Steve Gagne

Robert Okay it took me a week or so to fully digest that. Wow. You really tore LP a new one. (Not that he didn't deserve it.) When I was young, my music theory teacher once said to me, "Gagne, you're a dilettante" (which, I assure you, I took in the best possible way. NOT.) But what he said was true. I still try to learn everything all at once, flitting from one thing to another; and I still haven't figured out what I want to be when I grow up. So I would never have been so generous with my time as you were in either analyzing LP's work, nor in writing a critique. (LP is just NOT that important to me.) I would have only picked one point that you touched on, and risked the accusation of "psychologizing": that the primary purpose of this doctrine, and its application, is so people can make uninformed condemnations of others without having to justify their actions. For me, that "revelation" of moral irresponsibility on his part would have been enough to make me dismiss any of his assertions concerning arbitrariness, or of anything else for that matter. But you aren't me, and instead have written something worth saving in my library, instead of one of my drive-by arguments. Thank you. vty steve (postscript added...Somewhere...in the cobwebs...something like..."Never try to understand a folly...only ask yourself, 'what does it accomplish'?")

Yes it was isolated. When? Recently, say the last year? Then why was a patent on the vaccine filed in August of '08? They had a vaccine before they had the virus? H1N1 along with several other strains of porcine viruses was identified back in 1976. Viruses can be identified without being isolated, from the tissues of infected people. Isolating the virus alive is a different matter. Ba'al Chatzaf Thanks, Bob. Needed to know that.

Actually your senses are quite accurate in what they detect of the reality beyond your own personal being, such data being recorded 24/7, albeit slightly delayed (by a few milliseconds) from the actual stimulus. (Some people can actually perceive this delay.) What you do with this mass of undifferentiated data, on the other hand, depends upon how competently you relate it to your own pre-existing percepts and concepts. This is a definitional problem only. You use the term "rational person". In O-speak, the "rational person" is one who holds his own life as the highest value; it's a package deal. What you are proposing is internally inconsistent. But the phenomenon exists both in art and reality (see Michael's article on "Turning the Other Cheek" on RoR), as you are trying to point out. That's the reason for the special pleading about "life not being worth living without....etc. etc. etc." (Of course, in a true O-ist world, the "rational person" who found his external values unattainable would logically have to choose a new set of values rather than choosing self-destruction. As I said, special pleading.) What you're looking at, in volition, is a potential for taking that mess of sense data inputs mentioned above, and making sense of it. What makes some people utilize this potential fully, while most fail? Internally, scientifically, physically, chemically, electrically, in detail, the most honest answer is, "WE DON'T KNOW". But we see its effects, these effects are defineable, measurable, but not necessarily predictable, so we put a mental box around, and write a name on the box, calling it "volition", and hoping someone doesn't confuse it with an orgone box. So yes, I agree with much of Oism, but I know it has moon-crater size holes in it. I hope I haven't discouraged your inquiries. Steve

Yes, but why do you always have to answer a question with a question? Reminds me of when my wife and I were raising our daughter. We sort of expected the terrible twos, the tantrum threes, the frustrating fours, etc. etc. etc. We were expecting the age of "WHY?", so, from the time she was born, we never asked "Why" out loud about anything, using the phrase "How come" instead. Wouldn't you know it. When she hit that age, it was "How come this" and "How come that". Can you win for losin'?

Yes it was isolated. When? Recently, say the last year? Then why was a patent on the vaccine filed in August of '08? They had a vaccine before they had the virus?

