Congress is there to protect and serve 'the people'. If a business is not serving the public interest it is the responsibility of Congress to correct the issue. They do have that power - what should never happed is that business has the power to effect congress - only the poeple are invested with that power.

This is not a solution - who will oversee it? How many congressional leaders owe back taxes? How many of the wallstreet hierarchy, whose corporations went bust becasue of their illegal actions are now serving in high level public sector positions like in Obama's cabinet? How many Monsanto and major players in pharma now have positions in the FDA or have gone back and forth?

And now we should be satisfied that a law is passed to prevent something that was illegal in the first place.

You lock your door to keep honest people honest, not keep crooks out.

disgusting - what about looking at legislation to undo the 'Citizens United' president? Or rolling back to pre-deregulated financial sectors? What about holding individuals responsible for their respective roles in the financial melt down?

Do they really think we'll be impressed by a law that 'specifically' holds the upper crust of societies rich to a standard that already existed for everyone? WTF!

Yea, unfortunately concentrated mass consumerism is more appealing to the media and apparently is more soothing to those who have been effectively programmed to be drawn into the colosseum of the new gladiators. Occupy got ignored but I expected that, it was the sqeezeing out of the "right to work" protests that is most unfortunate.

Indiana is considered to be a pivotal state in getting that legislation passed and if the 'right to work' legislation appears to have passed unfrettered, others (those who like to follow) are more likely to allow it in their own states.

Despite the fact that unions have some issues, I still think that destroying the system which gives workers the means to have a balance between their work and their private lives is a grave mistake.

Just something else for the 99% to add to their growing list of grievances.

So are soldiers who wizz on the dead bodies of their newly slaughtered ok with you then. Do they make ALL soldiers look bad?

Your public servents have been throwing tear gas and macing people in the face, and shooting rubber bullets at people's heads.

Public space is there to be occupied by the public and never is it so well used as when it serves justice. Protest of injustice IS legitimate use of public space.

As a law abiding taxpayer worried about the destruction of YOUR public places, I would think you'd be more concerned about the destruction of that's caused by fracking, mining and oil procurement. I would think you'd be upset by the toxic chemicals that you drink with your water and inhale as you breathe. I would think you'd be concerned with the break down in FDA practices that allow carcinogens to be flourish in the food you eat.

But never mind about the big picture, there are Occupiers out there working for you, so that you can be upset over those two teens who are fornicating in a movie theatre, whose seat you may have to sit in someday.

Two sci-fi stories immediately came to mind.

"The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells, published in 1895.

There were no books, everything was placed on 'discs'. When the disc was set in motion on its base, holographic images and sound were the result. But the poeple (the Elans, I think they were called) did not even know how to use them. No books existed, so they never learned to read or write and all past knowledge had been lost to them.

"George Orwell: 1984" Published in 1949. So many books were lost and more being banned and destroyed all the time. People began to memorize their favorite books including publication information, forwards, page numbers and punctuation.

Two amazing writers, their foresight was chilling. As for me, I LIKE my books. I like the new technology that allows us to read at low cost, and read a lot. But there's nothing like going to a great library and feeling totally in awe of the many great minds whose thoughts, ideas and creative talents have moved the world. It's as if by holding those books and reading the words, you are touching all those people.

Here, in this book, is someone worth knowing, there in that book, are ideas that changed agriculture forever, and that one whose author spent many years researching in order to write the history of a nation. And in the science fiction section, the authors whose chilling foresight are idea in wait of a more distant future.

I would never give up my books.

When I was young my heros were all authors.

If that's the case, then what's the point?

Nationalism is highly overrated and there is nothing about the language(s) we use in this country that screams (THIS IS O U R LANGUAGE).

The point of language is to communicate and even with my own son, I sometimes fail, I'm so not into textspeak. And now I'm trying to learn lexicalized American sign language - kinda like accronyms and some abbreviations.

It's amazing, but somehow we DO all learn to communicate regardless of the language we speak.

Well, here I am in the heat of the city - THE CITY FOR SUPER-BOWL WEEKEND - Indianapolous, IN.

And just last week our fearless (sometimes senseless) leader Govn'r
Mith Daniels signed AT-WILL into law.

WEEELLLL - howdy OCCUPY and our good friends the labor unions. Hotel workers, food service workers, have scheduled a strike, an estimated 150,000 super-bowl fans in a city OCCUPIED.

