough* WW3 will NEVER EVER happen; WW2 was the last world war and ALL acts of warfare used then are now BANNED! Plus nukes are on their way to being banned too.

Warfare has moved on; aerial bombardment will NEVER be used on the USA, Europe or any other Western Nation.

Plus NATO, the EU and the UN were all set up to stop another world war from happening.

Also countries like the US and the UK have fantastic air defense so there is no way enemy planes will be able to get into US/UK airspace.

The UK, USA etc also have a powerful navy so there is no way enemies ships could even look at US waters without being spotted.

Invading another country (like Hitler did) is now illegal and if an invasion did happen the EU and the UN would get involved to stop a war from breaking out.

Pearl Harbor will never be attacked again.

When British cities were aerial bombed in WW2 (the Blitz); yeah that will NEVER happen again either.

Plus China, Russia and Iran are becoming more and more Westernized so why fight and kill if we all beat to the same drum?

And last but not least the USA (along with other countries) have nukes; that 100% makes sure that another nation will NEVER attack them; nukes are for protection; also the UN prohibits nuclear warfare

During WW2 many cities were carpet bombed by day and night; that will NEVER happen again; the days of carpet bombing are long gone; humans have evolved since then; we can now sit down and talk without flying over and dropping bombs.

So there you have it; 100% evidence that WW3 will NEVER happen; so stop asking the questions and go out and get stoned/get laid.

PS - Carpet bombing is banned; there is no way to destroy the enemy's industry hence no war; guided missiles and ballistic missiles are BANNED!

Plus Chemical warfare and biological warfare are also BANNED; gas attacks are also prohibited by UN law. Radiological warfare is also banned by the UN.

There will be no such thing as a world war 3; that is a belief based on your fear.

There will NEVER be another war like WW2 ever again. The world is way to joined together and empires are a thing of the past.

So PLEASE stop worrying!

Question #3:

Why do a lot of people think that martial arts are intended for large men with olympian god like bodies?

Do we guys just generally not realize that there is always someone stronger, and taller than yourself, and when he has the same skill you do you wouldn't be able to beat with raw power and talent alone with no real technique or strategy in life and death combat situations? It would feel bad enough to get beat by some punk more powerful than you and would beat you trying to fight his fight which is obviously the slugging blow for blow kind of fight. But if you were to meet a woman who has been trained to fight at a male level by her father usually, and trains, and spars against guys of all ages and body types all her life, and you happen to try to bully her, and get your butt kicked because she could fight at your level despite not having the same muscle mass due to her superior training, technique, and skill as well as being physically well built, and determination, I'd imagine it would feel a whole lot worse since somebody weaker and smaller than you rendered your natural advantage of size and brute strength useless and beat you, and had you sent to jail. I admit that due to obvious biological reason, the number of females who are martial arts masters are very small.
Macho pride can be your fatal undoing, and when attacked by someone like this, you need strategy, skill, and most importantly wisdom. People should train in martial arts not just to improve their self defense fighting abilities, but to also improve as human beings in general avoiding fights whenever possible.

Question #4:

Why do people assume World War III will happen?

I'll let you all into a bit of info - WW3 will NEVER happen.

Too many countries trade with each other; the UN has banned many outdated acts of warfare, aerial bombardment is now ILLEGAL under laws of war etc

So get that into your heads *cough Americans *cough* WW3 will NEVER EVER happen; WW2 was the last world war and ALL acts of warfare used then are now BANNED! Plus nukes are on their way to being banned too.

Warfare has moved on; aerial bombardment will NEVER be used on the USA, Europe or any other Western Nation.

Plus NATO, the EU and the UN were all set up to stop another world war from happening.

Also countries like the US and the UK have fantastic air defense so there is no way enemy planes will be able to get into US/UK airspace.

The UK, USA etc also have a powerful navy so there is no way enemies ships could even look at US waters without being spotted.

Invading another country (like Hitler did) is now illegal and if an invasion did happen the EU and the UN would get involved to stop a war from breaking out.

Pearl Harbor will never be attacked again.

When British cities were aerial bombed in WW2 (the Blitz); yeah that will NEVER happen again either.

Plus China, Russia and Iran are becoming more and more Westernized so why fight and kill if we all beat to the same drum?