What about people who provide capital to a business, via bonds or stocks, but otherwise take no part in running the business? Suppose the following. Steve Gagne owns, say, 25% of the shares of a corporation. This corporation is found guilty in a lawsuit and the penalty far exceeds the corporation's ability to pay. Should those who sued or the court be entitled to lay claim to Steve Gagne's other assets (retirement and bank accounts, etc.)? By the way, Lloyd's of London includes corporate members with limited liability. OK, Merlin, there is more than one point we need to sort out here here. I am trying to draw a distinction between figuring out the facts relevant to the ethical implications of one's actions, versus accepting things as they are at face value. As far as the use of stocks and bonds, it requires the pre-existence of the business form of the corporation for these instruments to be in use. Historically, the original corporations in common law were formed by grants of royal charters, and operated under the rules dictated to them by the royal grantor. Children of the state. With the advent of the modern nation-state, these grants came to be granted by duly constituted civil authorities, and are protected by the force of the state, moreso than are individuals or truly private associations. I am not advocating for this, merely stating facts. If a sole proprietor or a partner in a directly-owned business encounters the lawsuit you mentioned above, what happens? The owners lose their shirts. If I am the owner, I am the one who loses my shirt (retirement and bank accounts, etc.). This is the nature of personal responsibility, of accepting the consequences of one's actions and of the actions one makes possible. If, however, the ownership is covered in the convenenient legal fiction of "an artificial person" (a corporation), suddenly he is shielded from his personal responsibility, and the consequences are borne, not by the owner, the one who made the inequity possible, but by the society-in-general (i.e., parties who weren't even involved in the particular incidents to begin with) and, since he can't receive payment-in-full from the owner, by the victim himself! Further, present-day excessive jury awards have come about due to findings in legal precedents, i.e., similar, earlier cases where outlandish awards were made, and then upheld upon appeal because there was someone there -the insurance companies- who were able to actually pay the awards. So these awards are a market distortion based on the presence and behaviour of the insurance companies. Note your comment about Lloyd's membership is not really relevant. It didn't stop them from going broke in the 90's, and the individual members lost their shirts! This is true of some corporations (e.g. Fannie, Freddie, PBGC), but false for most. The latter are recognized as a legal entity, but not created, by government. Recognition is not creation. See my comment above regarding the historic source of "corporations". Without the necessary ingredient of government, there is no such thing as a corporation. Further, as I pointed out under the comments on personal responsibility above, the property rights of the corporations and their owners are treated as superior to the property rights of the rest of the members of society in general, as well as the property rights of those victimized by the corporations; the non-owners of the corporation are prohibited by law and public policy from using the force of law in equity to protect themselves against corporate owners, in the way they can against the sole proprietor or general partner in a non-incorporated business, or against any other private individual. I have to call a spade a spade here. That is one of the fundamentals of fascism. An insurance company cannot inflate the money supply like a bank can. A bank can add to the money supply with mere accounting entries; an insurance company can't. An insurance company is just another specie of bank. They manipulate money, and nothing else, for purpose of sequestering a certain amount of wealth from a market. Ultimately as useful and as ethical as trading equities backed by sub-prime mortgages. And besides the mutuals, just who do you think made a market for those derivatives? Since when does this sort of government intervention mean "free market"? A free market in health and malpractice insurance would be governments not regulating it (other than to rectify or prevent fraud), not abolishing it. My original comment wasn't that the Pelosi-Reid Communization of American Healthcare bill would restore a free market, it was that it would make obvious the collectivist system that has really been in place since WW II, and was reinforced by federal law in 1945, which has protected the insurance industry as a fascistic, government-mandated oligopoly since then. A free market in health care cannot include that. What I advocated was that, rather than tinker with the system (as all the health care plans do), look at the cycle of the malady, which I have outlined elsewhere: 1) Too much money available for malpractice lawsuits. 2) Too high awards in legal precedent cases. 3) Failure to appeal excessive jury awards. 4) Too high payouts by insurance companies. 5) Too high corresponding malpractice premiums. 6) Doctor bills too high to pay malpractice premiums. 7) Health insurance goes up too high. 8) Reimbursements to doctors go down. 9) Catch-up health costs go up too high. 10) Sue the damn doctors to get your money back. 11) Start all over. In most cases, the malefactors are the short-term greed, laziness, and incompetence of the insurance companies and the lawyers. Their employees would all make good government welfare bureaucrats. But really, not much else. So either start calling 'em all what they are, or fire the whole lot of them & abolish the insurance corporations!

Of course, even taking a naturalistic view of consciousness as a concomitant of brain functioning, it really depends upon your model of how consciousness is processed -- questions of free will or determinism must always be framed after the discovery phase, in terms of fact, or barring that, in terms of the possible. Anything else is airbrushing reality. Consider, then, the differing implications of these two possible naturalistic philosophical models: (1) The brain is a computer which takes in all inputs, processes them according to logic and internal feedback, and creates a set of (definable) outputs or behaviours. (2) The brain is a radio which takes in some inputs (including imperceptible waves at the quantum level or even below), making them manifest, and responding with certain (unpredictable) behaviours. Of course much thought must be brought to this to see what tremendously different responses these two models would elicit, yet at which point has any one of us achieved the level of knowledge to say which model is accurate?

Mike - I too grew up with Star Trek, starting with the original series in the 60's. I found the approach in the new movie interesting; I'm sorry if you find the current treatment is disappointing. The director announced ahead of time that he had no affinity for the Star Trek story arcs nor their more cerebral aspects; he asked for and received permission to depart in his story development from the "future history" shared by all the Roddenbury/Barrett series. > > > SPOILER ALERT < < < That being said, there was a motif borrowed from all the earlier series. In most of them, there was an episode/scene in each where there was some violation of the "time line" by some characters in the current scene. There is a similar event in this movie, with this difference: in the old series or movies, whenever the this "change" occurred, it was always undone in a later scene, restoring the time line to what it was "supposed" to be. In this movie, however, the change is allowed to stand, invalidating everything that is considered part of the Star Trek universe, and creating an entirely new franchise. Now they get to write all new series & make a whole bunch of new movies, which have about as much to do with the Star Trek we know, as the current CW program Smallville has to do with the original Superman.

Yes. The Patriot Act is worded so that any violation of any law or ordinance anywhere, down to the level of a parking ticket, can be interpreted as a terroristic threat. My best friend was thrown into solitary for 72 hours, no lawyer, no phone call, back in 2003 for demanding a refund for a defective tv from Beast Buy. They waited till he left the store, then a SWAT team tackled him, sprained his shoulder, and when he finally got out not a single lawyer had the balls to defend him. That Patriot Act is the most vile piece of filth to have ever come out of congress.