It's utterly amazing the conspicuous lack of news coverage. However, bus loads of Occupiers, teamsters, and other union members from distant counties and out-of-staters are scheduled to arrive for Saturday and Sunday 'festivities'.

In the midst of an already (pre-occupied) overcrowded city, the Occupiers expect thier numbers to block the roads (that aren't already closed).

As they say in Chicago "It'll be a hot time in the old town."

It ought to be interesting!

What is the importance of a law declaring ONE language as a national language?

What kind of laws would grow out of such a declaration? How would they be enforced?

If American/English(AE) were a national language, would schools be held accountable for producing high-school graduates with a certain level of reading, writing, and speaking skills?

Would we consider text-speak a form of AE? Would rap be an acceptable form of the language - or country slang?

And what about 'dialects', fad phrases and the use of colloquialisms, contractions and OMG what about acronyms from netlingo to medical, from computer to government? Heck (now that's a word, isn't it?)the DOD even has a dictionary of acronyms and abbreviations.

Do you all feel confident that you could pass a government acronym test?

Would the governments (fed and state) have to set up new departments to oversee and enforce all the new regulations?

So, srsly whad-up wid u awl, whachu be thinkn?

Thanks Massage, good points. As far as which vaccines should be required, for school, health field..., I agree that not all vaccines serve the population as well as they serve the individual choosing to get the vaccine, pnemonia vaccine for example.

To vaccinate or not can be an emotionally charged issue, but for the most radical diseases, vaccines have been proven effective when the largest number of people take them.

Here's something for those who enjoy conspiracy.

How old is that map?
Who were the makers and producers?
What market was it meant to be distributed in?
Are the land masses proportionate to actual measures?

The greatest conspiracies, encompassing entire societies, are those
most ignored, particularly within the population.

Such conspiracy is all around us in fact it's institutionalized to
such a great extent that we don't even recognize it in our everyday
lives.

Better than basket weaving or needle point but it takes an open mind
and the risk is having to face 'facts'.

Like Bravelady, I grew up when mass introduction of the polio vaccine came out so it's the most harmful disease I've witnessed. Back then, the ideal was to 'eradicate' this disease. It was thought the only way to do it was to deny the virus a place to thrive - our bodies.

When we had reached a point when new polio cases were no longer being reported, laboratoies were suppose to destroy the samples they had been keeping for research. If new cases were discovered it was likely that they would not be of the same strain and would require a new research anyway.

It all made sense and the only education necessary was where the vaccine could be had, because few had not witnessed polio at its worst.

We did succeed and it proved that vaccine could work IF everyone took on the immunity the vaccine provided.

That's why when new vaccines came out for chilhood diseases, they were made mandatory, because people gained a false sense of security when polio and menegitis became more invisible. The absolute worst reason for not procuring such vaccines is "no one gets that anymore, and I'm not going to risk my child to a vaccine." No one gets it because they are vaccinated.

Not all viruses can be erradicated but they can mutate and those who don't receive vaccines put the rest of society at risk. That's why the mandate has continued but has relaxed. Some are not healthy enough, or have allergies to something in the vaccine - ok, I can understand that.

Some have a religious reason and now even that can be an excuse but personally I find that a terribly offensive reason. People have the right to their beliefs but when those beliefs put uncounted populations at risk, the beliefs cease to be benign and become harmful to society.

Are there any other reasons besides 'conspiracy-phobia' against vaccination?

Perhaps the education we need most should begin in chilhood and from kindergarten on, children should be taught age appropriate ethics so that when entering adulthood, everyone understands that taking a one in 2.5 million (or more) risk for the benefit of the entire population is worth taking, because the entire population includes all the people you care most about.

Back to the quote in blue soon but first, so far we have found some examples to refer to:

A chair that is adorned vs. a chair that has been modified
a transplanted heart, grown (from the individuals stem cells perhaps) that is identical, from a genetic stand point, but without the deficiency
putting one persons brain into another persons body
an engine out of a 1984 Trans Am from the junk yard to replace in my 1984 Trans Am of the same model that engine

Here’s a new one, possibly a paradox in itself or possible it offers help in answering the question What does it mean to belong? An individual who self identifies as a ‘gender-bender’ and the full-blown counterpart a surgically ‘complete’ transgendered person.