And last but not least the USA (along with other countries) have nukes; that 100% makes sure that another nation will NEVER attack them; nukes are for protection; also the UN prohibits nuclear warfare

During WW2 many cities were carpet bombed by day and night; that will NEVER happen again; the days of carpet bombing are long gone; humans have evolved since then; we can now sit down and talk without flying over and dropping bombs.

So there you have it; 100% evidence that WW3 will NEVER happen; so stop asking the questions and go out and get stoned/get laid.

PS - Carpet bombing is banned; there is no way to destroy the enemy's industry hence no war; guided missiles and ballistic missiles are BANNED!

Plus Chemical warfare and biological warfare are also BANNED; gas attacks are alsoprohibitedd by UN law.

There will be no such thing as a world war 3; that is a belief based on your fear.

There will NEVER be another war like WW2 ever again. The world is way to joined together and empires are a thing of the past.

So PLEASE stop worrying!
Radiological warfare is banned by the UN.

Question #5:

Does anyone have info on the 1989 murder of a 5-month-old infant by her mother in Brownsburg, IN?

I'm writing a true crime book about mothers who have been found guilty (or accepted a plea bargain to move the death penalty off the table) of murdering their biological child/children. Most now use Post Partum Depression as a defense, but I don't think that was true in this case. It's my understanding that the woman referenced above served a relatively short prison sentence after a year of psych eval in the state hospital in Indianapolis.
I've tried local newspapers but the court either put a gag order or a seal on the case. I would think that 20 years after the fact, a gag order or a seal would be well beyond a statute of limitations.

Question #6:

Why Do People Like Ronald Reagan?

He raised the national debt by a trillion dollars (the first person to do so), he inherited a crappy economy and kept it that way, he turned the United States from the single greatest creditor nation in the world into the single greatest debtor nation, he never once submitted a balanced budget or tried to balance the budget despite saying he would do so, he redistributed the country's wealth so that the richest ten percent controlled over sixty percent of everything, he systematically destroyed the labor and production capacity of the entire country, he sold our soul to China, he waged secret wars across the planet, having democratically elected leaders assassinated and replaced with loyal dictators, his policies toward South and Central America included genocide, he declared a war on drugs which has been a thirty year failure, he tried to waste another trillion dollars on a missile defense system, which would have eliminated mutually assured destruction and potentially caused World War 3, he gave Saddam Hussein tanks, jets, guns, ammo, Anthrax and other biological/chemical weapons to use on Iran, he presided over the single greatest period of inflation in American history, and in general sounds like one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

All people claim he did right was get the Berlin Wall knocked down, and not only was he no longer in office when that happened, but through Glasnost we found out that the Soviet Union was falling apart anyways.

So why do people praise him? It seems like he was a murderous tyrant who beggared the country, almost destroyed the world, and is the root of all of our problems today.

The only worse presidents in recent history we've had were both called George Bush, unless you want to reach all the way back to Herbert Hoover, who was really set up to fail by Calvin Coolidge, who happened to be a hero of Reagan's.

Good thing we had a tax and spend liberal like Clinton to get us through the nineties and get the economy back on track. I wish Barack was more liberal, maybe then our problems would get solved.
Okay Grandma Zaza, even if I assume your completely unproven assertion is true, what about all of the people he had killed? Or the dictators he installed?
Furthermore, Granny Zaza, if you can give Ronald Reagan credit for what happened in the nineties, shouldn't we blame Bush for the economy under Obama?
Hassanal Bolkiah, P.W. Botha, Vinicio Cerezo, Roberto Suazo Cordova (Not installed by, but certainly worked with Reagan), Augusto Pinochet (same deal as Cordova), General Samuel Doe, General Efrain Rios Montt, and probably others. This doesn't include the dictators he just supported with more money than they knew what to do with.
How did he defeat communism? Last I checked, the Soviet Union fell apart after he was out of office. China, Cuba, and North Korea, all still communist.