GG -- I'm not here to heckle. I understand the desire to remonetize gold and the dangers of the Fed. I was a Ron Paul meetup organizer during the 2008 election cycle, in a town where he polled 8% - 12% in the primary, depending on precinct. I saw early on (at Paulapalooza) that he is an old man, and if he had been nominated and elected, he would probably die in office. You can't wish that on somebody. I've been tracking gold prices on and off since the 70's, and looking at what used to be called "eurodollars" in circulation, and have come the conclusion that remonetization, however desirable, is not possible. First of all, there has not been an audit of Fort Knox since forever. We just don't know how much gold, if any, is left there. "Full faith and credit of the United States" was based on the convenient Keynesian fiction that the amount of the US' gold holdings would always be in excess of obligations. Is this now the case? We just don't know. Now, even if we assume that the gold base is intact (a HUGE assumption, probably false), I figured back in the nineties that a remonetization reconversion would require a phase-in period where we would need two currencies, the "old US dollar" (FRN's) and the "new US dollar" (gold). Back in those days, we still had access to the Fed's M1 & M3 numbers, and could make a reasonable guess about what kind of reconversion rates we were looking at. I figured that, back then, 15+ years ago, we would need to retire the "old dollars" at a rate of over $4200/ounce troy gold. Of course no one wanted to hear that then, and God only knows what a realistic reconversion rate would be today, after years of unconstitutional war spending, confiscatory social programs, stimulus packages, unhealthy balances of trade, and huge deficit financing in the international markets. I don't think an estimate of $20k/ounce troy gold would be erroneous. Of course, this would be a perfect opportunity to revalue the debased US currency, and to make it "as good as gold" again. If gold were being remonetized (that is, again, assuming there's any left), we could reset the new dollar to eliminate all of the inflation of the Fed era. This could be done immediately. The demonetization of FRN's on the other hand, would take a while, and would probably require a multi-tiered retirement / phase-out program. Considering the market still values the FRN dollar at about .001 ounce troy gold, a change to .00005 ounce troy gold would be disruptive enough to cause a run on the banks, and throw the whole world into a civilization-crushing depression. (Let me tell you, I for one am not looking forward to food riots & martial law -- my garden is not that successful -- I have a "brown thumb" -- and I need supplies for my microbrewery from other parts of the country.) And if we want this reconversion to "stick", we have to eventually remove ALL parity from FRN's, and force their market value to zero. (I know, I know, we already know their REAL value is ALREADY zero.) (Note -- this need for a new currency could well be an impetus behind the NAFTA/SPP and the Amero. Get access to Mexican & Canadian gold mines, to replenish our own shrunken gold supply.) Now this multi-tier system would need to make a change every few months in the official reconversion rates over more than a year, like, double the number of $FRN's to the gold for each tier. Immediately, the $FRN is worth .0005 ounces troy gold ($2k FRNs / oz.), in 3 months, .00025 ozs. ($4k FRNs / oz.), 6 months, .000125 ozs. ($8k FRNs / oz.), 9 months, .0000625 oz, ($16k FRNs / oz.), a year, .00003125 oz. ($32k FRNs / oz.), 15 months, .000015625 oz. ($64k FRNs / oz.), 18 months, .00000 oz. (zero zip zilch nothing nada). Of course, gold would not need to be issued, just gold certificates that are ACTUALLY BACKED by REAL GOLD. Once the FRN's are out of circulation (possibly with a 10% sweetener to accept gold certificates in exchange), we would be back to a real money economy. Do you really think any of the thieves who break through and steal would allow this to happen?

Some things to take into consideration: All the other socialized medicine schemes in the world are based on the Danish labor movement model of the early 1800's (1816-1838). This started from a point of scarcity in health care, and has never been one of abundance. Our current system of government-authorized collectives (insurance companies), came to the fore during WW II, followed by the largest explosion of education the world has ever known (the GI Bill and its concomittants). It was based in an abundance of healthcare and an abundance of ways to pay for it, out of an abundance of American productivity. But make no mistake, it has also had its problems, economically and ethically, both in practice and in principle. It has a built-in tendency to run-up costs, far in excess of the rate of inflation (this had been held in check in the WW II / Korean War era due to the recent memory of the depression, a dying influence now), which run-up could easily end up consuming 1-1/2 the total GDP of the US within a decade or so. Not good. I think that the current row over socialized health care is a bunch of knee-jerk responses to the terminology used to describe it. Overall, it does not sound like a major change in the system we already have in place, except to extend more educational avenues (to train more doctors), to get the insurance companies to act more consistently, and to put a bit of a brake on the spiralling costs. I don't give much credence, though to the claims of greater inclusivity. That's just a blue-sky sales pitch. Ten years from now, there will be just as many uninsured if not more. "The poor you have always."

From what you describe, I would have to agree. But I haven't run into this. What exactly happened for you to bring up the subject?