When humans assign identity to an inanimate object, the identity of the parts that make up the whole tend to lose significance as their measure alone is worth less than the whole. The parts take on the identity of the whole.

When we change a part of an object to repair or enhance its original function (or purpose) we do not, typically, assign it a different identity.

A toaster is a toaster whether it accepts two slices of bread or four or whether it has a browning setting or not.

A vehicle that looks like a 1984 Trans Am is still identified as such (unless a primo financial deal depends on it having ‘original parts from that year’s make & model). Often times, it’s not even a matter of the vehicle having ITS own original parts, as long as they are the parts from a similarly identified vehicle.

Then we move on to humans. We can certainly create stereotypical identities and place individuals within that construct – but when humans assign identity to other humans, there must be a consensus between those being identified as and those who do the identifying, in order for that label to become a part of one’s self-identity.

What does it mean to belong?
For humans it seems that belonging is a necessity. To meet this need, we must be welcome, accepted, and valued by various groups of people.

There have always been transgendered people, in fact some tribes have promoted this behavior when females were prized and stolen away leaving insufficient women to take on the woman’s role in a partnership.

But in many countries, in the civilized world developed more modern beliefs that made transgenders unacceptable to the max - by putting to death those who were accused or found out.

That very brief history is important because it supports the point I am making: That much of our self-proclaimed identity is dependent on the need to be accepted.

Why is that important to the discussion? Because the function/purpose of humans is not thought of in the same way as objects AND neither humans nor objects relate their identity to ‘reality’ – reality being that we (humans) seem to have self-defined functions or purpose which become THE WHOLE. That is what I was referring to with toaster, chair, & car parts replacement - they get lost 'under' the identity of the whole.

We think of ourselves, apart from the stuff we are made of thus, we find it unacceptable to think that something as “insignificant” as an organ transplant, could possibly change us as the WHOLE person, because we have a self-proclaimed identity and it is imperative to our acceptance within our social groups that we do not change that identity.

Thoughts?

Sorry, it wasn't my intension to quibble rather, I was thinking as I was writing so I added that we might be considering two kinds of identity. It might even be argued in other ways. That's what makes this a good topic.

At this point, I tend to agree. However, there are two types of identity in question.

In the case of a human, the change in identity may be internal only -like a heart transplant. The body knows that this is not its heart and will attack it, thus identity is changed.

The other identity is superficial, what does an object look like, sound like and does it appear to function as it did before it was changed. We can be fooled by our sensory perception but in the case of living beings we know that changes to the physical, change the identity recognition of the whole.

No!



And in response to above quote:



Yes, I think I got the point. I thought there should be two points of reference when considering the OP topic, one being subjective (human perspective) the other objective (inanimate objects). I’ll explain in further below.



When we refer to objects whose existence is the product of human intervention and whose volition is not self determined, the object’s identity often stems from the concepts of purpose or function we have assigned to the object.

An object, once made, can be modified in many ways and its identity may still be considered to be the same.

Example: If you add a seat cushion to a four legged plain wooden chair, is it the same chair?
If you cover the chair with colorful material, is it the same chair?
If you semi-dismantle the pieces of the chair, modify them and reassemble them, add padding and the colorful material so that now the chair reclines and is more comfortable, is it the same chair?

But what if we were talking about a human being?


If we omit ideas dealing with the mysterious, would we still find that there is a duality of body and mind, if we were to transplant the brain of one human into another?

Without depending on mysticism, I think that consciousness is a dual product that develops through the dynamic and interactive features that exist between brain and body functions and body interacting with environment.

Each part does make up the whole, however what parts make up personality/ identity?

In effect Consciousness has two parts, the part that monitors and responds to the body’s internal workings, and the sensory input (real or perceived) of the body interacting with environment.

The brain is conscious (aware) of sensory input at all times or it’s flatlined and the body soon ceases to function. This part of the brain also sends signals which tell the cognitive side of the brain that the body NEEDS something. Through cognition, the individual makes decisions about what behavior is necessary to fill these needs.

The decision-making, which dictates behavior, is a cognitive function which requires interaction with the environment. What an individual learns about her body, needs, preferences and so on, stem from this interaction. Future behaviors are then based on how the brain stored and how the individual recalls those past perceptions. These perceptions are influenced by how the brain, both cognitive, and automatic, perceive the body.

Thus our interaction, in this particular body, within a particular environment, become components of an individual’s identity.