Question #7:

Feminists: what is your opinion on andrea dworkin?

heres some of her quotes


A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.
Andrea Dworkin

All personal, psychological, social, and institutionalized domination on this earth can be traced back to its source: the phallic identities of men.
Andrea Dworkin

As long as there is rape... there is not going to be any peace or justice or equality or freedom. You are not going to become what you want to become or who you want to become. You are not going to live in the world you want to live in.
Andrea Dworkin

Being a Jew, one learns to believe in the reality of cruelty and one learns to recognize indifference to human suffering as a fact.
Andrea Dworkin

Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.
Andrea Dworkin

Erotica is simply high-class pornography; better produced, better conceived, better executed, better packaged, designed for a better class of consumer.
Andrea Dworkin

Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.
Andrea Dworkin

Genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination.
Andrea Dworkin

Male supremacy is fused into the language, so that every sentence both heralds and affirms it.
Andrea Dworkin

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.
Andrea Dworkin

Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.
Andrea Dworkin

Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name.
Andrea Dworkin

Men know everything - all of them - all the time - no matter how stupid or inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are.
Andrea Dworkin

Men who want to support women in our struggle for freedom and justice should understand that it is not terrifically important to us that they learn to cry; it is important to us that they stop the crimes of violence against us.
Andrea Dworkin

Money speaks, but it speaks with a male voice.
Andrea Dworkin

No phallic hero, no matter what he does to himself or to another to prove his courage, ever matches the solitary, existential courage of the woman who gives birth.
Andrea Dworkin

No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.
Andrea Dworkin

Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.
Andrea Dworkin

Poetry, the genre of purest beauty, was born of a truncated woman: her head severed from her body with a sword, a symbolic penis.
Andrea Dworkin

Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.
Andrea Dworkin
i agree feminist man , i don't see that many feminists respecting this person
good answers so far everyone :)
@edith clark, i had just heard of her and was just curious

Question #8:

How to stop US from selling out to Russians in order to cause a 3rd world war.?

The Russians are building tremendous new nuclear/biological and chemical weapons systems--all with the assistance of US technology transfers. They are deploying on average, 3 new Topol-M 6th generation ballistic missiles per month. We built our last MX over 10 years ago, and are disarming unilaterally. Further, the Russian are building huge underground nuclear bunkers and weapons production facilities in the Ural Mountains, clearly intended to function during a nuclear war. The US intelligence community (under both Republican and Democratic administrations) knows this and are actively covering for the Russians, so the American people won't become alarmed.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been supplying the Chinese with high technology weapons systems for years, knowing that they, in turn, are supplying other enemies (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea) as well. Both Russia and China continue to protest against any US anti-ballistic missile system, even though such systems are purely defensive. It doesn't take a genius to understand that ABM systems only threaten someone who intends to launch ballistic missiles someday.

President Clinton directed our military to absorb a nuclear first strike rather than launch on warning (our only true deterrent to a first strike) and to prepare to retaliate afterward. That first strike will take down all command and control, all bombers (since none are on alert), most missiles, and all satellite and submarine communications.

According to the House Armed Services Committee, the following reductions have taken place during the Clinton Administration: Strategic and General Purpose Forces from 1990 to 1997: B-52 Bombers have gone from 220 to 56. B-1 Bombers from 90 to 60; Strategic Defense Interceptor Aircraft from 36 to 0; and Army Divisions (1990 to 1997) have gone from 18 Active down to 10. Reserve divisions have gone from 10 to 8. Army Brigades (1990 to 1997) have declined from 8 Active to 3 and Reserve brigades have gone down from 27 to 18 Click Here

Question #9:

Why is Pres Obama so afraid of asking real experts any questions about deep water drilling? Funny thing?

Liberals inspire me every minute.

Check this question:
Why are Republicans so afraid of my questions about deep water drilling?
Click Here

Now lets check the facts, who is afraid of what :

All right, lib, lets listen to oil drilling experts... not
"Under my Administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. . . To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. . . I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, and not the other way around."

—President Obama, April 27, 2009

The President has appointed a seven-person commission to take what he says will be an objective look at what caused the Gulf spill and the steps to make offshore drilling safe. But judging from the pedigree of his commissioners, we're beginning to wonder if his real goal is to turn drilling into a partisan election issue.

Mr. Obama filled out his commission last week, and the news is that there's neither an oil nor drilling expert in the bunch. Instead, he's loaded up on politicians and environmental activists.

One co-chair is former Democratic Senator Bob Graham, who fought drilling off Florida throughout his career. The other is William Reilly, who ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush but is best known as a former president and former chairman of the World Wildlife Fund, one of the big environmental lobbies. The others:

• Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland "biological oceanographer," who has opposed drilling off the Virginia coast and who argued that "the impacts of the oil and gas extraction industry . . . on Gulf Coast wetlands represent an environmental catastrophe of massive and underappreciated proportions."