I think your comments are really off the mark. Individuals can be and are held responsible for their actions. It is true that a CEO of a corporation cannot be sued every time an employee screws up, but that is only reasonable. It would be impossible to run a company if the CEO got sued for everything that went wrong. If the CEO is doing things himself that are really out of bounds, he can be and is held personally responsible. If he tries to use the corporation as a shield for illegal actions he can end up "piercing the corporate vale" and be held directly liable for any monetary losses. Given our current legal climate of allowing people to sue for everything under the sun, it would be impossible to operate a business without some protection from liability for the corporate officers. If you owned a company with a thousand locations and every time someone slipped on the ice basic outside one of them you got sued personally and lost because you had a greater ability to pay than the person that slipped, you'd soon be broke. No one in their right mind would want to run a company under such conditions. A corporation is like an insurance policy. If some crazy jury were to award the plaintiff that spilled hot coffee in her lap 10 million dollars (and the company wasn't McDonald's and only had three locations) the CEO could pay out what the company was worth and walk away with his personal property intact. Yes, he could buy an insurance policy, but what if it wasn't large enough? Or what if the insurance company refused to pay? The current mess that we have with government propping up companies that are "too large to fail" has nothing to do with corporate liability. Why should a company owner have to risk losing his own personal property in order to run a company? In my view, corporate governance is generally pretty sound and it is mostly the financiers of the company that get hurt if things aren't being run properly anyway. I don't see how upping the ante would help anything. I have seriously considered buying several businesses or franchises but so far have been afraid to take the plunge due to the risk of losing a lot of money. I don't see the benefit of increasing the risks still further. Darrell You said, "I think your comments are really off the mark" Let's see what comments you referred to: 1) "In our society, most businesses of any consequence are INCORPORATED." This is a statement of FACT. Do you object to this? 2) "A corporation is an "artificial" person, a CREATURE OF THE STATE, created as a parnership between real individuals and our supposed protector of individual rights, the government." This is a statement of FACT and LAW. Do you object to this? 3) "This artificial person, empowered and protected by the government's force of arms, prevents anyone from receiving just compensation from the real individual actor, in the event of wrongful actions on the part of the real individual that is acting under color of the artificial person; society "as a whole" ends up bearing the cost for this." This is merely a statement that a limited-liability corporation shields its OWNERS from from responsibility for actions performed UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY and FOR THEIR BENEFIT. This is a statement of FACT, LAW, and SOCIAL POLICY; touching back on the topic of social contract theory and quasi-contract liability that was discussed here a couple years ago. Is this what you object to? Of course you don't. You just sense the anarchist implications of the words I chose (I won't hide behind the label "libertarian"). But you present no actual theoretical basis for objecting. You misdirect to a discussion of CEO's (who are only corporate employees, not necessarily owners), and then give me a mishmash of pragmatist considerations of runaway jury awards. This latter, of course, only proves my (chicken-and-egg) point, that it is a direct result of quasi-governmental organizations (in this case, insurance corporations, a kind of bank), standing there, ready to be deep pockets, providing a virtually unlimited source of fiat cash with no value behind it, creating steep market distortions in first, court case precedents, then in regular court cases, then in malpractice insurance, then in medical fees, then in health insurance, then in health cost displacement, step-by-step, as would be readily apparent to anyone understanding even a smattering of basic monetarist price theory. (And all the while, these insurance companies are operating at a PROFIT, which says that the actual cost of the medical-care chain, without the insurance companies' particular cut, is actually affordable to the other companies and individuals in society.) Are you saying this is not what has occurred? And as for the liability issue, that $10 million case could never have occurred without court precedents and someone with deep pockets. But if you create what is known as an "attractive nuisance" that causes harm to someone, you are and ought to be responsible for rectifying the harm you contributed to. Why should someone who is hurt by such, lose his right to justice simply because the ownership of the attractive nuisance is transferred from a natural individual to a fictitious one? Why should the liability be less than, or more than, a just solution? Fake people and fake money are what makes this type of injustice possible. Then there's "too big to fail', and your own non-entrepeneurial risk aversion. Additional cases of displaced risk. Fake risk assessments. Fake risk assignments. Solution? Stop faking. You disagree with that?

Walter Cronkite? Walllllter Crunk-eyed? Really, not hard to imagine him wasted, slurring his speech, mumbling inanely. NIMBY in chief. Some liberal. Supported environmental causes? Not on your life. Primary celebrity fighting wind fields south of Cape Cod, because he didn't want it in his backyard, off Martha's Vineyard, even if it wasn't visible, beyond the horizon. But then, maybe liberal. They've never run short on hypocrisy. I didn't need him to report the space program to me; my old man was one of the engineers, got up close & personal. But to attack him for exposing the failure of McNamara's policies in Nam? Blame the kid for the Emperor's new clothes? Naaah. As for McArthur, he got fired. For his plans to nuke the Yalu, make Korea an island. Probably should have done it; now we're stuck with "armistice": perpetual war? (Bob -- do you agree?) A blog with a bunch of links