If you move the brain of a thirty year old, 6’2”, 195 Lb, black male, born and raised in Africa, into a 27 year old, 5’10”, 220 LB, white male, born and raised in Arizona, will it be the body that retains identity, the brain, or will we see a totally different person?

We don’t need to recognize the duality that exists in a brain to know a duality exists, because we all know that no two humans are the same. But at our fundamental roots, humans are the same, it is only the duality of brain function that separates us from each other.

So if the body is considered a ‘whole’ object whose parts are equivalent (at base function levels) to another human's parts, then all parts must be equally interchangeable, but in the case of brain, we hit the paradox.

If that paradox exists then it exists for all objects, and replacing parts of an object does not leave us with the same object.

This is just discussion and what I have deduced from the knowledge I have. I’m looking forward to learning what others think, and learning more.

If philosophy has a purpose, then that purpose has evolved over the course of human existence.

About the time of Plato, Aristotle and the like, philisophy was science and its purpose was to create, through observation and cognition, various hypotheses and then to test them by whatever means were thougth to be adequit at the time.

Schools of philosophy were in essence schools of science.

Other transitions included questions arizing from the theological, among the the dualism of body and mind and then ethics, thus philosophy entered the relms of both mysticism and materialism.

Today, philosophy taken dualistic paths with the development of both the science and the continuation of the metaphysical.

The science side of philosophy employs strong ethics, and thus it serves the scientific path by questioning the use, methods, thought processes, and the results of scientific, technological, and medica advances.

On the metaphysical side, it still deals with qustions of dualism, spirituality, and its own ethics.

One think at issue in determining if philosophy is the same thing today as it was in the time Plato, we would have to ask the question, is it still recognizable by all people today in all its forms as philosophy?

I would say its not though not because that would be accurate rather, because not everyone has the same knowledge or information that leads to an understanding of philosophy throughout history.

I don't remember which topic it was, but someone had brought up something that I think might serve the discussion better.

Instead of a ship or inanimate object, lets review the same OP topic using a human being.

If the brain of one human could be sucessfully transplanted into the body of another would the human who received the transplant still be the same human as before the transplant?

That is a major point that can help explain why some may think that conspiracy theorists tend to delude themselves and how it can become a psychological disorder.

We learn to process incoming information quickly by utilizing several tools in our mental toolbox. These become shortcuts that help us analyze and respond to our environment.

In effect we develop patterns in our thought process. Those patterns tend to build upon the past beliefs we have developed from previous cognition.

People who become extemists tend to allow the same prosessing paths to continue until it rules how they develope opinions, ideas, and ultimately their behavior.

This is why some poeple who develop extreme ways of thinking are thought to have a disorder. In such cases the disorder simply refers to the inability of a person to process inforamtion that does not equate to thier previously held opinions (beliefs).

Equating the unexplained with powers beyond our control or even our understanding is not in itself a disorder thus, attributing the unexplained to a god is not a disorder. However, disregarding information when it begins to infringe on previous beliefs can become a delusional disorder. The person must delude themselves in order to continue with their pattern of thought which supports their beliefs.

When such an individual continues to gain alies to their way of thinking, rather than to accept or even to consider other information, then that person is trying to delude others, also a way to support their own continued delusions.

That's why the quote "Theism:the belief of "when in doubt,God did it" is appropoe to the situation. When in doubt, when you can't explaine, and when you refuse to consider new information opposing the current opinion, god did it OR THEY did it.

Of the many thousands of peer review articles in hundreds of journals that I can search through my school library have no peer review aricles for Duesberg from 1997 forward.

I did find the following on the open web however,



The article continues but the above was all I needed to confirm why I was unable to find Duesberg in the current peer review literature.

It's not all that uncommon to find conflicting views supported by conflicting research about new hypothesis or ideas. Since I do see that occuring, I have no reason to think Duesberg's research, or ideas would not be included if they passed the review process.

Fifteen years is a long time to go without publishing anything new through the peer review process. To suddenly have an article appear, in one of the least prestigious journals, only to find adverse action after publication, suggests that the good Dr. Duesberg has nothing new to offer and the old stuff has been proven invalid by more current research.

The ability to communicate in multiple languages takes a lot of work. The pay-off is much greater than most people realize.

Keep working on it Sam, you are far ahead of those who have only one language skill.