• Terry Garcia, an executive vice president at the National Geographic Society, who directed coastal programs in the Clinton Administration, in particular "recovery of endangered species, habitat conservation planning," and "Clean Water Act implementation," according to the White House press release.

• Fran Ulmer, Chancellor of the University of Alaska Anchorage, who is a member of the Aspen Institute's Commission on Arctic Climate Change. She's also on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which opposes nuclear power and more offshore drilling and wants government policies "that reduce vehicle miles traveled" (i.e., driving in cars).

• Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who prior to her appointment blogged about the spill this way: "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil."

On at least five occasions since the accident, Ms. Beinecke has called for bans on offshore and Arctic drilling.

• Rounding out the panel is its lone member with an engineering background, Harvard's Cherry A. Murray, though her specialties are physics and optics.

Whatever their other expertise, none of these worthies knows much if anything about petroleum engineering. Where is the expert on modern drilling techniques, or rig safety, or even blowout preventers?

The choice of men and women who are long opposed to more drilling suggests not a fair technical inquiry but an antidrilling political agenda. With the elections approaching and Democrats down in the polls, the White House is looking to change the subject from health care, the lack of jobs and runaway deficits. Could the plan be to try to wrap drilling around the necks of Republicans, arguing that it was years of GOP coziness with Big Oil that led to the spill?

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel took this theme for a test drive on Sunday when he said that Republicans think "the aggrieved party here is BP, not the fisherman." He added that this ought to remind Americans "what Republican governance is like." The antidrilling commission could feed into this campaign narrative with a mid-September, pre-election report that blames the disaster on the industry and Bush-era regulators and recommends a ban on most offshore exploration. The media would duly salute, while Democrats could then take the handoff and force antidrilling votes on Capitol Hill.

Even as this commission moves forward, engineering experts across the country have agreed that there is no scientific reason for a blanket drilling ban. The Interior Department invited experts to consult on drilling practices, but as we wrote last week eight of them have since said their advice was distorted to justify the Administration's six-month drilling moratorium.

Judging from that decision and now from Mr. Obama's drilling commission, the days of "science taking a back seat to ideology" are ver

Question #10:

Why do leftists keep forgetting they were the ones who said Saddam had WMD, and they were right?

“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors…

“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

”The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. "

Speech from the Oval Office by President William Clinton, explaining his attack on Iraq
reported by The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 16, 1998

Click Here

Click Here
President Clinton orders attack on Iraq in 1998

Do a google video search on "democrat wmd" to see how many Democrats insisted that Saddam had WMD, all the way back to Al Gore in 1992.

For 8 years, Democrats insisted that Saddam had WMD. To show how serious they were, in 1998 Bill Clinton even launched a military attack on Iraq because of WMD. Invasion or no invasion, dropping bombs on another country is pretty serious.

And it turned out they were right:

Click Here
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
"WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. "

So far so good.

When George W. Bush requested Congress for authorization to attack Iraq again, Congress gave him their full support. Hillary Clinton made an impassioned speech for war, even linking it to the 9/11 attack.

So for once, everybody seemed to be in agreement about something. It seemed like political divisiveness had ended.

Then suddenly, Democrats started saying "Bush lied, thousands died." Huh? They even said "Bush is Hitler:"

Click Here
A Trip Down Memory Lane

Hey, wait, folks, I though we all agreed on this.....


Why did Democrats SUDDENLY go against what EVERYBODY had been saying for over 8 years, and everybody agreed - SUDDENLY it's a big lie and people are even calling it a war crime.

People were actually calling for Bush to be tried for crimes against humanity, when just a year earlier the vast majority were in total agreement.

Did Democrats flip flop on Bush over WMD just to go against him for the upcoming 2004 presidential campaign?

To this day, Democrats still say Bush lied, as if they forgot all about it when they said the same thing for 8 years. And BTW, they were right.
Once again, most people did not READ what I put in the question.

YES, WMD WERE FOUND in 2003.

And Dick Cheney also said Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, not just nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes.

Question #11:

Is it fair that women are ENTITLED to statistical proportion in Science as Title IX specified for Sports?

by manipulating Gov. funds?