Everyone seems to be up in arms about the latest healthcare boondoggle, but I can't for the life of me understand why, as it is no more than a clarification of the system we already have in place. In a truly free market, individuals, all common producers, are responsible for the results of their own actions. If there are unacceptable risks or consequences, the individuals can pool their risks or else forego their planned actions (viz-à-viz Lloyds of London or other such privately syndicated enterprises). In a collectivist/statist politico-economic system (either fascist or socialist, no matter), the government provides this risk-absorption function, making all members of a society bear the consequences of others irresponsibility, directly or indirectly. In our society, most businesses of any consequence are INCORPORATED. A corporation is an "artificial" person, a CREATURE OF THE STATE, created as a parnership between real individuals and our supposed protector of individual rights, the government. This artificial person, empowered and protected by the government's force of arms, prevents anyone from receiving just compensation from the real individual actor, in the event of wrongful actions on the part of the real individual that is acting under color of the artificial person; society "as a whole" ends up bearing the cost for this. Further, all modern banks, and especially their subspecie, the insurance companies, are CORPORATIONS. They are protected artificial entities that have interposed themselves into most transactions in society, with special laws granting them special privileges not afforded individuals or even other businesses. These corporations routinely take money OUT of circulation, more like taxation rather than "for services rendered", and when conducting regular or investment business, their presence is akin to a government agency, doling out money according to its own rules, creating market distortions which we witness as runaway court costs, runaway malpractice insurance, and runaway medical costs. Please note that all of these inflationary items are being financed by RUNAWAY INSURANCE CORPORATIONS, who only submit to regulation that is minimal in relation to the amount of cost or damage they have inflicted on our society. Protected corporations. I don't see maintaining the current fascist system as a viable option. If these creatures of the state (insurance corporations) become nationalized to some extent, it won't make a huge difference. But what is really needed to restore the free market in healthcare is to outlaw health and malpractice insurance.

Job Information * Job Order Number: 0969 * Job Title: Program Development & Outreach Specialist * Projected Occupation: Management Analysts * Job Duration: FULL-TIME * Job Position(s): 1 Employer Information * Employer Name: Indian River State College * Projected Industry: Educational Support Services (611710) Job Requirements * Job Skills: View Typical Skills Compensation and Hours * Salary Range: $42,930 View Labor Market Wage Rates * Hours per Week: Work Site Information * City, State, Zip, and Country: Fort Pierce, FL 34981 US Job Description The qualifications and skill requirements for this position include a Bachelors degree in Business Administration, Communications, or Marketing discipline or a closely related field with three (3) year or more of recent proven program coordination experience; documentation of successful project experience in a contemporary workplace, public safety environment or educational institution; must be a public speaker with excellent oral and written communication skills; adept in research and report writing; strong interpersonal and organizational comprehension; sound use of judgment; skillful problem-solver; motivated self-starter with high character and integrity; technology savvy to include proven experience with Microsoft Office and Windows applications; ability to work independently as well as with others; and must hold a valid Florida drivers license. Essential Job Functions and Responsibilities: The essential job functions and responsibilities for this position include, but are not limited to: coordination of duties relating to the Employ Florida Banner Center for Homeland Security and Defense in accordance with the contract between Workforce Florida, Incorporated and Indian River State College. The responsibilities include outreach, marketing strategies, research based writing, facilitation of focus groups, public speaking, website management and special projects as assigned. This position will require a flexible work schedule as well as occasional travel. Specific Duties and Responsibilities: The specific duties and responsibilities for this position include, but are not limited to: developing and disseminating marketing materials such as brochures, bulletins, website and updates; marketing and strategic planning for the future of the Banner Center - Public Service Education Department; planning and coordinating trainings and special events; drafting formal correspondence as well as research based reports; conducting focus groups for program development and evaluation purposes; establishing new cooperative business relationships within the Homeland Security industry sector; developing and maintaining customer relations and staying abreast of marketplace needs and conditions; and completing other duties and responsibilities as assigned. Additional Information This position requires an ability to sit, stand, walk, bend, lift, reach up, stoop, and carry items occasionally in excess of twenty-five (25) pounds. It also requires manual dexterity to operate standard office machines, such as, copier, fax, calculator, To display more information including how to apply for this job, click the button below. WARNING: Always be on the look out for job scams! Click here to learn more. This job was posted at http://www.irsc.edu/ on 07/08/2009.

Job Information * Job Order Number: AS-SOCSC * Job Title: Sociology * Projected Occupation: Sociology Teachers, Postsecondary * Job Duration: PART-TIME * Job Position(s): 1 Employer Information * Employer Name: Indian River State College * Projected Industry: Educational Support Services (611710) Job Requirements * Job Skills: View Typical Skills Compensation and Hours * Salary Range: With Master's degree: $17.30/clock hour/$470/credit hour View Labor Market Wage Rates * Hours per Week: Work Site Information * City, State, Zip, and Country: Fort Pierce, FL 34981 US Job Description REQUIRED: 1) Masters degree from a regionally accredited institution in Sociology, or a Masters degree from a regionally accredited institution with a minimum of eighteen (18) graduate hours in Sociology; 2) Excellent communication skills both oral and written; 3) Proven teaching skills with the ability to convey basic concepts and theories in a practical and comprehensible way; 4) Ability to recognize and to respond to students from culturally diverse backgrounds as well as the willingness to make students active partners in the teaching/learning process; 5) Computer literacy and experience using computers in classroom with a willingness to apply technology and innovative approaches to the teaching of specific discipline. PREFERRED: 1) A Doctorate from a regionally accredited institution in Sociology; 2) Two to five years teaching experience in a post-secondary institution. All instructors must meet the appropriate credentialing requirements for the Southern Association for Colleges and Schools (SACS). Essential Job Functions and Responsibilities: The essential job functions and responsibilities for this position include, but are not limited to: preparing, instructing and grading all class coursework; assigning final grades; and maintaining regularly scheduled office hours to meet with students. Specific Duties and Responsibilities: The specific duties and responsibilities for this position include, but are not limited to: instructing assigned classes; grading all quizzes, tests, and written assignments; assigning final grades and delivering grades and grade justification sheets; maintaining regularly scheduled office hours to meet with students; maintaining a safe and effective classroom environment; participating in department, division, and general adjunct faculty meetings; and completing other duties and responsibilities as assigned. Additional Information This position requires an ability to sit and stand for extended periods of time and to present oral lectures/demonstrations, walk, bend, lift, reach up, stoop, and carry items occasionally in excess of twenty-five (25) pounds. Some lifting of computer and To display more information including how to apply for this job, click the button below. WARNING: Always be on the look out for job scams! Click here to learn more. This job was posted at http://www.irsc.edu/ on 07/08/2009.