Click Here

This article is long & written in a verbally difficult way for most people to grasp, so I summarized main ideas here:
======================================…

Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female.
…………………………………….
To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams.
…………………………………………..
That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.
……………………………………….
But unfortunately, in her enthusiasm for Title IX, Rolison is not alone.
On October 17, 2007, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology convened to learn why women are “underrepresented” in academic professorships of science and engineering and to consider what the federal government should do about it.
Brian Baird, the Washington-state Democrat who chairs the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, looked at the witnesses and the crowd of more than 100 highly appreciative activists from groups like the American Association of University Women and the National Women’s LawCenter and asked, “What kind of hammer should we use?”
……………………………………………………..
For the five male, gray-haired congressmen, the hearing was a happy occasion—an opportunity to be chivalrous and witty before an audience of concerned women, and to demonstrate their goodwill and eagerness to set things right. It was also a historic occasion…..
…………………………………………………..
In 2006 the committee released a report, “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,” that claimed to find “pervasive unexamined gender bias.” It received lavish media attention and has become the standard reference work for the “STEM” gender-equity movement (the acronym stands for science, technology, engineering, and math).
At the hearing, Shalala warned that strong measures would be needed to improve the “hostile climate” women face in the academy. This “crisis,” as she called it, “clearly calls for a transformation of academic institutions….Our nation’s future depends on it.”
Shalala and other speakers called for rigorous application of Title IX and other punitive measures. Witness Freeman Hrabowski, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, stressed the need to threaten obstinate faculties with loss of funding: “People listen to money…. Make the people listen to the money talk!”
………………………………………….
“We don’t accept biology as destiny…. We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate.... I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.” Said feminist Virginia Valian. In other words, the ubiquitous female propensity to nurture should be treated as a kind of disorder or disease
In 2001, the NSF awarded Valian and her Hunter colleagues $3.9 MILLION to develop equity programs and workshops for the “scientific community at large.” Should Congress pass the Gender Bias Elimination Act, which mandates workshops for university department chairs, members of review panels, and agency program officers seeking federal funding, Valian will become one of the most prominent women in American scientific education.
The NSF has an annual budget of $5.9 BILLION devoted to “promoting the progress of science” and “securing the national defense.” It is not easy to understand how its ADVANCE program or its deep association with Virginia Valian is serving those goals
[ In short Gov. Research fund now being split in 51/49 along the gender line rather than merit. PLUS, numerous funds for women researchers where men researchers would not get.
Few academic scientists know anything about the equity crusade. Most have no idea of its power, its scope, and the threats that they may soon be facing. The business commu nity and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution. Its weapons are government reports that are rarely seen; amendments to federal bills that almost no one reads; small, unnoticed, but dramatically con sequential changes in the regulations regarding government grants; and congressional hearings attended mostly by true believers.
American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation’s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone—its faculty, alumni, and staff—started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years

Question #12:

Isn't racism a symbol of a dumb brain?

lets analyse it - grouping and segregation of self with/from others based on simple biological traits or belief systems. at best it is a mental construct - a simple brain rule ... a mind trick of self defense at best. Because unless you protect the group you identify yourself with, you would be at risk. So its a desperate act of protecting the self at best that to based on what other brain rules you have in your head.

countless wars (World wars, civil wars) have been fought and countless crimes were committed based on this simple mind trick of grouping and segregation based on self interest and defense....

Hitler did it, Bin laden does it and even america did it.... The very study of humans grouping and segregating based on this dumb blind rules could be very interesting and could change the course of history. Is it really so tough to identify yourself with humanity? BTW is racism purely a western thing because in the east they fight over belief systems not races. Dumb f***ing world. it all arises from mans ability to accepting blind probably ridiculously dumb rules when he has absolutely no clue if they are actually true. I bet even that ability helped us in evolution to this point.
What I mean to say is there is no hope of enlightenment in a practical sense for a brain that indulges in such primitive ways of life. Identifying with humanity should be the new cool fashion.

Question #13:

Was Jimi Hendrix a clairvoyant psychic?

Official scientific research from the U.S. government confirms that some people can "remote view" (e.s.p. - extra sensory perception). Our theory is that e.s.p. is a brain mutation in our species, but it's an ability evolved by all living planets as a defense against asteroid impacts, the colliding "predators" of planets. To alert us to the movements of space rocks aimed at the planet, evolution intends our perceptions to expand towards capacity to "sense" our solar environment. Rocks on paths that disturb the gravity fields of planets trigger "signals" through space. These gravity disturbances register in our brains as thoughts, dreams, melodies, equations, apparitions, premonitions, etc. We are all today becoming aware of how thought and perception itself is dedicated and destined to ultimately shield the planet from impacts. The course of biological evolution is specifically aimed to enable this symbiotic planetary "self-defense" capability in species such as humans.

Jimi Hendrix is the key figure and example for this theory. Hendrix was obsessed with visions of gamma blasts and asteroid impact, his life symbolizes the surfacing of this e.s.p. trait, "Rock", into modern consciousness. The first "Rock/Star" = "Asteroid/Comet/Gamma Burst" - the surfacing of impact awareness through his loud sounds of explosions and explicit verbal warnings about the Rock. All living planets eventually incarnate a version of Jimi - an unprecedented integration of systems and vision, the ultimate insights that intelligent species are evolved towards.

Question #14:

Is this how a one World Government will be achieved?

Dr. Wernher von Braun, the head of the Nazi rocket program, was brought to America after the war because our government considered his knowledge and expertise too vital to fall into enemy hands.

Dr. von Braun brought a wealth of information gleaned from other top Nazi scientists like his boss, SS General Hans Kammler. Von Braun was privy to work on anti gravity propulsion vehicles. With access to NASA's secret programs, von Braun apparently began to see the "big picture" regarding the true goals of America's space program and how the military-industrial complex was manipulating it according to a secret, hidden agenda.
Dr. Carol Rosin was an industry executive when she first met Dr. Wernher von Braun in February 1974. At this time, before his death in 1977, von Braun confided to Dr. Rosin NASA's hidden agenda.

Inviting her into his office, Von Braun stunned Dr. Rosin by explaining that it was all leading to planetary control under an oppressive One World Government.

Now,...According to Dr. Rosin,
Watch this short film: Click Here
von Braun then gave her one supreme assignment: He said a secretive trans-national power, already in existence, would move to permanently take control of this planet thru a hoaxed alien invasion from outer space.

According to von Braun, space based weapons, later known as the "Star Wars" program, were to be promoted as a "shield" against the Russians. Then, as a defense against 'rogue' nations. Then, as protection against asteroids and meteors. Finally they would be presented as a safeguard against an extraterrestrial threat.

According to von Braun, all of these rationales would be lies. These space based weapons would be useless against nuclear suitcase bombs available even in 1974, as well as chemical, viral, bacterial and biological terror weapons.
More importantly, von Braun told Rosin that we already had the technology to build anti gravity vehicles and entire transportation systems which did not require so-called 'fossil' fuels. Instead, they used "beams" of energy, eliminating all pollution.

The goal of this hoaxed space alien invasion was simple:

Create a common enemy and drive all nations to submit to a One World Government. And in Dr. Greer's words: "...to justify eventually spending trillions on space weapons... thus uniting the world in fear, in militarism and war."

Now,..these are not my words, nor is it my firm belief.
I am merely curious as to the possibility of such a covert devious plan.

What are your thoughts?

Question #15:

Why does anyone take the word of the Mayweathers ?

First of all the rumors started with Floyd Sr. A convicted drug dealing felon. Then we have brilliant Uncle Roger...another dirt bag of spurious and dubious reknown. Also, a co-conspirator. Floyd Jr. is not without sin. Allegedly, he likes to rough up the women he is with and hang out with gun toting gangsters.

Floyd Jr. however, is a phenominal boxing virtuoso all considered and, that can not be taken away from the man. I just would like it if he would stop trying to be the "Roddy Piper", of professional boxing. Instead of being a lovable "heal", he comes off as a loudmouthed ignorant jerk. Also, stop whining about your poverty stricken upbringing. Have you ever been to the Phillipines ??? Put it this way, near Manila there is an area known as "S**t River". So, that should rightly put third world poverty into a mode of reference.

In Pacquiaos defense, I was 155lbs at 18yoa and at 35 am 190lbs at 6% bodyfat. No I did not take steroids....c'mon. So, let me be the devils advocate, could he (Pacman), have just matured. Also, you must realize that in the 30's your bones become denser adding weight. Pac started his boxing career at 16 and at 22yoa had trouble making weight below 120 lbs. He is now approaching his mid 30's and, has been training professionally for close to 20 years. Plus, he has been with Freddy Roach for 10 of those years utilizing advanced training and living on a first world diet. Given the totallity of these elements, could it not be possible for him to have gained the weight naturally ??? I believe it is possible. Remember, he is fighting at a heavier weight so, he does not have to "cut" so much for fights. We must also take into consideration, that if he is using synthetic testosterone, higher levels ie. super biological levels would be present pre and post fight in his blood/urine.