Job Information * Job Order Number: AS-HUM * Job Title: Philosophy * Projected Occupation: Philosophy and Religion Teachers, Postsecondary * Job Duration: PART-TIME * Job Position(s): 1 Employer Information * Employer Name: Indian River State College * Projected Industry: Educational Support Services (611710) Job Requirements * Job Skills: View Typical Skills Compensation and Hours * Salary Range: With Master's degree: $17.30/clock hour/$470/credit hour View Labor Market Wage Rates * Hours per Week: Work Site Information * City, State, Zip, and Country: Fort Pierce, FL 34981 US Job Description REQUIRED: 1) Masters degree from a regionally accredited institution in Philosophy, or a Masters degree from a regionally accredited institution with a minimum of eighteen (18) graduate hours in Philosophy; 2) Excellent communication skills both oral and written; 3) Proven teaching skills with the ability to convey basic concepts and theories in a practical and comprehensible way; 4) Ability to recognize and to respond to students from culturally diverse backgrounds as well as the willingness to make students active partners in the teaching/learning process; 5) Computer literacy and experience using computers in classroom with a willingness to apply technology and innovative approaches to the teaching of specific discipline. PREFERRED: 1) A Doctorate from a regionally accredited institution in Philosophy; 2) Two to five years teaching experience in a post-secondary institution. All instructors must meet the appropriate credentialing requirements for the Southern Association for Colleges and Schools (SACS). Essential Job Functions and Responsibilities: The essential job functions and responsibilities for this position include, but are not limited to: preparing, instructing and grading all class coursework; assigning final grades; and maintaining regularly scheduled office hours to meet with students. Specific Duties and Responsibilities: The specific duties and responsibilities for this position include, but are not limited to: instructing assigned classes; grading all quizzes, tests, and written assignments; assigning final grades and delivering grades and grade justification sheets; maintaining regularly scheduled office hours to meet with students; maintaining a safe and effective classroom environment; participating in department, division, and general adjunct faculty meetings; and completing other duties and responsibilities as assigned. Additional Information This position requires an ability to sit and stand for extended periods of time and to present oral lectures/demonstrations, walk, bend, lift, reach up, stoop, and carry items occasionally in excess of twenty-five (25) pounds. Some lifting of computer and To display more information including how to apply for this job, click the button below. WARNING: Always be on the look out for job scams! Click here to learn more. This job was posted at http://www.irsc.edu/ on 07/08/2009.

HEY! This isn't the same site I remember from yesterday! (But it remembers me.) Interesting new skin; menus aren't as touchy as they used to wuz, but there were 2 topics (Sarah Palin & something else) that downloaded completely, displayed, then when I tried to read them, I got an error message saying the page couldn't be reached; when I tried to close the error message, the displayed page was swept off the screen and replaced with a http 404 error message. This happened several times, so I don't think it's a download error. Let's see what else happens. Steve

Michael It's terribly, terribly sad that you found it necessary to start this thread. Of course I understand your motivation, and can only look forward to the day I outlive the slime you've had to report on. But somehow, I feel this is old territory you're covering. When I joined OL 2 years ago, wasn't there a similar discussion that put all of this to bed? Or was that a smear of someone else (like C.Sciabarra or some such)? Steve

Just a few comments. 1) Regarding the subject of dance, Ms. Rand made no secret that her preference was as a spectator of popular dance, specifically of tap dancing. She also felt she had to justify her taste, which I found suspicious. I mean, I never asked her anything about it: "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." 2) Regarding the use of the word "Passion" for "suffering", I must be a complete idiot. I always took it to mean it that way; I saw any other use of the word to be redundant at best, and dull-witted sarcasm at worst. 3) Regarding the "parallels" of Objectivism with Christianity, one should realize that the motif embedded in AS is not really original, but is a plagiarism of the latter day Christian heresy of "the Rapture of the Saints."