So, if there are no super-elevated levels of testosterone in his blood on the night of or, post-fight, the matter is irrelevant. Have you seen roid' heads who have obviously gone off there "cycles", markedly shrink in a matter of days ? I have. Remember with roids' and HGH you only rent that strength, you do not own it.

Therefore, my conclusion is that saying Manny is doing something extra-biological, is tantamount to saying the sky is falling and the Earth is flat.

Question #16:

Should I become a emancipated minor?

I'm 14 and have been living with my maternal grand-parents since birth because my dad never has been around and my biological mother could not support me so she gave temporary custody to them. Last year my dad got charged for not paying child support all my life and owes my grand-parents tons of money, and has been in Prison 6 years for bank robbery and is back in Prison for federal. He tried to fight my grand-parents for custody so he wouldn't have to pay but failed after my grand-mother and her lawyer was granted FULL sole custody. But unfortunately me and my grand-parents are UNCAPABLE to get along! This isn't just a teenager thing, this has been happening for years! For example:


My grand-mother and especially my grand-father verbally abuses me and threatened to call police over an unfair argument THEY started and for me trying to defend my side.

They commnited me to pychiatric hospitals 4 TIMES.

One day in The Ridge

4 days in Sammaritan then 6 days back to Sammaritan

then 7 days in Stoner Creek (I live in Kentucky by the way so this must be unfamiliar to some of you)


And have been on different meds since 4 years of age. But nobody seems to believe me, they cuss me and my grand-father said HE wanted to ruin my life! My grand-mother hit me on my head and my arms and in self-defense I took one of my drawing pens and stabbed her in the arm, (but had her coat on).

They kept on arguing with me, and called the police on me and they reported me. And BLAMED everything on me! This is only part of it, huns but it has been chaotic since I been here. But they are terrible! And I don't have any other family members to live with because they refuse to care for me. So is there anyway I can be emancipated under my grand-parents supervision and have options for support and continue school? PLEASE HELP! If I don't get help now, I don't know what will happen, they said they would send me to Juvenile Detention, I need some advice before it gets worse.

Question #17:

I gave my biological child up almost 6 years ago for adoption, need advice..?

The person that I am with now keeps bagering me about it and judging me saying that I gave my kid up and what not. The circumstances surrounding how I got pregnant was very painful for me and I wanted to be able to heal and everything through counseling (and abortion was not for me), so I decided that she should be raised by a different family. My aunt had always wanted a daughter, so she adopted her. Its an open adoption, but my Aunt doesn't feel like its good for me to be too active in her life right now so I don't speak to her that often. The person I'm with feels like since its my family that I should just be able to do more and basically blames me and judges me. This person I'm with now wasn't around when I was pregnant with her or anything, she just came in later on and after I told her she basically started saying how I "gave my kid up" and how I should have more contact with her and how I "handed my kid to someone else". Everytime I tell her that the situation is very painful for me she says things like "you're just mad because people know now'... I had another daughter (who lives with me) and she went as far as telling my daughter about "her sister" without talking to me about it first and now my daughter is always asking questions about her "sister" and it makes me uncomfortable. Today we had a conversation about the sperm donation process in general and i told her that i feel like choosing a random sperm donor could be bad because if the child grows up and wants to find out who their "donor" is, there really isn't a way for the child to be able to find out if they have questions about them. She was like "well... that's the same thing that you did..." I explained that its not the same thing because if my bio child has questions or wants to find me when she is older... she can". She got defense and when I told her that she shouldn't have used that example she basically said "well, I did it to prove a point". In my opinion, there really was no relevance. I really feel like I'm breaking apart inside from this and I feel like I want to leave her. I just feel like if she really loved me then she wouldn't do that to me especially knowing how much it hurts me when she does that. I just want to be sure that I am not overreacting.... someone please help me. I just need some sound advice..
I understand that my daughter deserves to know about her sister, but not at 3 years old-- it will confuse her and she wouldn't have been able to understand. The problem isn't my daughter knowing, the problem is that my "girlfriend" thought that it wasn't a big deal to tell her without talking to me about it first.

Question #18:

Should President Obama give a major public speech on climate change?