Not to mention the Federal Gardening Cops. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GROUND CONTROL Lose your property for growing food? Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: March 16, 2009 8:56 pm Eastern By Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily Some small farms and organic food growers could be placed under direct supervision of the federal government under new legislation making its way through Congress. Food Safety Modernization Act House Resolution 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in February. DeLauro's husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto – the world's leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seed. DeLauro's act has 39 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Agriculture Committee on Feb. 4. It calls for the creation of a Food Safety Administration to allow the government to regulate food production at all levels – and even mandates property seizure, fines of up to $1 million per offense and criminal prosecution for producers, manufacturers and distributors who fail to comply with regulations. Michael Olson, host of the Food Chain radio show and author of "Metro Farm," told WND the government should focus on regulating food production in countries such as China and Mexico rather than burdening small and organic farmers in the U.S. with overreaching regulations. "We need somebody to watch over us when we're eating food that comes from thousands and thousands of miles away. We need some help there," he said. "But when food comes from our neighbors or from farmers who we know, we don't need all of those rules. If your neighbor sells you something that is bad and you get sick, you are going to get your hands on that farmer, and that will be the end of it. It regulates itself." The legislation would establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes." Federal regulators will be tasked with ensuring that food producers, processors and distributors – both large and small – prevent and minimize food safety hazards such as food-borne illnesses and contaminants such as bacteria, chemicals, natural toxins or manufactured toxicants, viruses, parasites, prions, physical hazards or other human pathogens. Under the legislation's broad wording, slaughterhouses, seafood processing plants, establishments that process, store, hold or transport all categories of food products prior to delivery for retail sale, farms, ranches, orchards, vineyards, aquaculture facilities and confined animal-feeding operations would be subject to strict government regulation. Government inspectors would be required to visit and examine food production facilities, including small farms, to ensure compliance. They would review food safety records and conduct surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment. "What the government will do is bring in industry experts to tell them how to manage all this stuff," Olson said. "It's industry that's telling government how to set these things up. What it always boils down to is who can afford to have the most influence over the government. It would be those companies that have sufficient economies of scale to be able to afford the influence – which is, of course, industrial agriculture." Farms and food producers would be forced to submit copies of all records to federal inspectors upon request to determine whether food is contaminated, to ensure they are in compliance with food safety laws and to maintain government tracking records. Refusal to register, permit inspector access or testing of food or equipment would be prohibited. "What is going to happen is that local agriculture will end up suffering through some onerous protocols designed for international agriculture that they simply don't need," Olson said. "Thus, it will be a way for industrial agriculture to manage local agriculture." Under the act, every food producer must have a written food safety plan describing likely hazards and preventative controls they have implemented and must abide by "minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water." "That opens a whole can of worms," Olson said. "I think that's where people are starting to freak out about losing organic agriculture. Who is going to decide what the minimum standards are for fertilization or anything else? The government is going to bring in big industry and say we are setting up these protocols, so what do you think we should do? Who is it going to bring in to ask? The government will bring in people who have economies of scale who have that kind of influence." DeLauro's act calls for the Food Safety Administration to create a "national traceability system" to retrieve history, use and location of each food product through all stages of production, processing and distribution. Olson believes the regulations could create unjustifiable financial hardships for small farmers and run them out of business. "That is often the purpose of rules and regulations: to get rid of your competition," he said. "Only people who are very, very large can afford to comply. They can hire one person to do paperwork. There's a specialization of labor there, and when you are very small, you can't afford to do all of these things." Olson said despite good intentions behind the legislation, this act could devastate small U.S. farms. "Every time we pass a rule or a law or a regulation to make the world a better place, it seems like what we do is subsidize production offshore," he said. "We tell farmers they can no longer drive diesel tractors because they make bad smoke. Well, essentially what we're doing is giving China a subsidy to grow our crops for us, or Mexico or anyone else." Section 304 of the Food Safety Modernization Act establishes a group of "experts and stakeholders from Federal, State, and local food safety and health agencies, the food industry, consumer organizations, and academia" to make recommendations for improving food-borne illness surveillance. According to the act, "Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law … may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act." Each violation and each separate day the producer is in defiance of the law would be considered a separate offense and an additional penalty. The act suggests federal administrators consider the gravity of the violation, the degree of responsibility and the size and type of business when determining penalties. Criminal sanctions may be imposed if contaminated food causes serious illness or death, and offenders may face fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years. "It's just frightening what can happen with good intentions," Olson said. "It's probably the most radical notions on the face of this Earth, but local agriculture doesn't need government because it takes care of itself." Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act Another "food safety" bill that has organic and small farmers worried is Senate Bill 425, or the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Brown's bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson. It was introduced in September and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Some say the legislation could also put small farmers out of business. Like HR 875, the measure establishes a nationwide "traceability system" monitored by the Food and Drug Administration for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging and distribution of food. It would cost $40 million over three years. "We must ensure that the federal government has the ability and authority to protect the public, given the global nature of the food supply," Brown said when he introduced the bill. He suggested the FDA and USDA have power to declare mandatory recalls. The government would track food shipped in interstate commerce through a recordkeeping and audit system, a secure, online database or registered identification. Each farmer or producer would be required to maintain records regarding the purchase, sale and identification of their products. A 13-member advisory committee of food safety and tracking technology experts, representatives of the food industry, consumer advocates and government officials would assist in implementing the traceability system. The bill calls for the committee to establish a national database or registry operated by the Food and Drug Administration. It also proposes a electronic records database to identify sales of food and its ingredients "establishing that the food and its ingredients were grown, prepared, handled, manufactured, processed, distributed, shipped, warehoused, imported, and conveyed under conditions that ensure the safety of the food." It states, "The records should include an electronic statement with the date of, and the names and addresses of all parties to, each prior sale, purchase, or trade, and any other information as appropriate." If government inspectors find that a food item is not in compliance, they may force producers to cease distribution, recall the item or confiscate it. "If the postal service can track a package from my office in Washington to my office in Cincinnati, we should be able to do the same for food products," Sen. Brown said in a Sept. 4, 2008, statement. "Families that are struggling with the high cost of groceries should not also have to worry about the safety of their food. This legislation gives the government the resources it needs to protect the public." Recalls of contaminated food are usually voluntary; however, in his weekly radio address on March 15, President Obama announced he's forming a Food Safety Working Group to propose new laws and stop corruption of the nation's food. The group will review, update and enforce food safety laws, which Obama said "have not been updated since they were written in the time of Teddy Roosevelt." The president said outbreaks from contaminated foods, such as a recent salmonella outbreak among consumers of peanut products, have occurred more frequently in recent years due to outdated regulations, fewer inspectors, scaled back inspections and a lack of information sharing between government agencies. "In the end, food safety is something I take seriously, not just as your president but as a parent," Obama said. "No parent should have to worry that their child is going to get sick from their lunch just as no family should have to worry that the medicines they buy will cause them harm." The blogosphere is buzzing with comments on the legislation, including the following: Obama and his cronies or his puppetmasters are trying to take total control – nationalize everything, disarm the populace, control food, etc. We are seeing the formation of a total police state. Well ... that's not very " green " of Obama. What's his real agenda? This is getting way out of hand! Isn't it enough the FDA already allows poisons in our foods? If you're starving, no number of guns will enable you to stay free. That's the whole idea behind this legislation. He who controls the food really makes the rules. The government is terrified of the tax loss. Imagine all the tax dollars lost if people actually grew their own vegetables! Imagine if people actually coordinated their efforts with family, friends and neighbors. People could be in no time eating for the price of their own effort. ... Oh the horror of it all! The last thing the government wants is for us to be self-sufficient. They want to make you dependent upon government. I say no way! already the government is giving away taxes from my great great grandchildren and now they want to take away my food, my semi-auto rifles, my right to alternative holistic medicine? We need a revolution, sheeple! Wake up! They want fascism ... can you not see that? The screening processes will make it very expensive for smaller farmers, where bigger agriculture corporations can foot the bill. If anything it just increases accountability, which is arguably a good thing. It pretty much says they'll only confiscate your property if there are questions of contamination and you don't comply with their inspections. I think the severity of this has been blown out of proportion by a lot of conjecture. Don't waste your time calling the criminals in D.C. and begging them to act like humans. This will end with a bloody revolt. The more I examine this (on the surface) seemingly innocuous bill the more I hate it. It is a coward's ploy to push out of business small farms and farmers markets without actually making them illegal because many will choose not to operate due to the compliance issue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.

from the Official Ron Paul Presidential Campaign website Ron Paul Raises $6 Million in One Day (12/17/07) Candidate has most successful fundraising day in American political history ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign had a record fundraising day yesterday. In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry. During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter. The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million. "We have the right message: freedom, peace and prosperity," said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "We also have the right candidate: Dr. Ron Paul." Congressman Paul will be campaigning in Iowa today and will be holding a press conference at 12:45 pm at the Des Moines Marriott in the Des Moines Room. Paul Campaign Statement Following $6 Million Fundraising Day (12/17/07) ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - Following its historic fundraising day on December 16th, Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder issued the following statement: "There is an unprecedented outpouring of grassroots support for Dr. Paul. The message of freedom is powerful and uniting people across America. And, Dr. Paul is the only candidate offering real solutions to the issues Americans care about, with the record to back it up. "Americans are sick and tired of our broken borders and they know the other candidates are not serious about illegal immigration. Dr. Paul has proposed serious and substentative legislation to fix our immigration problems once and for all. The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million. "Finally, as Americans see the value of their dollar plummet, they know Dr. Paul has devoted his political career to stopping the inflation that makes it impossible for middle-class families to get ahead. Only Dr. Paul has a plan to cut spending, balance budgets and take care of people who have become dependent on government programs. "Americans spoke loud and clear on December 16th. They want Dr. Paul's solutions."

As a Ron Paul supporter, I sadly think you may be right. Rudy Giuliani is a criminal, but so are the bulk of our electorate. Neither he nor any of them gives a rat's ass for freedom, for the Constitution, for the Republic, or for the rule of law -- not for any of the principles this country is based upon. So, yes, his bloviations on "strength" will draw enough votes from armchair generals; he therefore stands a good chance of taking the nomination, and perhaps even of beating the spooky lady. Sad.