James J. McCarthy, professor of biological oceanography at Harvard, and former Congressman Timothy Wirth think he should.

"...scientists do not have a bully pulpit. President Obama does -- and the public desperately needs him to use it"

"...there is one issue on which the president can, and should, say much more: the strong scientific evidence on human-induced climate change and its impacts on the United States, and the rapidly closing window for action."

"As the president travels around the country, he should alert citizens to these mounting costs of inaction....The president should bring together scientists and others with relevant expertise for a White House summit on climate science, the urgency of action, and the opportunity for timely solutions."

"In addition, the president's secretaries of defense and homeland security should communicate to the public that climate change has the potential to produce serious threats to national security."

"The scientific community has long known that emissions from burning fossil fuels are changing Earth's climate. President Obama is uniquely qualified to cut through the fog created by misleading and manufactured controversies by telling the American public the truth. As he leads, our country will respond."
Click Here

What do you think?
"Yeah, those are the kind of people I get my science information from"

No, you get your science information from the America Thinker, remember?
For the record, jim's claims about Ayers are, shockingly, false.
Click Here

Question #19:

Obama vs Carter: Weaker on defense?

Consider Carter. He canceled the MX missile program, the Neutron Bomb program, the B1 Bomber program and changed our nuclear policy from one of deterrence to one that would allow a first strike. When he was accused of being weak on defense by Reagan in the 1980 presidential campaign, one of his staffers leaked "We do not need the B1 bomber because we have a B2 stealth bomber on the drawing boards." With that leak, the secret of stealth was made public, even before the F117 became operational in 1982.

Now consider Obama. He has put an end to production of the F22, giving the USAF less than half the original number it wanted. The F35 program has been slowed down and it appears the total number of planes may be cut. He has now said that even if another nation uses chemical or biological weapons on us (or our troops) we will not respond with nuclear weapons. Since we do not have any chemical or biological weapons, that might be seen as giving an "OK" to our enemies to use those types of weapons. Lastly, he has signed a new Nuclear Arms Reduction treaty that puts a very low limit on delivery systems. Now think about a contractor considering bidding on a new bomber. Knowing the limit is low, the contract will be for very few planes. They will not be able to make a profit from volume so will have to make it by margin. Whatever planes we do buy in the future will have a large profit margin as a result.

Now the question. From what you have seen of Carter and Obama in regards to defense, which do you feel is weaker on defense? A one word answer is all that is needed. I am doing a poll.

Question #20:

am i right to cut my mother out of mine and my childrens lives?

as a child growing up my mother left my dad and remarried she interferred with mine and my biological fathers relationship by running him down to me and also telling me and my brother and sister to be bad for him on access weekends (he is a good dad, although a little weak and afraid of my mother) she allowed our stepdad to beat us in front of her and has always had total control over any decisions i have made in my life I became a heavy drug user in my mid teens to which my mum threw me out with no where to go. i put myself through rehab I then married and and had to babies in close concession, i divorced their father when they were 1yr and 2yr and then put myself through college to become an holistic therapist so i could come off benifits, i have always beeen intimidated by my mother who has tried to take my children off me saying i was a bad mother which is not true my kids are my life and i have tried to break every cycle, just recently there was an incident started because i wouldnt bend to my mums will and i told her she could not control my life any more. she pulled me down by my hair and started punching me, this to my disgust was done in front of my kids i grabbed her and pushed her in self defense. when it was over the police were called she said i punched her in the eye she then emailed my clients ( as i have just gone self employed) and my friends her black eye, even my nine year old sons football manager the photos, saying i had beaten her to a pulp my stepdad did the emailing for her who my i add use to beat her constantly when i was a child. her last words to me was she wanted to ruin me and see me back on beneifits I have worked so hard to get where i am for mine and my childrens sake They only have me to reley on their dad has rejected them. She is now taking me to court for battery and it seems to be going her way. As she has always registered her self as disabled, even though i have photos of her para gliding and doing many activities with the children over the years that no disabled person could do, they seem to be blaming me. I want to cut her out of my kids lives as my stepdad has often smacked my children and bullied them too. This all is just a small portion of my life with this woman she has really got it in for me and never once told me she was proud of how far i have come, Am I wrong in cutting her out or is there any other way. She has just sent social service round to investigate me saying im an alcoholic, they were satisfied my kids were ok. But i dont need this hassle she is a bully that always gets her own way.





** Powered by Yahoo Answers